HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-15222
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on June 15, 1983, at ?:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #?, Second Floor, County Office Building,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at ?:38 P.M.) and Miss Ellen V, Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Introduction of delegates from Albemarle County to State
Congress.
Mr. Jeff Kirwan, Extension Agent, was present and said he works with the 4-H program.
Mr. Kirwan saidapproximately 1500 to 2000 4-H'ers from around the State Will be attending
the Congress next week on the campus of VPI-SU. The delegates attending have earned their
way by their accomplishments in the 4-H program during the year. Mr. Kirwan then introduced
the following delegates from Albemarle County, noting the magisterial district in which they
live and achievements of each delegate. The delegates were as follows: Scott Leonard, Ray
Wyant, Lisa Powell, Karen Morris, Althea POwling, Matt Moore, Brent Garland, Anne Perkins,
Charlotte Gardner, Catherine Essex, and Thomas Sawyer.
Mr. Fisher expressed pleasure in meeting the delegates and in their representation of
Albemarle County at the State 4-H Congress.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-83-2. Riverbend Limited Partnership and Carlo Columbini.
Request to rezone approximately 28.?35 acres currently zoned C-1 and HC Highway Commercial
to be rezoned PD-SC. Located off east side of Riverbend Drive, south of. Route 250 East and
southeast of Free Bridge, north of Rivanna River. CoUnty Tax Map 78, Parcels lTD, l?D2,
l?G, 17F and parts of Parcels 15C1 and 17A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 31 and June 7, 1983.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, jr., County Planner, was present and noted that the staff report
contains information for both the zoning map amendment and the site plan for Riverbend.
However, he will review only the zoning map amendment information contained within the
report:
"~equested Zoning: PD-SC Planned Development-Shopping Center
~ 28.735 acres
Existi~E Zoning: C-1 Commercial
Location: Property is located south of Route 250 East behind First Virginia Bank
Central and Hardees and between Newhouse Drive and Riverbend Drive.
Character of the Area: From available topo mapping, it appears that much of
this site was graded prior to 1969. Since past grading has altered natural
soil profiles, the Soil Conservation Service choose to map this area as
'cut and fill'. Additional soil information is not available. Mr.
Gordon Yager of the Soil Conservation Service notes that 'this site is
located almost entirely on cut and fill . . . offsite drainage and stormwater
will be important considerations in this project.' It appears that most
fill areas are on the periphery of the site. Mr. Yager stated verbally
that he had noted areas of erosion some years ago indicating that fill areas
may not be suitable for building development. Engineering studies
should be performed on the building site and parking areas prior to
construction.
The site would be visible from commercial and residential areas in
the City. On the final site plan for the main center, the applicant
proposes screening of the service areas on the site's perimeter with
about 100 white pines.
Zoning Ordinance Criteria for Review: Staff has reviewed this rezoning --' request under the following Zoning Ordinance provisions:
- Section 1.4 PurRose and Intent
- Section 1.5 Relationship to Environment
- Section 1.6 Relationship to Comprehensive Plan
- Section 25.0 Planned Development-Shopping Center
The applicant is requesting rezoning from one commercial designation
to another. Benefits to the applicant are a broader range of
commercial uses and more favorable floor area to parking standards.
Benefits to the general public derive from the opportunity to address
the proposed development in broader terms than are realized under
conventional zoning and site plan reviews. This planned development
approach resulted from discussions between the applicants and staff
several months ago. While resolution of technical problems has
resulted in lengthy review, cooperation and effort among the applicants
and review agencies has been continous and has hopefully resulted in an
improved plan of development as compared to the initial proposal.
Hopefully, this approach will be continued throughout the development
of the Pantops area as well as in other urbanizing areas of the County.
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Comparison of development potential and impact under existing C-1
Commercial and under the proposed PD-SC Planned Development-Shopping
Center has not been attempted since a number of variables are involved.
Some~mgeneral comments are offered: ~..~~ ~-~ ~.~.~.
- The PD-SC offers a broader range of uses
- The PD-SC has more favorable parking standards (Mr. Tucker said that is
5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Under
existing zoning the applicant would have to meet parking regulations
for each particular use.)
- Maximum impervious coverage is the same for both zones.
- The PD-SC contains specific design requirements not found in the C-1
zone.
Section 1.4 Purpose and Intent deals with matters to be considered during
zoning deliberations as set forth in the Code of Virginia. Most of these
matters deal with the physical development of the property and have been
addressed elsewhere in this report. One purpose of zoning is 'to encourage
economic development activities that provide desirable employment and
enlarge the tax base.' Attachment E prepared by a consultant for the
applicant addresses these concerns (Copy of this attachment entitled
"Economic Impact of Riverbend Shopping Center" is on file in the Clerk's
Office..)
Section 1.5 Relation to Environment deals with the physical, ecOnomic and
social environment and to an extent is repetitious of Section 1.4. Review
of relevant matters from this section is addressed elsewhere in this report.
(Mr. Tucker said this primarily deals withair pollution contr'ol standards,
soil erOsion, stormwater detenti°n,.etc,, which would be handled by
conditionS'plaCed'on bh6-~site plan as well as.sOme conditions on the
rezoning appiication.) ..........................
section 1.6 Relation to Comprehensive Plan requires consideration of
the Comprehensive Plan in zoning deliberations and states further 'it
is a stated and express purpose of this zoning ordinance to create land
use regulations which shall encourage realization and implementation
of the Comprehensive Plan.'
This site, located in Neighborhood 3 of the Urban Area, has been
recommended for commercial development in all comprehensive plans
and revisions since 1971. The current plan recommends that continued
'strip commercial' development along Route 250 East be avoided by~
implementabion of a planned commercial designation. (The planning
staff feels that by encouraging the applicant to request this rezoninE
this goal in the Comprehensive Plan of reducing strip commercial in
this area will be forwarded.) _
Review has also been made for consistency with Chapter 9 Goals and
Objectives and Chapter l0 Comprehensive Rlan Standards. Staff opinion
is that the proposed shoppin~ center development is generally
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plan related to
commercial development and development of this scale. Staff also
has found the proposal consistent with.~the~Comprehensive Plan
'Commercial Land Use Standards'. Standards for 'Rivers and Streams'
will be addressed under 'staff recommendation'.
Se6ti'On 2510 Planned'.Deve~op~en$--Shoppin~ Center~'contains spe6ific
locational and d~esign standa~ds for large-scale commercial development.
The text states that 'PD-SC
conveniently and adequately
and service facilities'.' St
this location would satisfy
shopping facilities in a sin
eastern area of Charlottesvi
tistricts are intended to serve areas not
)roVided with a broad range of commercial
~ff opinion is that a shopping center in
;his stated purpose, since no comparable
~le location are readily available to the
Lle and the eastern portion of the County.
Staff Recommendation: This is the first planned commercial development
petition to be reviewed entirely under the provisions of the new
Zoning Ordinance. The new provisions reflect increased fleXibility for
planned developments in the hope of reducing subsequent requests for
amendment and lengthy and complicated conditions of approval. This
new .approach provides for muSual agreement between the applicant and
County as to the future development of a property.. _Addit~°nal~y,
ordinance provisions.are more extensive regarding planned developments,
reducing the need for voluminous conditions, which.are viewed as a
disincentive to the planned ~pproach. Reflective of this apprOach,
staff recommendations for plan-modification and. agreements governing
fUture development will address.only ma~or issues related t° this Proposal.
224
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Staff Recommendation - Modification of Application Plan: As proposed, development
of the Riverbend Shopping Center would isolate three reasonably developable areas
between the shopping center and the one hundred year flood plain of the Rivanna
River. Additionally, a strip of commercial property would surround the shopping
center, the development of which would likely require encroachment and fill within
the flood plain. (Mr. Tucker noted that the staff has designated some areas on the
perimeter of the shopping center between the flood plain and the shopping center
itself as areas A, B and C, and these areas will be discussed later.)
The preamble of 'Environmental Standards' (Chapter 10, Comprehensive Plan
Standards, Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan) states that 'it is the County's
intent that development and other human activities should adapt to the natural
environment rather than modifying the natural environment with unknown
consequences to accommodate development and man's activities.' To this end,
as stated in other rezoning reports, staff opinion is that encroachment into
flood plain areas should be permitted only to provide a reasonable use of a property.
Comprehensive Plan standards for 'Rivers and Streams' state that 'Maintenance
of natural filter strips and shade strips should be encouraged for all land
uses. These strips reduce erosion and runoff of sediment, nutrients and
pesticides from land activities adjacent to watercourses; provide stream bank
stabilization for maintenance of live root systems; maintain temperature norms
along watercourses; and maintain shoreline and aquatic habitats.'
The State Water Control Board Urban Best Management Practices Handbook states
that 'Retention of native stands of vegetation, especially forests, should
be integrated into local planning requirements, especially in stream valleys,
flood plains and other drainage areas, and along steep slopes, where they can
continue to function as native vegetative communities and provide numerous
environmental benefits. Retention of any existing vegetation in more densely
developed urban areas is also important for the improvement of air quality
and microclimate, but the benefits of such vegetation for improved water quality
are not yet clearly understood.'
In view of these standards and to avoid future development problems and to
provide a more comprehensive and cohesive zoning in the area, staff recommends
the following modifications to this rezoning petition:
1) The Planned Development-Shopping Center designation should be expanded
to incorporate additional developable land (Areas A, B and C on plan entitled
'Planning Staff Proposed Modification of ZMA-83-2');
2) Strip commercial areas surrounding the shopping center which cannot be
reasonably developed without encroachment into the flood plain should be
designated as 'open space';
3) The 100-year flood plain adjacent to the proposed development should be
designated as 'open space';
4) For the purposes of this petition, the term 'open space' is intended as
a nondevelopable area to be maintained in a natural state. Required improve-
ments such as sewer lines, drainage facilities and the like should be permitted
in 'open space' areas. Likewise, provision should be made for the continuance
of the existing sand~remova1 activity in this area.
In order not to delay this petition, staff recommends that a statement of consent
by the applicant to pursue rezoning be accepted by the County. (Mr. Tucker noted
that a letter has been received from Dr. Charles Hurt, who controls Parcels A, B
and C stating that he will follow through with an amendment to this rezoning
application to include those parcels in the PD-SC area.) This issue has been
discussed with the applicant and staff anticipates that the applicant will
submit an additional rezoning request reflective of this recommended modification
prior to public hearing by the Planning Commission.
Staff is hopeful that this cooperative effort to protect the Rivanna in the
County will continue throughout the development of the Pantops area, thereby
maintaining a substantial natural corridor while accommodating urban develop-
ment. A protective approach such as this is, unfortunately, precluded from most
of the City Because of existing development.
Staff Recommendation - Findings of the Commission: Staff recommendations in
this section of the report assume that staff recommendations for plan
modification will be pursued. Section 8.0 'Planned Development Districts-Generally'
requires the Commission in its recommendations to include certain findings.
Staff recommendations regarding these findings are as follows:
1. The suitability of the tract for the general type of Planned Development
district proposed in terms of: relation to the Comprehensive Plan; physical
characteristics of the land; and its relation to surrounding area.
(Staff recommends that a shopping center in this location would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be consistent with
other zoning and land uses in the area. Due to unknown characteristics
of past grading activity, engineering study to determine suitability
for construction is warranted.)
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
225
2. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services.
(Based on comment from the Albemarle County Service Authority, Fire
Official, and the ¥irginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
these elements appear adequate to support the proposed shopping center
development.)
3. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed
agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions,
guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for such instruments or for
amendments in those proposed. (See Attachment G - Letter dated May 9, 1983
signed by Dr. Carlo Colombini and Donald J. Wagner, addressed to Ronald L. Keeler.)
(Staff is currently working with the applicant in development and revision
agreements, guarantees, and the like intended to provide a basic framework
for future development of this property. Basically, these documents would
address the following:)
a)
Agreement to develop property in general compliance with the approved
Application Plan. Variations may be permitted as provided in Section 8.5.6.3
of the Zoning Ordinance. (Mr. Tucker said the applicant has agreed to this
but with the understanding that the applicant wants to review any
modifications that the Board may make this evening.)
b)
Statement of consent to pursue in a timely manner rezoning of additional
land to PD-SC and 'open space' as outlined in 'staff recommendation:
modification of application plan'; (Mr. Tucker said Dr. Hurt has written
a letter dated June 2, 1983, stating that he will pursue modification ~or
amendment of this plan.)
(Mr. Tucker noted that the following two agreements were modified by the
Planning Commission and he will describe these changes later.)
c)
Agreement to modify design of the stormwater management system to include
pollution abatement measures to the extent deemed reasonable by the County
Engineer; provided that such modifications may be incorporated without sub-
stantial increase in cost of such system. Agreement to develop and pursue ~a
site maintenance program to include a regular street sweeping program and to
reflect practices recommended by the State Water Control Board Urban Best
Management Practices Handbooks such program to be reviewed by the County
Engineer;
Revised agreement regarding road improvements and signalization. Agreement
to pursue additional planning in transportation matters as recommended by
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 7, 1983, recommended
approval of ZMA-83-2 with the modifications and findings listed in the foregoing staff
report but with the following two amendments to the findings set out above: In #3c
insert the words "utilizing vacuum sweepers" in the second sentence as follows: "Agreement
to develop and pursue a site maintenance program to include a regular street sweeping
program utilizing vacuum sweepers. . ." In #3d insert the words "'including construction
of Riverbend Drive;' as follows: "Revised agreement regarding road improvements, including
construction of Riverbend Drive, . . .
Mr. Tucker then noted receipt of an agreement from the applicant stating that they
will meet all comments and conditions under Item 3¢. The applicant has also agreed to 3d
with the exception of the language added by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said the
applicant is of the opinion that this provision has been met since: the road plans have
been submitted to the County and to the Highway Department for approval; a bond has been
placed on a portion of Riverbend Drive; and when the site plan was approved, it was
stated that no certificate of occupancy would be issued until the Highway Department was
satisfied with the proposed plans for construction of Riverbend Drive. Mr. Tucker said
he agrees with the applicant that these items seem to meet the requirements regarding
Riverbend Drive.
Mr. Tucker noted that Section 8.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that any
modifications in the application materials required by Board approval must be submitted
within sixty days of Board approval or that approval is null and void. Mr. Fisher asked
if this also applies to the commitment from adjacent landowners to pursue a rezoning.
Mr~ Tucker said the application would have to be submitted within that time period. Mr.
F±sher said this Board does not normally see a site plan. He asked if part of this
approval process (PD-SC) requires the Board to approve the site plan as a matter of
procedure. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Fisher asked about the location of Riverbend Drive.
Mr. Tucker pointed out the location and said this is an existing road, but is not up to
state standards. Mr. Fisher asked if Riverbend Drive will be the access to the shopping
center. Mr. Tucker said it will be the main access, although the shopping center will
also have access off of Newhouse Drive.
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Chuck Rotgin, partner in Riverbend Limited
Partnership, was present. He noted that this proposal has been before the public in various
forms since February, 1983, when the first request was made for a public hearing on a request
from the partnership £or'industrial revenue bonds. M'r. Rotgin said the applicant'has one
concern about the cond-itio,n of the Planning Commission requiring construction of 'Riverbend
Drive. The applicant ,feels that this should be-a part' o'f site plan aPproVal. Actually,
construction of Riverbend Drive will be undertaken by someone other than Riverbend Limited
Partnership, although the applicant knows the road has to be constructed to the satisfaction
of the Highway Department beforme a~'certificate of-occupancy canbe :issued. ~r. ROtgin said
this rezoning request is notI necessary in'order for the apPlicant' to construct a shopping
center, but the PD-SC designation was requested by County,staff. This request does allow
the public, the Planning-Commission,.and theBoard-of Supervisors an opportunity to review
the total development and the applicant:,haS-no objection to that. Mr. Rotgin said all of
the detailed engineering plans would have had to be made whichever way the plan was presented.
This zoning will allow-theapplicant more parking spaces than'.are allowed under C-1. Also,
there are uses permitted under the PD-SC District which are not permitted by right in the C-
1 district. In-either'case, the ~pp~l~cmant would need Site plan~ap~roval. Mr. Rotgin said
another concern is recommendation 3b of the Planning Commission to'pursue ~ r'ezoning of
Parcels A, B and C to PD-SC in a timely manner. Dr. Charles Hurt, who controls these three
parcels, has indicated in his letter to the P:lanning office that he does not want to be tied
to a specific time limit £or rezoninE since'he has r~ specific uses £or the prOperty at this
time (the ordinance requires that a specific use be set forth).- Mr. Fisher. said since the
applicant objects to the construction requirement £or Riverbend Drive (3d), t'o please state
the reason for objection. Mr. Rotgin. said the applicants do not feel it is appropriate to
complete the road (including curb and gutter) prior to completion of more than just Phase I
of the project because,~-here will be heavy.:constr~uc~ion traffic us. in~ the road. ~He thought
the Planning CommisSion~-ha~ recommended that the..construction of-Riverbend Drive would be
approved by the Highway Department, and if that construction was satisfactory, there would
be no problem. In conclusion, Mr. Rotgin said he had nothing else specific to state except
that the applicant does not feel that the road construction should.be part ,of this rezoning
request.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Dan. Roosevelt, R~esident Highway Engineer to comment on
the matter of Riverbend Drive. Mro Roosevelt said the interest of the County and the interest
of the Highway Department in Riverbend Drive are. different...Mr. Roosevelt said that although
the site plan is not before the Board for approval he.would .like to quote one of the condition:
of approval: "A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have
been met: Completion of construction of Riverbend Drive to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation." Mr. Roosevelt said this is the
only condition that applies to construction of Riverbend Drive in the conditions placed on
the site plan. Mr. Roosevelt said he is not .concerned about get~ing Riverbend Drive into
the State Secondary System at this time, but is concerned about where it intersects with
Route 250 across from Route 20. Mr. Roosevelt said he interprets this condition to mean
that when the Highway Re~artment~&s satisfied that this i~ters~tion will not cause any more
probl, ems on Route 250o. r Route-20, then .it. meets.Highway Department~requirements even though
the road may not be ready to be accepted .into the State System. Mr. Roosevelt said he is
concerned that there be a median in Riverbend Drive and that the entrance be such that
traffic using Riverbend Drive will not back out into Route 250. Mr. Roosevelt said the
Highway Department .will be satisfied even.if this rQad is not built to State standards
although he thinks the County wants the road added to the System. He feels this condition
was added so the shopping center can_be opened for business even though Riverbend Drive may
not be ready to be added to the system. Mr. Fisher said unless construction of the road is
undertaken on a coordinated .basis, he is concerned::that something may occur which will not
permit Riverbend~Drive to be taken into the state system. Mr. Roo:sevelt noted that approval
of road plans for Riverbend Drive is a condition of the site plan approval and those plans
will have to be approved before the shopping center is opened. Therefore, there will be an
approved set of plans for Riverbend Drive, whether or not the road is bUilt according to
those plans before the shopping center opens.
Next to speak was Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres on behalf of the Woo~en Mills Neighborhood
Association. She noted appreciation for the staff's.report and the fact that the applicant
has attempted to keep all interested persons informed about this project. She also stated
appreciation for the staff's looking at the issue of stormwater runoff on a sub-basin basis
rather than just for this one development. Mrs. van Yahres then questioned the following
comment in a letter of Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, dated May 31, 1983: "There has
been considerable discussion concerning NPS pollution treatment of the runoff from this
project. Other than the catch basins and sweeping referred to by the report mentioned
above, the only BMP (Best Management Practice) that we feel would be practical for this site
would be to utilize the flood plain area on the south side of the project as a grass filter
strip. We feel that this could be done at a reasonable construction expense and that it
would result in a low maintenance method of.r~moving a substsntial portion of the pollutants
associated with parking lot.~runoff .... We do not feel., however, that ~he benefits to the river
would be Justified considering the proximity of this-project to existing pollution sources."
Mrs. Van Yahres asked if_this idea had been explored and whether this might not be more cost
effective for all persons concerned than the Planning Commission's recommendation. She also
asked if the Planning Commission's recommendation for.the abatement of pollUtion applies to
the whole development and not just the site under discussion. Mr. Tucker said that was
correct. Mrs. Van Yahres said the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association agrees with the
staff suggestion that the flood plain should not be encroached upon in any kind of development
and hoped that this also applies to any kind of fill that may be. put into the flood plain.
Mr. Tucker said that is the intent, and he also noted that any fill within a flood plain ~
requires the issuance of a special use permit. Mrs. Van Yahres noted that the Woolen Mills
area already floods and the residents are concerned that it not be made worse by development
upstream.
June 15, 198~ (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Agnor if he had reviewed the memo of May 31, 1983., from the
County Engineer to Mr. Keeler. Mr. Agnor said yes, and would attempt to answer the concerns
expressed by Mrs. Van Yahres. The County Engineer indicates that it would be practical to
utilize the flood plain on the south side of the project as a filter strip, but he does not
feel that the River itself would benefit by an effort to filter pollutants because of the
proximity of this project to existing pollution sources on the opposite side of the River.
Mr. Agnor noted that in addition to that, for properties that are outside of a drinking.
water supply drainage basin, the County does not at the present have any kind of controls to
require a pollution filtering system. The County Engineer goes further to state that the
Planning Commission or the Board would have to provide such controls for this project since
they do not presently exist. Mr. Agnor said another way to describe the comments by the
County Engineer is that there is such a huge disparity between the volume of water from this
project compared to the volume of water in the Rivanna River that the efforts to filter the
pollutants from this project 'would be so small they could not' be measured. Mr. Fisher asked
if that means the County Engineer does not feel it makes sense to try to avoid putting more
pollution into an already ~olluted river. Mr. Agnor said yes, or that the size of this
project does not justify that kind of control. Mr. Fisher said he did not particularly
agree with that statement. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands from the memo that any benefit
to be derived from the controls are not clear and given such a questionable status, the
County Engineer did not want to recommend any such system.
Mr. Rotgin noted that Conditions ~a, 3b, 3c and 3d all call for the developer to
continue efforts to improve upon the plans which exist. With respect to the runoff control
issue, the applicants have indicated willingness to work with the County Engineer on any
suggestion he has, provided the suggestions are not cost prohibitive and will not delay the
construction. Mr. Rotgin said that runoff control and stormwater management is not a precise
science and there are no absolute ways in which to handle the runoff. Dr. Hurt,. in a letter
addressed to Mr. Keeler, dated June 2, 198~, about his plans for the remaining portion of
the property, indicates that some land will be left in open space. This will provide an
opportunity to try the grass strip idea. Mr. Rotgin felt the reason for the wording in the
Planning Commission's approval was so the developer would be encouraged to continue to'work
with the staff. Mr. Don Wagner said when the grass strip idea was first proposed, it was
prior to the letter from Dr. Hurt being sent to the County. The idea was suggested by the
County Engineer, possibility as a pilot project with monitoring being done by a University
of Virginia student. Mr. Wagner said~the applicant is willing to work with the County
Engineer on that type of project.
Mr. Rotgin said as noted by Mr. Agnor, the amount of water from this project into
the Rivanna River is almost immeasurable and as indicated, the applicant is willing to
try ideas suggested by the~County staff.
Mr. Fisher then asked if the strip of land between the shopping center and the
Rivanna River is rezoned to open space, regardless of what is done to stabilize the soil,
if that would meet the concerns raised about pollutants from the parking areas, etc. Mr.
Rotgin said that is a possibility, but he noted that whatever the applicant does will be
minute compared to the runoff currently going into the River; he referred to the City of
Charlottesville washing the streets frequently with that water going into the City's
storm sewers and then directly into the River. Mr. Rotgin mentioned that the applicant
had agreed as a condition to use a vacuum sweeper as opposed to some other type of sweeping
apparatus.
With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board can place conditions on a PD-SC District since
conditions cannot be imposed under a straight rezoning. Mr. Tucker said the ordinance is
written to call for agreements; similar to a proffer. He explained that the staff spells
out what it would like included in the agreements. The applicant responds to the staff
suggestions. The applicant has responded to most of the suggestions with the exception
of the Riverbend Drive agreement.
Mr. Fisher said Condition Bd about Riverbend Drive is very vague since the only
thing it calls for is a revised agreement regarding road improvements and signalization.
Mr. Tucker said it is the Commission's intent ~to have Riverbend Drive accepted into the
State Secondary System eventually. Mr. Tucker said if the applicants obtain the initial
certificate of occupancy and the Highway Department is satisfied with the construction,
that does not relieve the applicants in the future of the responsibility to get the road
into the System. Mr. Fisher asked if Riverbend Drive is to be constructed to state
standards for the ultimate development of the entire area or just for the traffic from
the proposed shopping center. Mr. Tucker said for all areas mentioned in this rezoning.
Mr. Tucker said that Area B is the only area that could have enough traffic volume to put
Riverbend Drive over into a higher construction category. There are no plans at thiS
time for Area B, and he did not feel anything planned on the parcel would intensify
traffic to a point were the plans which have been submitted for the roads would have to
be altered.
Miss Nash said she was at the Planning Commission meeting when this petition was
discussed. She felt the reference to Riverbend Drive about the signalization was that
signals should be placed at the intersection of Route 250 and Route 20 in accordance with
the Highway Department's policy. Mr. Tucker said the signalization was part of the
original staff conditions. The applicants have agreed to that with the Highway Department
providing a pro rata share of the cost for same. Mr. Roosevelt noted that a condition
placed on the approved site plan for Dr. Hurt's office in this area is for the construction
and addition of Riverbend Drive into the State Secondary System. Therefore, the reason
condition Bd is stated as a revised agreement is because this property, which already is
part of an approved site plan, is alsO included in this overall rezoning. Mr. Roosevelt
felt Condition 3d only implies that there needs to be a revised agreement concerning when
the road improvements will be completed, what will be completed at certain periods of
time, and when the road must be added to the State Secondary System. Mr. Fisher said the
language does not state that and he hoped the wording could be changed to reflect such
meaning. Mr. Fisher asked if some wording could be suggested to clarify the Planning
'228
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Commission's intent regarding Riverbend Drive. Mr. Tucker then pointed out on a map the
area which is part of this rezoning petition, and also Parcel B which is not a part of
this request. He noted that when Parcel B develops, Riverbend Drive should be taken into
the State System. Another alternative would be to require that the road be accepted
Prie~to~E~inal certificate of occupancy being issned on Phase III.
Miss Nash asked which road will be used for construction traffic. Mr. Tucker said
he assumed most of the traffic will be using Riverbend Drive. Mr. Wagner said the entrance
is at the intersection~of Riverbend Drive and South Pantops Drive and that entrance is .r
shown on the grading permit. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Rotgin had any suggested language.
Mr. Rotgin said there would be no problem with indicating either Parcel B or Phase Iii of
this project. There are no plans for Parcel B at this time and Phase III will be constructed
over a three-year period of time. Mr. Fisher said since the order of development is
unknown, he would suggest wording the condition to say that either of the times mentioned
would trigger the request for acceptance, whichever occurs earlier. Mr. Rotgin said that
would be satisfactory.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if he had reviewed Dr. Hurt's letter in relation to
the sixty day limit for the various conditions to be met. Mr. St. John said he had not
seen the letter until this evening. Mr. Fisher said the letter clearly indicates that
Dr. Hurt is intending to pursue the rezoning but is reserving the right not to do it
immediately. Mr. Fisher asked if this petition is approved on that basis if that would
nullify the rezoning itself and create a problem. Mr. St. John said he had several
questions to ask. One, are the various parcels shown on the map under common ownership.
Mr. Tucker said he understands that Riverbend Limited Partnership controls the area
proposed for the shopping center. Mr. St. John said he is not talking about control, but
about ownership. Dr. Charles Hurt was present. He said the Partnership has an ownership
with an option to purchase the balance of the property. Mr. Carlo Colombini owns a one-
half acre parcel and they are in the process of working out something so that all concerned
will act together. Also, Dr. Hurt said he is part of another group which owns four acres
where his office is located. It is actually a cooperative effort. Mr. Fisher said that
indicates that all of the land subject to this rezoning request is not under common ownership.
Dr. Hurt said that is correct but they have a right to acquire the land. Mr. St. John
asked who signed the application for this rezoning. Dr. Hurt said he is a general partner
for one of the parcels and he has the right to ~ct on behalf of the others. Mr. St. John
then asked who owns Parcels A, B and C. Dr. Hurt said he did. The problem he has with
condition 3b is that there are no planned uses for this area at this time, but he would
expect the use to be consistent with the shopping center. Mr. St. John said it appears
that the rezoning request this evening splits some properties. Dr. Hurt said that is
correct, but he controls most of the property as a general partner so there are no problem~
with the rezoning request.
Mr. St. John said it appears that Parcels A, B and C are currently zoned C-1. Mr.
Tucker said yes. Mr. St. John said as a matter of right, if this rezoning is denied, the
owners or controllers can do what is allowed under C-1 provided that a site plan is
approved. Mr. St. John said he would state the problems he sees, but did not want to
appear negative or that he sees these as reasons not to approve the request. First, this
is an agreement to apply for a rezoning. As he understands, this is not.in the form of a
proffer, and could not be a proffer because the person making the proffer is not the same
entity as the entity who made the application for the rezoning. One person cannot proffer
to another's zoning. Furthermore, if the rezoning is approved on that basis, not only is
the Board accepting as a fact that Dr. Hurt does not bind himself to apply for a rezoning
at any particular time, but would implictly be presupposing that a future application for
rezoning would be approved. Although that was recommended by the staff, it was not
recommended with any specific usage and a future proposed use could be controversial.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is no application made within sixty days if that will nullify
any action of the Board to rezone the property. Mr. St. John said he did not think so.
He felt that approving an application for a rezoning on the condition that another applicant
will present a ~ezoning on his land within sixty days is totally outside of any kind of
condition that could be placed on a rezoning. He felt that is a gentlemen's agreement
and would not be enforceable. Mr. Fisher said the staff's recommendation that there be a
statement of intent has been complied with, but there is no time limit. Mr. St. John
said the staff has recognized that this is a voluntary effort to make the best use of
this property. The County, as well as the applicant, is getting some benefits from this
request, and the staff is willing to go along with this gentlemen's agreement knowing
that it may not be enforceable. It would not nullify this petition.
Mr. Lindstrom said on the matter of pollution and the amount of water being discharged
from this site, he understands that the Stormwater Detention Ordinance does not apply in
this case since there is no intervening property owner. Mr. Tucker said that was correct.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel that would preclude an agreement between the County
and the developer to do something. However, it appears that it is the County Engineer's '~
opinion that the amount of water leaving the site is insignificant compared to what a
flood would create, so there would not be any benefit derived. Mr. Lindstrom said since
the County's Comprehensive Plan calls for a great amount of development to occur in the
Pantops area, he felt the precedent that might be set in regards to Stormwater Detention
could be of future benefit. He then asked what kind of detention, if any, had been
considered by the Engineering Department. Mr. Tucker said the staff had looked at locating
some detention ponds along the narrow strips of land just outside of the flood plain.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if that was in the vicinity of Parcels A, B and C. Mr. Tucker said
he thought the applicant had agreed to install a catch basin that would trap sediment in
the actual storm sewer system of the shopping center. Mr. Lindstrom said that would be
for sedimentation purposes, rather than holding the water itself. Mr. Tucker said that '~
was correct. He believes the County Engineer was looking to getting water off of the
site as quickly as possible, because the amount of water would not have an effect on the ~'~
River itself. Mr. Fisher said it has been stated that there is no property between this
site and the River. Yet, there are strips of land all around this property which is
June 15, 198~ (Regular Night Meeting)
being rezoned. Mr. Tucker said the problem is that there is no space for ponds because
these strips are too narrow. That is the reason the staff requested that these areas be
designated as open space. Mr. Fisher said he thought it had been established earlier
that there is land shown on the map which is not a part of this rezoning, and that that
land is under different ownership. Mr. Don Wagner said the stormwater system crosses
that property so the stormwater does not discharge across any other person's property.
Once the water is out of the stormwater system, it is in the River.
Mr. Lindstrom said his second question concerns pollution. From reading the staff
report, the County Engineer seems to think that the best approach to this problem would
be to use the grass strips as a filtration system, but he does not feel he has the authority
to place such a requirement. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands from what the applicant
stated earlier, that he does not have any problem with that approach. Mr. Rotgin said
that is correct; the applicant is willing to try any system that will not cause a delay
and is not of significant cost. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested including in the agreement
to modify the design of the stormwater management system (condition 3c) "pollution abatement
measures to the extent deemed reasonable by the County Engineer, including the use of
grass filter strips in the flood plain areas on the south side of the project."
Mr. Lindstrom said the problem with restricting the amount of water discharged from
the property appears to be that there is not room off the site to create detention basins.
Mr. Tucker said that is one of the problems. He also noted that the County Engineer does
not feel there is any appreciable effect to be gained from having a detention pond. Mr.
Lindstrom asked when a property uphill from this site on Pantops Mountain develops, if
the Stormwater Detention Ordinance will apply. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said
that is unless a pipe is run underground directly to the River's edge. Mr. Fisher asked
if the entire area could be developed with pipes underground to the side of the River and
there would be no detention ponds anywhere. Mr. Tucker did not think that could happen.
Mr. Lindstrom said this does concern him because even if it is only a small amount of
water involved at this time, these small amounts add up to larger amounts eventually.
Although there is no intervening property owner who will be affected at-this time, there
are property owners who eventually will be affected and he feels the County has some
responsibility in the matter.
Dr. Hurt said if the water is impounded and allowed to run off slowly., the problems
downstream increase. If the water is immediately placed into the River, that is a better
solution because the River crests later. He felt this principle had not been discussed
and that is what he understood from the County Engineer's report. Mr. Lindstrom said
that might spread out the crest over a longer period of time, but it would make the crest
higher later.
Mr. Tucker then read the following comment referred to by Dr. Hurt as contained in
the County Engineer's report: "Flood levels from a one hundred year storm are about
twenty feet in this area. If stormwater were discharged in an uncontrolled fashion from
this site at time of flood crest, the flood level would increase a fraction of an inch.
While the velocity of runoff would be addressed in the County Engineer's review, no
requirements regarding the volume of discharge would be imposed. Therefore, it is anticipated
that in most cases, discharge from this site would occur prior to flood cresting of~the
Rivanna and flood levels would not be affected." Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that
the entire amount of land in the immediate area which is zened for high intensity use
might completely avoid the Stormwater Detention Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said the ordinance
was primarily designed to protect the adjoining property owners, as well as rivers.
Since there are no adjoining property owners to be affected by this petition, then there
is no problem. Miss Nash said she agreed to some extent with the comments, but did not
think the Board could make a decision on this tonight without having the topography of
the entire mountain.
Mr. St. John said he had just read a memo written by the County Engineer~in 1979
regarding the relationship between the Runoff Control Ordinance and the Stormwater Detention
Ordinance. As just indicated by Mr. Lindstrom, the County Engineer notes that the ordinance
was not designed to protect a river the size of the Rivanna. Once the water has gotten
into the Rivanna River without damaging property above the Rivanna, then the purpose of
the Stormwater Detention ordinance has been served; pipes would do it. He said a totally
different concept would be needed and an ordinance different from the Stormwater Detention
Ordinance to deal with Mr. Fi~her's concern. Mr. Tucker said the staff has discussed
this concern, but in or~der for such an ordinance to be effective, multi-jurisdictional
areas would have to be included, since applying controls only to one area would not have
much of an effect.
Mr. Fisher then requested a recess at 9:15 P.M. in order that the staff could revise
the language about the soil striPs and the Riverbend Drive matters. The Board reconvened
at 9:30 P.M.
Mr. Lindstrom then suggested the following words be inserted in 3(c)(see letter of
June 8, 1983, giving the Planning Commission recommendations) after the first semicolon
"including the use of grass filter strips~in the flood plain areas on the west, south and
east sides of the project". Mr_. Tucker then suggested 3(d) be reworded as follows:
"Revised agreement regarding road improvement's and signalization. Riverbend Drive shall
be accepted into the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's system or
bonded for such acceptance prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy on Phase
II of the Riverbend Shopping Center or the 2.9 acre parcel identified on the Application
Plan ZMA-83-2, whichever certificate of occupancy shall be applied for first.''J The last
sentence of 3(d) to remain as presently worded. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to
approve ZMA-83-2 with the findings and modifications recommended by the Planning Commission
and as modified with the above suggestions for 3(c) and 3(d). Mr. Butler seconded the
motion.
Mr. Fisher said he knew this application came about from a request by the staff to
improve the planning for development of the Pantops area, and he would like to thank all
persons who have worked on this matter because he feels it will make a better development
in the long run.
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. BUtler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
(Note: Conditions as adopted are set out below:
A. MODIFICATIONS TO THIS REZONING PETITION
l) The Planned Development-Shopping Center designation should be
expanded to incorporate additional developable land (Areas A, B
and C, on plan entitled "Planning Staff Proposed Modification of
ZMA-83-2" );
2) Strip commercial areas surrounding the shopping center-which
cannot be reasonably developed without encroachment into the
flood plain should be designated as "open space";
3) The 100-year flood plain adjacent to the proposed development
should be designated as "open space";
4) For the purposes of this petition, the term "open space" is
intended as a non-developable area to be maintained in a natural
state. Required improvements such as sewer lines, drainage
facilitieS and the like should be permitted in "open space" areas.
Likewise, provision should be made fOr the continuance of the
existing sand removal activitY in this area.
"FINDINGS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 8.0 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
l) The suitability of the tract for the general type of Planned
Development district proposed in terms of: relation to the
comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and
its relation to surrounding area. Due to unknown characteristics
of past grading activity, engineering study to determine suitability
for construction is warranted.
2) Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and
serviceS. Based on comment from the Albemarle County Service Authority,
Fire Official and the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, these elements appear adequate to support the proposed
shopping center development.
3) Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of
any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties,
dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or
the need for such instruments or for amendments in those proposed
(See Attachment G).
Staff is currently working with the applicant in development and
revision agreements, guarantees, and the like intended to provide
a basic framework for future development of this property. Basically,
these documents would address the following:
a)
Agreement to develop property in general compliance with the
approved Application Plan. Variations may be permitted
as provided in Section 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance;
b)
Statement of consent to pursue in a timely manner rezoning of
additional land to PD-SC and "open space" as outlined in
"Staff Recommendation: Modification of Application Plan";
c)
Agreement to modify design of the stormwater management
system to include pollution abatement measures to the extent
deemed reasonable by the County Engineer; including the use
of grass filter strips in the flood plain areas on the west,
south and east sides of the project; provided that such
modifications may be incorporated without substantial increase
in cost of such system. Agreement to develop and pursue a site
maintenance program to include a regular street sweeping program
utilizing vacuum sweepers and to reflect practices recommended
by the State Water Control Board "Urban Best Management
Practices Handbook", such program to be reviewed by the
County Engineer;
d)
Revised agreement regarding road improvements and signalization.
Riverbend Drive shall be accepted into the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation's system or bonded for such
acceptance prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy
on Phase II of the Riverbend Shopping Center or the 2.9 acre
parcel identified on the Application Plan ZMA-83-2, whichever
certificate of occupancy shall be applied for first. Agreement
to pursue additional planning in transportation matters as
recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation.
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: Community Development Block Grant for Regional
Housing Rehabilitations. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 6, 1983.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., was present and said this regional application for a
Community Development Block Grant is very similar to the local block grant approved by the Boar
at its June 8, 1983, meeting. Mr. Tucker noted that Albemarle County will be the applicant
for the grant with the participants being Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson counties.
The total of the grant request is $700,000 and Albemarle County is to receive $200,000.
Mr. Tucker said the purpose of the grant is to provide a means to continue the shared
responsibility of local governments within the region to maintain and add to the existing
housing stock of the region by eliminating substandard housing through the improvement of
residential properties to a minimum standard of quality by providing a revolving loan fund
accessible to low and moderate income households. Loans will be originated and serviced by
local financial institutions under the policy direction of a regional nonprofit housing
improvement corporation. Mr. Tucker noted that in Albemarle County, the Albemarle Housing
Improvement Program will supervise and execute the rehabilitations. Mr. Tucker said
28 percent of available funds will be coming to Albemarle County which should rehabilitate
approximately 40 dwelling units. Mr. Tucker said a resolution of agreement is needed to
apply for this grant with $16,341 being the County's in-kind match which is basically Seven
percent of AHIP's budget. Mr. Tucker said the Articles of IncOrporation to create the
regional housing improvement corporation were discussed briefly on June 8, 1983, and also
need to be approved.
Mr. Fisher noted that the Planning Commission unanimously endorsed the application at
its June 14, 1983, meeting.
The public hearing was then opened. With no one present to speak for or against the
application, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution of agreement to apply
for Virginia Community Development Block Grant Funds to be used jointly by the Counties of
Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson for housing rehabilitation for low and moderate
income families in the respective political subdivisions. Mr. Butler seconded the motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT TO APPLY FOR VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO BE USED JOINTLY BY THE COUNTIES OF ALBEMARLE,
FLY'ANNA, LOUISA, AND NELSON FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION FOR LOW AND
MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES iN THE RESPECTIVE POLITICALSUBDIVISIONS
WHEREAS, it is the purpose of local governments to create a climate which
encourages a wide range of adequate housing for its citizens; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has participated in programs and activities which
have broadened the choice of housing for its citizens, particularly those who have
less choice in the market place; and
WHEREAS, this jurisdiction has accepted a mutual obligation to share the
development of assisted housing opportunities through participation in the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission Areawide Housing Opportunity Plan (AHOP); and
WHEREAS, one of the goals of the AHOP is rehabilitation of existing housing
stock which does not meet minimum standardS of quality, health, safety; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, on June 15, 1983, do hereby authorize the submission of a jointly
sponsored regional application titled Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Program
to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for $700,000 (which
is distributed among the political jurisdictions as $200,000 for Albemarle, $200,000
for Fluvanna, $200,000 for Louisa and $100,000 for Nelson) in Community Development
Block Grant funds for housing and rehabilitation for low and moderate income families
in the respective political subdivisions; the source of the funds for the proposed
project are $700,000 from Community Development Block Grant, $16,341 from Albemarle
County Budget, $13,120 from Fluvanna County Budget, $13,800 from Louisa County Budget,
$8,048 from Nelson County Budget, $3,040 from Monticello Area Community Action Agency,
$30,000 from Region l0 Energy Conservation Program, and $450,000 provided from
leveraging from a Private commercial bank; and agree to act as the designated
applicant on behalf of each of the political subdivisions; and public hearings, duly
advertised have beenheld to gain public input for the development~of this proposal;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, do hereby authorize the County Executive of Albemarle County to sign on
behalf of the County of Albemarle, any necessary certifications and assurances
relating to the application as may be required by the Commonwealth of Virginia,
subject to the approval of the County Attorney.
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John if he had reviewed the Articles of Incorporation of
the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation. Mr. St.. John said yes and recommended
acceptance of same. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following Articles of
Incorporation for the Thomas JeffersonHousing Improvement Corpration. Mrs. Cooke seconded
the motion and same carried by.~the.following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. ~Cooke, Messrs, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash~
NAYS: None.
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF THE
Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation
The undersigned incorporator hereby forms a non-stock corporation under
the provisions of Chapter 2 of Titlel3.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as
amended), and to that end, sets forth the following:
1. Name. The name of the corporation is the:
Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation
2. ~urposes. (a) The purposes for which the Corporation is formed are
exclusively charitable, as contemplated by Section 501(c)(B) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (alt references herein to such section or
other sections of such Code include the corresponding provisions of any future
United States Internal Revenue law). More particularly, the Corporation is
organized and shall at all times be operated
(i) to combat community deterioration, lessen the burdens of
government, and promote social welfare by assisting in the
improvement, repair, and rehabilitation of substandard
residential housing in the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna,
Louisa, and Nelson, Virginia, all political subdivisions of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, (the "Designated Counties")
(ii) to develop an effective relationship among local governments,
private lenders, builders, developers, individuals, and organizations
in order to address housing needs which may not be met by the
private sector;
(iii) to engage in any and all lawful activities incidental to
the foregoing purposes except as limited herein.
(b) The Corporation shall not engage in any regular business of a kind
ordinarily carried on for profit and no part of its net earnings shall inure to
the benefit of any director, or officer of the Corporation, or to any private
individual (except that reasonable compensation may be paid for services rendered
to or for the Corporation). No substantial part of the activities of the
Corporation shall consist of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to
influence legislation, and the Corporation shall not participate or interevene in
(including the publication or distribution of statements) any political campaign
on behalf of any candidate for public office.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of these Articles, the Corporation
shall not conduct any activities not permitted to be conducted by a corporation
exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(B) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, or by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under
Sections l?0(a), 2055(a) and 2522(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
3. Members.
The Corporation shall have no members.
4. ~E.i. stered Office and Registered Agent. The initial registered office is
established at 500 Court Square, Suite 300, P. O. Box 298, Charlottesville,
Virginia, 22902, in the City of CharlottesVille, Virginia. The initial registered
agent is John V. Little, who is a resident of Virginia, Legal~Counsel to the
Corporation, a member of the Virginia State Bar, and whose address is the same
as the initial registering office of the Corporation.
5. Initial Board of Directors. The number of directors constituting the initial
Board of Directors shall be four (4). The term of office of the initial Board shall
end at the first meeting of the Board of Directors, but in no event later than
December 31, 1983. The names and addresses of the persons who are to serve as the
initial directors are as follows:
Name - . ~ Address
Keith Mabe
Barry N. Parrish
2219 Dominion Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
P. O. Box 106
Palmyra, Virginia
22963
Robert C. Klepper
P. O. Box 160
Louisa, Virginia
23093
Robert M. Murphy
P. O. Box 336
Lovingston, Virginia
22949
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
2-33
6. C. ontin.uin~ Board of Directors. (a) As of the initial meeting of the Board
of Directors, but no later than December 31, 1983, the affairs of the Corporation
shall be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of twelve members who .shall be
appointed as follows:
(i) Two appointees from each Designated County. Such appointees
shall be appointed by the respective governing bodies of the
Designated Counties and shall include representative of the private
sector, preferring, but not limited to persons with experience
in housing supply, construction, or finance; and housing
consumers who hold no county-wide elective office and who are in
no way connected with housing production, distribution, sales or~
financing; and
(ii) One appointed official from.~each-Designated County, such as
a county administrator or planner.
(b) The terms of office for Directors appointed in 6(a)(i) above shall begin
on the date of the first meeting of the Board of Directors but no later than
December 31, 1983, and their termination date shall be determined according to lot,
with three Directors to serve terms of three years, three Directors to serve terms
of two years, and two Directors to serve terms of one year. Upon expiration of the
initial term of office, all subsequent terms shall be for three years. The term
of each Director designated in 6(a)(ii) above shall coincide with his or her
appointive term of office, or until such time as he or she resigns, or is removed in
accordance with 6(e) below.
(c) Upon expiration of the initial and subsequent terms of office of the
Directors designated in 6(a)(i) above, the governing body of each Designated County
shall reappoint or replace its respective appointees, consistent with the requirements
of 6(a)(i). Nominations shall be solicited from local governing bodies, public
agencies, businesses, civic groups, professional groups,, and citizens.
(d) Any vacancy created by resignation, removal, or death of a Director
designated in 6(a)(i) or (ii) above shall be filled by appointment by the governing
body of the Designated County represented by that Director.
(e) A Director designated under 6(a)(i) or (ii) may be removed, with or
without cause, by a majority vote of the governing body authorized to appoint that
Director.
7. Regulation of Internal'~Affairs,-,.The following provisions are inserted for the
conduct of the affairs of the Corporation and for the future definition, limitation
and regulation of the powers of the Corporation and its Board of Directors.
(a) LiQuidation. In the event of the liquidation, dissolution, or winding mUp
of the affairs of the Corporation, whether voluntary, involuntary, or by operation
of law, any disposition made of the assets of the Corporation shall be such as would
then qualify under the provisions of Section ~501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954.
(b) Indemnification. (i) Every person, and his or her heirs, and Dersonal
representatives, who was, or is, or may be a party to any threatened, pending or
completed action, suit or proceeding~of'any kind, whether civil, criminal,
administrative, arbitrative or investigative, or who was or is the subject of
any claim, by reason of his or her being or having been a director or officer of
the Corporation, shall be indemnified by the Corporation against expenses
(including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines, penalties, awards, costs, amounts
paid in settlement and liabilities of all kinds, actually and reasonably incurred
by him or her in connection with, or resulting from, such action, suit, proceeding
or claim, if he or she acted in good faith and in the manner he or she reasonably
believed to be in, or not opposed to, the best interest of the Corporation, and,
with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no reasonable cause to
believe his or her conduct was unlawful; provided, however, that no indemnification
shall be made in respect of any claim, issue or matter as to which he or she shall
have been adjudicated to be liable to the Corporation unless, and only to the
extent that, the court in which such action, suit or proceeding was brought shall
determine upon application that, despite the adjudication of liability but in view
of all circumstances of the.'case, ~he~or-she is fairly and reasonably entitled
to indemnity.
(ii) The provisions of this Article are in addition to, and not in
substitution for, any other right to indemnity to which any person
who is or may be indemnified by or pursuant to this Article may
otherwise be entitled, and to the powers otherwise accorded by law
to the Corporation to indemnify any such person against any liability
asserted against or incurred by him in any capacity referred to in
this Article or arising out of his status as serving in any such
capacity (whether or not the Corporation would have the power to
indemnify-against such liability).
Mr. Fisher then asked if there were any nominations for the appointments to the
Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation Board of Directors. Hearing none, he
requested this item be placed on the Board's next agenda.
'- 234
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting).
Agenda Item No. 5. Report: Scottsville Precinct Change Committee.
Mr. Fisher said a request was received from the Electoral Board at the February 9,
1983, meeting for the Scottsville polling place to be changed. A public~ hearing was held
on March 16, 1983, at which time Miss Nash felt with the different opini6n~wo~iced.; thatsa
committee should be appointed to review the matter. Therefore, the following letter dated
May 24, 1983, from the Scottsville Precinct Change Committee has been r$ceiv'ed in response
to the Board's request:
"Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
As requested by the Board of Supervisors, we have reviewed the Electoral~ Board's
request for a change of the Scottsville voting precinct.
In accordance with item #3 in Mr. Fisher's letter of April ll, we have selected the
meeting room in the Scottsville Rescue Squad building as a feasible site. This building
is located in downtown Scottsville, adjacentt~o the present voting precinct. The
room is spacious, has an outside entrance, and has all the facilities necessary
for physical comfort.
A poll of the registered voters in the Sc0ttsville district indicated that the
majority was divided between wanting the precinct to remain in Scottsville or
had no preference as to location when presented with the three choices -- the
present site, the Rescue Squad meeting room, or the Scottsville School.
Based on the above findings, we recommend that the voting precinct be moved t~ the
Rescue Squad meeting room, provided that arrangements are made to alleviate~he
parking problem on Valley Street (Rt. 6) on election days.
Sincerely,.
(S~a~ED aY)
Brenda M. Lloyd
Mrs. F. R. (Cenie) Moon, Jr.
Mrs. Delores Adcock"
Mrs. Lloyd was pr~§~:n:t ahd~T~i't ~h~ ~%t~ Was self-explanatory as to the committee's
findings.
Miss Nash asked how the poll mentioned in the letter was made and what the results
were. Mrs. Lloyd said a list of the voters in the Scottsville Precinct was divided into
three sections and each member of the Committee took a section and called every tenth
person. As noted in the letter, most of the people did not have any preference to the
location of the polling ~place. Therefore, the Committee decided to relocate the polling
place at the Scottsville Rescue Squad building since the facility is better and meets all
the requirements. Mr. Fisher asked if parking problems will be alleviated. Mrs. Lloyd
said parking was not mentioned as a problem by anyone polled. Mayor Raymon Thacker of
Scottsville has stated that he would impose a twenty minute parking regulation in the
subject area on voting days which in effect will reserve a number of spaces for the voters.
Mr. Fisher said he questioned the parking because he thought that originaIIy was the
concern of the Electoral Board. Mrs. Elizabeth Haugh of the Electoral Board was present.
She said p~rking is one of the problems, but is not the major problem. The reason for the
requested polling place change was because the election officials working at the Scottsville
Fire House were uncomfortable because of the lack of adequate heat and proper lighting.
Mrs. Haugh noted that the Electoral Board is satisfied with this suggestion. Mr. Fisher
then asked if the polling place can be moved for the fall elections. Mrs. Haugh said yes,
provided action is taken this evening.
Miss Nash then asked Mayor Thacker if he approved of this change. ~ay~ Th,~c~er s~id
yes, and again reiterated that parking would be no problem.
Motion was then off~red by Miss N~sh, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the followin
resolution for the re~bCation bf ~e S6b~t't~ill~ Precinct Polling Place. Miss Nash then
extended appreciation to the Committee for the splendid job on the report. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of SUpervisors does
hereby concur in a request from the Albemarle County Electoral Board that
the polling place for the Scottsville Precinct be changed from the Town
Hall (01d Fire House Building) in Scottsville, to the Meeting Room of
the Scottsville Rescue Squad Building located in the Town of Scottsville.
.._ 235
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6.
and Totier Districts.
Discussion:
Agricultural/Forestal District Ordinance for Hatton
Mr. St. John said the public hearing for the adoption of an ordinance creating the
Hatton and Totier Agricultural/Forestal Districts has been scheduled for June 29, 1983. He
has discussed concerns expressed by Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres on June 8, 1983, and recommends
continuing with creation of the districts as originally presented. He said that Mr. Tucker
has sent letters to all affected property owners about the public hearing noting that final
action will be taken that date as well as citing the pertinent language in the Code regarding
the matter. Mr. St. John said a specific question of Mrs. Van Yahres was whether or not
the Board should insert in the ordinance an expiration date either four or eight years from
now. Mr. St. John said in his judgment that should not be done. The language regarding
the review process of this ordinance is very similar to that of the Comprehensive'Plan and
the Comprehensive Plan does not have a time limitation included. Therefore, in his opinion,
that would not be in compliance with the Code even though some counties have inserted an
expiration date° Mr. Lindstrom said he had reread the State Code section regarding this
issue and agrees with Mr. St. John.~ Mr. L~ndstrom said the only thing the statute proVides
for is a means for a property owner to request the Board to permit him to withdraw his
property from the district and if denied, the property owner can appeal to the Circuit
Court. Miss Nash then asked if there is any provision for a review of the ordinance after
eight years. Mr. St. John said a review no later than eight years after the adoption of
the ordinance is mandatory. This is required whether the time limit is stated in the
ordinance or not, and he did not feel a definite time for review should be included in the
ordinance because four years from now, there could be a different group of supervisors who
may want to review the ordinance and the Code states that the ordinance will be reviewed in
not less than four years. He felt that the Board in office at that time should have the
power to review the ordinance and this current Board should not presume to take away that
power. Even though the provision for review is only a technical matter, he would not
recommend inserting any date for review or expiration. There were no further comments or
discussion on this subject.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transfer of Appropriations: Capital Projects.
Mr. Agnor summarized memo dated June 9, 1983, from Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance,
requesting transfers in the Capital Improvements Fund (Copy of the memorandum is on file in
the Clerk's Office). Mr. Agnor said three of the requests are school related projects as
follows: To transfer funds from Miscellaneous Repairs to the Scottsville POD and to Woodbrook
School for Repairs; To transfer from Albemarle High School Phase III to Albemarle High
School Phase II; To transfer from Jouett Repairs to Henley Repairs in order that tkis
project can be bid. The final request is to transfer from the Unallocated Balance of the
Capital Improvements Program to the Joint Security Complex for Fencing. Mr. Agnor noted
that these requests do not increase the Capital Budget and only involve transfers of funds
from completed projects to those having a deficit. Mr. Agnor then recommended approval of
the above requests.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the recommendation
of County Executive and approve the following transfers from the Capital Projects Fund:
SCHOOL PROJECTS
From: 9700-1010.00 Miscellaneous Repairs $ 7,286.1.7
To: 9700-1000.00 Scottsville POD 6,983.80
9700-1080.00 Woodbrook Repairs 302.37
$ 7,286.17
From: 9700-1040.00 Albemarle High School Phase III $ 5,572.38
To: 9700-1030.00 Albemarle High School Phase II 5,572.38
From: 9700-1100.00 Jouett Repairs $57,527.65
To: 9700-1110.00 Henley Repairs $57,527.65
OTHER PROJECTS
From: 9700-9999.99 Unallocated Balance $ 1,725.00
To: 9700-7060.99 Joint Security Complex Fencing $ 1,725.00
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Transfer of Appropriations: General Fund.
Mr. Agnor then presented the following memorandum dated June 9, 1983, from Mr. Ray
Jones, regarding the General Fund Transfers:
"In reviewing the May report for General Fund Operations, I request'the following
transfers:
$34,685
From: 1203-1007 Personnel Salary Adjustments
To:
2201 Commonwealth Attorney - Due to the adjustment of the Deputy
Commonwealth Attorney's salary by the Compensation Board in the
amount of $5,500 annually plus underestimate in the cost of
Workmen's Compensation insurance. Of this amount, approximately
$3,000 will be offset by additional revenues from the Compensation
Board. $ 4,000
2-3
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
2101 Circuit Court - The expenditure estimate for Jurors and Witnesses
which was budgeted at $4,500 exceeds that estimate almost twice. $ 4,500
4204 Landfill - Due to the understimate of total share due from County
on the Ivy Landfill which increased to 53.54 percent. $ 6,500
4300 Staff Services- - Due~to~merit~increases ~and the impact on
salary and fringe benefits costs.
$ 8,700
8103 Redevelopment and Housin~ - Due to merit increase and impact on
salaries and fringe benefits plus overrun in postage. $ 3,000
8203 Soil and Water Conservation - Due to merit increase and impact
on salaries and fringe benefits.
8204 Watershed Management - Due to merit increase and impact on
salaries and fringe benefits plus overruns in telephone and
office supplies.
$ 3O0
$ 450
9201 Refunds - Due to overrun in excess fees in Clerk's Office and
overrun in tax refunds on Business and Professional Services.
$ 7,235
From: 3102-5408 Sheriff Vehicle-& Equipment Operation
$20,000
To: 4300 Staff Services $20,000
The above transfer requests are the result of a recent review by department
heads, the~County Executive and the Director of Finance plus a final review
of the May report by the Director of Finance to clarify any expected end-of-year
problems. As you can see the majority of the problems are being solved-by-
transfer of appropriation from an allocation from the Personnel (Salary
Adjustments) to the appropriate department code. However, the projected
unexpended balance in Personnel_is inadequate to solve the overruns in
the Staff Services department for the electrical and heating costs. Therefore,
I am requesting a transfer from the Sheriff's appropriation for vehicle
operation in the amount of $20,000 to cover the cost of the utilities overrun
for FY 82-83 in Staff Services.
The above does not solve any end-of-year problems in the School.Fund Operations.
The Finance Department staff'is manually monitoring monthly expenditures and
revenues in School Operations prior to the issuance of accounts payable and
payroll checks.
Respectfully I request your favorable consideration of the General Fund
Transfers with the authority granted to the Director of Finance to distribute
the summary amounts in those line item codes as needed."
Mr. Agnor noted the $20,000 transfer to Staff Services for funding the utility costs
of the County Office Building which was a 13 percent increase in the budgeted amount. When
the 1982-83 budget was prepared, utility costs were only estimated and the use of the
building in the evenings and on weekends was underestimated. Another reason is that the
automatic controls were not functioning for about eight months. These controls are now
automated and working on an energy conservation system. The third reason for the increase
is that the lights, heat and electricity for the construction work on the gymnasium wing
was not divided~out and metered separately because of the computerization of the mechanical
system so some of these costs have had to be absorbed in the 1982-83 budget and were not
budgeted. Mr. Agnor concluded by stating that these transfers are not for~ reoccurring
items.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the
foregoing transfers from the General Fund to the above indicated departments as recommended
by Mr. Agnor. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Nones.
Re:
Agenda Item No. 8. Resolution: Authorization for Chairman to Sign Certain Deeds --
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority.
Mr. St. John said the resolution is to authorize the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, to sign
deeds to land on which there are Albemarle County Service Authority water and sewer facilities
and a Bill of Sale to convey the County's interest, if any, by special warranty and title
to the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority. The Four-Party Agreement said this would take
place ten years after the date the Agreement was signed or when the indebtedness was paid
off, whichever was later. The indebtedness has not been paid off but is eminent. The
actual deed and bill of sale are not being presented to the Board this evening but will be ~
on routine forms which will transfer the facilities. (The facilities are listed in a
letter from Mr. James Bowling, IV, Deputy County Attorney, dated June 10, 1983, which is on
file in the Clerk's Office.) The County will be joining in a deed with the Albemarle
County Service Authority. These are facilities that were transferred by the County to the
Service Authority when the Service Authority was formed and the County is quitclaiming any
interest in these facilities. Mr. St. John said according to an agreement between the
County and the Albemarle County Service Authority, out of the proceeds of this transaction,
the Albemarle County Service Authority intends to repay its loan to the County, the amount
being $803,713.
237
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following
resolution regarding the sale of Albemarle County Service Authority facilities to the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Roll was called~and the motion carried by the'following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has entered into a certain Four-Party
Agreement with the City of Charlottesville, the Albemarle County Service
Authority, and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, dated June 12, 1973,
which provides in part for the sale of certain Albemarle County Service
Authority water and sewer facilities to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority,
as set forth in Exhibits 3 and 4 to the Agreement, which eXhibits are attached
to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, Section 3.5(e) of the Four-Party Agreement provides that Albemarle
County will join in each such sale to the extent of its interest, if any, in
any of such facilities;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, on behalf
of Albemarle County, is hereby authorized to Join in the sale of the facilities
set forth in Exhibits 3 and 4 of the Four-Party Agreement to the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority, to the extent of the County's interest, if any,
and to execute such documents as are necessary to accomplish this sale.
Agenda Item No. 9. Approval of Minutes: December 15 (Afternoon), 1982, and April 20,
1983.
Mr. Fisher had not read the minutes of December 15, 1982.
Miss Nash had read the minutes of April 20, 1983, and noted the following correction
on page 3, eighth paragraph, change second line to read: ". . . information which leads
him to recommend that conditions numbered eight and nine be revised."
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes
of April 20, 1983, with the above noted correction. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote'
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appointments.
There were no nominations offered. Mr. Agnor noted that the appointment to the Jail
Board is necessary since there are two vacancies, the joint appointee and the County represen-
tative. Mr. Fisher requested that this be placed on the June 29, 1983, agenda for action.
Agenda Item No. 10a. Extend Lease on Commonwealth Attorney's Office space.
Mr. Agnor said the Commonwealth Attorney, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., has explained
to him that the rent under this lease is slightly in excess of the amount projected in the
1983-84 budget. However, Mr. Dorrier has also indicated that the increase will be accommodate~
by requesting a transfer of funds from another line intem in his budget. Mr. Agnor said he
is requesting authority to execute the lease on behalf of the County and Mr. St. John to
review same before executing. As he understands this is just a slight increase in square
footage and an adjustment in the square foot rate with same being for the period from July
l, 1983, through June 30, 1983, and with an option to renew at the end of that time.
Mr. Fisher asked if the time period is reasonable in relation to the remodeling of
the Courthouse since the Commonwealth's Attorney will be relocating in that building. Mr.
Agnor said the Courthouse remodeling is scheduled to be presented to the Board in July for
final approval of the plans and for authority to let the project for bids. The remodeling
job will probably take twelve months. He is recommending that the construction contract be
worded in such a manner as to allow the Commonwealth's Attorney to move into the building
at the end of this lease (June 30, 1984) if at all possible.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to authorize the County
Executive to execute two lease agreements covering the office space for the Commonwealth's
Attorney at 224 Court Square, the first lease agreement dated June 10, 1983, in the amount
of $4,564.92 and covering the time period from July l, 1983, through June 30, 1984; and the
second lease agreement dated June 15, 1983, in the amount of $3,720 covering the time
period from July l, 1983, through June 30, 1984, with same being reviewed by the County
Attorney before being signed. Roll was called and the motion carried by the £ollowing
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
238
June 15, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. !1. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.~
Mr. Fisher noted that Mrs. Barbara J. Flammia, Deputy Clerk~, has resigned as of June~.
23, 1983, and summarized her employment with the County since 1974. He then presented to
her a Certificate of Appreciation for her years of employment with the County and wished
her well in her new ventures.
Mr. Fisher said he had discussed with Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the School Board,
possible dates for a Joint meeting. Two tentative dates are the afternoon of July 6 or
August 3 and the Board will be notified at a later date when a date is confirmed.
Agenda Item-No. 12. At 10:15 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss
Nash, to adjourn to June 29, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. Roll was called and the~motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
CHAIRMAN