Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-03-15NMarch 15, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned from March 10, 1978) March 15~_ 1978 (Regular-Night Meetin.g~) Agenda Item No. 7. Regional Jail. Present was Mr. Sam Pruett, Jail Administrator, and Mr. Raymond'Pace, Chairman of the Jail Board, who requested that the Board fund three additional positions. Mr. Agnor said he had recommended funding for one additional position and felt that the funding for the other two could be accommodated from salary savings. Agenda Item No. 9. Agenda Item No. 13. Agenda Item No. 8. Agenda Item No. 11. Agenda Item No. 12. Magistrate's Office. Present was Mr. D. D. Hudson. Juvenile Court. Present was Judge Ralph Zehler. Juvenile Detention Home. Emergency Medical Communications Equipment Maintenance. Debt Service. Agenda Item No. 14. Policing and Investigating. Present was Sheriff George Bailey, who said that his request included salaries of two-additional deputies. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 14.1-70, does hereby concur mn the request of the Sheriff of Albemarle County to the State Compensation Board for two additional deputies. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier and Dr. Iachetta. Not Docketed: Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby concur in the request of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Regional Jail Board to the State Compensation Board for three additional positions. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier and Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 16. Revenue Estimates. At 3:39 P.M. the meeting was adjourned.~ March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 15, 1978, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. (Arriving at 8:23 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley~ Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom, and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta. Officers present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to order. Gerald E. Fisher, at 7:38 P.M. Meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. SP-78-01. Harry D. Campbell. To locate a permanent sawmill on 189.36+ acres zoned A-1. Property is located approximately 2 miles from the intersection of Routes 692 and 29 South, on the southwest side of Route 712. County Tax Map 99, Parcels 49 and 50, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1978.) Mr. Robert Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: "Character of the Area This area is rural in character though several small lots exist on Route 712 near the railroad. An apple storage and cider/wine complex is located south of the site. A permanent sawmill with kilns exists between the site and Route 29 South. This site is currently wooded, though the applicant has cut an access road and cleared about 30 acres. March 15_~_~1978(~~ular-Ni~t Meeting) Comprehensive Plan This property is about 3/4 mile east of the proposed North Garden Village in an area shown for agriculture conservation. The Plan states that "Commercial timber harvest- ing should be conducted using standards and principles recommended by the Virginia Division of Forestry under either selective cutting or clear cut/reforestation conditions". Staff Comment The applicant proposes to operate the sawmill with one head saw and one edger. No kilns are requested as the lumber would be shipped green (The ~applicant may ship by rail as well as truck; a side tract already exists on the site.) The applicant forsees 10-12 employees including loggers and drivers. The mill would be located 600-1000 fset from Route 712. The applicant has indicated that some selected on-site stock would be timbered initially but most stock would not mature for an estimated eight to. ten years. Staff recommends approval of this petition for the following reasons: 1. Staff opinion is that this request complies with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan; 2. This use would be Supportive of the agriculture industry and would provide basic employment in the North Garden area; 3. Because of the size of the property and with appropriate setback, staff opinion ms that this use would not be objectionable to the area. The use would be in character with other agri-business uses in the area. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Sawmill is to be setback not less than 600 feet from the nearest dwelling unit and provide a 100 foot tree buffer along the Southern Railroad except where access is provided; 2. Staff approval of site plan; 3. Highway Department approval of entrances; 4. County Engineering Department approval of interior roads and parking specifications; 5. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies. NOTE: The County encourages the applicant to employ harvesting standards and principles recommended by the Virginia Division of Forestry." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at their meeting on March 7, 1978, unanimously recommended approval of this petition with the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Tucker then noted letters of opposition from Mr. James H. Miller, dated March 15, 1978, and Mr. John Ward, a local property owner who personally resides in New Jersey. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and Mr. Harry Campbell was present to speak on behalf of his request. He located the desired mill site on maps for Board members. Mr. Fisher asked if a specific area could be set aside for the location of the mill, rather than give an open permit for the entire 189+ acres. Mr. Campbell said the location he has chosen is approximately 1,000 feet west of the underpass. Mr. Henley asked if a maximum of 15 acres would be adequate to allow for future expansmon. Mr. Campbell said he felt that was more than adequate. No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. After a brief discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve this request with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and the following added condition: "6) The sawmill and related functions to be limited to 15 acres; and 7) A 100 foot tree buffer to be maintained around the entire 15 acre site as agreed to by the applicant, Mr. Campbell, at the meeting held on March 15, 1978." Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom ~and Roudabush. None. Messrs. Dorrier and Iachetta. ~genda Item No. 3. SP-78-04. Earl Lloyd. To locate an agricultural service occupation for a horse and harness shop, with horse related supplies, on 3 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on Route 250 East, at the intersection of Routes 250 East and 744 (Old Pleasant Valley Country Store). County Tax Map 80, Parcel 57, Rivanna Magisterial District. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report: "Character of the Area This area is rural in character with strip residential and commercial development along Route 250 East. Two antique shops, a country store, motorcycle shop, and Moose Lodge are to the west. This existing building was a gasoline service ~tation and antique shop (Pleasant Valley Country Store). Since recent abandonment, the building has been vandalized and is in need of extensive repair. Comprehensive Plan This area is shown as "other rural land" in the Comprehensive Plan indicating no critical characteristics warranting conservation protection. The plan recommends that the County "permit location and continuation of industrial and commercial uses which support or are a part of the agricultural economy". i37 March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Staff Comment The applicant proposes to upgrade ($15,000 in repairs) and live on the premises. His occupation would be the manufacture and repair of harness and horse drawn vehicles. Retail sales of related gear and supplies ~is also envisioned. The applicant hopes to have three employees in the future. Staff recommends approval of this petition for the following reasons: 1. Staff opinion is that the request complies with the recommendations Of the Comprehensive Plan; 2. This use is supportive of the agricultural industry in Albemarle County; 3. This use is compatible to the area and would improve the premises. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Staff approval of parking scheme and Highway Department approval of entrances; 2. Building Official and Fire Official approvals; 3. County Engineer approval of paving specifications; 4. Approval of other appropriate state and local agencies." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at their meeting on March 7, 1978, unanimously recommended approval of this petition, but changing the Staff's first condition to read: "Staff approval of parking scheme and entrance controls." Mr. Lindstrom asked why no deceleration lane was being resuired. He noted that it was his understanding that it is Highway Department policy to requmre a deceleration lane on any business parcel with direct access onto a major highway. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Fisher said the special permit was for horse drawn vehicles, and could see no reason to require a decelera- tion lane, also for the fact that it would not be a business with a large volume of customers Mr. Lloyd was present and said approximately 600 square feet would be used for retail, the rest would be for work, storage and living space. No One else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Roudabush asked if Mr. Lloyd would object to an additional condition limiting the number of employees. Mr. Lloyd said he would never need more than three or four. Motion was offered by Mr. Rouda~ush, seconded by Mr. Henley to approve the petition with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, adding #5 to read: "The number of employees to be limited to four and Mr. Lloyd." Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: .ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Messrs. Dorrier and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-78-05. VEPCO. To locate a microwave tower on 0.5165 acres zoned Agricultural. Property is 'located on the top of Bear Den Mountain north of the Skyline Drive and approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the State Police Office. Augusta County Tax Map 78, Parcel 32, Wayne Magisterial District; and northwest of Albemarle County Tax Map 53, Parcel 3 White Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report: "Request: Microwave Communications tower (Section 2-1-25(87)) Acreage: 0.5165 (part) Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Augusta County Tax Map 78, Parcel 32, is located on Bear Den Mountain west of the Skyline Drive. Character of the Area The Albemarle/Augusta County line runs through this property. The tower would be located about 100 feet within Albemarle County in rolling pastureland. The Appalachian Trail is in the vicinity as are the Virginia State Police radio tower and the Jefferson Cable tower. The proposed tower may be visible from Calf Mountain Overlook on the Skyline Drive. Staff Comment While staff is concerned about the physical and visuale~roachment of structures on the Skyline Drive and the Appalachian Trail, staff opinion is that the applicant's justification which follows outweights these factors. Additionally, the supporting structure is relatively small (about 12 feet square at the base and 60' high) and there are two other towers in the area. BEAR DEN MOUNTAIN MICROWAVE SITE Vepco is building a major, system-wide, microwave communications network to fulfill many needs which are vital to Vepco's ability to provide reliable electrical service. Among these are: 1) transmission line protection to prevent destruction of transmission lines and major equipment resulting ~rom electrical faults, 2) data tranSmission (including computer control from Richmond of power generation~ telemetering of power flow through interconnections with other power companies, and immediate reporting to RichmOnd of any abnormal transmission line or major substation condition), 3) redundant voice communications between Richmond and System Operations in various power stations and district/division offices, and 4) improved two-way radio communi- cations with service vehicles. March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Bear Den Mountain is a critical hub in this'communications network, which will connect to Richmond via Bremo power station and Midlothian, and in the other directions from Bear Den to: 1) the division office in Charlottesville, 2) the district office in Fishersville, 8) Dooms Sub- station which is the main transmission substation for most electrical power in the Albemarle County area, (and Shenandoah Valley), 4) the future Valley Substation in the Shenandoah Valley, and connect to the Mount Storm and Bath County Hydro Power Station Project. This mountaintop site is perfectly suited to this application as evidenced by similar nearby installations of the Virginia State Police and the Jefferson Cable Television Company. The proposed Vepco site has been carefully selected to ensure that the operation of these other installations will not be affected. Because of these existingffacilities, no new roads or power lines will be required." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting March 14, 1978, by a vote of 7-1-1, recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of fencing and landscape screening around tower to discourage <tm~spass; 2. Tower shall be removed within 90 days of abandonment, if such shall occur; 3. Equipment shed, tower and antennae to be camoflauged with painted pattern or painted solid color appropriate to surroundings, if permitted by FAA; 4. FAA approval of tower; 5. Enlargement shall require amendment of this special permit; 6. Tower and equipment shall not be located within Virginia State Parks Scenic easement." Mr. Tucker noted receipt of the following letters: Mr. Robert Jacobsen, Superintendent of the Shenandoah National Park, who was opposed to~ the location of this tower. A letter from David Richie, of the Appalachian Trail Project office, who was also opposed to the location of the tower; and from the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, who were opposed to the lo¢ation 6f the tower because of it's impact on the views from Skyline Drive. Mr. Tucker said it was suggested to VEPC0 that they investigate the possibility of sharing one of the two towers already located there. Mr. Tucker said that for secuDity reasons they could not share the S~ate Police Tower, and he requested the VEPC0 representative present to s~ate the outcome of discussions with Jefferson Cable. Mr. John Graves, representing VEPC0, said the possibility of sharing the tower owned by Jefferson Cable had been explored, but that it was not a practical solution to the problem. He said VEPC0's tower would be painted an appropriate color, and limited to 60 feet in height. There would be six antennas (2 at 8 feet, 2 at 6 feet, and 2 at 4 feet). (Mr. Lindsay Dorrier arrived at the meeting at this point.) Mr. Max Evans wished to know why the public telephone system could not be used by VEPCO instead of erecting a tower for their own private communications. He also suggested the Board request a more detailed site plan drawing of the ~ower and surrounding area. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the.public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he found it hard to support this request when the public and park service are unanimously opposed. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt it was an unsightly obstruction to the scenic view of Skyline Drive. Messrs. Henley, Roudabush and Dorrier said it would be unfair to deny this petition, since there were already two Other towers on the site. Mr. Henley offered motion to approve this request, with the conditions set by the Planning Commission, with the addition of a seventh condition reading: "Tower to be limited to 6g feet~ with six disc' type antennas." Motion was seconded by Mr.~ Roudabush and carried bY the folloWing recor'ded vote.: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush. Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. $. ZTA-?8-02. Phyllis Lawrence. To amend the A-1 zone of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit day nurseries as a use by right. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report: "Phyllis Lawrence is petitioning the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to amend the A-t Agricultural Zone to provide for "day nurseries" by right. Day nurseries are currently provided by special permit in the R-2 and R-3 Residential zones and by right in the CO Commercial Office Zone. Favorable Comments In staff opinion, this use is generally compatible to residential uses and should be located convenient to residential areas. Amending the A-1 zone for this use wouId greatly increase locational opportunities and convenience since the A-1 zone represents about 90% of the area of the County. Unfavorable Comments Staff has resisted further commercialization of the A-1 zone. uses of this nature in the rural areas may encourage growth. Providing convenience March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Staff Recommendation While the staff is reluctant to provide for commercial amenities in the rural areas which would stimulate growth, this use should not be restricted to the Urban Area and Crozet (i.e., where R-2, R-3, CO are provided). Day nursery is a convenience commercial use appropriate to the designated villages and communities in the Compre- hensive Plan. Staff recommends the following amendment which would provide for this use by special permit in the A-1 zone: Section 2-1-25(41) Day nurseries located within villages and communities as designated in the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at their meeting on March ?, 1978, unanimously recommended denial of this request. Neither the applicant, nor a representative was present. Mr. Tucker noted receipt of three letters from Mrs. Jo Stanley, Director of the Crozet Citizen's Association. Mr. Fisher noted that Mrs. Stanley's letters addressed to Messrs. Fisher, Tucker and St. John were not in opposition to the amendment, but were questioning the wording of the legal advertisement published in the Daily Progress. Mr. St. John said he felt the advertisement was legal as written. Mrs. Stanley was present, and requested the Board's support of the Crozet Citizens group in handling .the planning of their community. Mr Fisher emphasized that this was not a zoning map change, but a zonmng text change and did not effect the Crozet area exclusively. Mrs. Stanley concluded by saying her group did oppose this application, and any other applications submitted before the new Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the Crozet Village are published. Mr. Homer Kennamer, a resident of the County, said he supported this amendment only if allowed in villages or communities. He would not support a general change to allow same throughout the entire A-1 zone. Mr. Fisher read the letter of notification to Mrs. Lawrence stating that she or her representative should be present at tonight's meeting. Mr. Henley requested the definition of a day nursery. Mr. Tucker read it as being "an agency, organization or individual provid- ing daytime care of six or more children, not related by blood or marriage to or not the legal wards or foster children of the attendant adult." Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed, when no one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommenda. tion of the Planning Commission and deny the request. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. At 9:00 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a five minute recess. Meeting reconvened at 9:0? P.M. Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-78-03. C.F.S. Associates. To amend Sections 11-8-1, 11-8-2, 11-8-3, and 11-8-4 to permit flexibility in loading space parking in shopping centers. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report: "C.F.S. Associates has petitioned the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to amend Section 11-8-1 through 11-8-4 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit flexibility in loading space requirements for shopping centers. Staff has reviewed these ordinance sections and staff opinion is that these requirements do not provide adequate flexibility to "encourage innovative and creative design and facilitate use of the most advantageous techniques in the development of land". Since questions of adequacy of loading facilities are most appropriately addressed at time of site plan review, staff recommends amendment which would allow the Planning Commission to waive loading space requirements provided the proposed method of accommodating delivery satisfies the purposes of Sections 11-7 and 11-8 and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. This is an approach similar to that recommended and approved for distance from parking space to dwelling unit. Recommended Amendment Section 11-8-6 The requirements of Section 11-8 may be waived in such cases where Planning Commission shall determine the public interest or safety would be equally or better served by such waiver; that such waiver would not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice, and that such 'waiver would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of thfs ordinance.'" Mr. Tucker then noted that the Planning Commission on March 7, 1978, by a vote of 7-2 recommended approval with the following wording: 'Section 11-8-6 The requirements of Section 11-8 may be modified and/or waived in such cases where Planning Commission shall determine the public interest or safety would be equally or better served by such modifi- cations and/or waiver; that such modification/and or waiver would not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice, and that such modification and/or waiver would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Mr. Eric Deckinger, representing the C.F.S. Associates, said their purpose was to provide better and more efficient loading for stores proposed to be in the new Charlottesville Fashion Square Mall. March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 140 Mr. Alan Scouten, a resident of Berkeley Subdivision, said this would be lowering the current standards of the ordinance, and suggested the Board vote against this change. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said if this is approved, the Planning Commission would have the responsibility of insuring that it is properly used for the added safety and service of the public. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the Fashion Square Mall will be enclosed, and that in essence is the root of the problem and need for the change. Following a brief discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush ~o ~mend and reenact~the Zoning Ordinance in Section 11-8-6 as recommended by the Planning Commission, but changing the wor~ "or" following public interest, to "and". Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. ?. SP-78-06. M. E. Gibson· To amend SP-446 (Branchlands PUD) condition of approval to provide for site sewer, water, transportation system and other development in stages based on functional need. The 117 acres of property known as Branchlands, is located on Route 29 North, opposite Berkeley Subdivision· County Tax Map 61Z, Parcels 03-1, 02-1 and iA. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1928.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report: "SP-78-06 Gibson, M.E. M.E. GibSon is requesting amendment to certain conditions of approval of SP-446, Branchlands Planned Community (September 10, 1975) to provide that on-site and off-site improvements be required at such time in the development of the planned community as there exists functional need (see attached letter of explanation and applicant.'s proposed amendments). Such an approach would be more conductive to phased development, and would reduce the burden of improvements currently required for first phase development. Staff endorses this general approach, however, does not agree with one of the applicant's proposed amendments. The proposed amendment of Condition D.1. envisions the County accepting bonding and holding such in escrow for the eventual relocation of an entrance and crossover on Route 29 North. A major problem with this approach is that, currently, the County has no mechanism for releasing such escrow funds to the grantee (the future developer who would be ultimately responsible for the entrance construction). Additionally, the staff is reluctant for the County to become a third party in an agreement in which the County has no interest. (The County's concern is the relocation of the entrance and ~rossover for reasons of safety. The County is not concerned about the financial arrangements involved in such relocation.) Staff recommends proposed amendments which would: 1. Better identify the referenced preliminary plans; 2. Reduce the conditions to a more manageable number by combining some conditions, and by deleting some conditions which are redundant in the sense that they will be addressed in subsequent review and approval procedures; 3. Update conditions to current ordinance requirements and review procedures; 4. Encourage phased development by basing improvement requirements on a need and/or pro-rata basis. The following are staff recommended conditions of approval. Referenced Branchlands plans have been re-identified and numbered for clarity: A~ Density - Land Use - Concept ~. ~a~-~e-~e~y-a~-~a~-~e-~ese~-~y-~e-a~e~-a~-a~e~-~-~e Locations and acreages of various land uses and residential densities shall comply with Approved Plan I; ~a~.$he cluster arrangement concept, providing for a minimal number of entrances on to the internal road system be adhered to as indicated em-~e #~-e~-~e-app~eaa~s-s~bm&~a~ in Approved Plan 2. A~l-see~&ems-ef-~e-p~epesa~v-w~em-be&ag-~eve~epe~-s~a~-a~eme-~e-~e-ae~eage- (See Revised Condition A.1.); Be Site Plans - Subdivision of Land aa~-~am~seape-p~ame-~e-~Ae-~amm~g-Bep~mea~-fe~-app~e~a&-by-~Ae-~aa~mg- ~emmiss~e~? Deve~epme~-g~&mamee~ Site Plans and subdivisions shall comply with Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 18 of the Land Subdi'vision and Development 'of the Code of Albemarle respectively: 2.~. No grading permit shall be issued for roads,streets, or highway until approved March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) have been approved by the Virginia 'Dep'a~tment''of Highways and Transport'atiOn; Sewer and Water ~e~ie~e-i~s~ee~iea-b~-~e-A~bemaP~e-~e~%y-8e~ee-A~e~y-eP-Ge~%y-E~aeeP~- Plans for water and sewer improvements for any phase to be developed shall be approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority prior to the issuance of any building permit for that phase of development. The developer or developers shall install and dedicate to the Albemarle County Service Authority all wa~eP-a~-~eweP-~s-~-e~e-a~-~e~-s~we~-a~-wa~e~ ~&~ee-eff-si~e-w~ieA-aPe-ew~e~-b¥-~e-~e~e~epeP~.w~&e~-a~e-~eeessa~y-~-~e~e p~ieP-~e-eeaBee~ie~-~e-a~y-wa~eP-aa~-eewem-~e-ia-w~e~-~e-Ge~y-ge~¥~ee- ~k-~i~e-sAa~A-Pemai~-~e-pPepeP~y-a~-PespeRoibi~%y-ef-~e-ewae~ew~e~e~ on-site and off-site water and sewer improvements, which are necessary to serve that phase to be developed, at no cost to the Service Authority· ~-~ee~-f~P-~e-ma~e~ee-e~-~e-~e~ea~e~-wa~e~-a~-~ewe~-~es-~y-~e (Redundant - Would be covered by Revised Condition C.1. and by Service Authority in Site Review Committee). oi~e-eaeeme~e-a~-P&~e-ef-wey~ (Redundant - Would be covered by Revised Condition C.1. and by Service Authority in Site Review Committee). Transportation System Ea~aReee-aR4-e~eeBewePe-e~-Re~e-~@-~e~%~-a~-e~Pee~-e~a~-eeR~emm-~e-~Ae ~aye~-~ew~-e~-AA~e~a~i~e-~- Entrances and crossovers on Route 29 North and internal street layouts shall conform to Approved Plan 3: The existing Branchlands entrance and crossover shall be closed and Entrance A and crossover (Approved Plan. 33 shall De constructed prmor to the issuance Of any building permit for any phase of development which would have ac,ess to and increase traffic at the existing entrance; provided that the Planning Commission, upon recommendation of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, may waive this requirement for a particular phase of develop- ment upon a finding that the existing entrance.would, be adequate to accommodate in a 'safe manner such t'ra£fi'o'as may b'e:'o.c'c'~s's'i'o'n'e'd b'y '.s'u.c~ 'd'e'.ve'l'Op'me'nt. Rights-of-way shall be reserved and dedicated as;shown on A~emRa%ive-¢~-Approved Pl'an' 3 for future potential connections into the Montague-Miller tract and WeStfield Section II. Ail right-of-way widths for all interior streets will be determined as individual site development plans are submitted. 5. All streets are to be built to 8~a~e-~&~Away Virginia Department of Highways and Tran~spOr't'at'ion specifications for inclusion into the State Highway System. E. Other ~. R~creational facilities shall be provided according to the following: tot lots: playfields: sport facilities: 55 square feet/dwelling unit 165 square feet/dwellSng.unit (tennis, handball, swmmmzng, etc.) 165 square feet/dwelling unit¢%.i March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meetin ) Bike paths should be constructed along open space corridors (stream beds) or sewer easements. Such construction shall occur with each phase of development on the open space corridors and sewer easements located within or immediately adjacent to that phase of development; provided that the Planning Commission may require reasonable extension of such bike trail through other areas if such extensmon provides linkage to an eXisting or approved bike trail. wa~eP-aa~-a~p~e~e~-~y-ge~y-~ag~aeeP~ag-De~aP~mea~ (Redundant: Required in normal site plan and subdivision review)· ~e~ewe~-by-~e-~f~iee-e~-~Ae-Ge~y-A~e~aey-as-~-~s-~e~e~e~? Approval by the County Attorney's Office of Homeowner's Association agreements for the maintenance of 'driveWays,'o'Ren 'apace, and other commonly~owKed 'or' common-use amenties. Owners of propertieS''design'ate~d for commerci'ai use and Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop Of RichmOnd, as owner of an 8.0 acre tract to be reserved for church purposes and not sold as part of the Planned Community property (referred to hereinafter as the Church property) shall not be required ~o~be members of the HomeownerS' Association; provided that .these owners shall be solely responsible for the mai'nt'e'nance of the driveways, open space, etc. located within their respective 't'ra~TS,'"and that such maintenance shall be 'comparable to that level establi~She'd ~fn the HOmeownems' Association agreements for other such uses· Should commer'c'ial' development or sale of commercially- designated property occur prior to establishment of Homeowners' Association agreements, the Planning Commission mav require in the deed restrictions for such property, provisions for the maintenance of such driveways,, open spaces, etc. as the Commission shall deem appropriate for adequate buffering and protection of residential areas and for the reasonable useage Of such areas by future residents of the Planned Commqnity. In respect to useage, the Home- owners' Association members shall enjoy the same rights and privileges of use of driveways, open space, etc. within commerqially-desi~nated 'areas' and the church property as shall be establi'shed'by HomeoWners' ~s'SOci~ati'on''agreements for other such uses within the Planned 'co'mmunit'y. Approval by the County Attorney of deed restrictions for sections to be sold. by-~e-~ee-ef-~e-~e~y-A~e~ey~ Developer of Section C ~kApproved Plan 1) to provide fencing in area~%designated "Section C" adequate to discourage access and trespass onto adjoining property (Chapel Hill SubdiviSion)." "February 23, ~978 Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Director of Planning County of Albemarle Planning Department 414 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Request for SP-78-06 (Amendment to Branchlands PUD -- SP-446) Dear Mr. Tucker: I have received Ms. Gloeckner's letter of February~ 12, 1978 with notifi- cation of the dates of the pubiic hearings. The purpose of this letter is to state the 'amendments we seek to the' BranchIands PUD conditions of approval and reasons therefore. The Branchlands PUD conditions of approval are contained in a letter dated September 17, 1975 to the Reverend Don Michael Hanna from Jane Carter, Planning Department. For the most part, those conditions contemplate the development of the entire Branchlands property at one time, rather than in stages. It is generally true a project the size of that contemplated by the Branchlands PUD is not developed at one time, but rather is developed incstages as smaller parcels are sold. The primary reason for seeking the amendments to the PUD conditions as set forth below is to provide for the performance of those conditions in phases as the land is developed in phases in order to achieve orderly development of the Branchlands property. The owner of Branchlands is planning to sell to CFS Associates, a Virginia limited partnership, 9.842 acres of commercial ~and contained in the Branchlands PUD, (An additional .158 acres of the Branchlands property will be shown on the site plan to be submitted by CPS Associates in compliance with the county zoning ordinance requirement that not less than ten acres of PUD property be shown on a site plan.) The owner of Branchlands is seeking amendment to certain of the PUD conditions in order that CFS Associates and future developers of Branchlands property be responsible for performing their share of the PUD conditions as such relate to phase developments which may occur from time to time. One of the PUD conditions requires that all subdivision of land be approved by the Planning Commission Board of Supervisors. The owner of Branchlands seeks approval of the conveyance to C~S Associates of 9.842 acres as shown on the pre- liminary map prepared by Lewis & Owens, Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This parcel of land will be developed by CPS Associates as part of the Charlottesville Fashion Square. Part of a department store will be constructed on part of the land, with the remainder of the land being used for parking spacecand buffer. The use to which the land will be put is less intense than thatcontemplated by the 143 March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Branchlands PUD Plan since a sizable portion of that land will be used as parking and buffer. The buffer area is shown on Exhibit 1. The amendments to the Branchlands PUDilconditions requested by the owner of Branchlands are as follows (paragraph letters and numbers correspond'to those in the September 17, 1975 letter): Co lo Delete first sentence and substitute: Ail plans for sewer and water for any phase being developed shall be submitted to the County Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit on that phase of development. Co 2o Delete first sentence and substitute: The developer o~ developers shall install and dedicate to the Albemarle County Service Authority all water and sewer lines located within the area of land included in the site plan for the development of that phase, and those sewer and~ water lines off site which are owned by the developers and which are necessary to serve Branchlands at no expense to the service authority. D. 1. Delete and substitute: When there exists a functional need created by development of the residential and commercial areas such that the traffic flow is increased to a point at which the present entrances and crossovers amc inade~quate, the entrances, crossovers of U. S. Route 29 North, and streets shall be constructed to conform to the layout shown on Alternative No. 1. The development of the ten-acre parcel by CPS Associates as part of the Charlottesville Fashion Square does not create a functional need for such constructio~ since the Branchlands entrance does not serve as an entrance to the Charlottesville Fashion Square facility. The owner of Branchlands and the developers of Charlottesville Fashion Square have agreed the developer will contribute its proportionate share toward the development of Branchlands Route 29 entrance A, such share being 10% of the total estimated cost as approved by the County. It is currently estimated the total cost for the entrance A and related work is $260,000. The developer shall deliver to the County of Albemarle a bond (in form acceptable to the County) obligating the developer to pay to the County 10% of the estimated cost of relocating ~he Bmanchlands Route 29 entrance A (as shown on Alternative No. 1 as approv%d by the County of Albemarle), building the required deceleration lane serving the relocated entrance, constructing the Route ~29 crossover ~aligned with such entrance, and closing the discontinued crossover. The developer's responsibility under the bond shall not include the performance of any work, but shall be limited to payment of 10% of the estimated cost for the work as approved by the County. The bond shall provide that if it is determined at some future date the entrance A, or some comparable entrance will not be constructed, or if such entrance or comparable entrance is not constructed within 20 years of the date of the bond, the bond will terminate. D. 3. Delete. (see D.1 above) E. 1. Add at end of sentence, "commensurate with residential development and need." Eo 2, Add at end of sentence, "commensurate with residential development and need." Eo 3o Add at end of sentence, "commensurate with residential development and need." Eo 4. Add at end of sentence: as part of each phase of development on the open space corridors or sewer easements located within or immediately adjacent to that phase of development. E. 6. E. 8. Add: CPS Associates, as owner of the 9.842 acres tract, and Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond, as owner of an 8.0 acre parcel of land to be reserved for church purposes and not sold as part of the PUD property, shall not be required to be members of the Homeowners Association. In- stead, those two owners shall be responsible for 100% of the maintenance of the driveways, open space, etc., located within their respective 9.842 and 8.0 acre tracts of land. The homeowners association need not be established until land other than that described in this paragraph is developed. Delete and substitute: Developer of "Section C" to provide fencing in area designated "Section C" adequate to discourage access and trespass onto adjoining property when "Section C" is developed. Except as amended as requested herein, the Branchlands PUD conditions shall~remain unchanged. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Very truly yours, M. E. Gibson, Jr." March 15, 1978 (Regular-NiEht Meeting) Mr. Tucker said on March 7, 1978, by a vote of 7-2, the Planning Commission recommended "approval with the following conditions: A. Density - Land Use - Concept Locations and acreages of various land uses and residential densities shall comply with Approved Plan 1; The cluster arrangement concept, providing for a minimal number of entrances on to the internal road system be adhered to as indicated in Approved Plan 2. B. Site Plans - Subdivision of Land Site Plans and subdivisions shall comply with Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle respectively; No grading permit shall be issued for roads, streets, or highways until plans and profiles have been approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. C. Sewer and Water Plans for water and sewer improvements for any phase to be developed shall be approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority prior to the issuance of any building permit for that phase of development; The developer or developers shall install and dedicate to the Albemarle County Service Authority all on-site and off-site water and sewer improvements, which are necessary to serve that phase to be developed, at no cost to the Service Authority. D. Transportation System Entrances and crossovers on Route 29 North and internal street layouts shall conform to Approved Plan 3; The existing B~anchlands entrance and crossover shall be closed and Entrance A and crossover (Approved Plan 3) shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any building permit for any phase of development which would have access to and increase traffic at the existing entrance; provided that the Planning Commission, upon recommendation of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, may waive this requirement for a particular phase of development upon a finding that the existing entrance would be adequate to accommodate in a safe manner such traffic as may be occasioned by such development. Rights-of-way shall be reserved and dedicated as shown on Approved Plan for future potential connections into the Montague-Miller ~tract and Westfield Section II; Ail right-of-way widths for all interior streets will be determined as individual site development plans are submitted; Ail streets are to be built to Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation specifications for inclusion into the State Highway System. E. Other Recreational facilities shall be provided according to the following: tot lots: 55 square feet/dwelling unit playfields: 165 square feet/dwelling unit sport facilities: (tennis, handball, swimming, etc.) 165 square feet/ dwelling u~it; Bike paths should be constructed along open space corridors (stream beds) or sewer easements. Such construction shall occur with each phase of development on the open space corridors and sewer easements located within or immediately adjacent to that phase of development; provided that the Planning Commission may require reasonable extension of such bike trail through other areas if such extension provides linkage to an existing or approved bike trail; Approval by the County Attorney's Office of Homeowners~ Association agreements for the maintenance of driveways, open space, and other commonly-owned or common-use amenities· Owners of properties designated for commercial use and Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond, as owner of an 8.0 acre tract to be reserved for church purposes and not sold as part of the Planned Community property (referred to hereinafter as the Church property) shall not be required to be members of the Homeowners' Association; provided that these owners shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the driveways, open space, etc. located within their respective tracts, and that such maintenance shall be comparable to that level established in the Homeowners' Association agreements for other such uses. Should commercial development or sale of commercially-designated property occur prior to establishment of Homeowners' Association agreements, the Planning Commission may require in the deed restrictions for such property, provisions for the maintenance of such driveways, open spaces, etc., as the Commission shall deem appropriate for adequate buffering and protection of residential areas and for the reasonable usage of such areas by future residents of the Planned Community. In respect to usage, the Homeowners' Association members shall enjoy the same rights and privileges of use of driveways, o~en s~ace, etc., within commema~]]v ~n~ ~= March !5~ 1978__~_ular-Night Meeting~) Approval by the County Attorney of deed restrictions for sections to be sold; Developer of Section C (Approved Plan 1) to provide fencing in area designated "Section C" adequate to discourage access and trespass onto adjoining property (-Chapel Hill Subdivision)." Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Tucker to define the differences between approved plans one, two and three. Mr. Tucker said approved plan number one deals with the density; plan two deals with the internal road system and number of curb cuts; plan three deals with the in- ternal road network primarily showing the main entrances into Branchlands. Ail three plans were approved in September, 1975. Mr. Fisher stated his concern about the deletion of whole paragraphs from the present conditions. Mr. Tucker said the idea was to eliminate duplicate and redundant wording. Mr. St. John said as a point of procedure, this application should be cross-indexed under the heading of Branehlands and Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond. Mr. Fisher instructed the Clerk to make such a notation in the minute books, and that Mr. Tucker should also change the file headings on all Planning Department files. Mr. M. E. Gibson, Jr., said these changes were to simplify the development process. He noted that few developers could handle areas of 100 acres, and so this site would be developed in 10 acre plots. Mr. Gibson made reference to a letter received by the Planning Department from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation suggesting that the applicant make a grade change on Route 29 in order to improve sight distance. Mr. Gibson estimated that such roadwork wo~ld cost in the neighborhood of half the total cost of the entire 100 acre parcel. He said he was highly opposed to this recommendation. Mr. Lane Kneedler, a resident of Brandywine Drive, immediately behind the proposed Branchlands development in the City, requested clarification of wording in condition B2. Mr. Tucker said this assures that proper road standards are met in the plans. He also noted that this condition eliminated the redundant conditions. Mr. Alan Scouten asked if this change to 10 acre development increments would mean that the area set aside for the Famber Mall would not have to pay its contribution toward the impact of water and sewer systems. Mr. Fisher answered that nothing being contemplat- ed tonight would change any of the already approved plans for Branchlands. Mr. Homer Kennamer said he was an adjacent property owner. He first asked if the con- struction of the proposed mall constituted the initial development of the Branchlands P.U.D. Mr. Fisher said yes, it did according to the approved plans. Mr. Kennamer then asked about the relocation of the entrance to Branchlands. Mr. Tucker said that it would have to be relocated upon initial development or when there was sufficient effect on the traffic of Route 29 North (as determined by the Highway Department). Mr. Kennamer said Route 29 is already congested. He then asked if the proposed bike trails would allow motorized vehicles. Mr. Fisher said the standards drawn up for this project do not exclude such. Lastly, Mr. Kennamer said he was not satisfied with the condition that the fence be built upon construc- tion of Section "C". He said prior development would create the need for the fence many years prior to the construction of SeCtion "C"~[ He also requested that the fence be extended all the way to the Kane property. Mr. Tucker then read the following letter from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: "March 13, 1978 Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning Albemarle County 414 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Tucker: Reference is made to our recent conversations concerning the proposed entrances to the BranchIands Development along Route 29 in Albemarle County. As you know, the county has approved entrances to the Branchlands Subdivision in accordance With a plan, entitled Alternative #1. This plan calls for two major entrance to the subdivision to be build adjacent to the cross-overs along Route 29. The two cross-overs shown are at new locations and basically replace one existing c~oss-over which is proposed to be closed. Since the approval of this entrance configuration, standards for intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance have been changed. The two entrances and ~djacent cross-overs as proposed do not meet the minimum standards now in effect. I, therefore, must advise you that the Department cannot approve the entrances and cross-overs as proposed. In reviewing this matter, I have determined that the movement of one cross-over and the addition of the second cross-over were never approved by proper authority within the Department. It will, therefore, be necessary that any plan which requires the movement of any cross-over, or the establishment of any new cross-over be reviewed~ and approved by the Department. This will be necessary even if stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance to the cross-overs and entrances are adequate. For your information, the minimum standards for cross-overs and entrances in this area are as follows: Stopping sight distance 425 feet Intersection sight distance 650 feet Cross-over spacing 800 feet March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) For your .information, the existing cross-over along the frontage of the Branchlands property does not meet minimum intersection sight distance. This means that if a major entrance to Branchlands was proposed opposite this cross- over, the Department would take steps to eliminate left turns out of the develop- ment and into the development through this cross-over. I would suggest that the proposed entrances to the Branchlands PUD be redesigned to meet the standards li~ted above. If the county wishes to support the establishment of new cross-overs, or the movement of existing cross-overs, or the waiver of any requirement, this request should be submitted to my office. Yours truly, D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer" Mr. Fisher said this letter would require that changes be made to the already approved plan, which would require it to be brought back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher then suggested possibly having the applicant, the Planning Department and the Highway Department meet and work out the road revisions, and bring all the changes back to the Planning Commissio and Board simultaneously. After a brief discussion between Max Evans and the Board, Mr. Fisher asked if it would be possible for Mr. Tucker to set up a meeting with the Highway Department within the next two weeks. He noted that the Board already had a meeting scheduled for March 29th. Mr. Tucker said he would contact the Highway Department. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to defer further discussion of this petition until March 29, 1978. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 8. Five-Year Capital Improvements Program Budget. Daily Progress on March 4, 1978.) (Advertised in the Mr. Agnor presented a summary of recommended capital improvements, requesting the Board to vote on the current fiscal year's expenditures, as well as the five-year plan. Mr. Agnor reviewed the project area headings and proposed expenditures. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. No one being present at the meeting at this time, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Board discussion centered around the heading of Parks and Recreation, Future Projects. Ail felt the amounts of $47,000 and $180,000 should be left out of this year's fiscal budget, but it was debated whether or not to drop it entirely or carry~it over to fiscal 1978-79. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded bykMr. Lindstrom to carry those amounts over to the 1978-79 fiscal year budget. Roll was called, and motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier and Lindstrom. Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Henley then offered mot'ion to drop the $180,000, and transfer the $47,000 to fiscal year 1978-79. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and RoudabUsh. Messrs. Dorrier and Lindstrom. Dr. Iachetta. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the five-year plan as amended. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and R~udabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting ) PROJECT SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CAPITAL PROJECT ESTIMATE IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES BY PROJECT - LOCAL SHARE ONLY LOCAL SHARE FY 1977-78 FY 1978-79 FY 1979-80 ESTIMATE 1. SCHOOLS Albemarle High School Gym Scottsville POD Red Hill Bus Shop Meriwether Lewis-Murray Crozet - Greenwood Future Site Acquisition Stony Point 2. UTILITIES SOLID WASTE Resource Recovery Collection System Sanitary Landfill(Access) Sanitary Landfill(Scales) .Sanitary Landfill(Improvements) FIRE PROTECTION Hydrants Equipment 5. LIBRARIES Main Library Bookmobile 6. AIRPORT Ob struction Removal Taxiway 7. FLOOD PLAIN (MARKERS) 8. EMERGENCY PHONE SYSTEM(911) 9. HOUSING Crozet Project AHIP  0. JUVENILE COIYRT ii i. PARKS & RECREATION ! Albemarle High School-Tennis Courts Rann Preserve Future Projects 2. ADMINISTRATION Administration & Court Building 3. HEALTH-COmITY FACILITIES AT ESMQm~T 4. MISCELLANEOUS Lickinghol~ Cr~'ek Improvements ~,125,000 $4,125,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 55O 750 200 500 550 350 225 000 000 000 000 000 000 ,000 St~' _ ~ _ 200,000( SCF ) - 3oo,ooo(RS) 500,000( LF ) 550,000 - 50,O00(UB) 500,000(LF) 750,000 - - 275, O00(RS ) 200, ooo - 20,000(RS) 180, O00(RS) -500,000 - 50, O00(UB) 450, O00(LF) 550,000 - - 50,000( UB ) 350,000 - - - 225,000 - - 1,876,900 7,083,400 6,300,000 51,575 690,450 3O,OOO 11,375 954,500 - - - 537,000 17,000(UB) 173,334(UB) 173,333(UB) 51,600 51,600(RS) - 345,200 149,000(RS) 196,200(RS) - 15,ooo 15,000(RS) - 5,700 - 5,700(UB ) - 210,400 110,400 100,000 196,000 - - - 96,000 24,000(UB) 24,000(UB) 24,000(OB) 100,000 - IO0,O00(UB) - 1,840, 1,800, 40, 000 000 000 840,000 - - - 800,000 175,000(RS) 325,000(UB) 300,000(UB) 40,000 - 40,000(UB) - 869,580 300,000 569,580 21,738 - - 7,500 7,500(U~) - 14,238 - 14,238( UB ) 5,500( OB ) 5,500 5,500 107,000 35,500 975,480 250,000 725,480 - 250,000 250,000 50,000 25,000 50,000(RS) 2,500( UB ) 717,700 50q,700 - 25,000 25,000 25,000(UB) 280,000 70,000 70,O00(UB) 4t2,700 412,700 - 3,000,000 3,000,000 - 3,000,000 3,000,000 600,O00(RS) 131,000 - 500,000 500,000 35,500( UB ) FY 1980-81 475,000(LF) 500,000( LF ) 350,000(UB ) 25,000(UB ) TOTAL: 173,333( tm )~ S~Y (BY YT_JLR) School Construction Fund (SCF) Unallocated Balance ( UB ) Revenue Sharing (RS) Literary Fund (LF) TOTALS: 24,000( UB ) 50,000(~) 50,000(Rs)50,000(RS) 22, 50O(~) - - 129,000(UB) 70,200(UB) 60,000(UB) 925,000(RS) 1,O00,O00(RSO 400,000(RS) 75,000( 'UB ) - - 21,491,960 lb",~60,938 2,192,100 2,199,972 3,'~08,033 2,057,333 $-- $ - 653,033 632,333 1,505,000 450,000 950,000 975,000 200,000 $ 200,000 3,099,138 151,500 4,536,800 1,340,600 2,625~,000 500,000 1,008,772 1,191,200 10,460,938 2,192,100 ~,199,972 3'7108,033 2,057,333 FY 1981-82 200,000( LF ) 50,000(RS): 153, 5oo( UB ) 500,000(UB) 903,500 653,500 50,000 200,000 963,5oo t48 March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting School Cons~ Unallocated R~venue Sha~ Literary Fuz T( RECAP: SHOWING DISPOSITION OF AVAILABLE FUNDS AND ESTIMATED RETAINED BALANCE AMOUNT AVAILABLE DURING PERIOD AMOUNT ALLOCATED DURING PERIOD RETAINED BALANCE END OF PERIOD ruction Fund (SCF) $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - 0 - Balance (UB) 4~000,000 3,099,138 900,862 ng (RS) 4,545,000 4,536,800 8,200 (LF) 2,625,000 2,625,000 ......... - 0 ~ ......... ?ALS: $11,370,000 $10,460,938 $909,062 Motion was then offered by Mr. Dindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the follow~ ing resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,703,100 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated fom~capital improve- ments projects during the 1977r78 fiscal year as follows: From the School Construction Fund and coded as follows: 19.19 Physical Education Facilities at Albemarle High School From Revenue Sharing Funds and coded as follows: 47-19.19 Physical Education Facilities at Albemarle High School 47-10J.3 Collection Systems (Container) 47-18A3 Main Library (Post Office Building) 47-18A.4 Administration $ Court Buildings From the General Operating Capital Outlay Fund and coded as follows: 19-10J.4 Resource Recovery System 19-215C Fire Hydrants 19J Airport-Obstruction Removal 19.20A Flood Plain Markers 19Z Juvenile Court 19W.1 Rann Preserve Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. $575,000 500,000 51,600 50,000 600,000 17,000 24,000 7,500 5,500 2,500 70,000 Agenda Item No. 9. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor presented the application of the Psi Chapt~ of Sigma Chi Fraternity, proceeds of games to go to the Martha Jefferson Hospital, and the Wallace Village for children with minimal brain damage in Boulder, Colorado. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the lottery permit for the calendar year 1978 in accordance with the Board's adopted rules. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: MessrS.~ Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 10. Appropriation: County.-.Attorney. Mr. St. John said although he did not know how much it would cost, he wfs~e'd the[Board's per,hiss-ion to order full 'transcripts of the James Fleming proceedings in Federal Court on March 6 and 7, 1978 and March 21, 1978; also the argument before the Fourth District Circuit Court on March 9, 1978, regarding the James Fleming suit. Motion to approve this request was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher read a letter from the law firm of Boyle and Bain, dated March 15, 1978, regarding the Charlottesville Fashion Site Plan, requesting a review by the Board of Supervisors of a decision made by the Planning Commission on March 14, 1978. This decision was relative to Zoning Ordinance Section 17-7-6. Mr. Fisher requested that this be placed on the agenda of March 17 so Dr. Iachetta could participate in the vote. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated February 28, 1978 from Mr. Cald~r Loth, Senior Architectural Historian of the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission. The letter, sent at the request of Mr. Bedford Moore, noted that Shack Mountain is listed on both the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) March 17, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned from March 15, 1978) At 11:~00 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a motion to adjourn this meeting to March 17, 1978 at 1:00 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dottier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. March 17, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned from March 15, 1978) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 17, 1978, beginning at 1:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from March 15, 1978. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iaehetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officer present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:09 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who announced that this was the final work session on the 1978-79 County Budget. Agenda Item No. 2. Education Budget. The meeting began with a statement made by the Chairman of the School Board, Mr. Peter Way. After quite a lengthy discussion about the budgeting process, motion was offered by Mr. Dottier directing that the School Board adopt zero-base budgeting for the 1979-80 fiscal year. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, directing that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the Chairman of the School Board set an appropriate date for a meeting between the two bodies for an informal discussion of joint problems. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 3:05 P.M., the Board recessed and reeonvened at 3:14 P.M. Agenda Item No. 3. Library Budget. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to increase the appropriation for the Library to $285,161 for public hearing purposes. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. VPI/SU Extension Service. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to go to public hearing with the amount recommended by. the County Executive; $48,808. The Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. General District Court. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to add $1,500 to this budget for rent of a xerox machine, thus making the total $8,312. Also adding to the revenue side of the budget under miscellaneous refunds, expected revenues from copies made on this machine or $600. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Set Tax Rate and Order Advertisement of Budget. Mr. Agnor noted that the Board had increased the total expenditures in the budget by $30,109 since the budget sessions had started. This increase can be accommodated in two ways; add $10,109 to the revenue side unde~ refunds, Code 90-911; and add $20,000 to the carry-over balance to balance the budget. Motion to this effect was offered~by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None.