1995-06-28 adj000].02
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 28, 1995, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was ad-
journed from June 21, 1995.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M., by the
Chairman, Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. Chris Halstead said he represents the Montessori Community School.
He said he had sent a letter to Mr. Martin. He then presented the same letter
to the Board members for their perusal. The letter, in short, says that the
school is currently in the site plan amendment process with the County
Planning Department and is in the preparation stage of placing a modular
classroom on the site for the fall session. This zoning is incorrect, and a
special use permit is needed for private school use. Additionally, a 1982
action (ZMA-82-3) for Dennis Ownby and Charles Kincannon limited expansion due
to entrance deficiencies. This needs to be rescinded now that Route 250 has
been reconstructed.
Mrs. Humphris asked if staff had seen the letter. Mr. Cilimberg said
staff is aware of the issue. Mrs. Humphris then asked if it would be possible
to accelerate the public hearing process. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes". Mr.
Tucker suggested that, with the Board's approval, this matter be heard on
August 2, 1995, after the Planning Commission meeting on August 1, 1995.
Mr. Martin said after talking to Mr. Halstead and staff, he has no
objection to the Board accelerating the public hearing process for these peti-
tions.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to autho-
rize staff to advertise the request for the Montessori Community School for
August 2, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.2.d on the Consent
Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Item 5.1. Authorize Chairman to sign service agreement with Crozet
Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., advancing $95,000 to purchase a new pumper.
It was noted that several years ago, Albemarle County established a revolving
fund to be used by the volunteer fire and rescue companies. The current
amount available for loan is $101,838.63. Crozet Volunteer Fire Department
has requested, through the Jefferson Country Fire Rescue Association, an
advance of $95,000 to be used for the final payment on a new pumper truck.
The down-payment for the truck was made with money received from the Service
Agreement dated April 12, 1995. This advance will be paid upon request after
the execution of this agreement. Repayment of the new loan will be over an
eight-year period beginning in FY 1995-96. JCFRA recommends approval.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Chairman was authorized to
execute the following Service Agreement.
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 28th day of June, 1995, by
and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and
the CROZET VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC. ("Crozet");
W I TNE S S E TH
Background: (A) The County previously has entered into a
service agreement with Crozet, dated April 12, 1995, providing for
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
000 03
the withholding of c~Ft~in ~d~ ~ch year by the County from the
County's annual grant to Crozet, as set forth in said agreement, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
(B) As a result of said agreement, the outstanding indebt-
edness now totals Three Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Six Hundred
Dollars ($343,600.00); and
(C) Crozet now desires to receive from the County an
additional Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($95,000.00) to be used
for the final payment on the new pumper. The down payment for the
new pumper was made with the money received from the service
agreement dated April 12, 1995; and
(D) Crozet also desires to enter into an agreement consoli-
dating its annual withholdings of payment .by theCounty;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by
Crozet of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and
protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during
the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to Crozet Ninety-
Five Thousand Dollars ($95,000.00), which payment shall be made
from the fire fund to be paid after execution of this agreement.
The sum of Forty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars
($42,950.00) shall be withheld from the County's annual grant to
Crozet for a period of eight (8) years beginning with fiscal year
1995-96 and ending in fiscal year 2002-03. Thus, at the end of
the eighth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a
total of Three Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars
($343,600.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consoli-
dates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of the
prior service agreements with Crozet dated February 22, 1985, June
11, 1986, May 11, 1990, and April 12, 1995.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, Crozet is
no longer in the business of providing fire-fighting services or
the pumper is no longer used for fire-fighting purposes, Crozet
covenants that it will convey its interest in the pumper to the
County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its
assigns will use the pumper for fire-fighting purposes. Crozet
further covenants that it shall not convey the pumper or any
interest therein to any party other than the County without the
County's prior written consent during the term of this agreement.
A copy of the title to the pumper shall be delivered to the County
within sixty (60) days of the purchase of the new pumper. All
covenants set forth in prior agreements not in conflict with this
agreement remain in full force and effect.
Item 5.2a. Appropriation: Summer School Program and National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics Grant - $7,414.08, (Form #940070).
It was noted that the Program had a Fund Balance of $5415.24 at the end
of the 1993-94 fiscal year, and that balance needs to be reappropriated. The
funds will be used to defray costs associated with the Summer School Program.
Also needed is an appropriation of $1998.84 for a grant received from
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) for Woodbrook Elementa-
ry School. The grant "Implementing the NCTM Standards in your Classroom" is
designed to kindle interest in the NCTM Standards, provide information and
encourage involvement with parents and students in grades K-3.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was approved:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940070
FUND: SUMMER SCHOOL/GRANTS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR SUMMER SCHOOL PROGP~kM A/qD
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1331061120601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES
1331061125601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES
1310460212601300 INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$1,981.65
3,433.59
1,998.84
$7,414.08
REVENUE
2331051000510100
2310418120181210
DESCRIPTION
FUAID BALANCE
MATHEMATICS GRAi~T
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$5,415.24
1,998.84
$7,414.08
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
000:1.04
Item 5.2b. Circuit Co~ ~ ~gJl0, (Form #940071). It was noted that
during the current fiscal year, the position of Legal Services Assistant in
the Circuit Court Office was reclassified from a Grade 19 to a Grade 21.
Since sufficient funds to cover the reclassification were not budgeted in the
original budget last June, this additional appropriation is needed to avoid a
shortfall at the end of the fiscal year. Additionally, the currDnt employee
is retiring at the end of this month and Judge Peatross requested that he be
allowed to hire Mrs. Easton's replacement beginning June 1, 1995, in order to
adequately train the replacement during the transition in this one-person
office.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was approved:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940071
FI/ND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CIRCUIT COURT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1100021010110000 SALARIES-REGULJ~R
1100021010160900 SALARY RESERVE-BONI3S
1100021010210000 FICA
1100021010221000 VRS
1100095000999990 BOARD CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$4,8o0.oo
110.00
380.00
420.00
(5,710.00)
$0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL $0.00
Item 5.2c. CFW, Inc., Royalty Payment - $5541, (Form ~940072). It was
noted that on September 9, 1991, an agreement was entered into between
Albemarle County Schools and Charlottesville Quality Cable (now CFW Cable,
Inc.) for the lease of excess capacity on our Instructional Television Fixed
Service (ITFS) licenses. This agreement stipulated that in consideration of
the air time provided by Albemarle County Schools, CFW Cable would pay a
hourly royalty equal to $1.20 for each subscriber who received programming
transmitted over the schools licensed frequency by CFW's wireless cable
service. As a result of this agreement, CFW Cable has forwarded the first
royalty payment in the amount of $5541.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was approved:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95
NUMBER: 940072
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND CFW, INC
ROYALTY PAYMENT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1241062120800100 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT-NEW
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$5,541.00
$5,541.00
REVENUE
2200015000150510
DESCRIPTION
CFW ROYALTY PAYMENT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$5,541 . 00
$5,541.00
Item 5.2d. Educational Technology Grant $583,127, (Form ~950001). It
was noted that the appropriation of $583,127 from the Department of Education
for the purchase of educational technology equipment is needed. The General
Assembly approved funding from the Literary Fund for these purchases. The
funds are allocated for the purpose of school networking and elementary school
library media center technology improvements. This grant will provide for the
completion of computer networks in all schools and for media center improve-
ments related to technology enhancements. These funds will be coordinated
with other Capital Improvement Program (CIP) technology funds, and the WAN
System to provide overall integrated services. This funding will be provided
on a grant basis for FY 1995-96 with a required 20 percent local match which
will be provided by funds already allocated to CIP technology expenditures.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro-
priation was approved:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95001
FUND: SCHOOL CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: STATE FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meetlng)
(Page 4)
O00 t05
E~TIONAL TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900061101800703 MEDIA CENTER/LIBRARY COMPUTERIZATION $353,127.00
1900061101800704 SCHOOL NETWORKING 230,000.00
TOTAL $583,127.00
REVENUE
2900024000240265
DESCRIPTION
EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY GRANT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$583,127.00
$583,127.00
Item 5.3. Copy of letter dated June 15, 1995, from Mr. C. Richard
Cranwell, Cranwell & Moore, to Mr. W. Clyde Gouldman, II, City Attorney, and
copy of letter dated June 20~ 1995, from Mr. W. Clyde Gouldman, II, City
Attorney, to Mr. C. Richard Cranwell, Cranwell & Moore, re: town reversion.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned that both letters related to town reversion. She
said in the final paragraph of the letter written to the County by the City
Attorney it says that "there is currently no proposed date to suggest for a
joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and City Council because all of the
preparatory work necessary for such a meeting has not been done". She asked
what work needs to be done. She feels strongly that a public meeting is
necessary with the City because this is a unique situation where City resi-
dents have the capability to set in motion a reversion process which will
require an immediate response from the County. This will also be the subject
of litigation. It is difficult for the Board to have the exchange of informa-
tion necessary without this meeting.
Mr. Martin said he thinks it is important for the public to understand
that when the City and/or County plans something, either the City Council or
the Board has to implement it. However, this is a situation where the
citizens can move forward with town reversion without the consent of City
Council or the Board. The citizens are already getting petitions together and
this highlights the need for City Council and the Board to meet.
Mrs. Humphris said it is important for citizens to understand the conse-
quences of what is being set in motion. This has huge consequences for both
the City and the County. As far as she knows, there has not been any informa-
tion provided to citizens about the consequences of this move to town rever-
sion which could be set in motion by signing the citizen petitions.
Mr. Tucker said counsel is supposed to meet, possibly this week, on this
issue and develop a response to Mr. Gouldman's letter.
Mrs. Humphris asked what the implications are regarding the preparatory
work necessary for such a meeting. Mr. Tucker said he did not know and that
City staff is preparing various documents for review, but he has not seen
anything.
Mr. Martin said this could have a significant impact on the County and
City. He cannot imagine something like this happening without it ever having
been discussed. Mrs. Humphris said it is the most significant thing that has
happened in the 250 years that Albemarle has been a County. Mr. Tucker said
he is not sure the public has been notified that the County has retained Mr.
Cranwell to work on the reversion issue. Citizens in the City have started
this ball rolling for reversion through petitions which can be filed with the
court. The filing of the petitions will begin the process whether City
Council agrees or not. By the citizens filing for town status, it places the
County in a position of having to defend itself.
Mrs. Humphris said City citizens have been led to believe that their
taxes will be less with the County assuming much of the tax burden. Economies
of scale do not exist when providing services to people. She said, in fact,
everyone may be paying higher taxes.
Item 5.4. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority's operating budget
for fiscal year beginning July 1, 1995, received for information.
Item 5.5. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for April 20, 1995, received for information.
Item 5.6. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for May 23, June 6 and
June 13, 1995, were received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Appeal: SDP-94-067. Virginia Oil Minor Site Plan
Amendment. Proposal to locate a ±1150 sq ft car wash bldg on approx 1.25 ac
znd PD-MC & EC. Property on SE corner of Rolkin Court and Rt 250 E inters.
TM78,P73A. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from June 7, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant (Virginia Oil) is proposing to locate a
new, third entrance onto Rolkin Court (a 50 foot private road currently ending
in a cul-de-sac presently being used as access for a gas station on Pantops
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
000106
Mountain). Both the County EngiH~ and the Planning Commission's Agent have
reviewed this new entrance and are of the opinion that a third entrance will
not provide safe and convenient access for the following reasons:
The site is currently served by two oversiZed entrances off
of Rolkin Court (each is in excess of 30 feet in width).
Staff feels that by placing another entrance on Rolkin
Court, the applicant is moving on-site circulation problems
onto the Rolkin Court which is a private road.
The new entrance eliminates direct access to the rest of the
site. In order to reenter the existing developed area, a
driver must enter onto Rolkin Court and then reenter the
site.
3 o
Rolkin Court may become part of a system of internal roads
in this area. The Virginia Department of Transportation has
met with representatives of the South Pantops development to
discuss construction of an internal network of roads which
includes extending Rolkin Court. It is not desirable to
introduce one more access to Rolkin Court for this individ-
ual property.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff has discussed the possibility of three alterna-
tive designs:
Delete the new entrance and divert access through the exist-
ing parking area located on the western side of the existing
building. Staff opinion is that additional parking may be
provided on the revised access lane. This revised design
would reduce the current potential of vehicles backing into
vehicles entering the site in the southern entrance.
Redesign the new entrance for exit only. Provide an en-
trance to the vacuum lane from the existing development.
Provide a median in the middle of Rolkin Court. This alter-
native may require relocation of items such as the dumpsters
and will require a modification by the Planning Commission
in order to allow one-way egress.
Redesign the existing egress so as to eliminate one entrance
and allow the new entrance. This alternative allows only
one point of access for vehicles entering the existing
development and one exit point for vehicles being washed.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff could not support the circulation pattern as
presented by the applicant, and recommended denial of SDP-94-067. The
Commission, at its meeting on May 2, 1995, by a vote of 4/2 also recommended
denial because it wishes to minimize the number of entrances on Rolkin Court
(This was based on concerns about both on-site and off-site circulation. The
Commission also preferred Concept No. 3 presented at that meeting by staff.).
Mr. Perkins asked the applicant for his comments.
Mr. Frayser White said he represents the Virginia Oil Company. He said
his company has focused on convenience stores and gasoline stations for over
25 years and that it is their only business. The Virginia Oil Company has 13
locations in Charlottesville and in the surrounding counties. The Rolkin
Court location has the best circulation of traffic of any of their other loca-
tions. The Planning Commission's concept (only one entrance) is not going to
work. There will be three lanes of gas pumps, and people who are coming into
the entrance going to the furthest gas pumps, and people exiting, will have a
conflict due to the tight turn onto Rolkin Court.
Mr. White said Rolkin Court serves three lots, and the road has been
restricted by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to 4000 vehicle
trips per day. Mr. Cilimberg said there is an agreement between the property
owner and VDOT for 4000 vehicle trips for this intersection. The County is
not a party to that agreement. Mr. White said there are already 3500 of the
4000 vehicle trips in use. The restriction on the other two lots is an
additional 500 cars per day. The car wash will take eight to ten minutes per
car wash. Cars exiting the car wash will be approximately one car per eight
minutes. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the property owner is currently discussing
with VDOT the possibility of providing relief for further development of the
property and for a possible extension of Rolkin Court. This has not been
resolved at this time.
Mr. White and Mr. Cilimberg referred to a map and explained to the Board
where Virginia Oil Company's property is located compared to the three
surrounding properties. Mrs. Thomas asked if the 4000 vehicle limit is due to
there not being any control as traffic enters onto Route 250.
Mr. Cilimberg introduced Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, and said that
she could better explain this. Ms. Higgins said the 4000 vehicle limit is for
the crossover on Route 250 and not technically for the intersection. The
agreement was imposed so that at a time when the traffic generated by Rolkin
Court exceeded 4000 vehicles per day, two choices would be made: (1) close
the crossover, or (2) upgrade the intersection. At the time the vehicle limit
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
000107
was imposed, it was a method 0f ~ih~ the developer pay for the expense of
upgrading versus having VDOT bear the spot improvement expenses. The develop-
er contends that he always intended for this to happen and constructed a cul-
de-sac on the road for the interim. At this time, there is not a plan in
place nor is there approval of a road plan. However, if the land as zoned is
used for its highest potential, the use will already exceed the 4000 vehicle
trips per day with the Virginia Oil Company property generating 3500 vehicle
trips. If the crossover is closed, this would not be an issue. At this
point, traffic studies indicate that Rolkin Court may be extended further into
the property.
Mr. Martin said there is little difference between what Virginia Oil
Company is requesting and what staff has recommended in Concept Three. If
there is a limit imposed, such as 4000 vehicle trips per day, Concept Three
can be used. He thinks a compromise should be discussed with Virginia Oil
Company, and there should be a plan in place so if they proffer or they agree
to Concept Three, it can be used if the 4000 vehicle trips per day increases.
The agreement would then have to be renegotiated and, if needed, appear before
the Board again. Mr. Cilimberg said they could bring this plan back to the
Planning Commission or the Board.
Mr. Martin asked if there is a way to set something in place. Mr.
Cilimberg said this issue was discussed with the County Attorney and nothing
has been settled. Mr. Davis said there is not a way to require this as a
condition of the site plan approval process. The developer may choose to
enter into an agreement with VDOT or with the adjoining property owners to
have this situation happen when the adjoining property owners develop their
property. Apparently, this is not something the adjoining property owners are
interested in at this point.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. White if Virginia Oil Company is interested in this
type of compromise. Mr. White said "no". Mr. Martin then asked Mr. White if
Virginia Oil Company is taking the stance that either they get what they want
or they do not want anything. Mr. White said that all of the Planning
Commission's concepts would change things so that the existing business and
the existing traffic flow would not work well. Their main business as a
convenience store and a gasoline station would suffer, and the car wash would
not make up the difference. Mr. Martin asked if Concept Three drastically
changes the plan so that having the car wash is not financially feasible. Mr.
White said there would be a major conflict with delivery trucks trying to exit
onto Rolkin Court with cars coming in the same way. If it is not convenient,
people will not stop to shop and the whole scheme is not worthwhile.
Mrs. Thomas said about a month ago, she sat in her car in the cul-de-sac
watching the traffic flow at this location. She said about half of the cars
entered through the exit and other cars coming onto the cul-de-sac were
uncertain as to where they were supposed to enter. There was a car accident
as cars were leaving and going onto Route 250. She thinks this accident could
have been avoided if there had been a longer distance between the exit and the
entrance. She believes that Concept Three will work from what she saw that
day. The present traffic pattern is not causing major problems on the cul-de-
sac, other than when large trucks are entering and leaving. The traffic
problems seem to be on Rolkin Court away from this proposed area. Mrs. Thomas
said she agrees with Mr. Martin that when traffic becomes heavier, or if the
road is extended, Concept Three can be implemented.
Mr. Martin said he sympathizes with Mr. White. One car every eight
minutes is not going to create much of a problem in the cul-de-sac. He hates
the idea of holding Mr. White hostage as to what might happen in the future.
He is willing to try and work out an agreeable compromise and if there are
future problems, then this issue can be revisited. Mr. White asked how to
define future problems. Mr. Martin said VDOT usually determines what creates
a problem on a highway through engineering studies. Mrs. Thomas said the
Board can add a condition to the site plan approval.
Mr. Martin said he does not believe the Board can define the problem,
but the Board can say it can be a standard that will be reviewed. Mr. Martin
asked Mr. White if he is willing to work with the Board on this issue. Mr.
White said he would look at anything presented. He said he could not give an
answer tonight without knowing what he is agreeing to. Mr. Martin asked Mr.
White if he thought staff was trying to resolve these problems. Mr. White
responded "yes", but VDOT, at the last minute, changed its mind. Mr.
Cilimberg said the final VDOT decision was based on the possibility of an
entrance and/or exit onto Route 250, and VDOT decided that it did not want to
do this. The type of agreement that Mr. Davis mentioned has not been dis-
cussed. Mr. Martin asked Mr. White again if he is interested in working with
the Planning Department, the County Attorney's office, VDOT and the County
Engineering Department in resolving these issues. Mr. White replied "yes".
Ms. Higgins said if the three entrances were in place and the County
supported the road going from private to public, then VDOT would not close an
entrance. However, because it is a private road and the County is deciding
whether it is a road VDOT will consider as a public use, there may be a chance
to approve it as a private road showing where the new entrances will be. The
one closest to Route 250 will not be approved as part of the new proposal.
This might allow for an opportunity to have the developer who is responsible
for the road, to bear the expense of any upgrade in the same way that VDOT has
done with the 4000 vehicle trip per day limit for the crossover. If this
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
000:1.08
agreement can be worked out with the developer, she thinks the County can
coordinate this effort. She then asked Mr. Davis if this would be feasible.
Mr. Davis said the obstacle appears to be trying to work out an agree-
ment that is acceptable to everyone, since Mr. White considers this as a
business decision, and does not want the one entrance closed. Unless the
entrance is closed, the improvements cannot be made. It will not be any less
painful for Virginia Oil Company to do this in the future than it is to do it
now.
Mr. White said if Rolkin Cou~t is extended, he assumes it will be a
divided street and the traffic flow of the area will change. It would be
natural to make a change at that time. Ms. Higgins said by having the
developer bear the financial expense, it might make it more palpable. Mr.
White needs to consider that closing the crossover might have more of an
impact on Virginia Oil Company than the whole entrance discussion. There
might be a way to do this with the cooperation of the developer who also wants
the road extended especially if the crossover is closed.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Cilimberg why there could not be an exit on the
other side of the property leading to Route 250. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT's
response is that it wants the traffic flow internalized. Mr. Martin said he
does not want to lock Virginia Oil Company into Concept Three but he wants
them to come back before the Board to discuss not only Concept Three, but
other concepts as well. Mrs. Humphris said Virginia Oil Company has said it
is not feasible to have the car wash business if Concept Three is implemented.
Mr. Martin said "yes". Mr. White has also said he is still interested in
reviewing alternatives. Mr. White said at the time the road is extended much
of what happens will be outside of his control. However, he is willing to
work on these issues.
With the applicant's consent, motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded
by Mrs. Thomas, to defer this item until July 19, 1995, in order to work out
an agreeable compromise.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-95-02. H & H Partnership. Public Hearing on a
request to rezone approx 1.88 acs from R-2 to HC. Property in SW corner of Rt
631/I-64 inters. TM76,P55B. Site recommended for Community Service in
Neighborhood 5 in Comprehensive Plan. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 14 and June 20, 1995.)
Mr. Perkins asked if there were people in the audience who wanted to
speak regarding ZMA-95-02 and ZMA-95-03. The applicant has requested deferral
of these requests until Mr. Marshall returns since the property is located in
Mr. Marshall's district. No one from the audience came forth to speak.
Note: Mr. Lou Kramer, audience member, made a comment as he left the
room about SDP-94-067, the Virginia Oil Company. He asked the Board to think
"about 3500 cars per day coming into your front yard".
At the applicant's request, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded
by Mrs. Thomas, to defer ZMA-95-02 to July 12, 1995. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-95-03. H & H Partnership. Public Hearing on a
request to rezone approx 2.163 acs from R-2 to HC. Property in SW corner of
Rt 631/I-64 inters. TM76,P55D. Site recommended for Community Service in
Neighborhood 5 in Comprehensive Plan. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 14 and June 20, 1995.)
At the applicant's request, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded
by Mrs. Thomas, to defer ZMA-95-03 to July 12, 1995. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-95-02. University Real Estate Foundation
(UREF). Public Hearing on a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance in Sections
29.2.5 and 29.2.6 to create a Category III with by-right & special use permit
uses in the Planned Development-Industrial Park (PD-IP) category. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on June 14 and June 20, 1995.)
OO0109
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Cilimberg said the 1989'Comprehensive plan introduced six "service
area" designations in place of more traditional office, commercial and
industrial land use designations. Zoning Ordinance amendments were necessary
to accommodate these new designations when the need to maintain conventional
office, commercial and industrial zoning designations for small-scale and
individual uses was recognized. The Zoning Ordinance already contained 23
conventional, planned development and overlay zoning districts, so instead of
developing additional zoning districts to accommodate the service area
designations, Section 9.0, Guidelines for Comprehensive Plan Service Areas,
was introduced into the Zoning Ordinance together with amendments to various
existing zoning districts. This action enabled the establishment of service
areas by employing combinations of existing zoning districts under either a
planned development or a proffered rezoning petition.
The Comprehensive Plan was amended (CPA-94-1) to expand the Hollymead
Community to incorporate all-land for the UREF North Fork Business Park. The
textual amendment describes the area as "industrial/office." This description
is viewed as a hybrid or combination of the industrial service areas and
office service areas described in the Comprehensive Plan. The most appropri-
ate single zoning designation to accommodate the Comprehensive Plan combina-
tion designation is the Planned Development-Industrial Park, however, the PD-
IP does not provide for all proposed uses.
Initially, the applicant proposed creation of a third use category
(Category III) within the PD-IP district. After a work session with the
Zoning Administrator and Planning staff, it was determined that Category I
(i.e., Light Industry uses) with the addition of "hotel/conference center"
would satisfactorily avail the uses desired by UREF for the North Fork
Business Park.
Mr. Cilimberg said provision is made in the Zoning Ordinance for
"hotels, motels, inns" in appropriate zoning districts to accommodate Office
Service Areas as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The PD-IP is the most
comprehensive zoning district to embrace the variety of uses required to
implement the combination "Industrial/Office" land use designation recommended
for North Fork by the Comprehensive Plan. In order to achieve varied uses to
enact this designation through ordinance, "hotels, motels, inns" should be
introduced into the PD-IP. The public purpose to be served would be to
implement the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. As a provision by
special use permit, the County could exercise control of location and other
considerations within the planned development or disapprove the use if special
use permit criteria cannot be satisfactorily satisfied.
Staff recommended the following amendment to the PD-IP district:
29.2.2
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY I
dictrict; prcvi~c~ ~ ........ ~ app!icaticn ~"~ ~^
The followinq uses shall be permitted only by special use
permit provided that no separate application shall be re-
quired for any use included on the approved application
plan:
Uses permitted by special use permit in the LI, Liqht
Industry district;
2~ Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9.0).
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 23,
1995, by a vote of 4/1, recommended approval of this zoning text amendment as
recommended by staff.
Mr. Bowerman asked if UREF had suggested any supplemental regulations to
go along with this category. Mr. Cilimberg said there was a suggestion as to
the minimum or maximum size. There was also discussion as to when this type
of development could occur in relation to the overall development. The
Commission felt these amendments could be incorporated into the PD-IP Applica-
tion. The special use permit can be considered by itself or as part of the
total PD-IP application process. Phasing can be addressed in the PD-IP
application plan. There was concern expressed by the Commission that if
phasing is not presented in an appropriate manner, a hotel, motel, or inn
could be the first thing developed in an industrial park and may not appear to
be a supporting use. However, the Board has an opportunity under the PD-IP
review process to deny such a request if the Board feels that phasing is not
being done appropriately.
Mrs. Thomas said she hates to see something in the ordinance that would
mislead a landowner into thinking that he/she could build a hotel first or
that the hotel can dominate the use in one of these service areas. She asked
if there is a way to word the amendment so that the hotel is subordinate or
supportive use. Mr. Davis said the Commission discussed this and the question
seemed to be whether or not the Board would be prepared to say when this hotel
should be built. The Board and the Commission have ultimate control because
it is a special permit use request. If the special use circumstances are not
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
appropriate, then it can be denied. If it is.the intent of the Board that
these hotels always be primarily subservient to the development itself,
wording can be done to that effect. However, he is not sure this is the
intent staff envisioned in every instance. In the UREF application, he thinks
it is clear what is expected. In future developments where this ordinance may
apply, it may not be the case.
Mrs. Humphris said she agrees with Mrs. Thomas. She is intrigued that
this was not followed through in the Commission's discussion because it is
such a valid point. Based on past history, she feels the County will have an
unfortunate experience with this amendment in the future. The intent needs to
be made clear now, not later. Mrs. Thomas said unlike some levels of govern-
ment, legislative intent is not something that is attached to ordinances.
Past boards of supervisors have made different rulings on this particular
site. The name, description and type of use ought to be considered rather
than having it become a hotel.zone that also happens to have a small industry
on the site.
Mr. Martin said he is not sure whether to agree or disagree with this
idea. The staff and the Commission minutes make a good argument that the
Board will have control regarding this process. Mr. Cilimberg said hotel,
motel conference use is referenced under "Establishment of Secondary uses" in
Section 9.0 of the ordinance. Subsection 9.4.2(d) also relates to motel,
hotel conference use. It reads: "The applicant shall demonstrate such use is
intended to be complementary of and subordinate to primary uses in terms of
scale contractual agreements with primary uses, or otherwise." Mr. Bowerman
said this language makes it clear as to intent. Mrs. Thomas agreed with Mr.
Cilimberg and Mr. Bowerman.
With no further comments being made by the Board, Mr. Perkins opened the
public hearing at 8:03 p.m.
Mr. Dean Cinkala said he represents UREF. He said a request will be
made that a special use permit be granted for a hotel. At the Planning
Commission level, a question was asked as to why the hotel should be located
in a research park. The special use permit would support the primary use in
the park which is the research and development business. A hotel would not be
developed within the first 500,000 to 1.0 million square feet, and the hotel
would be one of the last uses developed in the park. However, one company, on
its own, could generate 1000 night stays per year, and that could justify the
ordinance regarding the need for a hotel. The hotel is only an amenity to the
research and development park. The research park will remain the same as it
was presented during the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
With no one else coming forth, the public hearing was closed at 8:05
p.m.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt ~An
Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 20, Zoning, Article III, District
Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending
Section 29.2.2, By Special Use Permit - Category I, and changing the reference
at the end of 29.2.2.2 to 9.4.2 instead of 9.0.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE NO. 95-20 (2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE
III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albe-
marle County, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article III,
District Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained by amending
section 29.2.2, By Special Use Permit, Category I, as follows:
29.0
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL PARK - PD-IP
29.2 PERMITTED USES
29.2.2
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CATEGORY I
The following uses shall be permitted only by special
use permit provided that no separate application shall
be required for any use included on the approved
application plan;
Uses permitted by special use permit in the LI
Light Industry district;
2. Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9.4.2).
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-95-06. Robert Couch, Jr. Public Hearing on a
request to permit expansion of existing antique shop & outdoor display of
merchandise on approx 1.2 ac zoned RA & EC located on N sd of Rt 250E approx
0.5 mi E of entrance to Glenmore dvlp. TM79A1,Sec C,P'sl0&ll. Rivanna Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 14 and June 20, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said
the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 6, 1995, unanimously recom-
mended approval subject to four conditions.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the statement in the staff report that reads:
"Staff will not support parking expansion closer to the roadway than currently
exists for general purposes of safe and-convenient access~and circulation."
Mr. Cilimberg said this would be handled through the site plan review submit-
tal. Mrs. Humphris asked if this should be a condition of approval. Mr.
Cilimberg said "no". This condition can be added if it makes it easier to
understand. Staff approval of the sketch plan drawn to a scale of one-inch to
20 feet includes, but is not limited to: (a) area for back-up drainfield as
approved by the Virginia Department of Health; (b) paving of an entrance
from U.S. Route 250 to a parking area and upgrading the entrance to current
Virginia Department of Transportation geometric standards. This can also
include an item (c) that says, "parking no closer than currently exists."
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks this should be considered as a condition. Mr.
Cilimberg said he believes that Mr. Couch will support this condition.
Mrs. Humphris then asked about the left turn lane and the fact that no
one else has had to have one. The Commission did not follow up on the
statement that VDOT can be requested to develop interim policies to address
traffic issues. She asked if this situation can be used to ask VDOT to do a
study like the one done for Route 29 North. Mr. Cilimberg said in the primary
road requests, a request was made for a Route 250 East functional study. That
is the place where this can be addressed.
With no further comments being made by the Board, the public hearing was
opened at 8:13 p.m.
Mr. Robert Couch, applicant, said he has received favorable comments
this past year on the changes he has made inside and outside of the building.
He wants to make this project an asset to the County.
With no one else coming forth to speak, the public hearing was closed at
8:14 p.m.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
SP-95-06 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission
plus Condition 4c, which states: "No parking expansion shall occur closer to
U. S. Route 250 than currently exists."
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall.
(Note: The conditions of approval read as follows.)
Approval is for an expansion not to exceed: a second story to the
existing building the floor area of which shall not exceed the
floor area of the existing building; and a storage building not to
exceed 1664 square feet in total floor space;
2 o
Either the storage building or second floor expansions as de-
scribed in #1 above shall comply with the provisions of Section
31.2.4.4 or this approval shall be deemed null and void;
3 o
Upon satisfaction of ~2, above, the applicant shall have not more
than five years from date of approval of this petition to complete
construction of all expansion granted herein;
Staff approval of sketch plan drawn to scale of 1" = 20' including
but not limited to:
Area for backup drainfield as approved by the virginia
Department of Health;
Paving of entrance from U. S. Route 250 to parking area and
upgrading entrance to current Virginia Department of Trans-
portation geometric standards;
No parking expansion shall occur closer to U. S. Route 250
than currently exists.
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
000 . 2
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-95-07. Institute of Textile Technology. Public
Hearing on a request for school of special instruction on approx 12.5 ac zoned
CO & EC located on Rt 250W. Property is site of ITT. TM60,P28. Samuel
Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 14 and June 20, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said
the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 23, 1995, unanimously
recommended approval subject to one condition.
With no comments being made by the Board, Mr. Perkins opened the public
hearing at 8:18 p.m.
With no one coming forth to speak, Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing
at 8:18 p.m.
Mr. Martin asked the applicant what type of classes are taught at the
Institute of Textile Technology. The applicant, Mr. Michael Waroblak, said
the students who attend the Institute go there to obtain a Master's Degree in
Textile Technology. Students are then employed all over the southeast and are
employed with 37 textile companies. There is a 100 percent employment rate.
Mrs. Thomas said the Institute has been called the best kept secret in
the community. Mrs. Humphris said the Institute is a fascinating place to
visit. She said it would be good if the Institute advertised more so that
people can learn more about the industry and how important it is to the local
economy.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
SP-95-07 as recommended by the Planning Commission subject to one condition.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(Note: The condition of approval reads as follows.)
1. Enrollment is limited to 40 students.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-95-12. Keswick Corporation & Laura Yergan.
Public Hearing on a request for division of land as provided in Sec 10.5 to
allow 30 more lots than the total number permitted under Sec 10.3.1 and Sec
10.3.2 on approx 535 acs zoned RA & EC Overlay Dist. Development shall be in
accord with proposal plan. Property is location of the Keswick Country Club
development. TM80,Ps8,8C,8C1,8D2,8D3,8D4,8J,8Z,21A,27,29,31,41,41A,43,60,
60A,61,61A1,62,69,70,70A, 90,93,94,95,96,97,98,100,lO6,109A & TM94,P42A.
Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 14 and June 20,
1995.)
Mr. Bowerman advises that he will not participate in the discussion and
and leaves the room at 8:21 p.m. He indicated that Kewswick is a present and
future customer of his business.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said
the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 6, 1995, by a vote of 4-2,
recommended denial of SP-95-12, Keswick Corporation and Laura Yergan.
Unfavorable factors relating to this request are: (1) The applicant has not
demonstrated that the proposed lots are self-supporting with on-site septic
drainfields; (2) The scale of development is of a Village Growth Area scale
rather than a Rural Area Scale in an area within close proximity of the
Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District; (3) Considering the inconsistency
of this proposal with the Comprehensive Plan, this proposal has not been
considered within the context of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and
(4) The proposal could not be made as a Rural Preservation Development (RPD),
the desirable alternative subdivision approach for the Rural Area.
Mrs. Humphris asked how many lots were originally approved in the 1992
approval. Mr. Cilimberg said 75 lots were approved.
Mrs. Thomas asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain unfavorable point number four
which says "the proposal could not be made as a Rural Preservation Development
(RPD)." Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant tried to develop a lay-out that
would meet the stated criteria and purposes for RPD which includes water
resource protection, historic and scenic natural resource protection or
agricultural and forestal protection. This criteria is what the County tries
to achieve in obtaining RPD proposals as well as allowing for the large
residue tract which is called the Rural Preservation Tract (RPT) . The Keswick
Corporation was not able to meet the criteria. Mrs. Thomas asked if the
Keswick Corporation has open space or if there are other restrictions. Mr.
Cilimberg said the relationship of the developed area to the statement of
purpose for the RPD did not meet the relationship of lots to water courses
such as lakes. Ideally in the RPD, lots are to be concentrated away from
water courses.
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
000:1.13
With no further comments being made by the Board, Mr. Perkins opened the
public hearing at 8:31 p.m.
Mr. Pete Bradshaw said he is the Director of Real Estate Development for
the Keswick Corporation and Ms. Laura Yergan (present) is the co-applicant.
He said the road system that Keswick proposes will eliminate 5400 linear feet
of road as opposed to the last approved plan. Also associated with this road
will be a water and a sewer system. During the 1993 plan approval, and again
before the Board tonight, are the land parcels which are relative to a Keswick
service area. In 1993, the Board was notified that Keswick was in the process
of negotiating with several landowners for those parcels which would be added
to the Keswick Estate at sometime in the future. Since the last approval in
1993, Keswick has acquired a total of six parcels, five of which are included
in this application. The five parcels have seven development rights. Based
on the discussions that Keswick had during this review, Keswick initially
thought that the application would be a minor amendment to SP-92-58, but it
turned out to be a major change. The RPD conformance criteria set forth in
the Zoning Ordinance proved to be difficult to accomplish. There are three
alternatives that can be used to accomplish this proposal: (1) through a RPD;
(2) through the Zoning Ordinance, Section 10.5.2.1, which allows for more
development than can be achieved by-right on a given parcel. This is what
Keswick did in 1993, under the same identical provision in the Zoning Ordi-
nance which has not changed since that time; or (3) through an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bradshaw said Keswick has not pursued an amendment to the Compre-
hensive Plan because historically the community has not been in favor of a
change and Keswick is supportive of this sensitivity. Keswick chose the
second alternative which focuses on the Zoning Ordinance Section 10.5.2.1
because Keswick meets the criteria. As stated in the staff's report, criteria
one through four relate to whether or not the land in question has significant
agricultural and forestat potential. The soil in the area around Keswick to
the east of Routes 231 and 22, is very poor and has a shallow depth to
bedrock. Another criteria is whether the area is in a developed rural area.
Keswick has conducted a study which indicated that approximately 80 percent of
the land within one mile is in parcels of five acres or less. Roudabush and
Gale also conducted a study a few years ago that indicated 86 percent of the
parcels were in five acres or less. The proposal, as it is written, does not
negatively impact the County's capital improvements program. He believes
there has been a significant economic benefit to the County brought about by
the presence of the Keswick Estate. The project plan does not necessitate a
need for additional road improvements in the area and this supports the
opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Mr. Bradshaw said with regard to the septic issue and proving that there
is a septic field site and a back-up site on each lot, Keswick has never tried
to do this. Keswick recognized that the soil was not suited to septic drain
fields. A special use permit has been in effect since 1985 for the construc-
tion of a sewage treatment plant and a central well system at Keswick. This
is the most environmentally sensitive manner to deal with the sewage treatment
situation at Keswick.
Mr. Bradshaw said the Comprehensive Plan issues seem to be the stumbling
block as noted in the staff's report. As for the septic issue, it has already
been explained. There was an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in 1989,
during the Glenmore review, that said "this property is designated as a Rural
Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The nearest Growth Area is the Rivanna
Village on the south side of Route 250 East." Keswick is not asking for this
type of expansion, but feels strongly that significant resources have been
expended in protecting the area north of 1-64. Keswick Hall is a prime
example. It was restored to its original grandeur at the double per square
foot cost of demolishing the structure and building it again. The area will
be further protected by the establishment of 127 acres of open space along
Routes 744 and 1-64. There are no agricultural/forestal activities located in
this area. What Keswick is proposing to do is in conformance with the Compre-
hensive Plan in regard to this issue. Keswick has existed as a development of
50 plus lots as well as having a country club as an associated amenity since
the late 1940's. Keswick exists now as a development of 75 lots. The Compre-
hensive Plan is currently under review and Keswick is not asking for an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Keswick feels that it would be better
for the community and easier for the Board to use its legislative discretion
in allowing Keswick the development rights on the additional five parcels as
requested.
Mr. Bradshaw said the elimination of 5400 linear feet of road and
associated water and sewer line construction is certainly an environmental
benefit. Perpetual dedication of open space along 1-64 and other residential
areas adjacent to Keswick is also a public benefit and th~at meets the strategy
as noted in the Comprehensive Plan. What Keswick is proposing to do is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Today, within the areas of Route
616, Route 731, Route 744 and 1-64, exists 155 parcels of record.
Mr. Bradshaw said, in closing, that Keswick has provided substantial
economic benefits to the County. In 1990, the first full-year of real estate
taxes paid to the County totalled $13,200. This year's tax bill will be
$116,000 to the County. Keswick has been an asset to the community. He
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13)
0001t4
requests that the Board use its legislative discretion in allowing additional
development rights as requested by Keswick.
Mr. Archibald Craige said he lives in Keswick but not on the applicant's
premises. He supports Keswick's application. This is a special use permit
application and not an attempt to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The people in
the Keswick area, as a whole, support the Comprehensive Plan. However, in
this instance, the Planning Commission is the one trying to amend the Compre-
hensive Plan. He then read from page 11 of the Planning Commission's report,
number four, that says "A factor neither favorable nor unfavorable is that
while this is not a developed rural area in general, the Keswick development
exists now as an approved project of a significant potential development of
lots on central utilities." He asked why this project is not considered a
favorable situation. There are 160 people on the payroll which approaches
$2.0 million plus taxes. Keswick is worth more than $35.0 million. This
proposal is also significant to the County and to Keswick. He respectfully
requests that the Board approve this project for the five additional lots
through a special use permit and not through the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Thomas Sheehan said he arrived in Keswick in 1994. He said Char-
lottesville and Keswick are beautiful places to live. If the Board wants more
people like him to live in the County, instead of Florida, the additional lots
can be a plus. This year he paid $8000 in property taxes with income taxes
paid to the Commonwealth of Virginia. His tax bill for the first six months
of 1995, on his three cars, is $5100. He said he is giving the County $10,200
in taxes. He requests that the Board approve this project.
Mr. Stephen Avanke said he was the first person to buy a lot at Keswick
and his lot is located across the road from what is now being proposed. He
said Keswick has surpassed his dreams in that it is beautiful and it is an
asset to the County. He looks forward to building on his property. He said
he is directly affected by the new proposal, and he supports the proposal.
Mr. Peadar Little said he is a member of the Keswick Homeowner's
Association. He represents the people who live in the neighborhood. Mr.
Bradshaw made a presentation at the Homeowner's meeting and received a warm
endorsement by the community in moving forward with this proposal. He
requests that the Board approve this proposal.
Mr. Bradshaw requested that audience members stand up who support this
proposal. Many of the audience members stood up with no one opposing.
With no one else coming forth to speak, the public hearing was closed at
8:54 p.m.
Mr. Martin said he has talked with Mr. Bradshaw regarding this proposal.
He read the Commission minutes and understands the problems and considerations
that were made, in particular the effect that this would have on the Compre-
hensive Plan. He spoke to many of the neighbors and most were in favor of
this proposal irregardless of the fact that property values may be impacted.
He thinks the Board is being requested to exercise its right to approve the
additions. Looking at the two plans, the new plan is a superior plan with
more open space, fewer roads and a better flow pattern. He thinks it should
be considered an improvement of an existing plan which includes additional
development rights. Mr. Martin then made a motion, seconded by Mrs.
Humphris, to approve SP-95-12 with the five conditions as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Mrs. Humphris said it was difficult trying to understand the Planning
Commission minutes. She is a major supporter of the Comprehensive Plan but in
this instance, it seems to her, that all of this was put into place when the
original special use permit was approved. It was decided that Keswick would
be developed as the original plan indicated with a central water and sewer
system. She understands the problem that this is causing to the Comprehensive
Plan, and she understands the comment made by one of the Planning
Commissioner's that this should go through the Comprehensive Plan review
process. However, Keswick is unique and this is a one-of-a-kind situation.
This plan is more environmentally sound, and she supports the motion.
Mrs. Thomas said staff and the Commission adhered to the Comprehensive
Plan and that is what the Board expects to be done. If the Board reverses the
staff and the Commission's decision, it should not be taken as criticism. She
believes the proposal meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan even though it
is not all on paper. The neighbors are more nervous about expanding the
growth area than they are about having it be a nonconforming use in terms of
the Comprehensive Plan. It meets the purposes of the growth management goals.
She is nervous about the central water system using wells, but this was a
decision made in 1993 and the Board's action does not increase those permits.
A septic field requirement does not meet the soil criteria in this particular
area. This proposal calls for a maximum of open space, a buffer system and
greatly improves on the last plan. If the County had an affordable housing
ordinance, she would require that affordable housing be included in this
proposed plan. The people who speak well of this proposal know their taxes
may increase because of this proposal, and they are afraid there will be
people "taxed off of their land." She hopes this does not happen and this
concern should be taken into account.- She supports this motion because the
development is an asset to the community.
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Perkins said there are probably other places in the Comprehensive
Plan that are not recognized, and Keswick is such an example. The area north
of the railroad tracks in Crozet is also an area not recognized in the
Comprehensive Plan. He said Keswick's plan is much improved and that he
supports this proposal.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: The conditions of approval read as follows.)
1. Development of this subdivision shall be in general accordance
with the Keswick Estate Application Plan dated November 28, 1994,
and revised April 3, 1995, and May 1, 1995;
2 o
Flood plain crossings to allow private road construction in
accordance with SP-92-059;
3 o
Water Resources Manager approval of a water quality impact assess-
ment;
4 o
Compliance with State Corporation Commission requirements for
water and sewer utility services;
In the review of future plats and plans, provisions shall be made
for protection of streams valley areas located on proposed lots by
the conveyance of additional open space and/or resource protection
easements to the homeowners association or other entity agreeable
to the developer and the County for purposes of permanent protec-
tion of these areas.
(Note: The Board recessed at 9:02 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. with
Mr. Bowerman returning at this time.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Jefferson-Madison Regional Library
Fiscal Year (FY) 1995-96 Budget Request.
Mr. Tucker summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said during
the Board's Fiscal Year 1995-96 budget work sessions, the Jefferson-Madison
Regional Library requested four additional positions, two for Monticello AV
(internet address) and two for the Northside Library. The new positions would
be a Library Clerk and a Library Assistant II at each library.
Mr. Tucker said the County Executive's recommended budget included
funding for a 1.5 full-time equivalent new position, one full-time project
coordinator for Monticello AV and a part-time library clerk (half of the
requested position) for the Northside Library. In addition to funding
limitations, the limit to the recommended new positions was partially based on
preliminary discussions with the City Manager's Office on what could be
jointly recommended for the Library for fiscal year 1995-96.
Mr. Tucker said that during the Budget work sessions, the Board approved
additional funding for the part-time clerk's salary ($7500) and the full-time
Library Assistant II ($24,289) at the Northside Library. Although in retro-
spect it is unclear as to whether funding for these positions was conditional
upon the City's share of the funding, when the final budget was adopted on
April 12, 1995, the additional funding for the Library Assistant II was
deleted since the position had not been funded by the City. These funds were
put in the Board's Reserve account, which increased from approximately $27,000
to $62,000. At that time, the Board requested that staff report back in May
the impact on the Northside Library of not funding this position.
Mr. Tucker said the only negative impact for the County in funding the
second additional position at the Northside Library without the City's
contribution is that the County will move ahead of the City in funding a joint
operation, whose jurisdictional contribution by agreement is supposed to be
based on an equitable share of the costs of circulation between City and
County residents.
Mr. Tucker said Mrs. Roxanne White spoke to Ms. Donna Selle regarding
the request for an additional staff person at the Northside Library. Accord-
ing to Ms. Selle, a part-time shelver has already been hired through extra
funding of $3200 that will help to lessen the work load for other staff.
Also, a circulation clerk position could be funded, but not the Library
Assistant position at $24,289, for an additional $15,000. This would require
a match of $4000 from the City to fund this position. The City may have some
additional funds in the Library budget that could be used for their share
(with their approval). The total position cost for a circulation clerk is
$19,118 x 79 percent (County's share) or $15,000.
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 15)
000 26
Ms. Donna Selle, Library Director, was present and made a presentation.
She said since her discussion with Mrs. White, there was a Library Board
meeting. The Library Board now requests that the $24,289 be funded for
Northside staff. The $15,000 figure that was given to Mrs. White did elimi-
nate some salary bonuses in the pay-for-performance plan. The Library Board
is not concerned as to whether the City chooses to fund or not fund these
positions. In the first five days of the Reading Operations Program,
Northside received 500 registrations from children and 64 applications from
young adults. Last year during the entire eight weeks at Northside, the
Library had 1200 registrations. This year's registrations are far ahead of
last year's figures for the Reading Operations Program. She said she is
making this request for funding on behalf of the Library Board in the amount
of $24,289. This would make the total funding request for this fiscal year
total $1,573,880.
Mr. Martin asked Mr.~Tucker if there~is a way to correct the funding
imbalance between the City and the County. Mr. Tucker said he did not know
how to correct this. Ms. Selle said the position funding is split 80/20
percent at Northside, with eighty percent of the business being the County's
and twenty percent of the business being the City's. If the County funds its
80 percent, then the Library will fund it for an 80 percent portion of the
year.
Mr. Bowerman asked what would happen the other two months. Ms. Selle
said the Library delays hiring someone for two months. Mr. Martin asked what
the Library would do next year. Ms. Selle said next year, funding is taken
out of the City's share.
Mr. Martin made a motion to approve an additional $24,289 for the
Library's FY 1995-96 budget to fully staff the Northside Library. He said the
north side of town is a growth area and the Board needs to promote this needed
service for that community. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. He said he
thinks the Library Board is doing an excellent job in managing allocated
resources. The Northside Library is an essential part of providing services
to citizens.
Mrs. Humphris said she agreed with Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman. She
said this is a proven need and that it is very sad that the City refuses to
pay its fair share.
Mrs. Thomas said this proposal is to fund nine-and-two-thirds months
which will be 80 percent of the year. Ms. Selle said if the Board allocates
the $24,289, the Library Board will fully staff Northside Library. Mrs.
Thomas said according to the staff report "overall circulation rose only 2.6
percent." She asked if some branches had a decrease in circulation. Ms.
Selle said circulation statistics are relatively flat. The Central Library
was closed for approximately four weeks last year due to renovations and the
weather. This adversely affected circulation and caused it to decrease since
Central is the largest branch in the system. Staff's comments are not exactly
accurate. The Central Library, this year, will also close for renovations,
and this will cause a three-year flat circulation figure because the largest
branch is closed. The reallocation of resources is not as simple as the Board
may think. There needs to be a base level in order to keep a library open a
certain amount of hours per week, even though operations are being streamlined
and people are being moved around. If people are moved around, cost centers
will also change. There are seven to eight factors used in calculating
allocation formulas. The $24,289 will be used for the purpose intended by the
Board. Exactly how many days of service this will be used for, she will need
to calculate°
Mr. Tucker asked Ms. Selle if the Library will provide the other 20
percent from other funds. Ms. Selle said the way the regional agreement and
the cost allocation formulas work is that the regional costs are paid by all
the jurisdictions. The regional agreement that took two years to develop
calls for regional costs which include overhead administrative costs. The
funding operation of the whole system comes from local jurisdiction alloca-
tions first. Then, the money is allocated to whatever level of service each
jurisdiction wants in the local libraries. Charlottesville, for the last few
years, started the Summer Reading in the Parks Program which never had any
costs that were solely isolated to the City. This year in the Library's
budget request, the City has a $3500 request for an increase for the collec-
tions in the Summer Reading Program in the Parks. The money that the City
does not fund comes out of that project first. Then, the remainder comes out
of the City's allocations for Northside staffing. It is not as cut and dry as
the Board may think. Traditionally, the Library Board has not done this,
except in special incidences like Monticello AV, which is a new program and
which is the first new program the City has funded in years.
At this time, roll was called on the foregoing motion, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: April 7, 1993; December 14,
1994; March 1 and May 10, 199.5.
000 :1.?
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Perkins had read March 1, 1995, pages 1-16, and found them to be in
order with one typographical error.
Mrs. Humphris had read April 7, 1995, pages 20-34, and found them to be
in order.
Mr. Martin had read April 7, 1995, pages 34 to the end, and found them
to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
the minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None. -
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said he has declared the County a local emergency area due to
the flooding occurring at the Sugar Hollow Reservoir and the White Hall area.
By this declaration the County will be able to obtain Federal disaster relief
funds as well as being able to call on the National Guard and others to aid
the County in a disaster event.
Using maps, Mr. Tucker showed and explained to the Board the areas
affected by the flooding. There is a possibility that the Sugar Hollow
Reservoir Damn will fail due to debris and high water. The team that is there
is communicating with the White Hall command post and providing flood updates.
Some people have been evacuated on a voluntary basis, but many people have
refused to leave. Western Albemarle High School will serve as a relief shelter
with transportation being provided to that location.
Mrs. Thomas asked if everyone in the flood area had been contacted. Mr.
Tucker said staff is contacting people by telephone and in person as fast as
it can be done. Neighbors are also contacting each other about the flooding
situation. Some telephones are not working and there are power outages in
some areas. This morning, there were 74 families without power and some
without water. There are helicopters on standby as needed. He said he would
keep the Board updated regarding this matter.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt
the following resolution declaring Albemarle County a Local Emergency Area.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Marshall.
RESOLUTION
W~EREAS, Albemarle County has had unceasing and relentless
rains for the month of June, 1995; and
W~EREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County does
hereby find that:
Due to the heavy rain, Albemarle County is facing
dangerous flood conditions;
Due to the floods, a condition of extreme peril of
life and property necessitates the proclamation of the
existence of an emergency;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
HEREBY PROCLAIMS that an emergency now exists throughout the
County; and
IT IS FURTHER PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the exis-
tence of said emergency the powers, function, and duties of the
Director of Emergency Services, and the emergency providers of
Albemarle County shall be those prescribed by state law and the
ordinances, resolutions, and approved plans of Albemarle County in
order to mitigate the effects of the emergency.
Mr. Martin said Governor Allen has closed State offices on July 3, 1995.
In addition to the State offices being closed, other localities that will be
closed include Culpeper, Madison, Lousia, Orange, Fluvanna, Buckingham,
Nelson, Augusta, Rockingham and Goochland Counties. Some overtime may have to
be paid, but the cost is minimal, and he offered a motion which was seconded
by Mrs. Thomas, to give July 3, 1995, as a holiday for General Government
employees.
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 17)
O00ii$
Mr. Perkins said it may be a good idea to review holidays that fall like
this in the future. Mr. Tucker said many counties have a general policy that
says if the State closes, the county also closes. Roll was called on the
foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Mrs. Thomas asked that Mr. Tucker write a letter, for the Chairman's
signature, similar to the letter being drafted by the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority to the County's congressional delegation regarding the Waste Stream
Flow Control legislation about to be adopted by Congress. She said this
legislation would not allow the County to require trash haulers use a certain
facility. There is a movement toward alternative methods of trash disposal,
outside of the Ivy Landfill, that the County may choose in the future.
However, whatever alternative may be chosen, the system must allow for the
County to be able to pay off any debt. She said Congress is considering a law
that would not allow the County any kind of control over the County's own
solid waste stream. This would make it difficult for the County to choose a
more intelligent way of trash disposal.
Mrs. Humphris presented a certificate from the Jefferson Area Board of
Aging on the occasion of its 20th Anniversary, expressing its deep apprecia-
tion to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for its outstanding support
of the elderly of Albemarle County. The certificate is signed by Mr. Gordon
Walker, Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Edward Jones, Chairman of the Board
of Directors. The certificate should be placed in the Chairman's office.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker about the letter of reply from R. E. Lee
and Son, Inc. to Mr. Basil Hallquist about the construction problems on Old
Garth Road near the Gallison Hall project. She did not understand No. 6 that
says "in addition, Mr. Scott had several culverts installed within the 50 foot
Finder's Way easement to facilitate the flow of water away from the property
and down to Old Garth Road." She said this is what people who travel down Old
Garth Road have been complaining about, especially the mud and gravel that has
flowed across the road. She asked if this is legal. Mr. Tucker said he is
talking to the people involved and will continue to work on this issue. He
said what Mr. Scott is doing is within the context of the County's regula-
tions.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker if he had responded to the League of
Women Voter's letter about the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) and
other issues. Mr. Tucker said no. The PACC Executive Committee has directed
staff to work on the issues, and to return information to them for a reply at
a later time.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the Graemont Homeowner Association's request
to resurface the road. Mr. Tucker said he believed he drafted a letter to
this request.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board was going to hear about the Foxfield
Races at a July meeting. She said she brought it up at an earlier date and
asked for a staff report on all the problems mentioned by Mr. Joseph Whitley
in his May 12, 1995 letter. Members of the Board said they did not remember
this request nor did they receive the letter. Mr. Tucker said this would be
researched.
Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Thomas said they attended a meeting in Washington,
D.C., regarding Sustainability Councils. Mr. Bowerman was one of six who
made a presentation to the National Council. He said he did not know the
effect the President's Council on Sustainability would have for this County.
He said they are trying to develop national policy recommendations dealing
with sustainability and Charlottesville-Albemarle is one of the nine case
study areas. He said this is the only area he knows of that does not have
significant problems.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:54 P.M.
Chairman
June 28, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 18)
0001 19
The following appropriation form was omitted in the typing of page 15 of
these minutes.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95033
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING TO FULLY STAFF NORTHSIDE
LIBRARy FoR FY 1995-96
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1100073020700008
DESCRIPTION
NORTHSIDE LIBRARY
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$24,289.00
$24,289.00
REVENUE
2100051000510100
DESCRIPTION
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$24,289.00
$24,289.00