1995-07-12,ooo a
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 12, 1995, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest
R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs.
Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: CoUnty Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and Chief of Planning, Ronald Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M., by the
Chairman, Mr. 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° There were none°
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve Item 5.1 on the consent agenda,
and to accept the remaining items as information, with the exception of Items
5.5 and 5.6 which will be discussed later in the meeting.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Item. 5.1. Appropriation: Stony Point Teacher Incentive Grant, $600 -
(Form #95006). It was noted that a Teacher Incentive Grant for Stony Point
Elementary School in the amount of $600.00 was recently awarded. This program
was established to help strengthen the quality of arts education in the
schools and to encourage innovative projects which integrate the arts into the
basic curriculum of the classroom. The School Board, on June 26, 1995,
requested an appropriation of the funds.
The following resolution of appropriation was adopted by the recorded
vote set out above.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96
NUMBER: 95006
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR STONY POINT TEACHER
INCENTIVE GRANT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
1310460211312.500 PROF SERVICES-INSTRUCTIONAL
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$600.00
$600°00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2310424000240280 GRANT # 95-1291 $600.00
TOTAL $600.00
Item 5.2. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Bond Program
Report and Monthly Report for the month of May, 1995, was received for
information.
Item 5.3. Copy of Final 1995-96 Construction Allocations for the
Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, as well as Public Transit,
Ports and Airports, including the updated Six-Year Improvement Program for FY
1995-96 through 2000-01, was received for information. This plan had been
approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on June 22, 1995.
Item 5.4. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for
May 22, 1995, was received for information.
Item 5.5. Copy of letter dated June 28, 1995, from Mr. John P. Moore,
to the Honorable Ed Robb, Senator, re: Mr. Moore's reasons for wanting a
prohibition of truck traffic on Route 231/22~ was received as information.
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2 ) .~.~i~'~.~?~.!~?: 3~.~
000 40
Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated May 31, 1995, from Ms. Brenda Garton
Bailey, County Administrator, Orange County, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
County Executive, re: prohibition of truck traffic on Route 231/22, was
received for information. Enclosed was a copy of a resolution unanimously
adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors stating its disfavor of any
restrictions against truck traffic on Route 231/22.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on a request to amend the service
area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to
the Cafe-No Problem located at the intersection of Route 250 West at Route 240
(deferred from July 7, 1995).
Mr. Keeler said the site is located at the intersection of Routes 240
and 250 at the Mechum River and is formerly known as "The Galerie" or "Ridge"
Restaurant. The Board originally included this area in the service area for
sewer on October 7, 1992. The approval given this date limited the line
serving the site to a two-inch sewer line. Subsequent to that action the
Board modified its action on December 2, 1992, to allow an increase in the
size of the line but limited the use of the sewer line to serve the existing
structure, existing use and existing capacity only. The applicant has now
presented proposals which, in the opinion of staff, are not directly consis-
tent with the December 2, 1992, action.
Mr. Keeler said regarding the existinq structure, the applicant contends
that the Board's action "did not prohibit the existing structure from being
expanded, enlarged or modified in compliance with all applicable zoning and
building regulations." It is the staff's opinion that the Board's action
limits any enlargement to the building with the exception of facade treatment.
The applicant wishes to expand the footprint of the building and to add a
second floor. These activities have resulted in the need for variances in the
required setback.
Mr. Keeler said the property is zoned C-i, Commercial, in recognition of
the existing use, but the existing use is nonconforming due to the setback.
The site is.not located in a designated growth area. Limiting the use to the
existing structure will minimize the inconsistency of this use with the
Comprehensive Plan. Expansion of the building, particularly expansion
requiring variances, represents increased commercial activity in the Rural
Areas which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff opinion is
that the use should be limited to the existing structure with the exception of
facade treatment and those expansions which do not require variances or
modifications of the ordinances.
Mr. Keeler said the existinq use of the site has been interpreted to
mean a restaurant. The applicant has proposed the construction of a second
floor which would be used as an apartment by an employee. The Zoning Ordi-
nance does permit limited residential use of commercial property. Staff
believes that limited residential use such as proposed is incidental to the
primary restaurant use and should be acceptable as long as it is within the
.existing structure except as may be modified as described above.
Regarding the existinq capacity, Mr. Keeler said that staff has reviewed
the minutes of the Board and is of the opinion that this limitation was
intended to prevent expansion of the seating capacity of the restaurant.
However, the seating capacity was not clearly identified. At the time of the
Board's action in 1992, the site did have a "pump and haul" permit allowing a
65-seat restaurant serving a single meal a day. (The applicant has said that
information obtained by him from the Health Department allowed 85 seats.)
Staff is unable to determine any relationship between the "pump and haul"
approvals and the previous use of the site. The applicant has constructed the
sewer line in accordance with the previous approvals. Use of this site for a
100-seat restaurant does not present a capacity'problem according to the
Albemarle County Service Authority. The Health Department anticipates 50
gallons per seat per day in a restaurant. Staff opinion is that the existing
condition does not provide adequate clarification as to the existing capacity.
As the Building Code would allow up to 115 seats in the existing structure,
setting the capacity limit at 100 seat's would appear to be appropriate.
Mr. Keeler said staff recommended on June 7, 1995, to hold this public
hearing on the request. The applicant requested deferral on July 5, 1995,
before the public hearing was held, so the hearing was rescheduled for
tonight. Staff recommends approval for sewer service only. This approval
would authorize the construction and placement of a sewer line and associated
pump station to serve the existing use (restaurant plus associated apartment
for employee)~ existing structure (with the exception of facade treatment and
those expansions which do not require variances or modifications to the
ordinance), and existing capacity (equivalent of lO0-seat restaurant generat-
ing not more than 5000 gallons per day) only.
Mr. Keeler said the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), on June 6, 1995,
granted a variance for the property with the following three conditions:
The variance is granted for work currently proposed with building
permit AC-94-530 (for one story only) o Any additional square
footage which would encroach the required setback or any change
which is determined to be substantial by the Zoning Administrator
shall require amendment of this variance.
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
2. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) approval of sight
distance at all intersections impacted by the structure. In the
event a building addition reduces the sight distance, that area of
addition shall not be permitted.
This variance approval is contingent upon approval of any other
applicable applications including the site plan for public sewer
service. This approval is contingent upon approval of a Certif-
icate of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board
(ARB).
Mr. Perkins asked Board members if they had questions. With no ques-
tions being asked by Board members, Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at
7:07 p.m.
Ms. Rae Ely said she and Mr. Forbes Rebach are here tonight on behalf of
the applicant, Mr. Richard Cooper. She said she looked through County files
which addressed this site back into the 1960s. The problems originated in the
1969 flood when the original sewage system was swept away. From that time on,
it has been a nightmare.
Ms. Ely said Mr. Cooper has lived in Virginia all of his life. He is a
son of a prominent physician, and he is a graduate of William and Mary College
as well as attending the University of Virginia Law School. Having this kind
of armor, he thought he could deal with the little bit of paperwork that was
involved in getting this project approved. That has turned out to be an
interesting experience for him. Mr. Cooper's primary goal is to be in
compliance with all County requirements and to expedite, if possible, this
project. Everyone will eventually agree that this is a tremendous benefit for
this particular location in the County which she thinks of as the "gateway to
Crozet."
Ms. Ely feels that this site can be improved. Mr. Cooper has invested
$169,000 in getting to where he is tonight. Even though the building is in
disarray, his money has been spent° He has had the best Charlottesville
architects, engineers, revised site plans, and he is ready to settle this
matter. He is in a situation where if the expenditures continue at the rate
they have in the past, he will be working long hours in order to get to the
break-even point. Mr. Cooper has gained the support of the surrounding
landowners who believe in him and have invested in him to get him to where he
is tonight. This is a strictly an Albemarle County project.
Ms. Ely expressed concern about the Board action taken at the June 7,
1995, meeting. She is troubled that a 1992 Board action, with different
parties on the Board, was revisited and, in effect, modified and clarified~
She wants this on the record because it is of concern; however, it can be
lived with. As far as the water and sewage are concerned, Mr. Cooper does not
want a seating capacity greater than 100, so he agrees with the Board on this.
Going back to what the state criteria was in 1992 when the original action was
taken by the Board to allow a sewer connector, they think it might have been
more than a 100-seat capacity. The use will be the same as it has always
been, a restaurant. There has been talk about the need for an apartment°
Although "apartment might be technically correct, she is not sure that really
describes what Mr. Cooper needs. He needs accessory space that will not be
used by diners, but will be used as an office and a place to sleep for on-site
personnel. This will not be like an apartment such as those rented to the
public. It would be used strictly for business use. If Mr. Cooper were to
take the space needed for this accessory area and put it in the main body of
the restaurant on the first floor, he would diminish his seating capacity to a
point where it would become economically unfeasible to proceed.
Ms. Ely said the reason additional space is needed on the ground floor
is because Mr. Cooper wants a grand piano in the center of the restaurant with
a dancing area, so this displaces diners. The area needs to be pushed out in
order to create a patio or terrace where people can sit and enjoy dinner°'
Ms. Ely said there was a question at a previous meeting as to the view
of the adjoining landowners is to the request. She said a petition has been
signed by the majority of landowners in the immediate vicinity, over 80 signa-
tures. She then presented Mr. Perkins with the petitions.
Ms. Ely said they need only an additional'700 square feet of ground
space. She then showed on a map where the square feet would be needed. Mr.
Cooper is willing to give up the 85 square feet that the BZA approved which
would have added two bay areas to bring in light from two directions. She
then showed a preliminary model of the building and explained its layout.
This model can be modified based on the ARB's recommendations. The second
story will not extend over the entire building. Approximately 1500 square
feet is needed for the roof which will not affect the setback area.
Ms. Ely said that Mr. Cooper has agreed on the 100-seat capacity, and if
Mr. Cooper or a future owner wants to increase this capacity, this request
would come to the Board. The seating capacity and usage would remain the
same. All Mr. Cooper wants to do is have a pretty building, and not have a
shoe-box shaped building that has no character and one that does not invite
the diner to come in. She then asked Board members if they had questions.
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 000'~42
(Page 4)
Mr. Perkins asked xf there were"other members of the public who wished
to present. With no one coming forward to speak, Mr. Perkins closed the
public hearing at 7:22 p.m., and turned the matter over to Board members for
discussion.
Mr. Perkins said he has spoken to Mr. Cooper several times over the past
weeks. He had requested that Mr. Cooper bring a model of the building to the
Board so that Board members could visualize what he wants done to the build-
ing. After looking at the model, he told Mr. Cooper he felt he could support
the changes, particularly if he got petitions signed by his neighbors in the
immediate area, He has done that. The building is an eyesore the way it is.
Mr. Perkins said he' would like to see something done with it to make it a
viable business again.
Mr. Martin said he remembers when this site was the Galerie Restaurant.
Me is also familiar with the restaurant's history. In 1992, the Board did
.approve the possibility of having this building'tie into the public sewer
system. Now, after talking with Mr. Cooper and reviewing the plans, he thinks
that in 1992 if the Board had been presented with this kind of proposal, the
Board would have approved it then. If the Board looks at what is there now
and looks at what could be there in the future, he does not see how the Board
can turn this down. He feels this proposal is an extreme improvement which is
evidenced by the signed petitions and the fact that there is not one person
here tonight in opposition. The people obviously trust Mr. Cooper, expect him
to deliver on a promise and to deliver something that is much better than what
they have had for the past few years.
Given the BZA's decision that allowed, the'increase in the footprint of
the building on the side closest to the road, but did not allow a second
story, Mrs. Thomas asked what the Board can do which is opposite to what the
BZA recommended. Ms. Ely commented that they are not asking the Board to
change the BZA's decision, but rather that Mr. Cooper will forego taking
advantage of the variance which would allow for an expansion toward the
highway right-of-way. Instead, Mr. CooPer will expand the building toward the
rear and add a second-story that is out of the setback nonconforming area.
That is something Mr. Cooper could do under the Zoning Ordinance without a
variance, so Mr. Cooper is willing to abandon the variance rather than have
the Board take any action in conflict with it.
Mr. Perkins said any approval this Board may give' tonight would still
have to go before the ARB. Mr. Davis agreed.
Mr. Keeler said it is not clear to him that the variance will be
abandoned. Mr. Davis said to clarify for everyone: there can be no further
encroachment into the setback than the existing structure without the vari-
ance. The variance also prohibits a second story to the building, so unless
Mr. Cooper abandons the plan presented, he cannot take advantage of the vari-
ance.
Mr. Keeler said for informational purposes, dancing is permitted in what
the ordinance defines as an "eating establishment". However, that would
require a separate approval from the Board, and there is a limit on the amount
of floor space that can be available.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Perkins if he recognized the names on the
petition. Mr. Perkins said there are names that he does not know, but there
are names that he does recognize, particularly from business people in Crozet,
and people living close to the property.
Mrs. Mumphris said the problem with a petition is that people see only a
restaurant and they don't know the problems or the potential for problems that
this request presents to the Board or the County. She believes that now, as
in 1992, the Board is just as serious about complying with the Comprehensive
Plan when it comes to setting a precedent 'for the expansion of a commercial
area in the rural areas. She said the Board has been very careful not to set
that precedent which would open up rural areas for future expansion of other
nonconforming uses. She feels strongly, as she did in 1992, that it is
important that the Board mean what it said which is "existing structure,
existing use and existing capacity only." This request is a serious departure
from the Comprehensive Plan. It may be a lovely restaurant and she is sure
Mr. Cooper would do the expansion well. She simply cannot support this
proposal because she thinks the changes approved in 1992 could have been done.
Mr. Marshall said Mrs. Humphris knows how he feels about the Comprehen-
sive Plan. He feels the Plan serves as a guide, but it is not law. He finds
it difficult to vote against a'neighborhood especially if the neighborhood
wants to improve the "eyesore." He asked Mrs. Thomas how she felt about this
issue since many of the people signing the petition live in her district.
Mrs. Thomas said some of the names on the people who signed the petition are
from her district. One person wrote a comment saying it would be nice to have
a restaurant within a mile of home. She has not polled the area to find out
how people feel about this restaurant.
Mr. Martin asked if the Board simply needs to adopt a motion to modify
the Albemarle County Service Authority's service area boundaries. Mr. Davis
said the hearing was advertised on the Planning Department's recommendation to
modify the service areas for sewer service only, for the construction and
placement of sewer lines and associated pump stations to service the existing
000:1.43
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
use which is defined as the restaurant and the associated accessory apartment,
for the existing structure with the exception of any facade treatment and
those expansions which do not require variances or modifications to the
ordinance, and for the existing capacity which has been defined as a 100-seat
restaurant generating no more than 5000 gallons per day only.
Mr. Perkins asked if making any changes to the footprint of the building
will require Mr. Cooper to still go through the necessary routes to accomplish
that. Mr. Davis said that is correct. Mr. Cooper would still have to obtain
site plan approval, ARB approval, and he could not take advantage of the
variance as approved~ and any expansion can be only to the rear of the
building and out of the setback areas under the Zoning Ordinance requirements°
Mrs. Thomas said the Board today is essentially defining what the
existing use is since the applicant has almost torn down the old building.
Mr. Davis said the existing use is a restaurant with a 100-seat capacity. It
will be up to the Zoning Administrator to confirm where the old building
footprint existed and that will have to be restored. Under this requirement
and the Zoning Ordinance, the footprint of the building cannot be expanded
toward the road because it is a nonconforming use and it is within the
setback. The only legal way the building can be restored is if the former
walls are found and rebuilt in the same location or further back from the
road. Mrs. Thomas asked if the building could be expanded away from the road
in the way the model shows. Mr. Davis said the building could be expanded to
the rear because the building is properly zoned; however, it does not meet the
standards of the zoning district where it is located. It is zoned properly
for the use, but the building is not located properly within the setback
standards.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Martin if he had made a motion, to which Mr.
Martin replied "yes". Mr. Marshall said he would second the motion.
Mr. Bowerman said he needs additional clarification. The Board has
defined the capacity as a 100-seat restaurant as that is as the Board antici-
pated in 1992. The original reason that this issue came before the Board was
due to the building being located in the watershed, and it is a nonconforming
use. There is a rather straight-forward policy in effect of not extending
sewer to uses, especially commercial uses, in the watershed. When the Board
reviewed the request in 1992, there was an existing use that would have to be
abandoned unless the applicant could have a sewerage connection. The appli-
cant was using pump and haulo The Board looked at the request in that light
and allowed for an expansion of the service area in order to allow the
existing facility to continue in operation. The Board further conditioned the
approval that there be no expansion in use or structural changes. He ex-
pressed concern at the time about any expansion of the use at that site. An
expansion of the use on that site seems to be reflective of what the Board has
already defined now as a 100-seat restaurant with 5000 gallons per day of
sewage disposal. Does it make any difference, as long as the applicant is
within the ordinance, if the footprint is'varied as long as it does not expand
the use that the Board approved in 1992 and is consistent with that approval?
Mr. Bowerman said he needs clarification on the difference between "no expan-
sion in use" and "no change in the existing structure, existing use and
existing capacity." He then asked for clarification on what is now being
proposed. He said this does not seem to be the same issue the Board dealt
with a few weeks ago.
Mr. Martin said in 1992 his primary concern was deviating from a policy
of not allowing a hook-up to the sewer system in that particular area. There
was also the issue of the pump and haul situation. Before that, he believes
the sewage just flowed directly into the creek before it was found that the
original system had been washed away during a flood. He was interested in
limiting the connection to the existing structure so as not to allow an
expansion or a completely different use, such as a shopping center. It was
not important to him that it be the exact structure or the exact footprint.
Mr. Bowerman said that having now defined the number of seats, and there
is no objection from the applicant as to that number, this really took away
the issue. Mrs. Humphris said if what Mrl Bowerman is saying is true, this
approval would not establish any precedent, which has been her concern. She
said this Board is having so much trouble with it now, she wonders whether a
future Board might find that this Board had indeed established a precedent if
this change is allowed under these circumstances. The precedent to the
Comprehensive Plan is her concern.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board approves this request with the conditions
which have been recommended, then the Board will have established the crite-
ria. In 1992, there was not a seating capacity defined, and this has now been
established along with the 5000 gallons of sewage per day. The footprint has
also been established through the variance°
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Davis if this issue is brought up again in the
future~ would anyone be able to say that this Board deviated from the Compre-
hensive Plan by allowing the expansion of a nonconforming use in the water-
shed. Mr. Bowerman asked if this is not a modification of a nonconforming
use. Mr. Martin added that this is also a modification of the definition of
"existing.~' Mr. Davis said the deviation from the Comprehensive Plan occurred
when the Board approved the change in 1992. What is happening now is not an
expansion of a nonconforming use because the use is permitted in that district
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(~age b) ~ ~ ~
000i44
under the zoning regulations. The way this is being presented, the building
is not being expanded in a nonconforming way, it is being expanded in a way by
Which it can be expanded by-right under the Zoning Ordinance. He does not
think that this is a dangerous precedent for the Board to set given these
circumstances.
Mr. Perkins asked if there are not other requirements the applicant must
meet, such as parking, etc. The building expansion may take up part of the
parking area. Mr. Davis said this site has a lot of restrictions already,
and there are several more development hurtles that must be overcome before
final site plan approval can be obtained. Mr. Keeler said if the Board
concurs with the motion as stated, which is the staff's recommendation,
variances and modifications would not be available for any expansion. Mr.
Keeler said tonight is the first time he has heard about having a dance floor
and a piano. The introduction of these may be necessitating the need to
expand the building, but that is not an expansion of the seating capacity.
Mr. Martin said in the past the Board has taken a use which was basical-
ly grandfathered and because it was grandfathered, it was nonconforming in
that particular zoning in the present Comprehensive Plan. The Board has
sometimes allowed modification, but most of the time has not allowed for
modifications. In this particular case, this is a conforming use, so in this
case, the Board is protected from all angles in terms of its being precedent-
setting. Mr. Davis said it is a conforming use in a nonconforming structure
in an area where the Comprehensive Plan does not suggest putting sewer
service. The Board allowed sewer service to be extended to that conforming
use in a nonConforming structure in order to preServe the use.
Mro Bowerman said when the Board discussed this proposal on June 7,
1995, the Board was unclear as to the eventual seating capacity of the
proposal. This has now been established and accepted by the applicant.
proposal is no longer an issue with him.
This
Mrs. Thomas said she was not a member of this Board in 1992. She "cut
her political teeth in Albemarle County" by first fighting the whole idea of
the Crozet Interceptor, and then making sure the interceptor was never tapped
into, so this broke a precedent in 1992 by allowing that connection. After
listening to everyone this evening, the "hideous" building there does need to
be changed. If this will make it an attractive building without setting a
precedent, then she supports this request.
Mrs. Humphris asked if anything to do with this request will come back
to the Board. Mr. Davis said if the applicant decides to encroach into the
flood plain where there is some existing encroachment now, that would require
a special use permit. Other than that, the site plan will be done administra-
tively or at the Planning Commission level unless it is appealed to the Board.
Mrs. Thomas asked if the applicant has to prove there is adequate
parking before the building can be started. Mr. Davis said this is covered in
the site plan approval which specifies all parking requirements.
Mr. Martin's motion was: to amend the service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to the Cafe-No Problem
located at the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 240, as recommended
for sewer service only. This approval authorizes the construction and
placement of a sewer line and associated pump station to serve the existing
use (restaurant plus associated apartment for employee), existing structure
(with the exception of facade treatment and those expansions which do not
require variances or modifications to the ordinance), and existing capacity
(equivalent of 100-seat restaurant generating not more than 5000 gallons per
day) only.
There being no further discussion, roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
MrS. Thomas.
None.
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. (Deferred from June
28, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg noted receipt of the following letter:
"July 11, 1995
Re: ZMA-94-40, H&H Partnership; ZMA-95-O2e H&H Partnership
This is to request on behalf of our client, and pursuant to
Section 33.7 of the Albemarle County Ordinance, that the Board of
Supervisors consent to the applicants' withdrawal of the petitions
in the referenced matter. We respectfully request that pursuant
to Section 33.7, the Board approve the withdrawal without the time
limitation referenced in that section.
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Very truly yours,
Steven W. Blaine"
000 45
Mr. Marshall presented to the Clerk petitions containing 108 signatures
of neighbors who live in the area who are opposed to H&H Partnership's
rezoning request. He informed the applicant that he could not support this
request as well
There was no discussion. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin,
Seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to accept the withdrawal of ZMA 95-02, H & H
Partnership, as requested by the applicant. Roi1 was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: 'Mr, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
~ ~ Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
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. (Deferred from June
28, 1995.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, se¢onde4 by Mrs. Humphris, to accept
the withdrawal of ZMA-95-03, H&H Partnership, as requested by the applicant.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mro Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas°
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-95-13. Ednam Associates Limited Partnership.
Public Hearing on a request to amend an existing special use permit to allow
use of the Ednam Manor House for office use. Site zoned PRD & EC is the Ednam
Manor House. TM60,P28A1. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 26 and July 3, 1995.)
Mr. Keeler presented 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, unanimously recommended
approval of this petition, with one condition.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m.
Mr. Frank Quayle, President of Roy Wheeler & Associates, said Mr. Ronald
Lilley~ Senior Planner, provided to Board members pertinent data for this
request which was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission along with
the support of the Ednam Community Association. He asked Board members if
they had questions.
Mr. Caleb Stowe said he has been with the Ednam development for the past
15 years. The applicant has come before the Board three times in the past to
request changes for the use of the building which were done to preserve the
building's integrity. This building is listed in the State and National
Historic Registers. The building has only been modified to reflect interior
changes° He passed around a picture of the building for Board members to see°
He then described the floor space of this building which is a large Victorian-
style manor house. The building is large, difficult to heat, to maintain, and
to respect the way the building should be respected.
Mr. Stowe said the reason for embracing this idea for office space use
is based on past experience. A club house was first initiated for the
building, but it was too expensive and the community could not afford the
financial obligations. Then, it was used for office space for five years.
This seemed to work well. However, three years ago, the applicant approached
the Board for approval to allow condominiums in the building. This was
difficult to do structurally, so the applicant did not do it. The neighbors
were then polled to see what they would do with the building. The neighbors
supported the idea of allowing the building to be used for office use. This
seemed to be the most sensible and practical use of the building. The
building is located in such a way that it will not create a traffic jam for
the neighbors, and office use is regarded in the community as a stable use.
The character of the building will be maintained. The building is not
economical for use as a single-family dwelling. The building is 100 years old
and requires much care° He requested that the Board approve the applicant's
proposal for this building°
Mr. Edward McClanahan said he is a resident of Ednam, a taxpaying
citizen and serves on the Ednam Homeowners' Association Board of Directors.
This building, from the standpoint of the Ednam Community Association, has
been a source of concern for years because of the changes that have occurred
to the building. The Association feels the applicant's request would provide
a degree of permanence in the maintenance of this building. The Association
000146
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
supports this stability. ~ >~et~"f~0~'th~ Association's President, Ms.
Patricia Wallace, was sent to Board members expressing support and approval
for this application. After a neighborhood meeting was held and this change
discussed, unanimous support was expressed for this application. He requested
that the Board grant this request.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Perkins closed the
public hearing and turned the matter over to Board members for discussion.
There was no discussion by Board members. Motion was immediately
offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-95-13 subject
to the one condition recommended by the Planning Commission.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
(Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below.)
Prior to establishment of office uses in the Manor House, a site
plan amendment shall be approved by the County. The site plan
shall provide for 10-foot setbacks between the parking area and
adjoining properties and a minimum five-foot setback between
parking areas and roads and landscape screening within the setback
area,
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-95-14. John Evans. Public Hearing on a request
for a home occupation Class B on 5 acs zoned RA on E sd of Rt 631 approx 0.85
mi $ of Rt 708. TM100,P35A. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 26' and July 5, 1995.)
Mr. Keeler presented the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's
Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. Me said the
Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 6, 1995, unanimously recommended
approval of this.petition subject to one condition.
Mr. Marshall asked if there would be large trucks driving on the new
proposed delivery road. Mr. Keeler said with the exception of United Parcel
Service (UPS) trucks, neither he nor the applicant, Ms. Beth Evans, anticipate
the use of large tr~ckso Ms. Evans agreed.
With no other comments being made by Board members, Mr. Perkins opened
the public hearing at 8:01 p.m.
Ms. Beth Evans said the tree has been cut down that was blocking the
Sight and the culvert is ready for the Virginia'Department of Transportation's
(VDOT) approval.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Perkins closed the
public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
There Was no discussion by Board members. Motion was immediately
offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-95-14 subject
to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
(Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below.)
The entrance onto Route 631 shall comply with Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) minimum sight distance requirements for a
private entrance (250 feet) and with VDOT requirements for road-
side drainage control.
Agenda. Item No. 11. SP-95-15. C. W. Hurt Contractors, Inc. Public
Hearing on a request for preschool/day care on 5.391 acs zoned R-6 on W sd of
the Berkmar Dr/Woodbrook Dr inters. TM45,P's91&93A1. Rio Dist.. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on June 26 and July 3, 1995.)
Mr. Ke'eler presented 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, unanimously recommended
approval of this petition, subject to five conditions.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the hours of operation for a day care center.
Mr. Keeler said he did not believe the County has ever imposed hours of
operation on Such facilities. There are State regulations which indicate that
if a day care center operates during a certain time period of the day, the
facility may be exempt or it may require licensureo However~ he does not
believe the County has never imposed such conditions.
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) O00~47
(Page 9)
Mrs. ThOmas asked ~f ~e~s~e~h~YpaSs Alternate l0 route would affect
this proposal. Mr. Keeler said "no." The route of the proposed' Alternate 10
route is located substantially to the west and behind the Agnor-Hurt school.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the building was started for some other use
because the building is almost completed. Mr. Keeler said the building is
under construction and may be used as a duplex or for a day care center. The
applicant met with the Building Department to ensure that the type of con-
struction would be consistent with the building code for day care centers. If
the permit is not approved, then the building can be used as a two-family
dwelling.
With no other comments being made by Board members, Mr. Perkins opened
the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Mr. Steve Melton said he represents C. W. Hurt Contractors for the day
care center. Recently, the applicant received permission, and has already
constructed, a commercial entrance off of the new Berkmar Drive to extension
to serve Woodbrook Drive Extended. A plat was recorded and approved by the
County Engineering Department for an off-site easement for the turn and taper
lane going into that area. Woodbrook Extended will cul-de-sac near the Agnor-
Hurt School, it will not extend all the way through to Woodburn Road. He
asked Board members if they had questions.
With no questions being asked by Board members and with no one else from
the public rising to speak, Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing at 8:12
p.m., and turned the matter over to the Board for discussion.
There was no further discussion. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-95-15 subject to the five
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia
Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be
the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the
Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license, and all .
renewals thereafter and to. notify the Zoning Administrator
of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within
three days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
wilful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance;
Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the
Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure
to properly admit the Fire Official for such inspection
shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the provisions of
this ordinance;
These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein
.shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements
of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department
of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local,
state or federal agency;
Use is limited to a maximum of 70 students;
Access shall be limited to the north side of the intersec-
tion or Woodbrook Drive'and Berkmar Drive.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-95-06. Forest Lakes Associates. Public
Hearing on a request to rezone 2.2 acs from R-1 to R-15. Located on E sd of
Worth Crossing approx 800 ft N of Timberwood Blvd. This site is recommended
for High Density Residential in the Community of Hollymead by the Comprehen-
sive Plan. TM46B4,P6. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
June 26 and July 3, 1995.)
At 8:13 p.m., Mr. Bowerman said as with his previous conflict of
interest with'Forest Lakes he would excuse himself from hearing this applica-
tion due to a business relationship with the applicant. He left the room.
Mr. Keeler presented 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 approval subject to the applicant's proffers and with the under-
standing that development will be for townhouse units (a maximum of 26) with
variations in unit height and setback.
With no questions being asked by Board members, Mr. Perkins opened the
public hearing at 8:16 p.m.
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
000:1.4S
Mr. Steve Runkle said the"objections raised by some Planning Commission-
ers related to use. These Commissioners felt this site would better be used
for commercial offices or transitional use as opposed to residential use. The
application was guided by the fact that the Comprehensive Plan calls for it to
be high density residential, and on another petition recently for the same
area, there was sentiment expressed that residential property not be changed
to other uses. That is basically what guided their application.
Mr. Bob Watson said he is the President of the Forest Lakes Homeowners'
Association, and that the Associations' position has been discussed with Mr.
Runkle. The Association has an excellent working relationship with the
Kessler Group and wants that relationship to continue even though the Associa-
tion is taking a different position tonight than what this Board has before
them. The highest and best use of a piece of property means different things
to different people. From the developer's standpoint, the highest and best
use is to maximize his land use and his profitability. From the Board's
standpoint, the highest and best use is to follow the Comprehensive Plan, to
increase densities, and to keep things flowing in the direction that the
Planning Commission has already approved. From a residential standpoint, the
highest and best use is to protect the character of the neighborhood. This
area, in the Associations' opinion, is primarily commercial. Behind the site
is a Virginia Power~ Station. To the north, there is a day care center. To
the south, there is the University Medical Center rezoning that was recently
approved by this Board. To the west of this property the land on Route 29 is
highway commercial. This property will face the back of the existing Food
Lion Shopping Center. The Association feels the highest and best use for this
property may be for commercial office use for the following reasons: (1)
there would be less traffic generation on a seven-day a week basis all the way
out to Route 29 in what will be an extremely congested area; (2) a small
residential development would not be "shoe horned" in and among existing
commercial properties on both sides of it; (3) it would maintain the character
of Forest Lakes because everything on and west of Worth Crossing would be
commercial and everything in a easterly direction would be residential
development; (4) commercial offices would be "a fit" because of the existing
medical center that will be built. It could be a tremendous boom for doctors'
offices and other allied medical office buildings; and (5) a small straw poll
of the residents of Forest Lakes residents was 3:1 in favor of commercial
office use versus high density residential development.
Mr. Watson said he feels there is a solution to this issue, if the Board
would change the existing zoning to commercial use. If the developer is
willing to do this, it would eliminate his costs of going through the rezoning
procedures, and if the applicant is agreeable to doing this, then his cost for
site plan applications should also be waived. He encouraged the Board to
consider commercial office use for this site versus high density residential.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mro Perkins closed the
public hearing at 8:23 p.m., and turned the matter over to the Board for
discussion.
Mr. Martin said he has talked with many residents in Forest Lakes and
Gatewood. Based on his own straw poll, he agrees with Mr. Watson that the
people would prefer commercial use as opposed to residential. There are good
arguments supporting commercial use rather than residential based on the
location. He supports Mr. Watson's suggestion, but he would like to support
the application as presented based on his being a strong advocate for lower-
priced housing. Albemarle County is in a situation where there are not many
places where the density can be increased because of water and sewer consider-
ations. Mr. Martin said one of his concerns with the University of VirginiaVs
medical proposal was because it meant losing residential property. Me
supports this application; however, if this Board is inclined to reject this
proposal, he asked if it would be possible to just go ahead and rezone as Mr.
Watson suggested without going through the process again. Mr. Davis said this
cannot be done.
Mo%ion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall~ to
approve ZMA-95-06, a request to rezone 2.2 acres from R-1 to R-15 subject to
the proffers accepted by the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Thomas said she can support this proposal and its proffer. She has
often asked Mr. Runkle why they cannot build more townhouses, and this does
seem to be a place that is~appropriate for townhouses.
Mr. Marshall said there is a lack of affordable housing in the County
and this proposal would help provide for this need.
Mrs. Humphris said this is a difficult decision to make because she
agrees with both sides of the issue. She is pleased with the proffer about
adding the facade and front elevations. She thinks that will help and she is
willing to support the motion.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs° Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs° Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
(Note: The P~ff~~'~'~:'~ibelow.)
PROFFER:
Date: 6-19-95
ZMA# 95-0~
Tax Map Parcel(s) # 46B4, Parcel 6
2.2 Acres to be rezoned from R-1 to R-15
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance,
the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily
proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the
property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of
the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning
itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such
conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested.
~ (1) A path shall be provided which connects the path system
shown on the approved site plan for Forest Lakes Medical
Offices on Tax Map 46B4, Parcel 7~ and the existing Day Care
on Tax Map 46B4, Parcel 5.
(2) The development will be for a maximum of twenty-six (26)
townhouse units which will vary in front elevation and
facade.
(signed) Forest Lakes AssOciates by
Stephen N. Runkle
June 20, 1995
Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA 94-25. Craig Builders, Mill Creek West.
Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 80 ac from LI & PUD (Industrial)
to PUD (Residential). Located along N sd of Southern Parkway N of Mill Creek
Dvlp & S of 1-64. This property is in Urban Neighborhood 4 & is designated
for Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. TM76M1,Ps10&10B.
Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 26 and July 3,
1995.)
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 8:27 p.m.)
Mr. Keeler presented 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 27, 1995, unanimously recommended
approval subject to the following revised conditions:
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MILL CREEK PUD
(Note: Deletions of original conditions of ZMA-85-29 are shown as s~ri~ccu~
text, and language of new conditions of ZMA-94-25 is shown as underlined
text.)
Residential and industrial , and ccm~crcial areas with their
attendant open space areas, includinq pedestrian trails,
shall be located in general accord with the Application
Plan *-~"-~-:~ .... incrcazc -z
~, ....... a ...... rcal~gnmcnt cf ~ ccllcc
~r2. Ail roads, with the exception of the potential collector
road shall be built to Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation standards and placed in the Secondary System
.at the time of development of the residential areas utiliz-
ing these roads.
I
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
000 0
The alignment of the potential collector road shall be in
general accord with the Application Plan. The collector
road shall be built in accordance with an agreement approved
by the County Attorney and by the Board of Supervisors which
is generally in accord with the attached (on file) draft
agreement dated May 7, 1986 (read by George H. Gilliam and
changes as agreed to by the applicant), presented to the
Board on that date. There shall be no residential entrances
onto the collector road, with the exception of public road
connections. The possibility that this collector road will
be constructed (the extension of Southern Parkway) within
the reserved area shall be clearly disclosed in the subdivi-
sion covenants and restrictions and on the subdivision plat
for all lots adjacent to the collector road in the Mill
Creek West portion of this PUD. In the event that this
collector road is constructed, the developer or its succes-
sors or assiqns shall be responsible for the removal of the
portion of the Grist Mill Drive median and turn island and
the "Mill Creek West" siqn proposed within the collector
road riqht-of-way.
The maximum number of dwelling units approved under this PUD
is 315 435 dwelling units;
For the portion of this PUD identified as "Mill Creek West",
lots that include portions of the critical slopes (25 per-
cent or qreater slope) associated with the Biscuit Run
stream valley shall provide an easement to Albemarle County
and the developer or its successors that prohibits distur-
bance of the natural qrade in the portions of the lot on
such slopes. Any maintenance responsibilities resultinq
from disturbance to these slopes shall be incurred by the
developer or its successors and not by Albemarle County.
For the portion of this PUD identified as "Mill Creek West,"
minimum required yards shall be as follows:
Front: Twenty-five (25) feet for lots with frontaqe on the
road shown as "Grist Mill Drive" on the Application Plan;
twenty (20) feet for other lots, except that the front yard
may be reduced to ten (10) feet for attached qaraqes for a
maximum lineal distance of twenty-eiqht (28) feet provided
that there shall be no openinqs except for qaraqe doors in
any exterior wall of the enclosed structure parallel to the
street between twenty (20) feet and ten (10) feet from the
front lot line.
Side: Seven and one-half (7.5) feet.
Rear: Twenty (20) feet, except in cases in which the rear
lots abuts common open space, then the rear yard may be
reduced to ten (10) feet.
Special Use Permit approval is required for establishment of
the stream crossinq over Biscuit Run indicated on the Appli-
cation Plan.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at 8:32 p.m.
Ms. Andrea Craig said she is with Craig Builders. In 1977 this site was
zoned as low density residential, but then, somewhere between 1982 and 1984,
it became industrial. Since that time, much study and research has been done
regarding this property, It has been determined that the property would not
be best served as industrial property. Mill Creek, which will be this
subdivision's proto-type, has been providing the County with affordable
housing (houses range from $90,000 to $150,000 with unfinished rooms that
allows for first-time home buyers to finish the rooms at their financial
convenience). The Mill Creek Homeowners' Association supports the rezoning of
this property. The Planning Commission has also provided unanimous approval
for this proposal. She requested that the Board approve this proposal.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Perkins closed the
public hearing at 8:33 p.m., and turned the matter over to Board members for
discussion.
Mrs. Humphris expressed concern over revised condition number five which
deals with the critical slopes in the Biscuit Run stream valley and the
easements that will be provided. She then referred to page nine of the
Planning Commission minutes about the location of critical slopes in addition
to those along Biscuit Run. It was noted that is has not yet been determined
whether there will be good building sites on all those lots. She asked if the
developer would be able to just take a bulldozer and change those slopes. Mro
Keeler said a waiver would have to be obtained from the Planning Commission to
work on the slopes for construction. If there are a limited amount of 25
July 12, 1995 (Regula~ Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
0001.5,1.
percent slopes on a lot, in the past, that has generally been accommodated.
Staff does not support a situation where the entire lot is in critical slopes,
but it does require a waiver from the Commission.
There being no further discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Marshall,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve ZMA 94-25 as recommended by the Planning
Commission subject to the following revised conditions of approval:
Residential and industrial areas with their attendant open
space areas, including pedestrian trails, shall be located
in general accord with the Application Plan.
Ail roads, with the exception of the potential collector
road shall be built to Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation standards and placed in the Secondary System
at the time' of development of the residential areas utiliz-
ing these roads°
30
The alignment of the potential collector road shall be in
general accord with the Application Plan. The collector
road shall be built in accordance with an agreement approved
by the County Attorney and by the Board of Supervisors which
is generally in accord with the attached (on file) draft
agreement dated May 7, 1986 (read by George H. Gilliam and
changes as agreed to by the applicant), presented to the
Board on that date. There shall be no residential entrances
onto the collector road, with the exception of public road
connections. The possibility that this collector road will
be constructed (the extension of Southern Parkway) within
the reserved area shall be clearly disclosed in the subdivi-
sion covenants and restrictions and on the subdivision plat
for all lots adjacent to the collector road in the Mill
Creek West portion of this PUD. In the event that this
collector road is constructed, the developer or its succes-
sors or assigns shall be responsible for the removal of the
portion of the Grist Mill Drive median and turn island and
the "Mill Creek West" sign proposed within the collector
road right-of-way.
The maximum number of dwelling units approved under this PUD
is 435 dwelling units;
Se
For the portion of this PUD identified as "Mill Creek West",
lots that include portions of the critical slopes (25 per-
cent or greater slope) associated with the Biscuit Run
stream valley shall provide an easement to Albemarle County
and the developer or its successors that prohibits distur-
bance of the natural grade in the portions of the lot on
such slopes. Any maintenance responsibilities resulting
from disturbance to these slopes shall be incurred by the
developer or its successors and not by Albemarle County.
For the portion of this PUD identified as "Mill Creek West,"
minimum required yards shall be as follows:
Front: Twenty-five (25) feet for lots with frontage on the
road shown as "Grist Mill Drive" on the Application Plan;
twenty (20) feet for other lots, except that the front yard
may be reduced to ten (10) feet for attached garages for a
maximum lineal distance of twenty-eight (28) feet provided
that there shall be no openings except for garage doors in
any exterior wall of the enclosed structure parallel to the
street between twenty (20) feet and ten (10) feet from the
front lot line.
Side: Seven and one-half (7.5) feet.
Rear: Twenty (20) feet, except in cases in which the rear
lots abuts common open space, then the rear yard may be
reduced to ten (10) feet.
Special Use Permit approval is required for establishment of
the stream crossing over Biscuit Run indicated on the Appli-
cation Plan.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 8,
Finance and Taxation, Article XII, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Tax--E-911, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to authorize the use of the
E-911 tax for all purposes authorized by section 58.1-3813 of the Code of
Virginia. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 26 and July 3, 1995.)
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
000 52
Mr. Tucker summarized the need for this change (see minutes of June 7,
1995. )
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. With no one from the
public rising to speak, Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m.,
and turned the matter over to Board members for discussion.
Mr. Marshall said he is unhappy with the whole E-911 system. He has had
many problems in his district including incorrect resident addresses. There
is one section in his district where the information the Post Office has and
the information E-911 has are different. There seems to be a lack of coordi-
nation and no one seems to be solving the problem. He does not have his own
new address yet. He asked why there are so many problems with implementation
of the system.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Office is working with the contractor.
They are having all information routed through Planning to ensure that the
information is accurate before it is dispersed to the community. Many
addresses have not been mailed yet, but, as Planning reviews the addresses for
accuracy, these addresses are being placed in the Centel system. The Centel
system then places these addresses in a data bank for the E-911 system. When
everything eventually moves to the E-911 system, it will be accurate.
Mr. Marshall asked who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the
system is problem free. Mr. Tucker said the contractor is responsible for the
system. The County has paid out only some of the funds in the contractor's
contract. Also, the contractor is not billing the County for additional work.
The contractor has a set contract that must be met and for each level that is
fulfilled in the contract, a check is issued.
Mr. Martin said he has also received many complaints regarding these
problems. However, the County is committed to this project and it must be
carried out. The people he has talked with are not so concerned about the
project, but are more concerned that the Board is adopting this ordinance
amendment to pay for mistakes being made by the contractor. It is important
to let people know the County has a contract which allows for payment when
each level of service is fulfilled, and that this amount does not increase
simply because the contractor makes mistakes.
Mrs. Humphris said she realizes from some of the calls she has gotten
that some of the problems simply are not solvable, and most of the people are
being very understanding of the problems, Many other communities have gone
through these same problems and experiences with the implementation of an
E-911 system.
Mr. Marshall asked when the E-911 system will be completed. Mr. Tucker
said he is under the impression that the County will be on-line for E-911
services by Spring. The County will not receive the software for this system
until the contract is completed.
Mr. Marshall asked how much this project has cost the County so far.
Mr. Tucker said he could not provide an exact figures at this time, but a
considerable amount of the contract is being held in escrow. The contractors
must still pay their people to do the work, but the County is not willing to
provide the money until the product is received and accurate.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the street addresses for subdivisions have been
mailed. Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Bowerman may not receive a new address
because he already 'haS an established street address. Addresses are mainly
for rural areas. Mr. Bowerman said he understood that the locator system
would verify existing addresses. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.
Mrs. Thomas asked if when addresses are sent to people, they could be
asked not to utilize the address until it has been verified. Mr. Tucker said
the Planning Office is now verifying the addresses a second time before they
are mailed. Mr. Bowerman said this is costing the County money in staff time.
With no further discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded
by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 8, Finance and
Taxation, Article XII, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Tax--E-911, of the Code of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to authorize the use of the E-911 tax for
all purposes authorized by Section 58.1-3813 of the Code of Virginia.
Roll was called and the motion carried by.the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~53
(Page 15)
ORDINANCE NO. 95-8(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXA-
TION, ARTICLE XII, ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE TAX--E-911, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article
XII, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax--E-911, is hereby
amended and reordalned by amending section 8-59, Enhanced emergen-
cy telephone service tax--Levy and rate; effective date; exemp-
tions, and section 8-62, Receipt and disbursement by finance
director, as follows:
Sec. 8-59. Enhanced emergency telephone service tax--Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions.
Pursuant to section 58.1-3813 of the Code of Virginia, there
is hereby imposed a special tax on consumers of telephone service
in the amount of one dollar and thirty-nine cents ($1.39) per
month for each access line.
The tax imposed herein shall be first utilized solely for
the initial capital, installation, and maintenance costs of the E-
911 Emergency Telephone System. This levy shall be reduced when
the caPital and installation costs.have been fully recovered to
the level necessary to offset recurring maintenance, repair, and
system upgrade costs, and the salaries or portion of salaries of
dispatchers or call-takers paid by the county which are directly
attributable to the E-911 program only.
This levy shall not apply to federal, state or local govern-
ment agencies.
The levy shall apply to all bills rendered on and after
April 1, 1991.
Sec. 8-62. Receipt and disbursement by finance director.
The tax collected is appropriated solely for the costs of
the E-911 system and the finance director shall deposit all levies
collected and remitted from providers of the telephone service
into the general fund with a separate accounting of such funds to
be used solely for the purposes authorized by this article.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adopt Resolution approving the issuance of Series
1995 Bonds for Our Lady of Peace, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $15,000,000
to refund bonds previously issued by the Industrial Development Authority to
finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a residential facility
for the aged.
Mr. Tucker said this resolution is necessary in order for Our Lady of
Peace to refinance bonds originally approved in 1991. They are able to obtain
a better bond rate at this time, and wish to reissue the bonds. They will
obtain a savings of approximately $750,000 over the life of the bonds.
There was no discussion by the Board members. Motion was offered by
Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt a Resolution approving the
issuance of Series 1995 Bonds for Our Lady of Peace, Inc., in an amount not to
exceed $15,000,000 to refund bonds previously issued by the Industrial
Development Authority to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping
of a residential facility for the aged.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martins Mr. Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
(Note: The resolution, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia ("the Authority") has considered the application
of Our Lady of Peace, Inc. ("the Corporation") requesting the
issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount estimated
at not to exceed $15,000,000 (the "Series 1995 Bonds") to (1)
refund bonds previously issued by the Authority to finance to the
acquisition, construction and equipping of a residential facility
for the aged (the "Facility") located at 751 Hillsdale Drive in
Albemarle County, Virginia, and (2) finance certain costs of
issuing the Series 1995 Bonds and has held a public hearing
thereon on June 30, 1995; and
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16) .... ·
WHEREA$,VSeCtion'147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended ("the Tax Code"), and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the
Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Virginia Code"), provide that
the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of
industrial development bonds and over the area in which any
facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development
bonds is located must approve the issuance of the Bonds; and
000 154
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), the Facility is located
in the County, and the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected
governmental unit of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority recommends that the Board approve the
issuance of the Series 1995 Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Series 1995 Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed
upon, a record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact
statement" with the respect to the refunding and the Facility have
been filed with the Board;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEF.%RLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Series
1995 Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Corporation, as
required by Section 147(f) of the Tax Code and Section 15.1-1378.1
of the Virginia Code, as amended, to permit the Authority to issue
bonds for the purposes set forth above.
2. Approval of the issuance of the Series 1995 Bonds, as
required by Section 147(f) of the Tax Code does not constitute an
endorsement to the Series 1995 Bonds or the creditworthiness of
the Corporation. As required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Virginia
Code, as amended, the Series 1995 Bonds shall provide that neither
the County nor the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Series
1995 Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto
except from the revenues and moneys pledged therefor, and neither
the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, the County or the Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Agenda Item No. 16. Approval of Minutes: May 10, 1995.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of May 10, 1995, and found them to be in
order.
~otion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
the minutes of May 10, 1995, as presented.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Mrs° Thomas.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD°
Mrs. Thomas said there is a rezoning for Mr. George Clark scheduled for
next week that should have been scheduled for this week since she will be on
vacation next week. Since this rezoning will be heard in her absence, she
presented her comments, in writing, to the Board.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Tucker if he had an update on the flood funding
for the Sugar Hollow area. Mr. Tucker said "no." As far as he knows,
applications are being made and funding is being issued. Ne does not have an
update on the total cost because it is still being defined. He met last
Monday with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and discussed this matter.
There was no damage to the Sugar Hollow Reservoir Dam although there may be
some capacity loss. Due to Mrs. Thomas' concerns about the dam, he has asked
staff to contact residents along Sugar Hollow to let them know that there are
not any problems with the dam°
Mr. Perkins said in reference to the application for Soil Conservation
funds, the County's 25 percent match can be taken care of through the Highway
Department. Mr. Tucker said this is what is being requested. Mrs. Angela
Tucker is working toward a funding match of 25 percent from VDOT funds.
000 155
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mrs. Thomas said the damage above the Sugar Hollow Reservoir due to
major mud slides is far greater than was reported. That is why there is
concern about the capacity of the Reservoir, the mud is settling there.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an update on a reported water loss by the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) system. Mr. Tucker said the RWSA
still has not located where the water loss is occurring. There is concern
that it may be in a line near a stream so it cannot be easily detected. Water
production has been increased from the South Rivanna Plant. With water demand
diminishing this evening, storage tanks will be filled. People are being
encouraged to use their water wisely.
Mrs. Humphris said at the last meeting of the Virginia Association of
Counties (VACO) Health and Human Services Steering Committee to mention the
change in the performance contracts that the local community service boards
have to sign with the state. There are some significant changes in those
contracts that require counties to be very alert, and not to agree to all of
the changes. A new requirement in the contract is that if an executive
director needs to be replaced in the coming year, the State Board of Mental
Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse, will participate in the
selection of that executive director. This is moving backward from returning
government to the localities. VACO wants all localities to know about these
changes before the July 14, 1995, deadline for signing the contract. Mrs.
Humphris asked that the County Attorney review these changes and the executive
director~clause. She said this is only one of the concerns.
Mrs~ Humphris said after she presented to the Board last week her
questions concerning the State's Six-Year Highway Improvement Program, she
received a call from Mr. John DePasquale of the Virginia Department of
Transportation's (VDOT) Culpeper office. He said they had made a significant
error in the amount for purchase of right-of-way for the Route 29 Western
Bypass, which amount was approved. The amount of the error was $10,117,000.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks it might be a good idea to ask (since that money
has already been allocated to the Albemarle County Primary System in the Six-
Year Plan), that the Meadow Creek Parkway be designated as a primary route,
and that that amount of money be allocated from the project where there is a
surplus to the Meadow Creek Parkway where it is needed to provide for
planning, engineering and right-of-way, since that roadway was to be done at
the same time, or prior to the Western Bypass anyway.
Mr. Bowerman said he supports this idea. It shows that this Board knows
there was an error made, and it keeps the priorities as this Board has asked
that they be done. If even part of that could be used for engineering and
design, that would be good.
Mrs. Humphris said if it were used for planning, engineering and right-
of-way, that is a significant amount of money, and it is already allocated to
Albemarle County. The vote has already been taken, so why not ask that it be
moved at the next allocation period to designate the Meadow Creek Parkway as
part of the primary road system. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on May 3, 1995, the Albemarle Board of County
Supervisors adopted a resolution requesting that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board designate the Meadow Creek Parkway a Primary
Highway and place it in the current Six-Year Primary Road plan for
funding; and
WHEREAS, it has recently been discovered that the approved
FY 1995-96 Six-Year Improvement Program has a $10.117 million
over-alloCation for the Charlottesville Bypass, Alternative 10,
due to an incOrrect estimated cost for right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, this additional allocation of $10.117 million has
already been approved for the primary road system in the Albemarle
County area within the Culpeper District; and
WHEREAS, the Meadow Creek Parkway meets the criteria for
inclusion in the Primary Road system as stated by Mr. Jack Hodge
at the Commonwealth Transportation Board workshop in April, 1995,
and as requested in February, 1995, by Albemarle County, the City'
of Charlottesville, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce and area legisla-
tors.
NOW, THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors does hereby request the Commonwealth Transpor-
tation Board, at its next allocation period, to designate the
Meadow Creek Parkway part of the primary road system and reallo-
cate these already allocated funds in the amount of $10.117
milliontoward the planning, engineering and right-of-way for the
Meadow Creek Parkway.
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) OO0~6
(Page 18)
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
At this time, the Board return to Item 5.5 on the Consent Agenda, a copy
of a letter dated June 28, 1995, from Mr. John P. Moore, to the Honorable Ed
Robb, Senator, re: prohibition of truck traffic on Route 231/22.
and Item 5.6 on the Consent Agenda, Copy of letter dated May 31, 1995,
from Ms. Brenda Garton Bailey, County Administrator, Orange County, to Mr.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: prohibition of truck traffic on
Route 231/22.
Mrs. Humphris said she had read the letters and does not know if the
Board needs to discuss them now, so would move to accept these two items on
the Consent Agenda as information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the Board had received a letter dated July 7~
1995, from Mr. Michael L. Patterson regarding boat access to the Rivanna
Reservoir. Me asked that a response be sent. Mr. Tucker said a letter has
been drafted for Mr. Perkins' signature.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the status of the new high school in terms of
planning, architects, etc. He said he would like to serve on the high school
planning committee. Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris both said they have been
attending the committee meetings. Mr. Bowerman said he has previously
mentioned that he is interested in the operating costs savings that can be
obtained if there is good planning at the beginning of this project. He is
also concerned about other things such as, is the building design such that
the windows contain standard windows rather than having special windows. He
asked if an architect has been selected.
Mrs. Thomas said "yes". Mr. Bowerman asked if he gets ten percent of
the building in terms of his fee. Mrs. Thomas said she does not know. The
architect was selected before the planning meetings started. The architect,
or someone the architect works with, is holding the planning meetings. Those
planning meetings are looking "from the inside out". What kind of education
does this community want to take place in that building? Mr. John Hermsmeier
sits on that committee, and maybe others will be asking how it fits into this
community. Mrs. Thomas said they would also like to get more people in the
community involved in the building in terms of how it fits in with community-
wide interests.
Mrs. Humphris said the name of the group is the "Learning Specifications
Development Team (LSDT). It is a very large group that covers a very wide
spectrum of participants. The only thing noticeably missing at the meeting
was students. The first meeting was Friday, June 23, 1995, from 8 a.m. to 4
p.m. It was a long day of brainstorming and work groups. The next meeting is
8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Monday, July 17, 1995. There is one also on July 18,
1995, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., one on August 3, 1995, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. and
on August 4 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. There are a lot of opportunities to
participate.
Mrs. Thomas said she does not know that this committee will meet the
needs being expressed by Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Bowerman said he just wants to be
sure the questions are asked and answered. Mr. Tucker said he pass this
information along to Mr. A1 Reaser. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the
committee is getting this information because it has talked quite a bit about
the environment.
Mrs. Thomas asked about the industrial opportunity group that is
interested in investing. She said she thought this went along with the
Sustainability Council, and referred her question to Mr. Bowermano Mr.
Bowerman said he is interested in the common sense that goes into materials~
etc.
Mrs. Thomas said she understands that, so she is changing the subject.
There is a group that is very interested in investing some money in a building
that will be a long-range, environmentally sensitive building. That might be
an exciting source for some significant money. Is that getting to the right
people? Mrs. Thomas said she sent an E-Mail to the Superintendent. Mr.
Bowerman said the County does have an exciting possibility with this project.
Mr. Marshall said when he was on the School Board, they had a
coordinator to oversee the projects, just to save the County money. Mr.
July 12, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Tucker said the County has such a perSon on staff; Ms. Jo Higgins, County
Engineer, has been performing those duties in recent years.
000 57
Agenda Item No. 17a. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 9:12 p.m.,
mo%ion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adjourn into
executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A of the Code of Virginia under
subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding a specific
legal matter concerning reversion and a specific legal matter concerning an
award of contract.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17b. Certify Executive Session. At 10:10 p.m,~ the
Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to certify that to the best of each board member's
knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open
meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified
in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard~ discussed or
considered in the executive session.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and
Mrs. Thomas.
None.
~0~ DOCFd~TED: The Chairman read a statement to the press regarding the
Board's willingness to meet with City Council to discuss the reversion issue.
The Board feels that the initial meeting should be an open forum rather than a
presentation by any individual or group. Anyone should be able to raise
concerns, issues, or questions, relating to reversion with specific time
limits to allow as many interested people to participate as possible° After
this process, subsequent meetings between the Board and Council can be
convened to deal with specific issues that have been identified by the public
or governing bodies. A date is currently being scheduled.
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.