1993-03-17March 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
M.B. 43, Pg. 286
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 17, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and
Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
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. Clarence E. McKamey was present and spoke in reference to hunting
regulations and ordinances for Albemarle County. He requested that the Board
help the hunters of Albemarle County by changing and adopting laws or ordi-
nances that a hunter will be able to understand. The laws are confusing and
hunters violate them unknowingly. There are five state ordinances regarding
hunting; two of them are missing from the County Code. He expressed the
following concerns with the ordinances listed in the State's 1992-93 Hunting
Regulations:
Number 16 states that it is unlawful to hunt within 50 feet of the road.
Number 22 states that it is unlawful to possess a loaded firearm on the
road except when permission to hunt is obtained from landowners on each
side.
Number 30 states that it is unlawful to transport or possess a loaded
firearm on the road in a vehicle.
Mr. McKamey said hunters are confused by what these laws and ordinances
actually mean and would like to have some explanation from the County on what
they are to do in order to be legal hunters.
Mr. McKamey said he blames Albemarle County for the violation he was
charged with since the Board adopted these laws. Legal hunters were not
thought about when the laws were adopted and these County laws are not needed
since they are conflicting.
Mr. Bowerman requested that the County Attorney look at these issues and
reply. He also requested that Mr. McKamey be sent a copy of the reply.
Mr. McKamey said hunting regulations are published in June of each year
by the Commission on Game and Inland Fisheries. He hopes the Board will
change County ordinances and send those changes to the Commission so both the
Board and the hunters will know what the ordinances mean. On April 2, the
public is invited to make comments on the laws that they will publish in June.
April 1 is the final date for any changes for this next hunting season.
There was consensus of the Board that no change in County laws could be
made by April 1 and this item is to be discussed at the Board's first meeting
in April.
Mr. Perkins said another word that should be defined is the word "road".
There needs to be clarification as to whether this is a public road or any
road.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humph-
ris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Item 5.1 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. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Statements of Expenses for the month of February, 1993, for
the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and
Clerk of the Circuit Court, were approved as presented by the above recorded
vote.
Item 5.2. Letter dated March 4, 1993, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commis-
sioner, Department of Transportation, providing notice that the Commonwealth
March 17, 1993 (ReGular NiGht MeetinG)
(PaGe 2)
M.B. 43, Pg. 287
Drive Connector was accepted into the State Secondary System of HiGhways
effective February 24, 1993, was received as follows for information:
"As requested in your resolution dated November 4, 1992, the
following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is
hereby approved, effective February 24, 1993.
ADDITION
LENGTH
COMMONWEALTH DRIVE CONNECTOR
Route 1315 (Commonwealth Drive) - From 0.46 mile Northeast
Route 743 to Route 866
0.15 Mi"
Item 5.3. Memorandum dated March 11, 1993, from Mr. Tex Weaver,
Information Resource Planner, re: Enhanced 911 Project Status, was received
for information. (The memorandum indicates that GTEGIS, our Enhanced 911
BuildinG Locator System consultant, notified the County that they would be
unable to meet the necessary deadlines to proceed with the BuildinG Locator
and Enhanced 911 implementation schedule revised September 16, 1992. This
schedule had an effective date for new addresses of February 28, 1993;
Enhanced 911 equipment installation by September 1, 1993; and an operational
date of December 1, 1993. This notification came as a result of a contractual
dispute between GTEGIS and ETG, their mappinG subcontractor.
Item 5.4. Superintendent's Memorandum No. 3, dated February 26, 1993,
from Mr. Joseph A. SpaGnolo, Jr., Superintendent of Public Instruction, and
Mr. Edward W. Carr, Deputy Superintendent for Administration, re: Aid to
Lqcalities, 1992-94 Biennium, was received for information.
Item 5.5. Memorandum dated March 10, 1993, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, re: U. S. Route 29 Corridor Study, regarding a $1.5
million Grant that VDoT has obtained to study a portion of U.S. 29 North from
the South Fork of the Rivanna River northward to State Route 605 near the town
of Warrenton, was received for information.
Mrs. Humphris said she agrees with the suggestion that a member of the
Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission should serve on the committee.
Item 5.6. Planning Commission minutes for February 23, 1993, were
received for information.
AGenda Item No. 6. ZMA-92-13. George & William Clark (deferred from
March 10, 1993).
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Clark has requested deferral until April 14, 1993,
to work out details of specifics which staff has discussed with them.
Mrs.'Humphris asked why this request will not be reheard by the Planning
Commission since it will include new material. Mr. CilimberG said the Board
could direct the Planning Commission to rehear the request.
Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Bain said they were content with just this Board
dealing with the request.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer ZMA-92-13
until April 14, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
AGenda Item No. 7. ZMA-92-12 & SP-92-66. Worrell Land & Cattle
Company. Public Hearing on a request to establish application plan for 241
acs zoned PD-MC & CO, bounded by Richmond Rd (Rt 250E) on N, 1-64 on S & W,
and State Farm Blvd on W. Special permit would allow residential use &
supporting commercial uses in portion zoned CO. Part of the proposal is to
rezone 1.7 acs from CO to PD-MC. Application Plan proposes 977,550 sf of
office development, 145,000 sf of retail development, 296 residential units &
85 ac of open space, to be served by private roads. Site located in a Growth
area (N3) is recommended for regional service in the Comprehensive Plan.
TM78,P20B,20C,20K,20M, 31,32,71&71A. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on March 2 and March 9, 1994.)
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. The
applicant's proposal is outlined in detail in the book titled "Peter Jefferson
Place Application Plan December, 1992" (on file). A summary of the land use
follows:
March 17, 1993 (Regular Night MSeting)
(Page 3)
M.B. 43, Pg. 288
DEVELOPMENT OF PARCELS
.OPEN SPACE
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
ACREAGE PERCENTAGE
144.9 60%
84.9 35%
11.7
5%
Mr. Cilimberg said the open space includes sufficient area to accommo-
date the future greenway project along the Rivanna River. The applicant has
expressed a willingness to cooperate with the County in the development of
this project.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff opinion is that the proposed development and
application plan are consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation. Staff recommends
approval of ZMA-92-12, as the establishment of the proposed application plan
will allow for orderly development of this large-scale, long-term project
while comprehensively protecting the most environmentally sensitive area of
the property through the designation of open space and the utilization of
private roads. Staff also recommends approval of SP-92-66 for the supporting
commercial uses and residential areas which are consistent with the non-
residential land use guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordi-
nance.
Mr. Cilimberg said while the Commercial Office and Planned Development-
Mixed Commercial zoning already exists for this property, staff has reviewed
this petition in accordance with Section 8.0 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - GENERALLY.
In that respect, staff has worked with the applicant to propose a set of
agreements as specified by Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
agreements are compiled from the applicant's proposal as well as recommenda-
tions by staff to allow for administrative review of future site plans. No
conditions of approval are recommended for the special use permit request.
The applicant has agreed to the following:
1. Establishment of the Land Use Plan dated November 11, 1992,
and revised January 20, 1993, as the approved Application
Plan for the Planned Development-Mixed Commercial and Com-
mercial Office zoned property.
2 o
The supporting commercial uses shall be in accordance with
those uses permitted by-right in the C-1 zone as modified by
Section 9.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3 o
The residential uses are not required to be developed on a
pro-rata basis with the office development in accordance
with Section 9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4 o
Provision of private roads within the development designed
to meet mountainous terrain standards.
The Worrell Land and Cattle Company agrees to pay for the
necessary right turn and taper lanes at the development's
entrances along Route 250 East. The right turn lanes shall
be constructed as each entrance is established. The devel-
oper also agrees to provide an additional left turn lane and
traffic signal on Route 250 East at the primary and second-
ary entrance to the site. These improvements shall be
constructed upon demand of the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation in accordance with their letter dated February 8,
1993, or earlier at the developer's option, provided the
primary and secondary entrance meets the signalization
warrants as given in the latest edition of the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
6 o
The applicant will utilize detailed design guidelines con-
sistent with the outline included as Appendix I of the Peter
Jefferson Place Application Plan book.
Except those sites shown as Parcels A-2, B-1 and B-2 on the
Land Use Map (Tax Map 78, Parcels 20K, 71 and 7lA), all
future site plans shall be reviewed by the Albemarle County
Architectural Review Board if it is determined the site will
be visible from Interstate 64 or Route 250 East.
8. Setbacks shall be as follows:
a. Commercial and Office Uses:
Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any struc-
tures, except signs, shall be erected closer than
thirty (30) feet to any public street right-of-way.
No off-street parking or loading space shall be locat-
ed closer than ten (10) feet to any public street
right-of-way.
March 17, 1993 (Regular Night M~eting)
(Page 4)
M.B. 43, Pg. 289
Adjacent to internal private streets: The setbacks
for buildings and parking may be reduced to ten (10)
feet provided adequate sight distance is maintained
and minimum landscaping requirements are met.
b. Residential Uses:
Minimum yards: Front, twenty-five (25) feet, side,
fifteen (15) feet, rear, 'twenty (20) feet. Minimum
side yards shall be reduced to not less than ten (10)
feet in accordance with Section 4.11.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Setbacks for the townhouses adjacent to
the park may be reduced to five (5) feet surrounding
the loop road.
Administrative approval of all future site plans and subdi-
vision plats. In the spirit of Section 8.5.6.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance, the Director of Planning and Community
Development shall be authorized discretion over reasonable
variations from the approved zoning Application Plan.
10.
Future requests for parking decks or a helistop will require
additional Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
reviews.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February
23, 1993, recommended approval of ZMA-92-12 and SP-92-66, subject to the
Agreements as set out above.
Mr. Bain asked about phasing of the residential development. He does
not have a problem with some phasing, but does not want the project to be
developed in its entirety without residential development occurring also. He
is not keen on this and asked if there is any requirement to prevent it from
happening. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks it is the applicant's intent to
develop more residential property if the market demands that. Under that
request, the intent of the regulation is to put the most intensive uses within
a development but it does not preclude the developer from developing the
residential area up to twenty percent of the total site areas. That seems to
be what they want to do. Without any action to change the zoning, the appli-
cant's would have to develop a residential area at some point. He does not
know their timing on this.
Mr. Bain asked if the sewer line has been reviewed to assure that a 15-
inch line will serve all of the proposed development. Mr. Cilimberg said
"yes," the sewer line was reviewed by the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) and it was confirmed to staff that it will support all proposed uses.
As the individual site plans come in, the actual layout of the utilities
system will be reviewed for what is necessary. For the overall service on the
site, ACSA has determined that the sewer line is adequate.
Mr. Bain said he has a problem with a private road being used and the
sizing of the roads. He asked if staff looked at these roads in terms of the
entire parcel. Mr. Cilimberg said the road plans were reviewed by the
Engineering Department. There is a limited area of four-laning or dividing at
the main entrance off of Route 250 East. Based on the traffic that is
expected to be generated, the widths and pavement are expected to be adequate.
The whole road system will be subject to final review by the Engineering
Department. Staff followed VDoT standards in its private road standards,
except for allowing greater horizontal/vertical curvature.
Mr. Bain said the roads will basically be 10 to 11 foot lanes. Mr.
Cilimberg said he does not know that the specifics of the lane size have been
finalized. It is more of a concept of how the roads are expected to be laid
out.
Mr. Martin said if these roads stay private and VDoT will not accept
them into the State Highway System in the future, he sees complications in
terms of snow removal, and roads deteriorating in a subdivision. He asked if
this were to happen, are there any kind of proffers setting out who will
maintain and be responsible for the roads in the future. Mr. Cilimberg said
the applicant has indicated how this will be done. In the Agreements, the
particulars have not been "spelled out," but it will be through a homeowners
association. Mr. Bowerman said the County Attorney will insure that there is
a document for private roads maintenance which will cover the upkeep, etc., on
those roads. This will be part of the application and will have to be agreed
to by the County Attorney.
The public hearing was then opened.
Mr. Andrew Dracopoli, representing Worrell Land and Cattle Company, said
Mr. Fred Jarvas from LDR International, the land planner who developed the
plan, and Mr. Paul McKee from McKee Carson, the engineers, are also present.
He said Mr. Worrell completed the assembly of this parcel in 1986 and since
then there have been five land planners involved. This plan has been studied
numerous times to arrive something Mr. Worrell feels comfortable with as a
development plan for the property. This plan has been refined, market and
feasibility studies done and meetings have been held with interested parties.
March 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
M.B. 43, Pg. 290
Worrell Land and Cattle Company has kept County staff informed of what was on-
going. There have been meetings held with the University of Virginia, who has
an interest in this project, and Monticello, due to the view shed from the
head of the line at Monticello. Monticello requested that another study be
done from the north terrace to show what tourists would see from that point.
Meetings have been held with Westminster-Canterbury residents, Ashcroft
homeowners, State Farm Insurance, Virginia Land Company, Harley Easter and
residents in Glenorchy. The applicant has tried to meet with everyone who had
an interest and with neighbors of the property to inform them of what is
happening. The Board received one letter which was supportive of the proposal
and he feels this suggests that the applicant has done the best job possible
with a beautiful piece of property. The plan received unanimous endorsement
from the Planning Commission and has been reviewed twice by the Architectural
Review Board where preliminary grading plans for phase one and proposed design
guidelines were presented.
Mr. Dracopoli said this plan complies completely with underlying zoning
and the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant tried to incorporate all of the
concerns expressed in the Comprehensive Plan in this submittal. This is an
opportunity for them as developers, as well as the County, to have a first-
class mixed use office park. This will provide an attractive place for out-
of-town businesses to locate within the urban growth area and without putting
pressure on the rural area. The applicant is dedicating more than one-third
of the land to permanent open space and preserving almost all of the woodland,
wetland and steep slopes on the site, installing a large number of water
features, which they hope will be aesthetically pleasing and help with
stormwater detention problems, planned hiking trails spread throughout the
properties for the use of residents and employees, preservation of the natural
beauty of the site and established design guidelines which are specific in
terms of use of materials, etc. By building private roads, the amount of cuts
and fills to service the site will be reduced. The applicant felt the site
could not be developed using rolling terrain standards because of the horizon-
tal curvatures. By dedicating much land to open space and public use, the
natural beauty of the property can be preserved.
Mr. Dracopoli said the applicant feels he may want to move forward
faster with residential development than with development of office buildings.
Theoretically, the applicant could develop all offices without any residen-
tial, but parcels D and F around the Park would then be vacant. The only way
the applicant could obtain approval to build offices on those parcels would be
to submit a rezoning request which this Board would rule on. The applicant
would prefer to have residential development around the park thus creating an
urban environment. Residential development is a key part of this plan and
from a marketing point-of-view will be built in the early stages of the
development. The 15-inch sewer line lies behind Pantops Professional Center
and is adequate to serve this property. This line will also serve some of the
properties northeast of Route 250 which currently cannot connect to the sewer
line at State Farm because it is too low. As part of VDoT highway improve-
ments, a sewer line under Route 250 has been installed at the Glenorchy
crossover which the developer is paying for. At ACSA's request, the applicant
has agreed to increase the size of the sewer line so that it can handle
capacity from the residential areas north of Glenorchy.
Mr. Dracopoli said the major traffic 9enerators on this site are the
retail sites along Route 250 East. The four-lane road is the access point to
the retail sites. Traffic studies have been done and submitted to VDoT for
the entrance improvements. This included studies of the traffic counts on
various sections of the road. Of particular concern was the main road, the
middle entrance road coming up the hill is a two-lane road but was originally
formed as a four-lane road. The applicant's traffic engineer feels that at
maximum build-up, the two-lane road is adequate. Turn-off lanes may need to
be added and the lanes will be 12 feet each. There will be an owner's
association which will raise dues to maintain the roads. There is a mix of
residential and commercial properties but the obligations for sharing this
responsibility have not been formed. Mr. Worrell will control the property
owners association for a while to insure that the Park is successful. The
occupants will be high quality commercial users and they will also have an
interest in maintaining the roads.
Mr. Bowerman asked how the applicant intends to put the infrastructure
in (roads and utilities). Mr. Dracopoli said the applicant considers a
minimal phase one bringing a new entrance road to the top of the hill and
connecting to the existing road that runs past the Pantops Professional
Center. Part of the VDoT improvements is that a waterline be installed in a
"T" under Route 250 to match existing lines. Water will be brought in beside
this road, sewer will be brought from the 15-inch manholes to the top of the
hill. The maximum work to begin immediately is carrying the road to the top
of the hill, grading the park so landscaping can be established and building a
road to South Pantops Drive. After this development is done, the market will
determine what is developed next. The pump stations will wait until there is
a specific use for a parcel to justify their installation.
Mr. Craig Van de Castle said he has not been involved in the meetings
and planning sessions that the applicant has had with the neighbors, affected
people, or with Monticello. He has not read the staff report, but because
only one property owner has written a letter for the permanent file does not
mean that other people will not be disappointed to see this parcel developed
with over 1.0 million square feet of mixed uses, especially in such a visibly
March 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 291
(Page 6)
prominent site from Monticello and Route 250 East. He asked what the zoning
change requested will provide in addition to what is allowed with the current
zoning designation. Mr. Cilimberg said the rezoning does not allow any
further development than can occur by-right with the current zoning. There is
a slight change in zoning to add a small area that would be PD-MC. What is
really happening is that there is an Application Plan being layered on top of
the existing zoning.
Mr. Bowerman said the Comprehensive Plan contemplated this type of
development on this property. Mr. Cilimberg said the zoning is to allow what
the applicant has requested and could have submitted site plans for the non
PD-MC areas.
Mr. Van de Castle said the developer should be commended for the efforts
taken to insure that the design is done well. The point remains that this is
a large change in this area. Without "casting stones," he feels this plan has
been the impetus of the developer and not the County in the sense that this
area is almost a re-do of Route 29 North in regard to land use being dictated
by the owners and developers rather than the County having a proactive,
preexisting plan. He hopes this rezoning meets the needs that the County has
in mind. He commended the developer on the extensive background work done and
said he hopes all of the people who have to look at this development find that
it is done as well as it is proposed to be.
Mr. Dracopoli said this property was zoned by the County in 1980 when it
readopted the Zoning Ordinance and map. This zoning was created prior to Mr.
Worrell acquiring most of the land subject to this plan. The zoning allows
approximately 60 percent of the land to be developed as commercial and 40
percent as office use. The Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1989 limited the
commercial development to 15 percent instead of 60 percent, therefore, the
Plan reduced rather than increased the development potential of this site.
The applicant had agreed to that zoning and does not feel this development has
been driven by the zoning.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bain said during the 1989 sessions on the Comprehensive Plan
covering the urban area and all the neighborhoods therein, there were lengthy
discussions of the issues and the owners of the property were not happy with
what was proposed. This request is a positive response to what this Board,
the Planning Commission and staff thought should be done there as a comprehen-
sive review of an important tract of land that has now been brought under one
ownership. He thinks this plan is an extremely good plan and it will take
some time to develop it. Everything that can be done, including discussions
and work with Monticello, has been done. He feels this has been done first-
class and he commends the applicant. This will be a benefit to the community
in the future, as an entrance to the City on Route 250 East.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve ZMA-92-12, as
recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to the following agreements.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Agreements of approval for ZMA-92-12, are as follows:)
1. Establishment of the Land Use Plan dated November 11, 1992,
and revised January 20, 1993, as the approved Application
Plan for the Planned Development-Mixed Commercial and Com-
mercial Office zoned property;
2. The supporting commercial uses shall be in accordance with
those uses permitted by-right in the C-1 zone as modified by
Section 9.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. The residential uses are not required to be developed on a
pro-rata basis with the office development in accordance
with Section 9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance;
4.Provision of private roads within the development designed
to meet mountainous terrain standards;
5. The Worrell Land and Cattle Company agrees to pay for the
necessary right turn and taper lanes at the development's
entrances along Route 250 East. The right turn lanes shall
be constructed as each entrance is established. The devel-
oper also agrees to provide an additional left turn lane and
traffic signal on Route 250 East at the primary and second-
ary entrance to the site. These improvements shall be
constructed upon demand of the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation in accordance with their letter dated February 8,
1993, or earlier at the developer's option provided the
primary and secondary entrance meets the signalization
warrants as given in the latest edition of the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices;
March 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
M.B. 43, Pg. 292
6 o
The applicant will utilize detailed design guidelines con-
sistent with the outline included as Appendix I of the Peter
Jefferson Place Application Plan book;
Except those sites shown as Parcels'A-2, B-1 and B-2 on the
Land Use Map (Tax Map 78, Parcels 20K, 71 and 7lA), all
future site plans shall be reviewed by the Albemarle County
Architectural Review Board if it is determined the site will
be visible from Interstate 64 or Route 250 East;
8. Setbacks shall be as follows:
a. Commercial and Office Uses:
Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any
structures, except signs, shall be erected clos-
er than thirty (30) feet to any public street
right-of-way. No off-street parking or loading
space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet
to any public street right-of-way.
Adjacent to internal private streets: The set-
backs for buildings and parking may be reduced
to ten (10) feet provided adequate sight dis-
tance is maintained and minimum landscaping
requirements are met.
b. Residential Uses:
Minimum yards: Front, twenty-five (25) feet,
side, fifteen (15) feet, rear, twenty (20) feet.
Minimum side yards shall be reduced to not less
than ten (10) feet in accordance with Section
4.11.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Setbacks for
the townhouses adjacent to the park may be re-
duced to five (5) feet surrounding the loop
road;
Administrative approval of all future site plans and subdi-
vision plats. In the spirit of Section 8.5.6.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance, the Director of Planning and Community
Development shall be authorized discretion over reasonable
variations from the approved zoning Application Plan; and,
10.
Future requests for parking decks or a helistop will require
additional Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
reviews.
Mr. Martin then made motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-92-
66, with no conditions, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Set public hearing to amend Section 12-34, Inopera-
ble Vehicles, of the Albemarle County Code.
(Mr. Martin left the meeting at 8:10 p.m.)
Mr. Tucker said the Albemarle County Code, Section 12-34, regarding
Inoperative Vehicles, currently states "It is unlawful for any person, firm or
corporation to keep, except within a fully enclosed building or structure or
otherwise shielded or screened from public view .... any motor vehicle,
trailer or semitrailer, ... Which is inoperative." An amendment to the Code
of Virginia, Section 15.1-11.1, deleted the word "public" and it now reads
"from view..." The County Attorney has requested that the Board consider
this change and set a public hearing to amend the County Code by deleting the
word "public" from Section 12-34.
Mr. Tucker said deletion of the word "public" from the County Code
removes any ambiguity in defining who is protected from the view of inopera-
tive vehicles. A specific example would be the status of neighbors or other
property owners whose inoperative vehicles may be visible but who may not have
had status as "public" in the Code. The proposed Code amendment would remove
this ambiguity and thus mirror the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing for
April 7, 1993, to amend the Code of Albemarle, Section 12-34.
Mr. Perkins made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to set a public hearing
for April 7, 1993, to amend the Code of Albemarle, Section 12-34. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
March 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
M.B. 43, Pg. 293
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Draft Recommendations for 1993-94
Spring Preallocation Hearing for the SixTYear Improvement Program for the
Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems (deferred from March 10, 1993).
Mrs. Humphris said since Mr. Tucker just distributed the draft to the
Board and said that the Board would discuss this during March 22 or March 24,
she suggested that the Board defer this item until March 22, 1994.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Cilimberg had some additions that Mrs. Humphris made
to the memorandum that was distributed to the Board approximately one week
ago.
(Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 8:11 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg said on page one of his memorandum, in the National
Highway System paragraph, there is reference to the Route 29 North widening
from the corporate limits of Charlottesville to the South Fork Rivanna River.
It was suggested that the reference state "to Airport Road" since the ultimate
project will go to Airport Road. Some additional language will be included
regarding the immediate design, acquisition and construction of the inter-
changes at Greenbrier Drive, Hydraulic Road and Rio Road. Another item
brought to his attention was whether the Board wanted to include a listing of
other CATS projects. The one that was brought up, but has not been mentioned
recently by the County or City, is the Hydraulic Road/Route 250 Bypass
interchange. The Board may want to include this in its list of standard
projects or at least contact the City to see whether it will pursue this.
Mrs. Humphris said she mentioned this project because she never hears it
anything about it. The project is a part of the CATS Plan and would relieve
the Route 29 North traffic congestion. Mr. Bowerman concurred.
Mr. Cilimberg asked whether the Board wanted to mention utilization of
any special funds which may be available to get the Meadow Creek Parkway
built, including any bridge funding that may be available to construct a
bridge over the North Fork Rivanna River. In the information he has reviewed,
he no longer sees bridge funding set aside under ISTEA, but he has not
received all of the information. He would like to verify whether there is, in
fact, bridge funding set aside. Mrs. Humphris said there is funding set aside
which is not limited to any type of road. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that if the
Board makes reference to building the Meadow Creek Parkway, it should refer-
ence use of all funding sources available, including bridge funding as to the
idea of parallel roads, the construction of Berkmar Drive to Wal-Mart, and the
Pepsi Place/Seminole Square connector, were both mentioned. The Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) has investigated these and is waiting for a
response from VDoT as to construction costs. The MPO,has some alignment
possibilities, but does not have any cost estimates or engineering reviews.
He is not sure how this will be pursued or whether primary allocation funds
should be requested to fund this project. He feels it is worth mentioning.
Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Cilimberg put the memorandum in the form
of a staff report and include it with the Board's statement.
Mrs. Humphris said she suggested to Mr. Tucker that staff make sure
there is a disclaimer about the map that shows the bypass as a required
National Highway System facility (on file) because she does not want anyone to
think that the Board agreed with this designation.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board may want to review priorities to make sure
the order is consistent with the Board's thinking. The letters the Board
received regarding the Thomas Jefferson Parkway concept as a possible enhance-
ment fund project is listed as a third project on page three. Mr. Bain said
he thought this was going to be funded by a donor from Missouri. Mr. Bowerman
said this was also his understanding. Mr. Tucker said he thinks this person
was purchasing some of the land from the University of Virginia.
There was a consensus of the Board that staff put the memorandum in the
form of a staff report and include it with the Board's statement. The Board
will review this on March 22, 1993.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: An Ordinance regarding grass/weed
control.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Martin requested that this item be brought back to
the Board for consideration. Staff.does not feel the small number of com-
plaints received would justify adoption of an ordinance for regulation of
grass/weed height in the County. Should the Board choose to adopt a
grass/weed ordinance, two items are suggested: (1) the ordinance apply only
to commercially or industrially zoned properties in the entrance corridors,
and also R-1 to R-15 residential subdivisions; and, (2) in the case of
residential subdivisions, the procedure should be the same as for the leash
and leaf burning ordinances where the ordinance is applicable only to those
subdivisions that formally petition the Board with at least 50 percent of the
property owners as signatories to the petition.
March 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 294
(page 9)
Mr. Martin said he requested that this item be discussed again because
it has been brought to his attention that people in various neighborhoods feel
this is an important issue. If a neighborhood has great difficulty with
properties having tall grass/weeds, this ordinance would give them an opportu-
nity to establish control of the problem. He would not be in favor of an
ordinance to establish this throughout the County. He feels it is worth an
effort to incorporate the proposed ordinance.
Mrs. Humphris said the reason she was not interested in pursuing this
was because it would cost the County a significant amount of money to enforce.
She talked to the Zoning Administrator about something similar and was told
that they incur what are referred to as "sic them" calls, where people in a
neighborhood bare grudges against a neighbor and harass them. If County staff
is called, someone would have to go to the site, assess the situation and try
to enforce the ordinance. If staff is unable to enforce the ordinance, it
must then obtain a lien on the property and cause the grass to be cut, try to
bill and collect. The more she thought about this, the more she thought this
issue was not as simple as it seemed. The report states that the City of
Charlottesville has such an ordinance and has a full-time staff person in the
summer and a part-time person the rest of the year. Given the pressures on
the County's budget, she does not believe this is a priority item, knowing the
time it would take for staff to enforce the ordinance.
Mr. Martin said the fact that there have only been six calls in the past
few years indicates that people would not have to be hired to enforce this
law. Most neighborhoods would never go through the trouble to establish this
law in their neighborhood.
Mr. Bain said the newer subdivisions have homeowner associations which
require that grass/weeds be cut.
Mr. Martin said after hearing the Board's comments, he will not pursue
this issue further.
Agenda Item No. lla. Appropriation: 1992-93 Gypsy Moth Grant.
Mr. Tucker said this is a voluntary landowner participation program
providing education, technical assistance and monitoring with the financial
assistance of the landowners who will share 25 percent of the suppression
costs. Total cost of the program is $181,615 with $5500 from the City,
$80,415 from federal and state sources, and $75,000 from landowners. The cost
to the County is $20,700.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the follow-
ing Resolution of Appropriation approving the 1992-93 Gypsy Moth program in
the amount of $181,615. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
1992-93
920052
GYPSY MOTH
FY 92-93 OPERATING BUDGET
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1123034010110000
1123034010130000
1123034010160900
1123034010210000
1123034010221000
1123034010231000
1123034010232000
1123034010241000
1123034010242000
1123034010270000
1123034010332100
1123034010360000
1123034010390000
1123034010520100
1123034010520300
1123034010550100
1123034010550110
1123034010550400
1123034010580100
1123034010600100
SALARIES/REGULAR
PART-TIME WAGES
SALARY RESERVE--BONUS
FICA
VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYS
HEALTH INSLSAn/~CE
DENTAL INSURANCE
VRS GROUP LIFE INSLTRA1NCE
GROUP LIFE/PART-TIME
WORKER'S COMPENSATION
MAINT CONTRACT-EQUIP
ADVERTISING
OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES
POSTAL SERVICES
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL-MILEAGE
TRAVEL-POOL CAR EXPENSES
TRAVEL-EDUCATION
DUES & MEMBERSHIPS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
1123034010601400 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES
1123034010601700 COPY SUPPLIES
1123034010800100 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
1123034010800710 DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
REVENUE
$ 56,185.0u
3,000.00
2,810.00
4,745.00
5,340.00
2,820.00
150.00
340.00
145.00
550.00
50.00
0.00
94,550.00
2,000.00
0.00
3,000.00
1,000.00
660.00
140.00
1,130.00
2,000.00
500.00
200.00
300.00
$181,615.00
AMOLTNT
2123016000160502 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
$ 5,500.00
March 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
2123016000160526
2123033000330001
2123051000512004
PRIVATE PROPERTY SPRAYING
GRANT REVENUE-FEDER3kL
TPJkNSFER FROM GENERAL FI/ND
M.B. 43, Pg. 295
75,000.00
80,415.00
20,700.00
TOTAL $181,615.00
Agenda Item No. llb. Appropriation: Computer Equipment Grant.
Mr. Tucker said this is for the purchase of a personal computer to track
law enforcement efforts and seat belt compliance. The computer costs $1925.
The purchase will be funded by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles with
federal pass-through monies in the amount of $1500 and the County Police
Department in the amount of $425.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following
Resolution of Appropriation to approve the purchase ADP equipment in the
amount of $1925. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FLrND:
PURPOSE:
1992-93
920055
PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT
DMV GRAI~T FOR ADP EQUIPMENT
EXPENDITI/RE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1153031130800700 DMV-ADP EQUIPMENT
TOTAL
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
1,925.00
1,925.00
AMOUNT
2153033000330303
2153051000512004
DMV GRANT-FEDERAL
TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND
$ 1,500.00
425.00
TOTAL $ 1,925.00
Agenda Item No. llc. Appropriation: Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) Program.
Mr. Tucker said the 1992-93 Unified Planning Work Program was approved
March 26, 1992. It was prepared by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion, and was funded by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Mass
Transportation Administration, virginia Department of Transportation, City of
Charlottesville, County of Albemarle and Thomas Jefferson Planning District.
Mr. Tucker said the program includes the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Transportation Study, Long Range Transit Development Plan, South City Entrance
Corridor Study, Census Transportation Planning Package, TSM Planning Analysis,
Public-Private Participation Planning and Traffic Reduction Strategy Commit-
tee°
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following
Resolution of Appropriation for the Metropolitan Planning Organization Program
in the amount of $74,012. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
1992-93
920053
MPO GRANT
FY 92-93 OPERATING BUDGET
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1120881301110000
1120881301601700
1120881302110000
1120881303310000
1120881304310000
1120881305110000
1120881305601700
1120881306110000
1120881306550100
1120881306601700
SALARIES-REGULAR
COPY SUPPLIES
SALARIES-REGULAR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
SALARIES-REGULAR
COPY SUPPLIES
SALARIES-REGULAR
TRAVEL-MILEAGE
COPY SUPPLIES
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
REVENUE
$ 3,500.00
250.00
10,000.00
23,000.00
25,943.00
1,800.00
200.00
8,500.00
319.00
$ soo.oo
$ 74,012.00
AMOUNT
2120824000240500 GRANT REVENUE-STATE $ 7,401.00
2120833000330001 GRANT REVENLrE-FEDERAL 59,210.00
March 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
2120851000512004 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND
TOTAL
M.B. 43, Pg. 296
7,401.00
$ 74,012.00
Agenda Item No. lld. Appropriation: Occupant Protection Grant.
Mr. Tucker said this request is for the purchase of Vince and Larry
costumes. The costumes cost $1340. The purchase was funded in its entirety
by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles with Federal pass-through monies.
Mr. Tucker said the costumes are used to conduct an on-going education
and awareness campaign aimed at a variety of audiences including schools, day
care centers, businesses, civic organizations, etc., in addition to regular
enforcement initiatives.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following
Resolution of Appropriation to purchase Vince and Larry costumes in the amount
of $1340. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
1992-93
920056
PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT
DMV GRANT FOR OCCUPANT PROTECTION STUDY
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1153031140800410
REVENUE
DMV-COSTUME PACKAGE $ 1,340.00
TOTAL $ 1,340.00
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2153033000330303 DMV GRANT-FEDERAL $ 1,340.00
TOTAL $ 1,340.00
Agenda Item No. lle. Appropriation: Crozet Crossing Project and
Albemarle Housing Improvements Program.
Mr. Tucker said this reappropriation request is for the Crozet Crossing
Affordable Housing Project and the Albemarle Housing Rehabilitation Program.
The Crozet Crossing grant was awarded for $300,000 with a $300,000 local
match. The Board of Supervisors appropriated and transferred $40,000 during
the 1990-91 fiscal year and $560,000 during the 1991-92 fiscal year. Expendi-
tures prior to July 1, 1992, totalled $108,538 leaving the balance of $491,462
to be reappropriated. The Crozet Crossing project is expected to be completed
in February, 1993.
Mr. Tucker said the Albemarle Housing Rehabilitation Program was awarded
$500,000 on October 22, 1991, with a local match of $317,820. The Board of
Supervisors appropriated and transferred $747,294 during the 1991-92 fiscal
year with the balance of $70,626 included in the $268,502 1992-93 contribu-
tion. Grant expenditures prior to July 1, 1992, totalled $119,309 leaving the
balance of $380,691 to be reappropriated. Local match funds are transferred
separately to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. The Albemarle
Housing Rehabilitation Program is scheduled to be completed in October, 1993.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the follow-
ing Resolution of Reappropriation for the Crozet Crossing Affordable Housing
Project and the Albemarle Housing Rehabilitation Program in the amount of
$872,152.93. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, MesSrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NUMBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
1992-93
920054
AHIP
FY 92-93 BUDGET FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION AND
CROZET CROSSINGS GRANTS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1122481027563110
1122481027563120
AHIP/CDBG HOUSING REHAB
AHIP/CDBG CROZET CROSSINGS
$380,690.93
491,462.00
TOTAL $872,152.93
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2122433000330081 GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL-HOUSING REHAB $380,690.93
2122433000330082 GRANT REVENUE-FEDERAL-CROZET CROSS 281,462.00
March 17, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
2122451000510100 APP FROM FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
M.B. 43, Pg. 297
210 , 000 . 00
$872,152.93
Agenda Item No. llf. Appropriation: Safety Conference.
Mr. Tucker said this appropriation is for the Safety Conference conduct-
ed at the Omni. The Conference was funded in its entirety by the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles, Central Telephone Company of Virginia (Centel)
and the Virginia Electric and Power Company.
The conference was an attempt to create a partnership between the public
and private sector in an effort to share research ideas and safety initiatives
on improving driver safety programs, as well as education and informing the
public.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following
Resolution of Appropriation for the Safety Conference in the amount of
$1764.84. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded.
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NI3MBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
1992-93
920057
PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT
DMV GRANT FOR SAFETY CONFERENCE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1153031141550405 DMV-SAFETY CONFERENCE $ 1,764.85
TOTAL $ 1,764.85
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2153018110181130
2153024000240303
PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS
DMV GRANT-SAFETY CONFERENCE
$ 264.84
1,500.00
TOTAL $ 1,764.84
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: November 18, 1992.
Mr. Bowerman said he read the minutes of November 18, 1992, and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the minutes of
November 18, 1992. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None°
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to March 22, 1993, at 1:00 P.M.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn to March 22,
1993, at 1:00 p.m. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Chairman