1990-12-05December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 5, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County
Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and
County Planner, ¥. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Mr. Charles Rotgin, Jr., representing the Albemarle Planning Task Force,
said the Task Force recently released to the public its research and findings
on building activity within the County as defined by the issuance of building
permits for the years 1985 through 1989 and for the first seven months of
1990. The report is entitled Residential Growth and Affordability in Albe-
marle County's Rural Designated Growth Areas. The Task Force charged itself
with examining building permit data to determine where activity was taking
place in the County, to determine the relationship of this activity to the
Comprehensive Plan's desired goals and to raise questions for discussion as
the Board undertakes its annual review of the Plan with the hope that the
answers to the questions will result in realistic adjustments and amendments
to insure that the Plan is both workable and working. He extended thanks to
Cilimberg and the Community Development staff whom were accommodating in
assimilating the data that went into the report. The Task Force is in the
process of researching additional topics and the County staff continues to be
helpful.
Mr. Rotgin said a point repeatedly raised during review of the Comprehen-
sive Plan from 1987 to 1989 was that the Plan was not working and that suffi-
cient residential development was not being directed into designated growth
areas. The stated goal of the Plan in directing 87 percent of new construc-
tion to the growth areas required that 79 percent of single-family homes and
100 percent of multi-family units be constructed in these growth areas. At
the end of 1989, the Planning Department announced that for the first time
more than 50 percent of all residential development had taken place in the
areas and that from the Department's perspective the Plan was taking
hold and was expected to be increasingly effective in two to three years. The
Task Force report examines this conclusion and addresses the affordability of
local new housing construction. The report also raises and lists questions
which the Task Force thinks need to be part of the next annual review of the
Plan. Mr. Rotgin then handed out to the Board a copy of the Task Force report
and proceeded to summarize the findings and issues identified by the Task
Force.
Mr. Rotgin said if the Board decides to appoint a committee to work with
staff in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, the Task Force would appreciate the
opportunity to have one of its members on that committee.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve Items 5.5 and 5.6 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: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 14£
(Page 2)
Item 5.1. Copies of the Planning Commission Minutes for November 13 and
November 20, 1990, were received for information.
Item 5.2. Letter dated November 5, 1990, from Mr. M. T. Griffin, Region-
al Forester, forwarding the 1991-95 Strategic Plan of the Virginia Department
of Forestry, was received for information.
Item 5.3. Letter dated November 28, 1990, from Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr.,
State Location and Design Engineer for VDoT, re: the Route 29 Corridor Study
(Project 6029-002-122, PE1-00), approving the location of Phases I, II and
III, was received as follows:
"November 28, 1990
Route 29 Corridor Study
Proj. 6029-002-122, PE-100
Albemarle County and
City of Charlottesville
Fr: Route 29/250 Bypass
(City of Charlottesville)
To: 0.31 Mi. N. of N. Fork
Rivanna River (Albemarle
County)
Mr. Frederick R. (Rick) Bowie, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Bowie:
I would like to take this opportunity to advise that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board of Virginia at its meeting on November 15, 1990,
approved the location of the above project in phases.
Phase I: construct Route 29 Base Case improvements from Hydraulic
Road to the South Fork Rivanna River which will provide six lanes plus
continuous right turn lanes and signalized at-grade intersections;
reserve necessary right of way for future construction of interchanges
at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Hydraulic Road; approve Alternative
10; and refine preliminary plans to aid Albemarle County in the
preservation of the corridor.
Phase II: construct interchanges as traffic increases and economic
conditions allow; continue preservation of right of way for Alterna-
tive 10; and exercise advanced acquisition of right of way as needed
and economics permit.
Phase III: construct Alternative 10 when traffic conditions along the
Route 29 corridor become unacceptable and economic conditions permit.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
E. C. Cochran, Jr., P.E.
State Location and Design Engineer"
Item 5.4. Memo dated November 28, 1990 from Mr. R. J. Austin of the
Virginia Division of Legislative Services, re: Redistricting Public Hearings
and Workshops was received for information. (The memo states that there will
be a series of five informal workshops on local redistricting which will be
offered for local officials and staff by the Division of Legislative Services
in conjunction with the redistricting public hearings. Staff members will be
available to review census maps and data, redistricting timetables, legal
guidelines, Department of Justice submissions and to answer questions.)
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 14
(Page 3)
Item 5.5. Resolution to take roads in Harmony Subdivision (Harmony Drive
and Spring Brook Drive) into the State Secondary System of Highways. (In a
letter dated July 25, 1990, Mr. Ralph L. Fell, attorney for the developers of
Harmony Subdivision, requested that Harmony Drive and Spring Brook Drive be
accepted into the State system. The following resolution was adopted by the
above recorded vote:)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is
hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways,
subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway
Department, the following roads in Harmony Subdivision:
Harmony Drive
Beginning at Station 1+00, a point common to the center-
line of Harmony Drive and the edge of State Route 614, thence
in a southwesterly direction 1,030 feet to Station 11+30, the
end of the cul-de-sac.
Spring Brook Drive
Beginning at Station 0+25, a point common to the centerline of
Spring Brook Drive and the edge of pavement at Station 7+15.15
of Harmony Drive, thence in a westerly direction 2104.53 feet
to Station 21+29.53, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-
of-way and drainage easements along these requested additions as
recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 1114, pages 359-365.
Item 5.6. Resolution to take Pepsi Place into the State Secondary System
of Highways. (At the request of Mr. Elbert E. Morris, Vice President of
Marketing for Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Central Virginia, to accept Pepsi
Place into the State system, the following resolution was adopted:)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is
hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways,
subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway
Department, the following road:
Pepsi Place
Beginning at Station 0+25, a point common to the centerline of
Pepsi Place and the edge of Greenbrier Drive, thence in a
southwesterly direction 720 feet to Station 7+45, the end of
the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-
way and drainage easements along this requested addition as recorded
by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 817, page 230; and Deed Book 1130, page 229.
Agenda Item No. 6. Crozet Housing Project (Deferred from November 28,
1990).
Mr. David B. Benish, Chief of Community Development, presented the
following staff report:
"On November 28 1990, the Board of Supervisors deferred action on the
Crozet Housing Project and requested staff to provide information
concerning the following:
Is there a way to provide low-interest mortgages so that existing
properties can be purchased?
Is it possible to have this type of development at scattered
sites?
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
In response, the following information is provided:
1. Staff has discussed with A HIP the possibility of providing an
alternative assistance program for purchasing existing homes.
According to AHIP, this type of program would be possible.
However, YHDA and CDBG funds awarded for the Crozet Housing
Project would not be available for an alternate program of this
type.
The funds pledged to the Crozet Housing project from the County
($300,000) and CHF ($150,000) could be used to establish a
revolving fund that would assist eligible families with down
payment and closing costs. Funds could be issued to families in
the form of deferred payment loans and secured by a second deed
of trust. Upon transfer of the property, the loan would be
repaid to the fund. A fund of this nature would be of great
assistance to some families~
However, there are practical matters which realistically influ-
ence the effectiveness of such a fund. First of all, there must
be a supply of units in the County sufficient to meet the demand.
In the most recently published Multiple Listing Service booklet,
there were only nineteen properties listed at or below $77,000
(the Vt{DA maximum purchase price for Albemarle County). The
current 'Homeownership' waiting list of qualified applicants
stands at 105.
Secondly, as a part of the County's 1987 CDBG Housing Rehab
Program, AHIP worked with the County and CItF to acquire proper-
ties to rehab and place in the Moderate Rehabilitation Rental
Program. In this pursuit, it was exceedingly difficult to locate
houses in this price range that didn't require extensive ($15,000
to $20,000) rehabilitation in order to bring them into compliance
with the Minimum Property Standards (MPS). VHDA's requirements
are even tougher than the MPS, therefore, I expect the rehab cost
would be higher for these units.
It is technically feasible to provide affordable homes in a
scattered fashion in the County. The proposed fifty units could
be provided in several different locations, minimizing the
aggregation of units in one location. However, CDBG and VHDA
funds ($2,800,000) are specifically tied to the Crozet Housing
Project and would be lost.
Again, there are some practical limitations to this type of
approach. The County staff and CHF spent over one year searching
for one site suitable for this project. During that search, very
few affordable properties were found which met the Board of
Supervisors' criteria (location within a designated growth area
and served by public utilities). Also, when units are scattered
in smaller clusters, cost efficiency is reduced. If the goal is
to provide 30 to 50 moderately priced homes, then the most cost
effective approach in terms of land acquisition, site development
and administrative costs, is to provide these home in a unified,
centralized fashion."
Mr. Perkins said in addition to the $77,000 cost of the house, $27,000
per unit is included for site development costs. He thinks that rather than
look at houses that cost $77,000 the Board should be looking at houses that
cost $90,000, and using the $27,000, set aside for site development directly
toward cost of the houses. The same approach could apply to scattered hous-
ing. Why does the entire project need to be on one site? The Board could go
into Mill Creek or some other subdivision, use the $27,000 to purchase the lot
and build on it. Mr. Benish said funds are not available to that degree or to
afford that type of project.
Mr. Bowie acknowledged the presence of Mr. Francis Fife, Executive
Director of the Charlottesville Housing Foundation. Mr. Bowie said at the
last Board meeting when Mr. Fife attempted to speak, he was a little abrupt.
He appreciates all of the work Mr. Fife has done toward this project. He
thanked Mr. Fife for his work and apologized for any abruptness on his part.
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 142
(Page 5)
Mr. Bowie asked if preference can be given to Albemarle County residents
and Albemarle County employees, if they are qualified for the 30 houses that
are part of the block grant? Mr. Benish said the program can be designed to
give preference to County residents as long as they are qualified and are on
the waiting list.
Mr. Bowie asked how many on the list of perspective applicants are
qualified and how many are County residents? Mr. Benish said there are
approximately 100 names already on the waiting list and it appears that 40 of
the names are County residents. This waiting list was compiled as a result of
one advertisement of the program. There will be subsequent advertisements for
additional applicants. The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program is handling
the waiting list, but has not yet discussed details about qualifications
because they are waiting to see if the project moves forward.
Mr. Bowie con~nented that 15 of the houses are to be set aside for lower
income persons and asked the upper limits of income for a family of four. Mr.
Benish indicated a chart on display which showed the low income levels. For a
family of four the limit for low income would be $20,300. Mr. Bowie said a
County police officer's beginning salary is less than $20,300 so conceivably a
police officerwith a family of four could qualify for this housing. Mr.
Benish replied "yes".
Mr. Bowie used the scenario of a County employee who applied for housing
and a much more needy, but also qualified person from another locality applied
for the housing, who would get the house? Mr. Benish said as long as the
County employee was needy, preference could be given to the County resident.
Mr. Perkins asked what constitutes residence? Mr. Benish replied the
State uses a time of six months.
At this point, Mrs. Humphris offered motion to approve the Crozet Cross-
ing Affordable Housing Subdivision with staff proceeding with whatever has to
be done to put the package together.
Mrs. Humphris said there have been a tremendous amount of input to ~Board
members concerning this project. Her decision to support this project was not
made lightly. She understands the feelings, letters and phone calls she has
received from citizens. Her decision is based on the following reasons: 1)
this is in a designated growth area; 2) public utilities are available; 3) the
property is affordable; 4) the property is properly zoned; 5) the project will
be put together by people who have an excellent track record in development
projects; and, 6) Albemarle County residents will be given preference. She
then added to her motion that Albemarle County residents be given preference.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board has heard from everybody except for those 100
people who are asking for this opportunity to own their own homes. She does
not think there is one homeowner present who was not given some financial help
along the way whether it was a loan or family help. She feels that there are
at least 100 good families who are asking this Board to give them this one
step up on the way. The Board's stated purpose in the Comprehensive Plan is
to pursue affordable housing for Albemarle County. This is an opportunity
that may not come again.
Mr. Perkins said from the beginning he stated that he could not support
this project with access through Orchard Acres. There have been discussions
about environmental impact, but not about people impact. This project will
adversely affect at least 125 families that live in Orchard Acres. There are
other accesses. There is one access within 150 yards of Jarman's Gap Road
which would have minimal impact on the flood plain and would not impact the
residents of Orchard Acres. The only way he can support the project is if
that is the access.
Mr. Bain seconded the motion. He then asked about the access suggested
by Mr. Perkins, the impact on the flood plain, historic properties, etc. Mr.
Benish said that alternative would intersect with Orchard Acres Drive. The
Kessler Group has been working with CHF and estimates that the cost for that
roadway would be $260,000. That would significantly affect the feasibility of
providing homes at an affordable price for 30 to 50 units. Mr. Bain asked if
that is because of the location to the flood plain. Mr. Benish replied "yes",
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
14z.
in addition grading and stream crossing at that location is more costly. Mr.
Perkins asked if an on-the-ground inspection at that location has been made.
Mr. Benish replied "yes", that is his understanding, Mr. Perkins said he does
not believe that is true. He was there yesterday and had to bushwhack his way
through, and there is not much difference in the length of the road projects.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Perkins if it was his feeling that all access should
be from the alternative location. Mr. Perkins replied "yes". He does not
think it is feasible to put in the 30 units using one entrance and having
another entrance for the other 20 units. That will cost even more money.
Mr. Bowie said the block grant is for 30 units, not 50. Even if the
other 20 units cost $10,000 more for each unit than the first 30 units, that
is still an excellent purchase price. He would support phasing of the project
where the second 20 units were built using an alternative access. He agrees
that may cause the price to increase. The first 30 units can proceed under
the block grant guidelines, but the second 20 units do not have to sell for
that low price. Some of the people could afford more than $60,000 and this
alternative would allow a mixture of housing in the development and would
solve the road problem. The second 20 units could bear the brunt of the road
costs and would still be excellent purchase prices for Albemarle County. He
does agree that consideration needs to be given to the 125 residents of
Orchard Acres.
Mr. Perkins asked who pays if the cost of the project exceeds the esti-
mates; $750,000 designated for site development, $693,922 estimated cost, and
$57,078 for contingency? Do these costs include all improvements to the
project, water and sewer hookup, government fees, administrative costs, etc?
Mr. Steve Runkle, from The Kessler Group, said he does not know. He can
explain how the estimated development costs were calculated, but not adminis-
trative costs or who would pay if the estimated costs are exceeded. Mr.
'Perkins asked if the estimates include the cost of the land. Mr. Runkle
replied "yes", currently the development costs are estimated to be approxi-
mately $650,000 inclusive of the land. Also included was $30,000 to $40,000
of "soft costs" or interest costs. The estimates are based on access to Cling
Stone Lane.
Mr. Bowie again asked if the estimates are incorrect and the price is
higher who will pay. Mr. Benish said the estimates could affect the viability
of the project which is what they have been trying to express with the alter-
natives. He thinks that either the County, CHF or an increase is selling
price would make up the difference.
Mr. Perkins asked who pays for the water and sewer connections. Mr.
Runkle said the costs he mentioned are development costs. The cost for 50
units is approximately $13,000 per unit, assuming an average house size of
1000 square feet at a cost of $50 per square foot. The costs are inclusive of
tapping fees. He is not sure whether builders would buy the lots and in turn
AHIP would guarantee the sale to the third party purchaser or if AHIP would
have the houses built for them at contract. The structure of that would
determine who pays those fees.
Mr. Perkins asked the proposed sale prices of the houses? Mr. Runkle
replied approximately $65,000. Mr. Perkins asked who guarantees that the
project will be developed as it is proposed. How do the citizens of Crozet
know that the project will not be changed or made cheaper? Mr. Fife said he
does not think any developer knows precisely what he will be able to build and
sell at what price. CHF is presumably in partnership with the County on this
project. He thinks that based on the projections and figures obtained, they
can build these houses and sell them for that price° If that cannot be done,
then the price may have to be raised or development of the project occur at a
slower pace. CHF intends to see the project through to its completion. The
block grant funds are outlined on the basis of the project being completed.
He cannot assure the Board that they will not get a notice that some of those
funds will not come through because of the long time this process has taken.
Mr. Perkins said it has been indicated that the property will cost
$150,000 which is $264,000 less than its appraised value. Who made the
appraisal of the land? Mr. Fife said the appraisal was made by a professional
appraiser and it was based on the fact that some of the land would be devel-
oped into single-family units and the remainder would be developed in town-
houses. The remainder of the property will remain with the owner. The owner
asked, and it was agreed, that the appraisal be based on the above.
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 14
(Page 7)
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Fife if he knew the amount of the County's apprai-
sal of the property. Mr. Fife replied "no". Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Fife if he
would have any concerns about signing off with somebody who is going to take a
tax write-off on $264,000 that is not legitimate, when the current County
appraisal is $283,000, which is $100,000 more than it was two years ago? Mr.
Mife asked if that was totally unusual in the County. Mr. Perkins said he
thinks the County appraisers do an accurate job of appraising property. He
does not want to be a party to approving a project that is going to give
somebody a $264,000 tax write-off. The Board just received a letter from Mr.
Jack Kemp, Director of HUD, and although he does not know if it applies to
this type of project, he warns boards of supervisors that they have to be
careful about administering these funds and that they are responsible for
their use.
Mr. Perkins asked the status of the Wayland House on the National Regis-
ter of Historical Places. Mr. Benish said the Wayland House is not currently
on the Register, but it is eligible. Mr. Perkins asked if an application has
been made. Mr. Benish replied, not at this time.
Mr. Perkins asked if the project has adequate setback from the railroad
to prevent damage from derailments or chemical leaks, etc. Mr. Benish said
the County has no local setback requirements from railroads. The project
meets current setback requirements for R-6 zoning. Mr. Perkins asked if the
railroad has setback requirements. Mr. Benish said he does not know, the plat
has not gone through full site plan review. Mr. Bowie responded that if there
were requirements, then the project would have to comply.
Mr. Perkins said County regulations require that when a subdivision
reaches 50 units, a second access must be provided. When Orchard Acres was
developed and the number of units exceeded 50, a second access was provided on
the west end. He asked if it was fair that 50 more units be added to Orchard
Acres. Mr. Benish said staff is investigating a second access to the site,
and whether that access be a public road or for emergency vehicles only. Mr.
Cilimberg commented, that the Zoning Ordinance does not require an additional
access for every additional 50 units developed. In fact, the availability of
the second access is adequate based on the geographic location of the addi-
tional development. Mr. Perkins said it does not seem "kosher" to him to
require two accesses for Orchard Acres and then add an additional 50 units
after Orchard Acres is built out. Mr. Benish said two accesses were not
required for Orchard Acres; the requirement were not in effect at that time.
Mr. Perkins said it must have been required or it would not have been put in.
Mr. Perkins said it is his understanding that there will be a homeowner's
association and he asked what the fees would be. Mr. Benish said the fees
have not been established. Mr. Perkins asked if it would be possible to set
up a resident's council made up of people from the Crozet community to oversee
the project. Mr. Fife said there will be a neighborhood association, but he
does not think the County would make such a requirement in any other develop-
ment. Mr. Perkins said this development is different. The Board has been
asked to spend County money and it has to be looked at differently because
public funds are involved. He thinks if a private developer was proposing
this project, it would be "turned down flat" without a chance. This is a
special case and those persons involved should not worry about being treated
differently. Mr. Fife said he does not think they have been treated special.
He does not think it would be proper for Crozet residents to oversee the
project.
Mr. Bowie commented that if a private developer came into the County to
build these 50 units, he does not think the project would be before this
Board. Mr. Cilimberg said if such a project was for access to Cling Stone
Lane, it would be before the Board by special use permit because the property
is zoned R-6. Special use permit consideration would be based on the appli-
cant meeting the technical requirements of crossing the flood plain which
involves Engineering Department review. As far as he knows, if that review is
favorable, the staff would recommend approval of the special use permit. It
is his understanding that the decision would be based on the technical merit
of the crossing.
Mr. Fife said the people who want to live in these houses are just like
anybody else and he thinks they should be treated like that. Mr. Perkins said
he thinks the people of Crozet are just like anybody else and they are con-
cerned about their property values.
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Perkins asked if fees for the Lickinghole Basin are included. Mr.
Benish replied yes, but they are estimates at this time.
Mr. Perkins asked about a letter from Mr. Benish to Mr. Paul Burke which
stated that "These homes will provide the availability of additional afford-
able rental units on the market." Mr. Benish said that must be a typo; these
units are all for sale. The units must be for sale based on the block grant
application and VI4DA financing. He asked to see the letter. Mr. Perkins said
he would find it and give Mr. Benish a copy later.
Mr. Bowie said he would be much happier if the motion included phasing of
the project with two entrances. He has the same problem he expressed earlier
with all 50 units having access through Orchard Acres.
Mr. Bain said he would like to have access to Jarman's Gap Road consi-
dered if it does not substantially raise the cost of the project. If there is
no better alternative, then the project should still go forward with 30 units
accessing Cling Stone Lane. Although he knows it is not part of the motion,
he is prepared to go forward with that. Mrs. Humphris then suggested that her
motion be amended knowing that there is a deadline, and asked for a sugges-
tion.
Mr. Bowie suggested amending the motion to approve proceeding with the
project for 30 units to access Cling Stone Lane and the remaining 20 units to
an alternative access. Mrs. Humphris asked if that would meet all the re-
quirements of the block grant. Mr. Cilimberg replied "yes" because the 30
units are all that were applied for in the grant. The other 20 units are a
part of the package presented in an attempt to keep the price as low as
possible. They are looking at a somewhat higher price with only 30 units.
Mr. Bowie said if the motion is to approve the 50 units, the second 20 units
can be built when the access is solved and the second 20 units can sell for
more money than the first 30 units. Just the price of the second 20 units
would increase.
Mr. Bain said he would like to see the 50 units developed and all have
one access if possible. He does not mean access to Cling Stone Lane. If that
is not realistic then somebody should tell the Board now.
Mr. Cilimberg said it is possible and has been analyzed. At a price, the
project could access Blue Ridge or Orchard Acres back along the flood plain or
through the flood plain. If the Board were to approve the 30 units and a
second phase of development, it would allow time to investigate which of the
two alternatives would be best, i.e., Blue Ridge Avenue or Orchard Acres Lane.
Mr. Way asked if the second entrance is found to be more desirable if
access to Cling Stone Lane would be closed. Mr. Perkins said once Cling Stone
Lane is opened up everybody will use it anyway. Mr. Bowie asked if Cling
Stone Lane could be used for emergency access. Mr. Benish replied "yes", it
could be gated and used for emergency access. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board
needs to keep in mind that one day there may be other development in the area.
From a planning standpoint, two accesses may ultimately be the best planning
for that area and its development.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that if a second access is provided for the
20 units that would open up development for the balance of the property. He
thinks that over time and with the addition of the second access, the Board is
looking at a lot more development. One of the reasons that property has not
developed is because of the lack of access. Mr. Bowerman asked if the County
would require that the road be built to a size large enough to accommodate the
ultimate traffic generation or would it be built to accommodate the 50 units
that are to be served by the road. Mr. Benish said that determination would
be made by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road to Blue Ridge
Avenue would have to be built to a Category 5 because of all of the adjacent
properties having access to it. The road to Jarman's Gap Road does not
literally touch other properties, so he cannot speak to what VDoT would
require on that one.
Mr. Perkins asked how long it would take to find out the cost and/or the
feasibility of the alternative access. It seems to him to be a waste of money
to build one access and then come back in three or four years and build
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
another access. The one access could be built right now and maybe just cost a
little more money. Mr. Benish said he does not know. The staff would have to
contract to get the engineer to go out and do the study. He does not know
when the engineer could do it, but if it is tied to this grant, the environ-
mental review most likely will have to be redone. If it is tied to phasing,
then it could possibly be readjusted so that the Federal funds are not used
for that roadway.
Mr. Bain said he is trying to be realistic. He asked if all the traffic
can come out of the second access and if the study can be done in the time
frame. He asked if the information can be gathered before readjusting the
application, etc. Mr. Cilimberg said from the staff's standpoint and the
block grant's application there are only two ways for road access, Blue Ridge
Avenue or Cling Stone Lane. The other locations could not be done in a timely
fashion and would create problems involving the grant monies.
Mr. Bowie asked if the second 20 units could bear the brunt of the
additional cost. He does not care whether the project is phased or not. The
first 30 units could be developed precisely as originally planned. When the
other road is built, that is also the road for the first 30 units. Mr.
Bowerman said he has no problem with that.
Mr. Benish said when the project goes for site plan approval, the staff
may know the answer, but for the present, there is a need to move forward with
the block grant application.
Mrs. Humphris said she could amend her motion to move ahead with the 30
units, have access planned to Cling Stone Lane for the 30 units, but if the
other 20 units are built, it would be contingent upon being able to provide
another access to Orchard Drive. Mr. Bowie suggested Mr. Benish initial the
Plans presented to the Board outlining the proposed access. Mr. Bain said he
agrees with that amendment, but would like staff to look at having all access
come out through Orchard Drive contingent on a feasibility analysis. Mrs.
Humphris said that would be contingent on cost.
Mrs. Humphris then restated the motion ~o approve the Crozet Crossing
Affordable Housing Project with thirty (30) units being approved to have road
access to Cling Stone Lane; approval of an additional twenty (20) units is
contingent upon being able to provide road access to Orchard Drive; access to
Orchard Drive is to be decided through feasibility analyses; and, Albemarle
County residents shall be given preference in the purchase of these houses.
Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion. He prefers that all 50 units
have road access to Orchard Drive. There being no further discussion, roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-90-08. John Townsend. Public hearing on a
request to amend Section 27, Light Industry District, to allow arbories by
special use permit, and to amend the definitions. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on November 20 and November 27, 1990.)
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-90-09. John Townsend. Public hearing on a
request to amend Section 27, Light Industrial District, to allow arbories by
right and to amend definitions. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November
20 and November 27, 1990.)
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-90-10. John Townsend. Public hearing on a
request to amend Section 27.2.1.9, to read "contractor's office and equipment
storage yard. For landscaping contractors, an arbory may be maintained upon
premises provided that Section 5.1.24 of the Ordinance notwithstanding, such
arbory shall not exceed one-third of the floor area of the main contractor's
office and storage yard use". Request also to amend Definitions. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on November 20 and November 27, 1990.)
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
14
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-89-16. John Townsend. Public hearing on a
request to rezone 9.9 acres from R-1 Residential to Light Industry. Property
on west side of Rt 29N approximately 2000 feet south of bridge over North Fork
Rivanna River. Tax Map 32, Parcel 22B. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on November 20 and November 27, 1990.)
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-90-108. John Townsend. Public hearing on a
request for an arbory on 10.3 acres zoned Light Industry. To be reviewed con-
currently with ZTA-90-08 and ZMA-89-16. Property located on west side of Rt
29N approximately 2000 ft south of bridge over the North Fork Rivanna River.
Tax map 32, Parcel 22B. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on November 20 and November 27, 1990.)
Mr. Bowie asked if anyone from the public was present to speak on
ZTA-90-08, ZTA-90-09, ZTA-90-10, ZMA-89-16 and SP-90-108. There was no
response. Mr. Bowie commented that the Planning Commission indefinitely
deferred all of these petitions. He suggested that the items be dropped from
the agenda without prejudice.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to drop ZTA-90-08,
ZTA-90-09, ZTA-90-10, ZMA-89-16 and SP-90-108 from the agenda without preju-
dice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-90-03. David & Mary Spradlin. Public hearing
on a request to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, to allow "Rural
Salvage Yard for Automobiles" and to amend the definitions. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on November 20 and November 27, 1990.)
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-90-25. David Lee & Mary Jean Spradlin. Public
hearing on a request for a rural salvage yard for automobiles, incidental to
public garage. Property located on east side of Rt 620 approximately 3/4 mile
north of Rt 728 contains 7.5 acres zoned Rural Areas. Tax Map 104, Parcel
14Fl. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 20
and November 27, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff reports:
"ZTA-90-03 - The applicant proposes to amend the RA, Rural Areas,
district to allow as an accessory use for public garages, by special
use permit, a rural salvage yard for automobiles.
Proposed Zoning Text Amendment under the special use permit provisions
of the RA district.
10.2.2. 37(a) Rural Salvage Yard incidental to a Public Garage
Special Use Permit.
Proposed Definition:
Salvage Yard, Rural:
Incidental to the special use of a public
garage, a rural salvage yard for automobiles
is defined as a collection center for old and
abandoned cars from which parts may be sold
or used in the public garage business or for
repair. The stripped vehicle will be sal-
vaged through the licensing process of the
State of Virginia and removed from the
premises by a licensed or private crusher.
As part of the use, the wells supplying water
on the property will be tested, and testing
wells will be installed. Adjacent properties
may be tested if required. All liquids,
anti-freeze, oil, tires and gasoline will be
packaged and disposed of through a Virginia
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
14c_
licensed manufacturer and removed from the
premises. Screening by natural vegetation or
otherwise may be required. The number of
cars will not exceed 400 in number and will
be contained in one area with security.
SP-90-25 The applicant proposes to establish a rural salvage yard as
~ell as reestablish the public garage.
Planning and Zoning History: The applicant was issued special use
permits in 1977 and 1983 for operation of a PUBLIC GARAGE. The County
staff repeatedly attempted to insure compliance with the various
conditions of approval including three convictions in General District
County and two referrals of the special use permit to the Board for
revocations or other disposition. After ten years of repeated viola-
tion, the Board of Supervisors revoked these special use permits in
early fall, 1988.
The Board of Supervisors has denied requests to rezone the property to
LI, Light Industry, and HI, Heavy Industry, as well as a request to
operate a salvage yard in the HI, Heavy Industry, district on Septem-
ber 20, 1989 (ZMA-88-27, ZMA-98-20 and SP-89-32). A special use
permit to operate a public garage and salvage yard (SP-88-71) was
deferred by the applicant in order to allow review of the Zoning Text
Amendment which would have allowed the use (ZTA-88-04). These text
amendments were denied by the Board of Supervisors on September 20,
1989.
A Zoning Text Amendment to allow public garage/salvage yard and/or
junkyard in the LI, Light Industry district was denied by the Board of
Supervisors on September 20, 1989 (ZTA-88-06).
Attachment A (on file) provide a listing of various violations and
court actions regarding the applicant and this site.
Staff Comment: Staff has prepared several reports for ZMA's, SP's and
ZTA's which were designed to permit a rural salvage yard on this site.
Staff views the applicant's current petition in the same light as the
previous requests.
Staff reviewed a Zoning Text Amendment intended to amend the defini-
tions of public garage to include salvage yard (ZTA-88-04). Staff
comment for the current zoning text amendment is the same as the
comment made for ZTA-88-04 and staff recox~ends denial of ZTA-90-03,
David and Mary Spradlin, for the following reasons as cited in the
ZTA-88-04 staff report:
The Zoning Ordinance currently contains adequate provision for
salvage operations;
e
A salvage operation bears no relationship to the statement of
intent of the RA zone;
In 1987, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to specifically re-
strict inoperative motor vehicles within the RA, Rural Areas,
district and residential zoning districts;
Based on the foregoing and in view of state efforts to control
such uses as outlined in the Code of Virginia, staff can deter-
mine no public purpose to be served by approval of this amend-
ment. To the contrary, such amendment is viewed as contrary to
past State and County efforts and to the general public purpose.
Staff has reviewed two special use permit applications intended to
permit a rural salvage yard on this site (SP-88-71 and SP-89-32).
Additional comment regarding the suitability of this site for a rural
salvage yard is contained in the reports for ZTA-88-06, ZMA-88-20 and
ZMA-88-27. Staff comment for the current request is the same as the
comment made during the review of the prior reports and staff recom-
mends denial of SP-90-25, David and Mary Spradlin, for the following
reason as cited in the prior staff reports:
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
150
Staff opinion is that this location is inappropriate for a motor
vehicle salvage operation in terms of environmental concerns,
relationship to adjoining properties, and adequacy of transpor-
tation facilities.
SP-88-71 was reviewed 'as to locational and other guidelines of
the HI, Heavy Industrial, district and recommended as not satisfy-
ing those guidelines' "
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 6,
1990, unanimously recommended denial of ZTA-90-03 and SP-90-25.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. David L. Spradlin, the applicant,
said his business is helpful to the community because it allows the removal of
cars from the area and people's yards. He has picked up cars involved in
wrecks for the County and State police, in fact he was called last night. He
has agreed to conditions involving environmental conditions, well testing and
screening suggested when he applied for a special permit a year ago. He has
been in business for eleven years, He has complied with all of the County
regulations except for the one regulation of no more than two inoperable
vehicles. The reason he is not in compliance is because of the success of his
business. A lot of people brought cars to him even after the County revoked
his license. He plans to pick up cars, sell parts off of them and then crush
the unused parts. The people in the community need his business because there
.is no other business like this in the area. This location is appropriate for
the business. He presented an aerial photograph of his property. The property
is well screened from adjoining neighbors.
Mr. Wilson Cropp, a real estate broker and resident of the County for 18
years said he is familiar with the Spradlin family and business operation. He
feels strongly that this business is an asset to the community. The majority
of the folk in this corridor of the County are working middle class people and
many of them need Mr. Spradlin's service. He provides used auto parts and
removes inoperable vehicles. Even though the County has an inoperable vehicle
ordinance, many tax map parcels in this corridor of the County are in viola-
tion. These people virtually cannot afford to comply with that ordinance and
would rather hide the cars. By not providing a means within the County for
this type of service, the Board is creating a situation where violations will
continue to be inherent. This part of the County is unique in that there is
no commercial zoning. If a door-to-door check were taken in this section of
the County, he thinks the Board would find an alarming number of people who
are using their real estate as a means to provide income for them whiCh is in
violation of the ordinance and which is just like Mr. Spradlin, but Mr.
Spradlin just got caught. Mr. Spradlin's business is needed. Denying this
request will not stop the operation of salvage vehicles and salvage parts in
this part of the County. The service is needed and will continue whether
under the County's supervision or not. He supports Mr. Spradlin's request and
asks that the Board do so also.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Harold Pillar, said there may be three
major reasons someone would oppose a salvage yard anywhere, i.e., property
valuation, environmental problems and public good. He has several cars on his
property. He uses Mr. Spradlin for used parts. His property valuation went
up 24 percent since the last reassessment. One of these Board members recent-
ly built a pool on his property, installed a new driveway and increased the
size of his lawn and his property value went up just 22 percent. His point is
that if 98 percent of the time real estate assessments are accurate, the way
to increase the value of one's property would seem to be by putting more cars
on it. Environmental concerns should not be an issue. A salvaged car is
inoPerable, car leaks maM %~ and gasoline, anti-freeze and brake fluid are
siphoned off the day the car is brought in. Every used car dealer and every
parking lot at the malls have leaking fluids. There are thousands of cars
leaking fluids every day at Fashion Square Mall. There are not enough heavy
metals to cause a contamination problem. Regarding the public good, this man
has been in business for a long time. He did not come to the Board and ask
for $300,000 to start his business. He is not asking someone else to pay his
way. Mr. Pillar said he does not know what the problem is. The problem is
with the Zoning Department and Planning Department, not with Mr. Spradlin.
Budgets for these departments were $750,000 and they cannot seem to come up
151
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
with an ordinance to tell someone how to run a salvage yard. That is the
issue that needs to be addressed. This man has done nothing but make a living
and he is being deprived of that livelihood because someone says he is doing
no public good. The other issue is compliance by Mr. Spradlin. Mr.
Spradlin's history is miniscule. This is a new application. Mr. Spradlin
wants to conform to County regulations. He thinks it is time for the Board to
"bite the bullet" and address how there can be a legitimate salvage yard in
the County.
Mr. Raymond Spradlin, father of David Spradlin, asked that the Board
seriously consider approving this request. His services are badly needed and
he helps everyone. There have been complaints about the crusher and
environmental concerns. He sent a design of the crusher and explanation of
its operation to a firm in Great Plains, Texas. He received a letter from the
factory which states that in 1000 crushed cars, the crusher does not allow as
much as one pint of liquids to spill into the earth. This crusher is designed
with a pan to hold the liquids. These people are taxpayers like everyone else
in the County. There are no other services provided in this part of the
County. These people need Mr. Spradlin's services.
Mr. Gordon Zimmerman, Jr., a resident of the neighborhood, said a lot of
good points have been brought out. There are people who cannot afford to pay
for this type of service. Mr. Spradlin is helpful. He is beginning to think
that the County should pay Mr. Spradlin to stay in business. This service is
a benefit to the entire County for all of the other reasons stated. There is
nobody else to provide this service.
Mr. Bill Spradlin, a neighboring landowner, said he is a general contrac-
tor out on business a lot. It is a comforting feeling to know that if his
child's car breaks down on the road or if his wife has a problem all she has
to do is call David Spradlin. That is the word in the Woodridge area. He
purchases parts from David Spradlin. David Spradlin does a good job of
supporting himself and helping people in the community. A person can be out
of gas and they know they can call David Spradlin and he will come and help
them out. He would like to know what is so different in Albemarle County than
in the other counties. There are salvage yards similar to David Spradlin's in
every county that adjoins Albemarle. Does the Board want these people to just
move out of the County and leave it to the people who do not need this type of
service. He appreciates the Board's time and thinks Mr. Spradlin's service is
a necessity. It would be helpful to the community to retain this service.
Mr. Freddie Carver, a neighboring landowner, said Mr. Spradlin's garage
is located away from everything. He goes over there all the time for car
parts and he has never seen anything wrong. The neighborhood is good and
clean. Without Mr. Spradlin, the people who need this type of service could
not make it.
Mr. Rusty Wiebel, a friend of David Spradlin, said he wants David to be
able to run his business in a fashion where it would be susceptible to the
needs and wants of the community and in agreement with County regulations. He
works for Sovran Bank and on many occasions David has helped them both with
picking up cars and purchasing cars when no one else would make an offer. He
would like to see David keep his business.
Mrs. Eileen Pillar, a resident of southern Albemarle County about ten
miles from Mr. Spradlin's garage, said she could not believe it when she read
in the newspaper that the Planning Commission denied this request because "it
is not in the best interest of the public". The same comments are being said
tonight that were said a year ago when Mr. Spradlin first came before this
Board. At that meeting, the Board charged the County Attorney with research-
ing to see what he could come up with to find a workable solution. After
that, the staff developed a list of 17 recommendations. Mr. Spradlin has done
everything possible he could do. He agreed to verifiable water testing;
proper setbacks; containment of petrochemicals; botanical screening; and,
installation of a berm. Mr. Spradlin has done everything except limit his
operation to two cars. She thinks that this request is workable and is
needed. Each Board member has heard enough information whereby he or she
should be able to make an objective decision.
152
.cember 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Representing the applicant, Mr. Benjamin Dick, said when David Spradlin
first came before the Board, he thinks the most controlled effort the County
could have had on him was conditional zoning. That application was denied by
a vote of four to two. If there was any opportunity for the County to control
a business, that was it. The General Assembly has granted the power to impose
conditional zoning which allows counties to control businesses. Tonight a
group of normal people are pleading to their representatives to listen to what
they are trying to say. These people are trying to tell the Board this is an
important decision. Amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow this use does not
mean that the Board has to approve every request that comes before it. It
just means that the Board will consider all of the factors that come into play
by allowing the use under the Zoning Ordinance. Albemarle County is not a
city and there is a lot of protectionism going on in the county, and exclusio-
nary practices which gets people's blood boiling. The name Spradlin is a
famous name in Woodridge. Three hundred and fifty people signed a petition
requesting that David Spradlin be allowed to operate his business. This is a
man in the rural part of the County servicing a lot of people and doing a lot
of good things, harming no one and the staff of this County is discussing
environmental concerns. David Spradlin has agreed to all of the requests made
by the County. The working class people should be heard. The Board will do a
great deal of good if it amends the Ordinance to allow this salvage operation.
He would even suggest that Mr. Spradlin be allowed a recycling area. In his
opinion, David Spradlin is the "Johnny Apple Seed" of waste. He is willing to
provide these services at an inexpensive price without harming the environment
and be a businessman, including paying his taxes and licensing fees. He does
think another David Spradlin will come before this Board. This could be a
top notch operation. The next person who comes along may not be as respon-
sible as David Spradlin.
Mr. Dick said the only way a Zoning Ordinance is struck down is when it
is so unreasonable and arbitrary and discriminatory that it would confiscate a
person's property. That test is not one he want to undertake. In the RA zone
a person can have a hog farm and a meat processing plant by special permit.
Those things can be extremely dangerous, but they are allowed. He does not
think that a car with mechanical parts is any more dangerous than processing
meat. Mr. Spradlin's land is not compatible with an agricultural use. He
owns five acres of land and will never be a big farmer. He has proven his
worth. Mr. Spradlin is in a rural agricultural community with a business that
is worthy of the public's attention and it serves a public purpose. If it is
required that he screen the salvage yard, then he will do so. The Board has
heard enough people come before it, all in good faith and tell them that they
need this business, and asked that it be approved by special permit. If the
Board approves this, it will be "calling the shots" and not David Spradlin.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he previously voted in favor of Mr. Spradlin's request.
He has been to Woodridge and met the Spradlins and some of the neighbors. The
problem is not with Mr. Spradlin, but that this is a change in zoning to allow
a salvage yard anywhere in the rural areas of the County by special permit.
Everyone has spoken eloquently for Mr. Spradlin and he knows that all of the
statements are true concerning what he does for the community. He has also
received comments from other people in the County. The issue is whether the
County wants salvageyards in the rural areas. The Board did receive a
petition from people in opposition to the amendment. What needs to be decided
is whether to allow this type of operation anywhere in the rural areas.
Mr. Perkins asked why the applicant proposes to set the number of cars
allowed on the property to 400. Mr. Dick said that number would allow the
business to be viable. In the past, there have been up to 700 cars on the
property.
Mr. Way said he disagrees with all of the reasons staff have given for
not allowing a salvage yard in the rural areas. He does not think the current
Zoning Ordinance contains adequate provisions for salvage operations. It is
probably true that a salvage operation bears no relationship to the statement
of intent of the RA zone, but neither does a dump and other things that are
necessary for society. It is also true that in 1987 the Zoning Ordinance was
amended to specifically restrict inoperative motor vehicles within the RA
zone, but nothing was done to take care of the problem of these cars that were
restricted in the RA zone. He thinks that there should be salvage yards in
the rural areas even though he does not think they should be everywhere.
153
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Bain asked where salvage operations are allowed. Mr. Cilimberg said
salvage operations are defined as junkyards and are allowed in the HI district
by special use permit. Mr. Way asked how many salvage operations have been
approved in the past ten years. Mr. Cilimberg replied he is not aware of any
being approved.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
approve ZTA-90-03 to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, to allow "Rural
Salvage yard for Automobiles" and to amend definitions.
Mr. Bain said he has problems with the text language. Mr. St. John said
the proposed definition includes regulations that normally would be listed in
Supplemental Regulations. Although it is legal, he does not think that it is
a good idea. The Board has the option of eliminating parts of the definition.
Mr. Cilimberg said this definition incorporates a number of the condi-
tions recommended for the previous rezoning request from Mr. Spradlin.
Typically, some of that language would be included as part of the conditions
of approval for a special use permit or be listed in Supplemental Regulations.
Mr. Bowie said it seems to him that the wording in this definition
addresses this particular situation and is not merely a zoning text amendment.
Mr. St. John said the portion of the definition which begins "As part of the
use, the wells .... "would normally be in Supplemental Regulations. The Board
could request staff to add that last part of the definition to the Supple-
mental Regulations.
Mrs. Humphris said she agrees with the staff and particularly that a
salvage operation bears no relationship to the statement of intent of the RA
district. She feels that a salvage operation just does not belong there.
Mrs. Humphris called for the question. Mr. Bowerman said he has not had
an opportunity to make comments. Mrs. Humphris then withdrew her request.
Mr. Bowerman said he has been a supporter of the intent of the rural
areas district and the Comprehensive Plan through his ten years on the Plan-
ning Commission and his one year on this Board. He has listened closely to
the arguments made here tonight. He had ten reasons he could not support a
salvage yard of this description in the rural areas, but common sense tells
him that without this service the requirement concerning inoperable vehicles
cannot be complied with. He agrees with Mr. Way that the economics are just
not there to allow junkyards in the HI district. He thinks that without this
service the problem will just be exacerbated. He does not particularly like
the wording of the zoning text amendment, but he also does not like proffered
zoning because that is in effect spot zoning. Failing to act does not make
the problem go away. If the Board approves this petition, then it can control
the operation. He believes that Mr. Spradlin is providing a decent service
and he does not believe these operations will proliferate. He will support
the motion. He was swayed by what he heard here tonight and by careful
analysis of what the Board is trying to deal with in the rural areas. He is
convinced that something is needed. He would encourage staff to write this
amendment like other zoning text amendments and have these specific require-
ments pulled out and put in Supplemental Regulations to make it more consis-
tent with the rest of the Ordinance. Mr. Way said he has no objection to
that. Mr. Bowie said he also thought the language was too specific.
Mr. St. John said he is not advocating what the Board do with this
request, but if this operation is to exist in the rural areas, then he thinks
approval by special permit is better than spot zoning.
Mr. Bowie said his concern and the concern from the people who have
contacted him is what the Board would do if three more applications for
junkyards around the County were received. What would be the precedent?
Mr. St. John said the County does not allow private dumps. This is going
to be a private salvage yard. This will be a precedent. Anytime the Board
approves something that has a high nuisance value and does that because the
public benefit outweighs the nuisance value, the Board has to make clear in
the record that it is only going to permit enough of that kind of operation to
satisfy the public need. When that is done and there is no longer a public
154
:ember 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
need, the nuisance value outweighs the public benefit. He would think that if
someone in the northern part of the County made application and had similar
circumstances, it would get similar treatment. That does not mean that every
person who applied for a salvage yard would be entitled to approval. Mr. Bain
asked when the Board reaches that point. Mr. St. John said that is a legisla-
tive decision. Mr. Way said he thinks the number of such salvage yards should
be limited.
Mrs. HumphriS asked what happened to the $50.00 bonus for removing junk
cars from private property. Mr. Tucker said it was fairly successful initi-
ally, but he does not know its current status. Mr. St. John said he asked
the status several times. The last response he got was that the volume of
cars was as much as could be handled under the program.
Mr. Perkins said he does not see how the number of salvage yards could be
limited because it would depend on the demand.
Mr. St. John suggested that in addition to words included in the Supple-
mental Regulations, the Board must find that in each case the public need
outweighs the nuisance factor of this use.
Mr. Bowie said the language presented tonight is not written as an
"across-the-board" County-wide zoning text amendment. The 17 conditions
previously recommended for the special permit are no longer here as part of
this. The Board does not have a complete application in front of it. He
thinks there is too much language in the definition.
Mr. Way said his motion stands. Mr. Bowie said he would rather have
something before to vote on as opposed to just an idea. He will not vote for
this with the wording as it currently stands.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion failed
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie and Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Bowie suggested someone make a motion to reconsider the text amend-
ment. Mr. Bowerman said he would support that. Mr. Bain agreed and suggested
sending the language back to the staff for rewriting.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Way, to recon-
sider the previous question. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to defer
ZTA-90-03 to January 2, 1991, and directed staff to amend the proposed lan-
guage to be more specific in the definition and based on the discussion
tonight to transfer some of the language to the Supplemental Regulations.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Perkins, to defer
SP-90-25 until after staff comes back with the proposed zoning text amendment.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
At 10:00 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at
10:11 P.M.
155
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Agenda Item No. 14. ZTA-90-11. Sperry Marine. Public hearing on a
request to amend Section 5.8, Temporary Nonresidential Mobile Homes, to allow
temporary office trailers without site plan approval for a permanent struc-
ture. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 20 and November 27,
1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Public Purpose To Be Served: To accommodate unforeseen or temporary
increased space demands at existing uses.
Staff Comment: Section 5.8 TEMPORARY NON-RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOMES was
added to the Zoning Ordinance in 1986 to allow location of a new use
or expansion of an existing use prior to construction of permanent
buildings. A stipulation of the permit is that the applicant shall
have obtained site plan approval for the permanent use or expansion.
This stipulation has been subject of numerous variances and staff
cannot recall any applicant complying with the requirements of Section
5.8. Firstly, the preliminary site plan approval has not been
obtained and secondly, repeated variances from the allowable time
period have been sought.
There is a need to accommodate fluctuations in space needs for exist-
ing development, particularly industrial uses where employment/space
demands may vary dependent on contract. However, Section 5.8 has not
worked well for new uses. Staff recommends the following amendments,
which are basically consistent with the applicant's request and are
intended to remove the compliance requirements experienced with
Section 5.8 by no longer allowing independent, temporary non-residen-
tial mobile homes where a site plan has been approved, but the main
use has not been established.
5.8 TEMPORARY NONRESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOMES
A temporary nonresidential mobile home may be authorized by the
zoning administrator provided the mobile home is nsed-t~-h~nse-a-
ptanned-permanent-nse-and-~he-appt~¢ant-ha$-rece~ved-s~te-ptan-
appr~vat-f~r-~nch-n~e-~n-the-~ame-mite= necessitated to provide
additional space for employees, students~ or other people and is
to be an activity area as opposed to being employed for storage
purposes or equipment which could be accommodated in an acces-
sory structure. Such mobile home shall be located on the same
site as the main established use for which additional space is
needed. In the event of expansion of the main permanent struc-
ture~ Tt_he mobile home shall be removed within thirty (30) days of
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the permanent struc-
ture. Temporary nonresidential mobile home permits shall be
subject to the following conditions:
S~e-ptan-appr~vat-~f-appt~=abte~ Administrative approval
of development site plan after submittal to site review
committee;
b. Albemarle County building official approval;
Ce
The applicant and/or owner of the property shall certify as
to the intent for locating the mobile home at the time of
application;
Skirting to be provided from ground level to base of mobile
home within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certifi-
cate of occupancy.
5.8.1
EXPIRATION, RENEWAL
Any permit issued pursuant to section 5.8 shall expire
e~gh~een-~8)-mem~hs three (3) years after the date of
issuance unless ¢~nstrn~t~n expansion of the main permanent
structure shall have commenced and is thereafter prosecuted
in good faith. The zoning administrator may revoke any such
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
156
permit after ten (10) days written notice, at any time upon
a finding that construction activities have been suspended
for an unreasonable time or in bad faith. ~n-any-event~-any
such-perm~-shatt-exp~re-~hree-~)-year~-fr~m-~he-da~e-~
~ssuance~-prov~ded~-however-~ha~--~he zoning administrator
may, ~or-good-¢anse-shown~ extend the time of such expira-
tion for not more than two (2) successive periods of one (1)
year each= during expansion of the main permanent structure."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 20,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-90-11.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bill Finley, Facilities Manager at
Sperry, said Sperry ran into a problem when it found that there were no
provisions in the Ordinance to handle a modular office on-site to take care of
immediate short term space needs for offices. This process has been costly
and time consuming. He thinks the proposed language relieves Sperry's prob-
lem. There are situations where they do not want to go out and rent space
because they want the people on-site and at the same time the economy does not
dictate that a building addition be built for a short term solution to the
problem. He asks for Board approval of this request.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bain asked where the time frame came from in Section 5.8.1. Mr.
Cilimberg said that is the way the language was previously structured. For
the long term there still would be a problem.
Mr. Perkins asked if it would be better to say "temporary mobile offices
and classrooms" instead of "temporary nonresidential mobile home". He thinks
the word "home" implies a different meaning. Also, on construction jobs,
temporary offices are used and it may be necessary to include those under this
section. Mr. Cilimberg said the word "mobile home" is defined in the Zoning
Ordinance to cover all of these types of trailers. The definition which was
amended in 1986 covers any of these types of mobile facilities. Another
definition to differentiate may be needed.
Mr. Bowie asked where the definition refers to offices and classrooms.
Mr. Cilimberg said the definition refers to the design and "is for the contin-
uous year-round occupancy as a dwelling." It does not say it has to be a
dwelling unit, but is designed for year-round occupancy as a dwelling.
Mr. St. John said if the staff finds that this confuses people, it can be
amended at a later date. Mr. Bowie said the language in the definition
referring to "... as a dwelling" makes it confusing to him.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt
the following ordinance to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in
Sections 5.8 and 5.8.1, Temporary Nonresidential Mobile Homes, to allow usage
of temporary mobile units without approved site plan for main use:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 5.0 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS IN
SUBSECTIONS 5.8 AND 5.8.1, TEMPORARY NONRESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOMES,
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 5.0, SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, in Subsections
5.8 and 5.8.1, Temporary Nonresidential Mobile Homes, of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reenacted, as follows:
5.8
TEMPORARY NONRESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOMES
A temporary nonresidential mobile home may be authorized by
the zoning administrator provided the mobile home is neces-
sitated to provide additional space for employees, students
or other people and is to be an activity area as opposed to
being employed for storage purposes or equipment which could
be accommodated in an accessory structure. Such mobile home
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
157
shall be located on the same site as the main established
use for which additional space is needed. In the event of
the expansion of the main permanent structure, the mobile
home shall be removed within thirty (30) days of issuance of
a certificate of occupancy for the permanent structure.
Temporary nonresidential mobile home permits shall be
subject to the following conditions:
Administrative approval of site development plan after
submittal to site review committee;
Albemarle County building official approval;
The applicant and/or owner of the property shall
certify as to the intent for locating the mobile home
at the time of application;
do
Skirting to be provided from ground level to base of
mobile home within thirty (30) days of the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy.
5.8.1
EXPIRATION, RENEWAL
Any permit issued pursuant to section 5.8 shall expire three
(3) years after the date of issuance unless expansion of the
main permanent structure shall have commenced and is there-
after prosecuted in good faith. The zoning administrator
may revoke any such permit after ten (10) days written
notice, at any time upon a finding that construction activi-
ties have been suspended for an unreasonable time or in bad
faith. The zoning administrator may extend the time of such
expiration for not more than two (2) successive periods of
one (1) year each during expansion of the main permanent
structure.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Ba'in, Bowerman, Bowies Mrs~ H,mmphris~ Mr~ Perkins and Mr. Ways
NA~S~ None~
Agenda Item No. 15. ZTA-90-12. Albemarle County Public Schools. Public
hearing on a request to amend Section 4.12.6.6.2 to require parking for
elementary schools (K-5 at a rate of one space per 20 students plus one space
per staff member. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 20 and
November 27, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Public Purpose to be Served: To provide reasonable parking schedules
for elementary and middle schools.
Staff Comment: Staff opinion is that current parking requirements for
schools are excessive and that sufficient parking should be provided
for day-to-day school operations as well as the auxiliary role of
schools (i.e. after school activities, and usage of recreational
facilities by the general public). Accordingly parking standards will
differ for elementary, middle and high schools due to the different
purposes to be served by the school. The proposed parking rates are
not intended to accommodate the most intensive use of the site.
During review of all schools, areas for overflow parking must be
considered. The applicant and staff have discussed the following
rates which differ from the applicant's original proposal. The
applicant is agreeable to these changes.
Staff recommends the following amendment to Section 4.12.6.6.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance:
School: 8ne-~)-space-per-f~ve-pnp~ts-ptns-~ne-~)-spaee-per-empt~y-
ce= One (1) space per 12 pupils for elementary schools (K-5), and one
158
December 5, 1990 (Regular Ni§ht Meeting)
(Page 20)
(1) space per 11 pupils for middle schools (6-9). For adult education
or for schools in which pupils drive to school, one (1) space per ~w~
~) three (3) pupils, ptn~-one-(~)-~pace-per-empt~yee~"
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 20,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-90-12.
Mr. Bain said the statement that "parking rates are not intended to
accommodate the most intensive use of the site" is a mouthful. There are a
lot of community meetings at the schools which have created problems. At
Meriwether Lewis School there are people parked alongside the public highway.
It is a dearth- situation. Mr. Cilimberg said it was his understanding that
at one time, the Zoning Department was receiving variance requests at elemen-
tary schools for one space per 20 pupils which is not a lot of parking. The
one space per 12 is to take into consideration additional community activi-
ties. The staff has included in the Community Facilities Plan the necessity
for all schools to have overflow parking areas.
Mr. Way suggested adding language to the proposed ordinance to accommo-
date overflow parking. Mr. Cilimberg said that can be done.
The public hearing was opened. There being no comments, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the
following ordinance to amend and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
in Section 4.12.6.6.2 to provide for sufficient parking in the day-to-day
school operation, as well as the auxiliary role of schools and to provide for
overflow parking:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 4.0 GENERAL REGULATIONS IN
SUBSECTION 4.12.6.6.2, SCHEDULE OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
FOR NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES,
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 4.0, GENERAL REGULATIONS, in Subsection
4.12.6.6.2, Schedule of Specific Requirements for Number of Off-Street
Parking Spaces, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby
amended and reenacted, as follows:
School: One (1) space per twelve (12) pupils for elementary
schools (kindergarten through grade five), and one (1) space per
eleven (11) pupils for middle schools (grades six through nine).
For adult education or for schools in which pupils drive to
school, one (1) space per three (3) pupils. Where possible,
overflow parking shall be provided in a well-drained, suitably
graded area adjacent to required parking area.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. ZMA-90-19. Frank Kessler. Public hearing on a
request to rezone 1195.02 acre from Rural Areas to Planned Residential Devel-
opment (proffered). Property bordered by Rt 250 on the north and by the
Rivanna River on the south and west. Tax Map 79D, Section 3, Parcels 6 & 7;
Tax Map 93, Parcels 59 & '60; Tax Map 94, Parcels 2 & 11. Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 20 and November 27, 1990.)
Mr. Bowerman said he has a conflict of interest. His company and partner
have had discussions with the applicant regarding provision of equipment and
services to Glenmore in the event this application is approved. He will
disqualify himself from consideration of the request. He immediately left the
room.
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
159
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Application Plan: The Application Plan for Glenmore Planned Residen-
tial Development proposes a maximum of 750 single-family dwelling
units to be developed around a double-loop 18-hole golf course. Other
recreational facilities would be dispersed throughout the development.
A mixture of public and private roads are proposed. The development
would be served by public water and sewer. More than 60 acres of land
would be dedicated for public facilities including a 27 acre school
site, six acre fire company site, and 28 acres for a river park.
(Note: The school site and fire company site, while discussed in this
report, are not subject to a zoning change).
A summary of land uses follows:
LAND USE
ACRES +/- Z +/-
Single-family 507
Golf Course 155
Club House and Recreation Area 15
Equestrian 38
Other Open Space 381.02
Tertiary Plant 3
Maintenance Area/RV Storage 6
Spine Road Area 46
State Road Right-of-Way 5
Future State Right,of-Way 6
School Site 27
Fire Department Site 6
TOTAL
1195.02
42.4
12.9
1.3
3.2
31.9
.3
.5
3.8
.4
.5
2.3
.5
Staff Recommendation: The Planned Development approach generally, and
the modified Planned Residential Development District specifically,
are well suited to the Glenmore concept and are specifically recom-
mended by the Comprehensive Plan.
At this time, under Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Glenmore petition is forwarded to the Planning Commission which 'shall
proceed to prepare its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors,'
and the Commission shall include findings as to:
The suitability of the tract for the general type of the PD
district proposed in terms of: relations to the Comprehensive
Plan; physical characteristics of the land~ and its relations to
surrounding areai
Staff opinion is that the Glenmore development complies with the
nine specific recommendations for the Rivanna Village as adopted
into the Comprehensive Plan by the Board of Supervisors in
December, 1989.
In development of the Glenmore plan, effort has been made to
accommodate development while ensuring a respect for the natural
features and environment sensitivity of the site. Final planning
including phase grading plans will continue this process.
Relations to ma~or roads~ utilities~ public facilities and
services;
Provision of adequate public utilities, at no cost to the taxpay-
er or utility customers, is proposed by Proffer 5. The applicant
has agreed to comply with aesthetic siting of the sewage treat-
ment plant and other measures recommended by the Site Review
Committee in the final design process.
The applicant has proffered a cash contribution of $750,000 as
compared to pro-rated Capital Improvements Program project costs
of about $410,000. Additionally, the applicant proposes dedica-
tion of a 27 acre school site, six acre fire company site, and
2.3 mile (28.5 acres) extension of the proposed Rivanna Greenway
Park. These lands, with the exception of dediCation for the
Rivanna Greenway, may be used for other public purposes.
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Proffers also include:
Phased entrance improvements at U. S. Route 250 East to include
signalization, if warranted;
Dedication of road right-of-way to serve other lands in the
Rivanna Village;
Participation on a pro-rata traffic generation basis to upgrade
Route 250 East, not to exceed $500,000.
Ce
Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any
proposed~agreements~ contracts, deed restrictions~ sureties~
dedications~ contributions~ guarantees, or other instruments, or
the need for such instruments or for amendment in those proposed;
At request of the applicant, the County Attorney and Planning
staff have assisted in review of proffer language in an effort to
afford definition of terms, consistency with regulatory language
and the like.
Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to
the particular cases based on determination that such modifica-
tions are necessary or justified by demonstration that the public
purpose of the PD or general regulations as applied would be
satisfied to at le/ast an equivalent degree by such modifications.
Staff recon~nends that private roads be authorized under the
Subdivision Ordinance provision of Section 18-36(c) and (due to
density comparable to Rural Areas zoning) Section 18-36(b)
subject to Proffer 11.
Lotting configuration as proposed by Glenmore rezoning applica-
tion: Exhibit B proposes modification of Section 4.11.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval subject to Fire
Official approval as outlined in Site Review Committee comments
of October 11, 1990. Staff opinion is that the Glenmore PRD
provides a public benefit beyond simple compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and recommends approval of
ZMA-90-19, Glenmore Planned Residential Development subject to
acceptance of the applicant's proffers together with modifica-
tions as outlined above pursuant to Section 8.5.4(d) of the
Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 20,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-90-19 based on the opinion that
the Glenmore PRD provides a public benefit beyond compliance with the Compre-
hensive Plan Land Use Map and it recommended approval of Glenmore Planned
Residential Development subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers
together with modifications as outlined pursuant to Section 8.5.4(d) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. Frank Kessler, said he
has prepared a slide presentation of the proposed development and of the
progress he has made. The Board has all of the information and he will answer
any questions.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Donal Day, a resident of 151 Buckingham
Circle, said he is in opposition to the project. He does not feel that this
sort of development is in the County's best interest in the long run. This
development does not address the needs nor does it harbor a positive future
for the community. This Glenmore project and other segregated projects in the
community separate people by class and possibly by color. The effects of
class separation, the demarkation of certain areas in our community for poor
and moderate income people and some other areas for rich already exists in
Albemarle County. For powerful evidence of this all one has to do is examine
the achievement tests of the elementary schools in the County which vary by a
factor of over two from thoSe that perform the best to those that perform the
worst. The worst schools are occupied by the people of lower incomes and
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
those who do the best are occupied by those of higher income. The Board
should avoid the separation of its community. Here is a project that by
design denies the existence of low and moderate income people and a project in
a plan that neglects one of the primary goals of our Comprehensive Plan. He
finds it incredibly cynical that the developer is more than happy to provide
pro bono help on the Crozet Crossing project, but refuses to include these
very same people in a plan that promises to generate considerate revenues. He
thinks the Planning staff was appropriately impressed with the developer's
eagerness to please, but what of the regular folk. The homes in Glenmore will
not be brought by those people already living in Albemarle County. The
project is motivated by the personal gain of a group of developers. The Board
has the power to suggest additional proffers from the developer; perhaps set
aside enough land to provide housing to be developed by a third party for low
and moderate income people. He believes the housing need is so great in this
community that not one project should be approved that does not consider
housing for low and moderate income people. He is not impressed by the legal
barriers that have been suggested. The Board has lots of influence and lots
of creativity.
Mr. Frank Kessler said in response to comments just made his company
totally donated its time for several months at not one penny's expense. They
~provided all of the secretarial help and everything for the Crozet Crossing
project. There now needs to be some analysis done on another road. Perhaps
the person who just spoke would like to donate some time towards housing of
this type. He stands on his record.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bain asked about the location of the sewage treatment plant and if a
determination has been made of the distance from this plant downstream to the
Lake Monticello intake. Mr. Cilimberg said the discharge from the plant will
be outside of the five mile limits as dictated by the State Water Control
Board. Mr. Bain said previous discussion included moving the plant further
upstream. Mr. Cilimberg said in terms of getting gravity flow to the plant
itself and not the discharge, the most logical location is on the east side of
Carroll Creek because it not only provides for the gravity flow within the
development but also for the other part of the Rivanna growth area to have
sewer service that would be treated at that plant as well. The rest of the
growth area is basically to the north.
Mr. Bowie asked for the sequence of the construction. Mr. Kessler said
pending approval he anticipates to begin work on the golf course in the Spring
1991, with its completion and ready for play in the Spring 1993. Sale of lots
would begin 'in the last quarter of 1992 with closings in the first quarter of
1993 and building permits issued in Fall, 1993. Construction on the clubhouse
would begin in Summer, 1993, with it being ready to operate in early 1995.
Mr. Bowie asked about housing construction. Mr. Kessler said housing con-
struction would begin in Fall, 1993. He thinks it is important to realize
that this will not be an instant village. He made a commitment to the Board
that there will be no marketing outside of the County. If you look at the
real estate market, the sale of homes above $200,000 in the first nine months
was at 69. No one project should look at getting over 25 percent of a particu-
lar marketplace in the long run. That is how he came up with approximately 50
units a year. There will be two types of homes, the single-family detached
home and the golf cottages. He projects that lots will accelerate the 50
units a year sale. The golf cottages would be in price range from $165,000 to
$220,000, 1800 to 2200 square feet with a two-car garage, perhaps more like a
patio home that would have total maintenance. He reduced the number of homes
in this development from 800 to 750, and added 145 acres of Westvaco property
to the plan. He does not intend to crowd the conditions. The front of the
development will remain open and natural and preserve the appearance of
Glenmore Farm as it is today with the development being in the rear of the
property.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve
ZMA-90-19 as proffered in Attachments 1 7 (all as set out below) entitled:
"Proffer for Tax Map 93, Parcels 59 and 60; Tax Map 79D, Section 3, Parcels 6
and 7; and, Tax Map 94, Parcels 2 and 11, in Connection with Petition to
Rezone to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with Private Roads", dated
November 8, 1990, by Frank A. Kessler, Applicant and Owner, together with
modifications and recommendations for private roads.
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
PROFFER FOR T~P 93~ PARCELS 59 AND 60~
TAX MAP 79D, pARCRLE 6 AND 7~ SECTION 3~ AND TAX MAP
94, PARC~LE 2 AND 11 IN CONNECTION WITH
PETITION TO REZONE TO P~ED RESIDENTIAL
D~ELOPMENT (P~) WIX PRIVATE ROADS
Applicant, as the owner of Tax Map 93, Parcels 59 and 60, Tax Map
79D, Parcels 6 and 7, Section 3, and Tax Map 94, Parcels 2 and 11,
collectively hereinafter sometimes called the "Property", hereby
proffers:
1. The development of the Property will be limited to those uses
allowed by right under Section 19.3.1 (1), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and
(10) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, with a
residential development not to exceed 750 single family units together
with a site for a school, and a site for a fire house, either of which
sites may be used for other public use facilities, and development of
a private country club and recreational facilities including but not
limited to tennis, swimming, a golf course with related club house,
and an equestrian center. To be excluded from use by right or special
permit under the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, are
Section 19.3.1 (2) and (3); and Section 19.3.2 (1), (3), (5), (6) and
(7)~
2. Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by
gift to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to items of record
affecting title, for a public school or other public use facilities as
the County may select a parcel of approximately 27.0 acres as shown on
the Application Plan for Glenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc.,
together with an appropriate access right of way, provided owner may
require reasonable visual screening/buffering of the 27 acres.
3. Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by
gift to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to items of record
affecting title, for a fire department or other public use facilities
as the County may select a parcel of approximately 6.0 acres as shown
on the Application Plan for Glenmore made by Clower Associates, Inc.,
together with an appropriate access right of way, provided owner may
require reasonable visual screening/buffering of the six acres.
4. At the time of closing of the sale of each residential lot or
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each residential lot,
whichever first occurs, to contribute $1000.00 to an escrow fund to be
established by Albemarle County for (1) a school capital improvement
fund for use by Albemarle County to either expand the capacity of
Stone Robinson Elementary School or to construct a new school on the
site described in paragraph 2 of this proffer, or (2) the costs,
including any awards to the owner of the mineral rights, associated
with condemnation of mineral rights for the property described in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of this proffer, or (3) other items in the
Albemarle County Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) related to this
project (Glenmore) or to other items not normally included in C.I.P.
directly related to this project (Glenmore).
The funds shall be held by the County in an interest bearing
account with an annual accounting to the owner. Ail interest earned
on the account shall be used only for the same purposes as the origi-
nal $1000.00 contribution. It is requested that Frank A. Kessler or
his family be consulted in connection with the naming of any facili-
ties for which these funds are used.
5. To provide water and sewer collection, distribution and
treatment facilities at his expense for the residential lots in
Glenmore and private country club and to dedicate such facilities to
the Albemarle County Service Authority and/or the Rivanna Service
Authority. These facilities are to be built at no cost to the tax-
payers of Albemarle County or to the customers of the Albemarle County
Service Authority.
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) ZL6
(Page 25)
6. To reserve along the boundary of the Property adjacent to the
Rivanna River a 100 foot wide green belt. No buildings shall be
constructed, or erected within the green belt without the consent of
Albemarle County and it shall be preserved in its natural state except
for building of pedestrian and riding trails and general beautifica-
tion including but not limited to the clearing of underbrush, removal
of dead trees and shrubs, and cleanup of the river. The owner may
grant across the green belt utility easements, access easements to the
Rivanna River for the residents of Glenmore and members and guests of
the private country club, and may build riding trails or make other
similar uses of the area.
At such time as the County of Albemarle decides to establish
along the Rivanna River a public area or park, the 100 foot wide green
belt area, upon request of Albemarle County, will be conveyed by gift
and dedicated to the County, provided the uses allowed for utilities,
accesses to the river, and riding trails, etc. are reserved in the
deed of gift and provided further that the green belt area will
continue to be counted as open space for purposes of the Glenmore
Master Plan and required density. The green belt may continue to be
maintained by the owner of the property, however, in the absence of
such maintenance, Albemarle County at its option may maintain the 100
foot wide green belt.
7. (a) Road A as shown on the Application Plan of Glenmore made
by Clower Associates, Inc. shall be built at time of residential lot
development to VDOT standards and placed in the State Secondary System
from U. S. Route 250E to Point A as shown on the aforesaid Application
Plan of Glenmore.
(b) Upon request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to dedicate
as a right-of-way for public road purposes (i) a strip of land not to
exceed sixty (60) feet in width from Point A to Point B as shown on
the aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore and (ii) an existing strip
of land of variable width owned by the owner from Point B to Point C
as shown on the aforesaid Application Plan of Glenmore.
(c) To construct a road to VDOT standards from Point C
extending through the northeastern portion of the development in a
location and with a termination point to be determined by the owner.
It is intended that this roadway shall provide access to properties
northeast of Glenmore in at least one location. To dedicate at such
time as owner may select or upon request of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, whichever first occurs, the road described in this paragraph,
7(c), together with a right-of-way, including the built road, not to
exceed 60 feet in width.
8. (a) To construct within the existing right-of-way of U. S.
Route 250E and if necessary partially on the property currently owned
by owner, an ultimate entrance to serve Glenmore. This shall be
constructed at the time of initial residential lot development in
Glenmore or at a later date if approved by YDOT.
(b) To install upon the request of ¥DOT on U. S. Route 250E
at the entrance to Glenmore a traffic signal, provided the request
from ¥DOT is made prior to completion of Glenmore which for purposes
of this paragraph shall be deemed to be the day the last residential
lot is sold to a third party purchaser or 15 years from date of final
approval of the Zoning Map Amendment, whichever first occurs.
(c) Providing the work is completed within 15 years from
date of final approval of this Zoning Map Amendment, to contribute
upon completion (i) a pro-rata contribution of the cost of construc-
tion (as hereinafter defined) to four-lane U. S. Route 250E from the
Glenmore entrance to Route 22, or (ii) $500,000.00, whichever sum is
less.
A traffic count on U. S. Route 250E shall be made by VDOT
immediately to the east of the intersection of U. S. Route 250B and
Route 22 within a reasonable time prior to construction with the
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
pro-rata contribution of the owner determined by a formula which
includes a fraction the numerator of which is the traffic count on
U. S. Route 250E between the Glenmore entrance and Route 22 attribu-
table to residences in Glenmore and to the country club facility in
Glenmore (Glenmore Traffic) and the denominator of which is the total
traffic count on U. S. Route 250E between the Glenmore entrance and
Route 22 (Total Traffic) as follows:
Glenmore Traffic
Total Traffic
X Construction Cost = Pro-Rata Contribution
(9) In the event that there shall not have been substantial
performance of proffers contained in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 within
ten (10) years from the date of final approval of this Zoning Map
Amendment, then the undersigned applicant agrees to waive his rights
under Virginia Code Section 15.1-491(al). Substantial performance
shall include (1) donation of the land described in paragraphs 2 and 3
of this proffer, if requested by Albemarle County, (2) payment of at
least $150,000.00 in cash pursuant to paragraph 4 of this proffer, and
(3) construction and dedication to the appropriate authorities of the
public water and sewer facilities pursuant to paragraph 5 of this
proffer.
(10) Development shall be in general accord with the Application
Plan and Glenmore Rezoning Application including textual program of
development as described in Exhibit B to the petition. Final develop-
ment plans shall incorporate all comments and recommendations of the
SRC of October 11, 1990.
(11) Ail private roads shall be constructed to VDOT mountainous
terrain standards, however, clearing of private road easements shall
be restricted to matters of safety as identified by the County Engi-
neer in the final review process. Road maintenance fees shall be in
accord with VDOT subdivision streets maintenance fees (as amended from
time to time) and provisions satisfactory to the County Attorney shall
be made for continuous collection and expenditure of such fees. At
least one deputized security officer (special police officer) shall be
employed for security purposes.
(12) These proffers are substituted in place of proffers dated
September 20, 1990.
Signed by F. A. Kessler on 8th day of November, 1990.
Recommendations for private roads as follows:
Private roads are authorized under the Subdivision Ordinance
provision of Section 18-36(c) and (due to density comparable to
RA zoning) Section 18-36(b) subject to Proffer tl.
Lotting configuration as proposed by Glenmore rezoning applica-
tion: Exhibit B proposes modification of Section 4.11.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval subject to Fire
Official approval as outlined in Site Review Committee comments
of October 11, 1990.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 10:49 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: September 5, October 3(N),
October 16(A), and October 29, 1990.
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of October 16 (A), 1990, and found them
to be in order.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes of September 5, pages 11 (Item #9) - End,
and made the following minute book correction. On page 26, Agenda Item No.
15, second paragraph, the first sentence should read: "Mr. Bain said the
finance legislative committee .... " Mr. Bain had also read the minutes of
October 3 (N), 1990, pages 1 6 (Item #9) and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of October 29, 1990, and found them tc
be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve the
minutes as read and corrected.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board
Members.
Mr. Agnor said last Friday he received a summary of the employee's
attitude survey that is part of the Pay and Classification Plan study. There
are positive and negative aspects of the survey. The survey is primarily to
be used by the Superintendent of Schools and the County Executive to examine
personnel matters within the organization. The revised Pay and Classification
Plan will be presented to the Board at a later date. This survey is an
administrative document to measure the attitudes of employees toward a variety
of subjects. The data is available for anyone who wants to read it.
Mr. Bain asked if anyone from the staff plans to attend the redistricting
public hearings and workshops (Item 5.4). Mr. Tucker responded there are no
plans for anyone to attend the meetings. Staff is working on the County's
redistricting plans. The staff have attended some seminars and has quite a
bit of information. There have been a lot of seminars held throughout the
state.
Mr. Bowie commented that this notice refers to State redistricting and he
said some of the information may be noteworthy.
Mr. Bowerman said at the last Planning and Coordinating Council (PACC)
meeting they discussed compiling a list of topics of mutual interest. Each
representative was to come up with three issues of priority and then senior
staff from each body would meet and put a time line on the items, develop a
work program schedule and bring the suggestions back to PACC for discussion.
The County representatives on PACC have selected transportation issues,
University growth and land use planning. If any Board members have other
suggestions, then the list could be modified. Mr. Way said he is in agreement
with the issues. Mr. Bain also concurred. Mr. Bowerman said with the Board's
concurrence, the Executive staff will proceed with those three items.
Mr. Perkins said the School Division has declared the Old Crozet School
surplus and is turning it over to the Board of Supervisors. He is requesting
guidance from the Board on what the Building Committee should do with the
school. There have been some inquiries into possible purchase and rental of
the property. Mr. Way said he thinks the Board should first find out if the
County has any use for the property and if not, sell it.
Mr. Perkins suggested the school may be a good place for a police substa-
tion. Mr. Bowerman asked the number of acres in the property. Mr. Perkins
replied nine acres.
Mr. Bowie said for the most recent members on the Board that last year
when the Board voted to appropriate money for the new Crozet School, the Board
December 5, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 166
(Page 28)
asked the School Board to turn this school over to it upon completion of the
new school. There has been one public hearing on uses for the school. The
first step normally is to turn the property over to the Building Committee to
research and bring back a recommendation to this Board.
Miss Neher, Clerk to the Board, said this item is scheduled for the
December 12 agenda. The Board must first accept the property from the'School
Board by authorizing the Chairman to sign the deed.
Mr. Bowie reminded the Board that on December 12 it will be discussing
appointments to the Housing Committee during lunch.
Mr. Bowie reminded the Board that it has a luncheon with the University
of Virginia Board of Visitors on Friday, December 7, and suggested meeting in
front of the County Office Building at 11:40 a.m., in order to travel to
Mr. Bowie said he received a telephone call from the Office of Secretary
of Transportation, John Milliken, in response to his letter asking him to
attend this Board's meeting on January 9. Secretary Milliken will be unable
to attend because the General Assembly convenes on that date.
Mr. Way asked for a brief report, at the December 12 meeting, from United
Way on the Teen Mother Program.
Mr. St. John said at its last meeting, the Board of Zoning Appeals
reversed the Zoning Administrator's ruling on development rights for Blande-
mar. The Zoning Administrator had ruled that Blandemar had nine sets of
development rights. The BZA declined to say how many parcels there are and
remanded the matter back to the Zoning Administrator for reconsideration in
light of some guidelines it gave. The owner of Blandemar Farms may appeal
that decision to the Circuit Court. Mr. Bowerman asked if this decision
affects the Board's consideration of the zoning text amendment that related to
this property. Mr. St. John said it might. Also, he has not participated
because he thought he may have a conflict, but if this case goes to the
Supreme Court, he does not feel he has the same conflict, and he would
actively defend the BZA.
Mr. Tucker said in response to a question raised earlier regarding the
procedure for nominating the Chairman to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
Advisory Committee, the Articles of Incorporation call for the Chairman and
Vice-Chairman of the Board and the Mayor and Vice-Mayor of City Council to
come up with a nominee to recommend to the Board and the Council.
Mr. Bowie said if no agenda items are received prior to Friday, the joint
meeting with the School Board for December 12 will be cancelled.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:09 P.M.
CHAIRMAN