1988-05-18May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
239
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 18, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H.
Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:36 p.m.), Walter F. Perkins
and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve 4.7 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept all
but Item 4.5 as information.
Mr. Way mentioned that Item 4.5 related to correspondence concerning the
renewal of a contract for wrecker service. He said that additional informa-
tion would be given to the Board, as well as a more detailed report by the
County Executive, at the June Meeting. He added that there was a letter from
one of the wrecker services in the Board members' packets and a response, but
the entire contract has not been put together at this time.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Item 4.1. Letter dated May 6, 1988, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive
Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, re: Proposed increase in water
and sewer rates, was received as information.
Item 4.2. Letter dated May 9, 1988, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commis-
sioner, Department of Transportation, accompanied by a copy of the estimated
1988-89 Secondary System Construction Allocations, was received as informa-
tion.
Item 4.3. Letter dated May 9, 1988, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Maintenance
Highway Supervisor, concerning the closing of~ a section of Route 726 between
Routes 6 and 627 due to replacement of bridge~over Totier Creek, was received
as information.
Item 4.4. Planning Commission Minutes for May 3, 1988, were received as
information.
Item 4.5. Report from County Executive on Wrecker Service Contract, was
removed from this agenda.
Item 4.6. Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 1988, were received as
information.
240
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 4.7. Statements of Expenses for'the Department of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of April, 1988, were
approved as presented, by the vote shown above.
Note: Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 7:36 P.M.
Not Docketed: At this time, Mr. Way asked that the record show that the
Board was making a presentation to Mr. William P. Heath in appreciation of his
20 years of service on the Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Way
said that Mr. Heath was appointed to the first Board of Zoning Appeals in
1968. Mr. Way commented that he remembered suggesting Mr. Heath's name to the
3udge for that position. He believes that Mr. Heath has,made tremendous
contributions to the County and has been extremely dedicated in his work, and
he knows that the Board of Zoning Appeals will miss his presence. He said he
would deliver the Award of Appreciation to Mr. Heath's home, since he was
unable to be at this meeting. He also mentioned that the reason for Mr.
Heath's resignation is that he is quite ill.
Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation to Ruritan Club. Mr. Way stated that he
would also like to make another presentation which is a ~roclamation concern-
ing Ruritan Club Week in Albemarle County. He asked Mr. ~etsel, a representa-
tive of the Ruritan Clubs, to come forward, and he then ~ead aloud the Procla-
mation. This Proclamation proclaimed Sunday, May 15, 1988, as Ruritan Sunday
and the week of May 21 through May 28 as Ruritan Week in ~lbemarle County and
commended this observance to all citizens. He also thanked Mr. Wetsel and his
fellow workers for their work in this community.
Not Docketed: Mr. Way next informed the BoArd abouCa Proclamation that
related to the Special Olympics. He said that every year:'the various law
enforcement agencies throughout the State join in this venture and have a
marathon type of torch run. He mentioned that the law enforcement people, and
a number of other people from Albemarle County will be participating in this
event on June 3. He said that the race will begin at thei~County Building and
go all of the way to the Henrico County line. He then read the Proclamation.
WHEREAS, the International Special Olympics is the world's
largest program of year-round sports training and competition for
children and adults with mental retardation, unitingithe world on the
common ground of athletic competition while fostering interaction and
friendship between retarded and non-retarded individuals; and
WHEREAS, in 1984 the International Association ~f Police Chiefs
enthusiastically adopted the highly successful Torchi~Run program, and
today Runs are conducted in every state and territor~ in the United
States and nine countries; and
WHEREAS, this year police chiefs and officers, ~ecret Service and
FBI agents, military police, sheriffs, state trooper,s, prison guards
and other law enforcement personnel will run 52,000 ~:.iles - twice the
distance around the earth's equator - to open the SpEcial Olympics;
and
WHEREAS, the torch will have been run across th~' Commonwealth by
law enforcement officers starting the last week in M~Jf from points
north, south, east and west, appropriately ending thai Run in our State
Capital.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors does h~reby recognize
and salute those local and statewide participants in ~the 1988 Law
Enforcement Torch Run, who on the evening of June 3 Will enter the
Robins Center at the University of Richmond to symbol!ically light the
torch officially opening the 1988 Virginia Special Ol~pics Summer
Games; and
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED, that the Board of Supervisors calls
upon the citizens of the CoUnty of Albemarle to encourage the Spirit
of the Special Olympics Skill, Courage, Sharing and Joy - so that
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
241
athletes with mental retardation may reveal to the world these special
qualities in which they excel.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-88-12. Clifford Fox (deferred from May 4, 1988).
Mr. Way reminded the Board that this item was deferred from the May 4,
1988, meeting. He asked Mr. Home to give the Board an update on this matter.
Mr. Horne explained that this request is to establish a private school
for the training of cytotechnicians to be housed in the old White Hall School.
He said that the item was deferred from the last meeting because a number of
questions arose, and Dr. Fox was not in attendance at that meeting. Mr. Horne
said that the Board had sent Dr. Fox a letter after the last meeting which
posed many of the Board's questions. He said that he has prepared an amended
set of conditions for the Special Use Permit should it be approved. He then
pointed out the conditions as follows and said that Dr. Fox was present at
this'meeting and would answer the Board's questions.
o
County Engineer approval of a certified engineer's report in
accordance with Section 4.14 PERFO~RMANcE STANDARDS of the Zoning
Ordinance. Due to location of this property in the South Fork
Rivanna River reservoir watershed, lthe County Engineer shall
consult with the Water Management Official in his review;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance;
3. Planning staff approval of parkingiarea;
Virginia Department of Health review and approval of septic
system including discharge to suchisystem;
5. Fire Officer approval;
This special use permit is issued for a private school for the
training of cytotechnicians as desdribed in this application with
active participant student enrollment at all times. Any substan-
tial change in the nature of the school or failure to comply with
this condition shall be deemed a change of use and this petition
shall be referred to the Board of Supervisors for disposition;
7. All operations shall be conducted Within the existing structure;
No more than 20 persons shall be on the premises at any one
time."
Mr. Horne stated that he had spoken to ~ representative at the Health
Department as to the need for monitoring this type of operation. He said that
the local Health Department deals with the disposal of domestic sewage through
a drainfield. If there is any other non-domestic disposal necessary, the
approval, coordination and monitoring of the 'State Health Department in
Richmond would have to be obtained. He explained that the State Health
Department's activities could be handled through the local procedures if the
permit is approved with condition #4 included~in the conditions of approval.
There were no further questions from theiBoard, so Mr. Way opened the
public hearing.
Dr. Fox apologized for not being at the previous meeting and said he
would be glad to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Lindstrom stated that
the staff presentation and description of the school described there being
only one or two students and seven to eight egployees. He said it sounded as
though, although there might be an active educational program going on, there
would be a lot of laboratory work that might or might not be related to the
study of cells. Dr. Fox said that the program is designed to educate the
students and to get them involved. He said that projection slides, pamphlets,
and approved books on the subject are also used.
242
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the mix of students and employees seemed
to be more indicative of a laboratory that may have trainees involved than a
school primarily existing to provide education for the students. Dr. Fox
explained that he had used those numbers only as an example, and that at times
the numbers of students and employees will change. He said there is a desper-
ate need for trained cytotechnicians.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if all of the revenues for this school will come
from tuition paid by the students. Dr. Fox replied that he did not know. He
said that when he was responsible for the school at the University, no tuition
was charged.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the people will be paid. Dr. Fox answered that
the students will not be paid, but the employees will be~paid.
Mr. Lindstrom next inquired as to what will support~the operation. Dr.
Fox responded that the operation will be supported by the ongoing process of
learning and handling the procedures for local physicians. He said revenues
are received for these procedures and will be put into the cellular studies
program.
Mrs. Cooke asked who is involved with this private enterprise. Dr. Fox
replied that the cytotechnicians and secretaries who work with him will be
involved with the program.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is currently an existing operation such as the
one that is being proposed. Dr. Fox replied in the affirmative and said that
it is called Cellular Studies.
Mrs. Cooke inquired as to where this program is now housed. Dr. Fox
replied that it is housed in the Jefferson Medical Building on East Jefferson
Street. He went on to say that approval has to be obtained from the State for
the program and that an independent inspector also check~ the operation at
times without notice. ~
Mrs. Cooke asked where doctors can send their slides in the absence of a
school such as the one that Dr. Fox is currently operating. Dr. Fox answered
that all of these types of slides are done in-house at the University Hospi-
tal.
Mrs. Cooke then wondered if there was a training fadility for students at
the University Hospital. Dr. Fox answered that there was~such a facility at
the University Hospital, but it was discontinued several.years ago. He added
that sometimes slides are picked up from physicians' offfces by the,people
involved with his program and brought to his office for processing and some-
times the slides are mailed to his office.
Mrs. Cooke next asked if all of these slides are re~ated to gynecology.
Dr. Fox replied, "yes." He said that his facility also dbes other kinds of
work that is sent directly from the Martha Jefferson HosP~tal.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the primary source of revenues will be from the
actual analysis of slides. Dr. Fox answered, "yes." ~
At this time Mr. Bowie inquired if Dr. Fox was tryin~ to open a private
school that would do some laboratory work or would he be ~pening a laboratory
to train a few people. Dr. Fox responded that one of the~!cytotechnicians is
leaving and a replacement cannot be found. He said that ~he only school of
this type is in North Carolina. He added that MCV has closed its school. He
went on to say that people have got to be trained to do this work, so the
school will be a combined laboratory and school. He said!!ithat he did not know
why the other programs have failed, but there is a mass of~ work to be done and
no one trained to do it. i!
Mr. Perkins asked if the people in this program have?to be licensed by
the State. Dr. Fox replied, "yes." He said there is a national organization
that goes through licensures, but he believes the State w~ll set up something
specifically for cytotechnicians. He said not much attention has been given
to this subject for many years because the study of cells'!is such a small area
in the medical field.
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
243
Mr. Perkins then asked if a permit is required from the State. Dr. Fox
answered, "yes," and he said that permits have always been required.
Mr. Perkins asked if these permits will also be required for the White
Hall operation. Dr. Fox replied that these permits would probably be required
at White Hall if there were any significant amount of work done there. He
said that inspectors have to come to the location and go through the different
phases of the operation.
There were no further questions for Dr. Fox from the Board, so Mr. Way
asked if there were other people present who wished to speak concerning this
matter.
Mr. A1 Francis was the first to speak, and he said that he lives approxi-
mately one-half mile from the proposed laboratory. He stated that after
hearing Dr. Fox's explanations, it sounds more like a laboratory to him than a
school. He called attention to the change that was made to Condition Number
Six in the staff report that required Dr. Fox to operate a school. He asked
if this condition refers to three or four students or one or two trainees Mr.
Horne responded that Condition Number Six does not refer to a number but only
to the use. He said that it must be a school for cytotechnicians.
Mr. Francis wondered how the difference could be distinguished if the
program becomes more of a laboratory than a school. He went on to say that
every business has to train its employees, bat he does not think these busi-
nesses can be called schools. He believes what is happening is that a labora-
tory is being put in a residential neighborhood by referring to it as a
school. He added that it is not known if the instructors are going to be
certified educators or if the students will get a diploma or certificate. He
said there are too many unanswered questions~about the program, and he feels
that someone will have to regulate it. He s~ated that if certain conditions
for a school have to be met, then who will check to see if these things are
within the guidelines. He does not believe ~hat the County should get into
this type of business. He said, too, that t~ere have been no other educators
who have mentioned a need for this school. ~e believes the Planning Commis-
sion should have checked further to see if there is a need for this school and
to see if any other educators support the idea. He mentioned that the Plann-
ing Commission had already denied the reques~ for one laboratory in Ivy in an
industrial park because the property was not?on the public sewer system. He
pointed out that, in his opinion, this location is more unsuitable for a
laboratory than the one that was denied. Heiialso said that it seems as though
the laboratory has been expanded since the l~st meeting from seven or eight
people, to approximately 20 people on the pr~mises. He then asked that the
Board of Supervisors deny the request. !~
Next to speak was Ms. Sharon Farmer whoi!lives at Barksdale Farm which is
approximately two miles from the proposed school site. She stated that she
has served on planning commissions and helped to write a comprehensive plan.
She said that in Albemarle County's ordinanc~i there are special use permits
given to people in a residential zone, which include schools. She thinks that
this request, however, is a misuse of specia~ipermits. She went on to say
that a special use permit should be given fox something that is of special use
and benefit and benefit the County and the r~sidents in the area. She said
that she does not see that this will benefit ithe people because a lot of them
are worried and upset. She commented that sh~ is a teacher and her husband is
a University professor, and neither one of th~mhas ever been in a situation
with a student-teacher ratio such as this.S~e said that, as a planning
commission member and a city council member ih another state, she believes
that the supervisors' job is hard enough withbut claiming the responsibility
for checking up on people. She pointed out that the State's licensing is more
stringent for laboratories than it is for schbols. She said she was told in
the County's planning office that even veterinarian laboratories are permitted
with a special use permit, but she commented ihat these laboratories are very
restricted. She said that schools do not hav~ these restrictions. She added
that the laboratory may be or probably will be checked out at White Hall. She
feels, however, that if a laboratory is locat~d at White Hall, it should be
checked and she wants to know what is being d~ne with the chemicals. She said
she understands that the County felt stronglyiabout not having chemicals in
Ivy, and she wanted the Board to understand that the people in the White Hall
244
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
area all have well water. She believes that this is a real concern and hopes
that the Board will take this into consideration when a decision is made.
Mr. Richard Ergler stated that he lives approximately 800 yards from the
school. He reminded the Board that he had spoken at the last meeting. He
said he is not entirely unsympathetic to a school in that location, though as
important as it sounds to train these cytotechnicians, he does not understand
why it will be necessary to train them in White Hall if Dr. Fox already has a
laboratory in town which is functioning. He is also concerned that the
numbers of the people involved with the program seem to be increasing.
Another concern of Mr. Ergler's is that he does not see how the program can be
closely monitored and how changes could be noted if the program changed from a
school function to a laboratory. Since listening to the~discussions of the
program for several weeks, he is not convinced that it ig not going to be a
laboratory, and he does not think that a laboratory is appropriate in this
location. He pointed out that this is an agricultural area, and the people
there bought their homes with that in mind. He added that he hoped the Board
would not change that situation by approving this laboratory.
Mr. Warren Nicholson stated that he lives in a subdivision on the same
road where the laboratory is proposed to be located. He said he wants to
reiterate the questions already posed, and he wanted to point out also the
fact of the increased traffic on that road if the program is permitted to be
housed there. He said there have been a number of accidents there anyway, and
the people in the area have a number of questions concerning the volume of
slides that will be studied, how they will be transported, to the laboratory
and how often they will be brought there. Another concern that Mr. Nicholson
posed is the sewage disposal system. He said that if slides are going to be
prepared at the site, he is concerned as to what kinds of chemicals are going
to be used. He mentioned that if this is a high volume 9peration, how will
the septic system handle it, and will the chemicals or cell carcinogenics seep
into local water.
There was no one else present who wished to speak, so Mr. Way placed the
matter before the Board. ~
Dr. Fox asked if he could respond to some of the comments, and Mr. Way
agreed. Dr. Fox then said that he did not know where th~ number of 20 people
had come from. He had said earlier that the program woul~ involve six, eight
or possibly 10 people, and he does not envision any more ~han that. He went
on to say that the reason he is asking for the old White Hall School location
is because of space. The slides have to be stored, and over a period of time,
the volume is tremendous. The slides have to be kept for~ two years if they
are normal, and if they are abnormal, they have to be stored forever. He
added that there is no problem with chemicals because they are all water
soluble except for xylene, but there are now substitutes that can be used for
xylene that are also water soluble.
Ms. Sharon Farmer asked if Dr. Fox's current operation is considered a
school. Dr. Fox answered that his current facility is noT a school.
Mr. Bowie asked why the number 20 was used in Condition Number Eight.
Mr. Horne replied that the number had come specifically f~om the staff becaus~
they felt that Dr. Fox may wish to expand in the future. !He added that the
staff does not feel that the number of people at the Whit~ Hall School is much
of an issue, if the other questions can be satisfied. He,mentioned that
domestic sewage has to be taken care of in the drainfieldi He reminded the
Board that the building has been used as a regular school~in the past and 20
people do not generate much traffic. He said, however, t~at the Board can
limit the number of people to whatever it wishes, and the!istaff will not be
concerned about it.
Mr. Way asked if he was correct in believing that if this issue was
coming to the Board as a commercial enterprise, it would ot be allowed in
that district. Mr. Horne agreed.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that he felt Dr. Fox had been very straightforward
in answering the questions, and the answers confirm that ~his is primarily a
laboratory. Mr. Lindstrom said that the program is of a Qommercial nature
with the revenue coming from the laboratory instead of th~ students. He does
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
245
not think this is permitted in that zone. He said that he is not so concerned
about the chemicals or the traffic, but he is concerned about the fact that a
laboratory is not permitted. He said that calling the laboratory a school
just because it will have a couple of trainees does not make it a school. He
added that he does not think he would have any problem with a school, if it
were properly buffered, etc., with respect to the residential character of the
area, but he does have a problem with a commercial laboratory being located
there.
Mrs. Cooke concurred with Mr. Lindstrom's analysis of the matter, and
said she is not prepared to support this item because of the nature of the
description of the program.
Mr. Perkins agreed with Mrs. Cooke and stated that his basic problem is
whether or not the program will be a school or a laboratory. He believes also
that it will be more of a laboratory than a school. He concurred with Mr.
Francis that all businesses have to train people on the premises.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to deny
SP-88-12. Mr. Bowie commented that he could not support the request. He said
that he may have been able to support it if there were going to be eight or
ten students, a couple of instructors and incidental laboratory work. He
added, however, that he had not'heard anything that makes him believe that it
really is a school.
Roll was called and the motion carried bY the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-88-22. UPS Parcel Distribution Center (ERPA,
Inc.) To allow a UPS Distribution Center to be located on 20.379 acres, zoned
LI. Property located within Hunters Hall Subdivision, west of Route 250 and
1-64 interchange. Tax Map 79, Parcels 4D, 4~, 4G, 4H, 4J and 4K. Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progressi!on May 3 and May 10, 1988.)
Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows:
"Petition: United Parcel Service petitions the Board of Supervisors
to issue a special use permit for a DISTRIBUTION CENTER (Section
27.2.2.7 TRUCK TERMINAL) on 20.379 acres zoned LI, Light Industrial.
Property, described as Tax Map 79, Parcels 4D, 4E, 4F, 4G, 4H, 4J & 4K
(and a portion of abandoned right-of-wa~), is located within Hunter's
Hall subdivision about one mile east of!the Shadwell interchange of
1-64 in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: Hunter's Hall subdivision consists of 54 acres
zoned LI, Light Industrial, (46 acres), land HC, Highway Commercial,
(eight acres). Four lots have been approved for development. UPS has
purchased and combined seven lots at the eastern end of the develop-
ment. Ail lots in the subdivision have:access restricted to Hunter's
Way Road and no direct access to U. S. Rpute 250 East. The Virginia
Department Transportation's Resident Engineer's office is to the east
adjacent to the UPS site. Land across R~ute 250 East is owned by the
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. All of these properties are
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Hunter's Hall subdivision surrounds Lowe's
building supply which is zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
Applicant's Proposal: UPS proposes to relocate its current distribu-
tion center from Lamb's Road to Hunter's~ Hall subdivision. The
planned center would operate exclusively within and serve the local
Charlottesville/Albemarle area. The 'desire of the East Coast Region-
al headquarters of the United Parcel Service [is] to establish a
better located facility for their parcel-distribution center in
Albemarle County, Virginia. '
UPS has also stated that 'there will be no outside storage and all
truck repairs will be conducted within the confines of the building.
During final site design, special consideration will be given to
246
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
addressing the screening, buffering and setbacks along Route 250. The
same concerns will also be addressed relative to adjacent property
located to the east, zoned Rural Areas, which is presently occupied by
the Virginia Department of Transportation.'
Staff Comment: In 1986, 17 lots in Hunter's Hall subdivision were
rezoned from HC, Highway Commercial, to LI, Light Industrial (with
proffers to delete certain uses and restrict septic~disposal to
domestic sewer only).
In the report for ZMA-86-09, staff stated that:
Interest in the property has been shown by such uses as contrac-
tors office/storage yard, wholesale distributorships, warehousing
uses, and truck terminal.
Such uses would generate less traffic than the~broad range of
Highway Commercial uses. Some of these uses desire interstate
highway access which would be convenient at the Shadwell inter-
change.
UPS has stated that 'in addressing the issue of traffic, the site for
the new UPS facility has been selected based on its!unique location to
optimally service the incoming and outgoing trafficpatterns of the
distribution center.' On a daily basis, excluding customer traffic,
'the total number of vehicles expected to utilize the facility in-
cludes 36 package cars, 10 tractors with double traiiers, two single
tractor trailers and approximately 78 employee cars,'
Staff opinion is that:
The proposed Hunter's Hall site is an improved location over the
current Lamb's Road site. Better and more direct access to major
roads such as 1-64, Route 250 East, and the Route 250 Bypass is
available. Morning outbound UPS traffic currently conflicts with
morning inbound Albemarle-Jouett-Greer traffic at Lamb's Road;
The proposed UPS center would not detract nor be inconsistent
with other uses/zoning in the area.
Staff recommends approval of SP-88-22 with no conditions."
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 3, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval Supervisors with no conditions. He went ove~
accesses and parking areas with the Board and said that it is the staff's
opinion that the site would not be visible at all from Route 250 and would be
marginally visible, if at all, from 1-64.
Mr. Bain asked if the UPS Distribution Center would be one story and if
the trucks would be able to pull into the building. Mr. Horne answered,
"yes," to both questions. He said that a majority of the~loading would be
done in the back where the trucks would back into the building and packages be
unloaded for processing. He mentioned that there were some experts from the
UPS corporate office who would be able to describe any operation that will be
conducted there.
Mr. Perkins inquired about the public road, and Mr. ~iorne explained where
the public road would end and said that there would be a dommercial entrance
off the public road into the site.
Mr. Perkins then asked if this UPS facility will comD!letely utilize the
site. Mr. Horne replied that there will be some room lef~ for additional
buildings, and there are some areas that can be enclosed Qr expanded. He
believes that the applicant does envision some expansion a!t the site. He
mentioned, however, that the site is somewhat restricted for large scale
expansion because the grading away from the center of the ~ite would be
severe.
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
247
Mr. Perkins asked if other uses would be made of the seven lots involved,
and Mr. Home replied, "no." Mr. Home said the seven lots would be utilized
by this particular use.
Mr. Bowie wondered if there was anything that could stop the other lots
from being used for something else. Mr. Horne answered that other uses would
entail a re-configuration of the site because the site's facility covers a
portion of all of the lots. He said that the individual lots do not exist
anymore. He thinks that re-subdivision to sell off a portion of any of the
lots would be very difficult, and he does not see how it could happen if the
site is developed in this configuration initially.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that Mr. Horne had stated that the Planning Commis-
sion had recommended approval of this project without any conditions. He
wondered why. Mr. Horne replied that it is an internalized site in an indus-
trial area that has little or no effect on the surrounding area.
Mr. Bowie then questioned whether morning outbound UPS traffic would
conflict with morning inbound traffic on Route 250. Mr. Home answered,
"yes." He added, however, that there is a much higher capacity to handle
traffic on Route 250 than there is at Lambs and Hydraulic Roads. He said
there are right and left hand turn lanes there.
Mr. Bain asked if there will be an extension of the turn lane on Route
250. Mr~ Home replied that, according to the indication from the Virginia
Department of Transportation, the turn lane is adequate to handle industrial
traffic in and out of the entire subdivision.
At this time, Mr. Way opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Pat Ford, a representative of the Cox Company, spoke first. He had
with him some gentlemen from the UPS Organizgtion. He introduced them to the
Board as follows: Mr. Tim Jones, Industrial~Engineer and Manager of Opera-
tions in Virginia; Dick Peckinpaw, District Maintenance Manager; Rick Shepke,
Division Manager for Charlottesville, Stauntdn and Front Royal; Keith Beyers,
Head of the Planning Team for UPS; Stan Inge~ Regional Project Engineer; Earl
Campbell, Charlottesville Center Manager; and Dave Phillips, Industrial
Engineer. .
Mr. Tim Jones spoke next and gave a background of the operation in
Albemarle County. He said that Albemarle CoUnty had been served by UPS for
the last 24 years, and for the last 12 years ~the location of UPS has been at
Lambs Road. He said the current operation e~ploys 80 people and 50 of these
people are full-time. The approximately 30 ~art-time people are students at
the University of Virginia or Piedmont Community College. He said that there
are 36 package delivery drivers out of the c~rrent Charlottesville location
and 10 tractor-trailer units going in and ou~ of the location. He mentioned,
however, that these units are moving only between 4:00 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. and
8:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. He added that there is a problem where they are
currently located because they are currently on 3.5 acres of land. This does
not meet space requirements for and UPS and the surrounding area is predomi-
nantly residential. He stated that when UPS imoved to that area 12 years ago,
it was mostly open area. Now, UPS must share] the same traffic and travel
paths with school buses and private traffic going back and fOrth to the high
school as well as residential traffic. Mr. Jones said that the basic proposal
is to move the current operation from Lambs ~ad to Hunter's Hall Subdivision
which is better suited from a space and traffic standpoint. He added that it
also gives UPS excellent access to Interstates64. He mentioned that the UPS
facility will be a distribution center and not a warehouse. Inbound traffic
comes in basically for a three hour period, a~d except for packages with poor
addresses and packages that have been requestgd to be held at the center for
pick up, no packages are stored in the facility. He added, too, that the
Lambs Road location will be closed. ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if UPS owns the Lamb~ Road property. Mr. Jones
responded that the Lambs Road property is leaAed. Mr. Lindstrom then asked
how that property is zoned. Mr. Horne responded that the area is zoned LI,
but he would have to check the map to be sure.
248
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Bowie asked if the UPS traffic that Mr. Jones has described is
currently being handled at Lambs Road. Mr. Jones replied, "yes." Mr. Ford
explained, in response to some of the Board's questions, that the only remain-
ing vacant area is towards the south end of the site and will be used strictly
for drainfields and reserve drainfields. As far as traffic generated from the
site is concerned, he pointed out that there is a description of the traffic
in the staff's report.
At this time, Mr. Way closed the Public Hearing and placed the matter
before the Board.
Mr. Bowie commented that this facility will be in his district and one of
his concerns is the traffic that will be generated on Route 250. He said that
the explanation of traffic patterns does not lead him to believe that there
will be any traffic problems. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded
by Mrs. Cooke, to approve SP-88-22 as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Cooke remarked that it is obvious that this will be a much better
location for UPS, and it will eliminate some problems for the residents in the
surrounding area.
Mr. Lindstrom then requested the staff to look at the zoning on the Lambs
Road parcel and talk with the County Attorney to initiate consideration for a
rezoning that might be more compatible with that area. He said that he is
uncomfortable with the three acres of light industrial p:roperty setting in
that spot.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstro~, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-88-25. Thomas Vincent. To ~onduct a home occupa-
tion, Class B, for,a woodworking shop on 83.0404 acres, zoned RA. Property
located on north side of Route 692, approximately one-teJth of a mile west of
its intersection with Route 696. Tax Map 86, Parcel 16.. Samuel Miller
District. (Advertised in The Daily Progess on May 3 andlMay 10, 1988.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
Petition: Thomas Vincent petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue
a special use permit in accordance with Section 10.~.2.(31) of the
Zoning Ordinance, to allow a woodworking shop to he'located on exist-
ing 83.04 acre parcel. This property is located on'the northside of
Route 692, about seven-tenths of a mile west of itslintersection with
Route 696. Tax Map 86, Parcel 16. Zoned RA, Rural~'iAreas. Samuel
Miller Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: This site is presently vacant and completely
wooded with mature deciduous trees. The surrounding area is typically
rural with limited low density residential development. A dwelling
exists immediately east of the proposed site. The property is bor-
dered on the north by the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District.
Properties existing to the west and south are characteristic of open
pastures and woodlands.
Staff Comment: This is a proposal to locate an accessory structure on
a site that is currently undeveloped. It is the applicant's intent to
secure approval of a special use permit prior to construction of a
dwelling. Upon construction, the applicant will utilize the special
use permit to locate the accessory structure.
The applicant intends to sell items produced on sits (mostly furniture
products) to individuals and interior designers. D~liveries will be
made by the applicant, and there will be no sales od display area on
site. While the applicant intends at some point for: the business to
become full-time, the use will not now be the applicant's primary
source of employment.
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
249
Equipment to be operated in the woodworking shop may include a table
saw, drill press, planer, shaper, sander and sawdust vacuum.
Two letters of opposition have been filed against this application.
The letters reflect concerns of property devaluation and contend that
approval of this permit will have adverse effects on the adjacent
Agricultural/Forestal District and the rural areas in general.
This is a reqqest for a home occupation on vacant property. Approval
of a request of this nature may set a precedent for future requests on
vacant property. While staff's opinion is that the petition could be
rejected as improper, a similar request was approved on one prior
occasion with a condition similar to recommended Condition #3 of this
report. Note that Condition #3 requires substantial performance by
the applicant within a specified time period. At this time, staff can
foresee no circumstance which would warrant extension of this time
period. Likewise, should this special use permit expire, the Board of
Supervisors is under no obligation to approve any subsequent request.
While Section 5.2, among other things, requires compliance with
Section 4.14, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, which includes noise limitations,
a limit on hours of operation may also be appropriate since the
applicant does intend full-time operation at some future date. The
Commission may wish to discuss limited hours of operation with the
applicant.
Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with Section 31.2.4.1
of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that, with appropriate condi-
tions, the use would not be of substantial detriment to other proper-
ties in the area. Staff recommends approval of this request subject
to the following: ~
1. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance;
Compliance with Section 5.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance;
A single-family dwelling shall be donstructed and have received a
Certificate of Occupancy within 18 months of approval of this
petition by the Board of Supervisors. Failure to comply with
this condition shall be deemed abandonment of this special use
permit and all authority granted herein shall terminate. No
conduct of the requested home occUpation, including the storage
and/or maintenance of machinery related thereto, shall occur on
the premises until the dwelling has received a Certificate of
Occupancy. ~!
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission h~eard this request on May 10,
1988, and unanimously recommended approval subject to the three conditions
listed in the staff's report plus two additional conditions reading: "4) No
operation except between the hours of 7:00 A.IM. and 7:00 P.M.; and 5) No more
than one additional employee other than family members."
Mr. Way asked for the location of the properties that belong to the
people who objected to the request. Mr. Horne pointed out the properties on
the map.
Mr. Bowie inquired as to where the building would be located on the
property. Mr. Home responded that the building will be put near the central
area of the site.
At this point, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Thomas Vincent was present and pointed out that his primary interest
in the property is to build a house, even though the business is his liveli-
hood. He said he would be glad to answer questions.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the size of th9 woodworking building. Mr.
Vincent replied that the maximum allowed size!is 1,500 square feet, and he
250
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
intends to build a building of that size. He explained that his business is
for one-of-a-kind pieces of furniture. He does nothing that requires a lot of
machine working, and only has six to eight customers a year. He stated that
he had dealt with the noise factor at the Planning Commission meeting and does
not believe that it will be a problem for anybody. He also mentioned that
chemicals in the groundwater will not be a problem, because he will not use
anything except water soluble finishes. He explained that a water based
lacquer is the only kind of lacquer that he will be using. He pointed out
that any solvent based lacquer would be toxic to him, too, because this will
be his water supply.
Mrs. Cooke wondered if the house and business facility will be built at
the same time. Mr. Vincent replied that it is his intent to build the house
and the business facility at the same time. He said he would not have any
electricity until he reaches a certain stage of occupancy, so there will be no
business until after he is living there.
Mr. Bowie wondered why the building needs to be as large as 1,500 square
feet with only six or eight customers a year. Mr. Vincent answered that 1,500
square feet will allow him to store quite a bit of wood.~ He pointed out that
wood has to be chosen carefully for custom made furniture. He estimated that
50 percent of the space that he will be using for business is for storage. He
said that he does not have big machinery and that his business would never
warrant any large machinery.
Mr. Bob Rogers spoke next and said that he and his Wife own a large
acreage directly across Route 692 from the property in q~estion. He feels
that the Planning Commission did a disservice to the are~ and to the aims of
the County to preserve rural areas and did not give consideration that a
cabinet shop, regardless of its size, would not be in character with the
neighborhood. He mentioned that the residents are very ~roud of the area and
the fact that it is rural residentiaI. He said that the ~roperties are
improved, above average, single-family homes, and are weD1 maintained and are
assessed accordingly. He thinks that the property owners should have some say
as to what comes into the area when it involves a change ~such as this. He
pointed out that zoning is the only protection that the p~operty owners have
and regardless of what Mr. Vincent says, the residents ars not in favor of a
cabinet shop. He said that Mr. Vincent would be welcomedl as a homeowner. Mr
Rogers said that there are conflicting reports about the location of the
house. He does not have any way to judge which is the correct location and
wonders how the Board will have the right information to ~ake a decision. He
added that no one has spoken in favor of this application] and he hoped that
the Board would disapprove it.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Rogers if he actually lives on the property. Mr
Rogers answered that he lives on the property during times of good weather,
but he lives part of the time in Charlottesville. He stated that his home on
the property is fully modernized and restored. He said t!e has been in the
area for 69 years. ~-
Mr. Frank Elliott spoke next and stated that he and ~is wife live adja-
cent to the property where Mr. Vincent would like to plac~ his woodworking
shop. He noted that on the agenda the property in question is listed as bein
one-tenth of a mile west of its intersection with Route 696. He explained
that Mr. Vincent's property is actually seven-tenths to ohe mile west of Route
696, and he asked that this correction be made. He spokeialso for another
neighbor, Dr. John Bourgeois, and said that he had relaye~ a letter from the
doctor to Mr. Burgess of the Zoning Office. He said that~IDr. Bourgeois is
currently lecturing and demonstrating medical procedures ~o doCtors in Poland.
Mr. Elliott said that Dr. '
Bourgeois objection is the sam9 as the other
neighbors which includes the noise level and the variatio~ of zoning in an
area that is rural. Mr. Elliott mentioned, too, that thi~ property is adja-
cent to the agricultural/forestal district. He ~said that i!the people in that
area do not wzsh to have a nomse level resulting from fur~mture production.
He pointed out that any noise that is emanating from this~Vicinity descends
into a "tea-cup" area. He explained that the noise level ~from the neighbors
comes through into the other homes and reverberates in th~s particular valley.
Mr. Elliott said that the residents of this area are hopeful that the Board
will not permit Mr. Vincent to do anything else but build ='a residence. He
said that Mr. Vincent and his family would be welcomed to ~the area, but the
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
251
residents there will not welcome a production factory for furniture with a
noise level that is caused by the various equipment.
There was no one else present who wished to speak, so Mr. Way closed the
Public Hearing.
Mr. Bowie said this is a Special Use Permit for a use that is already
permitted in RA with a special permit. He reminded the Board that this is
similar to another situation that came before the Board with a matter involv-
ing cedar trees. The applicant, according to Mr. Bowie, started off with a
small home shop and now has a regular shop, but he has 100 percent of the
neighborhood's support.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Horne to explain the difference in the wording of
the ordinance relating to factory versus home occupation. Mr. Home explained
that there is a set of specific general requirements for home occupations
stating the amount of space that can be used and what can and cannot be
conducted on the premises. He then read the regulations governing home
occupations. He said the general regulations define what can and cannot
happen in a home occupation. He explained that the general regulations can be
amended, during Special Permit approval, any way that the Board wishes.
Mr. Bain remarked that the property in question is a very large parcel of
land, and it is in a rural area. He believes that this is a rural use and
there are regulations under the ordinance dealing with home occupations which
incorporate the noise ordinance. He is concerned about the square footage,
but he believes that Mr. Vincent has satisfied this concern by telling the
Board that he needs the space for wood storage.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve
SP-88-25 subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowie commented that Mr. Vincent's property is more than five times
the size of his entire subdivision. He cannot believe that noise will be a
problem, and he feels that most people use p~wer tools. He thinks that this
is an appropriate use and an appropriate hom~ occupation.
Mrs. Cooke said that she will also support this request, because she
cannot see how an indoor power tool would make any more noise than a power
lawn mower, etc. She does not see the noise~.~level as a factor.
There was no further discussion. Roll W. as called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messr~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are spt out in full below:)
1. Virginia Department of Transportatipn approval of entrance;
2. Compliance with Section 5.2 of the ~lbemarle County Zoning
Ordinance;
3. A single-family dwelling shall be c~nstructed and have received
a Certificate of Occupancy within 18 months of approval of
this petition by the Board of Supervisors. Failure to comply
with this condition shall be deemed abandonment of this
special use permit and all authority granted herein shall
terminate. No conduct of the requested home occupation,
including the storage and/or maintenance of machinery related
thereto, shall occur on the premise~ until the dwelling has
received a Certificate of Occupancy.~
4. No operation except between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00
P.M;
5. No more than one additional employee other than family
members.
The Board recessed at 8:54 p.m. and recoRvened at 9:04 p.m.
252
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-87-09. Westminister Canterbury of the Blue
Ridge. To rezone approximately 24 acres from R-6 and R-15 to PRD to allow for
retirement facility. Property located on north side of Route 250 East adja-
cent to North Pantops Drive. Tax Map 78, Parcels 55A, 55A5 and 55A4 (part
of). Rivanna District. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on May 3 and
May 10, 1988.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
Applicant's Proposal: The schedule of proposed development is as
follows:
Phase One:
38 cottages
81 apartments
60 health care beds
Staff
Phase Two:
2 cottages
81 apartments
24 health care beds
Staff
Master Plan Total:
40 cottages
162 apartments
84 health care beds
Staff
The Blue Ridge center would operate under a local board of directors.
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge expects to,employ approxi-
mately 100 full time employees when the facility is fully operational.
This includes:
Administration and Resident Services: It is p~ojected that the
facility will employ six individuals who will be involved in the
management of the facility. Thirteen individuals will be
employed as support staff.
Environmental Services: The Corporation will-employee approxi-
mately 19 housekeepers and maintenance personnel.
Food Service and Health Care:
20 food service individuals.
positions are projected.
The Corporation :intends to employ
Forty nursing and!]nurses aides
Staff Comment: Section 8.5.4 of the Planned Development regulations
requires the Commission in its recommendations to th~ Board to include
findings as to:
The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD
district proposed in terms of: relation to the comprehen-
sive plan; physical characteristics of thee,land; and its
relation to surrounding area;
Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and
services;
Adequacy of evidence on 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 amend-
ments in those proposed; and
Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as
applied to the particular case, based on determination that
such modifications are necessary or justified by demonstra-
tion that the public purposes of PD or general regulations
as applied would be satisfied to at least an equivalent
degree by such modifications.
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night,Meeting)
(Page 15)
253
Based on such findings, the Commission shall recommend approval of the
PD amendment as proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated modifi-
cations, or disapproval. The remainder of the staff report will
address these issues.
Comprehensive Plan/Relation to Surrounding Area: This site is in an
area recommended for medium and high density residential development.
Staff has calculated a residential equivalency of nine dwellings per
acre for this project, which is consistent with density recommenda-
tions of the Comprehensive Plan.
The configuration of the site and proposed access road would leave a
residue of about 5.5 acres between the access road and the restaurant.
This residue would have a depth of about 400 feet from Route 250 East
and in staff opinion would remain suitable for residential develop-
ment. The main building and apartments~would be taller structures
with heights to 65 feet. Situated on the highest portion of the site
the main building would be visible from Route 250 East and a limited
number of lots in Ashcroft. Staff would note the current R-10 zoning
on a portion of the site permits a 65 foot building height.
Site Characteristics/Comprehensive Plan: This site Consists of a
knoll to the rear sloping downward to the sides and Route 250 East.
Limited areas of 25 percent or greater Slopes exists (The applicant's
slope study is incorrect. Quick review by staff shows substantially
less area of steep slope. Detailed slope study based on two foot
contours will be required at site plan ~eview stage). Four areas of
25 percent slope exist on the perimeteriof the site, the largest of
which is about one-quarter acre. Three~ of these areas would be
subject to fill activity while the fourth would be an area of cut to
accommodate a maintenance building. Due to limited size of these
areas, staff has not recommended plan m~dification. Of greater
concern to staff is the overall extent of cut-and-fill proposed to
accommodate this development.
Elevations on the site vary by about 75 :!feet. In order to accommodate
buildings of the proposed scale, parking areas and roadways of reason-
able grade as well as to provide grades suitable to the elderly,
substantial cut-and-fill is proposed. Final site grades would vary by
about 50 feet with some areas of cut or .fill exceeding 20 feet. Staff
recommends that the following measures Would be appropriate:
1. The U. S. Soil Conservation Service has commented that 'soils in
this area consist of Rabun Clay Loam. This is a moderately deep,
well-drained soil with very hard r0~ck at 40 to 60 inches.' The
Southwestern Mountain is underlain ~with a Catoctin Greenstone
formation, often in large monolithih unfractured areas. If not
already accomplished, the applican~ should conduct borings as a
basic feasibility determinant for the project.
2. Special attention should be given ~0 grading and drainage plans.
While only a portion of the site id subject to the urban
stormwater detention requirements, ,detention may be required
under the soil erosion and sediment~ation control ordinance
depending on the adequacy of off-site receiving channels.
Due to the proposed development scheme, areas for on-site surface
detention facilities appear limited! Three off-site discharges
are proposed with one off-site basin. The applicant is placed on
notice that under Commission policy~ site plan review will not be
afforded until all necessary off-site easements have been
obtained. Staff will not support r~laxation of stormwater
management requirements due to issues of cost or lack of adequate
preplanning.
Public Utilities: A 12-inch water line ~nd a 12-inch sewer line are
in close proximity of the site. While water volumes are adequate, a
booster pump station will be necessary tO provide fire flow. (The
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority storage reservoir in Ashcroft is at
254
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
elevation 632 feet, therefore, any development in the area of corre-
sponding elevation will need system enhancement to provide fire flow).
Transportation: This section of the report will discuss external and
internal roadway matters related to this proposed development.
External Roadways: The CATS Study recommends that U. S. Route 250
East be upgraded to a four-lane divided facility in this area and
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is currently in prelimi-
nary planning stages. Based on past traffic generation studies, a
(signalized) crossover will be located at State Farm Boulevard.
Consistent with staff's position in initial review Of Ashcroft in
1979, staff recommended that the existing North Pantops Drive be
relocated to intersect Route 250 East across from State Farm Boule-
vard. The applicant has pursued this recommendation for several
months with discussions involving as many as six other interests.
An agreement to relocate North Pantops Drive was not achieved, there-
fore, the applicant has pursued an alternate access to Route 250 East.
VDOT commented in December, 1987 that 'based on the current speed
limit of 55 mph along this section of Route 250, the minimum crossover
spacing would be 800 feet.' Westminster Canterbury proposes a private
road to Route 250 about 950 feet east of State Farm Boulevard and
would be eligible for a crossover (staff recommends ~that the Board of
Supervisors officially request VDOT to incorporate ~ crossover at this
location in plans for Route 250 East). Worrell Enterprises, located
across Route 250, has been notified of this proposed crossover loca-
tion for future planning purposes.
Summary comments regarding issues of access to Route 250 East areas as
follows:
The proposed Westminster Canterbury access would be eligible for
crossover in the future and would provide safe and convenient
access as well as good emergency vehicle access in the future;
As a condition of subdivision approval, staff will recommend that
(for new development) all residue acreages of Tax Map 78, Parcels
55A, 55A5, and 55A4 be restricted to the Westminster Canterbury
entrance road expect as otherwise permitted by the Planning
Commission in a particular case. This would pr6vide for minimiz-
ing access to Route 250, insure adequate separation of access
from crossovers as specified by the Zoning Ordinance and permit
continued negotiation for relocation of North P~ntops Drive;
Except as already required by past review, staf~ will not support
any increased usage of North Pantops Drive at i~s current inter-
section with Route 250. Conditions of approval~!of~ ZMA-80-03
require closure of North Pantops Drive as acces~ to Ashcroft at
some future date. While staff has no objection]to physical
reestablishment of North Pantops Drive for access to Ashcroft and
other property currently served on a temporary ~asis, staff will
not acknowledge any current expenditure in future discussions of
access.
Internal Roadways: As to the proposed entrance road[ VDOT has com-
mented that 'the alignment for the new road off of ROute 250 does not
meet State standards and, therefore, would not be eligible for addi-
tion to the State system.' Under County private road regulations, the
County Engineer must either require state standard design or recommend
waiver of state standards. Given staff's recommendation that other
properties access this roadway, it may be appropriate~ to require state
design to permit dedication of the segment between the site and Route
250 at some future date.
For a development of this scale, staff would generall~ recommend a
second means of access for emergency purposes. Due to the compara-
tively short distance from Route 250 to the site's lo~ped road and a
proposed pavement width of about 45 feet, the propose~ roadway appears
adequate.
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
255
The internal loop road has been redesigned to satisfy staff comments
regardin~ internal intersections and parking bay locations.
Staff Recommendation: Locationally, staff opinion is that the pro-
posed site offers many advantages as a retirement community. While
convenient to shopping at Pantops and the downtown mall area of the
City, the site is protected by Comprehensive Plan recommendation that
new development in the area be residential. The site is convenient to
emergency services and hospitals. Good views are available though
some vantages will overlook future commercial development across Route
250.
The applicant has worked diligently to obtain the best achievable
access to the property. Modifications to the Application Plan reflect
the few design suggestions received from the December, 1987 Site
Review Committee review.
Development of the property will require substantial modification to
the terrain, requiring special attention at the site plan stage to
matters of drainage and erosion control measures. Design of the
access road will also receive special attention.
Staff opinion is that the Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge PRD
generally satisfies the requirements as.to findings by the Commission
under Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Approval of this rezoning does not relieve the applicant of any
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, S~bdivision Ordinance, or other
applicable law except as specifically mgdified or waived by the Board
in this approval. Likewise, approval d6es not preclude the Planning
Commission from exercise of its discretion in future site plan and
subdivision review. ~
While staff has intentionally provided Wording to permit future
relocation and usage of North Pantops D=ive, development of this
property may foreclose such possibility~iin the future. Also staff
cannot properly address access concerns~of Ashcroft without presenta-
tion of a rezoning petition for that dePelopment which offers specific
access proposals.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-87-09 Westminster Canterbury of the
Blue Ridge subject to the following revisions, modifications, and
agreements:
Planning Commission approval of subdivision plat to include
restriction of access for future development of all parcels
resulting from parent tracts identi'fied as Tax Map 78, Parcels
55A, 55A5, and 55A4 to Westminster'Canterbury access road except
as may be otherwise permitted in alparticular case;
Following Planning Commission approval of subdivision plat and
determinatiOn as to design standards to be applicable to entrance
roadway, administrative approval of site plan.
Mr. Home said the Commission heard this request on May 10 and unanimous-
ly recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors with only the first
condition listed in the staff report. Based on discussion at the hearing, the
Commission members wished to receive the site plan and review it themselves.
Mr. Horne informed the Board that at the Plan~ing Commission meeting the
majority of the discussion was centered arou~ concerns as they relate to the
relationship of development of this property ~o Ashcroft. Based on discus-
sions the staff has had with various parties ~n the past, it is the staff's
understanding that the existing North PantopsiDrive does not exist within a
legal right-of-way. It is a roadway that is there and is used at the pleasure
of the current property owner. Mr. Horne sai~ there have been discussions
about relocating the roadway to a location where the actual easement appears
to be around the edge of the property. He remarked that the staff does not
believe this is directly related to the propoSal for the retirement community,
but there was some concern expressed that North Pantops Drive may be disrupted
256
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
prior to alternate access being provided to Ashcroft. Mr. Home reminded the
Board that the alternate access is Lego Drive which is being constructed at
this point. This access would extend out of Ashcroft an~d come down to the
frontage roadway. As future phases of Ashcroft are developed, it is required
that this access be opened and dedicated to public use with improvements being
made to the frontage road to make it the public road access into Ashcroft.
The developer anticipates the completion of this roadway.by the end of June.
Mr. Home stated that another major issue was the view of this site
primarily from the Ashcroft residences. He showed the Board a drawing which
showed relative elevations of different parts of Ashcroft to the main building
of the retirement community. He said the applicant believes that views will
not be blocked, and that Ashcroft residents will be looking over this build-
ing, with possible views of only the commercial areas of Pantops being
blocked. He stated that this is the staff's perception of what the impact on
the view would be. He added that there is very little impact in the summer
when the leaves are out, but the primary impact is when the leaves are off the
trees. He said that Ashcroft residents would be looking out at a relatively
level area with views, if there are any, restricted to the main building area.
Mr. Bain wondered if the access road to the retirement community will
ever be able to be put into the State system, and asked if this issue has been
addressed. Mr. Home replied that this issue has not been fully addressed at
this time. He said there are some questions as to the horizontal and vertical
alignments of that road and whether it can ever fully meet State design
standards. He believes that there is some question in the applicant's mind as
to whether or not it is desired that it be taken into the State system. He
said this matter needs to be more fully investigated during site plan review,
however, the staff does not consider this to be crucial at this point. He
stated that if there are ever any other residential developments that are
restricted to this roadway, it may become more important .... Mr. Home went on
to say that the access roadway will be constructed to a vgry significant
design standard and will be able to handle a large amount of traffic. He said
there may be certain details of State design that may not! be fully met and may
keep the roadway from being taken into the system.
Mr. Bain then wondered, in relation to the property .Across Route 250, if
the signalization and crossover would be effective. Mr. !t{orne answered that
there have been extensive discussions, not only relating to this project, but
general discussions with Mr. Worrell and his representatives about their
potential future development of their site. Mr. Worrell{iand his representa-
tives are fully aware of the location of the retirement c~mmunity and are also
aware that if Route 250 becomes a divided highway, there Will be restrictions
as to where there can be a crossover. He said that topographically, it looks
as though access can be obtained; therefore, Mr. Home th%nks that the access
can serve both properties.
Mr. Bowie called attention to Number Three on Page Fi~ve of the staff
report which states that, "staff will not acknowledge any icurrent expenditure
in future discussions of access," and he asked what this ~eans. Mr. Home
answered that there have been some discussions
about temporarily improving a
roadway around this site which would mean expending funds ito put a surface on
the roadway. He said, again, that North Pantops Drive, u~der the conditions
placed on Ashcroft, is to be closed. He added that it ma~ be decided that
money will be invested to temporarily keep it open until ~ihe date that it is
required to be closed. He wanted everyone to understand, ilhowever, that if
money is spent to keep North Pantops Drive open, it will ~ot influence the
staff's recommendation as to whether a change should be gr~anted at a future
date. He said that no application has been received requesting a change, but
the staff has talked to several people who may at some point in the future
decide to apply for an access somewhere near North Pantop~ Drive which would
remain open permanently.
At this point, Mr. Way opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant
to address the Board.
Mr. Rick Richmond, President of Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge,
spoke to the Board and corrected two errors in the staff report. He called
attention first to Page Two, last paragraph of the staff r~port and said that
the taller structures will have heights only as tall as 62~!and one-half feet
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
257
and not 65 feet. He next pointed out in the same paragraph that the current
zoning is R-15 instead of R-10. He said that half of the property is zoned
R-15 and half is zoned R-10. (Mr. Horne agreed with these corrections.)
Mr. Richmond then directed a response to Mr. Bain's question concerning
the landowner's position across Route 250. He said that the Westminster staff
has had extensive conversations and meetings with the owner of the Worrell
property and a representative from that organization was present at the
Planning Commission Meeting and supported the retirement community project.
He stated that the Worrell Corporation has agreed to create an entrance across
the road from the retirement community so that the entrances can be aligned
together. Mr. Richmond reminded the Board that, at a previous meeting, he had
requested approval for industrial development financing for this project. He
then summarized the project for the Board and public by saying that a group of
volunteers in the community have been working together for approximately three
years to develop a facility for elderly citizens in Charlottesville and
Albemarle County. He commented that when this project was started, it was the
only one of its kind in the community. Now,~however, several more projects of
this nature have been started. The volunteers, through their churches,
created an organization which became incorpd~ated as a non-profit, tax-exempt
corporation in 1987. There are approximatei~ 25 to 35 volunteers working with
this project, and Mr. Richmond read the name~ of the current Board of Direc-
tors. Besides himself, they are: Mrs. Paul~Saunier, Mrs. F. Bradley Peyton,
Mr. Don Sandridge, Mr. Ed Gatewood, Mrs. FreRerick Scott, Mr. Hovey Dabney,
Mr. John Rogan, Mrs. Margaret Carter, Miss Ellen Ann Dunham, Mr. Jim Grove,
Dr. William Sandusky and Mr. Leigh MiddleditCh. He said that the affiliations
for this group of people are proper for thislorganization, because all of
these directors are affiliated with the Epis'eopalian and Presbyterian church
bodies in this part of the State of Virginia~ He added that under the organ-
ization's bylaws, the local group nominates ~o the respective church bodies
the names of individuals to serve on the pro3ect's Board. Those individuals
are then approved as directors. He said thal the Board is divided equally and
fairly between Episcopalians and Presbyterians. He stated that this project
is the seventh Westminster Canterbury to be constructed in the State of
Virginia.
Mr. Richmond went on to say that the predecessor of the Westminster
Canterbury facilities was a project in Alexandria, and since that time there
have been others constructed in Richmond, Lynchburg, Virginia Beach,
Tappahannock and Winchester. He said these facilities have been successful
and enjoy a very high reputation throughout the State and the East Coast. He
remarked that all of the Westminster facilities have several things in common.
He said that they are affiliated with two church bodies, and they are true
life care facilities. He explained that once a resident moves into a
Westminster Canterbury, that resident stays ~here regardless of subsequent
medical needs or attention. An entrance feeJis charged upon entering the
facility, and thereafter a monthly fee is pa~d. He went on to explain tha%
there are also fellowship funds available, and this local project has set a
goal of $1,500,000 to be established for fellowship funds before the facility
opens. He said that $1,300,000 has already ~een raised. These funds will be
used to assist people who want to live at Westminster Canterbury by subsidiz-
ing the initial entrance fee or the monthly ~ee. He said these funds will
· ~
also assist those residents who run into f~n~ncial problems once they are in
the facility. He said that the concept of W~stminster Cantebury is for the
individual to move into the facility in a healthy state, which means that
prospective residents will have to pass a phMsical. As the people become less
healthy and need more attention, they will gradually move into other areas in
the retirement community. He explained thes~ other areas and said that the
residents would continue on, as needed, to a~icomplete medical facility which
will be on site. He said that the project a~ready has approval from the State
of Virginia under a Certificate of Need for ~pproximately 30 beds. He stated,
though, that there will be certain things that cannot be done at the project's
medical facility, but the two local hospital~' will be involved and have
already been contacted. ~
Mr. Richmond reminded the Board that th~ group of people that is trying
to build the facility is not trying to make ~ny profits, but, instead, they
are involved for sound community and christian reasons. He added that, as a
native of Charlottesville, he has seen many p~ople who have lived here all of
their lives have to leave Charlottesville an~ move elsewhere because there
258
May 18', 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
were no facilities for them here. He said this is what has created his
interest in the project. He remarked that his law practice is heavily in-
volved in real estate, and he has seen a lot of people retire to
Charlottesville, only to have to move elsewhere as they get older. Mr.
Richmond thinks this facility is a wonderful addition to the community and
will be a tremendous asset. He said the facility, itself, has been designed
to be a positive addition to the community. He mentioned that the architects
and project manager are present at the meeting. He said, too, that the site
is zoned R-10 and R-15, and he believes that this will allow 300 units on the
total site. He pointed out that the total capacity of the whole project is
half of that. Under the R-10 zoning, there is a height restriction of 65
feet. He informed the Board, again, that the top height~of the dwelling is 62
feet from the existing grade. He said that the top of the hill behind the
LaHacienda Restaurant will be graded down for 20 feet, and the building's
height will start there. This will make the entire height of the building a
little over 40 feet. He believes that this property, under current zoning,
will allow much more intensive development, and this project will create
something that is an asset, from the visual and aestheti~ point of view.
Mr. Bowie inquired as to what would happen if someone pays the fee and
moves into the retirement community, and then decides he does not like it.
Mr. Richmond replied that there is a refund policy available for these types
of situations. Mr. Richmond went on to say that, at thi~ time, there is a
guarantee to the residents that if they pass the physica~ now, regardless of
their condition when Westminster Canterbury opens, they ~ill be allowed to
reside there.
Mrs. Scott pointed out that it is not necessary to b~ a Presbyterian or
Episcopalian to be admitted to Westminster Canterbury. ~nyone will be
accepted who can afford it and meets the health qualific~itions.
Mr. Mike Lugar spoke next and said that he lives in i!Ashcroft. He asked
which dwelling in the Ashcroft Subdivision shows in the ~awing at this
meeting. An architect, with Shriver and Holland, replie~' that the drawing
that Mr. Lugar is referring to is an aerial photo dated }978. He said that
the best information that he could obtain was this photo,i along with a topo-
graphic map, provided by Aubrey Huffman and Associates. ~iThe architect said
that he then took the lowest dwelling at the cul-de-sac
line between that and Route 250 and applied the grades, imf. Lugar asked agai]
which Ashcroft lot was shown in the photo. He said that :.he asked this ques-
tion because he lives in the last house on the cul-de-sad on Walnut Lane, and
he believes that this retirement community will have an i~npact on his home.
At this point, the architect showed Mr. Lugar the a~i~ial photograph and
explained how he had arrived at his conclusions concerning the grades and
visual impacts. He told Mr. Lugar that he did not know, i~owever if the house
in the photograph is Mr. Lugar's house.
Mr. Lugar replied that it is his neighbor's home which is shown in the
photo. He stated that he did not know if anyone could answer what impact this
project will have on his home, but he asked the Board to~ ~onsider that impact
and take every precaution to protect his interests as a p~operty owner in
Ashcroft. He said he purchased his home slightly more th~n a year ago and has
a wonderful view of the City of Charlottesville and would',not like to have
that view destroyed in any way. He welcomes Westminster ~Canterbury as a
neighbor, and thinks it is an admirable pro3ect, but he d~es not wzsh to see
what he has worked so hard to invest in destroyed. He th~nks the view from
his house is the value of his property. He said the home*'is not above aver-
age, but it cost him a great deal of money simply becausei~of the view. He
asked for the Board's consideration in this matter.
Mr. Lindstrom inquired if, because of the grading, the height of the
building will actually be approximately 42 feet over the durrent grade. The
architect with Shriver and Holland replied, "yes." He said the building is
approximately 100 feet wide with a gable. He thinks thatithe only view that
the building will obscure is the Pantops Shopping Center ~nd some of the
commercial development. He said the building would be approximately 800 to
900 feet away from the Ashcroft property line. i
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
259
No one else wished to speak, so Mr. Way placed the matter before the
Board.
Mr. Bowie pointed out that the problem with North Pantops Drive has
nothing to do with this application. He mentioned that some of the citizens
in Ashcroft have been working with him, but there is a problem with getting an
agreement from Ashcroft. He said he was in Ashcroft yesterday and, in his
opinion, he found a few houses that would be able to see the building. He did
not see any, however, where he thought the building would obstruct the view.
He went on to say that from the map, it appears that the building will block
primarily the LaHacienda Restaurant and part of Pantops. He pointed out that
a building of this height is allowed within lthe zoning that is there now, and
it is even possible to put more than one building of that height there. He
said the application states that the other buildings will be lower in height.
He also pointed out that with the grading the building will not be taller than
45 feet, and a 45 foot building could be put on the knoll as it now exists.
Mr. Bowie believes that the applicant is doing what is allowed to be done
under the existing zoning and the impact will not affect the houses that are
already there. In his opinion, the view will be over the building, and he has
no problem with this application.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve
ZMA-87-09 subject to the following condition recommended by the Planning
Commission. There was no further discussio~. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
(Note: Condition of Approval is set out in full below:)
Planning Commission approval of subdivision plat to include restric-
tion of access for future development of all parcels resulting from
parent tract identified as Tax Map!i78, Parcels 55A, 55A5, and 55A4
to Westminister Canterbury access road except as may be otherwise
permitted in a particular case. ~
Agenda Item No. 10. Midway Housing Corporation Request for Financial
Assistance. The following memorandum dated May 17, 1988, was received from
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive:
"The County Attorney has researched possible authority for the County
to provide a short-term loan to Midway ~ousing Development Corpora-
tion, for $300,000, in order for them t~ purchase up to six dwelling
units. These units will be rehabilitated under the County's Mod-Rehab
Housing Program and then become part ofii.our~ housing rent subsidy
program.
The only legislation which could be found to give the County such
authority for a loan is under State Cod~ Section 15.1-687.13. This
section allows a county to establish a housing fund to assist 'organ-
izations to develop or preserve affordable housing for low and moder-
ate income persons'. Staff has prepared a resolution related to this
authority for your consideration.
You will note that the resolution authorizes a loan from the County,
only after a commitment for permanent f~nancing has been secured by
the Midway Housing Development Corporation. This provision should
protect the County from possibly becominlg owners of the homes and
avoid our 'backing into' the creation of a housing authority without
fully investigating the ramifications such housing authority may have
on the County. This same provision in the resolution, however, should
improve Midway Housing Development Corporation's ability to secure
their permanent financing from the lending institution(s)."
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that, at i~s May llth meeting, Mrs. Theresa
Tapscott, on behalf of Midway Housing Corporation requested the County to
provide temporary financial assistance in order to purchase several dwelling
260
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
units for low-moderate income residents. He said that the staff was directed
by the Board to look into this matter and that the County Attorney has
has found one provision in the State Code that he feels is applicable to help
Midway in its request. Mr. Tucker explained that this section of the Code
allows a County to establish a housing fund to assist "organizations to
develop or preserve affordable housing for low and moderate income persons."
Mr. Tucker said the staff drafted a resolution'which should help Midway
obtain permanent financing from its lending institution. The resolution
states that any loan utilized through this resolution must be paid back by
September 30th of this year. He had understood that this date was satisfacto-
ry to Midway, but a letter from Mr. Francis Fife, Vice President, Midway
Housing Development Corporation, indicates that Midway would like to have up
to a year to pay back the loan. He said that the staff has no problem with
this. He also said that Mr. Fife is at the meeting to answer any questions
that the Board might have.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the interest rate for the 1Qan was set. Mr.
Tucker answered that he discussed the interest rate withlthe Director of
Finance, and he indicated that these funds will have to be taken out of
existing investments. Mr. Tucker said that these investments have an interest
rate of from five to seven percent, so it was decided to leave the interest
rate at five percent for Midway's loan.
Mr. St. John explained that the statute requires a Step by step proce-
dure. A fund has to be established and the resolution has to spell out a
plan. Certain paragraphs of the statute speak to apartme~nt buildings. He
said the Legislature, in the last session, enacted a bil]J which will come into
effect July 1 which says that counties can lend or give money to organizations
engaged in this sort of activity. He explained that the ~new statute also uses
the term, "apartment buildings." Mr. St. John next talked about the provision
for a commitment. He said that this is not a legal question, and it is up to
the Board to decide whether or not it would like to take that requirement out
of the resolution. He said the resolution can be adopted~at this meeting as
it is. The fund will be established, money will be appropriated to this fund,
and it will not require a commitment. He said, though, that before the money
can be disbursed to Midway, the Corporation will have to ~how a commitment
from some source of permanent financing before it can recAive this money from
the County. He explained that this is the only way that the County can be
repaid, unless the County will become the banker and be repaid out of the
rents that the tenants pay over the years. He explained ~hat this is what a
Housing Authority does, and he does not think that the Board would want to
become a de facto Housing Authority. He does not know of~any other way that
the County will have assurance that it will be repaid without havin§ a commit-
ment that it will be repaid out of permanent financing. Me warned the Board
that it has to beware of "strings attached," that might s~y that the permanent
financing cannot be used to repay a loan. That is the reason that the resolu-
tion states that Midway has to have a commitment that specifically stipulates
that $300,000 of the permanent financing could be used to'~i'repay the County's
loan. This money will then be put back into the Housing ~und and would work
as a revolving fund. The money could then be available f6r the same purpose
again, unless the fund is disposed of. He said that it i~ a legislative
decision as to whether the Board wants to lend this money'Without any assur-
ance of what source it will be repaid from or if it will ~ven be repaid.
Next to speak was Mr. Fife, who thanked Mr. St. John land Mr. Tucker for
researching this information for Midway and going about i~' in such a positive
way. He mentioned that the Charlottesville Housing Foundation is a non-profit
corporation which has subsidiaries which are Midway, AHIP~ CHIP and Jordan
Development. He said the Foundation has not been in the ~usiness of owning
and renting property. Because of the situation that the qounty faced in
dealing with the allotment of units of rental subsidy, th~ Foundation was
asked to look at the situation and it agreed to try to pu~hase ten houses in
the County that needed to be rehabilitated and to qualify ~hem for rental
under the rental subsidy program. He said that the Foundation is trying to do
this, but it has had problems as a result of multiple ownership, the prices of
the houses and finding houses in the areas designated by t~e County to qualify
for the rental subsidy program. He said the Foundation ha~ been concerned
that in carrying out this program the deadline of June 30 Of this year might
not be met and the County and the Foundation might lose th~se rental units.
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
261
He stated that it is his understanding that if these houses are under contract
by June 30, then that is sufficient. He remarked that the Foundation has made
some offers, but the offers have not been accepted because the price was too
far below what the person wanted for the property. He said the Foundation
bargains with the property owners to buy these properties at a reasonable
price. He assured the Board that it is difficult to provide housing for low
income people even with the two forms of subsidy that is available. Mr. Fife
said that the Foundation would like to make a profit, but usually does not
make much, if any, and only hopes to break even. He mentioned that when
houses qualify for the rent subsidy in the County, they have to be inspected
by the County. He remarked that the people who rent these houses are already
on a list of eligible people who are selected from that list. Another subsidy
comes from the Community Subsidy Block Grant Funds which are used for rehabil-
itation, but the amount is limited. In some of these cases, extra money will
have to be used. The amount of money required for rehabilitation of these
houses ranges from $5,000 to $45,000, and he thinks that there are a lot of
benefits to all of the residents of this area in rehabilitating these houses.
He added that in this area, housing units should not be lost, because it is
expensive to build new housing due to the cost of land. He went on to say
that housing units need to be preserved, an~the Foundation tries to rescue a
building that is degenerating and in some cmses is not in condition to be
occupied. In other cases, there are people Hho are renting them who have
asked the landlord to let them stay there. The landlord may not want them to
stay, because he knows it would, not be feasible for him to try to repair the
place, so he does not want to retain it. He explained that when units are
purchased, first the Foundation has to put ~!contract on the unit, but the
Foundation has a target price and by a certain date they have to be paid for.
~He said that if the Foundation is in a positi$on to move rapidly, it can make a
better deal then if permanent financing has to be acquired. Until the proper-
ty is paid for, rehabilitation cannot take p~ace.
Mr. Fife said that a number of permanen~ finance people have been con-
tacted, and he feels that permanent financing can be arranged, even though
there are no commitments. With this in mind~ the Foundation went to a local
bank and got a line of credit up to $200,000~ When the $200,000 is used up,
the Foundation w~ll be at a stoppmng point, unless permanent f~nanc~ng can be
arranged at that time. This wms the point when Mr. Fife decided to contact
the County to see if it could help With finaHcing up to $300,000, although he
does not feel that this much will be required. The idea is that this money
can be used to accelerate the purchase of additional houses that have not yet
been purchased. When he first talked with M~. Tucker and Mr. St. John, Mr.
Fife had the feeling that permanent financing could be arranged by September
30. It has taken longer than he thought, however, but he still hopes that
that timeframe can be met. He added that th~ Foundation has gone to the VHDA
with an application because it is felt that ~oney can be borrowed more cheaply
there than anywhere else. It has been indicated by Vt{DA that it can lend the
Foundation up to $200,000. He said that thi~ was a disappointment because in
a previous conversation, it had been indicated that the whole amount could be
loaned. Mr. Fife informed the Board that if ~the VI{DA loan is for $200,000, it
will probably be at an eight percent rate, a~d is higher than he had hoped.
He went on to say that this means that addi-
tional permanent financing will have to be obtained from another source. He
does not believe that an answer can be received from VHDA until the middle of
July. If a commitment is received, then the ~Foundation can get some short
term lending and proceed with the project. Me added that he had wanted to
move ahead quickly before the possibility of !the rental subsidy was lost. Mr.
Fife stated that if the County requires the Permanent financing, then the
value of the County's loan to Midway is somewhat diminished from a time
standpoint. On the other hand, if the Board would be willing to lend the
money until September 30, then rehabilitationI could be completed. The advan-
tage of borrowing from the County is that the. interest rate will be lower.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that if the Count~ gives Midway the temporary
loan, there is still no guarantee of the source of permanent financing. He
said that the issue of permanent financing asi:a pre-condition assures the
Gounty of when its responsibilities end. He ~aid that putting a date on the
loan will not help in this respect. Mr. Fife~answered that the reason for the
date is to tell the County when the loan woul~ be paid back, but the $300,000
would be paid back from permanent financing.
262
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. St. John explained that there are three alternatives available. One
is for Mr. Fife to go to the sellers and tell them that he can pay cash for
the properties. If he does not have the County loan, Mr. Fife can still go to
the sellers and get a contract which will meet the June 30 deadline. That
contract will have a typical condition in it that the buyer's obligation to
close this contract is contingentupon obtaining financing. Mr. Fife is
simply saying that he can bargain better with the sellers if he has cash
available immediately. He went on to say that the second alternative is
another way of handling the situation, and it seems to Mr. St. John that the
resolution would give Mr. Fife some leverage with a~bank to get permanent
financing. The third alternative is for the Board to be willing to take a
chance on this matter, and hope that everything will work out, and that the
County will not have to take over the housing. He added, though, that if Mr.
Fife is given the money, he is going to go out immediately and buy houses.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board approves one of the first two alterna-
tives that Mr. St. 3ohn described, will there be a possibility that the
subsidized portion under the federal program won't be available because the
Corporation will not be able to close on the houses by a certain date. Mr.
St. John replied that Mr. Fife does not have to close on the houses, and Mr.
Fife asked Mr. Tucker to explain the situation concerning the subsidy.
Mr. Tucker explained that the County has a contract:.!with the Scottsville
School, and HUD has accepted that as a commitment for those units. Mr. St.
John stated that the deadline will be met if there is a contract, even though
that contract might have a condition in it. Mr. Fife remarked that he is
simply saying that it is probable that certain units cannot be bought, if
there is a condition in the contract, and if the cost is excessive. He said,
too, that the federal government might also cut off fund~ at a certain date.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he personally would be =iwilling to take the
risk if it meant getting the federal subsidy. He thinks ~that there is enough
of a need for housing in the County, and he thinks that the amount of money
requested is a reasonable amount to be put into that area, even if the County
might have to create a mechanism to handle the situation ~on a longer term
basis than the resolution intends. He is not willing to .~upport this, unless
the federal subsidy is at stake. He said, though, that he has no problem with
the resolution as it is written, because he believes thatl this is an area that
the County needs to become more involved in, and he thinks that this is
reasonable.
Mr. Way remarked that the date for permanent financiMg could be moved to
a later time. Mr o Lindstrom answered that he is not particularly concerned
about the date, but he thinks the issue is related to whether or not permanent
financing can be obtained. Mr. Fife, at this time, suggested the date of
October 31, 1989 as to when permanent financing has to be ~acquired.
Mr. St. John commented that some unexpected things w~ll probably come up,
and he reminded the Board that grants cannot be used to rgpay interest.
Mr. Bowie commented that he thinks that a $300,000 lqan with no guarantee
of getting it back for 16 months, and with the idea that ~l~e County may end up
owning the houses is a different thing from the proposal ~hat was brought to
the Board a week ago. Mr. Lindstrom explained that the r~'Solution states that
before the first dollar is disbursed, there has to be a co~mmitment to Midway
for permanent financing.
Mr. St. John said he believes it would be helpful if~Mr. Fife would bring
in a schedule of the basic disbursement of the $300,000. ~r. Fife said he
understands that when the time comes to pay for a house, he would come to the
County and ask for the particular amount of money for that! house to be taken
from the housing fund. He pointed out that the Corporatioh would not be
borrowing the total $300,000 all at one time. .~
Mr. St. John reiterated that he thinks that a basic disbursement schedule
of the $300,000 is necessary, and Mr. Fife agreed. Mr. Fife said this money
will not be used for rehabilitation, and it will only be u~ed for purchasing
houses. ~
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
263
Mr. Way asked if he is correct in believing that none of this will mean
anything if the houses are not under contract by the first of July. Mr.
Tucker replied,"yes." He said that without a contract to commit those units
to the Moderate Rehabilitation Program, he does not think it will work. Mr.
St. John commented that the safe way for everybody is to give the sellers a
contract conditioned on the ability to get permanent financing. Mr. Fife told
the Board that if this resolution is adopted with the change of date, any
contracts that would be made would be conditioned on permanent financing. Mr.
Lindstrom said he can support the resolution with the change of date.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he hopes the staff will keep close watch over
the progress of this program. He said he personally would be willing to
handle this matter in a different way, but he has faith in the staff to be
able to do this the way it is set up.
Mr. Fife mentioned that Ms. Tapscott and Mr. Curran, President of the
Midway Corporation, are present along with MS. Perry, who is on the Board of
AHIP and CHIP.
Mr. Tucker commented that the staff has attempted to get some commitment
from HUD relating to contracts in writing, but has only received a verbal
commitment.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, se~conded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
proposed resolution with the following changes: (1) change date on Item
Number 7 from September 30, 1988, to October 31, 1989; (2) add a proviso that
there be a schedule for disbursement of funds showing exactly how the funds
will be expended; (3) County Attorney and st~ff to look at the possibility and
advisability of getting security interest before going forward; and (4) add to
the end of Item Number 8 "and the loan shalli~be so repaid."
Mr. Tucker explained that everything will stay the same except the date
will be changed to October 31, 1989. ~
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins, and Way.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION TO CREATE A LOCAL HOUSING FUND
AND VOLUNTARY COORDINATED APARTMENT PRESERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY
WHEREAS, there exists within the C~unty a serious shortage of
sanitary and safe residential housing at rentals which persons and
families of low and moderate income can afford, and that this shor-
tage has contributed and will contribute to the creation of substan-
dard living conditions and is inimical ~O the health, welfare and
prosperity of the residents of the Country; and
WHEREAS, it is imperative that the ~supply of rental housing for
such persons and families be preserved or developed; and
WHEREAS, private enterprise is unable, without assistance, to
produce the needed development or rehabilitation of sanitary and safe
rental housing at rentals which persons or families of low and
moderate income can afford; and
WHEREAS, the County is a recipient of Community Improvement
Grant funds to assist in the rehabilitation of up to eighteen sub-
standard dwelling units for rent to low and moderate income persons
or families; and
WHEREAS, the County has identified eight housing strategy areas
(hereafter referred to as strategy areas) Afton, Newtown, Crozet,
Midway, Ivy, North Garden, Esmont and Hatton (map attached) for
rehabilitation of substandard dwelling units; and
264
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
WHEREAS, the County intends to commit Section 8 Moderate Reha-
bilitation rent subsidies to low income persons or families in
qualifying rehabilitated properties; and
WHEREAS, the Midway Housing Development Corporation intends to
purchase and rehabilitate up to ten dwelling units in the strategy
areas identified above and intends to utilize Community Improvement
Grant funds and Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation rent subsidies on
these units.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of'Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that:
Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-687.13 there is
hereby established a housing fund for the purposes stated
in that section;
The sum of $300,000 is hereby appropriated to the fund
established by paragraph 1 above;
Furthermore, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-687.13,
the Board of Supervisors finds that those portions of the
County identified as strategy areas contain sites suitable
for designation as Voluntary Coordinated Apartment Preser-
vation and Development Districts.
Midway Housing Development Corporation, the owner or
contract purchaser of sites within the identified strategy
areas, has requested the'County to designate such sites as
Voluntary Coordinated Apartment Preservation and Develop-
ment Districts.
There are hereby designated Voluntary Coordinated Apartment
Preservation and Development Districts on sites within the
strategy areas and such designations are Consistent with
the Plan required by Virginia Code Section~15.1-687.13.
Such plan is as follows: the Districts' p~operties are
existing dwelling units which are owned or shall be pur-
chased by the contract purchaser, Midway H6using Devel-
opment Corporation; and, all of such units shall be reha-
bilitated and rented as per terms and conditions of the
County s Community Improvement Grant and Mgderate Rehabili-
tation Rental Assistance Program, ~ncludlng but not l~m~ted
to: rehabilitation of all units to meet HUD Section 8
Minimum Property Standards; rental of all units to persons
or families at or below fifty percent of the area median
income as determined by HUD; rental of all,units to quali-
fying persons or families for a period of ~ot less than
fifteen years; and, no displacement, underi~any circum-
stances, of tenants already occupying rehabilitated units.
Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-687~]13(2), a loan in
the sum of $300,000 shall be extended to Midway Housing
Development Corporation out of the housing~fund for the
purpose of purchasing sites within the identified strategy
areas.
6.1.
o
0
Prior to any loan extension, however, Midway Housing
Corporation shall submit a schedule for disbursement of
funds itemizing how the funds will be expended.
Midway Housing Development Corporation shat~ repay this
loan plus interest at the rate of five percent per annum,
from the proceeds of permanent financing, no later than
October 31, 1989 ~
Loan proceeds shall not be disbursed to Mid~ay Housing
Development Corporation until the county ha~ been furnished
by Midway Housing Development Corporation aitwritten commit-
ment for permanent financing which commitment shall
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
265
specifically authorize repaYment of this loan out of
permanent financing proceeds and the loan shall be so
repaid.
Agenda Item No. 11. Resolution: Clean Community Commission.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Clean Community Commission has to have a
resolution attached to its application for a Litter Control grant. He said
that this grant is shared with the City of Charlottesville on behalf of the
Clean Community Commission. It is the staff's recommendation that this
resolution be adopted so that the Commission can proceed with its application
which must be in Richmond by May 31, 1988.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the
following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
recognizes the existence of litter problems within the boundaries of
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides, through
the Department of Conservation and Economic Development Division of
Litter Control, for the allocation of p~blic funds in the form of
Grants for the purpose of enhancing local litter control programs; and
WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered the Regulation and the
Application covering administration and~ use of said funds;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia:
Hereby expresses the intent to combine with the City of Char-
lottesville in a mutually agreed upon and Cooperative Program, contin-
gent upon approval of the Application by the Department of Conservation
and Economic Development, Division of Litter Control, and contingent
upon receipt of funds; and
Hereby authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community
Commission (CAC3) to plan and budget foV a cooperative litter control
program, which shall represent said Pro,ram for all localities named in
this resolution; and
Further authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community
Commission to apply on behalf of all of t~the above named localities for
a Grant, and to be responsible for the administration, implementation
and completion of the Program as it is described in the attached
Application Form LC-G-l; and
Further accepts responsibility jointly with the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Clean Community Commission an~ the City of Charlottesville
for all phases of the Program; and ~
Further accepts liability for its pro rata share of any funds not
properly used or accounted for pursuant ito the Regulations and the
Application; and
That said funds, when received, witlbe transferred immediately to
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission or if coordi-
nated by the Planning District Commission, said funds will be sent
directly to the Planning District Commission by the Department. All
funds will be used in the Cooperative Program to which we give our
endorsement and support.
Hereby requests the Department of Conservation and Economic
Development, Division of Litter Control,lto consider and approve the
Application and Program, said Program being in accordance with Regula-
tions governing use and expenditure of s~id funds.
266
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorde
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Appointments:
a) Lewis Mountain-Ivy Road Neighborhood Advisory Committee. Mr. Way
asked if anyone had appointees for the Lewis Mountain-Ivy Road Neighborhood
Advisory Committee. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he has a couple of names of
people who might want to serve on this Committee, but he is not ready to make
recommendations. Mr. Way said that this matter would be deferred until the
first of June.
b) Other. Mr. Way then suggested reappointing Mr. John Horne, Mrs.
Charlotte Humphris, Mr. Wayne Cilimberg (alternate) and Mr. Richard Moring to
the Metropolitan Planning Organization (Technical Committee). Motion to this
effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
There were no other appointments, but Mr. Bowie commented that he has bee~
on the Policy Board of the Piedmont Private Industry Council for five years,
and he is looking for a replacement. He said he has theiname of someone that
he will be nominating, but he wondered if another Board member might know
someone who might be interested in this appointment.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 18!!(A), 1986 and May 4,
1988.
Mr. Lindstrom said that he has read the minutes of March 18, 1986 (After-
noon). He said that on page 3, the fifth paragraph, first line, the word
"Board" should be "Department".
Mr. Bain reported that he has read Pages One through Six of the May 4,
1988 minutes, and he has given a couple of typographical corrections to the
Clerk.
Mr. Perkins stated that he has read from Page Six to the end of the
minutes of May 4, 1988. He said the word "like" should be inserted between
"would" and "to" in the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 12.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. CoOke, to approve the
minutes as read and corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 141 Other Matters not Listed on the~Agenda from the Boar.
and Public.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Board members that when they were discussing the
Rio Road bikeway and sidewalk plan last week, the staff and Highway Department
were authorized to go ahead with Option Three, but also to bring back to the
Board estimates for a three-foot wide bike trail and sidewalk combined, as wel
as an estimate for a bike trail by itself, separate from a sidewalk. The
Highway Department has indicated, however, that it will not be able to partici
pate at all in the cost of a bike trail. He pointed out ~hat this will elimi-
nate the ten-foot wide option for a bikeway and a sidewalk. He asked the Boar~
members if they still wished an estimate for the separate bike trail outside o
the sidewalk area.
May 18, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
267
Mr. Bain asked if this would mean that the County would have to acquire
rights-of-way, and build it at the County's expense, as well as take care of
the maintenance. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.
Mr. Bain pointed out that a bike trail outside the sidewalk area could be
built later. He would suggest that the project be continued, and the bike
trail added at another time. Mr. Tucker agreed that there is no urgency for
the separate bike trail at this point, but he said it would be better to do the
project all at one time. He asked again if the Board would like for the
Highway Department to prepare the estimate fOr the separate bike trail. The
Board members responded that they did not wish to get these estimates at this
time.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if staff was going to check into the matter concerning
the creek on Bennington Road that was brought to the Board's and Planning
Commission's attention by a letter from the residents there. He said there is
money set aside to take care of this problem, but he understands the bids have
been too high.
Mr. Tucker responded that occasionally there are projects in the Capital
Improvements Program that do not use all of the money, so it can be shifted to
other projects. He does not believe that there will be enough money to take
care of the Bennington Road problem, but he thinks a request has been made for
the next Bpdate of the Capital Improvements Program for additional funds for
this project.
Mr. Way announced that Mr. Agnor is not present at the meeting tonight
because he is taking some vacation time.
Mr. St. John stated that the Nativity Scene hearing has been rescheduled
for June 24, 1988. :
Mrs. Cooke asked what will happen if the Board members have plans that
will conflict with this rescheduled hearing.
Mr. St. John replied that if it is necessary, he will ask Judge Michael
for a continuance, but his Clerk indicated that if it is at all possible the
Judge wants to have the hearing on June 24, because the next available date is
toward the end of August. Mr. St. John said it will not affect the outcome of
the case at all if the Board members are not there, but he would like for them
to be there to see him arguing their case and~for his own moral support~
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. Mr. Way requested a brief Executive Session
on land acquisition. At 10:43 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded
by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn into this Executive Session for discussion of land
acquisition. Roll was called and the motion tarried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 11:00 p.m. Motion was offered
by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adjourn this meeting until June 1,
1988, at 3:00 p.m. There was no discussion. '~Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.