1988-01-13January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
484
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on January 13, 1988, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 9:04 A.M.) and F. R.
Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 9:09 A.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy
Lindstrom (9:03 A.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Home.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
(Note: Mr. St. John left the meeting at 9:07 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve 4.1, and to accept the remaining items on the
consent agenda as information. There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of December, 1987,
were approved as presented.
Item 4.2. Letter from Mr. Gordon Walker, Executive Director, Jefferson
Area Board for Aging, dated December 21, 1987, concerning JAUNT fare increase,
and reply from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, dated
December 31, 1987; received as information.
Item 4.3. Memorandum dated January 7, 1987, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,
County Executive, concerning an assessment made by the Virginia Association of
Counties and Virginia Municipal League for rate negotiations with Appalachian
Power Company; received as information.
"For a number of years, localities in Virginia have banded together
through VACo and VML to negotiate electric rate schedules and multi-
year contracts with utility companies, instead of individually
attempting such negotiations. Local governments (including school
systems) received favorable rates as compared to commercial or
industrial rates. The costs of such negotiations involving attorneys
and utility rate statisticians is allocated by VACo/VML to localities
on the basis of their annual electrical usage just prior to negotia-
tions commencing.
Currently the contract with APCo is due to expire, and rate negotia-
tions have been initiated. APCo serves a portion of the southern
part of the County. An assessment of $272.00 has been made to
Albemarle as our part of an $80,000 totai assessment. This will be
paid from the contingency line item in the Board's budget because it
was not anticipated as an 871-88 expenditure."
Item 4.4. Newsletter from the CharlotteSville-Albemarle Airport Author-
ity for the Quarter ended September, 1987; received as information.
485
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 4.5. Financial Report of Director of Finance for November 1987;
received as information.
Item 4.6. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for December 15 and
December 17, 1987, was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: September 10, 1986; April 15
(Night) and August 5 (Afternoon), 1987.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested a correction that involved the discussion of the
change in the size of the Thomas Jefferson Planning DistCict Commission and
the reduction of the number of County Board members who sit on the Commission.
Mr. Lindstrom requested that the following minute correction be made on Page
26, in the third paragraph under "Other Matters" of September 10, 1986: "Mr.
Lindstrom stated that as far as the S~mm~ms~n~m County'S ability to protect
itself, the ultimate protection is thatthe County Board~must approve its
contribution to the TJPDC budget, a-member-v~es-~n-~he-~dgetv He thinks the
Commission .... "
Mr. Bowie had read Pages 1 through Page 11 (Item 11)of April 15 (Night),
1987, and found only one typographical error.
Mr. Bowie had read August 5 (Afternoon), 1987, and found the minutes to
be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve
the minutes which had been read, as corrected. Because of Mrs. Cooke's
absence from the meeting, Mr. Way indicated that a vote could not be taken on
the approval of the minutes, because of the abstention of two of the Board
members. However, Mrs. Cooke arrived at 9:09 A.M. and the following vote was
taken.
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Bain and Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Way then asked if Mrs. Cooke had read her portion of the minutes, and
she answered negatively.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Request for Abandonment of a
Portion of old Roadway known as "Old Charlottesville-Lynchburg Turnpike".
This matter was brought to the agenda by the following letter from Mr.
Fred S. Landess, dated December 18, 1987:
"Werner Hambsch and Barbara J. Hambsch, the owners of real property
situated in Albemarle County in the northeast quadrant of the inter-
section of U.S. Route 29 and State Route 692, identi!ied as Parcels 1
and 1-A on Albemarle County Tax Map 99, hereby petition the Board of
Supervisors pursuant to the provisions of Article 12~i Section
33.1-156 et seq. of the Code of Virginia (1950, as a~ended), to
abandon that portion of the former public road shown on the attached
sketches as 'Old Charlottesville-Lynchburg Turnpike'~i The portion of
road which the Hambsch's wish to have abandoned is that portion, as
shown on the attached sketches, running from current i~State Route 692
to the northeasterly boundary of their land, being t~e intersection
of the boundary of Parcel 1-A with such road.
To the best of the knowledge and belief of the petitipners, that
portion of road hereby requested to be abandoned is mo longer a part
of the State primary or secondary road system. It is~ not maintained
by the State or any public authority and is not used ~y anyone other
than the Hambsch's. It is respectfully requested that notice be
given as provided in the State Code and the Board ta~ all action
needful and necessary in order to formally abandon sU'~h road."
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
486
The following memorandum was received from Mr. John Horne, Director of
Planning:
"I have reviewed the request by Werner Hambsch to abandon a portion
of a former public road near the intersection of Route 29 South and
Route 692 at Crossroads. There is a small portion of this roadway
that provides access only to the two parcels owned by the Hambschs'
My review in the field and based on discussions with Mr. Landess
confirms that there appears to be no public purpose served by this
roadway. This department, therefore, has no objections to the
abandonment of this section of the roadway by the Board of Super-
visors."
At this time, Mr. Way asked if Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway
Engineer, had any con~nents. Mr. Roosevelt stated that his office was contact-
ed to determine whether or not this road had~been part of the State Highway
System in the past. He reported that he hadlbeen unable to find anything
relating to this roadway in his records, but!he added that at the moment it is
not a part of the Department's system. He went on to say that the Department
has no objection to any action that the Board may wish to take on this road-
way.
Mr. Way then asked if a Public Hearing needs to be set concerning this
matter. .Mr. Agnor pointed out that the old "Turnpike" is platted from the
Crossroads Store up to the Collins Store which is on the road that goes to the
Red Hill School. If this abandonment takes Place, according to the request of
the property owners, Mr. Agnor wonders if the Hearing should be advertised as
an abandonment of the whole roadway, with other property owners being noti-
fied, so that there is not a segment of roadway left there that has no use,
history or record. He thinks that it would be practical to abandon the
property between the two State roadways.
At this time, Mr. Way recognized Mr. Werner Hambsch, owner of the pro-
perty, who said that the only portion of theiroadway that is still open is on
his property. He said that 15 or 20 years ago the rest of the roadway was
closed by the State Highway Department. ~
Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that Mr. R6osevelt stated that he had
searched records for information on this roadway. Mr. Agnor added that Miss
Neher, too, has searched Board minutes for many years back and could not find
any information on the road's abandonment. ~e asked that the staff be given
more specific dates, if anyone had thisinformation' '~ ' on past abandonments of
other portions of the roadway. Mr. Hambsch answered that he could probably
get dates for Mr. Agnor, but he said he understands that 15 or 20 years ago
there was a small dispute about access to a property and the owner was very
concerned and petitioned to have the roadwayiclosed up to her property line
which is where his property starts. It was suggested that Mr. Landess, Mr.
Hambsch's attorney check the record to see if there is any indication of this
previous road closure. Mr. Way stated that as long as the Public Hearing has
to be set, he thinks that this whole issue n~eds to be settled at that time.
Mr. Agnor suggested February 17 as the date for the Public Hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom andlseconded by Mr. Bowie to set this
matter for public hearing on February 17, 1998. There was no further discus-
sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Rio Road - Approval of Pedestrian
Improvements. The following memorandum was received from the County Execu-
tive, dated January 7, 1988:
"Staff has reviewed the proposed construction plans for four-laning
Rio Road eastward from Route 29 North tol the railroad bridge near
Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center. These plans
provide for no sidewalks or pathways. The County's Pedestrian
487
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Obstacle Study, however, recommends pedestrian improvements along
this portion of Rio Road to facilitate pedestrian traffic from
existing residential areas.
For improvement needs, staff has analyzed Rio Road in two sections; a
2,700 foot section where adequate right-of-way exists for the instal-
lation of a sidewalk, referred to as Area A, and a 2,800 foot section
where additional right-of-way for a sidewalk would be necessary,
referred to as Area B. Where right-of-way exists, the cost of a
sidewalk is estimated as high as $20,000. No cost estimate has been
prepared as yet for that section in need of additional right-of-way,
but staff estimates it to be significantly higher in costs as well as
causing a time delay in the construction of the entire project due to
additional right-of-acquisitionand plan design.
Staff recommends that the Board take the following action:
Request the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) to
conduct a needs assessment for sidewalks along the proposed
improvements to Rio Road to determine whether VDoT will partici-
pate in the funding (if it is determined that YDoT will partici-
pate in the funding, it would be on a 50-50 cost share basis
with the County for construction. Additional right-of-way or
utility relocation costs must be borne by the County);
Authorize staff and VDoT to develop plans for sidewalks along
the entire length of the proposed roadway improvement with total
cost of additional right-of-way acquisition and~construction
along with method(s) for funding." ~
The following memorandum was received from the Department of Planning and
Community Development, dated December 23, 1987:
"This Department has been reviewing the proposed construction plans
for improvements to Rio Road between Route 29 and th~ railroad bridge
near the VOTEC Center. As part of our review, we ha~e considered the
possible construction of pedestrian improvements along the roadway.
In our early discussions with VDOT we had pointed out this possi-
bility. The current plans do not, however, propose ~ny sidewalks or
pathways.
The staff would recommend that the Board of SupervisOrs take the
necessary steps to provide for the construction of some pedestrian
improvements along this section of roadway. The need for this
improvement was pointed out in the Pedestrian ObstacLe Study which
was reviewed and endorsed as a general planning document by the
Planning Commission and the Metropolitan Planning Organization. The
update of the Comprehensive Plan will contain a more.~definitive
pedestrian circulation plan for the urban area, but ~here does not
exist at this time a formally adopted plan for the pr~ovision of
pedestrian improvements in the County. The staff does, however, feel
that it is important to provide some pedestrian imprOVements along
major collector roadways such as Rio Road in order to'facilitate
pedestrian traffic from the major residential areas that exist and
are proposed along these roadways. VDOT must conduct a needs assess-
ment for the proposed pedestrian facility in order to! determine
whether VDOT will participate in the funding. Should.iV DOT determine
that they will participate, the current VDOT policy concerning
construction of these sidewalks on secondary road imProvement
projects is that the County must bear one-half the expense of con-
struction of the facilities and all the cost of either additional
ri~ht-of-way or utility relocations occasioned specifically by the
pedestrian facility. Once the facility has been constructed it will
be maintained by VDOT.
In the review of the construction plans with VDOT, staff and VDOT
have identified two basic areas along the roadway as ~hey relate to
the actions necessary to construct either a concrete Sidewalk or
asphalt pathway. Those two areas are as follows:
January 13, 1988 (Regular DaYM~e{ing)~
(Page 5)
488
Area A - There exists approximately 2,200 linear feet along the
roadway which appears to have sufficient right-of-way for the con-
struction of either a sidewalk or a pathway using the current rural
cross section design as proposed. Those areas occur at each end of
the project. On the northern end of the project there is approxi-
mately 1,800 feet between the entrance to Albemarle Square and
Northfields Road where sufficient rightrof-way exists. At the
southern end of the project there is an approximate 900 foot area for
the construction of sidewalks across the frontage of the commercial
area near Greenbrier Drive with a connection to Huntington Road. The
staff has attempted to place some general budgetary estimates on the
cost to the County for construction of either a concrete sidewalk or
an asphalt pathway in these areas. Those costs are shown below:
100 feet - Albemarle Square to begin project
1,700 feet Begin project to Northfields Road
900 feet Greenbrier commercial!area (Rt. 650 to Huntington)
2,700 feet Total
Concrete Sidewalk - $10/foot , 2 = $5 foot (1985 price)
Budget at $6/foot +10% inflation $17,820
+10% utilities $19,602
Asphalt Pathway - $7.50/foot , 2 =':$3.75 foot
Budget at $4/foot $10,800
+10% utilities $11,880
Area B - This area is an approximate 2,800 foot area between Hunting-
ton Road and Northfields Road where there does not appear to be
enough existing right-of-way to install pedestrian facilities.
Installation of either a sidewalk or pathway in these area would
likely require the acquisition of additional right-of-way and the
conversion of some portions of this section from a rural cross
section to an urban cross section. The~construction of pedestrian
facilities in this area would require major revisions to the plans as
currently designed. Until such revisions would be made it is impos-
sible to provide accurate cost estimate~, but the Board should assume
that the acquisition of right-of-way an~ construction in this area
will be relatively expensive as compared to theareas above.
Should the Board decide to request the donstruction of pedestrian
facilities, the project schedule as proposed by YDOT will be
affected. If a public hearing is requiredindependent of the pedes-
trian facility, the pro3ect will be delayed approximately six months
at any rate. Should the Board choose at this time to request con-
struction of pedestrian facilities within Area A above, plan changes
could be done fairly quickly with a minimum of additional delay. If
the Board chooses to request construction of pedestrian facilities
along the entire length of the roadway,~the project would be affected
more significantly as to timing.
In our discussions with Mr. Roosevelt i% does appear that it would be
permissible under current YDOT policies to retrofit pedestrian
facilities along secondary roads with Six Year Secondary Road im-
provement funds. This procedure is les~ cost effective, but is a
possibility where the initial project d~es not install these facili-
ties. The staff would point to this possibility, within Area B in
particular, should the Board choose to ~nstall now in Area A and does
not wish to significantly delay the proj~ect. While the staff feels
that pedestrian facilities are importan~ along the entire length of
this roadway project, staff does not wish to significantly delay the
road construction project. We would recommend, therefore, that the
Board authorize the staff to immediately be~in detailed discussions
with the Highway Department with particular emphasis on design of
facilities within Area A, with the undemstanding that County fundinE
will be necessary alon~ the estimates p~ovided above. Firmer esti-
mates and actual costs can be provided after further design and
awarding of the bids, but the Board wil~ be required to fund a
portion of the construction as outlined iabove. If during detailed
discussions with VDOT it appears that there is a relatively
489
January 13, 1988 ~Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
expeditious way in which pedestrian facilities can be accommodated
along the entire length of the roadway project without significant
additional delay, the staff would like the option of reporting back
to the Board of Supervisors for a decision.
Should the Board wish to authorize an amendment to the plans to
accommodate pedestrian facilities they will need to authorize VDOT
and staff to begin redesigning the plans as soon as possible. A
decision by the Board of Supervisors as early as pos~sible in January
would, therefore, be very helpful."
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the project had been advertised for a willing-
ness to hold a Public Hearing, if the VDoT gets a request for one. He pointed
out that no formal request was received for a Public Hearing, so his normal
procedure would be to advise the Richmond office that no Hearing had been
requested, and then the plans, as currently outlined, would be approved. The
project could then be advertised in the spring or summer. He told the Board
that if it decides that sidewalks are needed for this project, the Board
should at least express its intention to obligate itself to pay for the
sidewalks. If the Board states that intention, it will probably delay the
advertisement of the project. He believes that this should be less of a
concern to the Board than it is to him. He explained that he is carrying
approximately a $5,000,000 balance in the Secondary Road Fund now, and this
project accounts for $1,200,000 of that balance. This money has already been
allocated to the project and is being held until this project is advertised.
This is, however, a small consideration if the Board feel~ that sidewalks are
really needed along this roadway.
Mr. Bowie wondered if Mr. Roosevelt could give the BOard an estimate of
how long the project will be delayed if the Board decides~ito approve sidewalks
for this roadway. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he has already requested a
feasibility study anticipating that the Board is going to.request the side-
walks. Realistically, he believes that the project will be built during the
next construction season, rather than this construction season. If the
project is not advertised before August or September, the~itime that it will
take for advertising, receiving bids and getting the pape= work done will
basically put the project into the start of the winter season. He does not
believe that anybody would want this construction to take,place during the
winter months. The Board's decision today is whether thiD project will be
started this spring or summer, or whether it will wait un~il next April.
Mr. Bain inquired if pedestrian improvements were also approved for Area
B, could they be done in the same time frame. Mr. Rooseve!lt answered that he
belives that Area B improvements could be included in the ~same time schedule
as improvements for Area A.
Mrs. Cooke stated that, based on her conversations wilth people in that
area, pedestrian walkways are desired. She asked the Board to consider also
bringing the middle section of the road into the plan. She then asked if the
Board could act on these improvements today, or if the pending feasibility
study will have an effect on the decision.
(Note: Mr. St. 3ohn returned at 9:30 A.M.)
Mr. Roosevelt replied that the feasibility study is f~r the whole
project. He explained that the YDoT is trying to determin~ from this study
whether there is enough pedestrian traffic for the Department to participate
in construction of the sidewalks. If the Board wished to ~ay for the whole
cost of the sidewalks, the Board could request that the sidewalks be added to
the project. He went on to say that if the Department doe~ not feel that the
sidewalks are needed, the Department will not maintain the~ in the future, and
the County will end up with this maintenance responsibility. He reminded
Board members that if the Department feels that the sidewalks are necessary,
the Department will pay half of the costs and will maintai~ them in the
future.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the feasibility study would delayiall of the pedes-
trian improvements if the Board approves any of the areas.~ Mr. Roosevelt
responded that if the whole project has to be redesigned, %t will delay the
January 13, 1988' (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
490
project for one year. He added that if the Board should inform him today that
no sidewalks are needed, he will write to Richmond and tell them that the
plans are approved as they were advertised for the willingness for the Public
Hearing, and he will recommend that construction plans begin. If, however,
the Board determines that sidewalks are wanted and needed, Mr. Roosevelt will
inform the Department that a delay is necessary for this design until a
feasibility study is completed. He reiterated that the study and redesign is
what will push the project from construction this year to next year.
Mr. Horne asked Mr. Roosevelt if the delay is the same whether or not
sidewalks are included for one area or for all of the roadway. Mr. Roosevelt
answered that there is a similar delay whether or not sidewalks are included
in the project for certain areas or for the Whole area. If only a short
section is improved, planning would take less time than a design for the whole
project. Even a minimum delay for an additional design throws the advertise-
ment, etc., so late in the year that it would cause the project to be started
during the winter months.
Mr. Agnor stated that it is not very ecOnomical to have to go back to a
project and redo an area after a project is built, because parts of it will
have to be torn up in Order to make other improvements. He said that the
public's perspective of this sort of situation is that there was not very good
planning done at the beginning. He recommended that the Board avoid the
problems of doing the work in separate sections, but he understands Mr.
Roosevelt's concern about the feasibility st6dy and delaying the project
because of the money that has been assigned to this project. From a planning
and financial point of view, Mr. Agnor believes that the Board should know
whether the Department will help pay for thejimprovements and the approximate
cost. He recommended that the Board ask forJthe feasibility study.
Mr. Horne added that his memorandum was ';~written on the assumption that
there would be a significantly greater delay i'to do the whole thing than to do
the short sections. Based on Mr. Roosevelt's~ comments at this meeting,
however, Mr. Home agreed with Mr. Agnor. H~ also pointed out to the Board
that the estimate that he gave is for the no~th side only. He said that
excess rights-of-way have been obtained to t]~e north side of the roadway. He
mentioned that the south side rights-of-way are very tight, and to put any
pedestrian facilities there will entail acquisition of rights-of-way on the
great majority of the southern side.
Motion was then made by Mr. Lindstrom to request the Virginia Department
of Transportation to conduct a needs assessment for sidewalks along the entire
length of the project to include both "A" and "B", and to request County staff
and Highway Department staff to develop plans for sidewalks along the entire
length of the proposed roadway including total cost of additional right-of-way
acquisition and construction, along with possible methods of funding (asphalt
vs. concrete) and to look at sidewalks on th~ north as well as the south side.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion, and said she~ould not like to cause problems
with the time schedule, but she can see that~.a delay could be a big advantage
to the entire project. ~
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt if the Dep~rtment does not participate in
the construction costs, will the Department ~aintain the sidewalks after they
are built. Mr. Roosevelt answered that it ia his understanding that the
Department will not maintain the sidewalks i{ the Department does not partic-
ipate in the construction costs. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that he had heard
that there was a possibility of a change in that policy. Mr. Home answered
that the basic policy is still in effect, bug the staff has talked to the
Culpeper District Office to try to understand the maintenance policy and the
cost participation policy. He thought the District Office stated that if the
improvements are included in the project, the Department will maintain them,
no matter who pays for them. He feels that the Board needs to have the
correct information on these policies.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks there are two parts to this matter. One is
the needs assessment to determine whether the Department will share in the
costs of the improvements and secondly, there is the construction analysis.
491
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
He then asked if the design and right-of,way analysis will delay the project
until next year, if that is all that is done now. Mr. Roosevelt answered,
"yes."
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Lindstrom's motion included pedestrian improvements
only on one side of the roadway. Mrs. Cooke stated that she was under the
impression that there was no room for the sidewalk except on one side. Mr.
Roosevelt responded that there would be room if rights-of-way are bought.
Mrs. Cooke then asked Mr. Roosevelt if he is in a position to say if the
Department has any feeling as to whether or not sidewalks are needed on both
sides of the roadway. Mr. Roosevelt answered, "no." He said he has requested
that the study be done, but he has no indication as to what the Department is
considering.
Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion. He said, however, that the
residential part is on the southern section. He asked Mr. Roosevelt if the
feasibility study will address the possibility of a southern sidewalk with a
cost estimate. Mr. Roosevelt responded that he will talk to the Department
about the southern sidewalk, but he said the feasibility ,study is a determina-
tion of whether or not there will be enough pedestrian traffic to warrant a
sidewalk. He mentioned that the feasibility study will also consider whether
a sidewalk will serve more people if placed on the south Side of the road. He
said that costs will be considered, but he thinks that costs are secondary.
Mrs. Cooke asked what would happen to the construction and the alignment
of the road if the sidewalk was built only to accommodate~the residential
section. Mr. Roosevelt explained that when this project Was built back in the
early 1960's, a right-of-way was bought for a four lane roadway, but the
shoulder area and ditches on the north side are at the right-of-way line. Mr.
Roosevelt discovered, when he looked at the plans, that although a
right-of-way had been bought for a four lane divided roadway in the future,
there were a number of locations where the construction would run beyond this
right-of-way, and this part of the property had not been purchased. In order
to build this four lane project, many additional easement~ will have to be
bought along the north side of the roadway.
When this project was reviewed for construction, Mr. Roosevelt said, the
Department decided that instead of building a four lane divided roadway, a
five lane flush road could be built which would include five lanes of pave-
ment, with the middle lane being used as a left turn lane.! He pointed out
that this narrows the roadway and pulls all of the construttion back within
the right-of-way with the exception of where the Northsids Baptist Church is
located. He said an easement had been acquired at this location recent site
plans were approved. Mr. Roosevelt went on to say that th~ southern side will
require curbing and guttering along the whole southern side of the roadway and
will increase the cost of the project considerably. Or, ha mentioned that the
entire roadway could be pushed to the north, which would cause a lane of the
existing roadway to be lost. He explained that this would cause the same
problem of having all of the slopes falling outside of the right-of-way which
would require easements. He said that if easements have to be bought, it will
further delay the project because the schedule that is plag~ned at this time
does not anticipate any time for right-of-way acquisition..
Mr. Way asked if a decision needs to be made to determine whether an
asphalt pathway or a sidewalk is desired. Mr, Home responded that he does
not believe that this decision has to be made at this time~ but he proposed
that the staff come back to the Board with a cost for each;lalternative. He
said if there will be a delay anyway, he would recommend that a concrete
sidewalk be constructed. He added that an asphalt walkway is considered a
temporary facility.
Mr. Roosevelt said he would take full responsibility for any delay that
occurs on this project. He went on to say that when the p~eliminary field
inspection was done last April, he was attempting to get this project to
construction as rapidly as possible in order to spend the ~remendous balance
of funds accumulating due to the new tax funds. He neglected to include the
County staff in the preliminary field inspection. He said ithat if he had
included the County staff at that time, all of these problems would have been
resolved before now and the pedestrian facilities could ha~e been included in
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day 'M~e~ing)
(Page 9)
492
the original design of the plans. In the future, he said, he will include the
County staff in all of the preliminary plans for the projects so that this
problem will not occur again.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt how the need is determined for such a
sidewalk since conditions change'from day to day. Mr. Roosevelt replied that
determinations are made according to the development of the property and how
the property is zoned. He said what is known about the short range potential
development of the property will be considered. He mentioned that he will not
personally be involved in the study. It will be done by the Traffic Depart-
ment. He thinks the short range potential development of the property is a
minor aspect of the study, because most of the area is already residentially
and commercially developed. He said that the conditions that already exist
can be studied to determine if a pedestrian facility is located there, what
type of use would be made of it. He stated that a lot of people drive to
commercial areas because there is not a convenient pedestrian facility avail-
able. He said that the traffic engineers should be able to estimate how far
people will want to walk, how many people will want to walk and whether or not
this will justify a sidewalk.
Mr. Perkins commented that it seems to him that it is possible to come up
with whatever answer a person desires. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the
existing pedestrian facilities can be considered to see how much they are
used. He said that he knows of several studies that have been done to show
how far people will walk.
At this point, Mr. Way asked Mr. Lindst=om to restate his motion. Mr.
Lindstrom restated the motion as follows: "To request the Virginia Department
of Transportation to conduct a needs assessment for sidewalks along the entire
length of the project to include voth "A" and "B", and to request County staff
and Highway Department staff to develop plans for sidewalks along the entire
length of the proposed roadway including total cost of additional right-of-way
acquisition and construction, along with possible methods of funding (asphalf
vs. concrete) and to look at sidewalks on north as well as south side; it is
understood that this may put the project into another construction year."
Mrs. Cooke seconded the restatement of the motion. There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion darried by the following recorded
vote: ~
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None. ~
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Discussion - Highway Funding.
Mr. Agnor explained to Mr. Roosevelt that the Board had met with Mr.
Mitchell Van Yahres and Mr. George Allen to discuss a number of legislative
matters, one of which was the final report od the Commission on Transportation
in the Twenty-First Century. He read a specific recommendation in this report
which stated that, "Localities should be encQuraged to examine their long
range funding needs and request authority on !an individual basis to utilize
new and expanded revenue sources." He said ~hat this was interpreted that
localities, on an individual basis, could deal with developing their own new
revenue sources. He said thatthe Board directed the staff to work through
the Virginia Association of Counties and with other counties as to what
response would be made to the Commission report. In doing so, Mr. Agnor
learned that another interpretation of that statement deals with the sources
that were developed by the Special Session of the General Assembly that
created the funds Mr. Roosevelt referred to at this meeting.
Mr. Agnor went on to say that the Virginia Association of Counties is in
a turmoil because its Director resigned, so it is not possible to deal through
the Association at this time. What has been suggested, in the meantime, is
that localities draft correspondence to the Highway Commission requesting
authority on an individual basis to use these new revenues that are being
generated for roadway projects. For Albemarle County, that would be for roads
that are shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Agnor is preparing a draft
letter to that effect for this Board to consider and a copy will be sent to
Mr. Roosevelt. He mentioned that it may be, after the General Assembly
493
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
convenes today, and the Commission report becomes a matter of record, that the
interpretation will be settled. He said, however, that the staff is preparing
an interpretation to bring to the Board for both situations.
Mr. Bain asked if such a staff report will be available at next week's
meeting. Mr. Agnor answered, "yes." Mr. Bain said he thinks it is important
that this matter be moved along as quickly as possible. Mr. Bain then asked
if the consultant's report would be given to the Board in January concerning
the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Horne answered, "yes." He said the Board will be given a report on
another major section of the roadway south of town that should be ready within
the next several days. He is hoping to combine this report and the Meadow
Creek Parkway report for the Board.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Perkins stated that there have been two tractor trailers that have
collided with the railroad bridge in Crozet over the last several months. He
said there are warning signs posted, but drivers are still having problems.
He believes that if blinking lights could be installed on the bridge, this
would be a cheap way to remedy the situation and make the intersection safer.
Mr. Roosevelt said that he would discuss the situation, look at the accident
information and get back with an answer as soon as possible. He said he is
aware of the bridge, but he was not aware of theaccidents.
Mr. Roosevelt next said that he is working on three gravel road improve-
ment projects. He mentioned that the Board has followed a policy for many
years that if a right-of-way becomes available on a grave~ road, the Board and
the Department will work it into the Six Year Plan, and e~entually fund and
improve the road. He stated th'at Route 674, which runs f~om Route 810 to
Route 673 in the White Hall area; Route 627, which runs from Route 708 to
Route 727 near Carter's Bridge; and Route 662, which runs from Route 660 west
for approximately a mile, are routes where rights-of-way have been obtained.
He has sent the information to the Richmond office, but w~s informed that
these three projects are not now in the Six Year Plan. Before additional work
can be done toward advertisement, these roads will need t6 be included in the
Six Year Plan or the Board of Supervisors will need to indicate that ~._~a'
these project will be added when the plan is next revised~ He had hoped that
the Six Year Plan would be reviewed and approved before t~is time, or that the
Richmond office could be convinced to start working on th~se roads, but
neither of these things has happened.
Mr. Roosevelt said he is requesting the Board today ~o pass a resolution
basically indicating that it is the Board's intent to include these roads in
the Six Year Plan when it is next revised. He gave Board ~embers a sample
resolution for them to consider. It is Mr. Roosevelt's feeling that this
resolution of intent does not obligate the Board to place ia priority on these
projects. He noted that when the plan is adopted, the Bo~zd will still be
able to set the projects in the priority list wherever it ~ishes. Passing
this resolution, however, will allow Mr. Roosevelt to continue processing
these projects toward advertisement. His intent is to advertise the projects
shortly after the Six Year Plan is adopted. He pointed ou~ that the Board's
inaction today would basically bring the projects to a halt. If the resolu-
tion is approved today, it will allow money to be expended~; and it will be
more difficult for the Board, when the priority list is developed, to stop the
projects. He is hopeful that he can convince the Board, either now or later,
that these projects should proceed and go to advertisement!some time this
year.
Mr. Bowie called to Mr. Roosevelt's attention that there are other gravel
roads, such as Route 785, that are in the same situation but are not listed.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that the right-of-way has been obtained for Route 785,
but the Department is not to the point of processing the f6rms that are needed
for advertisement for this road. He said that advertisemeht can be done
within three months for the first three projects mentioned, but that Route 785
will not be done until the next construction season at the earliest, and the
decision to do it will have to be based upon financing.
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
494
Mr. Bowie then wondered if these three projects would pre-empt any other
road that has been waiting for improvements. Mr. Roosevelt answered, "no."
He said that these projects will be done after all of the other gravel road
projects that are in the plan. Mr. Way asked if-any other gravel road in the
plan was being bumped in order to do these three projects, and Mr. Roosevelt
responded that no gravel road in the plan is being put aside.
At this time, Mr. Horne announced that the Planning Commission will hold
its first Work Session on the Six Year Plan on January 26, 1988, and should
have a report to the Board some time in FebrUary with its recommendations. He
said that a number of gravel roads, over and above these projects, are being
analyzed. He said that the three projects are being considered because Mr.
Roosevelt had informed the staff that rights+of-way had been obtained. He
understands Mr. Roosevelt's position, and he thinks it is generally consistent
with what the County has done in the past. He said that the Planning Commis-
sion is attempting to change, somewhat, the way that gravel roads are done by
doing more analysis on things other than whether or not the right-of-way is
available. He stated that he will not say that the recommendation will be for
a low priority on these roads, but he thinks that the Commission will be
interested in having the ability to analyze the roads independent of whether
or not the rights-of-way are available.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that he is willing to support the resolution, but
when projects are shown in the Six Year Plani he would like more information
as to what other projects are being considered, and which budget will be
affected. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the money for these projects will come
from the funds that are available for secondary road improvements. He said
that it is his intent to not finance these projects until future years, based
upon the Board's desire to spend only the minimum amount each year required by
law for gravel road improvements. He mentioned that he is borrowing against
the balances that are currently available, and paying it back in a future
year's budget. ~
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that usually the Board knows how much money
will be allocated for gravel road improvements in the year that the payment is
made for the project. He said that lacking that information for these
projects involves how long the section of th~ road is, how many vehicle trips
a day are made on the road, and what the estfmated costs are of the projects.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he can answer all ~f Mr. Lindstrom's questions. He
said it is his intent to allocate in any future fiscal year to gravel road
improvements the minimum required by law which is the direction that the Board
has given him, unless the Department changes fits position and allows balances
to be carried ahead, i
Mr. Lindstrom then asked how much of th~ allocation these three roads
represent. Mr. Roosevelt responded that the gravel road allocation minimum
required each year is, in 1988-89, $790,000, ~educing down over the six year
period to $690,000 in 1993-94.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that this amount, is more than was available two
years ago for the entire secondary road system. Mr. Roosevelt went on to say
that the amounts that he just mentioned are w~at he intends to allocate. He
stated that the Route 674 project is being estimated at a cost of $350,000 for
construction of a section of road nine-tenths, of a mile long and with a
traffic count of 143 cars a day. The Route 627 project is estimated at
$1,000,000 for a section of road that is 2.8 .niles long and has a traffic
count of 193 vehicles per day. The Route 662"project is estimated at $350,000
for a section of road that is .85 of a mile 10ng and has a traffic count of 79
vehicles per day.
Mr. Lindstrom said that these totals wou%d amount to approximately
$1,700,000 and is more than two years at the maximum funding level that the
Board would be committing today without having any other perspective on what
ther projects might be competitive. Mr. Lind~trom said he does not think the
Board could just conveniently change its mind, when the Six Year Plan is ap-
proved. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he will 16bby to continue the current
policy of giving priority to the projects which have available rights-of-way.
He thinks that the process has worked well, and has brought the high volume
roads as well as the low volume roads into the plan and has kept projects
available for gravel road use. If the Board does not pass the resolution, Mr.
495
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page
Roosevelt will set these projects aside until the Six Year Plan is approved,
which will cause an approximate three month delay and will move the con-
struction of these projects from the latter part of this construction season
to the start of the next construction season.
Mr. Horne stated that the Planning Commission will be beginning its work
session on the Six Year Plan on January 26, and should be finished with the
Plan, and have it in the hands of the Board some time in February. Mr.
Lindstrom said he did not remember that the Plan required so much labor by the
people involved. Mr. Horne responded that the staff and Commission are trying
to do a more complete job than they have in the past.
Mr. Bain asked how many gravel roads are now included in the Six Year
Plan. Mr. Roosevelt responded that none of the three projects that he has
discussed at this meeting are in the Six Year Plan. He said that the Six Year
Plan is now two years old, and there were approximately 10 gravel roads in
that plan. Mr. Bain then wanted to know if the gravel roads, which are
already in the Six Year Plan will be done ahead of these three projects. Mr.
Roosevelt answered, "yes." He said that he believes all of the gravel roads
in the Six Year Plan have been advertised, with the exception of Route 777,
and that is scheduled for advertisement within the next couple of months.
Mr. Bowie asked again if a road, such as Route 785, could be pre-empted
because of adding these three projects. Mr. Roosevelt reiterated that every
gravel road in the plan has either been advertised, is currently under con-
struction, or is complete, except for Route 777. He said that Route 785 will
be recommended to be added to the next plan.
Mr. Way commented that he is delighted that the Planning Commission is
going to develop some criteria for the future for gravel road improvmeents.
He said that Mr. Roosevelt has acted in good faith because it has been the
County's policy in the past to consider gravel roads when~irights-of-way become
available. If rules are changed as to how the gravel roads are handled, he
thinks that a couple of years are needed for everyone to adjust to the new
policies.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think the Board should approve $1.7
million worth of financing for these three roads without knowing what will
happen with the budget or what other roads the staff may have in mind. If
these roads are approved, it will be without any staff analysis, public
hearing or Planning Commission review. The projects are being done simply
because there is the money to do them. One of these three roads carries only
79 vehicle trips a day.
At this time, Mr. Roosevelt stated that these three projects will not
require that any money be spent that will be wasted. He ~aid that all that he
is asking for is permission between now and the time that~the Six Year Plan is
adopted to be able to proceed with these projects. He said they are all rural
roads and have very little anticipated development. If, three months from
now, the Board decides to lay these projects aside and ta~e others ahead of
them, conditions of the roads will probably be very much the same. The
Board's action today, however, will allow Mr. Roosevelt tO get the design
approved so that a utility field inspection can be done a~d the utility
companies can become aware of what has to be moved. If the Board decides,
after looking at the whole plan, that these projects should be delayed, Mr.
Roosevelt can tell the utility people to stop working, an~ the information can
be filed away. If the projects are then picked up years £rom now, Mr.
Roosevelt believes that the information will be just as gdod then as it is
today. He is asking today only that the Board give him a~proval to continue
with the planning for these three projects. He guarantee~!the Board that he
will not advertise the projects for construction until the Six Year Plan has
been approved. ~
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the word, "consider" coul~ be added to the
"THEREFORE" clause of the resolution. Mr. Roosevelt answered that he does not
believe that that would be sufficient. He said that unles~ the Board is going
to completely change its policy, he thinks that the roads ~ill get into the
plan. If it is agreeable with the Richmond Office and the!Board wants to
include these projects in the plan, it could be eight years from now before
construction gets started.
January 13, 1988 (Regular DayMeeting)~.'
(Page 13)
49'6
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia requires a minimumamount of
secondary improvement funds be expended each year for the paving of
gravel roads; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has made it
Board policy to give priority for improvement to those gravel roads
where right-of-way for improvement already exists; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation Resident
Engineer has advised the Board that right-of-way for improvement
exists on the following gravel roads:
1. Route 627 from Route 708 to 0.62 miles south of Route 727
2. Route 674 from Route 810 to 0.25 miles west of Route 673
Route 662 from 0.15 miles west of Route 660 to 1.0 miles
west of Route 660,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that it is the Board's intent to
include these roads in the County's Six Year Secondary Road Improve-
ment Plan, which is its list for priority of improvements, when such
plan is next revised.
Mr. Lindstrom said he will support themotion with the understanding that
no priorities are being assigned to these roads and that there will not even
be a guarantee that they will be constructed in the next six years. Mr. Bowie
said he will support the motion as long as the Board is not obligating itself
to start building the roads. The motion was then seconded by Mr. Bowie. Rol~
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(At 10:28 A.M., the Board recessed and~reconvened at 10:35 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: Phillips Building Supply Preliminary Site
Plan. This item was brought to the Board by the following letter from John W.
Zunka, Attorney for the Applicant:
"This firm represents Phillips Building Supply, Inc. with regard to
Preliminary Site Plan to locate a 28,000 square foot building supply
sales and storage facility on the south side of Rio Road, Tax Map 61,
Parcels 120I, 12OK, 120R and 120V, Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Phillips Building Supply, Inc. hereby notes its appeal to t.he denial
by the Planning Commission on December~l, 1987 of Item 1. g. 'Plan-
ning Staff approval of revised site plan including the elimination of
the western entrance to Rio Road and final approval of landsCape
plan', and requests its appeal be placed on the Agenda for hearing.
Please advise this office the date and~time for a hearing on Phillips
Building Supply appeal."
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Proposal: This is a proposal to locate a 28,000 square foot build-
ing supply sales and storage facility, i
AcreaKe: The total area of the site is 3.28 acres.
Zoning: The property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
497
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting~
(Page
Location: The property is located on the south side of Rio Road
between the Daily Progress Newspaper building and the existing
Phillips Building Supply. Tax Map 61, Parcels 120I, 120K, 120R and
t20V. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Summary and Recommendation: The proposed building includes 28,000
square feet for building supplies sales and 28,000 square feet
(basement level) for storage. Approximately 4,000 square feet of
office space will also be provided. This space is for the use of
Phillips and is not for lease. A 38,000 square foot material storage
yard is also proposed. The site is to be served by 100 parking
spaces. The Zoning Department has determined that the proposed
parking is adequate for this use.
Two entrances to Rio Road are proposed to serve this site. The
eastern access is an existing entrance (right-of-way) which presently
serves the existing Phillips store and one other parcel (besides the
four parcels in this request). The Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation recommends that the western entrance be eliminated and the
eastern entrance be 40 feet in width to provide left and right turn
existing lanes. The County Engineer and Planning Staff also recom-
mend the elimination of the western entrance. This (western) en-
trance would be located approximately 45 feet from an entrance to the
Daily Progress site and would be the 13th entrance~located between
Berkmar Drive and Route 29 (with at least three parcels across from
this proposal undeveloped, and zoned as commercial). The proximity
of this entrance to the Daily Progress site could create conflicts
between autos making opposing turning movements ou~ of these entranc-
es. Confusion and conflicts could also result with autos making
right turns into these entrances due to the number of access points
along the deceleration lane. Staff is of the opinion that the
existing (eastern) entrance is adequate to serve this site and that
access to the site should be at this location only~ thereby reducing
the potential for additional vehicle conflict on what is a heavily
travelled portion of Rio Road (an average of 14,68~ vehicle trips per
day between Berkmar Drive and Route 29).
The staff has met with the applicant and his representatives on
several occasions to discuss the concerns with this access. The
applicant 'feels that it is mandatory to have a separate entrance to
the new property .... ' Staff recommends approval of the request only
if the western entrance is eliminated pursuant to Section 32.7.2 and
32.7.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
This site plan will meet the requirements of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance and staff recommends approval subjlect to the fol-
lowing:
A building permit will not be issued until the following condi-
tions are met: ~
County Engineer approval of grading and d~ainage plans and
calculations;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-
way improvements as outlined in their letter to David
Benish dated July 8, 1987, and issuance of a commercial
entrance permit;
c. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
Contribution of $22,676 towards the construction of the
Berkmar regional detention based on a total site acreage of
3.288 acres;
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of sewer
lateral connection;
Fire Officer approval of hydrant location!land storage yard
plan;
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
498
Planning staff approval of revised site plan including the
elimination of the western entrance to Rio Road and final
approval of landscape plan;
Planning staff approval of plat combining existing parcel
into one parcel.
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the fol-
lowing condition is met:
a. Fire Officer final approval.
Access to this site shall be from existing eastern entrance
only.
4. Administrative approval of the final plat."
Mr. Horne gave the staff report and said that the major area of discus-
sion at the Planning Commission meeting was the access to the new site of a
supply, sales and storage facility for the Phillips Building Supply Company.
He went on to describe the entrances that have been proposed, and said that
the Virginia Department of Transportation, the County Engineer and the Plan-
ning staff have recommended that the western~entrance be eliminated and that
the eastern entrance be approved. Mr. Home,described reasons why the western
entrance is not desirable, but he said that ~he applicant feels that it is
mandatory to have a separate entrance to theJnew property. Mr. Home stated
that the staff recommends approval of the request if the western entrance is
eliminated and with the other conditions that are listed in the staff report.
Mr. Horne said, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 1,
1987, agreed with the staff recommendation and approved the preliminary site
plan subject to the same conditions set out above. He mentioned that it has
been a consistent policy with the Planning C~mmission to look for oppor-
tunities to consolidate accesses on heavily travelled roads and to minimize
the number of curb cuts on these roadways.
Mr. Bowie asked if the other entrances that are on the road will remain
in existence. Mr. Home answered, "yes." He said these entrances are not
part of this proposal.
Mr. Bain stated that Phillips presently.has three entrances, and the one
proposed would make the fourth. He asked if.!the applicant is willing to
eliminate the far eastern one next to Hardee'is Restaurant, but none of the
others in exchange for this new entrance. M~. Home responded that this has
been discussed with the applicant, but it had not been clear to the staff that
this was part of the proposal. He pointed out that the eastern entrance is
used to give access to some storage warehous~ buildings which are adjacent to
the Firestone Store. The staff does not feel that closing this entrance
provides the basis for approving the other two entrances or offsets the
specific problems of a western entrance.
Mrs. Cooke referred to an entrance on the map and asked if it served the
parking lot only. Mr. Home answered, "yes.'! Mrs. Cooke then wondered if the
building will be used for offices only or will it also be used for storage.
Mr. Home replied that the new building is a replacement for the old building.
What is located in the old building will be ~oved to the new one, and the old
one will be used for storage. He mentioned ~hat although this question was
repeatedly asked, this was not made clear to.the staff through discussions
with the applicant until very late in the process. Mrs. Cooke asked if the
doors at the front of the building are the only public entrance. Mr. Home
answered that the major public access would be at the front of the building
but other side doors are shown which would probably allow for a minimal amount
of public access. He reminded the Board that this is a proposed facility, and
he thinks the public's interest in the access point should take precedence
over what is needed by the store. If access restrictions are not agreeable to
the applicant, then he suggested that a large materials store is not appro-
priate on this heavily travelled and congested roadway. He said that this is
a choicethat the applicant needs to make. He mentioned that the staff has
499
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
tried to look at the public need for access and congestion control on the
roadway and not look at this project as a necessity that has to be built in
this particular place.
At this time, Mr. Way opened the Public Hearing on this matter.
Mr. John Zunka, representative of the applicant, spoke next. He stated
that Phillips Building Supply is building a new retail space because it has
run out of retail floor space. The new building will be used to replace the
existing building, and all of the display counters and the entire business
from the existing building will be moved to the new building. He went on to
say that the applicant would like to have a western entrance for the retail
traffic as well as the existing eastern entrances. He added that the appli-
cant would like to trade the entrance closest to Hardee's, which he will refer
to as the Firestone entrance, understanding that there is concern as to the
amount of congestion on Rio Road. The reason that the applicant is willing to
trade is that he believes that congestion will be reduced by this trade. Mr.
Zunka, at this time, showed pictures to the Board, and pointed out an existing
gravel road. He said that the western entrance can be put at whatever spot
the Planning Commission wishes. The applicant does not care where it is, as
long as there is an entrance into the new retail store. He showed the Board,
with the aid of the pictures, where all of the proposed and existing entrances
are located and their proximity to other businesses in the area. He also
described the use of each entrance. He said the applicant has done an infor-
mal traffic count and, on an average day, 147 pickup trucks, 18 tractor
trailers and 20 Phillips Building Supply trucks go in andiout of the road,
plus 40 cars. He said that all of this traffic is diffused among the existing
three entrances. He added that the 40 cars carrying retail customers drive
into the entrance in front of the existing facility. Under the applicant's
plan, 40 cars would be shifted to the new building through the western en-
trance. Ail of the other traffic would go through the other two entrances.
He next showed pictures that demonstrated the problems wi~h the trucks stack-
ing up three and four at a time because deliveries cannot ~be controlled.
Under the proposed plan, all of these trucks would continue to go through the
eastern entrance to the storage yard. If the western entrance is not ap-
proved, then retail traffic will have to go through the center entrance. He
pointed out that there could be three or four trucks waiting to be unloaded,
and the pickup trucks will also be on this road. Any traffic going to the
proposed building will turn off of Rio Road, come down th~ center road, and
turn right into the parking lot in front of the new retai~ building. However,
to get out of that lot, the traffic will have to go back ever the eastern
roadway, and will have to get through the traffic with the tractor trailers
and pickup trucks that are going east. Mr. Zunka said tha~ the County has
suggested that two lanes be constructed to go out to Rio Road, but the cars
and the pickup trucks that are going into the retail building have to get
acrossthe entrance lane to be able to get out, and this will cause a "bottle-
neck." If a western entrance can be constructed, the retail traffic will not
be coming into the center roadway. He pointed out that without the western
entrance, there will be internal congestion, but, more importantly, there is
congestion on Rio Road. The applicant wants to keep the customers happy, so
there is another option. The applicant can route the tractor trailors through
the Firestone entrance. However, to get into the Fireston~ entrance, the
tractor trailers will have to stop and make a left hand tucn off of Rio Road,
if they are going west. He then showed random photographs~of traffic turning
west on Rio Road which showed traffic backed up all of the way to the traffic
light on Route Z9 North. He noted that this is the applicant's~ concern. Mr.
Zunka then mentioned that the use of the proposed western ~ntrance would be
similar to the use of the entrance in front of the currentiretail building.
Mrs. Cooke asked what will happen to the old buildinglonce the new retail
building is constructed. Mr. Zunka replied that the curremt plan is to use it
for a warehouse.
Mrs. Cooke then asked what would happen to the parkinl spaces in front of
the old building, and which entrance will be used for that;building. Mr.
Zunka pointed out the entrance to be used for the old building with a photo-
graph, and said that the parking area in front'of the old building would be
used for employee parking. He said that some deliveries would come through
this area, but the use of the entrance would be minimized. He stated that the
applicant is willing to trade the Firestone entrance because it is believed
that retail vehicles can be handled with a minimum impact on Rio Road by
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
500
giving up this entrance and using the western entrance in front of the current
facility. He mentioned another problem with putting the retail traffic into
the new entrance proposed. He said that this traffic will have to be in the
same line with the truck traffic to get into a lane to go to the retail
building. He stated that his clients have studied the situation, and this is
the best solution that they have been able to reach. He feels that less of a
"bottleneck" and serious congestion can be eliminated using a western en-
trance.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the road on the side of the building where the trucks
are brought for delivery will be closed. Mr~ Zunka answered, "yes." She then
pointed out an area in one of the photographs and asked if the trucks could be
brought into the open area through that area. Mr. Zunka replied that it would
be difficult. He said that the existing entrance to the existing retail store
would be used to divert some trucks for service to the storage building. He
then pointed out an alleyway that the applicant would be willing to eliminate.
Since there were no other questions from the Board, Mr. Way asked if
anyone else would like to speak.
Mr. Jim Towe spoke in favor of the applicant and said that he is a
resident of the Jack Jouett District. He stated that he'travels Rio Road
often. He was amused at Mr. Perkins' question earlier in the meeting when
discussing sidewalks. He said he cannot imagine anyone trying to walk on Rio
Road unless there was an emergency. He added that it was also interesting to
hear Mr. Roosevelt's explanation of whether or not people will walk in certain
areas and how far they will walk. He commented that everybody drives automo-
biles. He then referred to the eastern entrance of the Daily Progress and
said that he doubted that the Progress has much traffic. He said that it
seems logical to him that people would use the western entrance most often to
get to the Progress. He feels that if the traffic backup from Hardee's,
Firestone, and that generated at Phillips could be moved to the proposed
retail entrance, it would make more sense. He also suggested that the Board
members picture themselves as potential customers of Phillips trying to cross
Rio to get to the new store. It is his opinion that any person wanting to buy
something at Phillips would prefer to use th~ western entrance to the new
store. He also believes that the public would like the entrance further from
Route 29.
There were no further comments from the .public, so Mr~ Way closed the
Public Hearing and put the matter before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Home to respond! to the comments made concerning
the congestion that would occur at the eastern entrance, if that entrance is
used. Mr. Home responded that various members of the staff have visited the
site eight to ten times during this process .~i The impression has been given
that there is a steady stream of trucks in and out of this entrance. That is
not actually the situation, and he cannot believe there will be a regular
problem of congestion when someone leaves theiparking lot and moves across one
12 foot lane of roadway to get into two outgoing lanes. He does not think
that this is a valid point. In terms of the ~ongestion on Rio Road, Mr. Home
said this depends on the volume of heavy trucks more so than the automobiles.
He said that during all of the staff members'l'visits to the site, they have
never seen conditions similar to the ones shown in the pictures. He stated
that he is sure that these conditions occur at some hours, during the day, but
he does not think that it can be assumed that?there is a steady mass of
congestion of large trucks going in and out o~ the entrance. He pointed out
that the staff does not have a traffic count ~or the entrance to the Daily
Progress, but it is not only the access to th~ Progress' parking lot, but also
to a storage area and delivery yard in back o~ the building.
Mr. Home said to place this request in ~he proper perspective, the Board
needs to remember that there are three existihg entrances in the space of 200
feet across the frontage of this property. M~. Horne added that the Commis-
sion feels that three entrances in four or fi~e hundred feet of frontage on a
heavily congested road are enough entrances fqr a given property. He stated,
again, that if the Board chooses to provide a~given amount of public access
into a site, and that doesn't accommodate a use that will increase dramatical-
ly the size of the existing business or that particular level of business, at
some point it has to be decided if this location is appropriate for this
intensity of use.
501
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
('Page 18)
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the question before the Board is whether
there will be three entrances with the alleged potential congestion shifted
away from the Worrell entrance and towards Rio Road or shifted away from Rio
Road and towards the Worrell entrance.
Mr. Bowie stated that he does not see that the business will be in-
creased. He said the applicant is simply moving the retail part of the
business and creating some storage area. Without an additional entrance, the
area will be exactly as it is now. Mr. Horne answered that the move would
cause expansion of that site and the retail traffic will be moved, from the
applicant's description, to another entrance. He made a final point that the
Planning Commission is more attracted to closing one of the closer entrances
because the entrance by Hardee's is not heavily used. He.said this was not
attractive to the applicant, and Mr. Horne does not understand why it is
important to have an access directly into a very limited parking area in front
of a storage building.
Mr. Perkins asked if it was possible for Phillips and the Daily Progress
to have a joint entrance. Mr. Home answered that it is possible if there is
agreement between the two businesses. He added that it would require a
reconstruction of the Daily Progress entrance. He said the Commission proba-
bly would have proposed that a joint entrance be constructed except that there
was no basis for going to the Daily Progress and asking the owner to partici-
pate in the cost of moving the entrance closer to Phillipj, although this
would be a much better solution for everyone. ~
Mr. Perkins then asked if the applicant would be interested in pursuing
the idea of sharing the Daily Progress entrance. Mr. Zunka remarked that this
idea had been explored with the Daily Progress, but the P~ogress was not
interested.
Mr. Bowie commented that he has been a customer of Phillips for many
years, and he almost always enters the property through the Firestone entrance
and almost always comes out of the road that is described as being congested
with tractor trailers, etc. He said that, according to the hours that Phil-
lips is open and according to the numbers of vehicles thatl were reported as
using the road, it figures out to be one vehicle every four minutes, not just
"18 wheelers". In the eight years that he has been going to Phillips, he can
never remember being behind a truck when he got ready to lleave the property.
He said that despite all of the pictures shown to the Board of the congestion,
he has been able to conveniently drive into the store at any time of the day
or evening.
Mr. Bain then moved that the Board support the Planning Commission's
decision and leave Condition l(g) as it is stated. His reasoning behind this
motion is the safety aspect for the public on Rio Road. He said, too, that
the agreement between the Department of Transportation, th~ County Engineer,
the County staff and the Planning Commission is that it is~much safer to leave
the eastern entrance as it is and eliminate that western entrance. He com-
mented that he knows Rio Road is congested, and he understands that Phillips
wants to do more with the property. He suggested that the~ applicant look at
the alternatives again, and he feels the existing main entrance might be
widened.
Mr. Way asked if he is correct that when no motion is,~made by the Board,
the Planning Commission's decision stands. Mr. Horne answered, "yes. At
this point, Mr. St. John stated that he thought this matter should be disposed
of by a motion, one way or the other. He said that it is true that failure to
act constitutes, as a matter of law, that the Planning Commission's decision
stands. He thinks that when an item is before the Board, ~here should be a
motion. He stated that the only exception to that would b~ if there is a tie
vote. Mr. Bowie stated that he doesn't care how the matte~ is handled, but in
the past, if a motion were not made, the Planning Commissidn's decision stood.
Mr. St. John commented that most of the time he believes t~at the Board has
acted one way or the other on these matters. Mr. Lindstro~ remarked that
sometimes the Board has deliberately stated that, since there is no motion,
the appeal is denied. At this time, Mr. Bain withdrew his ~motion. Since
there were no other motions, Mr. Way stated that the actio~ of the Planning
Commission remains in effect.
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
502
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that he was intrigued with the argument that Mr.
Zunka made. He explained that on appeals such as this one, the Board is in a
position of having to judge between two different conflicting points of view.
There is always the opinion of the Planning Con~nission, and frequently there
is the opinion of the County staff and the Highway Department. On the other
hand, there is the applicant, and in this case, Mr. Lindstrom commented that
he knows that this applicant has been a reputable member of the community for
a long time. Mr. Lindstrom added that there are two arguments about safety,
and they are the Planning Commission's concern about safety at the Daily
Progress entrance and the applicant's concern about safety at Rio Road. He
has no way of judging between the two concerns, other than to look at the
expertise that has been brought to the Board:by the County staff, and the
staff of the Department of Transportation. He said that is the reason that he
did not make a motion.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Appropriation Federal Revenue
Sharing Fund Balance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 29, 1987
and January 5, 1988.)
Mr. Way asked if there were anyone presgnt who wished to speak. With no
one rising, he suggested that the Board go to the next item and discuss this
later.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Michie Tavern Preliminary Site Plan. A
letter from Mr. Samuel E. Saunders, dated De~ember 18, 1987, brought this
matter to the Board. ~
"Proposal: To locate a 288 square foot building for a blacksmith
shop and exhibit area, and provide 65 additional parking spaces.
Also proposed are the relocation of a reStroom building and closing
the eastern (upper) entrance. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, with SP~288 and
SP-76-28.
Location: On the south side of Route 53, east of its intersection
with Route 20 and across from Monticello Memory Gardens. Tax Map 77,
Parcels 26 and 29. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Staff Cox~ent: This plan proposes 65 additional parking spaces than
are required by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has had several
previous informal plans discussed with staff, in order to obtain
additional parking area. The abandonmen~ of the Old Orchard Road to
this upper parking area now permits the Closing of that gravel road
and the use of an area which is partially graded and paved as a
service area. This plan was deferred from the September 24th Site
Review Meeting to allow additional time to address highway matters
and landscaping.
This property was developed under SP-288japproved in February, 1983,
and SP-76-28, approved in May, 1976. Inistaff's opinion, the present
proposal is in compliance with the conditions of SP-76-28.
The proposed parking area will be accessed by a proposed ramp between
Route 53 and the main tavern. Although the ramp will be of rela-
tively steep grade, the 'overflow' parking area will not be likely to
be needed during times of foul weather such as ice and snow. The
County Engineering Department has no problems with the grading or
drainage for the proposed ramp. Due to the steep side slope between
Route 53 and the edge of pavement on the ramp, a retaining wall is
necessary. The wall height will range from five feet to seventeen
feet. For a portion of the ramp, guard ~ail will be installed
between the edge of pavement and the retaining wall.
Because this property is in an area of ~ '
historic importance and the
proposed development is in close proximity to a high volume road
(Route 53) travelled by tourists, staff =equired that the issue of
buffering be addressed prior to the Commission hearing. Staff is of
the opinion that the proposed development will not compromise the
503
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
unique historical character of the area. The applicant has submitted
cross-section sketches which illustrate the various methods to
protect the visual impact on Route 20 and Route 53 and surrounding
properties below the site. Staff offers the following comments and
observations in this regard:
1. The proposed retaining wall will be faced with cut stone.
The wall will extend above the ramp and guardrail so as to
preclude any sight of them from below.
Similar to a bowl, the parking area will be graded into the hill
to such a level that the higher surrounding grade should ob-
struct the view of the parked cars.
Additional trees will be planted, where feasible and necessary,
between Route 53 and the ramp where the wall or natural grade do
not fully buffer/screen.
The plan proposes closing the existing eastern entrance. This will
better serve the public interest by eliminating an entrance on a
curve with inadequate sight distance on a high volume, relatively
high speed road. There is adequate sight distance at the western
entrance. With this plan, the existing turn lane wi!l need to be
upgraded and the entrance widened.
The applicant will voluntarily dedicate additional right-of-way on
Route 53. The location of the proposed ramp and retaining wall
preclude dedication of the full 25 feet from centerline. They will
dedicate as much as possible, excluding any of these~iprivate improve-
ments. The ramp is so located to minimize its grade!land to preserve
a 30-inch caliper white oak tree. This tree, estimated at 150 years
of age, is visible from Route 53 and contributes to the character of
the area.
This plan will meet the requirements of the Zoning O~dinance, and
staff recommends approval subject to the following:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
A final site plan will not be signed until the following condi-
tions have been met:
County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations;
County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans
and calculations;
County Engineering approval of retaining wall design and
location of guard rail;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right of
way improvements, to include: 1) installation of guard
rail between the proposed retaining wall and Route 53;
2) closing eastern entrance; 3) modifying western entrance;
and, 4) upgrading the right turn lane;
e. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
Recordation of plat which: 1) combines parcels 26 and
and 2) dedicates 25 feet of right of way foc Route 53, with
a reduction as acceptable, at the proposed ~etaining wall;
Fire Officer approval;
Albemarle County Service Authority approval~
Planning Staff approval of landscape plan, ~o include
facing of proposed retaining wall.
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day'Me~ing)
(Page 21)
504
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the fol-
lowing condition has been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
3. Compliance with SP-76-28."
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 17,
1987, voted to deny the site plan by a vote of 4/1 based on an over-intensifi-
cation of use and that the number of parking spaces were over and beyond the
number of required spaces. Mr. Home stated that both of these situations are
evidence of inconsistency with SP-76-28.
Mr. Horne said the original Special Permit was issued in 1973 for the
initial development of Michie Tavern and it contained a series of conditions,
but the files do not contain a drawing of the scale of development that was
proposed at that time. A preliminary site plan was approved in 1976, but it
does not illustrate if there was an intent to limit the scale or intensity of
development with this phase. Mr. Home also mentioned that, at the Planning
Commission meeting, there was considerable discussion concerning the building
of the large retaining wall. He said that since the wall was so close to the
roadway and because of the intensity of the structural needs of this site
along this ramp, this was evidence that there was an attempt to overdevelop or
overintensify the site. He said that there was also discussion that the
majority of the ramp and the parking area would be built where there are
slopes in excess of 25 percent or greater. Mr. Home said while the Planning
Commission in the past has applied the critical slope criteria largely to
buildings, it felt that it was permissible to apply this criteria to a retain-
ing wall, ramp and parking area, in this instance.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that an old orchard road had cut into the hill-
side considerably. He asked how much of the grading will go beyond the
existing disturbed area. Mr. Home replied ~hathe is not sure. He suggested
that the engineer for the applicant address precisely where the grading will
take place. He added that a portion of the p~oposed parking lot would be in
an area with slopes not so steep. He said the critical slope criteria applies
where the area is being cut into the upper slopes.
Mr. Bowie asked if members of the Plannihg Commission had actually gone
and looked at the site. Mr. Home responded that he does not know. Mr. Bowie
stated that the Planning Commission's minutes~did not indicate that any member
of the Commission had visited the site.
There were no further questions from the!Board for Mr. Horne, so Mr. Way
opened the Public Hearing.
First to speak was Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, with the firm of Gloeckner and
Osborne. He said there are certain times of the year when there is great need
for overflow parking at the Michie Tavern. DUring the summer months, there
are occasions when people are parking on Rout~ 53 and the old Route 53 and
causing congestion. These people walk across Route 53 and this creates a
dangerous situation. He commented that the Highway Department has requested
for many years that the eastern entrance be closed, and this retaining wall
will essentially block that entrance. He mentioned, too, that at times large
vehicles go into the existing parking lot and'have a hard time turning around.
He said that the lower end of the ramp will make it much easier and allow more
room for the large vehicles to make the turn. He noted that adjacent proper-
ties across Route 53 were also studied for parking. He said that from cost
and safety aspects, these properties were notldesirable. He then stated that
the old Carter Mountain Orchard road runs through the middle of the property.
This plan would allow this road to be closed, and the road become a walkway
from the proposed parking lot down to the tavern area and the proposed craft
exhibits.
Mr. Gloeckner went on to say that the engineering for the retaining wall
is relatively simple because the wall is only!17 feet high at its highest
point. For structural purposes, it is only 14 feet high. He said that the
wall is being carried higher, because it will become the actual guard rail.
He described the wall as tapering from the 17 feet maximum down to two or
505
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
three feet high where it starts. The wall will be approximately three feet
high where it goes through the cut that is necessary to access the lot. He
said the wall going through this cut will hide the parking lot. He then
mentioned that the magnitude of the grades for the ramp are a little less than
they are at Beck's Hill on East High Street in the City, and most of them are
131/2 percent for the majority of the length of the ramp with a short stretch
of 15 percent. Mr. Gloeckner added that the access road is presently being
used by delivery vehicles, but the ramp and new lot will allow these vehicles
to go in another direction so as not TO interfere with pedestrian traffic. He
showed the Board a design sketch of the appearance of the wall from Route 53.
He believes that the appearance of the property will be enhanced. He also
added that the new wall will match the existing walls, and vegetation will be
used. He said that, as room is available, landscaping will be started immedi-
ately. He stated that Greg MacDonald, Manager of Michie Tavern, would give
the Board a background of this proposal.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Gloeckner to tell the Board members how the wall
will be constructed, as well as run-off information. Mr. Gloeckner replied
that the internal part of the wall will be steel reinforced concrete. At the
17 foot height, the wall thickness will be approximately a foot deep. The
outside of the wall will have stone masonry, and it will look like the exist-
ing walls. He pointed out that structurally the wall will be constructed
using modern materials, but it will have an eighteenth century face.
Mr. Perkins then asked how the wall will be tied into the area where the
road will be constructed. Mr. Gloeckner answered that the road will be tied
into the foot of the retaining wall. He said that the steel will turn into a
footing that goes underneath the roadway. He then stated,~ in regard to the
drainage, that piping has been shown into the area behind ~he existing old
mill area. He said the final design has not been studied. He mentioned that
retention will be required, and the drainage goes naturally down near the
mill, under Route 53 and follows a stream towards the old Quarry. He added
that, with this proposal, the drainage will be better that~it is now. In
respect to the undisturbed area that would be involved with the parking lot,
he said that it varies from approximately 25 to 30 feet at the west end to
zero at the east end. He said that the parking lot would be raised at one end
to restore the grade that was there before the Carter Mounkain Road was put
there. He said there will be a level spot at the top of t~e present cuts that
will go into a wall that is approximately five feet high a~d is stone faced.
He mentioned that none of this area will be seen from Route 53, and probably
will not be seen from the walkway next to the existing parking lot.
Next to speak was Mr. Greg MacDonald, who said that h~ is the General
Manager at the Tavern, and has been employed there for 11 ~ears and is very
familiar with the site and proposal. He pointed out that nothing has been
said about the restroom building that will be relocated st=ictly in the
exhibit building. He said it is a reconstructed privy that will be moved five
feet forward so it will not be too close to the proposed ra~p. He felt that,
at the Planning Commission meeting, there was a lot of misunderstanding about
the site, itself. He emphasized that he did not see anyon~ from the Commis-
sion at the site before the Commission meeting. He mentioned that it is a
very complicated project, and the Tavern staff feels that i~ fits the site
very well. He added that overflow parking is needed during:peak seasons and
noted that the Michie Tavern is the second largest attraction in the area, and
having approximately 150,000 visitors per year. He said that on-site and
off-site safety issues need to be improved. He also mentiohed that it is
hoped that the log cabins can be finished and can become a l'living history
village." He said that the village will interpret what it Was like at a
colonial tavern two hundred years ago. He then discussed the blacksmith shop,
and said it will be the hub of the village area and will ha~e a blacksmith
demonstrating his crafts. He said that shortly thereafter, it is hoped that
the other buildings can be completed with demonstrating kitchens, and it is
also hoped that slave life can be interpreted. He said that there will be
similar trades in the exhibit area, and it will all be part~.of the tour at
Michie Tavern. He pointed out that this is the only attraction in the
Charlottesville area that gives free tours to all CharlotteSville and
Albemarle County residents.
Mr. MacDonald stressed that an advantage of this proposal is that a very
dangerous entrance and exit will be closed. He brought out ithe fact again
that the Highway Department would like to see the entrance and exit closed, as
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
506
would Michie Tavern staff, if this plan is approved and the traffic can be
accommodated. He said the proposal will allow for plenty of safe parking on
the site, and the old orchard road wilt be closed to the public. He mentioned
that, at this time, people use this old orchard road as a walkway even though
there are trucks driving there. He added that this will also be am attractive
way for people to get from the proposed parking area to the tavern buildings.
He mentioned that building this ramp is not the cheapest way to acquire access
to the new parking area. He said that the idea of putting the access to the
new parking area where the existing roadway is now was considered, and a lot
of money could be saved, but it would not fit the character of the property.
He said it not aesthetically as pleasing and also creates hazards with vehi-
cles and pedestrian traffic. He remarked that a variety of problems were
inherited with the old orchard road, which was not addressed at the Planning
Commission meeting. He said that there are a lot of critical slopes behind
the tavern, and a lot of that was caused by a cut in the mountain from the old
orchard road. There are serious drainage and erosion problems which are being
addressed with the new proposal. He pointedout that a fairly level surface
behind the tavern will be used, instead of creating a large level area inside
of the mountain. He mentioned that the County ordinance does not require that
more parking be established for the Tavern to accomplish what it desires. The
Tavern staff realizes, however, because of the safety factor, that more
parking is needed, but it is not willing to dompromise the historical and
natural integrity of the area. He said he w~uld be glad to answer questions
from the Board.
There were no questions from the Board for Mr. Gloeckner, and since there
was not anyone else present who wished to speak on the matter, Mr. Way closed
the Public Hearing.
Mr. Bowie stated that several Board members have actually gone to the
site. He said he can understand why the Planning Commission members, when all
they did was look at the map showing this tremendous slope, might have felt
that it was not an appropriate place for parking facilities. He added that
the flat area is there, and the area now slopes towards Route 53. He men-
tioned that trucks are now going up the road~o this flat area wherethe
proposed parking area will be located. He seated, too, that the area is
already seriously eroding, and that some of ~he trees are dangerously undercut
at this time. He remarked that in the Planning Commission minutes it was
mentioned that the eastern entrance on Route 33 is no~ particularly dangerous.
He said he rides his motorcycle on this road,i~and no matter which way a driver
is going, the approach to that entrance is f~st. He pointed out, too, that
the people coming from the Michie Tavern parHing lot are not usually local
people. He believes this is a proper use of ~the land and that the proposal is
needed and will improve the whole area.
Mr. Way remarked that this is a tremendous project and a lot of effort
has been put into it. He said it seems to him that the proposal is feasible
and will not cause greater erosion, but will improve this situation. He
mentioned, too, that the parking lot will not be seen, so it will not make a
negative visual impact on the area. He also thinks, as Mr. Bowie does, that
the closing of that entrance is very important, because it is dangerous. He
thinks also that the closing of the orchard rpad and using it for pedestrians
only is helpful. He believes that the overall good of this project has been
indicated, and he intends to support it.
At this time, Mr. Dan Roosevelt confirmed what had already been said by
the applicant, and stated that the eastern entrance is one that the Department
of Transportation has been wanting to see modified for a long time. His
u~derstanding is that the original site plan ~equired some additional grading
in the turn lane and it was never done. He s%ated that, if the plan that is
a
being considered is way to get the entrance~closed, it would be a plus for
his Department. He mentioned that to his knowledge, the Department has not
seen anything on the actual design of the retaining wall or how the drainage
that will be coming to Route 53 will be handled. He said he is concerned
about both of these items, but the engineering problems can be resolved. He
added, for the Board's consideration, that heianticipates traffic delays on
Route 53 during the construction of the retaining wall. He does not think
that traffic can be detoured or flagged, othe~ than during regular working
hours.
507
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt if he had reviewed the recommended
conditions of approval outlined by the staff. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he
has looked at them briefly, and they seem to cover everything. He said,
however, that the VDoT would certainly want the opportunity to review the
design of the retaining wall.
At this point, Mr. Bowie called Mr. Roosevelt's attention to Condition
l(c) of the Staff's Recommended Conditions of Approval. He asked if this
condition should state that the VDoT approval is also needed. Mr. Roosevelt
answered that he would request that the Department be allowed to review the
retaining wall, and comment not only on the design, but how it will be con-
structed and the potential right-of-way problem. Mr. Roosevelt went on to say
that the conditions do indicate Department approval of right-of-way improve-
ments, but do not mention drainage, specifically. He pointed out that the
County Engineer's approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations is
addressed. According to the plans that he has seen, it appears there will be
some additional intensity flow because water will be flowing from paved areas.
He is concerned that this plan will dump the water into the ditch line, and he
doesn't think that is satisfactory. He said some condition will need to be
added that will assure the Department this drainage can be adequately handled.
Mr. Horne commented that he could work out the wording for an amended condi-
tion, if the Board so desired.
Mr. Roosevelt commented that he thinks the problems ~an be overcome, but
he wants to be sure that there is the ability to improve the design and
engineering of the retaining wall where it will affect the Department's
right-of-way. He said he also wanted to remind the Board~about the possible
drainage problems, and he wanted the Board to know that he does support
closing the eastern entrance to the Michie Tavern. ~
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he was willing to make a motion to approve the
Michie Tavern preliminary site plan with the staff's recommendations and with
the VDoT's concerns reflected, with the understanding tha~ the Department of
Transportation will be allowed to review and join with th9 Engineering Depart-
ment in the review and approval of the engineering design-lof the retaining
wall and in the review and approval of the drainage plans~insofar as they
affect the Department's territory. ~
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by ~r. Perkins to
approve this site plan with the conditions recommended by!the staff, as
amended, and as set out in full below. There was no further discussion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval read as follows:
A final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
County Engineering approval of gr.ading and drainage plans
and calculations;
County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
County Engineering and Virginia Department of Transportation
review and approval of retaining wall design and location of
guard rail;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
improvements, to include: 1) installation 'of guard rail
between the proposed retaining wall and Route 53; 2) closing
eastern entrance; 3) modifying western entrance; 4) upgrading
the right-turn lane; and 5) drainage within!Virginia Department
of Transportation right-of-way;
e. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
January 13, 1988 (Regular DayMeeting)
(Page 25)
508
Recordation of plat which 1) combines parcels 26 and 29;
2) dedicates 25 feet of right-of-way for Route 53, with a
reduction as acceptable, at the proposed retaining wall;
g. Fire Officer approval;
h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval;
Planning staff approval of landscape plan, to include facing of
proposed retaining wall.
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval.
3. Compliance with SP-76-28.
Agenda Item No. 10. Christ Community Church, Request to connect to
public water and sewer. The matter was brought to the Board by the following
letter from Mr. Bruce R. Wardell, dated January 5, 1988:
"We are presently developing plans for a church building for Christ
Community Church of Charlottesville o~ a piece of property adjacent
to the Roslyn Ridge sub-division (Tax Map 45, Parcel 21, Lot 1). We
would request that the church building be permitted to receive public
water and sewer from the Service Authority available directly across
the street. Enclosed is a preliminarysite plan currently submitted
to the Planning Committee for their review. We would appreciate your
prompt consideration of the matter in'.order to consider both this
request and the Special Use Permit already submitted to the Board."
(Mr. St. John left at 12:14 P.M.) Mri Horne gave the staff's report as
follows:
"This department has reviewed the request for amendment to the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Service Authority to provide water
and sewer service to a site proposed for construction of Christ
Community Church on the west side of Hydraulic Road near the proposed
Roslyn Ridge Subdivision. This department also has been reviewing a
preliminary site development plan and a special permit request for
the establishment of this church. A special permit is required for
the establishment of a church the RA,~Rural Areas, zoning district.
The property in question is zoned RA ~nd is outside of the Urban Area
on the Urban Area Land Use Map. The Comprehensive Plan on page 149
describes the western boundary of the Urban Area as being the South
Fork Rivanna Watershed. It so happens that the portion of the parcel
proposed for the establishment of thi~ church does, in fact, natural-
ly drain away from the reservoir. The staff strongly supports the
maintenance of Hydraulic Road as a practical boundary for the Urban
Area and the maintenance of the RA zoRing on all land west of Hydrau-
lic Road. There appears to be only o~e other small area of land in a
similar situation, which is located aft the corner of SPCA Road and
Rio Road. A very small portion of a hillside in that location drains
toward Rio Road where the drainage wo~ld be picked up by the road
drains along Rio and carried away from the reservoir. In all other
cases, Hydraulic and Rio Roads are th~ boundary of the watershed.
The staff continues to support the vezy strong Board policy estab-
lished in the past of severely limitihg the extension of sewer and
water facilities beyond the established growth areas. The purpose of
this is to strictly control urbanized growth outside the growth areas
and funnel that growth into the growth areas. Staff does, however,
feel that this particular property c?an be clearly distinguished from
virtually all other properties along this edge of the urban boundary
due to the fact that it does naturally lie outside the South Fork
Rivanna Watershed. Staff, therefore, does not oppose the extension
509
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
of water and sewer services and the amendment of the jurisdictional
area to include service to the portion of this property that natu-
rally drains away from the reservoir. The staff does support strong-
ly the maintenance of the RA zoning on this property and the require-
ment that uses of the property be consistent with that zoning dis-
trict. Staff would suggest the following two conditions of approval
should the Board choose to extend water and sewer services to this
property:
1. Water and sewer services should be provided only to that portion
of this property that naturally drains away from the reservoir.
2. The applicant must demonstrate that this church could be estab-
lished on the site with the use of on-site sewer and water
systems, given that the RA zoning district is intended to rely
on on-site utilities as opposed to the extension of urban
facilities."
Mr. Horne stated that this is not the Public Hearing, but is an addi-
tional review of the request by the Christ Community Church to amend the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Service Authority to provide water and sewer
service to a site proposed for the construction of Christ. Community Church.
He said that there is a map in the Board members' packetsithat shows the
jurisdictional areas, and he showed the Board a preliminary site plan that has
been submitted. He then described where the area is located, and went over
the staff's recommendations and conditions with the Board~
Mr. Bowie asked if this was a precedent type of situation. Mr. Horne
responded, "yes." He said the staff does not. want the utilities to cause
development outside of the urban areas. Mr. Horne said that the Board will
also receive a request for a Special Permit from the church.
Mr. Bain referred to another church and asked if if is zoned RA. Mr.
Horne answered, "yes." He said that the church is within'ithe jurisdictional
area. He said he is not sure when the church was built, but he assumes it was
there in 1982. He said the jurisdictional area can be extended in this
instance, because the area can naturally drain to a pipe Ghat was being
installed in the area.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he has no objection to set~ing this matter for
Public Hearing, but he would prefer to hear the request at the same time as
when the Special Permit request is heard. Motion was the~ offered by Mr.
Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to set this matter foripublic hearing to
coincide with the hearing on the Special Use Permit request. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Mr. Lindstrom left at 12:25 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Community Action Agency application to Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development for support of a transitional
housing facility, request for resolution of support. The following letter
from Mr. John E. Thomasson, Chairman, Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission, dated December 8, 1987, brought this matter before the Board:
"On behalf of the Planning District Commission, I would like to
notify you of our action regarding the application of~the Monticello
Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) to the~Virginia Department of
Housing and Community Development for $29,700 to suppgrt a transi-
tional housing facility serving Planning District 10.=
The Commission voted to support MACAA's application and directed me
to request that each governing body in the planning district adopt a
resolution of support for the concept of this project~ The local
resolutions would not be a commitment to support the ~roject finan-
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
510
cially, but would provide official recognition of its importance to
every jurisdiction. Enclosed is a sample resolution your board may
wish to use as a guide in composing its own.
We request that your board/council discuss this issue at your next
meeting and provide the PDC with a copy of your writte, resolution.
If you have any questions, please contact Mrs. O'Brien at 979-1720.
Thank you."
(Mr. Lindstrom returned at 12:29 P.M.)
Mr. Way mentioned the letter in the Board members' packets and he then
recognized Mr. Ken Ackerman, Executive Director, Monticello Area Community
Action Agency.
Mr. Ackerman told the Board that approximately a year ago a concept was
presented to the Board about this transitional housing program which was
intended to help people who are without housing at the present time, to move
into temporary facilities. These people would not only be housed, but they
would also be receiving developmental services while they are residents of
this facility. He said the residents would be taking part in training pro-
grams such as parenting skills and workshopsl Mr. Ackerman commented that
most of the families intended to be served a~e single, female households with
children. Counseling will be arranged involving budgeting, educational
activities, home management activities to get the residents to a point where
they can maintain independent living. He mentioned that the people who are
being considered for this program fall into several categories. A large
category is the one that involves people who .are now living in other temporary
shelters in the community. There are some cases of people who are without
housing and there are other people who are i~ housing now, but are being
evicted and, in some cases, the people are living in substandard conditions or
temporarily living with other families.
Mr. Ackerman said this request is before: the Board because the Community
Action Agency has a grant from the State for renovation of a house. He does
not believe that local approval of that grant~ is required, but this was a way
for the Agency to communicate with all of the jurisdictions in the region on
the status of this project. The Planning District Commission felt that since
this project was going to be a regional program, and participants would come
from all of the jurisdictions, all Boards should be familiar with the project
in order to support the concept. He stated that, at this time, MACAA is not
looking'for any additional funding, but he would be glad to go into details
about the funding, if the Board so desires. He remarked that funding is
already available for purchasing the facility and an application for financing
is pending with VHDA. He said that the renovation costs are through the
grant, and there are some private monies available. He mentioned, too, that
the Virginia Department of Social Services has a two year appropriation for
this purpose.
Mr. Bowie asked if the $29,700 listed iq! the sample resolution is avail-
able. Mr. Ackerman responded that this particular amount of money has been
approved by the State Department of Housing apd Community Development. Mr.
Bowie then asked the reason for the resolution. Mr. Ackerman replied that the
resolution is not really for the grant, but it is for the regional Planning
District Commission to ensure that all the BoArds have a knowledge of the
broader program beyond the renovation that this particular grant entails. He
said the resolution was used as a mechanism t° get the idea in front of the
governing bodies of the various jurisdictions~in PD 10. This resolution does
not deal only with the renovation of the house, but it deals with the entire
concept of the program, to show that the Board members of each jurisdiction
recognize the value of this project to the citizens who will be served.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned at 12:29 P.M.)
Mr. Way commented that at some point in ~he future, he expects there will
be some financial implications to this progra~, if it is successful. He noted
that this proposed resolution does not imply that the Board will financially
participate~ He thinks, however, that the resolution is putting the Board on
notice that this project is underway within the community, so that the Board
511
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
members will not be seeing it for the first time when it comes to them for
budgetary purposes. He said he will support the resolution because he be-
lieves there is a need in Albemarle County and the region~
Mr. Bowie stated that he had supported the resolution at the Planning
District Commission level, and he will support it for Albemarle County. He
said he has just been notified, as a member of the Policy. Board of the Plan-
ning District Commission, that Districts 9 and 10 scored highly in the Federal
and State review, because of excellent job training, job placement and the
ability to keep people on the job. He added that MACAA is the local contrac-
tor. He went on to say that approximately $92,000 was awarded because all of
the contractors operated so much above the requirements of programs such as
this one. He said that he tends to support these kinds of self-help and
self-motivating programs.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt
the following resolution:
WHEREAS the Monticello Area Community Action Agency has applied
to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for
$29,700 to support renovation costs for a transitional housing
facility to serve Planning District 10, and ~
WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors recognizes the ~problem of
homelessness as an urgent one that crosses all county and city
borders in the Planning District,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors fully supports the concept of this facility's creation
by the Monticello Area Community Action Agency.
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion which carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,i Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Way announced that the Board will have to be bac~ to the meeting for
another Public Hearing at 1:30 P.M. He suggested that the Board go to lunch
now and into the Executive Session. Mr. Bain asked if the Board should take
up, at this time, the Federal Revenue Sharing item which was skipped earlier
in the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Appropriation Federal Revenue
Sharing Fund Balance. The following memorandum was received from the County
Executive:
"The FY 86-87 audit reported a balance in the Federal~ Revenue Sharing
fund of $89,603.30. This is an accumulation over several years
during which time the Federal Revenue Sharing program was expected to
be discontinued, and was actually extended by Congress in reduced
amounts. As you know, this program has now been terminated. !-
For a number of years, Albemarle County has utilized these Federal
funds to pay for energy costs in the School Division.~ It was a use
that was appropriate under Federal regulations, and easily audited by
auditors. The public hearing on January 13, 1988, is~ifor the purpose
of appropriating these remaining funds ($89,603) to t~e School Fund
for energy expenses, and to reduce the General Fund appropriation for
this budget year by the same amount. This will leave the total
school budget unchanged, will complete the use of all'Federal Revenue
Sharing funds thereby eliminating that fund account, ~nd will
increase the General Fund balance for some future nee~."
Mr. Agnor commented that the Federal Revenue Sharing Appropriation Public
Hearing had been advertised for this meeting at 10:30 A.M.~ He went on to say
that it is a requirement of the Federal Revenue Sharing LaB to have a Public
Hearing, but he indicated that there has been no one at this meeting to
participate.
January 13, 1988 (RegUlar Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
512
There were no questions for Mr. Agnor, so Mr. Way opened the Public
Hearing on this matter. Since there was no one present who wished to speak,
Mr. Way closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to
approve the appropriation by adopting the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $89,603.30 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from the Revenue Sharing Fund and coded to 1-1100-91050-591001
entitled R/S Transfer to School Fund for School Utilities; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Because of time constraints, Mr. Agnor suggested that Item Nos. 12 and 13
be eliminated from today's agenda.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel and Acquisition of
Property.
At 12:37 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr.
Bowie to adjourn into executive session for personnel matters, the acquisition
of property and a legal matter re: waiver granted by the Board of Zoning
Appeals to Mr. Ray C. Beard at Cedar Hills Mobile Estates. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. i
(The Board reconvened into open session at 1:43 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 15. Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, request for
Industrial Development Authority Bonds.
Mr. David Richardson, of McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe in Richmond,
spoke to the Board. He explained that the matter before the Board relates to
a $25 million revenue bond issue through the Albemarle County Industrial
Development Authority for a residence and cate of the aging facility on
Pantops Mountain for Westminster-Canterbury 6f the Blue Ridge. He said that
the Industrial Authority held a Public Hearing on November 24, 1987, at which
time a resolution was adopted and the Authority also recommended that the
Board of Supervisors approve the issuance of bonds. Mr. Richardson noted that
the resolution has been changed somewhat, an~ he handed a new copy to the
Board members. ~
Mr. Richardson said the ordinance creating the Authority contains a
provision in it that requires that the Board~of Supervisors approve any
financing that the Authority undertakes. Also, the Federal and State laws
governing the issuance of these types of bonds, require that the Industrial
Authority have a Public Hearing and that within 60 days of that Public Hear-
ing, the Board of Supervisors adopt an approving resolution. He pointed out
that he is not asking for anything that relates to rezoning, building permits,
Planning Commission approvals or anything relating to real estate tax exemp-
tions. He said that these issues will be raised and addressed by the County
staff and the Board at the appropriate time. In order to make it extremely
clear that this resolution has nothing to do with these issues, Mr. Richardson
has modified the second paragraph of the resolution. He directed the Board's
attention to Page 2 of the resolution. He sgid that he also had added Para-
graph Three. He explained that the ordinanc~ that created the Authority needs
to be amended each time that a bond financing is done by the Authority,
because there is a provision in it that limits the number of financings that
the Authority can have outstanding. If the Board sees fit to approve this
513
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
resolution, then the ordinance will be amended at a later date. He mentioned
that Rick Richmond, President of Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge,
will explain the project to the Board.
Mr. Rick Richmond spoke next. He said that several years ago a group of
Charlottesville and Albemarle County residents were concerned about housing
· and health support of the elderly in the community, so they formed a group to
build a Westminster-Canterbury in Charlottesville. He pointed out that there
are five or six other Westminster-Canterbury facilities in Virginia, and they
are all very successful. The original one was built in Alexandria and is
called Goodwin House which has just been expanded into a new, second facility,
so now there are two very successful facilities in Alexandria. There are
other Westminster-Canterbury facilities in Winchester, Lynchburg, Richmond,
Virginia Beach, and the newest one is in Tappahannock. He noted that all of
the facilities have the joint support of the Episcopal and Presbyterian
Churches. He said that these facilities are not just for people of these two
denominations, they are completely non-discriminatory and will welcome anyone
who is eligible. But, since the facility is under the sponsorship of these
two religious groups, it subscribes to the requirements of these groups. One
requirement that is crucial to the successful operation of the facility is
that fellowship funds be established. These funds are established to assist
people who do not have the money to pay the entrance feeslto come into the
facility or for the monthly maintenance fees required. The Board of
Westminster-Canterbury is in the process of raising $1.5.million for the
fellowship fund and $1.2 million has already been raised. Mr. Richmond
emphasized that the Westminster-Canterbury facility is not for profit. The
Board is made up of a group of volunteers in the community who spend innumera-
ble hours to try to build this facility, and who hope that it will be open to
as broad a range of people as possible. Mr. Richmond said that it is hoped
that ground can be broken this summer, with an opening date of late 1989 or
early 1990. He mentioned that there is a priority list containing more than
150 names, and it is in the process of being converted into contracts with
individuals. He said that discussions with architects and contractors have
already started.
Mr. Richmond also remarked that the facility has a fUll-time staff
located in an office on State Farm Boulevard. He then asked for all of the
members of the Board of Westminster'Canterbury, who were at the meeting, to
stand. He next mentioned that the facility has a 14 member Board of Directors
which is approved by the two church groups. He said that the Board is equally
balanced by Episcopalians and Presbyterians, and the Board is made up com-
pletely with local people. He pointed out that costs for~this facility need
to be kept as low as possible to open the doors for as many people as possi-
ble, but he said that these facilities are not inexpensiv~ to build or to
maintain. Numerous financial projections have been calculated to determine
costs, but this type of financing is crucial to the success of these projects.
He pointed out that all of the other Westminster-Canterbury projects have been
financed with tax exempt funds, and this method has been Very successful for
them. He said that if this differential had to be paid, it would be passed to
the residents and possibly exclude those who could have, otherwise, come into
the facility. He emphasized that there is no profit moti~e in this venture
for anybody, but it is hoped that enough funds can be gen&rated to keep the
facility operational and keep it in a healthy financial c6ndition.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Richmond to elaborate upon the sergices provided by
Westminster-Canterbury.
Mr. Richmond replied that Westminster-Canterbury is ~articularly unique
in that it is a life' care facility. Once someone is a resident, at
Westminster-Canterbury, he or she may stay there forever.~ An entrance fee is
paid and a monthly maintenance fee is paid by the residents, and they are
guaranteed that they can stay there regardless of their h~alth conditions. He
mentioned that this project will include 120 units. The facility will start
with independent living units, detached cottages, a central cluster building
with apartments, and a health facility. Mr. Richmond said that a Certificate
of Need has already been acquired for 29 beds in the health facility. He
added that the concept of life at Westminster-Canterbury is very important,
and life care means care for life. He went on to say that the people who come
to Westminster-Canterbury are not excluded at a later date or asked to leave,
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
514
under any circumstances. He said this is a promise and a guarantee that is
made to everyone who becomes a resident there. He mentioned, too, that this
is a fundamental concept of all of the Westminster-Canterbury facilities.
There were no other people who wished to speak concerning this issue, so
Mr. Way asked for Board members' comments.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was willing to support the resolution that was
presented to the Board today with the understanding that it would not commit
the Board on the subject of land use decisions. He said that, as Mr. Rich-
mond has described it, he believes that this~is a good use of industrial
revenue bonds. He stated that he has not often agreed with these revenue bond
requests, because he did not feel they benefited the general public. He feels
comfortable with this situation, however, because it is a non-profit facility
and because of the nature of the project.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt
the following resolution which was received this date. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, the Industrial Developmen~ Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority") has considered the application of
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge ("Company") requesting the
issuance of the Authority's residential care facility revenue bonds
in an amount not to exceed $25,000,000 ("Bonds") to assist in the
financing of the Company's acquisition, .construction and equipping of
a facility for the care and residence of the aged, consisting of
approximately 121 residential units of cottages and apartments and a
59 bed health center ("Project") to be located on an approxi-
mately 24 acre tract of land located just north of Route 250 East off
North Pantops Road on Pantops Mountain, in the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, and has held a pqblic hearinglthereon November 24, 1987;
WHEREAS, Sections 2-50 and 2-51, Chapter 2, Article IX of the
Albemarle County Code ("Ordinance") require the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Board")~to approve the proposed
financing and location of any facility to be financed by the
Authority;
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended ("Code"), provides that the goverumental unit having juris-
diction over the issuer of the Bonds and over the area in which any
facility financed with the proceeds of the Bonds is located must
approve the issuance of the Bonds;
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bpnds on behalf of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia ("County"); the Project is to be located in
the County and the Board constitutes the highest elected governmental
unit of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve
the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a
certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have
been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the location of the Project and the
issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Compa-
ny, as required by Section 147(f) of the~Code, Section 15.1-1378.1 of
the Virginia Code and Sections 2-50 and 2-51 of the Ordinance.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds as provided
herein is solely for the purposes described herein and shall in no
515
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
event be interpreted to constitute an approval or endorsement of (a)
the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company, (b) any re-zoning
request, planning commission request, building permit application or
any other permit application or approval required to be obtained from
the County in connection with the Project, or (c) any request by the
Company for any real estate or other tax exemption relating to the
Project.
3. Notwithstanding the approval of the issuance of the Bonds
as provided herein, the Bonds shall not be issued by the Authority
until the Ordinance has been amended to permit such issuance.
4. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income
Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f)(1),. this resolution shall remain
in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption.
5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Agenda Item No. 16. Virginians for Clean Air - Request for Ordinance to
Restrict Smoking in Enclosed Public Places.
Ms. Cheryl Schnelle, Regional Director of the AmeriCan Lung Association
of Virginia, said she would present the model ordinance to the Board on behalf
of Dr. Thomas E. Leinbach, Virginians for Clean Air, who was not able to
attend today. She stated that Tyra Watts, Director of the Pulmonary Rehabili-
tation Department at the Martha Jefferson Hospital and President of the
American Lung Association for the Blue Ridge region, woul~make the oral
presentation. She mentioned that any legal questions would have to be re-
ferred to Dr. Leinbach. ~
Ms. Watts stated that the American Lung Association And Virginians for
Clean Air are made up of groups of citizens who are concerned about smoke in
public places. These people feel that an ordinance is necessary because
smoking has become a significant health hazard. She informed the Board that
there have been more than 50,000 studies documenting the dangers of cigarette
smoking. She went on to say that deaths in the United states in 1984 totaled
375,000 due to tobacco use, and this compares to 50,000 deaths due to acci-
dents from automobiles for that same year. She pointed o~t that secondhand
smoke contains many hazardous compounds such as tar, nicotine and carbon
monoxide. Two-thirds of the smoke from burning cigarettes goes directly into
the atmosphere. She said that this secondhand smoke contains two times
greater tar and nicotine and three times greater carbon monoxide than smoke
that is being inhaled by the smoker. She added that statistics show that the
average person spends approximately 90 percent of the time each day indoors
where ventilation is limited. She stated that the intent~of the ordinance
would be to establish non-smoking as the norm in public places. Three out of
four people in the United States today do not smoke. Sheiproposes that the
establishment of non-smoking areas in public places in Albemarle County be in
proportion to the non-smoking population, which would be ~5 percent nonsmoking
areas compared to 25 percent smoking areas. It is also the intent of the
ordinance to protect the health of the non-smokers while ~especting the needs
of smokers. She said the ordinance would additionally provide a uniform
non-smoking standard under which public businesses may compete on equal terms.
The Lung Association and the Clean Air group believe that Ithis non-smoking
ordinance is necessary to address a significant public health issue and that
it is also necessary in order to protect the health and w~ll-being of the
citizens of Albemarle County. Ms. Watts requested that t~e Board take an
active part in providing a healthy atmosphere and environ~nt for the County
citizens.
Ms. Shalloway, a private, retired citizen, spoke nex~ to the Board. She
commented that she has written various articles about the ~angers of smoking.
She said that smokers have a right, too. But, she thinks ~t is the right to
"commit suicide." She said that they have no right to pollute the fresh air
which everyone is forced to enhale. She gave the Board.copies of the articles
that she has written, and asked that the Board members study them. She then
read a message dealing with, "Thank you for not smoking."
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) ·
(Page 33)
516
Mr. Way commented that similar requests:have been made to the City
Council concerning this matter, and at the present time, he believes that
members of the City staff are studying the same model ordinance that was
presented to this Board.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if the County has any authority to adopt
any ordinance regulating smoking. Mr. St. John replied that the Board has the
power to regulate smoking on County property, and that has already been done
in the County Office building. He said, however, that he did not think the
Board has the power to enact an ordinance for the whole County until State
enabling legislation is approved.
Mr. Way then asked if Mr. St. John is saying that at this time the Board
does not have the authority to pass such an ordinance, even if it is the
Board's desire to do so. Mr. St. John answered that it is his opinion that
the Board does not have this authority.
Mrs. Cooke asked if this matter is being addressed at the State and
Federal levels and, if so, at what stage is it now. Mr. St. John replied that
he could not answer Mrs. Cooke's question. He said that he only knows what he
has read in the papers and he does not remember everything that he has read.
He added that he has not followed the State Legislature on this matter, and he
does not mean to imply that he has followed ~t. He is saying that the present
State Code does not contain any authority for a County to enact this kind of
ordinance, and he is not sure if there is amove to enact legislation that
would give the County this authority. Until~:that is done, he does not believe
the County has the authority to restrict smoking anywhere other than County
owned buildings. ~i
Mrs. Cooke then inquired if the City ha~ the authority to prevent smok-
ing. Mr. St. John responded that cities arelidifferent from the counties in
respect to Dillon's Rule because cities have,!charters and are much closer to
having "home rule power" than counties. He ~ent on to say that counties only
have the powers that are expressly delegated to them by the Legislature. Mrs.
Cooke asked, as an example, if a restaurant Would have the right to ban
smoking in their particular place of business. Mr. St. John replied, "abso-
lutely.'' He said that an owner can control his own property. He added that
this is totally different from the governmen~ telling the owner that he must
ban smoking on his property. Mrs. Cooke inquired if alt businesses have this
right, and Mr. St. John answered, "absolutely."
Mr. Way remarked that he knows that there is a policy concerning the
County Office Building, but he asked Mr. St.~'John if there is a policy dealing
with smoking at other buildings owned by the County. Mr. Agnor answered that
the schools have a policy regarding the controlling of smOking by students and
there are also limitations regarding where the staff and faculty are allowed
to smoke. He said that the policy that the 5oard adopted for the County
Building does not apply to the Courthouse buildings because the staff, in
contacting the judges, received the response ,that the judges were not in favor
of the policy being imposed. Mr. St. John commented that he believes that the
judges have this power and not the Board of Supervisors, with respect to court
buildings.
Mr. Agnor then mentioned that he has had discussions with the people from
the Lung Association about the County's limitations to enact these kinds of
ordinances. He said that a sample has been given to the City and also to the
County staff of an ordinance in Arlington County. He said, however, that
Arlington County has a County Manager form of government and has certain
powers that Albemarle and some of the other counties do not have. Mr. St.
John remarked that Arlington County has done ~some things, and is doing some
things now, that he does not think any county should do. He said he could not
advise the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to do the same things.
Mr. Way believes that there should be a 'uniform policy in all of the
buildings that the County owns, but he said that apparently the Board does not
have this power. Mr. St. John explained that the County is like any other
landowner when it comes to the buildings it owns.
Mr. Agnor stated, at this time, that the City of Charlottesvillehas
drafted a model ordinance that is scheduled for Public Hearing on February 1.
517
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
The County has received a copy of that ordinance. He made the Board aware
that this City ordinance will regulate smoking in the County and City jointly
owned buildings. He believes, too, that the City is intending to include the
3uvenile and Domestic Relations Court in this regulation. He does not know
what the 3udge's decision is on this matter, but Mr. Agnor believes, as Mr.
St. John does, that the judges have the authority to accept or reject this
sort of imposition.
Mrs. Cooke commented that she feels very frustrated about being unable to
do anything about the smoking situation, but. she thinks it probably would be
helpful if privately owned businesses were advised that they do have the right
to restrict smoking in their own establishments. She believes this would be a
start in the right direction to get some control over the atmosphere, based on
what an individual business owner wants to do. She went on to say that she
believes a non-smoking ordinance is important and crucial, and it would be
most desirable to her if a regulation of this nature could be enacted.
At this time, Ms. Schnelle pointed out that Fairfax County has adopted a
no smoking ordinance. She said she could not understand ~hy Albemarle would
not have the authority to do the same thing. Mr. St. John replied that he
could not answer Ms. Schnelle because he does not know on what authority
Fairfax County based its decision. He said he would findlout.
Mr. Way stated that he thinks it would be helpful fo~ the Board to have
this information. Ms. Schnelle said she could give the Board a copy of the
Fairfax Ordinance, but Mr. St. John said that a copy of it would not help. He
needs to know if the Fairfax Board had the authority to 19gitimately enact an
ordinance. ~
Mrs. Cooke asked if the reason that Fairfax County could enact such an
ordinance at this time, and Albemarle cannot, is because Of Albemarle's county
executive type of government. Mr. St. John replied, "no.~!
Mr.. Lindstrom said he would like to have some information on which
counties in the State have adopted no smoking ordinances.
Agenda Item No. 17.
Development Corporation.
lng Committee:
Old Scottsville School, purchase proposed by Jordan
Mr. Bowie gave the following re~ort from the Build-
"Attached hereto is a Contract of Sale between the Cdunty and the
Jordan Development Corporation. This contract is to ~transfer all of
the Old Scottsville School property to the Jordan Foundation that is
not currently used by the Parks Department. It is drafted so as not
to commit the Board of Supervisors in any way as to their future vote
on rezoning, use of tax exempt bonds or any other items requiring
official action by the Board of Supervisors.
For convenience and due to size of the plat, only a sketch of the
property showing the location of the building on the property is
attached. The 'hash-marked' portion of the building.~Will be retained
by the Parks Department. The sketch also shows the 6~ilding
encroachment on Uniroyal.
The purpose of the contract is to place the Scottsviile School in a
position to be funded with the assistance of the Moderate Rehabilita-
tion Grant for rent subsidy for elderly housing, if the grant is
extended by HUD. ~
The Building Committee recommends that:
(1) You approve the agreement at your December 16 meeting.
(2) You authorize the County Executive to execute an Al{AP
agreement with the Jordan Foundation."
Mr. Bowie gave a report from the Building Committee on the old
Scottsville School. He said that for four years the Building Committee has
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
518
been trying to come back to the Board with a recommendation on what to do
with the school. He commented that during this same period of time the
school has flooded three times which has caused quite a bit of deterioration.
Mr. Bowie stated that the HUD grant has also expired and has not been
renewed. The Building Committee has received a proposal for the purchase of
the school for conversion to Section 8 rehabilitation housing. He went over
the conditions of this conversion with the Board and said that it does not
obligate the Board to any particular future action. The conversion does,
however, show the Board's definite interest.in this project if the HUD grant
is extended. He said the Committee feels that nothing should be done to
jeopardize the extension of the HUD funds because there is a definite need
for rehabilitation housing. Secondly, the Committee feels that it would be
easier to switch from one project to another than to go to HUD and try to get
new money at a later date. Mr. Bowie said the Committee feels that it is in
the best interests of protecting all options and of getting the I{UD extension
is for the County to enter into the agreement with the Jordan Development
Corporation. He then asked Mr. Home if there has been any word concerning
the HUD grant.
Mr. Horne replied that there is no formal word from HUD, but he said
that funds should be treated as though they~are being extended until there is
a reply from HUD.
Mr. Bowie stated that the Committee feels the project should be contin-
ued. He said that he intended his presentation to be a motion to continue
the project.
Mr. Way inquired, if the Board agrees to this contract, if all of the
various contingencies have to be resolved at a different time.
Mr. Bowie answered that Mr. Way is correct, and he went on to say that
almost all of the contingencies require a public hearing. He directed the
Board's attention to Page Four, Paragraph Seven, of the agreement. He read
this section aloud and said that he feels i~ is implicit that the Board is
agreeing to no future action with this contract.
Mr. Way asked if the County's chances Would be better for the HUD
extension if the Board expresses an interest~ in this project. Mr. Bowie
responded that the Committee feels the chances for the HUD extension are
better if the Board endorses the agreement. He went on to say that the
Committee feels this agreement is an indication that this is in keeping with
the policy of continually using the funds as' if they were extended.
Mr. Perkins called attention to certain' sections of the agreement which
were on Page Three, Paragraph Four, concerning asbestos certification and on
Page Five, Paragraph 10, relating to the condition of the premises. He said
it seems to him that the Board is committingitself to a large sum of money
to make the building asbestos free.
Mr. Nicholas Munger stated that the obligation to go forward would be
contingent upon the determination that the b6ilding is free from asbestos if
an inspection is made. He said that in preparing this document, it was his
principal intention to create an enabling instrument to permit the Jordan
Development Corporation to go forward with the application for the Section 8
Moderate Rehabilitation funding. He mentioned that this is the very begin-
ning of a long process in which there aremany requirements that have to be
met, but the Jordan Development Corporation would not be able to initiate
that application process until there is an agreement of this sort. He said
that this is a starting point to allow the Corporation to begin to see if
this project is feasible. He went on to say,that the Jordan Development
Corporation cannot begin the process withoutlsome documentation by the Board.
Mr. Perkins then wanted to know who will pay for the cost of the asbes-
tos removal. Mr. Munger responded that the dost of the asbestos inspection
and/or removal would be the seller's responsibility.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that if there is an excessive cost in relation
to removing asbestos, then perhaps the County could have the option of
terminating the contract. Mr. Munger said the Jordan Corporation would be
amenable to a provision such as the one that !Mr. Lindstrom suggested. He
519
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
suggested, too, that this cost could be built into part of Jordan's applica-
tion for funding. Mr. St. John explained that the way the agreement is now
written, the County is not obligated to pay anything concerning asbestos
removal.
Mr. Lindstrom read from the agreement that the "seller shall provide
Buyer with a certification that the buildings are entirely free of asbestos."
He said that the only way that this condition can be met is to have the
asbestos removed, if there is any at the building. Mr. St. John stated that
there is no obligation to meet this condition. The agreement states that if
any of the conditions are not met, then the buyer will have the opportunity
to cancel the agreement. If any amount of money is stated in the agreement,
the County's obligation will be increased. Mr. Lindstrom did not think that
Paragraph Seven of the agreement addresses Paragraph Four at all.
At this point, Mr. Bowie suggested adding a sentence to Paragraph Four
of the agreement which would state that: "Should asbestos be found, the
County is not obligated to remove it." Mr. Lindstrom agreed that this
statement should be added.
Mr. Way commented that the building had been inspected at an earlier
time, and he believes the asbestos had been removed. Mr. Munger stated that
the Jordan Corporation is amenable to the language suggested by Mr. Bowie for
Paragraph Four. ~
Mr. Way stated that there were a number of people present who wanted to
speak about this project. He reminded the Board that before this project is
approved, there will be at least two Public Hearings on zoning and industrial
bond issues. He then recognized Mr. Jesse Grove, Attorney for the Town of
Scottsville, who wanted to speak to the Board.
Mr. Grove stated that the Town Council of Scottsvilte is not in favor of
the County signing this contract or participating in anything that would turn
the development of the school into residential property. He then read from
Paragraph Six of the memorandum to the Board from the Town Council relating
to the HUD grant. He said it would be nice for the Development Company to
get HUD funds, and it would be nice for them to develop places for the
elderly. He said that Scottsville is not opposed to tha~. However, the
people in Scottsville think that this is the wrong place'~because it is in the
flood zone, and it is adjacent to some fine, old homes, iBecause of the fact
that it is in the flood zone, and because of some of the various other
contingencies, it seems to him that a home for the elderly could not be
accomplished on this site. Therefore, he said that the signing of this
contract is nothing but a sham. He then showed some pictures to the Board
members which showed the location of the old school. He said the school is
in the boundaries of the levee that is currently under construction and is on
the edge of the holding ponds that will collect the watem from the watershed.
This water will be pumped out of the holding ponds after !it reaches certain
levels. He mentioned the fact that after the levee has been completed, it
will be turned over to the Town of Scottsville to maintain and operate. He
said that there could be no guarantee that there will not be any further
flood damage within the confines of the levee. Mr. Grove~next read the
letter to the Board of Supervisors from the Town of Scottsville and discussed
each paragraph. He said that the letter is signed by the'iMayor and five
members of the Town Council. He said the sixth member of the Council is out
of town, but he favors the letter, also. He then read letters written to Mr.
Fisher in 1986 from Professor of Architecture K. Edward Lay, at the School of
Architecture, University of Virginia, and Mr. Jeff O'Dell~ Architectural
Historian in the Division of Historic Landmarks, State Department of Conser-
vation and Historic Resources, who were not in favor of a~!ihousing project at
the school, because of historic reasons. He next asked his wife to read a
letter from Mayor Thacker. i
Mrs. Jacqueline Grove, member of the Scottsville Town Council, read
Mayor Thacker's letter in which.he requested the Board nog to approve the
agreement. She said that the Town Council concurs with everything that is
written in the letter.
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
520
"To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
From: Town of Scottsville
Subject: Old Scottsville School
The Town of Scottsville, by its mayor and council, opposes the sale of
the Old Scottsville School to the Jordan Development Corporation for
conversion into apartments for the elderly. This would not be in the
best interest of the residents of the town or county, nor in the best
interest of the residents of the proposed apartments.
Town officials have considered and ask the Board to consider the
following;
1) The Old Scottsville School is in the flood plain of the James
River and has been flooded with increasing frequency in the past
several years. There can be no absolute guarantee that the as yet
incomplete levee will prevent all future flooding. Natural, mechani-
cal, and human factors are involved. Flood levels may rise; gates,
valves, and pumps must be operated at the proper time; and, must be
free of mechanical failures. Accordingly, town officials do not
recommend any new residential housing in the flood plain.
2) The Old Scottsville School property borders the Scottsville
corporate limits. This property would have to be rezoned for resi-
dential use. The Town of Scottsville opposes rezoning this property
for any residential use, and feels thatlthe County should be guided by
the Town's position on this matter.
3) Town officials have considered a paper entitled 'Opposition to
Rezoning' signed by residential property, owners in the Town of
Scottsville or immediate vicinity. The reasons given in this paper
opposing rezoning of the Old School property are valid and endorsed by
Town officials. Rezoning to R-10 of this property would be incompati-
ble with the Town zoning of adjacent properties within the corporate
limits of the Town of Scottsville, and not in keeping with the adja-
cent residential neighborhood.
4) Town officials are aware that some town merchants might be in
favor of the proposed apartments. HoweVgr, none of these merchants
live in the town, or in the vicinity of ~he Old Scottsville School.
Accordingly, the position of the town regidents in the effected area
must be given the most weight, and recognized zoning practices must be
considered.
5) The proposed contract submitted by ti~e Jordan Corporation contains
numerous contingencies which would have to be satisfied before the
sale is finalized. A number of these contingencies appear impossible
to satisfy within any foreseeable date. ~To tie up the Old Scottsville
School with a contract could prevent other disposal of the property
which might be more favorable to the Tow~. This can not be condoned.
6) It would seem that the purpose of the Jordan Development Corpora-
tion's proposed contract is to obtain th9 cooperation of the county in
obtaining HUD grant funds for a purpose ~hich can not be realized.
The county should not be a party to suchi!a sham.
Respectfully Submitted,
(Signed)
A. Raymon Thacker, Mayor
Members of Council:
Ray W. Caldwell
Robert J. Walls
Jacqueline B. Grove
Richards D. Maxwell, III
Hunter C. Woody"
521
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
The Board also received the following letter from Mr. A Raymon Thacker,
Mayor of Scottsville, dated January 13, 1988:
"I am truly sorry that I am unable to attend today's session of the
Board because I am deeply disturbed over the Jordan Foundation
application on the Scottsville School.
I have served for the past twenty-two years as Mayor of Scottsville
and through those years we have had six disastrous floods and two
terrible fires. Through all of those problems and years we have
received practically no help from the County of Albemarle. The
Mother of and original County Seat has for all purposes been left to
fend for itself.
I have spent days on end and traveled thousands of miles seeking help
to revitalize and rehabilitate a devastated town from becoming a
ghost town. Through proper contact we have had the help of Senators,
Congressmen, Governors, the Secretary of the Army, the Corp of
Engineers, and H.U.D. to assist us in keeping Scottsville alive and
now we begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Scottsville is a colonial town with thirty-two pieces of federal
architecture within the corporate limits, possibly the third largest
concentration of this type architecture in ¥irginia.~ We are proud of
our heritage and this is one of the things that we h~ve used as
leverage in securing help. We were able to get the ~irginia Historic
Foundation to designate Scottsville a Historic Area ~nd we have been
placed on the National Trust. This makes the historic properties
eligible for 50 percent matching funds for restoratiqn.
A large part of the historic area is within a block ~o two blocks
from the Scottsville School. A low-income housing p~oject this close
to these historic properties would be a disaster. I~ would com-
pletely upset future plans we have for developing an~ preserving this
historic section.
We are not opposed to low-income housing, but we emphatically say
this is not the correct location for it.
We sincerely hope the Board will use good judgment a~d turn this
application down."
Mr. Munger stated that there were a number of members of the Jordan
Development Corporation Board present who are prepared to =~peak regarding this
matter. He believes the Board of Supervisors isknowledge!able regarding the
activities and development of the Jordan Development Corporation. He men-
tioned that the Corporation has been involved with The Meadows in Crozet. He
said he wanted to respond to Mr. Grove's comment that the proposed contract is
a sham. He said that the Corporation is prepared, in a response to a request
from the County, to go through a long and arduous undertaking with HUD to try
to meet the various requirements. He does not want anyone~to think that his
Corporation is involved in a sham proposition. He said that there may be
hurdles that cannot be overcome, but this cannot be determ%ned yet. He asked
the former and present members of the Jordan Board to stand, and he said that
he and the members of the Jordan Board wanted the Supervisors to know that
they have every intention of proceeding with this project.'~
Mr. Grove then asked that the Scottsville people stan~ for the Supervi-
sors to see. He said that all of the people standing are ~roperty owners in
Scottsville or the immediate vicinity who support the Townts position.
Mr. Way stated that, in a sense, he agrees with Mr. G~ove's statement
that the chances for this project ever succeeding are very!slim, but he is
going to vote in favor of the agreement. He does not thin~ that the zoning or
flooding aspects are involved at this point, and believes ~hat these issues
will be addressed when the time comes. Mr. Way went on to!say that the
agreement is simply saying that the County is interested in providing housing
for all citizens of Albemarle County which is desperately needed. He said
that it does not mean that the housing will take place in this particular
spot, because the HUD funding can also be used for other projects, if it is
extended. He believes that one of the most serious problems in the County is
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
522
flooding, and he sees many positive possibilities if this project can be
developed. But, the project is in the flood.plain, and he does not think that
this issue will be resolved. He said that he would support the idea that the
Jordan Corporation at least be allowed to file an application and then spe-
cific zoning details can be handled later.
Mr. Bowie commented that, as Chairman of the Building Committee, he has
worked with the County Attorney and the County Executive. He said that none
of them would have recommended anything that was a shem. He said the Jordan
Corporation has made an honest, straightforward effort to try to develop a
plan. He added that the Corporation has been working on a plan for four
years. There are so many obstacles, and this is the only legitimate offer
that the Committee has received to provide housing. He then made a motion
that the report of the Building Committee be accepted and that the agreement,
as modified in Paragraph Four, be approved.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Mr. Way noted that he believes that Mr. Grove's remarks relating to the
shem had to do with the fact that he thought the project had very little
chance of succeeding. He said the remark was not being made against the
Jordan Development Corporation. He also noted that the contract had an ending
date of April 30, 1988. He said that he strongly recommends if HUD does not
respond, that the money in the Capital Improvement Program be used to have the
building removed.
Mr. Bowie commented that he was glad that Mr. Way had pointed out that
the time is limited on this contract. Me said that the problem needs to be
resolved or taken off of the books. He commented, also, that there have been
no suggestions from anyone concerning what toldo with the property. He said
this is the only offer that the Building Committee has received.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to accept
the report, modify the agreement in Paragraph'4 and authorize the Chairman to
sign the agreement.
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 13th day of January, 1988, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter called "Sell-
er", and the JORDAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Virginia nonstock
corporation, herein called "Buyer".
W I TNES S E~H :
together with with that portion of the 3~
within TM 130A(2), Parcel 76 adequate foz
sufficient to meet all parking requiremer
hereinafter referred to as "the property'
THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of th~ sum of $1.00, and other
good and valuable consideration, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants and promises contained {n this agreement, the
Sellers agree to sell and the Buyer agrees to buy the following
described real property, together with the improvements thereon and
the appurtenances thereto belonging, situated in the Scottsville
Magisterial District of Albemarle County~ Virginia, being a portion
of the property known as the "Old Scottsgille School", designated on
Albemarle Tax Map 130A(2) as Parcel 76, ~nd more specifically that
portion of said property which is not currently being utilized by the
Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department; the property which
is the subject of this agreement ~s comprised of three (3) levels of
that section of the "Old Scottsville SchQol" building constructed in
1920, along with the entire north wing addition to the school,
containing, in the aggregate, approximately 31,900 gross square feet,
38 acres of land contained
ingress and egress and
ts, all of the foregoing
(see attached plat).
A. RECITALS:
1.
The
property shall be conveyed ~y the Seller to the Buyer
for development by the Buyer of approximately 34 units of low-income
rent-subsidized housing for the elderly.~ Contemporaneously with the
execution of this agreement, the parties shall execute a standard
Moderate Rehabilitation Agreement to Enter into Housing Assistance
Payment Contract (AHAP).
523
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
2. The Buyer is a non-stock, non-profit corporation recognized
by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt charitable organiza-
tion pursuant to the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code.
3. The property is currently designated Village Residential
(VR) by the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect as of the
date of the execution of this agreement.
4. The property is situated in a flood plain, and the parties
acknowledge that a flood control project is now under construction in
and around the Town of Scottsville.
5. The parties acknowledge that a portion of the building which
is the subject of this agreement is situated over the boundary of TM
130(A)(2), Parcel 76, and encroaches on real property owned by the
UniRoyal Corporation.
B. TERMS and CONTINGENCIES:
This agreement is made and entered into expressly subject to the
following terms, conditions, and contingencies: ~
1. Purchase Price: Seller shall transfer title to Buyer at
minimal cost, but in any event not to exceed the sum required to be
paid to obtain fee simple title to that real property owned by the
UniRoyal Corporation on which the subject property encroaches.
2. Flooding: This agreement is subject to receipt by the Buyer
of an assurance or guarantee that the property is safe from future
flood damage. Such guarantee is to be provided by [he Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
3. Tax Exempt Bonds: This agreement is subject to the approval
by Albemarle County of an inducement resolution for ~he issuance of
tax-exempt bonds to fund the rehabilitation and renovation of the
property, in order to reduce the debt-service liability of the Buyer
to that level which can be supported by Section 8 M6~erate Rehabili-
tation rent subsidies.
4. Asbestos Certification: Prior to the transfer of title,
Seller shall provide buyer with a certification tha~ the buildings
are entirely free of asbestos, such certification to be made by an
asbestos removal company which has been approved ann'certified by the
Commonwealth of Virginia for such inspections and certifications.
Should asbestos be found, the County is not obligated to remove it.
5. Zoning: This agreement is subject to and contingent upon
the approval by Albemarle County of any and all rezOnings, special
use permits, and site plans required to allow the property to be
converted to approximately 34 units of low-income rent subsidized
housing for the elderly.
6. AHAP: This agreement is contingent upon th~ approval and
qualification of this project for Section 8 ModerateiRehabilitation
rent subsidizes, and specifically upon (a) the execution by the
parties of an Moderate Rehabilitation Agreement to ESter into Housing
Assistance Payment Contract (AHAP), and (b) to approyal by the United
State Department of Housing and Urban Development ( ~H~. ) of HAP rent
subsidies and (c) the approval by HUD of funding with Moderate
Rehabilitation funds. ~
7. Reservation of Voting Discretion by County ~fficials: The
parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the exeeution oS this
agreement by the County of Albemarle as Seller does in no way commit,
bind or obligate the County of Albemarle, its Planning and/or Zoning
officials, or its Board of Supervisors to approve orisupport any
specific applications for rezoning, issuance of tax-exempt bonds, or
any other matter presented to the County for decision. The Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County does hereby expressly reserve its
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
524
voting discretion regarding all planning, zoning and funding deci-
sions concerning the project contemplated by this agreement.
8. Conveyance: Seller agrees to convey the property to Buyer
by Special Warranty deed with the usual covenants of title, free and
clear of all encumbrances, tenancies, liens and real estate taxes,
including marketable title to that portion of the building which
currently encroaches on real property owned by the UniRoyal Corpora-
tion, but subject to utility easements and restrictions which do not
adversely affect the use of the property or marketability of title.
9. Reciprocal Easements/Joint Access: This agreement contem-
plates that the Seller shall continue to own and occupy that portion
of Tax Map 130A(2), Parcel 76 currently being utilized by the
Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department, and the parties
hereby agree that they shall execute all reciprocal and mutual
easements, reservations, covenants and agreements necessary to
establish and effectuate their respective ownership and use of the
different portions of Tax Map 130A(2), parcel 76.
10. Condition of Premises: Seller makes no warranties regard-
ing the condition of the premises and B~yer agrees to accept the
premises "as is", except that Seller warrants water, sewer, electric
and telephone utility services and ingress and egress to a state
highway are all currently available andiwill be available to service
the property at closing. ~
11. Closing: Ail the contingencies set forth herein must be
satisfied on or before April 30, 1988, ~nd closing shall occur within
fifteen (15) days after the satisfaction of all of the conditions and
contingencies contained in this agreement.
12. Inspections and Access to Premises: Seller agrees that
Buyer and its agents, employees and contractors shall be allowed
reasonable access to the property after,the execution of this agree-
ment for the purpose of conducting inspections and making plans for
the rehabilitation of the property conte~nplated herein, including but
not limited to inspections by lenders, HUD officials, architects,
engineers, building contractors and anyiother persons authorized by
the Buyer to go onto the premises for aqy purpose reasonably related
to the objectives of this agreement.
13. Costs and Expenses: Buyer sh~ll be responsible for all
costs involved with the rezoning and sit~ plan review; preliminary
architectural and engineering studies, p~lans and drawings; title
examination; recording costs and Buyer's attorney's fees. Seller
shall be responsible for preparation of ~he deed conveying title of
the property to Buyer, and for preparation and recordation of instru-
ments required to (a) obtain clear title to that portion of the
property now owned by UniRoyal Corporation, and (b) establish the new
boundaries within Tax Map 130A(2), Parcel 76 between those portions
of said property to be conveyed to Buyer and retained by Seller.
14. Modification: This Agreement ~onstitutes the entire
agreement among the parties and shall no~ be modified or changed
except by written instrument executed byiall the parties hereto.
15. Construction: This Agreement ~hall be construed, inter-
preted and applied in accordance with the laws of the State of
Virginia.
t6. Binding Effect: This AgreemenT shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the successors a~d assigns of the parties.
There was no further discussion. Roll w~s called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
525
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
At this point, Mr. Agnor advised Mr. Way that there were several items on
the agenda that did not require action at today's meeting. He suggested that
Agenda Items 12, 13 and 18 be deferred. Mr. Way agreed.
Agenda Item No. 19. Appropriation: Stone Robinson School Project. The
following memorandum was received from the County Executive, dated January 8,
1988:
"Attached are the appropriations to the Capital Fund approved at your
October 8 and December 9 meetings. There will be aneed in the
Spring to appropriate up to $210,177 from the General Fund for the
paving, grading and road work at Stone Robinson SchOol once these
items are rebid.
It should also be noted that the transfer of the $637,575 from the
General Fund to the CIP Fund is in lieu of the temporary borrowing
anticipated when the 1987-88 CIP budget was adopted last year.
You are requested to take official action on the Director of Fi-
nance's proposed transactions."
The following memorandum was received from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, dated
January 7, 1988: ~
"The attached appropriation details the action necessary to accom-
plish the transfer of funds to the Capital Improvement Fund and the
additional funding for Stone Robinson School.
Action requested is as follows: :
1. Appropriate $1,897,255 in the General Fund to be transferred to
the Capital Improvement Fund. This amount is b~sed on the
report submitted to the Board by Mr. Rick Bowie!concerning the
1986-87 surplus.
2. Appropriate $637,575 in the General Fund to be ~ransferred to
the Capital Improvement Fund. This is the additional amount
used in balancing the 1987-88 Capital Improvement Budget.
3. Appropriate $214,267 in the School Fund to be t~ansferred to the
Capital Improvement Fund. ~
4. Appropriate $214,267 in the Capital ImprovementiFund for the
Stone Robinson School Project. ~
The above action will result in unallocated fund balances as follows:
General $8~180,000
School 134,000
Capital Improvement 3~378,000"
Mr. Agnor explained that official action is needed b~ the Board to make
appropriations to the Capital Fund that were approved at the Board's October
and December 9 meetings. These approvals will make possible an expanded
funding for the Stone-Robinson project and an Audit Committee recommendation
that funds be placed into escrow for capital needs. He said that this action
also will eliminate the need to borrow any money. ~
Mr. Agnor commented that there is going to be a need-~for another appro-
priation for the Stone-Robinson project in the spring when bids are taken for
the paving project. ~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Dindstrom to accept
the County Executive's recommendation by adopting the follbwing resolution:
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
526
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $4,860,619.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from the Capital Improvement Fund for the Stone Robinson School
Project Expenditures as follows:
1-1000-930105-91004
1-1000-930105-91004
1-2000-930105-91004
1-9000-999999-99998
1-9000-606329-99999
1-9000~999999-99998
Transfer to Capital Improvement
Transfer to Capital Improvement
Transfer to Capital Improvement
CIP-Undesignated Fund Balance
Stone Robinson contingency
CIP-Undesignated Fund Balance
$1,897,255.00
637,575.00
214,267.00
2,111,522.00
214,267.00
(214,267.00)
Revenues as follows:
2-1000-510005-10100
2-1000-510005-10100
2-2000-510005-10100
2-9000-510005-12004
2-9000-510005-12001
App. from Fund Balance-General
App. from Fund Balance-General
App. from Fund Balance-School
Transfer from General Fund
Transfer from School Fund
$1,897,255.00
637,575.00
214,267.00
1,897,255.00
214,267.00
AND, FURTHER, this appropriation ia effective this date.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. 3:00 P.M.
Meeting with Planning Commission.
Recess and move into Rooms 5/6 for Joint
(At 3:03 P.M., the Board recessed and moved into Room 5 for a Joint
Meeting with the Planning Commission.)
Agenda Item No. 21. Summary Report - Comprehensive Plan Revisions.
Present at this time were Planning Commission members Mr. David Bowerman,
Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, and Messrs. Richard Gould, Thomas Jenkins, Tim
Michel, Peter Stark and Harry Wilkerson.
Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Way called the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors to order. Mr. Way stated that the Supervisors have already
received the Summary Report which deals with the proposed revisions to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Horne made a brief report to update the Board on how far the Commis-
sion has gotten in the process and generally What is contained in the report.
He said that basically the report is an attempt to describe the actions by the
two subcommittees of the Planning Commission. One of the subcommittees dealt
with land use and one dealt with public facil:ity issues. The policy decisions
and recommendations that the subcommittees ma~e to the full commission were
consolidated and put into a concise document. He then went over the Table of
Contents and discussed each section briefly. ,He said that he and his staff
are present to answer questions, but he hopedlthat the major discussion will
be between the Supervisors and the Commmsslonlmembers.
Mr. Lindstrom said he knows most of the Planning CommisSion members have
spent an incredible amount of time on this matter. He commented that in the
past consultants have been paid a lot of mone~ to do the same thing. He has
read the report, and is impressed with the tide and effort that has gone into
it. If the plan is adopted, he believes that~it represents a substantial
improvement over what has been done in the paAt. He thinks, also, that the
input into the report is so much better than hiring people from outside of the
County. He appreciates all of the work that ~ent into the report. Mr. Way
concurred with Mr. Lindstrom, ~
Mr. Bowerman stated that this process was started approximately one year
and a half. ago. The first major policy decis$on that came up was the rural,
urban, community, village, split in populatioh growth. He thinks that the
527
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
decision that was made on that subject set the tone for this review of the
document. The Commission felt that while there was a laudable policy already
in the Plan, it was not being implemented in current development activities.
In his opinion, none of the goals and objectives have been changed in the
plan; instead, the subcommittees have elaborated on some of the definitions
and objectives. The staff has also tried to implement strategies to help
achieve the goals and objectives that are in the current plan and still remain
in the proposed revision. He said that most of the specific changes deal with
strategies.
Mrs. Diehl commented that adding the strategies has changed the whole
approach of the plan, and it has become much more dynamic~ She said that now
the document can be used for a much longer time.
Mr. Gould stated that the dynamic approach to the plan can be attributed
to John Horne. He said that the Commission decided from the beginning that it
wanted a dynamic Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Way said that he has read through the Summary Report, and he called
attention to Page 35. He asked if someone could give him the rationale behind
the idea of reducing the existing number of "by right" divisions and increas-
ing in the minimum lot size from 21 acres to 40 acres. Mr. Bowerman explained
that there were approximately 258 lots-a year created "by right" in the rural
areas. He said there have been between five and seven hundred houses started
a year during the past seven or eight years, which means that half of the lots
that had building activity on them came from "by right'' d~velopment in the
rural areas which was also absorbing half of the population growth. This
growth rate was three times what the plan recommended, so consideration was
given to things that would encourage housing development in the urban areas
and in the communities and villages. To that end, the Co~nission recommended
that the Village of North Garden be expanded, additional land be added to the
urban areas and the Crozet and Hollymead communities be c6nsidered for more
development as well as changing Scottsville from a village to a community.
Mr. Bowerman went on to say that in the rural areas,~the Commission
attempted to limit the number of "by right" divisions. Cdmmission members
felt that a Special Permit for residential subdivisions in the rural areas was
basically adequate to limit new lots. Secondly, it was felt that there should
be a second Special Permit criteria when there is not an ~ncrease in lots but
there is a configuration of lots that could be obtained "~y right" but could
not be gotten with the "by right" provisions in the ordinance. The Committee
wanted to distinguish the Special Permit criteria by new ors versus y
right" lots. He believes that this will give more flexibility in terms of
getting better land use in the rural areas. The Commissi~ felt that the five
"by right" two acre lots should be continued on each parcel of land currently
in existence, He said that information was provided, howelver, that a signifi-
cant number of the "by right" lots that were being created in the rural areas
were 21 acres or greater. The Commission felt that this was an area that, by
increasing the size of the lots, the number of "by right"~divisions could be
limited without taking away from smaller landowners the r~ght to subdivide
their property. He mentioned that in a parcel of land 32!acres or greater,
there are 2,500 parcels of that size in the rural areas. ~e said that the
provision of 21 to 40 acres affects 2,503 parcels which represent 14 percent
of the total 17,000 parcels in the rural areas. It represents approximately
nine percent of all of the parcels in the County. Mr. B~werman added that,
at the same time, the Commission recognized that it might ~e more advantageous
to allow clustering. He then gave an example of someone With a 40 acre lot
with division rights. He said that the 40 acres could be ~reserved as farm
land, but the division rights could be acquired. He said ~hat this would
continue to allow a division "by right" in the rural areas~ as well as to
concentrate the housing units and preserve the agricultura~ land. At the same
time that this would be allowed, that land would be protected by either deed
or some provision against future subdivision. He stated that basically the
number of "by right" divisions were being limited, becausei the Commission felt
that there were too many.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that one of the things that h~s been discussed in
the press in connection with the allocation of development!between urban and
rural areas was the argument that there is a shortage of developable residen-
tial lots and the opportunity for that must be allowed in the rural areas. He
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
528
said that a staff report was given to the Board approximately a year ago which
included some of these statistics. He mentioned that the Board now has two
new members, and he asked if this report is still available. He next asked
what the supply of residential building lots would be under the "by right"
divisions that are allowed under the existing ordinance in the rural areas.
Mr. Horne replied that a staff member is looking for this information, and he
believes that Mr. Lindstrom is referring to the original report. He said that
this original report was the beginning point from which the subcommittees
started their work, but the current report reflects the result of current
policies. He stated that reports were done to try to estimate the total
number of developable lots in the rural areaS.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that this has been.part of a significant public
issue, and the other part of the issue relates to the growth areas. He said
the Commission's proposal, however, is for expansion of not only some of the
villages, but the urban area, particularly in the northeast section. He asked
that this expansion be explained, because he thinks that it also addresses the
issue of whether or not there are opportunities enough for the anticipated
population to find sufficient housing. He added that he would like to know
what is available in the rural areas under the current zoning that would still
be available under the new plan, and what there is in the urban area, villages
and growth communities that would be available for future housing to meet the
public's needs. ~
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development, said that two things
were analyzed initially. They were the number of potential lots that could be
created in the rural areas versus the urban areas, based on zoning and an
assumed type of subdivision activity that would occur in the rural areas, and
the number of building lots on those subdivision lots that would occur under a
normal type of build out. What was found atlthat time was that if it is
assumed that a continuation of the 1977 to 1985 trend of lot developments in
the urban area occurs, which is estimated at,approximately 350 units per year,
that the urban areas will be built out in approximately 47 years. In the
rural areas there are approximately 351 units built per year, and it was
assumed that based on subdivision that coulditake place in the rural areas
over the next several years, it would take aRproximately 76 years to build out
the rural areas. The concern was that the urban areas would build out under
its current structure before the rural areas~ and this would transfer more
pressure into the rural areas. He said the Gommission could see that there
was a great potential for additional subdivision to occur in the rural areas,
because of the vast amount of acreage and, u~'der~, existing subdivision rights,
there were a number of lots that could be created. He said that there was
also an existing inventory of lots of over 8~'000 that were developed and
approximately 8,500 that were undeveloped in the rural areas. He said that
the acreage left in undeveloped parcels in the rural areas was 204,000. He
went on to say that the parcels ranged in acreage of less than two acres to
greater than 21 acres. Almost 2,000 lots of less than two acres are already
in existence in the rural areas. He stated that in the rural areas there are
approximately 2,000 two to four acre lots, 1,800 four to ten acre lots,
approximately 1,000 10 to 21 acre lots, and ~850 lots that were greater than
21 acres in size. He said that these larger lots will get a lot of attention
in the future because these parcels can handle significant subdivision activi-
ty. ~
In answer to another question by Mr. Lin~strom, Mr. Cilimberg replied
that the percentage for unbuildable lots on l~ss than two acres lots amounted
to less than 25 percent. These figures were ~one after it had been determined
that there were 2,000 lots of less than two acres already in existence in the
rural areas. He pointed out that this makes ~Pproximately 1,450 lots that are
actually buildable. Ten percent of the two tp four acre lots were probably
unbuildable, which leaves approximately 1,7501lots that would be developable.
The net number of building lots that are conservatively estimated that could
come out of the 8,500 rural area parcels that~are currently undeveloped is
19,000 building lots. This figure was derive~ by making assumptions about the
type of subdivision activity that could take ~lace and were based on trends
over the last several years in subdivision activities in the rural areas.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that it would belhelpful if the earlier report
r
could be updated or at least p esented to thelBoard again so that the old
document could be on hand in addition to the hew one. Mr. Bowerman responded
529
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
that the earlier report can be given to the Board quickly. He said that in
answer to another question by Mr. Lindstrom, four hundred acres on Route 20
North in the urban area, were added back in an attempt to balance the holding
capacity of the urban areas. He said it was decided that the capacity would
not be increased at this time because there were adequate lots still available
in the urban areas.
Mr. Bain then inquired if the report takes into account that, in the last
few years in the urban areas, people have not built to the density that is
allowed. Mr. Bowerman replied that he thinks the figures are based upon
current zoning and the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for each parcel of
land.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that in the original Comprehensive Plan, when
population projections were made and it was hoped that the population could be
accommodated through urban areas zoning, there was a range of densities in
each of the residential categories. He asked if the low end of the range was
all that was needed to accommodate the population projection at that time.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that the holding capacity was based on the middle of
the range of the residential categories. Mr. Lindstrom s~id that actually the
capacity was not increased, but what was not considered usable capacity was
offset by adding more acreage. He said this reflects the fact that there is
adequate land in the urban areas to accommodate the expeq~ed growth.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he thinks it is important to understand that the
growth being experienced in the urban areas was in line with the plan. What
was not in line with the plan, was the absence of growth in the communities of
Crozet and Hollymead and in the villages. He said that it was recognized that
the urban areas were assuming their share of the growth While the rural areas
were assuming more than their share, and the villages and!communities were
not. Mr. Bowerman stated that, to that~end, the Village of North Garden was
substantially increased in size in the Commission's recommendation. He added
that the community of Hollymead was also studied in terms~of obtaining the
original Comprehensive Plan recommendations for maximum dwelling units in that
area, to try to reflect a higher holding capacity there. He mentioned that
the actual topography and the road system was also considered at Hollymead to
try to come up with a recommendation that would be more reflective of the
conditions that actually exist. The commercial and industrial aspects were
considered, also, and Mr. Bowerman said that all of these~things were studied
in terms of trying to implement, through the land use map~ the basic goals of
the plan, which heretofore, were not being achievedl He added that this was
one of the reasons that it was decidednot to expand the ~rban area beyond
keeping its capacity the same after subtracting the undeveloped parcels.
Mr. Horne said there is a higher emphasis on facilities planning. One
comment received from the developers in the community is %hat they would like
to develop certain areas, but there are no facilities available or there is an
over reliance on the private developer to provide all of %he facilities. One
of the policy groups under the facilities part of the pla~ anticipates that
there may be situations where a more active role shoUld b~ taken by the County
government. If it is desired that people live in a given~area, more facili-
ties may have to be provided than in the past, or facilities may have to be
provided on a more timely basis. He said that if more facilities can be
provided, people will be encouraged to follow the plan, and this makes it more
positive and not just regulatory.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is anticipated that there 'ill be a narrative
available on some of these parts of the plan, other than .ust Commission
minutes of the meetings. Mr. Home replied that at this ,oint, the narrative
is contained in all of the staff reports that went into t e Summary Report.
He said the narratives are available and referenced, through much of the
Summary Report. In terms of the alternate document, he s~id that very defi-
nitely there will be a narrative that will be attached aslwell as maps, etc.,
that will allow the citizens of the County to understand qhy these are the
goals, objectives and strategies.
Mr. Perkins asked how much reduction there is in the number of lots in
the rural areas. Mr. Bowerman replied that he would have ~o ask the staff foz
this figure. Mr. Horne agreed that the staff can do this calculation by using
40 acres to come up with a consistent analysis.
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
530
Mr. Bain asked if there is any data, that could be acquired quickly, that
shows where these parcels are located. Mr. Home replied, "no." He said that
obviously the parcels exist because they are all identified on the land
records of the County, but graphically representing that fact is quite diffi-
cult.
Mr. Lindstrom inquired if Mr. Cilimberg's estimate of 19,000 net building
lots is before the reduction of the 21 acres. Mr. Cilimberg replied,"yes."
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if there were approximately 2,500 parcels that would
be affected by the change from 21 to 40 acres. Mr. Bowerman answered, "yes."
Mr. Perkins remarked that he cannot see that changing from 21 to 40 acres
is going to slow down rural areas development. He sees it occupying more
land, because people who can buy 21 acres can probably buy 40 acres. He
thinks it is very poor land use. He believes that clustered housing should
probably be the goal, and larger, open areas~should be maintained because
people can build houses closer on smaller lots. He went on to say that it is
impossible to farm on 40 acres, but it is difficult to harvest anything on a
parcel that small. He said that if one hous~ can be built on it, it means
that 40 acres are tied up that cannot be used for anything else. Mr. Bowerman
replied that Mr. Perkins has an excellent point, but there is the same situa-
tion with 21 acres. He said that if a person had 160 acres beyond the first
five division rights, this would make four additional division rights. The
four houses could be put on as little as eight acres in a type of cluster, and
then 152 acres could be left for farming. He said the Cox~ission felt that
this would be a benefit. If this is done with 21 acres, agriculture would be
encouraged in the County by allowing a 21 acme "by right" development to be
clustered. He said that the same number of '!~y right" developments would
still be allowed in the rural areas.
Mr. Perkins then asked if the Commission is prepared to hear 2,500 zoning
requests in the next six months by people taking advantage of the old regula-
tion before the acreage is increased.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom stated that if the residue acreage is consid-
ered as a density base and the restriction that now exists is offset, basical-
ly, a house will have to be put in the middlel of the 21 acre parcel. He said
that the Commission's recommendation is to go from 21 to 40 acres, but a new
provision has been added that allows houses to be clustered. He went on to
say that this is not allowed now, except by Special Permit. He believes that
the Commission is trying to address the kinds of concerns that Mr. Perkins has
by avoiding wasting the 21 or 40 acres on one house, but use it as a basis to
determine density, and then put the houses on smaller tracts, leaving the
residue after the houses have been clusteredfor meaningful agricultural use
in tracts big enough to make it work.
Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Lindstrom that this was the Commission's
rationale. He added that by not developing Z1 or 40 acre lots and clustering
housing on two to ten acre lots, costs are cut down. He said it is an econom-
ic incentive to use the development rights on!smaller lots. He brought out
that there is another aspect that limits the largest lot to ten acres which
concentrates the road system and central utilities. He said that this should
lower housing costs and encourage landowners to believe that they can make
more money by concentrating the houses and leaving the farmland intact. He
said that it was hoped that some free market incentives were left in the plan.
Mr. Home called attention to the middle, of Page 35. He said the four
things that were included in the "package" were discussed considerably by the
Commission. The "package" concept is definedias follows:
"The Planning Commission endorsed the following strategies as a
'package', rather than individual strategies:
Maintain the five development right~ as implemented in 1980.
Reduce the existing number of possible 'by-right' divisions
other than the first five development right lots by an increase
in the current minimum lot size of 21 acres to 40 acres..
531
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
Maintain a minimum lot size of two acres and establish a maximum
lot size of ten acres on development right lots in order to
minimize potential farmland and forestal acreage lost to resi-
dential development.
Permit the option to develop additional development right lots
in lieu of dividing the residue acreage into large parcels,
provided the residue acreage is not developed nor further
divided under deed restriction or other similar perpetual
restrictions. The additional lots shall be developed on inter-
nal roads."
Mr. Horne suggested that if each of the four items were taken away from
the others and analyzed as though the others were not going to be done, the
plan would not work well. He stated that all four items have to be kept as a
"package" or the Plan will not be effective.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said that strategies have been devel-
oped for the use of the land in terms of residential development in the rural
areas. He reminded Mr. Lindstrom that when the construction of the current
RA, Rural Areas, district was studied, 21 acres was the lot size with five
exceptions. He said that the idea at that time was that 21 acres, according
to the State, is a valid acreage for forestal use and lesser acreage can be
used for agriculture. In the intervening time, it has be~n discovered that
people are, in fact, buying farms and subdividing them in~21 acre housing
tracts. He said that this is not so much a problem now, but later on it is
envisioned that a second round of transactions will take place. The purchas-
ers of the 21 acre tracts will notice that other people have smaller lots, and
they will not want to be restricted to the agricultural 10t size, and they
will want three or four more development rights. He said that in the discus-
sions, it was felt that 21 acres was basically a housing Lrea, that 40 acres
appeared to have some validity for agricultural use. The~cluster lots could
be done and much larger residue acreage could be left tha~ would have value as
a farm. He thinks that the strategy is to look at the rural areas in a
different fashion than as the lowest density of residential zone.
Mrs. Diehl agreed with Mr. Keeler. She said the ComMission looked at the
different areas in the plan and attempted to determine wh~t the most valid use
would be for each area. The Commission felt that in the rural areas, agricul-
tural and forestal uses should be the primary purposes. She said that the
Commission made a clear and positive commitment to preserving those uses in
the rural areas. She added that hopefully the package that the Commission
endorsed will help to maintain those uses and not completely restrict residen-
tial development, but encourage clustering and the maintaining of as much open
land as possible. '~
Mr. Lindstrom then called attention to Page Five, which is the beginning
of the "Public and Human Services" section. He asked to ~hat extent the
subcommittee looked at the possibility of a joint law enfQrcement effort with
the City of Charlottesville, or was the groundwork laid to have the matter
studied. Mr. Horne replied that a topic for study is the ~ublic facilities
plan, which is a recommended "action" item. He said one of the public facili-
ties provided is law enforcement, and each chapter of the ~lan will detail
what will happen in that public facility area. He went on to
say that there will be a chapter on law enforcement as a ~ublic facility and
that chapter will recommend the mechanism for analyzing the pros and cons of a
joint law enforcement agency.
(Mr. St. John left at 4:01 P.M.)
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the idea of a joint law ~nforcement agency
was not physically brought out, but, beginning on Page 24,~ there are proce-
dures by which the facilities could be studied with the public facilities plan
targeted as a lead document in addressing all of the facil~ity needs in the
County.
Next, Mr. Lindstrom wondered how this part of the pla~ will be formulat-
ed. Will there be a committee set up to begin work on a public facilities
plan, or will the Planning Commission be responsible for this. Mr. Bain
called Mr. Lindstrom's attention to the first item in the !'Action Agenda",
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
532
which relates to his question. Mr. Horne said it is envisioned that the
Public Facilities Plan will be handled in-house between the staff and Planning
Commission with the assistance of all of the experts in each individual field.
Mr. Cilimberg indicated also that the Public Facilities Plan, as most of the
other Action Agenda items, when finished and reviewed by the Planning Commis-
sion and forwarded to the Board, will become an actual addendum to the Compre-
hensive Plan at that point.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that the section on water supply protection has
been enhanced. She feels the staff has done a good job in developing strate-
gies for water protection studies and implementation and also has attempted to
address groundwater concerns.
Mr. Bowie added to the previous comment that he feels this is an excel-
lent study. He does not accept everything in it, but it has obviously taken a
lot of effort and it is much appreciated. He said the plan will probably not
succeed if there is not an accurate and dynamic follow-up on the action plans,
and that the basic approval is not too important without all of the plans
coming together. He mentioned that generalities have been discussed, but
unless there is a facilities plan, and a utilities plan, etc. it will not
work. It has been indicated that growth will be encouraged in a village, but
if water and sewer are not run to that village, the village will not grow. He
said it appears that the Commission is recognizing this and is also taking
costs into consideration. He thinks this plan has a broader range than just
setting up goals in the hopes that they workl He referred to the 21 acres
versus the 40 acres issue. He would like to see the information that has been
requested by Mr. Lindstrom because it might make a difference if there is a
very small portion of property involved. He;said nobody can make a living on
a 38 acre farm. He thinks that there shouldlbe an incentive whereby a person
would get nearly the same amount of lots if they are clustered or done in some
other way. He does not see where land is being saved. It seems to him that
there are going to be more big lots that are going to be full of weeds.
Mr. Gould stated that as far as economic development is concerned, he
thinks that none of the Commission members axe totally happy with the final
statement. He said that a number of the members of the Commission felt that
there was a need for a more aggressive statement to be underlined by some
backup analysis by the staff, but agreement could not be reached in that area.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what happens next. Mr. Bowerman stated that the
Commission intends to make the plan more understandable for the general
public. Copies will be made available to the.public, and then there will be a
series of two to four public meetings. He said the Commission will receive
comments from the public as well as the Board's comments, and then finish the
plan. The plan will go to the required Public Hearing, the Commission will
receive those comments, and then make its final recommendation to the Board.
Mr. Home added that it is hoped that the public meetings can be held within
the next thirty days ~
Mr. Bowerman commented that the CommissiSn is slightly behind schedule,
but he believes that the staff is committed to making the plan more under-
standable and to trying to implement the goal~ and objectives with some hard
strategies. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the comments made about the rural areas, and
Mr. Perkins' and Mr. Bowie's concerns about wasting land, are areas in which
the Board members, when the plan is presented?o them, can study more thor-
oughly. ~
Mr. Perkins commented on the Crozet Comm6nity section. He said he is
disappointed because he can't see anything that is constructive. He believes
the northern part of what is called Crozet should be shown on the map because
it is part of Crozet. He said there are more~people north of the railroad
tracks in Crozet than there are in the Town o~ Scottsville. He said there are
sewer lines in that area which could grow eve~ under the current restrictions.
He mentioned that runoff from the area does fiow into the Beaver Creek Reser-
voir, but he thinks that precautions could be ~taken to protect that reservoir.
He believes the whole Crozet section needs to be considered more closely.
533
January 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
Mr. Bowie said the people who live in the Hollymead Community have
requested that one of the public meetings be held in their neighborhood,
because there are a lot of changes shown for that area.
Mr. Bain stated that he would like to see the data on the number of lots
in the rural areas and how the data was computed.
Mr. Way thanked the Planning Commission for the time spent with the
Board. At this time, Mr. Bowerman adjourned the Planning Commission meeting.
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board Members.
At 4:18 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to
adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 4:55 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjourn. At 4:56 P.M., with no further business to
come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom to adjourn until January 20, 1988, at 3:30 P.M.