Loading...
1987-02-18February 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 1 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 18, 1987 at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George Ri St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7~31 P.M. by the Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Way offered motion to accept the items on the consent agenda as information. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discus- sion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item 4.1. County Executive's Financial Report for Period July 1 through December 31, 1986, received as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-605. "Forwarded herewith is the County Financial Report for the period July 1, 1986, through December 31, 1986. On the expenditure side, the report indi- cates normal balances with nothing unusual to report. On the revenue side, the report continues to reflect what was reported to you at the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year, and that was that revenues in the General Fund from property taxes are projected to exceed budget estimates by $777,000, a variation of the property tax revenue estimate of 3.16 percent, and a variation of the total (bottom line) of all General Fund revenues of 1.98 percent. The details of each department and agency's projected expen- ditures for this fiscal Year, and each revenue source, will be provided to you in the recommended budget later this month, and reviewed with you in your budget work sessions early next month. This mid-year report additionally provides information on the taxes levied, the collections through December 31, and compares the budgeted revenues to those collections, and the collections to the levy. It projects the collec- tions of those levies through FY 86-87, and compares the collections of the levy to the budgeted revenues. In summary form, it indicates that 98.72 percent of the budgeted revenues from property tax levies have been collected through December 31. Since the actual levies are $777,000 ($776,883 rounded) greater than the budgeted revenues, the percentage of collection of the total levy through December is 93.2 percent. The projected collections of the levy by June 30 is estimated to be 97.39 percent, which is 1.69 percent higher than FY 85-86 collections, but within one-tenth of one percent of the average collections over the three years previous to 85-86. As a whole, collections are strong, and the financial health of the County government remains positive." Item 4.2. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes for February 3, 1987 was received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-86-96. Thomas C. Baber, Jr. To locate a single-wide mobile home on 5.0 acres zoned RA. Property one-half mile off east side of Route 600, approximately one-quarter mile from intersection with Route 22. Tax Map 65, parcel 26. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 5 and February 11, 1987.) Mr. Horne said that the applicant is requesting deferral of this item. This request has been heard by the Planning Commission and forwarded with a recommendation for denial. Mr. Bowie offered motion to remove SP-86-96 from the agenda without prejudice. Mr. Fisher commented that he thinks the petition should be readvertised. He asked if removing it from the agenda meant withdrawing or rejecting it. Mr. Bowie said he meant only to withdraw it. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if there were anyone present to speak on this application for Mr. Thomas C. Baber, Jr. No one was there. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. 2.40 Webruary 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 2 Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: To abandon approximately 200 feet of State Route 1421 (Elk's Drive). The abandonment is to be effective upon the reconstruction of the existing roadway which will act as the entrance roadway to the new Rivanna Park. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 4 and February 11, 1987). Mr. Horne said he would refer to the map and outline the proposal. He showed the Board a copy of the unrevised master plan of the park. The proposal is to take the southwestern portion of Elk's Drive, and place a cul-de-sac very close to the existing commercial estab- lishment, abandon a portion, and reconstruct a portion of Elk's Drive to curve into the proposed park. The only connection that would be provided would be for emergency access. He pointed out where a physical barrier would be constructed, but said that landscaping would be done to make it as unobtrusive as possible. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne to summarize briefly why the road shOuld be abandoned. Mr. Horne explained that the Planning Commission, in its review of the master plan and the site plan for the Rivanna Park, was concerned about the safety at the intersection of Elk's Drive and Route 250 East. They felt that it would be unacceptable for use by an increased amount of traffic. There will be a significant amount of traffic generated by this park on certain days when there are large softball tournaments taking place. After reviewing a number of proposals, the CommiSsion felt that a physical alteration to Elk's Drive was the only way to alleviate the traffic problem. Mr. Horne said that the Highway Department concurred with this proposal. They felt that the two portions of Elk's Drive had to be physically separated so it would be impossible to use that intersection for access to the park. Therefore, all access to the park would be from the intersection at Routes 20/250 East, along Route 20, and then down the reconstructed ~ortion of Elk's Drive. Mr. Bowie asked how the'emergency access would be opened in an emergency. ~nswered that it would have to be worked out in discussions with the residents. be a key at the Park Maintenance Office in the administration area. Mr. Horne There will Since there were no other questions from the Board, Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hear- ing. Mr. Jim Wynne, who lives on Elk's Drive, said that the barrier would create quite a problem with the school bus that travels down that road. He stated that the bus comes off of Route 250 heading west and turns onto Elk Drive at the bridge. It proceeds down Elk's Drive and around by the Elk's Lodge, back to Route 20 and then turns north on Route 20 to Stony Point. He asked how a bus could do that with the barrier there. Mr. Fisher said he did not have an answer for that and asked if anyone else had a comment. Mr. Horne answered that he did not think that school bus access was anticipated by this design. Mr. Wynne said that even if they came in by Elk's Drive and went back to Route 250, there is no way to get back out on Route 250 heading east with the traffic at 7:30 or 8:00 a.m. Mr. Fisher said t. hat Mr. Wynne's question was valid and the Board would try to deal with it. Mr. W. S. Roudabush, representing the Elk's Lodge, said they have approximately 900 members. Of those who participate, probably half use the entrance directly from Route 250 at the Rivanna River, and the other half use the other intersection from Route 20 North. He does not think it will be a serious impact on them except for getting used to the change in access. He named a number of concerns that they have expressed to the Planning Commission and to the Park Committee such as traffic, night lights, security and hours of operation. He mentioned that these are the same concerns that were brought out about the Elk's Lodge when they moved there. He said they were especially worried about the night use of the road, Ilbecause they have very little security. They also hope some sort of left turn lanes will be Iprovided at the intersection of Elk's Drive and Route 20. He said there may also be a need Ifor a left turn lane at the entrance into the Elk's Lodge parking lot. He stated that the Ii)eak hours of the Lodge and the Park are going t© coincide from Memorial Day to Labor Day. He mentioned that they have 112 parking spaces and probably four to five turnovers per space )er day. He also mentioned that a portion of Elk's Drive floods at times. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, with the Virginia Department of Transportation, said that the Depart- ment shares the County's concern about the effects of increased traffic on Elk's Drive brought about by the park. Their first choice would be that the park traffic enter directly off of Route 20. If the entrance must be off of Elk's Drive, however, then they recommend abandonment and that a cul-de-sac be built as proposed. This alternative is preferable to closing Elk's Drive at Route 250 or prohibiting left turns at that location. Should Elk's Drive remain open, they will recommend the entrance to the park be directly from Route 20 when the site plan is reviewed. If the City and County insist on access to Elk's Drive, the entrance must be constructed at a right angle typical of mOst commercial entrances. The City and County are considering a request for recreational access funds to construct Elk's Drive and build the park entrance road. It is the position of the Department staff that this request can only be supported if through traffic on Elk's Drive is prohibited. Mr. Bowie asked why the entrance was placed on Elk's Drive instead of Route 20. Mr. Horne said it was partly traffic and partly physical design. It is very difficult to find adequate sight distance on Route 20. It was the designer's recommendation that it be off of Elk's Drive because a very large amount of grading would be required to enter from Route 20. Mr. Fisher said that access for the school bus on Elk's Drive seems to be a valid ~uestion. If school administration has not addressed this, he recommends deferring action on this matter for a few weeks. February 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) Page ~3 ..... Mr. Bowie agreed that it should be deferred until the Board hears a response from the school administration, however, he mentioned three options that the Board does have: first- ly, build a cul-de-sac; secondly, prohibit left turns in or out at Free Bridge; or close the entrance at Route 250. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to defer any action on this matter until March 11, 1987, and to request a response from the school division on how this will affect school bus traffic on Elk's Drive. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-86-93. Michael F. and Leah J. Barrett. To locate a single-wide mobile home on 16.25 acres zoned RA. Property one-half mile on private road off Route 20 North, approximately 0.4 mile southwest of intersection with Route 746. Tax Map 47, parcel 26C. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 5 and February 11, 1987.) Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: "Character of the Area: The surrounding area is rural in character, with a wooded area surrounding the site primarily consisting of deciduous trees. There is one single family residence visible from the mobile home site. The residence is located approximately 1000 feet north of the mobile home. The mobile home is partially visible from State Route 746. No mobile homes exist within a one-mile radius of the site. Staff Comment: A temporary mobile home permit was issued to the owner of the property (Mr. Michael F. Barrett) on August 30, 1985 with an 18 month expiration date. The issuance of the temporary permit was to provide the owner with temporary living quarters. The interim housing is adjacent to the site on which the owner plans to construct a house in which the owner will later reside. The applicant's initial thought was that construction of the dwelling unit would be completed over the 18 month time period. The applicant has not and will not be able to complete the house in the time period designated by the temporary mobile home permit. The mobile home is existing, and the appli- cant is applying for a special use permit for the mobile home due to the fact that the house will not be constructed by the expiration date desig- nated on the temporary mobile home permit. One objection was filed against this petition. The objection came from a homeowner whose house is in the general vicinity of the mobile home site. The person filing the complaint was inadvertently notified as an adjacent owner. Their concern was that a mobile home was not an appropriate use for the area and that it constitutes an eyesore. The owner of the single family residence which is visible from the mobile home site did not file the objection. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Mobile home shall be removed within thirty (30) days of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the permanent dwelling unit." Mr. Horne noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 10, 1987, unanimously recommended approval with Condition No. 1 recommended by the staff, but changed Condition No. 2 to read "Mobile home shall be removed 36 months from the date of issuance of the special use permit or 30 days after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the permanent dwelling, whichever comes first." After making his report, Mr. Horne said the main reason the applicant cannot complete the permanent dwelling during the time that was originally anticipated is due to the diffi- culties and expense of constructing a road. He said the road is not completely in place, but is partially paved, and there is access to the site. Mr. Fisher asked where the permanent home site is likely to be. Mr. Horne said it is very near the existing mobile home site near the rear of the property. Ms. Leah Barrett, applicant, said that they wanted to make clear that they do have a partially paved driveway and the rest is gravel. They had originally planned on building in the front of the land, but the Planning Commission said they couldn't build there because of the steep grade. The mobile home is directly adjacent to the building site which has been partially cleared. All utilities are to the site where the house will be built. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Barrett if they plan to do much of the building themselves. answered that they would like to do as much as they can, such as the interior work. She With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve SP-86-93 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: _242 February 18, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 4 AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Conditions of approval are as follows: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Mobile home shall be removed 36 months from the date of issuance of the special use permit or 30 days after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the perma- nent dwelling, whichever comes first. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: 208 Moderate Rehabilitation Program. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum from himself dated February 13, 1987: "As requested, staff has reviewed socio-economic data regarding a potential 100 additional moderate rehabilitation units in the urban area and offers the following comments: Public transit - Bus transit is provided within walking distance of the proposed site. Existing Low Income Households in the Area - This proposed site cur- rently has twelve (12) existing Section 8 units of the approximately 100 units in the apartment complex, and there are an additional forty- seven (47) units in the Section 8 program in other complexes in the general vicinity. A large number of the existing residents in the 100 unit apartment complex will qualify for rental assistance, and the occupants will therefore not experience a significant turnover as a result of the Rehab program. Crime Rate - Specific crime data will need to be extracted manually and can hopefully be provided at your meeting on February 18." Mr. Agnor summarized the situation by stating that there are approximately 100 units being considered for one owner for rehabilitation in the urban area. The staff has asked for as to the concentration of that number of units versus the policy of scattering units throughout the County. At last week's meeting, it was requested that answers be given to questions about transportation, availability of low-income households in the area, and ~rime statistics. Mr. Agnor said that public transit is within easy walking distance - there are actually two routes in that area. There are 12 existing low-income households in this ~omplex under the Section 8 program. There are 47 more in the general vicinity, which about ten percent of the current apartment dwelling units. Mr. Agnor went on to say that, without surveying the income of the existing occupants, the owners of this complex believe a large percentage of the current occupants will qualify for Section 8 rental assistance; therefore, there should be little turn-over in clientele. the renovation is completed, it will make rental assistance available for the units are being rehabilitated. Right now, they are not eligible for the Section 8 program the Section 8 program attempts to scatter the units. Because many of the people who live there now would be able to stay after the units have rehabilitated, Mr. Agnor said he would not expect the crime statistics to change much in this particular complex. While the crime rate would not improve, it should not get notice- ably worse. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board can expect the units to be appreciably improved since the ~ame people will be living in the units after rehabilitation. Mr. Agnor answered that they be improved from the point of aesthetics and from the condition they are in currently of usage and age. But, the cost to the tenant will not dramatically increase because rental assistance program will pay the increase in rent. The landlord will benefit by the improvements to his property and the increase in rent; the occupant will have a better )lace to live without paying more rent. This is the purpose of the rehabilitation program. Mr. Lindstrom commented that, ironically, the rehabilitation program may not open up lnits for people who do not have housing today, but it may upgrade the quality of units in existence. So, the fears of concentrating all of these units in one place thereby g the area, really are not well-founded. On the other hand, it is not clear that it is going to do the people who are on the waiting list for housing any good. Mr. Agnor assured Mr. Lindstrom that units would eventually open up because the turnover is high in all apartment complexes. The families that replace outgoing occupants will eligible and the waiting list will decrease. Mr. Bowie asked if the increased rent would provide money to maintain the units at levels in the future. Mr. Agnor replied "yes". Mr. Fisher asked if there will be a limit on the rent which can be charged since federal will be used for the rehabilitation program. Mr. Agnor said there would be a limit, Mr. Horne explained how the rent ceiling is calculated. Factors in the calculation the percentage of the income of the units' occupants that goes toward the rental, the service and the amount of money the landlord has sunk into the property. Mr. Fisher asked if it sets a limit on how much profit can be charged. Mr. Horne that the primary benefit of the program is that it stabilizes income for the land- lord. If renters move out, there is a program that helps people on the waiting list move into those units. If no one moves into a unit, the landlord may receive vacancy payments. the program insures a steady flow of income, bankers are more likely to lend money to these projects. February 18, 1987 (Regular'Night Meeting) Page 5 243 Mrs. Cooke asked what the landlord did if there were more Section 8 units than tenants to live in them. Mr. Horne said that HUD provides vacancy payments to. landlords if tenants cannot be found and the landlord is making good faith efforts for find tenants. However, a landlord will not receive these vacancy payments forever. Mrs. Cooke thanked the staff for the information, but said she still had reservations about such a large concentration of low-income housing in one area. There are already 47 units in that area, plus the 100 proposed: that is a concentration. She said the Board had intended to scatter, rather than concentrate, this type of housing in the County, Because of this, she would have a hard time supporting this proposal. Mr. Way asked if the County could do anything' if the management of this complex were negligent. Mr. Horne said "yes", if the management did not maintain the units or the complex to HUD housing standards. Mr. Way asked if those standards controlled the number of tenants that could live in an apartment. Mr. Horne said the program did set limits on the number of occupants per apartment but that there were difficulties monitoring this. Although most of the burden of daily management falls on the shoulders of the property owner, the County does have some control if management lets the complex slide to the point where it no longer meets housing standards. Mr. Lindstrom commented that, while he would like to see the County scatter low-income housing, he supports this proposal because the program would stabilize income in the area and improve existing housing in an area where slums might develop otherwise. However, he be- lieves that this case should be an exception to the County's rule of scattering such housing. Mr. Lindstrom moved that under the circumstances, the Board indicate to the staff that'it is receptive to the sort of concentrated use of the units that has been suggested in the propos- al brought before the Board this date. He said that when there is a situation where existing housing stock will be upgraded, and deterioration of existing structures deferred, and opportunities for people provided, he feels it would be a mistake to let it slip by. Mrs. Cooke said she could see the logic of Mr. Lindstrom's statement. She also has no problem with the staff understanding that this proposal by Mr. Lindstrom is an exception. However, she is not convinced that this is the proper thing to do based on the fact that it will set a precedent in the future for any applicant that might make a similar request. Mr. Way seconded the motion for the reasons offered by Mr. Lindstrom. He is concerned that the Board has already approved concentrated low-income housing, referring to certain proposals for use of the old Scottsville School property. He believes that 30+ units in a small community of 200 people is as significant as 100 or more in a community of 10,000. Nevertheless, he is willing to support the proposal presently under consideration because he thinks the strong points outweigh the bad points. Mr. Fisher asked how many of the original 240 units of the Moderate Rehabilitation Program would be left in the allotment if this complex were approved.~ Mr. Horne answered between 90 and 100. The County has only until the end of June to find units and has applied for a six-month extension of the program. Mrs. Cooke asked if there were another complex that could accommodate another 100 units in this area. Mr. Horne said "yes". Mr. Agnor said that no other owner has shown any interest in the program. Mr. Horne said he wished to remind the Board that the County Extension Service has conducted its first training session for tenants, on housekeeping. The classes, which cover everything from washing clothes to washing dishes, have been very well received and should make the tenants more attractive to the landlords, as well as improve the tenants' life styles to the point where they may eventually be able to leave the program. Mr. Fisher said he believed it would be a shame not to use the entire allocation. Housing problems are a fact of life in the County: there is little housing for people who ~ cannot afford the general market. The potential for losing these units overrides his concern about concentrating this type of housing. There was no further discussion. following recorded vote: Roll was called and the motion carried with the AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Lindstrom, Henley and Way. NAYS: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 9. Commission. Appointment: University of Virginia Representative on Planning Mr. Agnor said Mr. Haas, Vice President for Administration at the University of Virgin- ia, has sent a letter indicating that the University requests that Werner Sensbach, a member of the staff at the University, be appointed to the County Planning Commission as their representative. He reminded the Board that this is a nonvoting position created as a result of the agreement between the City, County and the University of planning and coordinating activities. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to appoint Mr. Werner Sensbach as the nonvoting representa- tive of the University of Virginia on the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. '2.44 February.18, t987 (Regular Night Meeting) Page 6 process I~Albemarle Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: May 8, 1985 and December 3, 1986. Mr. Lindstrom said he had not read the minutes, but hoped to have them done by the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Agnor said he had a call from the Piedmont Environmental Council asking that they seek Mr. Mitchell Van Yahres' support in a committee meeting which he is chairing to amend the agricultural/forestral district section of the state code to spell out the conditions under which a parcel may be withdrawn from an agricultural district. He said the current state law allows the withdrawal. Mr. Agnor described the process that a landowner must go through to withdraw a parcel of land. If it is disapproved, the landowner then has an appeal to the Circuit Court. The amendment that P.E.C. is seeking is the process that followed recently when a landowner wanted to withdraw, so they asked that that be incorporated in the state law. This committee has an amendment to the revision to remove it entirely and to leave it like it's currently written. Mr. Agnor said the staff hesitates to lobby members of the General Assembly without the Board's concurrence. He asked if the Board had any concern about the staff calling Mr. Van Yahres and informing him, on behalf of P.E.C., that the County Government does agree that it spells out a more reasonable process, and it would give other counties some guidance. Mr. Fisher said that giving some standard or process for reviewing it makes sense. Mr. Way said he feels that these agricultural districts are becoming more and more popular and are going to be used more, and he agrees that there.should be some kind of regulations on how lands can be withdrawn. The Board had no objection to Mr. Agnor contacting Mr. Van Yahres. Mr. Bowie said he had two dogs that he let out on Monday for a few minutes and one was over. A man traced Mr. Bowie through the collar and tags. Mr. Bowie thanked whoever took the time to find his name from the dog tag number, and secondly, he feels that every penny he has ever spent on a dog license was worth it just to find out what happened to his dog. Mr. Agnor made an announcement that the Planning Commission did not approve the revision to the Meriwether Lewis School site plan. The School Board has appealed that decision and it will be scheduled, as normal appeals are, before this Board. Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, at 8:35 P.M.