The URL can be used to link to this page

1985-01-16January 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 16, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor of the Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Ir., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County ~ttorney; Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. order at 7:32 p.m. Call to Order. Mr. Fisher, Board Chairman, called the meeting to Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, the lonsent Agenda was received as information without discussion by the following recorded vote: LYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item No. 4.1. Letter dated January 2, 1985, from Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Highway Commis- sioner; as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated August ~, 1984, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective Jan- uary 2, 1985. ADDITION LENGTH Waverly Subdivision Dunmore Road - From Route 614, 0.09 mile East of Route 671 and 0.71 mile West of Route 687. 0.25 Mi." Item No. 4.2. Correspondence dated January 7, 1985, from James B. Murray, Jr., Chairman sf the Industrial Development Authority forwarding a copy of Internal Revenue Service Form 803'8 for H.C.M.F. XV Facility, in connection with the issuance of $4,250,000 in IDA Revenue Bonds. This form is filed in compliance with Code of Virginia Section 15.1-1377. Item No. 4.3. Monthly Building Activity Report for December, 1984 -- Report from the Planning Department dated January 10, 1985. Item No. 4.4. Summary of Building Activity in 1984 -- Report from Planning Department aated January 14, 1985. Item No. 4.5. Superintendent's Memo No. 7. (State Superintendent of Public Instruction) )ated January 7, 1985 -- Governor's Recommended Changes to 1984-86 Education Budget. Item No. 4.6. Reply concerning 1982-83 Auditors' Management Letter -- Recommendation 13. The Board received the following memorandum from Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, dated January 10, 1985: "Mr. Bowie informed us that Price Waterhouse failed to comment in this year's management letter on what the status was of recommendation #13 from the 1982-83 Management Letter. This recommendation was as follows: Recommendation 13: The payroll authorization register should be reviewed and formally approved on a timely basis by the appropriate personnel and should be returned to the payroll department on a timely basis. The County policy requiring each department supervisor to review and approve each payroll is an excellent control feature to help ensure the accuracy of the payroll. However, we noticed several instances where department heads failed to 9omply with the policy. The existence and importance of this procedure Should be emphasized to all appro- priate personnel. This recommendation has been implemented to the auditors' satisfaction and our policy on this procedure is: (1) the payroll register is delivered to the Department Head with paychecks and each Department Head is requested to sign the payroll register and return the register to payroll by the tenth of the month following the pay date. (2) Those failing to comply are contacted by payroll to obtain the properly signed register. (3) Failures to comply with the second request are reported to the County Executive and paychecks for subsequent months are.not delivered until they have complied. This action so far has not been required." Item No. 4.7. Item No. 4.8. Statistics for the Months of November and December, 1984 -- Sheriff. Piedmont Corridor Mail (letters from citizens), through January 15, 1985. Agenda Item No. 5. ZTA-84-7. Amend LI and HI Districts to restrict uses'without public or sewer. (Continued from December 19, 1984.) Mr. Donne!ly told the Board that the staff has just-received some new information from the State .Water Control Board and would prefer that this amendment be deferred until the material can be studied. Mr. Fisher asked how long this would'take and Mr. Donnelly said'about two Mr. Lindstrom made motion to defer ZTA-84-7 until February 13. carried by the following recorded vote: Seconded by Mr. Way, the Mr, Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-84-27. -R. D. Wade (.Willoughby). Request to amend SP-534 and SP- 79-48, Willoughby Corporation, to reduce density from 208 dwelling units on 70 acres and delete internal road connection to undeveloped commercial and high density residential area. Property located on east side of Route 631 at Harris Road. County Tax Map 76M2, Parcels 48 (part), 63, 64 (part), and 65 (part). Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 1 and January 8, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission had requested additional information on this petition and had not taken action yet. For this reason, the request should be deferred to February 20, 1985. Mr. Bowie made motion to defer public hearing on ZMA-84-27 until February 20, 1985. Mrs. ~lCooke seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote: ~YES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-84-5. Henry Javor. (Deferred from January 9, 1985.) Mr. St. John noted that the Planning Department had received the following letter from Mr. Javor, requesting withdrawal of the petition: "January 14, 1985 Dear Mr. Donnelly: I wish to withdraw the above referenced ZTA-84-5 without prejudice. I thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Henry gavor" Mrs. Cooke made motion, seconded by-~Mr. Lind-st-rom, that ZTA-84-5 be allowed to be with- drawn without prejudice. The motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Notice of intent to acquire and preserve fifteen to twenty acres as a small public park on both sides of the Hardware River commonly known as Pancake Falls. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 1 and January 8, 1985.) Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, told the Board that there has been money in the budget for some time to purchase property along the Hardware River for a park in the southern portion of the County. Mr.-Mullaney said this site is located in South Garden, near the intersection of Route 712 and Route 631, immediately downstream from the bridge on Route 631. The proposed project includes acquiring fifteen to-twenty acres, an access road from Route 712, parking areas and rest rooms on that side of the river and fencing to limit acces~ from Route 631 on the other side of the river. This particular section of the river, he said, was chosen for its natural beauty. A description of the .area is included in Virginia Wh'i't'ewat'er, a guide for canoeists. This section of the Hardware River is referred to in the guide as "monstrous, but beautiful" and lists the rapid as the biggest canoeable rapid in the state of Virginia. Mr. Mullaney quoted the book as ~ Januar.16~ 1_8'] .Re.ul~r NiEht Meeting0___ saying "there is no doubt that the falls of the south fork of the Hardware River is a Class 5 Rapid in low water, and that it is one of the most beautiful spots along any river in Virginia. Mr. Mullaney explained that rapids are classified from a Class i (fairly simple) rapid to a Class 6 (dangerous) rapid. He said the Hardware River approaches the Class 6 designation when the water is high from rains. Mr. Mullaney suggested that, if this were a park, the County night have to limit access during times of high water. When the water is low, the slippery rocks make poor footing, but when the water is high, the swiftness and depth of the stream make it dangerous. Mr. Mullaney said he has spoken with many of the area residents and their concern is about ;he numbers of trespassers who now visit the falls. Mr. Mullaney said the County can do a letter job of controlling the situation, and can improve it, but that must be qualified some- ~hat. To improve the situation, regular supervision will have to be provided. In the months would have to be on-site all the time. In peak seasons, the between March and November someone person should be an off-duty police officer. Mr. Fisher said he has had a few years experience with the current use of this property, and he said the complaints did not stem from those who canoe on the river in the spring. Rather, the trouble seems to arise from people who trespass on the property in July and August, blocking the roads with vehicles and blocking access to the river. These problems can only be dealt with as a parking problem because the property is privately owned. Mr. Fisher asked if it would be possible to keep the roads open and control the use of the property. Mr. Mullaney said he thinks this is possible, if the County is willing to spend the money aecessary to supervise the area. He said there are sometimes as many as fifty cars lining the road near the falls. The majority of the people who abuse the site now will not come if there is a police officer at the site enforcing county ordinances. After a year or so of constant ~atrolling, the group that creates the present disturbance will probably go elsewha~; Mr. Fisher asked what will happen on the site if the County does not obtain the property ~nd the right to supervise it. Mr. Mullaney said he imagines the situation will continue as it has in the past. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much money the supervision of the park would cost. Mr. Mullaney said he estimates about $22,500, based on having an off-duty police officer on site on the weekends, a 40-hour per week civilian supervisor, supplemented by more off-duty oolice help during peak periods. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Mullaney saw any possible problems with liability for the ~ounty if, at a relatively dangerous spot, someone were hurt. Mr. Mullaney said the County Code p~ovides that people use County facilities at their own risk. He added that the County, in view of the potential danger at this spot, should post "Danger" signs. · If the cost just quoted is only for supervision, Mr. Bowie wanted to know what the addi- tmonal cost for maintaining the property -- mowing and cleaning restrooms and parking areas -- would be. Mr. Mullaney said it would probably be $1,000 or $2,000. A regional County park in the area would reduce maintenance costs because both parks could be taken care of at the same time. Trash pickup could also be provided with relative ease. Mr. Bowie then asked what the acquisition costs would be. Mr. Mullaney said 'the cost for this year would be $31,000, with some $129,000 going into the entire development. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Mullaney itemize the $129,000. Mr. Mullaney said it would include the access road, parking spaces and fencing, including a gate. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any of the land that provides the scenic portion of the stream is susceptible to development. Because the land is very rocky, Mr. Mullaney said he feels the land could not be very easily developed. The rockiness could also be a problem in finding a ~arking area for the proposed park. Mr. Lindstrom said he wanted to know if acquisition of the ~ark site would forestall any development along the river in this area and protect it from ?esidential building. Mr. Mullaney said the only purpose the park would serve would be to allow other County residents to enjoy the beauty of the area. Mr. Bowie said he understood that the property owners involved are not interested in selling. Mr. Mullaney said one pro- perty owner, living on-site, is not interested in selling. Another has died, and still another will not sell because, even though she does not live on the property, she feels the other property owners do not wish to sell. Mr. Fishe:r asked if having the three different properties under three different ownerships was one of the problems in controlling trespassing. Mr. Mullaney said this could be a problem especially in terms of the one property owner who does not live there. She may not understand the problems, and the law enforcement officers cannot get permission to go on the property to try and control problems, because the owner is not nearby to grant such permission. He said the on-site property owner has taken some steps to control the situation· Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing. He prefaced the hearing by saying the problem exists because the river at this point is very attractive and draws people to. it because it is a pleasant site. The trespassing problem has been a problem for a number of years. The County proposes to solve the problem by owning the land itself and patrolling it. Mr.. Douglas Carter, attorney for Mr. H. W. Powell, presented a petition against the park. He said residents of the area have been putting up with the trespassers for a number of years. They feel the park would encourage people to continue what they already do on the site--drink- ing and sunbathing in the nude, taking drugs and the like. Mr. Powell does not want people in the area at all hours of the day and night and does not want this kind of activity in his backyard. Public access would compound the problem. Mr. H. W. Powell told the Board that the map of the park parcels is not correct. He said taking this land would cut him off from the Hardware River and from his wood supply. He does not want a park 200 yards from his backyard. Hie does not want to put up with drunks, out-of- state students, and he does not think the County will police the park because it would be too expensive. He said he would not sell his land for the park site. Januar:- 16 . i 8 .._ Re -:~lar NSE_h_t-Meetin~)~ ~~. Mr. Way asked what Mr. Powell does now to keep trespassers off his property and if he is having any success. Mr. Powell said he does nat believe the County will be able to do anything. about the problem, because he has tried. In the last year he had 41 people taken to court for trespassing and throwing litter. The Commonwealth's Attorney asked Mr. Powell.jnmbtt0~pr~ess oharges. Mr. PoWell said he just wants these people to get off his land. He said when he goes down to ask people to leave, they are drunk and want to fight him. Mr. Way said he understands that there is a problem; he wants to know if Mr. Powell has had any success in combatting it. ~ Mr. Powell said he had more success this past summer than he has had, because the trespassers'~ found out what he intended to do. It costs money, however. The "No Tresspassing" signs are shot down or torn down. The "No Parking" signs on the south end of Route 631 have been shot through and most are down. He said he does not want the park. Mrs. Janet Morrow lives in the house next to Mr. Powell. She said she opposes the park~~ even though she agrees with Mr. Mullaney that it is a beautiful section of the County. She said people do not come to the area to canoe or to swim, because there really is no way to swim in the river at this point. The trespassers come there to drink. They break glass all along the rocks. The County is not denying this area to people who would use it as a recreation area if the park i~ not approved. She does not think families will come to the area beca~sethhe rocks are so Slick and it really is not safe for adults, much less children. She also thinks t the water is polluted, since many farms lie upstream. Mrs. Morrow said the accesslroads are not adequate. The water rises three to five feet during rains. Beaver dams on the river are wiped out by 'the rises in the water. She said the reasons above are public reasons for not wanting the park. Her private reasons are that she does not want to listen to other people's music and she wants to eliminate the possibility for parking along Route 631 and Route 712. Mr. Fisher said any time the County wants to locate a park anywhere, it is going to hear the same sorts of comments. Mrs. Morrow said she thinks there should be a park in southern Albemarle, but it should be one for families and families will not use this kind of faoility where there is no place for family sports. The Southside Albemarle Association, represented by Mr. Ken Lape, registered a strong protest against the Park. The area, Mr. Lape said, is~dangerous; it attracts undesirable people; the boundaries lie too close to homes; it ruins property values; it takes away the privacy of the owners of nearby property; Route 712 is a safety hazard; a Park would create a security problem; and the surrounding landowners object to a park's construction. Mr. Lape said if the park is placed on the land there, the County should not remove its superv±sion in November. The deerhunters also cause a problem in. the area. He said three deaths have occurre~ infiv~years on this section of the river. PeoPle do not respect property and they throw trash everywhere. ~f the County takes 'this section of Mr. Powell's land, it will have taken the Rearl of the property and left the oyster. It is not the County's job to preserve a nice view. The surrounding landowners do not want the park. It would 'be too difficult to restrict the number of people using the park. Mr. Fisher said he does not understand how people can think that if the park becomes public, it will attract a worse clientele than it does now. Mr. Lape said he owns a farm in Pennsylvania that has a trout stream at the lower end. The state made that a park for trout fishermen, and that ended the serenity on the property. He said he lives in the country becaus~ he does not want to see people. Mr. Fisher asked what Mr. Lape propos, es to do about the prob- lems on the property at Pancake Falls right now. Mr. Lape said no one has put out police protection for the area. Mr. Fisher said there can be no police protection, because the police cannot go bhe~o~y~.p~a~e~s~dtthe Commonw~-~hh's ~ttorney could prosecute those p~ople against whom the property ~wners h~ve filed complaints. ~. Fisher said that what Mr. Lape is saying, then, is that he wants the status quo. Mr. Lape said that is correct. Mr. Fisher then said he does not want any more phone calls on the problems at the falls. Mr. -Ben Morille said one alternative to a park would be to establish road checks for inebriated drivers on Routes 631 and 712. That would discourage people from using alcohol on the property. N~©~oo~r~i~,~mpbell said he has heard that waysides are becoming havens for homosexuals and he and his family oppose the park because it might start this kind of problem. The County should places guardrail along the road to .keep the parking down. He catalogued a list of problems identical to those set forth above, citing the example of an Amherst County park that had to be closed because of prostitution, rape, drugs and other problems. He said the Pancake Falls~area has a problem now with outsiders, college students and other riffraff, drinking, naked and having sex on the rocks in the river. It would take having a police officer there twenty-four hours a day to clear up the problem. He wants the area to remain as it is. A petition, presented by Rev. Robert Price, listed the major concerns of some area resi- dents as being the clientele the area now attracts, the lack of families, the lack of proposed facilities, and the inadequacy of the area to support Such a park. He said the people he represents would like to see the money spent to prevent parking along the road. Ms. Peggy Rose told the Board that this area is acoustically bad for a park. Noise carries downriver because people have to shout over the noise of the falls. If the County makes the area a park, it should buy all the area residents out. Mr. Richard H. Rubenoff said he strongly objects to the park. It is not fair to condemn property for a facility that will hold only twenty cars. The falls are dangerous. Totter Creek would be a better place for a park. Ms. Karen Garrison listed parking, litter and danger as her reasons for objecting to the propssed park. Mr. Roy Clark said half a mile of guardrail along the places where people park would solve the whole problem. Mr. Warren Vandell said people will litter the area no matter what. if the County wants a park for young people, it should get someone to donate an old rock quarry. Mr. Madison Cummings said he opposes the park and listed the same reasons. He. said it is not fair to Mr. Powell, and it will be expensive for the County. Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing when no one else offered to speak. ~___~anuar 16 ~l 8 --Re ular NiEht~M~ Mr. Fisher noted for the record that there was one letter in support of the park. .He said it is clear that this proposal does not solve the problem for the people in the area. He said he is surprised, somewhat, because he has had angry people calling him for a number of years wanting the County to do something about 'the noise and litter, the abuse o.f the standards of ethics that the residents think the trespassers exhibit. While the park was n6t ~r~ Fisher's idea, when he heard about it, he asked if it would solve the problem, and the staff thinks it might solve the problem, with an investment of time and money. He wishes a hearing could be held in August, when the Board members Could go and see the scope of the Problem. If the County decides not to make Pancake Falls a public park, Mr. Fisher said he feels the current abuses will continue. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation will not put up guardrails indiscriminately -- they will not prevent the use of a public right-of- way or cause a potential traffic hazard. He said Mr. D. S. Roosevelt of the Highway Department could be asked about the parking problem, including the cost and who would be responsible for paying it. Something could possibly be done by summer. Mr. Fisher added that the Board needs to understand that anyone will object to a park close to residential areas. He said this objection is strong and the County should wait another season and see if the residents can solve their own Problems. Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with this and feels the Board should cooperate with the citi- zens. Parks .are for everybody, but this will not offer enjoyment for families and would not be a good use of public funds. Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Fisher and Mrs. Cooke, saYing that the motive was not to create a facility that would exacerbate the problem, but to solve the problem. He would not want to obtain the property for the park over the objections of the neighbors. This does not, however, weaken his resolve to create a regional park in southern Albemarle. Mr. Tucker said money for t'he acquisition of this land was budgeted in the Capital Improve. ments Plan for 1985. Mr. Fisher said the Board Will have to explore other alternat~ives. Mr. Lindstrom said it is a dubious practice to set up a park where there is already a problem with trespassing. The area is protected from development and is not likely to be destroyed, so perhaps the Board should just delete this acquisition from the Capital Improve- ments Program. He also suggested guardrails and sobriety checks along this area. Mr. Bowie said police officers can go on private property when requested by the owner. In fairness to the neighborhood, he said, the Board should take some action and not wait another year. Mr. Fisher said if the Board takes action to delete all the funds for this project, there will be no money for guardrails. Mr. Henley said he would not support using money for a regional park for guardrails. Other funds should be set aside to do that. Mr. Henley said he cannot forsee any circumstance where he would support the area for a park, but he would not support putting guardrails along the road, either. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker if the $31,000 in the current Capital Improvements Budget would become a part of unallocated funds, and Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom then made motion to delete this project from the Capital Improvements Program and budget and to ask the staff to present the cost and a proposal for guardrails if that is deemed appropriate by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to deal with the parking problem. He said this is not a committment to do anything, but just a request for information. Mr. Henley said he thinks the area is very pretty~, and he does not know how people can drive by and look at it if they cannot pause for a minute. He would hesitate to approve anything that m~ght impede driving by and looking. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mrs. Cooke said that, since people have abused this area, maybe the public does not deserve a park. The public has not demonstrated that it is capable of doing that which is right. Mr. Fisher called for a vote; roll was called and the motion carried as follows: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-84-85. Robert Adcock. Request to locate a double-wide mobile home on 2.18 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property is located on the east side-of Route 680 about 3/4 mile south of its intersection with Route 810. Tax Map 41, Parcel 20, (part), White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 3 and January 10, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report: "EeGuest: Acreage: Zoning: Location: ~mile Mobile home 2.18 acres RA, Rural Areas Property is located on the east side of Route 680, about north of its intersection with Route 810. Character of the Area: This site is mostly pasture land progressing through succession growth consisting mostly of cedars and grasses. The fence line adjacent to Route 680 is covered with vegetation providing a visual screen to the property in question. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant wishes to locate the mobile home approximately 550 feet east of Route 680. Because of the topography, fence line and existing vegetation, this area is only visible when looking along the driveway from Route 680. Januar 16 1 8 Re ular N~ht Mee~ ~ Staff Comment: Mamie Adcock has previously subdivided this parcel in a family division. The parcel is accessed by a 30 foot easement to the proposed mobile home site. 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; Maintenance of vegetation along the fence line for screening purposes." Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 8, 1985, recom- nended approval of SP-84-85 with the two conditions of the staff plus an additional~one stating that "The mobile home to be placed on the lot shall be similar to that shown in the photograph !submitted by the applicant." Mr· Donnelly noted, in answer to a question from Mr. Bowie, that the property~slopes back away from the State road, thus helping to conceal the mobile home. Mr. Fisher asked if the setback from the stream on the property is adequate for a septic system and Mr. Donnelly said it is. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mr. Robert Adcock presented the Board with photo- graphs of the mobile home. He said the home cannot be distinguished from a site-built house. One woman who has objected lives two miles away and has no running water or electricity in her home. Mr. Fisher asked if the mobile home would have the wood siding and underpinning shown in the photograph, and Mr. Adcock said it would. Mr. Henley asked if there is a right of way that goes through that land to a piece of property in back of this parcel. The mobile home will not interfere with that right-of-way, Mr. Adcock said. His mot~her gave him the property and pre-~ served the right of way. In addition, the septic drainfields have been staked off. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Adcock if he plans to live in this mobile home himself. Mr. Adcock indicated that he does. Mr. Fisher then asked if there was anyone else present to speak on this petition. There being no one, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henley made motion to approve SP-84-85 with the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-84-25.. Request to rezone six acres from LI, Light Industrial, to R-i, Residential. Property located at the intersection of Hydraulic and Rio roads and develo with a 26-unit mobile home park. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 22. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 3 and January i0, 1985.) This was deferred from December 19, 198~ ~o~b.e~readvertised for a higher-density zoning. Mr. Lindstrom abstained from consideration of this item, telling the Board that his firm is representing the property owner, Mr. G. Benton Patterson. He left the meeting at 8:49 p.m. Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Donnelly to present the staff report: Mr. Donnelly noted that background information could be found in the staff report of Dec~ bet 4, i984. "Staff Comment: During review of this petition on December 19, 1984, the Board of Supervisors ordered readvertisement to rezone this property from LI, Light Industry, to R-i, Residential. A revised Staff report was also requested. Staff comment will address two issues: 1) appropriateness of R1, Residential zoning for this property; and 2) considerations of precedent for future requests. Appropriateness of R-l, Residential, Zoning: Staff previously recommended RA, Rural Areas, based on Comprehensive Plan recommendations. This property is situated in the South Fork Rivanna River reservoir water- shed. With certain exceptions, RA special use permits have limited density to one dwelling unit per ten acres, whereas density under R-l, Residential, ranges from 0.97 to 1.09 dwelling units per acre. ~Public water was exten- ded to the existing mobile home park in recen~ years. By Board of Super~ visors policy, public sewer is not available to new uses.) R-l, Residential, zoning in this location would be inconsistent with the statement of intent of the R-1 district: 13.0 RESIDENTIAL - R-1 13.1 ~'~ ~' T T~ .~' -N EN ~ WHERE PERMITTED This district (hereafter referred to as R-l) is created to establish a plan implementation zone that: - Recognizes the existence of previously established low density reaidan~ial~disD~icts in rural areas, communities and the urban ~an~a; - Permits a variety of housing types; - Provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental and development amenities; and - Provides for low density residential development in community ' areas and the urban area where either existing character of development and/or the absence of water and sewer utilities are related to applicable densities. hZ--R-1 districts may be permitted within community and urban area locations designated on the Comprehensive Plan in proximity to compatible existing development where water and s~ewer utility services are not planned to be available for five or more years· Staff has not recommended favorably on request for "development" zoning outside the designated growth areas (see attached reports for ZMA-83-17 Douglas and Della Marsh; ZMA-84-14 Thomas D. Payne, on file·) Consideration of Precedent for Future Rezoning Requests: During development of the 1980 zoning map, zoning designations incon- sistent with the Comprehensive Plan were maintained on certain properties under the following circumstances: a) b) Development of the property corresponded to the existing zoning; Valid plans existed for development of property in accordance with existing zoning. Since industrial use of the property has been Voluntarily deleted by rezoning petition, it would seem appropriate in view of the 1980 zoning map policy, to designate the residue with zoning corresponding to existing use. Mobile home parks are not permitted in the R-l, Residential district. Mobile home parks are permitted by special use permit in the RA, Rural Areas district. Judging whether one inappropriate zoning category is more suitable than another inappropriate zoning category may prove difficult and may also result in legal difficulties. The current petition provides an example: Currently, the Patterson property is zoned LI, Light Industrial with consideration for R-1 zoning. R-1 use is not being made of the property. Adjoining Squirrel Ridge subdivision is developed at R-1 Zoning, however, was rezoned from higher-density residential~to RA on the 1980 zoning map. R-1 zoning is approved for the Patterson property. Sub- sequently, Squirrel Ridge homeowners seek R-1 zoning based on existing use and density of development. The homeowners maintain that certain 'by right' uses in the RA are inappro- priate to density within the subdivision (il.e., keeping hogs) and that existing density is inappropriate to the statement of intent of the RA district. Staff can determine no reason to vary from the Board of Supervisors' policy established for the 1980 zoning map which would result in an RA designation for this property." Mr. Donnelly said the staff still recommends RA, Rural Areas, zoning for this property. tr. Fisher opened the public hearing, and finding no one present to speak on the matter, closed the hearing immediately. Mr. Fisher sought the advice of Mr. St. John, saying the matter was first advertised for a rezoning from LI, Light Industry, to RA, Rural Areas, and a public hearing was held, but the Board did not approve that zoning, asking instead for readvertisement and a revised staff report on R-l, Residential zoning. He asked if the Board, having held hearings on a higher and a lower density zoning, could now take action either to zone the property RA or R-1. Mr. St. John said the Board can act to zone the property EAdeven~without the first hearing, since it may zone to any use less intense than the one for which it was advertised. Since RA zoning is less intense than R-l, the property could be zoned RA after this hearing without another advertisement. Mr. Fisher then told Mr. Donnelly that when this matter first came before the Board on te~r 19, 198~'~the ~oard was.under the impression that the mobile home park would be appro- priate in an R-A z~ne, but it would also be appropriate in any zone as a non-conforming use; i~wever, any expansion or extension of the mobile home park could only be done in an RA zone and with a special use permit. Mr. Fisher said to put the park in a zone where it could never be expanded or even considered for expansion without a rezoning and a special use permit wou~d be m~me of a problem than the current zoning create~. Mr. Donnelly said that in the R-1 dis- ;rict, it would be impossible to expand ~$ark~hecams~ even a special use permit would not ~e available. Mr. Fisher said he is inclined to suppOrt the staff's recommandation for RA zoning. iF Presen isher Mr. Bowie said this appearance makes the third time this item has been on the Board's agenda since he began serving on the Board, and the property owner, for the first time, is not ~resent. What notification was offered,~besides the notice of the hearing in the paper? Mr. said the property owner was at the meeting where the public hearing was set, December 19, 1983. Mr. St. John said the only reason another hearing was set was because the Board could not do what it wished -- zone the property R-1 -- without another public, hearing. Mr. Donnelly said the property owner was.notified b~ the hearing by letter-from his office. Mr. Fisher said the way the map is drawn, the entire property seems to be covered bY this rezoning. He asked if this '~s.correct, since he thought part of the property had been rezoned for commercial use. Mr. Donnelly said a small piece of 8ommercial zoning on the property is a part of this request. Mr. Fisher said it seems clear to him that the Board should go with the staff's recommen- dation on this residue of the property. Mrs. Cooke made motion that the Board accept the staff's recommendation for ZMA-84-25 for rezoning to RA. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Henley said he was bothered by the Board doing this when, for some reason, Mr. Patterson is not present at the meeting, and he would not vote for the measure for this reason. Roll was called and ~he motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Way. NAYS: Mr. Henley. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 1t. CPA-84-7. Route 742/631 Roadway Link and Interstate Access. Review of alternatives for providing interstate access for industrial property along Route 742 and evaluation of proposed road segment shown in Neighborhoods 4 and 5 of the Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January i and January 8, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report: "COMPREHENSIVE' PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST The request was initiated May 16, 1984 by the applicant ~for ZMA-84-8, Hillcrest PUD, in order to delete the proposed Route 20/742 connector road indicated in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, 1982-2002. Deletion of the proposed road would, in effect, reduce the design speed of the proposed Hillcrest Drive from 45 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour by reducing the volume of through traffic. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent, however, to delete the proposed Route 631/742 road from the Comprehensive Plan on June 21, 1984. (A summary of the history of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment may be found in the staff report, a copy of which has been filed.) COMPREHENSIVE 'PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS The Plan proposes a set of two road segments to link Route 631 (Fifth Street) to Route 742 (Avon Street) and Route 742 to Route 20. The Plan notes that the 'creation of a major roadway link between Route 20, Avon Street Extended and Fifth Street would act as an east-west corridor pro- viding access to 1-64 and traffic circulation within the neighborhoods.' The proposed Comprehensive Plan roads are intended to: Provide an east-west corridor for local traffic; Maintain the functional integrity of 1-64 by reducing local traffic on the interstate; Provide interstate access for Route 742. While all three concerns have been addressed by the Commission, previous discussions focused largely on the need to provide interstate access to industrial zoned property on Route 742, and primarily on the feasibility of an interchange at Route 742/I-64 intersection. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan outlines many goals and standards designed to protect the character of residential areas from incompatible land uses and their adverse impacts. Beyond socio-economic and environmental concerns, this is clearly a matter of protecting public safety. The plan also contains goals and standards to provide for expansion of existing industry in order to provide employment and balance the employment mix. Among the considerations for industrial development are the need for con- venient access, adequate public facilities, compatible land uses and the provision of buffering as needed. The channeling of industrial traffic through residential neighborhoods may be inconsistent with some of the goals and standards of the Comprehensive Plan. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has observed, however, that whether or not a proposed road is indicated in the Comprehen- sive Plan, a through road in that general location will have the same effect of promoting through traffic, including some industrial/commercial traffic and all public roads are designed accordingly. ~A~CKGROUND'iNFO~RMATION A. Viability of Industrial Property Alon~ Route 742 Zoning: A review of industrially zoned land with potential access to Route ' 742 identified: 127 acres occupied; 227 acres undeveloped; 354 acres total. Some of the undeveloped acreage includes land which is greater than 25 percent slopes or which lies within the one hundred year floodplain. A cursory evaluation of land contained in critical slopes or flood plain indicates approximately 180-200 vacant acres with development potential. An actual parcel count of all land zoned LI, Light Industry, yielded 1,280 acres countywide. The Avon Street area (350 acres) represents 28 percent of the total area presently zoned LI, Light Industry. Other regions of Li zone concentrations include: Hollymead, Scottsville, Crozet and the Woolen Mills. Utilities: Public water and sewer lines are currently available in areas along Route 742 both north and south of 1-64. Expansion capacities to Albemarle County Service Authority water lines are presently limited due to fluctuations in line pressure. Access: Presently, the predominant traffic route followed by vehicles utilizing Route 742 is by Monticello Avenue to the Route 20 interchange. It should be noted that the City may, if it so chooses, restrict indus- trial traffic (trucks) from traversing any City street. This is a legiti- mate concern for potential industrial development as the present route through the City runs through established residential neighborhoods. The City Engineer has stated that to date, no such formal complaints have been lodged regarding truck traffic. As stated in previous reports, the alternative to this route is to follow Route 742 south to its intersection with Route 20 and untilize the Route 20 interchange. This secondary route may double the required trip length for interstate access. Other concerns regarding utilizing this route as a primary industrial route include Route 20 status as a designated scenic highway, current vehicular safety issues on Route 20, its existing low density residential character and the high volume of tourist traffic. In summary, undeveloped industrially zoned land is presently available along Route 742, however lack of desirable access may inhibit future development. B. Vir.$inia Department of Highways and Transportation Comments The Highway Department response to staff inquiries is summarized below: * It is difficult to justify an additional interstate interchange at Route 742/I-64. A 'current compelling public need' must be demon- strated, such as a major traffic generator. Based on the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation review of the CATS Study 'it does not appear that development current or anticipated would meet this definition of current, compelling need.' An interchange at Route 742 would also: 1. Violate interchange spacing standards; 2. Create problems in the adequate placement of warning/location signs on 1-64; 3. Effect traffic patterns over much larger area; 4. Substantially influence development patterns; 5. Could lead to undesirable congestion on 1,64; 6. Cost an estimated $2.5 million (not including right-of-way acquisition; 7. Require long-range area-wide planning; 8. Would not be supported by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. C. C~TS Study Information The above Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comments are based on their analysis of the CATS Study's recommendations for the Route 742 area. The final draft of the CATS Study did not include the east-west connec- tor roads between Routes 631/742/20. The policy committee rejected these proposed roadways as too expensive for the service given and furthermore, these connectors were not considered to be critical linkages in the area- wide transportation network. It is difficult to generalize how potential development will impact existing road networks. Based on Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standard guidelines, for every 100 acres developed in light industry parks, an average of 6,840 daily vehicle trips could be generated. In the event that Route 742 becomes fully developed as detailed in the Urban Area Land Use Plan, daily traffic volumes may approach 15,000 vehicle trips per day (based on staff estimation). The Virginia Departmnt of Highways and Transportation 1984 daily vehicle counts for Route 742 indicate an average of 4,274 vehicle trips per day. Januar 16 1 8 Re ular Ni ht.Meetin O In regard to' a possible amendment to the CATS Study to support a Route 742 interchange study, the Department had the following response: 'The CATS Study is an overall transportation plan for this area. Revisions to land use within the study area, even on a spot basis, have an effect on all portions of the transportation network. To revise the land use in one localized area and then study its effect on the road network in that area is unfeasible and an improper procedure. The proper procedure is to update the entire transportation study. I am sure such a revision to the transpor- tation plan will be undertaken in the next few years. I would suggest this procedure be the mechanism for determining if an interchange is warranted at the intersection of Route 742 and -iiI-64. Revision of the transportation plan would be under the guidance of the Metropolitan Planning Organization !~MPO).' D. Avon Street Connector Roads The County Engineer has prepared a feasibility study examining five possible alignments for connector roads serving the Route 742 area. In this report, the County Engineer recommends two options in lieu of the Route 742/20 connector road segment (Hillcrest) and the Route 742/631 road segment. The County Engineer also notes that it is generally considered better to restrict rather than encourage traffic through residential areas and has therefore proposed alternate routes--through ~-~i~ential -~?-~ ~: , - ~ · ~--- to the 'Hillcrest' segment presently shown in the ~omprehensive Plan. Previously the County Engineer had also commented that an interchange at Route 742 was probably not feasible or justified. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings of the County Engineer's feasibility study, the staff recommends that the Romte 742/631roadway link be deleted from the Land Use Map of the Alemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002. The staff supports maintaining the Route 742/20 connector (Hillcrest) based on the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations to provide east-west traffic movement in Neighborhoods 4 and 5 and also on functions such as emergency access, school transportation, etc. However, the staff recognizes that movement of industrial traffic through residential properties should not be encouraged. If alternate routes can be found that better serve the functions outlined by the Comprehensive Plan, then the alignment of the Route 742/20 connector should be changed. The staff would therefore propose, in addition to the deletion of the present alignment of the proposed Route 742/631 road segment, that further study of Options #1 and #5 described in the County Engineer's report be pursued." Mr. Donnelly proceeded to give the following report prepared by the County Engineering Department and dated December 6, 1985~ ~i~a s~UMMARY: Five alternate routes were studied on a2D~lim~n~ry basis to determine the benefits,~problems and costs that~m~Eht be incurred if a connector road is cmnstructed to provide Avon Street withddirect access to 1-64 at the Fifth Street and/or the Route 20 interchanges. This report concludes that the most desirable option is to plan for a connector road running east from Avon Street to Route 20 on the north' side of 1-64 generally parallel to Moore's Creek (Option 5). The $~.cond moz~8~[~able option would be to plan for a road from Avon Street ~u~n~g w.es~.~oL~idi~yn~h~u~ Rba~F~f~h~$~.~tat Oak Hill Subdivision on the south side of 1-64 .(Option 1). Having a connection to Fifth Street is considered valuable because it is in the direction of traffic heading for the Route 29 North and the University area, and it ties in with the future Meadow- creek Parkway. The recommendation is to plan for both Options 5 and 1. If this recommendation is accepted it raises an important question concerning the proposed Hillcrest development. Should Option 5 be deleted and replaced with the developer's road from Avon Street to Route 20 through Hillcrest? This report concludes that the answer is no for the following reasons: Hillcrest is proposed as a residential subdivision. It is generally considered better to restrict rather than promote traffic through such a development. That, incidentially, is one of the reasons that Option i is less desirable than Option 5. Having one connector road north of 1-64 and another on the south side serves Avon Street better than if both connector roads were on the same side of 1-64. The land through which Option 5 would pass is being considered for commercial development by its owner. 3'3 Januar- - 16_ 1~85 (Regular Night Meeting~_ 'IN,~'~'DUCTION,: This report was provided at the request of the Planning Commission to study the feasibility of providing connector roads from Avon Street to either or both of the existing 1-64 interchanges. The interest in conducting this study was generated by a request from the developer of Hillcrest subdivision to delete the Route 742/631 connector from the Comprehensive Plan in order that the design standard through his subdivision could be lowered. This report, therfore, concentrates on routes other than through Hillcrest. The 'no-build' option was not considered. If the land along Avon Street is to be allowed to develop as either industrial, commercial or residential, it is the Engineering Department's opinion that some connector is needed for good traffic circulation regardless of the traffic count. An interchange at Avon Street was not studied since it would not meet Highway Department criteria for safe separation between the existing interchanges. Also, at the direction of the Commission, a connector from Avon Street to Route 20 running between the Hillcrest and P.V.C.C. properties was not studied. Followin is a discussion of the five alternate routes showing rough cost estimates (and profiles on file in the Clerk's office). The cost estimates are considered suitable for comparing alternatives, but should not be used for budget purposes. The profiles were taken from 200-foot S~le aerial topographic maps with five foot contour intervals. Because of the rather severe topography on all of the options studied, it is recommended that field run profiles be obtained on the options selected to allow preparation of more exact designs and cost estimates. The pro- posed profiles shown represent the worst case. It is felt that the High- way Department's horizontal and vertical geometric design criteria for a 35-45 mile per hour speed can be obtained for all of the options shown. DISCUSSION OF THE OPTIONAL ROUTES: OPTION 1: (From Avon Street (Route 742), across Biscuit Run, through Oak Hill Subdivision to Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631). Cost estimated at $2,618,040.) ThTs route meets Avon Street in a superelevated curv~ which may cause some design problems. The point of intersection was chosen because it is at the crest of the hill in Avon Street and should provide the best sight distance. The location of Option 2, however, may be better. The road grades are steep and the cuts and fills are high. These are con- ditions which will require care to prevent erosion, however, the same problem exists with all of the five options. The high bridge over Biscuit Run and the disruption of the Oak Hill Subdivision are the major drawbacks to this option. OPTION 2: (From Avon Street (Route 742), down to and northwardly along Biscuit Rrm, under 1-64 bridge, to Fifth Street at Holiday Inn~(Route 631). Cost estimated at $2,847,480,~) This route and Option 3 have the most severe engineering problems and are not recommended. The major problems are traver- sing the steep slope along Biscuit Run to drop approximately 100 feet verti- cally in order to pass under 1-64. A major channel change of Biscuit Run at 1-64 would be required which would probably be a concrete channel. The effect on the environment would be severe. OPTION 3: (From Avon Street ~Eouhe 742), across olR City landfillbbetween Moore's Creek and the M. C. Thomas Warehouse, to existing b~idge and to Fifhh Street (Route 631). Cost estimated at $3,029,160.) The steep slopes along Moores Creek would present severe environmental problems and would probably result in the loss of a twenty to fifty-foot strip of flat land (which is not in use now) at the M. C. Thomas Warehouse. The conS~rnn~i~n~through the old City landfill at Avon street would probably be met with opposition from the Health Dep~rtment and the City of Charlottesville, since the refuse would have to be taken to the Ivy Landfill and would be using up that facility's capacity. At least 30 feet of refuse would have to be excavated and a gas venting and leachate control system would be required. OPTION 4: (From Route 20 at ~u~rry Raad, across Moore's Creek, ~hen running approximately parallel to 1-64 to Avon Street (Route 742) at Hamilton Paper Company. Cost estimated at $1,785,180.) This option was proposed only because it would tie in with Option 3 at Avon Street. Since Option 3 is not recommended this option should also be deleted. Option 4 is longer and more expensive than Option 5 and it will disrupt the existing businesses on Avon Street. OPTION 5: (Rom~.e same as Option 4 except tie-in to Avon Street near Moore's Creek. Cost estimated at $1,471,560.) This option requires a tie in to Route 20 which is in the City limits and will therefore require their concurrence. It is adjacent to a City recreation facility; however, the road can be construc- ted through a thick Dine area and allow that screening to remain between the road and the hockey field. This route will also aid traffic flow in the City and fits in with some preliminary plans of developers on Avon Street." Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December ll, 1984, unanimously voted to recommend that the roadway link between Route 742 and Route 631 be delet from the Land Use Map of the 1982-2002 Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also directed the staff to study alternative Option I and Option 5 as shown in the County Engineer's Preliminary Report of December 6, 1984. Januar~ 16~ 1~8 Re Mlar Ni_~ht MeetinE~~ Mr. Donnelly said t'hi's matter ha's been studied because Dr. Charles Hurt would like to change his R-I, Residential zoning on the Hillcrest property to PRD, Planned Residential Development, between Avon Street and Route 20. He cannot do this while the Comprehensive Plan shows a connector road through his property. This connector was shown in the original Compre- hensive Plan as access to 1-64 from Avon Street. Mr. Fisher asked why the road alignment should be dropped. Mr. Donnelly said the removal of the connector would reduce the design standards to which Hillcrest Drive should be built. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Donnelly if the Planning Commission had already deleted the connector road indicated on the Comprehensive Plan -- the Hillcrest Drive that Dr. Hurt had made application to delete. Mr. Donnelly said the Commission, after a number of meetings, recommended deleting not that road, but the Route 742/631 connector going in the other directior The Commission made this decision on December tl, 1985, and at the same time recommended study of Options 1 and 5 in the County Engineer's report. Mr. Fisher said it seems that all five of the options have highway slopes greater 'than ten Ilpercent. He asked how the Highway Department would feel about accepting such roads into the istate system. As an~addendum to his question, he asked the grade of the proposed Hillcrest tDrive in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Donnelly said the staff has not studied the Hillcrest toption, but has remained with the options recommended for study by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said the Hillcrest option had not been deleted, and Mr. Donnelly said that is correct. Mr. Fisher asked why the Planning Commission was willing to drop the Routes 742/631 connector recommended in the Comprehensive Plan when no other option has been selected to replace it. He asked if the connector road would impede some other development in the area. Mr. Donnelly said none was planned that he knew of. Mr. Fisher then asked why Hillcres~ Drive should be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan. If the road were no longer designated as the connector between Route 742 and Route 20, Mr. Donnelly said, the developer could build it to a lower design standard and it would be less expensive to construct. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the elimination of the connector road between Route 742 and Route 631 that the Planning Commission had recommended would also eliminate the necessity of taking a new road under 1-64. Mr. Donnelly said the County Engineer had said that would be ecologically mnsound and very disruptive. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mr. Floyd Artrip presented a petition to the Board from industries located on Avon Street that would like a connector road as soon as possible. He said he is one of the developers of the AStec center. He read the petition: "The present Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County calls for 'Creation of a major roadway link between Route 20, Avon Street Extended and Fifth Street, which will act as an east-west corridor providing access to Inter- state 64 and traffic ~circulation within the neighborhood.' In addition, the bulk of the undeveloped Light Industrial zoned land in the county which is presently served by public water and sewer lies in the Avon Street Extended area. Traffic generated by businesses currently must pass through residential neighborhoods in Charlottesville to reach 1-64. We, the undersigned, petition the Board of Supervisors to take positive steps toward achieving the above stated goal of the Comprehensive Plan." The petition was signed by fifteen representatives of Avon Street Extended industries. Mr. ~rtrip said the Joint Security Complex and the National Guard Armory were very supportive of the connector road, in its entirity, represented in the Comprehensive Plan. In another section of the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Artrip noted that industries are advised to "locate within a half-mile of highway, air or rail transportation facilities, not only for convenience of the industry, but also to avoid industrial traffic through residential and agricultural areas on roads not designed for such traffic." A second quote read "industrial access should be to a major collector, state primary or arterial highway. Industrial inter- sections should be planned to minimize traffic conflicts with other land-use activities and traffic functions." Saying "the eraser is mightier than the sword," Mr. Artrip cautioned the Board that what ~t plans to do is an erasure. Industries in the area want the connector, and want east-west ~nterstate access. Because this area contains almost all the light industrial land in the ~ounty where adequate utilities are available, Mr. Artrip said the County should really be ~upporting the connector. One of the businesses with which he had spoken said it is planning a hove to the U. S. 29 North area, and one of the reasons is the lack of interstate access. Mr. ~rtrip said he is asking tonight that the Board consider the substitutes. He said he was not orepared, and he did not feel the County Engineer is prepared to say that any one of the five options is better than any other. Because no one has adequately analyzed the costs, the effects on the neighborhoods involved or made a complete analysis, Mr. Artrip said he does not want the present road shown on the Comprehensive Plan to be deleted until he knows all the facts, and until the Board knows all the facts about the substitute routes. He said that if the Board takes action to delete the road outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, it may not be possible to ~et the road back into the Plan if that road turns out to be the best alternative. -Mr. Artrip added that, at present, AStec is routing its truck traffic through Charlottes- Fille to keep it out of residential neighborhoods. If Hillcrest Drive is constructed, he said, trucks will use it even if it is not built to design standards for a connector road, and the Board will have truck traffic going through a subdivision. There being no one other than Mr. Artrip present to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the public ~earing. ~ Janu~r. i6 1~8~ (Re. ular Ni_ h.t Meeting]__ Mr. Lindstrom said it looks to him as if the routes all go through some pretty severe ~opoEraphY, with the possible exception of Option 5. He said it seemed that the present route, the..one listed in the Comprehensive Plan, might be the only viable alternative. Mr. Fisher ~aid he cannot judge that because it does not seem that an analysis of that route was done. Hr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker to explain the recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan for a ~onnector road. Mr. Tucker said the basic problem inherent in the recommendation to get a roadway under Interstate 64. The bridge over Biscuit Run, which is where the connector would have to go, is so low that trucks would have trouble getting under it. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at 9:30 p.m.) Mr. Tucker said the County Engineer could do some further study on the costs and location ~f this route. Mr. Fisher said he thinks the Board needs an analysis and feasibility study of ~hat route before it makes a decision. Mr. Fisher asked if it would not be better to have the two roads line up together, directly across Avon Street. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commis- sion's concern is that this would create a road designed for truck traffic right in the middle of residential areas. Mr. Way pointed out that Hillcrest is only a potential residential ~rea --the houses have not yet been built -- while some of the other alternatives go through astablished residential neighborhoods. Mr. Tucker said he agrees that the areas are somewhat developed, and said the time to look at options is now, when some of the land is still open. Hr. Way asked if option five does not lie mostly within the City lim Mr. Tucker said the City line begins at Moores Creek. Mr. Lindstrom noted that the highway would go through a p He said he can hear the comments on this proposed route now. Mr. Fisher asked how long it would take to review the options and bring back a recommen- dation to the Board. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Donnelly if Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer ?or the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, had reviewed the options. Mr. )onnelly said he did not know. Mr. Donnelly added that the Planning Commission had asked that ~he staff to study options one and five. Mr. Fisher said the net effect of the Planning Com- mission's recommendation is to reduce the speed on Hillcrest Drive to 35 miles per hour and ~ave a through road not designed for high-volume truck traffic, and then to actually place this ~raffic on the road by not carrying out one of the other options. Mr. Donnelly said the Plan- ~ing Commission's recOmmendation would allow the developer to maintain an alignment that has ~lready been graded and prepared for use. Mr. Fisher said this area is going to need some good ~ransportation corridors and if the space is not reserved for them now, the Board will have ~ost its chance to provide them. He said he cannot imagine waiting ten years and then trying to redesign the road. He suggested the Board put this off a couple of months and have the ~taff look at the options again. Mr. Way agreed, saying he feels very strongly about getting the right kind of access to I- ~4. The industries have to have it, and the Board has a responsibility to make the~right decision. Mr. Bowie said the staff could prehaps find a better route than the ones pictured on the maps. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Donnelly how much time he thought the County Engineer would aeed to review all the topography for better options. Mr. Donnelly said it will take two nonths, at least. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board defer the matter to March 13, so the ~taff will have a target date to shoot for. Mrs. Cooke made motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer taking any action on CPA-84-7 until ~arch 13, 1985. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. ~AYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Appropriation of $500,000 from a Virginia Community )evelopment Block Grant and transferring to Albemarle Housing Improvement Project. (Advertised ~n the Daily Progress on January 8, 1985.) Mr. Agnor said this will finalize the Community Development Block Grant and allow the ~unds to be received by the County, which will only act as fiscal agent in a pass-through ~apacity. The public hearing was opened and closed immediately when no one was present to ~peak on this matter. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to amend the 1984-85 County budget and to adopt the following ?esolution. Seconded by Mr. Bowie, the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: ~AYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $500,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant fund and coded to 1-122~-81020-56B100 CDBG-AHIP; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1984-85 County budget is hereby amended by the addition of $500,000 to code 2-1224-24000-240500 Grant Proceeds; and FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. Agenda Item No. 13. Local Options for Industrial Development Authority Bonds. Mr. Tucker told the Board that the guidelines the Industrial Development Authority and ~taff presented at the December 19, 1984 meeting have been amended in the ways suggested by the ~oard. (See December 19, 1984 minutes.) Januar-_ 16 1.8_ iRe.-ular Ni .ht Meetin_Dg]~ The first item under "Project Characteristics", Mr. Tucker said, has been changed to reflect the Board's concern for the unemployed and underemployed in the area. The third item in this same~category places stronger emphasis on training for employees to bring them beyond skill levels. Another change has been suggested for the quarterly review dates, suggested under "Appli- cation Review Process" of the guidelines. Mr. Tucker said Mr. James Murray, Jr. Chairman of the IDA, had suggested that the last quarterly deadline be changed from December to November to give applicants time to seek funding before the close of the calendar year. The IDA will review applications on a schedule based on the federal fiscal year ending in June. The allocation~ are based on a calendam year, and the application must be complete by December 31, so a Decem- ber 31 hearing date would not be suitable. Mr. Tucker said the IDA would like to include a fee for the application· Mr. Fisher asked purpose the money would serve. Mr. Tucker said the staff will be more and more involved the writing of proposals as it begins to work under the federal and state laws on IDA bonds. He said most other areas in the state require some sort of fee for their services to cover staff costs. The application fee would be fixed. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff has had time to determine how much staff time would be required. Mr. Tucker said that has not been done yet. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 9:40 p.m.) Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Murray for comments. Mr. Murray said the IDA really has no problems with the guidelines, but would like the November date for the final quarter of the calendar ~ear because the applicants need a month to close before the fund allocation for the year ~ires. Mr. Fisher asked if the whole review could not be moved up a month and the review could start on the first day of the federal fiscal year. Mr. Murray said it is important to the bonds closing within the calendar year, so it might be better to have the quarterly deadlines remain as they are, with the exception of November. Mr. Fisher agreed. A fee, Mr. Murray said, has been adopted throughout the state to discourage spurious applications -- those made by firms who only wanted to see what the chances were that funds could be made available. The City of Charlottesville has a sliding scale on which the minimum fee is $500. The fee goes up with the amount of bond authorization sought. Mr. Murray said the IDA, last year, had discussed charging $500. He is not certain if this still would be the fee it would choose. The requirements for letters of inducement before bonding can be approved discourage some spurious applications, but Mr. Murray said he thinks the Board should still consider the fee. The staff will have to help more and more, he feels, and now both the state and federal governments are requiring tax recording. Mr. Murray said the County should have to contribute a dollar to these costs. Mr. Jones said the County does, in fact, have to do three tax reports. Mr. Murray said the money from fees should go into the General Fund. The IDA does not want to handle any money at all. Mr. Fisher said this would still require a separate bookkeeping entity, to which the staff time could be charged. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not particularly want to charge a fee, but if that is necessary, amount should be matched to the actual costs staff incurs. Mr. Murray said many industrial an~h~i~es h~e ~nnual fees that go on for the life of the project. For instance, he said many of the nursing homes approved in the County have carried forward for several years before the final bond allocation. If the County had an annual fee, these businesse would have had to pay yearly. The IDA does not want that, but wants a one-shot fee with no on-going ~ense. The City, he said, has a separate staff person to work on industrial development exclusively. Mr. Henley asked if IDA board members receive any compensation for their services. Mr. Agnor said they do not. Mr. Henley asked if it would be possible to pay IDA members a stipend. · Agnor said it would be. Mr. Lindstrom said he wishes there was a way to figure out which and commissions get paid and which do not. Mr. Bowie suggested that the staff look at having the IDA members paid. Mr. Murray said he would just like to have long distance phone bills paid, because he returns calls and then finds out that .the matter is an IDA one, rather than his own business. Mr. Bowie made motion to accept these guidelines for the issuance of industrial develop- bonds and that the Board request staff to explore what an appropriate compensation would be for IDA members; and that the final review of applications be held in November of each year to allow time to complete issuance of the bonds before the end of the calendar year. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion, saying this is in compliance with the economic development component of the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted and then forgotten. The motion carried the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND GUIDELINES It is the objective of the Board of Supervisors and the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) of Albemarle County to develop a process which signals those pro- jeots believed by the County to be af high priority, whil~ retaining as much flexibility as possible to evaluate projects on their independent merits. The Board and IDA are also interested in making the process of reviewing Industrial Development Bond (IDB) requests as equitable and systematic as possible. Accordingly, the IDA will use the following guidelines which are organized into the following three categories: 1. Project Characteristics 2. Application Review Process 3. Applicant Restrictions 1.' P'r'O~'e'c't'~C~rac'teristics: While not excluding other types of projects meeting statutory requirements (as outlined in the County Code), the IDA will consider projects with the following characteristics (no order of priority is implied) as High Priority projects: * Projects which create a substantial number of new jobs, the majority of which will be filled by County residents. Industries or businesses being considered for funding should offer opportunities to the unem- ployed and underemployed of this area. As such, projects which would involve a transfer of jobs from an existing local facility in the area to a new facility would in the same business or industry would not be considered to create new jobs for Albemarle County residents. * Projects which have a positive impact on the County economy and local community needs. These impacts would be measured in terms of the ratios of jobs and taxes generated to the amount of bond dollars com- mitted and/or the level of commitment to address such local needs as residential facilities for the elderly and handicapped as outlined in the County Code, or other community needs. * Projects which require primarily skilled labor and/or provide training to employees in order that they may attain a higher level of skill. For purposes of these guidelines, skilled labor shall be defined as any type of manual or non-manual labor which requires a measurable level of skill, education or experience. In order that the IDA may assess the above-mentioned criteria, IDA applicants must submit detailed documentation on the amount of jobs created per bond dollar reques- ted.? In addition, applicants must provide a breakdown of the,~jobs to be created by salary and skill level. 2. Application Review Process: The IDA will review and approve applications on a quarterly basis. The quarters will be on a Federal fiscal year basis,and will end on the last day of September, November, March and June. Meetings will be scheduled upon the call of the Chair- man, during the last several weeks of~ach~mm~r. The quarterly review is established in order to stimulate competition for limited tax dollars, make the application review process m~re systematic, and as a result, insure that projects providing the greatest benefit to the community are selected. For the projects which in the judgement of the Chairman of the IDA are high p~ior- ity projects, if deemed necessary, the IDA may circumvent the quarterly review process and act as needed in order to reasonably accommodate the schedule of the applicant. Projects which in the judgement of the Chairman of the IDA are not high priority projects, will only be considered by the IDA at the end of each quarter. Applications will be considered on a 'first-come, first-served' basis, and scheduled on the agenda accordingly provided that High Priority projects, by their definition, will be fiven the first priority in the quarterly review process. Should there be more than one high priority application on the same agenda, the IDA will first rank them in priority by majority vote before other- wise considering their merits. ~. Applicant Restrictions: The IDA will impose the following new restrictions on applicants for bond financing: * Projects of $500,000 or less which have been submitted to the State Small Business Finance Authority (SBPA) for funding prior to seeking bond financing from the IDA, and have been denied fund- ing by the SBFA or which are not deemed eligible to rece±ve funds from the SBFA may then seek financing from the IDA. The applicant must submit a signed letter of committment from a lending institution before the Authority will hold a hear- ing on the bond application. Inducement letters from the IDA will be limited to a three month validity period.. Any request for an extension will be treated as a new application with no implied right to any priority because it was Previously induced. The applicant must (a~soon as it is available) submit its~appli- cation on a new, revised application'form together with an appli- cation fee as required by the applicatio~ guidelines. Agenda Item No. l~. Discussion: Appointments to Land Use Regulations Committee. Mr. Lindstrom said he had some specific names to discuss for appointment to this committee and would prefer to do so in executive session. January 16, 1985.. (Reyutar Night Me~ Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not on the Agenda. Mrs. Cooke told the Board that Ms. Barbara Burger of the Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault had mentioned to her that funds are needed for some of the task forces~ opera- tions. Mrs. Cooke said she had not understood what, exactly, Ms. Burger had wanted,~and had suggested seeking a grant of some sort. Mr. Lindstrom said he might be interested in funding the group if he could see a~propoSal in writing. Mr. Fisher said the request should go through the normal staff channels. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Ms. Burger be told to file a budget request and then the Board could review it along with other requests. Mr. Way said it should be made clear that the Board would merely be receiving information and not promising anything. Mr. Bowie said he will have the second report from the County's Resource Recovery Committe~ at the next Board meeting. He noted that CAC3 is having its organized litter cleanup soon, and will be holding an organizational meeting on January 17, tomorrow, in the County Office Build- ing. He urged the' Board's support for this organization. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the spring litter clean-up could not be coordinated with the Parks and Recreation Department of the CoUnty. Mr. Fisher read a memorandum from Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the School Board, addres- sing a letter from Mr. Lane Kneedler on the possibility of endowed chairs for high schools: "January 10, 1985 Mr. Gerald Fisher, Chairman, Board of Supervisors County Office Building Dear Mr. Fisher: The School Board discussed the concept of endowed chairs proposed by Mr. Lane Kneedler at its December meeting. Board members believe the idea may have merit; without a more detailed proposal, however, the Board is not able to make a judgment. After the budget process for 1985-86 is completed, the School Board will ask Mr. Kneedler to discuss his proposal. I will inform you of action by the Board in this matter. Sincerely, (SIGNED) Jessie C. Haden School Board Chairman" Mr. Lindstrom suggested that proposed legislation be monitored, and Mr. Agnor said that his administrative assistant, Mrs. Sandy Markwood, is already doing that. Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session· At 10:02 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into executive session to discuss the sale or acquisition of property and personnel. The roll was called and the motion carried by the following recordec vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 10:33 p.m. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher recognized Mr. Bowie who reported that the Board has reviewed an offer from McIntire Village Associates, Inc. to purchasethe McIntire School property. The offer was in the form of a contract which has been reviewed by the Building and properties Committee and recommended to the Board for consideration. Mr. Bowie then offered motion that the Board hold a public hearing on February 13, 1985, to consider the sale of Mc'Intire School property to McIntire Village Associates, Inc. in accordance with the terms of the written offer. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr..Lindstrom made motion to appoint Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres, Mr. Don Wagner and Mr. John Greene to the Land Use Regulations Committee. Mr. Wagner and Mr. Greene's appointments repre~ !sent the two members of the Committee whose occupations bring them into frequent contact with the County land use regulations. The~appointment of Mrs. Van Yahres is for one of the vacan- cies for people who are actively involved in public interest groups. Mr. Way seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: ~Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item NO. 17. Adjournment. At 10:45 p.m. Mr. Bowie made motion to adjourn to Febru- ary 6, 1985, at 3:30 p.m. for a meeting with the Albemarle County Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS' Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. CHAIRMAN