1985-02-20~- February.20, 198~
(Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 20, 1985, 7:30 p.m., Meeting~Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIn-
tire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived 7:53), Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher
J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way (arrived 7:36).
Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County
Attorney; Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher, Board Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
He told his fellow Board members that Mrs. Cooke might be detained due to a death in her
family and that Mr. Way had a special church service to attend and might be absent.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley,
the Board approved the Consent Agenda by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way.
Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board for the Department
of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of January, 1985,
'were received as presented.
Item.No. 4.2. Change Order No. 13 - Court Square Project.
ing memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, dated February 19, 1985:
The Board received the follow-
"Attached is a copy of Change Order No. 13 amounting to $1,832.00.
The majority of the costs ($1,128.00) are needed to strengthen the
underpinning at southwest corner of the Courthouse. This portion of
Change Order No. 13 was anticipated in October and brought to your
attention in December. It was much less costly than originally
estimated. The other costs are to change the paint to an epoxy type
to give a tile-like glaze in four bathrooms. There is no need for
an additional appropriation."
The change order was approved as presented.
Item No. 4.3. Letter (copy) from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation, regarding Route 29 North at Woodbrook Subdivision entrance:
"February 14, 1985
Mr. Michael H. Boblitz
2709 Brookmere Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Mrs. Susan Bramley
410 East Brook Drive
Charlottesville, VA
22901
Dear Mr. Boblitz & Mrs. Bramley:
Reference is made to your letter dated February 10, 1985, which.concerned
traffic and sPeed on Route 29 near the intersection with Woodbrook Drive.
.-Your letter made three recommendations as interim solutions.to_the subdi-
vision's traffic problems. Let me speak to each of these individually.
You requested that the Department grant special permission to designate
Route 29 North in the vicinity.of Woodbrook as a school zone. Section
46.1-193 of the Co.de of Virginia indicates the conditions under which
school zones can be designated.~ Route 29 at Woodbrook Drive does not meet
these requirements. The requirements~are not a policy of the Department
which can be waived ~.y administrators. It is a law which requires
action by the General Assembly to change. Even if this were not the
case, however, I believe the posting of school zone signs on Route 29 in
this area without appropriate schools being visible to the traveling
· public would only create a false sense of security in the minds of Wood-
brook residents without a corresponding reduction of the speed on Route 29.
A~fter our meeting at Woodbrook School on January 24, 1985, I discussed the
possibility of additional signing or posting of maximum safe.speed signs
through this area with the Traffic Engineer. He is reviewing this matter
further taking into account recent accident statistics and other information.
As I indicated at our meeting, once this review has been completed I will
be in touch with you.
~bruary 20~ !985 (Regular.Night Meeting)
Concerning aupport of enforcement of the posted speed limit on Route 29,
I have attached a copy of a letter I have addressed to the Albemarle
County Police and the local State Police unit. I would suggest that you
make your own contacts with these two departments expressing your concern.
I appreciate your concern in this matter. My~son and daughter attend
Woodbrook School and ride one of the buses that must stop on Route 29 to
make a student pick-up. You may rest assured that my interest in this sub-
ject will not flag. I will be in touch with you once the Traffic Engineer
has had time to study all aspects of this problem.
Yours truly,
(SIGNED)
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer"
Item No. 4.4.
(Copies on file).
Various letters from citizens regarding proposed 1985-86 school budget.
Item No. 4.5. Planning Commission minutes of February 12 and February 14, 1985.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-84-88. Hester C. Whitcher. Request to locate a single-wide mobil
home on 62.31 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Located on the north side of a private easement,
3/10 mile east of its intersection with Route 680 and Route 811. Tax Map 41, Parcel 72B, Whit~
Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 5 and February 12, 1985.)
(Mr. Way arrived at 7:36 p.m.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report:
"Request: Mobile home
Acreage: 62.31 acres
Zoning: RA, Rural Areas.
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 41, Parcel 72B, is located on the
east side of Route 680 just north of the Route 811 intersection.
Character of the Area: The surrounding land topography consists of
rolling hills. Residential and agricultural use comprise the uses of
adjoining properties. Much of the area fronting Route 680 consists of
mixed deciduous evergreen forest.
Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed placing a mobile home on
her 62.31 acre parcel to house an agricultural employee. The mobile
home will be integrated into a stable and office structure. This struc-
ture will be constructed prior to the applicant's dwelling to provide
shelter for her livestock. The addition of the mobile home provided for
her agricultural employee will provide security and care for livestock.
The appliant plans to build a dwelling on the parcel following completion
of the stable area. If the applicant had built the dwelling unit on the
land and was placing a mobile home on the parcel to house her agricultural
employee it would not be necessary to apply for a special use permit. The
use of a mobile home in that circumstance is by right (Zoning Ordinance
Section 10.2.1.15.a).
Because of the existing vegetation and the distance from Route 680 the
proposed site of the mobile home cannot be seen from R~ute 680. However
it is visible from dwellings to the north and south of the proposed site.
Screening can be employed to decrease the visual impact of the mobile home.
If the Planning ~ommission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve
this petition, the staff recommends:
ao
Applicant must adhere to Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Location and screening of mobile home to the reasonable satisfaction
of the Zoning Administrator."
Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 12, 1985
unanimously recommended approval of this petition with the two conditions listed above.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board had questions for Mr. Donnelly, and hearing none, he opened
the public hearing.
Ms. Whitcher said she does not intend to have anything unattractive on this property,
since she does not want to look at ugliness any more than her neighbors do. She said her own
house will be under construction by September 1. She said she is committed to another employ-
ment'until sometime early in 1986~ so her home will be started with the idea of being able to
occupy it by that time.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were others present to speak on this application.
present and the public hearing was closed.
No one was
Mr. Lindstrom made motion to approve SP-84-88 with the conditions set out by the Planning
Commission that 1. Applicant must adhere to Section 5.6.2 of the zoning ordinance; and 2.
~_eJ~ruary 20, !9~5 (Regular Night Meeting)
Location and screening of mobile home to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administra-
tor. Mr. Way seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-84-27. R. D. Wade (Willoughby). Request to amend SP-534 and SP-
79-48, Willoughby Corporation, to reduce overall density. (Deferred from January 16, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report:
"Proposal: Amend density, dwelling unit type and road system for an
undeveloped portion of Willoughby PUD.
Acreage: +70 acres
Location: --Property, described as Tax Map 76M(2), parcels 63, 64 (part),
65 (part), and 4B (part) is located at the end of Harris Road,
southeast of existing residential development in Willoughby PUD.
HISTORY: Willoughby PUD was originally approved in 1975. Since that time
the plan has been amended several times resulting in a reduction of density.
The area subject of this current request was originally approved for 334
townhouse units. The plan was amended on occasions reducing density to
282 duplex units.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a density reduction and
change in dwelling unit type from 282 duplex units to 130 single-family
detached units. Changes in the residential road layout are proposed
which would reduce the number of short, cul-de-sac streets. A signifi-
cant conceptual change would be the deletion of a proposed connector
road which would provide internal access to undeveloped commercial and
higher-density residential areas across Moores Creek.
SUMMARY AND. RECOMMENDATION: Staff opinion is that the Application Plan, in
general, is an improvement over past proposals for development of this area
of Willoughby. In terms of environmental concerns and costs, the internal
connector road is not a desirable feature. However, deletion of the connector
road would be contrary to the PUD concept and therefore staff cannot recommend.
deletion at this time. Recommended conditions of approval are based-on prior
conditions of ZMA-81-22.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff will offer comment of proposed physical changes to the
Willoughby PUD plan. More specifically, comment will focus on: reduction of
density and change of dwelling unit type; realignment of residential roads;
and deletion of internal collector road as well as public utilities and facil-
ities.
Reduction in Density and Chan~e of Dwelling Unit Type: Compared to the
original PUD plan, the number of dwelling units would be reduced by over 200
units from 334 to 130 units. Gross density would be less than two dwelling
units per acre; the Comprehensive Plan recommends this area to be developed
at a medium-density (5-10 dwelling units per acre). While staff is not
opposed to reduced density in this case because a reduced density would be
more appropriate to the site, "underdevelopment" in designated growth areas
may result in increased pressures for development of the rural areas.
Verbal comments from residents of Willoughby have been favorable toward
density reduction and change from duplex to single-family detached units.
The change in unit type would result in a mix of housing types which staff
favors in larger developments.
Realignment of Residential Roads: The proposed residential road layout
appears to be an improvement over past design. First, the number of roads
has been reduced from 11 to seven segments, eliminating some short bul-de-sac
roads. Second, the layout appears to be improved in terms of following land
contours.
A problem encountered in the past with small lot development has been access
from individual lots to roadways. Steep driveways should be discouraged as
well as excessive grading of lots to match road grades.
Driveways should be designed to discourage unauthorized on-street
parking or roads should be wide enough to permit on-street parking. Both Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation and staff strongly recommend that new
roads be constructed to an urban crosssection with curb and gutter and storm
sewer system.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has identified a potential
problem with the pavement design of Harris Road. Further, study by Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation is necessary to determine if pave-
ment strength of existing Harris Road is adequate to accommodate traffic from
an additional 130 dwellings.
Deletion of Internal Connector Road: The APplication Plan proposes a deletion
of a connector road to undeveloped areas across Moores Creek which have been ~?~'
approved for 17 acres of commercial development and 260 multi-family dwelling
units. At this time, staff cannot support deletion of this connector road since
there would be no internal access within the PUD and since access from one area
to another would increase traffic on Fifth Street. Virginia Department of
February 20. 1985
(Regular Night Meeting)
Highways and Transportation has stated that it 'does not recommend that
the internal road connecting this section of Willoughby to the undeveloped
commercial and high-density residential property be deleted. Since the
existing entrance to this undeveloped property is at a crossover on Fifth
Street, only local (Willoughby) traffic would probably use this internal con-
nection.' Based on Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comment,
it is not anticipated that presence of the connector road would alter traffic
projections for Harris Road.
While staff cannot support deletion of the connector road at this time,
certain considerations are offered:
The County Engineer has recommended that 'the road connection to
the undeveloped property on the south side of Moores Creek should
be deleted as requested. The southern property already has an
acceptable access to Fifth Street. Connecting roads almost always
are desirable, however, given the topography on this site it is our
opinion that the environmental problems associated with constructing
this road are not justified by the benefits.
The undeveloped area across Moores Creek does not appear particularly
suited to commercial/multi-family development due to: terrain, presence
of 1-64, and relation of land uses. Over the years, staff has discussed
alternative development schemes, but no interest has been shown in
developing the areas as approved under the original PUD.
The connector road would be situated between lots on existing Quince
Lane and new lots under this proposal with little, if any, open space
separation which staff does not view as desirable (i.e., double
frontage lots). Deletion of at least one new lot may result.
Staff would recommend that right-of-way for the connector road be reserved
at this time, to be dedicated to public use at a future date upon request
of the Board of Supervisors. Construction of the connector road would be
required with future development across Moores Creek. Should this area develop
in uses unrelated to the developed portions of Willoughby, consideration
should be given to deletion of the connector roadway.
Water, Sewer and Drainage Plans: Water and sewer lines exist on-site which
could serve this proposed development scheme. Fireflow is about 2,600 gpm
at 20 psi which exceeds requirements. A 30-inch interceptor follows Moores
Creek around the site. Ail lots can be served by gravity to the existing
sewer line. The Albemarle County Service Authority has requested an easement
between lots 74 and 75 for a possible loop system improvement.
Since originally submitted, the Application Plan has-been amended to
show urban cross-section roadways with curb and gutter and storm sewer
system. Stormwater detention would be accomplished by detention basins
at the storm sewer outfalls.
Sidewalks and Pedestrian Ways;Recreational Facilities: Under current
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation sidewalk policy, only
sidewalks serving the future commercial area across Moores Creek would be
eligible for State maintenance. Staff recommends that sidewalk improvement
be required along one side of Harris Road, the future connector road, and
the two longest cul-de-sac streets. Off-street walkways should be provided
for access through open space areas to recreational facilities where prac-
tical.
A minimum of.6,500 square feet of developed recreation area will be required.
Suitable recreation areas appear limited due to slope, access problems and
remoteness. Deletion of a building lot may be necessary to provide adequate
recreation area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that conditions of previous
ZMA-81-22 be modified and applied to this current proposal. In addition
to requirements of other ordinances, these conditions would provide 'frame-
work for final design considerations. Staff recommends the following
conditions of approval:
Approval is for a maximum of 130 single-family detached dwelling units.
Open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved
on a final plat.
~-Amend the overall PUD master plan to reflect all changes, approved
land uses, road alignment, recreational uses, etc. Submit three
copies to the Planning Department in accordance with Section 8.5.5
of the Zoning Ordinance.
County Engineer approval and Virginia Deparment of Highways and Trans-
portation approval of road plans for acceptance by .the State, including
upgrading of Harris Road in accordance with Virginia Department of High-
ways and Transportation letters of February 9, 1981 and December 14, 1984.
Compliance with the Stormwater Detention provisions prior to final plat
review by the Planning Commission.
February 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
10.
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans.
Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service
Authority, including such easements as may be requested by the Authority.
Note a right-of-way of sufficient width to serve as access to the com-
mercial and residential uses across Moores Creek and reduce the open
space by that amount. Construction of the access will be required at
the time the remainder of the PUD is developed.
County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the
maintenance of recreational equipment; open space; and sidewalks/
pedestrian ways and drainage and appurtenant structures not accepted
for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation.
No grading shall occur prior to final plat approval.
Planning Commission approval of active recreational facilities to
comply with the 50 square feet per unit requirement in the Zoning
Ordinance prior to final plat review,
A building separation of 30 feet shall be maintained unless reduced
by the Fire Official in accordance with Section 4.11.3. A minimum
building setback of 25 feet shall be maintained.
11. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fireflow.
12. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
13.
Only those areas where roads, utilities, buildings, or other improve-
ments are located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in
its natural state.
14.
Evidence of an adequate building site on each lot shall be provided
prior to Planning Commission review of .the final plat.
15.
No buildings shall be constructed on slopes greater than twenty-
five (25) percent.
16. Removal of temporary package treatment plant prior to final plat
approval of affected lots.
17.
Driveway entrance locations for each lot will be reviewed with the
final road plans. Off-street parking should provide side-by-side
as opposed to end-to-end parking spaces to discourage on-street
parking.
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 12, 198.5, unanimousl
reoommended approval of ZMA-84-27 with the following conditions:
"1 ·
Approval is for a maximum of 130 single-family detached dwelling units.
Open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the' number of lots
approved on a final plat.
Amend the overall PUD master plan to reflect all changes, approved
land uses, road alignment, recreational uses, etc. Submit three
copies to the Planning Department in accordance with Section 8.5.5
of the Zoning Ordinance.
County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans for acceptance by the State, including upgrading
of Harris Road in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and1
Transportation letters of February 9, 1981 and December 14, 1984, if
necessary.
Compliance with the. Stormwater Detention provisions prior to final
plat review by the Planning Commission.
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans.
Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service
Authority, including such easements as may be requested by the
Authority.
County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the
maintenance of recreational equipment; open space; and sidewalks,/
pedestrian ways and drainage and appurtenant structures, not
accepted for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation.
7. No grading shall occur prior to final plat approval·
Staff approval of active recreational facilities to comply with the
50 square feet per unit requirement in the Zoning Ordinance prior to
final plat review.
A building separation of 30 feet shall be maintained unless reduced
by the Fire Official in accordance with Section 4.11.3. A minimum
building setback of 25 feet shall be maintained.
Februar2y_~1985 (Regular N±~ht Meeti~
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Fire official approval o~ hydrant locations and fireflow.
Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
Only those areas where roads, utilities, buildings, or other improve-
ments are located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in
its natural state.
Evidence of an adequate building site on each lot shall be provided
prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat.
No buildings shall be constructed on slopes greater than twenty-
five percent.
Driveway entrance locations for each lot will be reviewed with the
final road plans. Off-street parking should provide side-by-side
as opposed to end-to-end parking spaces to discourage on-street
parking."
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission dropped the condition creating the connector
road (No. 6 in the staff report) and one requiring removal of a temporary package treatment
plant (No. 16 in the staff report). In addition, some of the wording of the staff conditions
was changed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Fisher asked why the words "if necessary" were added to the end of Condition No; 3. Hz
also wondered who is to determine if this condition is necessary. Mr. Donnelly said this would
have to be worked out between the Highway Department and the applicant. Mr. Fisher asked why
the Planning Commission chose to delete the connector road against the recommendation of the
staff. Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission felt the development in the proposed section
of Willoughby presented in this application would not be compatible with the higher-density
development in the areas already developed. Mr. Fisher said he thought the connection was to
facilitate access to the commercial areas planned for Willoughby. The original plan, he said,
was for a self-contained unit.
Mr. Lindstrom asked, why Condition No. 16 was removed.
plant has already been removed.
Mr. Donnelly said the treatment
Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing, the Board having no more questions for Mr.
Donnelly.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, said he would try to speak to various.
aspects of the plan itself. He said the deletion of the connector road seemed to be the only
questionable item in the plan.
Mr. Foster said the character of the neighborhood has changed somewhat, and he no longer
thinks the two sections, on opposite sides of Moores Creek, would be compatible. He said the
recently built shopping center on Fifth Street has taken much of the business that would be
served by an internal shopping center. A road and bridge on Fifth Street are already in place
across Moores Creek and this would serve adequately to connect the communities, if such a
connection is needed. Zt. would cost about $150,000 for a bridge and road construction i.f the
connector road were built. In addition, such construction would have .an adverse impact on the
Moores Creek ecosystem. He said that while the plan for the area allows an easement as open
space, the applicant would prefer that the connector be deleted so that it will not require an
easement that may never be used.
Mr. Fisher said this new plan represents a substantial change from the 208 dwelling units
originally proposed. He asked Mr. Foster if the market for housing has changed so dramaticall~
Mr. Foster said the market has changed somewhat, since more people are interested in single-
family housing, but he said the larger reason for the change is. that the property would not
accommodate as great a density as was originally supposed. He said the PUD was over-designed.
Mr. Fisher asked the lot size; Mr. Foster said the average lot size is around 9~,700 square
feet, but half of the 70 acres in the parcel i.s in open space to offset the density.
Mr. Fisher asked if the open space Mr. Foster is referring to will be usable open space o~
if it will be gullies and hills.. Mr. Foster said the areas are along Moore's Creek, and those
areas can be used for "passive recreation" such as hiking. Another area will be set aside for
tennis courts or whatever the developers and staff agree on. Mr. Fisher asked if the areas
would be maintained through a homeowners' association. Mr. Foster said there will be a home-
owners' agreement, and the recreation areas would probably be taken care of. Mr. Fisher said
the thing that worries him is that sometimes when the land does not belong to anyone specifi-
cally, it belongs to no one, and is not taken care of adequately. Mr. Foster said he feels the
developer's lawyers will draw up an agreement that will adequately protect the area.
Mr. Mark Osborne, appli.cant's engineer, told the Board he feels the cost of running a
bridge across Moores Creek will be in the neighborhood of $2-300,000. Regardless of whether
the commercial or the residential side of the PUD is responsible for building the road, it will
be an expensive economic leg iron for that development. He said he lives in Willoughby and
does not find it difficult to walk to the Food Lion on Fifth Street.
Mr. Osborne said the developer has obtained an opinion on the suitablity of Harris Road
for the traffic from a new portion of the development. The Virginia Department of Highways an~
Transportation has said that the road can be used for the new development if the developer
gives it another inch and one-half of overlay. This should handle the traffic oF an additional
191 units.
Mr. R. D. Wade, the developer, said the only question that has not been addressed is the
market question. He said the~market is hard to identify, but it has switched to emphasize
affordable single-family housing. He said this property can be priced competitively and he
~' Februar 2__~0 1 8 Re ular Ni ht Meetin
asked for the reduced denisty to allow for a residential neighborhood to meet market needs. Mr.
Bowie asked for limits on the word "affordable". Mr. Wade said the houses would be priced from
$60,000-80,000
There being no other questions and no one else present to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Donnel!y if this road is one of any of the collector roads noted
in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Donnelly said it is. not; it was an internal road to serve only
this community.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with the Planning Commission's decision about the deletion of
the connector road, and he made motion to approve ZMA-84.-27 with the conditions as recommended
by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie asked if the words "if necessary" would be left on condition number three. Mr?
Fisher said they will remain there and the record will show that the necessity of the condition
will be determined by the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom said he was satisfied with that
language.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-84-31. Joseph W. & Mary Jane Teague. Request to rezone .900 acre
from R-i, Residential, to HC, Highway Commercial (existing funeral home). Located on Ivy Road
about 1,200 feet west of the City Limits. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 37, Jack Jouett District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 5 and February 12, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report:
"Requested Zoniq~: HC, Highway Commercial
Acreage: 0.898 acre
Existing Zoning: R-I, Residential
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 37, is located on the
south side of Route 250 West about one-third mile east of the
Route 250 by-pass.
Character of the Area: The Children's Rehabilitation Center and other Uni-
versity-owned properties are to the west. Commercial development, including
a restaurant, retail shops and offices are east. and adjacent to the site.
This site is presently developed with a funeral home. A variance was granted
by the Board of Zoning Appeals to permit addition of visitation rooms for
privacy. Staff opinion is that this addition would not result in a more
intensive use of the property.
Staff Comment: This property was designated B-i, Business, under prior zoning.
During development of the 1980 zoning map, staff erred in not showing this
property for HC, Highway Commercial as was done with other commercially deve-
loped properties in the area. Therefore, staff would recommend that this
rezoning petition be viewed in accordance with the Board's policy for develop-
ment of the 1980 zoning map, and that the requested HC, Highway Commercial
zoning be granted."
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 14, 1985, unanimousl
recommended approval of this petition.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the Comprehensive Plan recommends for this area. Mr. Donnelly
said commercial zoning. Mr. Fisher asked if the site is in the urban growth area and Mr.
Donnelly said yes. Mr. Fisher then asked why the rezoning is being sought for HC, Highway
Commercial, rather than C-i, Commercial. Mr. Donnelly said funeral homes are permitted by
right in HC zones. Mr. Fisher asked him to check his zoning ordinance and see if the funeral
home could not be placed in a C-1 district, since the potential uses for an HC district are
very intense, and if the property were sold with HC zoning, some inappropriate usetby right may
result. He then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joseph W. Teague told the Board that this property has been in use as a funeral home
for 23 years. The visitation space in the building has become inadequate and he would like to
add some visitation rooms. The funeral home already has a chapel seating about 150 people. Mr.
Teague said the visitation space would be added to the south side of the property, to the rear
of the existing building.
Mr. Fisher asked if there is any particular reason that Mr. Teague is seeking Highway
Commercial zoning. Mr. Teague said the only reason is that such zoning would be contiguous
with the rest of the development in the area. Everything on Route 250 in this area is zoned
HC. Mr. Teague said the zoning on both sides of his property is HC. Mr. Donnelly said actu-
ally there is only HC zoning to the east. The property to the west is zoned R-l, Residential.
Mr. Fisher remarked that this property seems to serve as a boundary between the HC and R-1
zones.
Mr. St. John told Mr. Fisher that, in answer to the question he asked earlier, funeral
homes are allowed as a matter of right in both C-1 and HC zones. The difference is that.the HC
zoning is more oriented to highway locations than to the business clusters of C-1 zoning. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if there are not provisions in the ordinance for minimum acreages to be taken
in to HC zones and if joint entrances do not have to be provided. He said he feels the HC
property is actually more restrictive than the C'i zoning.
it.
No one else being present to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowie said this seems to be a straightforward request and he has no problem supportin
Mr. Lindstrom made motion to approve ZMA-84-31.
carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, which~
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-84-32. Frank Hereford. Request to rezone 4.34 acres from C-I,
Commercial to HC, Highway Commercial. Located on Greenbrier Drive between Flowers Bakery and
E1 Paso Rib Company. County Tax Map 61W, Section 01, Parcel A5. Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 5 and February 12, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the staff report:
"Requested Zoning: HC, Highway Commercial (with Proffer)
Acreage: 4.34 acres
Existing Zoning: C-i, Commercial
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 1, Lot A5, is located
on the north side of Greenbrier Drive about 250 feet west of U. S. 29 North.
Character of the Area: This site is vacant. To the east is a restaurant. A
wholesale distributor is to the west. Properties across Greenbrier Drive are
developed with a restaurant,..convenience store and theater. Properties to the
north are developed with a restaurant, health spa and veterinarian.
Applicant's Proffer: During preapplication interview, staff discussed with
the applicant a proffered approach: a) to limit heavy traffic uses so as not
to substantially increase traffic on/and turning movements to Greenbrier Drive
(i.e., fast food restaurants; see Virginia .Department of Highways and Trans-
portation comment of January 22, 1985, following); and b) to limit uses that
may not be compatible to the area (i.e., bulk petroleum storage in vicinity
of restaurants and theater). From these guidelines, the applicant has prof-
fered deletion of eight 'by right' uses. Staff opinion is that the remaining 'by
right' uses are generally reflective of the area and would be consistent with
staff recommended guidelines.
Staff Comment: Other properties in the immediate area with the exception of
the Flowers Baking site, are zoned C-1 Commerical. The Flowers Baking site
was rezoned to HC, Highway Commercial in 1981 with a proffer.
The HC, Highway Commercial and PD-MC, Planned Development - Mixed Commercial
districts permit both retail and wholesale uses as proposed by the applicant.
While both districts are intended to be located on major highways, it should
be noted that Westfield was developed as a commercial subdivision, reflecting
some of the PD-MC requirements (i.e., limitation of access to major road by
development of an internal road system).
Staff opinion is that Highway Commercial zoning, as limited by the applicant's
proffer, would not be detrimental or inconsistent with development in the area.
Staff recommends approval of this rezoning with acceptance of the applicant's
proffer.
For Information Only: The applicant has indicated tentative plans for develop-
ment of the property to be construction of leasable building area for-retail,
service and office uses which may require storage facilities. The portion of
the building facing Greenbrier Drive would have office-type facade treatment
while the rear of the building would be storage/work area. As an example, a
flooring contractor may require office/display in the front and storage in
the rear of the building."
The following proffers were attached to the staff report:
"January 22, 1985
Zoning Department
County of Albemarle
Re: Tax Map 61W, Section 01, Parcel A5
Letter of Proffer
This letter of proffer is to offer to delete from the permitted highway
commercial uses, the following:
3.
5.
6.
7.
8
Automobile service stations (ref. 5.1.20)
Feed and seed stores (ref. 5.1.22)
Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
Mobile home and trailer sales and service
Motor vehicle sales, service and rental
Eating establishment, fast food restaurants
Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce (ref. 5.1.19)
Heating oil sales and distribution (ref. 5.1.20)
Februar~ 20:178 Re-u_lar Nig~ht Meeting)
Please feel free to contact me at 295-6161 should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
Frank L. Hereford"
"February 15, 1985
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Fisher:
We are the attorneys for Frank Lane.Hereford who has submitted a request
for rezoning a parcel of 4.34 acres on the northeast side of Greenbrier
Drive. The request is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors
next Wednesday, February 20.
The application of Mr. Hereford's contains a letter of proffer dated
January 22, 1985. The letter of proffer deletes certain uses from those
permitted under HC zoning. At the hearing of the application before the
Planning Commission last .night, February 14, a motion was passed to recom-
mend denial of the request. During the hearing concern was expressed over
the available uses by right which would be permitted even with the proffer.
The proffer by Mr. Hereford was a bit unusual in that it proffered not to
engage in certain uses rather than proffering to limit the use of the pro-
perty to specific purposes. The concern of the Planning Commission is
understandable.
The purpose of this letter is to offer a proffer for specific uses. Before
listing those uses, I will try to explain what Mr. Hereford intends to do
with the property if rezoned from C-1 to HC.
Mr. Hereford believes that there is a substantial market for an office/
warehouse complex for small businesses. He plans to build a structure
that would allow businesses to lease an area, and to use a portion of the
space for dealing with the public and the balance for storage, distribution
and warehousing. Examples of the types of businesses might be computer
sales and service, small appliances sales, electronic distributors, etc.
The difficulty in determining the exact proffer lies in the non-availability
of a particular category for the intended use under HC zoning. It seems
that the closest might be Section 24.2.1(21) providing for light ware-
housing, but in my opinion, that would not allow for any sales. With that
in mind, the following is a list which Mr. Hereford feels would cover the
uses of his proposed complex.
2~.2.1(~)
24.2.~(9)
2~.2.1(10)
2~.2.1(12)
24.2.1(15)
24.2.1(17)
24.2.1(18)
24.2.1(21)
24.2.1(22)
24.2.1(26)
24.2.1(28)
24.2.1(29)
24.2.1(34)
Building materials sales
Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22)
Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and services
Furniture stores
Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning,
exterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance
services
Hardware ·
Light warehousing .
Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
New automotive parts sales
Administrative,~ business and professional offices
Office and business machines sales and services
Wholesale distribution
Mr. Hereford and the planning~staff believe that the intended use is compat-!Zl~a
ible with the adjacent area. We hope that this new proffer will alleViate
the concerns which have been expressed.
~nd Transportation:
For your information, the property to the immediate northwest was rezoned
to HC_recently and is being used by Flowers Baking Company. Finally,
Mr. Hereford~has contacted all surrounding property-owners or occupants
and has confirmed-that there is no objection to his proposed use of the
property.
I enclose copies of this letter with the request that they be distributed to
other Board members prior to Wednesday's hearing.
Very truly yours,
(SIGNED)
Joseph W. Richmond, Jr."
The following comment on this request was recieved from the Virginia Department of Highway~
Februar'-~ 20 1~8 ~ (Re,_ular Night Meetin.~)
"ZMA-84-32 Frank Hereford, Route 866: The Department cannot endorse a rezon-
ing request that would generate more traffic than is allowed under zoning
requirements. The uses permitted by the C-1 and HC zoning appear to be simi-
lar in usage and, therefore, the traffic generation should not be greater."
Mr. Donnelly said that, at its meeting on February 14, 1985, ~he~an~t~g~Cammission rec-
ommended denial of~hthis petition by a vote of 4/1 because it felt the scope and possibility of
~ses allowed on the property is too broad.
Mr. Fisher said he did not think the Board members have had time to review the uses in th~
revised proffer. He asked Mr. Donnelly what the difference was between this proffer and the on
Mr. Hereford submitted previously. Mr. Donnelly said the first proffer listed uses the appli-
cant was willing to exclude from consideration for location on the property. The second pro~-
fer~ contains the uses that will be considered for the property.
Mr. Way asked if the Planning staff had any problems with the new list. Mr. Donnelly sai¢
there are a couple. First, the staff would like to see the proffer include indoor storage onl
and feed and seed stores should be deleted entirely, Second, the staff would prefer that the
machinery and equipment sales and service section be amended to exclude large items such as
trucks and large earthmoving equipment. The staff would lik~ to see the first item, building
materials sales, to stipulate indoor storage only.
Mr. Bowie asked if the lots adjoining this property are zoned HC. Mr. Fisher said one is
zoned HC with a proffer. Mr. Fisher said he thought the original intent of the HC zone was to
allow commercial uses on main highways and that had been his rationale in voting to change the
zoning in the Teague request just approved. If the staff is, as it seems to be, making the
same argument here, Mr. Fisher said Greenbrier Drive is a little different. Mr. Donnelly poin-
ted out that the uses in the Highway Commercial district are more restrictive than uses in a C-
1 district. Mr. Lindstrom said that if he is not mistaken, the HC district requires at least
150 feet of road frontage and also requires that the property frontage not exceed the depth.
In addition, he said there should also be some provision for controlled access to public
streets. These provisions were designed to prevent strip development.
Mr. Bowie said he did not understand what the staff wanted with the amendment to the firs1
condition, which the Board cannot require anyway. Mr. Fisher said the staff wanted to be
certain that there are not large piles of lumber anywhere in the area. Mr. Bowie and Mr.
Fisher asked if these conditions would make the staff feel better about the use. Mr. Donnelly
said they would, but neither board nor staff can require such commitments from the applicants.
The staff would like to see 2~2.1(4) and 24.2.1(22) limited to indoor storage only, with n~t~
large equipment on site at all.
Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joseph W. Richmond, Jr., told the Board that the difficulty with this petition lies i~
the intended use for the property. He said the applicant has no problem with agreeing to any
of the conditions proposed by the staff. He said the reason for this is the applicant's belieJ
that this area needs a facility such as the one he proposes, to provide small businessmen with
storage space as well as sales space. The front of the building, he said, would be a complete
finished building with a counter, but the storage space would be available. Mr. Richmond said
it is difficult to fit this kind of facility into a zoning category. He said he understands
the staff's concern with feed and seed stores and this use can be deleted along with large
trucks.
Mr. Richmond showed the Board a drawing of the proposed building and pointed out that it
will look like any commercial establishment. An entrance for delivery trucks would be placed
to the rear of the building.
The Planning Commission, he said, had problems with the proffer, and he had some himself
in trying to write the proffer of the fifteenth limiting the uses. He said it is difficult to
see exactly where this sort of business fits in. Light warehousing may be the category, but
that might prohibit sales to the public. This ~se is compatible with the area. This use woul~
have one entrance with interior parking, and it would not contribute to strip development, as
far as he can see. The adjoining property owners do not object to this use because some of
them have HC zoning. Others have C-1 zoning. He said the concept Mr. Hereford is trying to
develop does not promote either strip development or indiscriminate highway access. He said
this use serves a real need because the County does not have another type of building like thi~
for rent.
Mr. Fisher said that, as a practical matter, the County already has facilities like comF
purer sales and appliance sales buildings that have storage and repair space on the spot. Mr.
Richmond said he felt the uses are similar, but the rent on Greenbrier would, he thought, be
less expensive than rent in other places, such as Computerland, although he has not studied
this directly.
Mr. Fisher asked if others were present to speak, and learning that no one else had anyth~
to say, he closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Richmond had any problems with the staff recommended changes to th~
proffer. Mr. Richmond said he did not.
Mrs. Cooke said this property lies in her district, and with the applicant's acceptance o~
the staff's recommendations, she did not have problems with it. She had heard no objections t~
the use. She made motion to approve ZMA-84-32 with the proffer as amended verbally at the
meeting. Mr. Fisher clarified the language, as follows: at the end of 24.1.2 (4) add the
words "indoor storage only"; d~l~e 24.2.1(10) feed and seed stores; at the end of 24.2.1(22~)
add "no on-site sDorage of large vehicles or ~quipment such as~trucks, earthmoving equipment."
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
ag
February 20,_ 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. COoke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Uses proffered by Mr. Richmond for Frank L. Hereford:
"24.2.1(4)
24.2.1(9)
24.2.1(12)
24.2.1(15)
24.2.1(17)
24.2.1(18)
24.2.1(21)
24.2.1(22)
24.2.1(26)
24.2.1(28)
24.2.1(29)
24.2.1(34)
Building materials sales (indoor storage only).
Factory outlet sales, clothing and fabric.
Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and services,
Furniture stores.
Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning
exterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance
services.
Hardware.
Light warehousing.
Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental (no on-site
storage of large vehicles or equipment - eg. trucks, earth-
moving equipment).
New automotive ~parts sales.
Administrative, business and professional offices.
Office and business machines sales and services.
Wholesale distribution."
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-84-90. M. C. Partnership. Request to locate an office, warehouse
and self-storage units on 14.97 acres zoned LI, Light Industry. Located on east side of Avon
Street Extended, bounded on the northeast by Moores Creek and the City limits. County Tax Map
77E(1), Parcel 1, and Tax Map 77E(2) parcel 2. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on February 5 and February 12, 1985.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report:
"Request: Light Warehousing (27.2.2.5)
Acreage: 14.97 acres
Zoning: LI, Light Industrial
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 77E(2), Parcels 1 (part) and 2 is
located on the east side of Avon Street Extended (Route 742) south
of and adjacent to Moores Creek.
Character of the Area: This site is currently undeveloped. Across Route
742 is a used car sales and an office/light industrial building under con-
struction (AStec). South of the site are Liebig International and other
industrial uses. Properties in the immediate area are zoned LI, Light
Industrial.
Staff Comment: M. C. Partnership proposes the following development:
About 68,000 square feet of light warehousing in seven buildings;
About 2,000 square feet of office/warehouse use;
An 800 square foot apartment unit.
Light Warehousing: This use requires special use permit approval and is
the~subject of this petition, staff opinion is that light warehousing
usage would not be objectionable to the area. The buildings would .be 40
feet wide and range from 200-300 feet in length', oriented perpendicularly
~to Route 742. Though this is an industrial area, Route 742 carries sub-
stantial through traffic, therefore, screening of the complex from the
public road should be required.
Office/Warehouse: This would be for Student Services, a building maintenance
business storing paint and other materials. With the exception of trucks,
all storage would be indoors. Contractor's office and equipment storage
yard is a use by right in the LI zone.
Apartment Unit: The apartment unit would be for security purposes. This
use is not currently permitted in the LI district. Residential use is
permitted in certain commercial districts subject to the limitations contained
in Section 5.1.21 DWELLINGS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
Staff opinion is that a similar provision in the LI district would be
appropriate. This wOuld require zoning text amendment initiated by the
applicant or County.
Staff recommends approval of this special use permit for light warehousing
subject to the following conditions:
l)
2)
3)
Building area limited to 68,000 square feet;
Planning Commission approval of site plan to include method of
screening light warehouses from Route 742;
All storage shall be enclosed. No outside storage shall be
permitted."
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 14, 1985 unanimously
recommended approval of SP-84-90 subject to the following conditions:
Building area limited to 68,000 square feet;
Planning Commission approval of-site plan to include method of screening
light warehouses from Route 742;
Ail storage shall be enclosed. No outside storage, shall be permitted.
February 20, 1985~'(Regular Night Meeting~
Mr. Fisher asked if the Commission had made any requests for a provision about stormwater
drainage. Mr. Donnelly said that would be handled through site plan approval.
Mr. Lindstrom asked where on this property the public sewer line lies. Mr. Donnelly said
it runs along Moores Creek. Mr. Lindstrom then asked what percentage of the light industriall~
zoned land on Avon Street Extended this parcel ~contains. He said it looks like allaEEe~ tract
to him, and he wonders how much of it can be developed. Mrs. Cooke said much or.this land is
too steep to build on, and she thinks the warehouse will lie on the only viable building site
on the parcel. Mr. Lindstrom said he wonders how much of the County's industrially.zoned land
is being tied up like this in uses that are not really industrial. He has some reservations
about tying up this land with a less intense use, since there is so little industrial land in
the County where both public water and sewer are available.
Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing.
Mr. Matt Walker told the Board members that he represents both M. C. Partnership and
Student Services, since he is a manager/owner of the latter. He said he would like to clear
a couple of points. He said the major tenant of the complex will be ~tudent Services, which
operates a household moving operation. More of the complex will be taken up by the house-
painting branch of this business, which operates only four months of the year.
Mr. Walker said the twelve acres not being used slope steeply into the floodplain and are
not usable. Mr. Fisher, Mr. Walker and members of the board spent several minutes in trying t~
pinpoint the exact location of the slopes on a map. Mrs. Cooke asked what the residue of the
land is, and Mr. Walker said it is presently grassy hillside.
No one else was present to speak on the application and the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Way made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, .to approve SP-84-90 with the conditions as
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not have strong objections
to the request, but he would feel better voting for it if he knew how much of the rest of the
parcel is developable. It seems a shame to allocate fifteen acres of the County's LI zoning,
in a prime area, to a business that does not need utilities as much as some industrial users
would. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Donnelly if the entire fifteen acres is covered by the special usc
permit or if the permit will cover only the 3.25 acres on which the warehouses will sit. Mr.
Donnelly said he thinks the permit covers only the three acres. Mr. Fisher said that seems to
mean that the rest of the property could be used for another industrial use.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if someone could put another industrial use in the warehouses. Mr.
Donnelly said that would take another special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom said it concerns him,
as a matter of policy, that the Board no~ start tying up land that industries needing utilitie~
could use.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
At 8:48 the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
~ Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-84-29. Grayrock PRD (Robert and Ann Savage). Request to locate
294 townhouse units on 73.96 acres for a gross density of four dwelling units per acre to be
served by State roads. Located on the north side of Route 691 (Jarman's Gap Road), south of
Orchard Acres Subdivision and east of Route 684 and zoned PRD/R-1 County Tax Map 55, Parcels 65
and 65A. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 5 and February 12~
1985.)
Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report:
"Requested Zoning: PRD (294 dwellings)
Acreage: 73.96 acres
Zoning: PRD (47 dwellings)
Location: Property,. described as Tax Map 55, parcels 65 and 65A, is located
on the north side of Route 691 (Jarman's Gap Road), east and adjacent
to Jarman's Gap Estates.
Summary and Recommendation: Staff generally favors the plan of development
for Grayrock PRD reflected on the Application Plan as being consistent with
the Land Use Plan for Crozet as well as highly reflective of development
standards set forth in Chapter 10: Comprehensive Plan Standards. Infra-
structure to support development (i.e, water, sewer, roads) is currently
lacking/inadequate. Development cannot proceed until, at least, adequate
utilities are available. Staff would anticipate project 'build-out' would
take several years and that effects of the development on the area would
take several years. Staff will recommend approval with conditions empha-
sizing adequacy of utilities and reservoir protection.
A task force of Crozet citizens was involved in development of the 1980
Land Use Plan for Crozet (revised January, 1984). Grayrock PRD represents
the first proposal for large-scale, urban development in Crozet since
adoption of the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. Review of this rezoning has
amplified the need for additional planning for the Crozet Community. In
the upcoming Comprehensive Plan review, emphasis should be placed on refine-
ment of other plans necessary to implement the Land Use Plan, such as
Chapter 12: Community Development Plan; Chapter 13: Transportation Plan;
Chapter 14: Community Facilities and Utilities Plan.
Character of Area: Jarman's Gap Estates (PRD; 0.74 dwelling units per acre)
is to the west. Orchard Acres (R-2, Residential; two dwelling units per acre)
is to the northeast. Some large parcels in pasture also exist in the area.
February 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
This site has about 1,700 feet of frontage on Route 691 and 350 feet on
Route 684. Two lakes have been constructed on a branch of Powell Creek which
runs through the property in a west-east fashion. North of these lakes was
a peach orchard which was recently cleared due to age and disease. South of
the lakes are a dwelling, farm buildings and apple orchard. Some of the
~orchard area is in production while about 1,600 new tree~ were planted on
ten acres recently. Hardwood and coniferous stands adjoin the lakes. About
one-third of the site is open meadows'.
Except for areas around the lakes, slopes are flat to moderate with slopes
of less than seven percent predominating. Over two-thirds of the site
consists of Braddock loam and Braddock clay loam. Other soils are Braddock
very stony loam; Hayes¥ille loam; Hayesville very stony loam; Meadowville
loam; Thurmont loam; and Brandywine very stony loam. The U. S. Soil Conser-
vation Service has commented that 'Meadowville loam located along the stream
is a deep, well-drained soil subject to occasional flooding. The other soils
are deep and moderately well-drained except for several acres of very shallow,
stony soils. These are good agricultural soils.
History: In November, 1978, 17.5 acres of this property were zoned from
A-I, Agriculture, to RS-i, Residential Suburban (ZMA-78-18 Walter H. Withers, Jr.).
Following rezoning, Foothill Village preliminary plat (14 lots) was
approved in December, 1978. In July, 1979, 73.5 acres (including the
17.5 acres zoned RS-i) were rezoned to RPN/RS-1 for development of 47
lots. In October, 1982, staff provided Mr. Savage, the current owner and
applicant, with a letter outlining conditions under which the orchard
could be expanded as a non-conforming use.
4pplicant"s Proposal: The Application Plan proposes 294 townhouse units
served by internal State roads. Phase I, consisting of 70 dwelling units,
would have access to Route 684 Phase II, consisting of 224 dwelling units,
would have access to Route 691. Much of the apple orchard would be retained
as well as provision of street trees and evergreen buffers to adjoining
properties. A clubhouse, tennis courts and swimming pool are proposed as
recreational features. A land use summary for Grayrock PRD is as follows:
Total dwellings
Average lot area
Total lot acreage
Open space ~
Parking areas
Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation rights-of-way
Gross density
Net density
294 units
0.05 acres
13.88 acres (18.77%)
47.41 acres (64.10%)
7.85 acres (10.61%)
4.82 acres (6.52%)
4.00 d.u./acre
13.89 d.u./acre
Comparative Development Statistics: Staff has calculated the following
figures for comparison of existing and proposed zoning:
Existing
ZMA-79-18
Proposed
ZMA-84-29
Dwellings
Population
Vehicle Trips per Day
School children
47 294
127 794
329 1,588
22 137
Comprehensive Plan (See pages 177-182): The Comprehensive Plan recommends
low-density residential development for this area (i.e., 1-4 dwelling units
per acre; average 2.5 dwelling units per acre). Other relevant Comprehensive
Plan recommendations follow:
As the community takes on an urban character, buildings and
all improvements should be set back according to rivers and
streams standards presented in the Comprehensive Plan: this
recommendation is reflected in the Application Plan.
Pedestrian 'public' rights-of-way should be acquired on all
stream boundaries in developed areas: The Commission and Board
may wish to consider this recommendation as it relates to this
development.
Ail dwelling units above a density of two per acre should
have unobstructed pedestrian access to a community center,
neighborhood center and public recreation: A community
center, consisting of a clubhouse, swimming pool and tennis
courts is proposed on ~he Application Plan. A picnic area is
also shown near the lower lake. Tot lots should be within
500 feet of units served. Recreation facilities for school-
aged children should be incorporated at the community center.
Staff Comment: Evaluation of Grayrock PRD will address two topics: The
plan for physical development of the property as it relates to County
policies, standards, and ordinances; and criteria for rezoning related to
the proposed density increase.
~ysic'al' D'e'v'elO'pment: The applicant has selected to pursue a planned
development approach to rezoning which provides opportunity to review
issues of physical development in addition to other zoning criteria. The
consultant for the applicant has provided staff with studies which have
been extremely helpful in evaluating the proposed development with
Grayrock. These studies include:
February 20~ 1985__~e~ular Night Meeting~)
Natural drainage areas;
Slope analysis;
Existing conditions/visual quality;
Soils mapping including suitability for building;
Existing vegetation;
Building suitability; and
Four alternative plans of development.
Staff opinion is that the proposed Application Plan is highly reflective
of applicable recommendations of Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan:
Comprehensive Plan Standards.
Proposed development has generally been accommodated to char-
acteristics of the site. S~eep~slopes and areas of poor soils
have been avoided. Maintenances.of existing wooded areas as well
as some additional plantings around the existing lakes is proposed.
Encroachment of developed areas on the lakes is limited.
As to surrounding uses, all building setbacks exceed minimum
ordinance requirements. A substantial seasonal buffer of apple
trees has been maintained along Jarman's Gap Road. Evergreen
screening and maintenance of wooded areas is~shown along most of
the site's perimeter.
The development is proposed in a ,series of distinct clusters
which provide a degree of, buffering and privacy internally.
(The largest cluster is 44 units). Existing and planted trees
would provide buffering between clusters. The plan also calls for
tree-lined streets. About two-thirds of the site would be maintained
in open space.
Other issues related to physical development of the property are as follows:
Public water: A six-inch water line is located along the frontage of the
property on Route 691 and a second six-inch line is about fifty feet from the
property on Route 684. Current fire flows are less than 300 gpm at 20 psi,
while a minimum 750 gpm at 20 psi will be required. Looping existing waterlines
through the project as ~11 as a booster station may be necessary to
obtain the required fire flows.
Public sewer: Planning for the Crozet sewer collection system is in the pre-
liminary stages with completion of construction projected in mid-1986. Currently,
an eight-inch sewer line is envisioned near the site to serve Orchard Acres subdivision.
If Grayrock receives approval, enlargement of this line or an alter-
native connection to a 15-inch sewer line about 2,500 feet distant may be
necessary. It would appear that most of Grayrock could be served by
gravity to the proposed Orchard Acres line, however, clusters 8 and 9
(86 units) may require a lift station.
Public Roads: (See attachments B, C and D) Route ..691 is currently
listed as non-tolerable road indicating (at..a minimum) that traffic
exceeds the design of the road to the extent to warrant abnormal main-
tenance. Route 684 is tolerable, however, Route 788 to Route 240 is
non-tolerable.
Route 691 Route 684
Current traffic (8/84)' 550 260
Grayrock 1,210 380
TOTAL 1,760 . 640.
Easement on property of others at Route 684 and the western entrance on
Route 691 may be necessary to obtain adequate sight distance. Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that no roads in the
area are currently scheduled for improvement.
In the Urban Area of the County, future transportation needs have been
identified through extensive study (CATS and MPO). These studies have con-
sidered future growth as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore,
in the case of rezoning in the Urban Area, Vir~ginia Department of Highways
and Transportation's comments reflect development as proposed by the
Comprehensive Plan. For the Crozet area however, study has not been as extensive as
for the Urban Area and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
based its comment on current zoning (even though Comprehensive Plan densities
may be higher):
'The Department cannot endorse a rezoning request that would gen-
erate more traffic than is allowed under current approved zoning
and that would increase traffic volumes on roads that are currently
carrying more than their tolerable standards allowed.'
Stormwater Management/Runoff Control: (See Attachments E and F) The
Watershed Management Official has expressed hesitation about this project
due to current lack of utilities and proposed intensity of development. The County
Engineer has 'reviewed this site for the proposed use and feels that it is
an appropriate project.' The County Engineer has recommended: implemen-
tation of water quaility Best Management Practices (BMPs); cash contri-
bution from the developer for regional water quality management projects;
and preservation of existing lakes.
Phasing of Development: Initial development would involve clusters 1, 2, and 3
(70 units) served by Route 684. Timing of development beyond these phases
would depend on the commercial success of the replanted apple orchard. No
development would occur until public sewer and adequate water were available.
February 20, 1985 (Regdlar Night Meeting
Staff opinion is that build-out for a development of this scale, under favorable
market conditions, would be about six years. In this particular case, staff
would anticipate a longer build-out period due to the following factors:
The housing market in Crozet has not been tested for townhouse
development and the demand for new units of any type is unknown;
The largest builder in the area constructs about 75 units/year in
the Urban Area (which would likely have a higher market demand);
Developments of this scale in the Urban Area generally exhibit
idle periods between building phases, lengthening build-out;
The applicant intends to permit the orchard to mature before the
development of that area (if at all), therefore, staff would anti-
cipate about 70 units by 1990.
In view of these comments, the various effects of this development on
the area (i,e., roads, schools, etc.) are likely to be gradual. Also,
it would not be unreasonable to anticipate future amendments to this
project (i.e., change in unit type).
Rezoning Criteria: Staff has reviewed this petition under the criteria
for rezoning as set forth in the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance:
1.4 Purpose and Intent; 1.5 Relation to Environment; 1.6 Relation to
Comprehensive Plan; 8.1 Intent, Planned Districts; and 19.0 Planned
Residential Development.
Comment on many of these items has already been provided in this report,
while Section 8.5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO_THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS requires that specifically, recommendations of the Commission
shall include findings as to:
The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD
district proposed in terms of: relation to the Compre-
hensive Plan; physical characteristics of the land and its
relation to the surrounding area;
The Comprehensive Plan recommends low-density residential in this area
with a range of one to four dwelling units per acre and Grayrock is proposed
at four dwelling units per acre. The County Engineer and Planning Staff
recommend, that with proper protective measures, the proposed develop-
ment would be appropriate to.the site. The Watershed Management Official
has expressed concern about intensity of development. The Application
Plan reflects buffering of adjoining areas. Other properties in the
area are recommended by the Comprehensive Plan for low-density develop-
ment.
Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and
services;
No development would occur until adequate water and sewer utilities
become available. Roads are inadequate and no plan exists for improve-
ment. On-site recreational facilities would be provided.
Staff Recommendation: Staff generally favors the plan of development for Gray-
rock PRD reflected on the Application Plan as being consistent with the Land
Use Plan for Crozet as well as highly reflective of development standards
set forth in Chapter 10: Comprehensive Plan Standards.
At issue is the current inadequacy/lack of infrastructure to accommodate the
development. Staff offers the following comments:
Rezoning is no guarantee of future development. Ail site plan/
subdivision requirements, as well as appropriate conditions of the PRD
rezoning petition mus~ be met before development would occur;
Approval of rezonings would provide more detailed information on
which to assess future infrastructure needs;
The inadequacy/lack of infrastructure exhibited in this area is shared,
to some extent, by most properties in the Crozet Community, as well as
many properties in other growth areas;
A task force of citizens from the Crozet area was involved in the
development of the Land Use Plan .for Crozet. In the upcoming Compre-
hensive Plan review, emphasis should be placed on refinement of other
plans necessary to implement the Land Use Plan, such as Chapter 12:
Community Development Plan; Chapter 13: Transportation Plan; and
Chapter 14: Community Facilities and Utilities Plan.
Section 8.5.1(i)1. requires submittal of a report by the applicant
stating among other things agreement to 'proceed with the proposed deve-
lopment according to regulations existing when the map amendment creating
the PD district is approved, with such modifications as are set by the Board
of Supervisors and agreed to by the applicant at time of amendment.'
Staff recommends approval of Grayrock PRD with the following provisions
to be included in the report required by Section 8.5.1(i)1.
February 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting
Approval is for a maximum of 294 townhouse dwelling units in general
locations shown on the Application Plan. Land uses and acreages shall
be in general accord with the Land Use Summary depicted on the Appli-
cation Plan provided that additional recreational facilities shall be
provided as recommended by Planning staff under 'Comprehensive Plan'
of this report;
Provision shall be made for internal access for emergency vehicles
from clusters 1-3 to the remainder of the development, to be approved by
the Fire Official and County Engineer;
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans
including evidence of acquisition of all necessary easements. Fire
Official approval of method of fire flow provision. The Planning
Commission shall not review any final plat or site plan prior to com-
pliance with this condition;
County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans for acceptance into the State Secondary System,
including acquisition of any sight distance easements which may be
required;
Water Quality Best Management Practices shall be employed as recommended
by the Watershed Management Offioial and County Engineer. More specifi-
cally, the following shall apply:
Preservation of the existing lakes in a manner that will provide
detention and pollution removal, Minor alterations of the outflow
structures may be required as approved by the County Engineer;
Implementation of BMPs that are applicable to the site to control
runoff and pollutants, to preserve the groundwater table, and to
eliminate erosion. These BMPs may be grass filter strips, level
spreaders~ sediment traps in drop inlets, infiltration trenches,
and porous asphalt, as suitable to the site soils and the proposed
development, as recommended by the County Engineer and approved by
the Planning Commission;
Developer cash contribution to off-site drainage and runoff control
projects in accordance with the County ordinances and policies
effective at the time of approval of any site plans;
Three copies of a revised Application Plan, reflecting: access relocation
to Route 684; redesign of clusters 1-3; and conditions 1 and 2 contained
herein, to be submitted to the Planning Division in accordance with Section
8.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance."
Attachment B:
"10 January 1985
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning
Department of Planning and Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
RE: Grayrock PRD
Dear Mr. Keeler:
For your review I am enclosing copies of the revised site development plan
for the northern parcel of the proposed Grayrock PRD and a copy of my
recent correspondence to Jeff Echols. You will note that we have modified
the location of the access cul-de-sac in order to comply with the high-
way department's recommendation for increased centerline separation from
Orchard Drive (from 150 feet to 350 feet). Although the configuration of
the unit layout has changed, the total number of units (44) remains the
same for Clusters One and Two. The configuration of Cluster Three remains
unchanged.
Pursuant to our last conversation, I feel that I should take this oppor-
tunity to briefly explain the phasing and intent of this development as pro-
posed by Mr. and Mrs. Savage. In light of the current unavailability of
sanitary sewerage facilities, the uncertain nature of. the Crozet housing
market, and the present orchard operation, the Savages have never antici-
pated a rapid build out of this project. Quite the contrary.
Only this past fall did they plant new apple trees (1,572 to be exact) on
over 10 acres in the southern part of this site. They undertook this planting
operation with the full intent of maintaining a successful orchard for at least
a period of time that it takes for .these new trees to become fully productive.
It is estimated that this period of time may be at least five years. Only
when the new trees reach full productivity and the Savages are able to truly
evaluate the orchard profitability will they consider alternative uses for this
area south of the lakes. ~
In the interim, their desire is to proceed with a master plan and rezoning
for a quality development on the entire tract which is in compliance with the
County's growth policy and comprehensive plan. Fully aware of the County's
wish to see the 'big picture', I advised the Savages to submit a plan indi-
cating their ultimate long-range development intentions for the entire property
February 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
fO
even though their short and intermediate term development goals are
limited to the northern part of the property only. This area north of the
two lakes (eg. Phase One, Clusters 1, 2, and 3, 70 d.u.) was also an orchard
until the trees recently became diseased and had to be destroyed, This area
is now fallow.
6f course, prior to any development on the property at the density which we
are proposing, central sanitary sewerage must be available. (I have been
told by Bill Brent of the ACSA that Orchard Acres immediately to the east
of Grayrock is a high priority area for the planned sewer line extensions.)
Adequate water service must also be provided prior to development. (Central
water is presently available and, with appropriate booster pumping,, adequate
flows and pressures may be attained.) And, the required contributions to
the regional stormwater detention facility must also be satisfied prior to
the actual development of the property. As customarily practiced, we would
suggest that these issues be handled at the site plan review level after
sanitary sewer service is made available.
Regarding the VDH&T classification of both SR 684 and SR 691 as 'non-
tolerable', I can only suspect that most of the roads in the County fall into
this category, and, without the construction of developments similar to Gray-
rock, it is unlikely that 'nontolerable' roads in designated growth areas
such as Crozet will ever be upgraded to a 'tolerable' condition. I should
point out that in the Grayrock plan, approximately 50 percent of the total
road frontage is designed to accommodate decel lanes at the expense of the
developer. .
Throughout the planning process, we have worked in the context of the
County Comprehensive Plan which designates the Grayrock tract as a desig-
nated growth area with a density of up to four dwelling units per acre. We
have analyzed the property carefully as evidenced by the documents which we
have submitted. While many may feel that a project of this scale is simply
too much for Crozet (an area which, until now, has not felt any significant
development pressures), few would argue that a gross density of 4 d.u./acre
is excessive for a targeted 'growth area'. The Grayrock plan has, in fact,
allocated more than 64 percent of the total site area to common dedicated
open space. We have made a conscious effort to maintain many of the
existing orchards as buffers, landscape architectural elements in the park-
ing areas and as a means of articulating playfields and pedestrian pathways.
In short, we feel that this is a good plan and one that is certainly worthy
of County acceptance for rezoning. I hope that we will have your support
so that Phase One construction can begin upon completion of the sanitary
sewer collection system.
I trust that this may help explain a little about the Savage's development
objectives and proposed phasing schedule. If you have additional questions,
please feel free to call. With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Robert B. McKee, PE, CLA"
Attachment C:
"January 3, 1985
Site Plan Review Meeting
January 3, 1985
Item lb
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler
Department of Planning and Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Keeler:
The following are our comments:
lb. ZMA-84-29 Grayrock PRD (Robert and Ann Savage), Route 691:
A minimum of 450 feet of sight distance will be required for the street inter-
sections at both Routes 691 and 684. When the Department reviewed this site
in the field, the entrance locations were not staked, and therefore, it was
not possible to check sight distance. There are locations where adequate
sight distance can be obtained, however, due to the horizontal and vertical
alignments of the roads, sight easements may be required on the opposite side
of the road from this development. The street connection off Route 684 should be
a minimum of 350 feet away from Route 1206. At the time of the site plan submit-
tal the Department will discuss comments concerning the use of turn lanes and
- frontage improvements to serve this site. The land is currently zoned PRD/R-1
and this rezoning request is to allow for a density of four units an acre. Route
691 from this development to .the east into Crozet is currently non-tolerable.
This rezoning request would add over 1,500 vehicles a day to the road system
in this area that are not allowed under current zoning, and currently there
are no plans in the Six Year Plan to improve any of these roads. The Depart-
ment cannot endorse a rezoning request that would generate more traffic than
is allowed under current approved zoning and that would increase traffic volumes
on roads that are'currently carrying more than their tolerable standards
allow."
February 20, 1985 (Regular .Night Meeting)
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning ~Commission, at its meeting on February 14, 1985 recommended
approval of ZMA-84-29 by a vote of 3-2, with .the following con6itions:
"1. Approval is for a maximum of three townhouse dwelling units per acre
and cluster development to remain intact, with all units to be served by
gravity sewer. Land uses and acreages shall be in general accord with the
Land Use Summary depicted on the Application Plan provided that additional
recreational facilities shall be provided as recommended by Planning Staff
under 'Comprehensive Plan' ~of this report;
2. Provision shall be made for internal access for emergency vehicles from
clusters 1-3 to the remainder of the development, to be approved by the Fire
Official and the County Engineer;
3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans
including evidence of acquisition of all necessary easements. Fire Official
approval of method of fireflow provisions. The Planning Commission shall
not review any final plat or si~e plan prior to compliance with this
condition;
4. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans for acceptance into the State Secondary System,
including acquisition of any sight distance easements~which may be required;
5. Water Quality Best Management Practices shall be employed as recom-
mended by the Watershed Management Official and County Engineer. More
specifically, the following shall apply:
a. Preservation of the existing lakes in a manner that will pro¥ide
detention and pollution removal. Minor alterations of the outflow
structures may be required as approved by the County Engineer;
b. Implementation of BMPs that are applicable to the site to control
runoff and pollutants,.to preserve the groundwater table, and to
eliminate erosion. These BMPs may be grass filter strips, level
spreaders, sediment traps in drop inlets, infiltration trenches, and
porous asphalt, as suitable to the site~soils and ~the proposed deYelop-
ment, as recommended by the County Engineer and approved by the Plan-
ning Commission.
c. Developer cash contribution to off-site drainage and runoff
control projects in accordance with the County ordinances and policies
effective at the time of approval of any site plans or subdivision plats.
6. Three copies of a revised Application Plan, reflecting: access relo-
cation to Route 684; redesign of clusters 1-3; and conditions 1 and 2 con-
tained herein, to be submitted to the Planning Division in accordance with
Section 8.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Lindstrom asked for clarification of Mr. Donnelly's statement that public water and
ewer are required on the property by asking if that means that no development whatsoeYer can
ccur until the Crozet sewer interceptor line is complete. Mr. Donnelly said that is correct.
~r. Lindstrom said he did not want people to have the impression that the ,total number of units
~ould be built on the property immediately. It will be a matter of years before the sewer
~ystem is completed. He asked if the staff has considered a condition to ensure phasing of the
ievelopment. Mr. Donnelly said he intends to discuss this with the County Attorney to see if
such a condition is legally possible. Mr. Bowie asked why the water and sewer were not made a
~ondition by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like for Mr. Donnelly to
~ddress the phasing i~sue. The Staff, he said, seems to think there will be only the seventy
~nits built during the next five years or so, but the County ~needa to be certain that t.he
development is phased because a sudden onslaught of development at Gra~rock would be undesirable
oarticularly concerning the road situation. He asked Mr. St. John if a condition could be
~laced so as to set a time limit on when development can begin. Mr. St. John said it would be
~ossible to gear development to a definite time frame. Mr. Bowie said condition number three,
~he requirement for water and sewer, seems to address the issues. Mr. Fisher said he has been
~ooking at item No. 1 and said the phrase "gravity sewer" could be clarified to mean public
~ewer in general. Mr. Bgwie said he thinks No. 3 could be clarified also.
Mr. Bowie said the staff report notes that t. he recommendations for density drafted by 'the
~ommittee of Crozet citizens who worked On the Crozet Land Use Plan had been one to four dwellin
~nits per acre, and now the Grayrock PUD is asking for four d.u.Zac. He asked if the citizens
~ad made further comments. Mr. Lindst'rom said ~e' thought Mr. Donnelly had said there would be
~hree dwelling units per acre. Mr. Donnelly said three is .correct, (see Planning Commission
]ondition #1). Mr. Bowie said the staff report is not ~at all clear on that point. Mr. Fisher
~aid not all of the recommendations of the' citizens committee were accepted, because the
~ecommendations ohanged dramatically after going through staff, Planning Commission and Board of
~upervisors, rewiew.
Mr. Henley said the Grayrock proposal and staff report are at odds, since Condition #1
calls for all units to be served by~ gravity sewer, ~nd yet two lift stations are shown on the
Application Plan. Mr. Donnelly said the Pi'arming 'Commission reduced the o~erall density Of the
PUD to three d.u./ac and that eliminated the units which would have need a lift station. Mr.
Fisher said the Planning Commission did not want the lift stations. Mr. Donnelly said that is
why the density was reduced. Mr. Lindstrom asked if th~ Application Plan will be changed to
reflect the Planning Commission's change's. Mr. Donnally said it would be (note Planning
Commission Condition #6).
Mr. Henley~ said he would brin~ up the matter of buffers from adjoin±ng properties later,
but he wanted to say that he thinks they should be placed~ on both the east and west sides of th~
Grayrock property. Mr. Donnelly said that could be made a condition on the final application
plan.
. 10,3
February 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
~ Mr. Linds~trom asked how the vehicle trips per day was calculated. Mr. Donnelly said the
Ilstaff took the suggestion of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and use 5.4
[Ivehicle trips per day to arrive at its estimate of 1.588. Mr. Bowie asked if Route 684, which
lis now listed by the Highway Department as tolerable, would still be tolerable with the added
traffic from Grayrock. Mr. Donnelly said it would not be.
Mr. Fisher asked about the impact of 137 additional children on the schools in the area.
He said information from the school division in the staff report shows that Crozet Elementary
School is not being able to handle the increase in students. He wondered if the Planning
Commission recommendation for a change in density would make any difference in the number of
children going to that school. Mr. Donnelly said he did not know.
At 9:17 p.m., Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Robert McKee, representing Mr. and Mrs. Savage, told the Board he wanted to make clear
that Clusters 8 and 9 on the Grayrock Plan have not been excluded from service by gravity sewer.
More study will be done to see if it will be possible to serve these units with gravity sewer
and still meet the Planning Commission's recommendations that no lift stations be used. He said
the alignment of the collection system has not been completely determined, he understands, and
th&t, while the staff feels gravity sewer is unlikely, the possiblity still exists. Mr. McKee
said he also understands that the requested density of the application still stands at four
dwelling units per acre. He said the applicants' immediate intent is to build seventy to eight~
units over the next five or six years. He said he could not project when the rest of the PUD
would be finished. It depends on market demand.
Mr. McKee said he would try to answer the Board's questions, particularly those regarding
the tolerability of the roads to traffic, since that seemed to be the major issue at the --
~lanning Commission meeting. The applicants agree that the roads are non-tolerable. In fact,
development on Jarman's Gap Road, if it required private roads built to state standards, would
require roads built better and wider than this road itself. He then read his letter addressed
to Mr. Keeler dated January 10 and included (above) in the staff report.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. McKee how soil erosion will be controlled during the construction
phase so that it does not drain into the lakes. Mr. McKee said Best Management Practices will
be used on-site as required by the Planning Commission conditions. Mr. Fisher asked how the
northern part of the property, which does drain into the lakes, could be managed. Mr. McKee
said that would be handled similarly, since some detention basins would be in existence on the
property.
Mr. Bowie said the plan estimates that it will take five or six years for construction of
the first phase only, plus five or six additional years for the new orchard to mature. He aske~
when exactly ?~_~ the development is expected to be complete. Mr. McKee said that is difficult
to say. He said the apple trees will not reach full production for five to six years, and if
they produce well, then further construction may be delayed until the trees are no longer
Iprofitable. Mr. McKee said Grayrock, if fully developed, represents six percent of the total
Ipr~jected population for the Crozet community as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McKee
Ilsa~d he is skeptical that Crozet will ever reach 13,000 in population as is projected.
Mr. McKee explained the maps he had presented for the Board's benefit, including slope
analyses, vegetation maps and others. The applicants have had surface hydrology analysis done
on the property along with a visual quality analysis. These things were combined into a map
showing the prime building sites on the property. Four alternative plans have been prepared as
well.
After Mr. McKee's presentation, Mr. Henley said he had a question for Mr. Donnelly. He
asked~ha~~ ~e ~et~oy~t~e~.~a~alopment of Crozet community would be if the first three phases
of this project were the only ones developed and the PUD failed to materialize. He said he
would like for Mr. Donnelly to consider this while the public hearing progresses, because Mr.
Henley would like to know if the staff could recommend different requirements on the developmen~
if the first clusters were to be the entire PUD. Mr. Henley said he is afraid the residents of
the northern clusters might be deprived of amenities they have been promised if the PUD is not
completely developed.
Ms. Susan Smith asked Mr. Henley how many people live in Crozet now. Mr. Henley said that
depends on how far out into the White Hall District you consider Crozet to extend. It could be
anywhere from 1,500 to 3,000 people. Ms. Smith said this PUD, if approved, could represent a 3~
percent increase in population for the Crozet area. She said it seems strange to her that the
developer would put this self-contained Community into little Crozet, provide it with "goodies"
and then leave it surrounded by Crozet but not a part of the Crozet community. She said there
is no assurance that the apple trees will be more productive than townhouse development, so the
trees may well come down and more houses go up. Since the land will already be zoned for a PUD
it will be impossible to Stop such growth. She said the traffic problem is already bad, and she
does not want to see the property values on Jarman's Gap Road affected. Ms. Smith said she does
not object so much to the 70 units on the northern end of the property, but she feels that the
development as a whole, if built out to capacity, would change the character of the entire
Crozet area.
Mr. Edward Bower said he lives five miles east of the Grayrock property. He tald the Boar~
that people in Crozet have just formed an association called the Crozet Community Association.
This group has just approved articles of incorporation and intends to file them with the State
Corporation Commission. The group, he said, is dissatisfied with'the curren~ recommendations i~
the Comprehensive Plan for the Crozet community. It is unhappy with the unsafe highways. He
said the membership of this group is quite diverse, including businessmen who want the populatio
to increase, landowners who want the area to remain the same, and others who want developable
land. One of the group's first orders of business, Mr. Bower said~ will be to come up with
recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan. It wants the Board to deny this application and
give the Crozet citizens a chance to decide how they feel the Comprehensive Plan should be. At
the ~lanning Commission hearing on Grayrock, Mr. Bower said, the Highway Department representati
said the Crozet area should not have been Shown for the fairly high density of one to four
dwelling units an acre because of the conditions of the roads. Mr. Bower said if this petition
is denied, it will give the Crozet Community Association a chance to work with the community's
people and with the Savages to come up with something they feel is more acceptable.
Mr. Richard Brandt said he lives close to this project and his driveway turns onto Route
684 and he does not think it is a tolerable road, no matter what the Highway Department says.
The road is dangerous. Cars cannot pass without one of them pulling onto the shoulder of the
This is the main artery to Interstate 64 from the area. He does not feel the road can
stand the additional vehicle trips per day from the Grayrock PUD. The road situation in the
Crozet area is very serious. Mr. Brandt said he feels the Board is in a predicament
a according to what he learned at the Planning Commission hearing, the Code of ¥irginia
does not permit the Board to consider the condition of the highways in making a decision of this
· Twenty-five years ago the Hollymead and Crozet areas looked a good bit alike. Now,
29 North is a mess because of the adage that roads have to await pressure from development
efore they can be improved. He said the Crozet Community Association feels this development is
~re because of the lack of service -- it is too large for Crozet and the Grayrock property
s on the periphery of the Crozet growth area. In addition, it borders Jarman Gap Estates,
the density is only one dwelling unit per acre.
Mr. Robert Armstrong said he lives on Route 788, which is the Mink Springs Road, and which
serve the northern section of this development. He told the Board that he owns five acres
of land that border the Grayrock property just next to the proposed tennis courts. He has a log
cabin that he had planned to set up on this acreage. This development affects him because the
in the development will be driving past the house he owns now, plus the future prospect
living in a log cabin 150 feet from some tennis courts. No one asked him where to put the
courts or the swimming pool. He might not have bought the land if he had known this--was
to happen. He liked the apple orchard, but he cannot see the orchard coexisting with the
294 townhouses as a commercial orchard. It may remain as a buffer zone, but he feels those
will die and be removed. He feels townhouses are inappropriate in Crozet. The townhouse
rs will have to commute to Charlottesville, and this will drastically affect the traffic
Route 250 West. _
Mr. Mark Brandt said he has been a resident, off and on, of Crozet for 20 years. He w~uld
to begin with a compliment: if Crozet is going to see development of this density, he
like to see the kind of development Grayrock represents. Grayrock is more palatable than
house on every quarter acre for the same density. Mr. Brandt said the Crozet Citizens ~
ociation made a motion-last night to ask the Board of Supervisors to delay approval of this
ect until improvements to the roads are made. This motion failed because people felt such a
uest from. a group just forming would be premature. Instead, the group formulated a petition,
36 signatures supporting delay of the project, to wit:
"We, citizens of Crozet, ask the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
not to approve the proposal of the 'Grayrock' development on Jarman Gap
Road and Route 684 until funds are allocated to improve all of the
following roads which will bear traffic from Grayrock development:
Routes 691, 684, and 788."
Mr. Brandt said roads are his primary concern, but he also does not want to see townhouses
in Crozet, or a population of 12,000. A lot of people, including himself, like the area as it
ms, rural. He said he hopes the Crozet Community Association will have messages for the Board
it next amends the Comprehensive Plan. In the meantime, he wishes to object to the ~
additional traffic on Route 684. While the Highway Department determines tolerability on the
of width and traffic, Route 684 is no5 safe due to blind curves and hills. While he knows
Ithat road improvement follows co'ngestion, that seems like a screwy policy indeed. Another 1-;500
vehicle triPs per day will make the congestion on the roads intolerable.
Mr. Brandt said he is concerned about water in this area as well. With a density this
great, Grayrock may damage the water supply in the area. Mr. Brandt said the Watershed ~
~anagement Official has said that the water supply in the area is between marginal and feasible.
If there is a potential danger to the-water supply, this project'should be considered very
carefully. Finally, Mr. -Brandt said he is concerned about the increased number of students'in
the schools. Henley Middle School can hold some children, and Western Albemarle High School*~
~ill have room for a lot of people, but Crozet Elementary is full. He requested that the ....
application be denied.
Mr. Henley said that while he did not want to stop any of the citizens from fussing ab'out
~he roads, he felt they should be reminded that the Highway Department never does anything about
~ny road situation until that situation is unbearable. Ms. Joanne Perkins asked the Board how
nany lives Crozet will have to lose before something is-done. Mr. Henley suggested that she
:ome to a hearing on the Six-Year Highway Plan and voice her concerns. Ms. Perkins came to-~the
)odium and said she has been a resident of Crozet for 17 years. The beauty of the Crozet area
is unbelievable and it is village. She said the Comprehensive Plan shows the area a "growt~
area", but the community does not call itself that. She suggested the Board members drive
through Crozet and look at the streets and sidewalks that need repairs. Things are not the way
they should be in Crozet.. She said the Board members owe the residents of Croze~ a trip there
to see what the community has and what its problems are. Apparently nothing has been done to
the streets since built, in the 1940's.
Mr. Fisher asked if Ms. Perkins had anything to say about the Grayrock petition in ~d~
3articular. She said it seems to be a pretty good development. She is not opposed to groWth
~ecause she feels it will come. She wants the planning for its arrival to be complete before it
~ets there, so the community imag.e will be preserved. She said she does not want Albemarle
County to be left holding the bag when the developers fail to live up to what they promise. Mr.
Fisher encouraged Ms. Perkins to remember the road hearings so that requests can be made at this
time. Ms._ Perkins said she cannot understand why this development is coming before the Board
when the roads are so bad and there are no plans for its improvement. No one is coordinating
all the efforts. People should work together. The Crozet citizens are willing to work w~th the
Board, and they live in Crozet -- the Board members do not. The Crozet citizens have to live
with the Board's decision. Mr. Fisher said he does not think Ms. Perkins knows how many hours
the Board members spent working on plans for the Crozet growth area.
**~ Ms. Cynthia Kernow presented a petition identical to Mr. Brandt's with ~9 signatures. Only
four people she approached refused to sign it. She said Jarman's Gap road is v.ery dangerous;.
children riding bike~ ha~e been hit'by cars there; trash flo~ts up onto the road when it rains.
1 8 Re ular Ni_ht Meetin~
Mr. McKee said he wanted to respond to Mr. Armstrong's comment that he did not realize
where the tennis courts were going. Prior to submitting the plans for Grayrock to the County,
the developers sent letters to all the adjoining property owners explaining the development and
asking for input into the planning process. Mr. Armstrong was on the list for those owners.
The letters explained the plan, gave its history and presented the Savages' ideas. Mrs. Kernow
did come to Mr. McKee's office and opposed the plan. The letters went to 37 people, and she wa
the only one who objected. Mr. Bargerman came into the office and was in favor of the project.
The developers did make an effort to work with the property owners, but received little input.
Mr. Armstrong said Ms. Kernow is his wife and she had gone in to look at the plan but the
plans were already prepared at that time.
Mr. Brandt said he felt more people would be here' tonight if it were not for the Universit
~of Virginia basketball game.
Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing when no one else rose to speak.
Mr. Fisher mentioned the statement by the Watershed Management Official about this
development. Mr. Donnelly then read the following statement which had been attached to the
Board's materials:
"Care should be taken to utilize Best Management Practices designed to
promote water quality in the area streams and ponds during construction
of this project. The availability of public utilities is questionable
at this time due to the lack of available funding for collector systems.
The site development plan for this area appears to be a rather intensive
use of this property and without guaranteed access to public utilities
would be an inapproPriate use."
Mr. Fisher noted that "appears to be a rather intensive use" is the strongest statement th
Watershed Management Official makes. He asked if having a commercial orchard near the townh0us~
is possible because of spraying.
Mr. Henley said he does not think the orchard should be allowed. He said a commercial
orchard near a townhouse development would be potentially dangerous, because some of the
chemicals used for the spraying and growing of fruit are so dangerous that the workers cannot g
in among the trees for one to five days. It would be impossible to keep people out of the tree~
during or after spraying, plus the adjourning property owners would object to the chemicals in
their neighborhoods. Mr. Henley said he feels the area should be buffered, but not with apple
trees. Also, the buffer should be shown on the map now, in case the Board approves the plan an~
the developers come back later and say the buffering was not shown on the approved plan and
therefore is not required.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Donnelly what the current zoning allows on the property. Mr. Donnell
said 47 dwelling units could be placed anywhere in the 73 acres. However, there is no plan or
plat of such a development. Mr. Fisher asked if the 47 units would have to be single-family,
detached dwellings. Mr. Donnelly said no, they could be clustered units. Mr. Lindstrom asked
~f a~plat was approved when the area was zoned a Planned Residential Development the first time
Mr. Donnelly said there Was no plan then and there still is no plan event though that zoning ha~
been in place sinc~ 1980. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that with the 47 approved dwelling units, the
area could not have a one dwelling unit per two acres density. Mr. McKee said he has a copy of
-the ~existing plat of record, and it shows a typical subdivision with one-acre lots fronting
Route 684. Mr. Donnelly said that plat was submitted under the RS-1 zoning, and different
zoning category has been placed on the property since that time. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the 47
dwelling units is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Donnelly s~aid 47 dwelling
units is less than what the Comprehensive Plan recommends. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Crozet
community plan contains a narrative comparable to the urban area plan. Mr. Donnelly said yes.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a justification in that narrative for this zoning request. Mr.
Donnelly said he is not sure what the reasoning was behind the plan of Grayrock. Mr.. Fisher-
reminded Mr. Lindstrom that one to four dwelling units per acre is the lowest density shown in
the.Comprehensive Plan for a growth area.
Mr. Henley said the committee ~that helped draft the growth area recommendations for the
Crozet community contained some of the most conservative citize~ns in Crozet, and they ~
recommended certain areas for growth. He said areas have been set aside between the railroad
and Rou~e 250 for growth, and he has no problems wit. h this ~area being medium density. The uppe
end of ~this property where the first three phases are planned was a peach orchard, but proved t
be too low, thus being killed each year by frost. Mr. Henley said he would like to know how th
area should develop if this northern portion of the Grayrock property is all that is developed.
He asked if the people~purchasing their houses will be left "holding the bag" if the PUD is not
totally developed. Mr. Donnelley said the Board ~ould require recreational facilities for just
t~pBoDtel~ ~hadno~thern portion of the development. Mr. He.nley~ asked if there would be a
problem with putting this development adjacent to Orchard Acres, with its one dwelling unit per
acre density. Mr. Donnelly said no, as long as public water and sewer are available. Mr.
Fisher said requiring recreation for the first segment of the development would place a heavy
financial burden on the developers. Mr. Henley said he hates to approve something that may
never be built.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Henley what the problem would be with having an orchard so close to a
residential area. Mr. Henley said children would wander in the orchard or spray could blow ove
into the residential areas. He does not think it should be a commercial orchard. Mrs. Cooke
said this is her concern that the orchard would use dangerous chemicals so close to a high-
density development. Mr. Henley said another thing is that the Savages mentioned waiting five
or six years to see what the trees will do. ' Five or smx years is the break-even point and
really just the beginning for an orchard.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board is frequently accused of just responding to the crowds that
come ion various issues, and that seems to be just part of democracy, but a lot of the time thes
people have legitimate things to say. He is concerned that the Board may forget that it can
chOose to allow a density of one or two dwelling units per acre instead of three or four, since
.06
the Comprehensive Plan shows a density of from one-to four dwelling units per acre on this
property. The roads in this area are a problem, but the Comprehensive Plan is not arbitrary;.
has been well-thought-out and it should not be amended on an ad hoc, reactive basis. To do so
would be to encourage rural sprawl. Crozet is an attractive area and it will become developable
when public sewerage is ~.~? available. Western Albemarle High School is attractive and will
0ring people to the area. Sewer had to come to the area because of industrial pollution f~om
food processing. The County, in short, is committed to this area's development. Furthermore,
nothing serious is going to happen with the road situation until more pressure is placed on the
Highway Department for improvements. This pressure will come from increased development and
increased traffic. He said one sure consequence of approving this project will be a concerted
effort by the Planning Department and by the Board of Supervisors to get funds for these roads
at the next Highway Department road hearing. He said he would like the staff to address the
question: if the Board approves a lower density because the roads are so bad, will it compromis
the planning that has been done for the Crozet growth area to the point that it will not be the
same plan at all. Mr. Lindstrom said further that the Board needs to make provision for phasing
of this project so the road situation can be managed in some way. He would like for sta~ff or~
someone to tell the Board what a reasonable phasing is for this project.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is too much, too quick. He needs more information. He said it is
frustrating to hear people come in and say "we got a petition together last night" and it is not
really fair to the property owners. He proposed that the Board consider deferral of the Grayroa
~etition. Mr. Henley said the petition should be deferred and the buffers considered.
Mr. Fisher said that when the Hollymead PUD was first approved, it was approved only for
?hase I. Other phases have been approved only as needed and only when adequate infrastructure
was there. The Board could consider approving Clusters 1-3 of this petition and nothing else.
~hese sections would be served by the "tolerable" road. Mr. Fisher said the 1982 Comprehensive
?lan anticipated a twenty-year time period. The Crozet Community was not to be developed
setween then and 1990, but gradually, as utilities and other things became available. Mr.
~enley said the developer does not seem to be in that big of a hurry.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has five questions he would like for the staff to address before the
3oard makes a decision on Grayrock:
What is the status of the growth area in Crozet with respect to the roads?
How would using the lower end of the one-to-four dwelling units per acre
density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan affect the overall priorities
for that area if the conditions of the roads require that development be
kept to the low end of the recommended density?
What would staff recommendat±ons be if the only development allowed is
the first phase of the project located on the 70 acres in the north end of
the property?
How would staff address the question of actively maintaining orchards
in a residential area?
What phasing is necessary for ~the project if the total project is
approved?
Mr. Henley said he would like the staff ~to also consider where the sight buffers should
located.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the Board defer any action on ZMA-84-29, until
17, 1985, so the staff can study the options and the members can confront the implications of
what is being prepared. The Board needs to learn as much as it can before it sets a precedent-.
Mr. Henley said he is not opposed to the development, per se, because the Crozet area needs ·
housing. Mr. Henley then seconded the motion. ·
Mr. Way said he will.support the motion because he believes the questions should be
answered, but he does not think the Crozet area will stay.as a small area and he supports-the -
application itself because it represents the kind of development of which he approves. Mr.~
Lindstrom said he feels as Mr. Way and Mr. Henley do that the~development is going to come, and
this development is well integrated into County planning. Mr. Bowie said he supports deferrment
because he wants to see some of the questions answered, but if he had to vote on this project
itself tonight, he would vote for it. It represents an orderly-~attempt at growth. Crozet
cannot build a fence around itself.
Mr. Fisher called for a vote.
recorded vote:
The roll was Called and the motion carried by the following
&YES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
iNAYS: None
At 10:43 p.m., Mr. Fisher called for a recess. The Board reconvened at 10:48 p,m.
Agenda Item No. 11. Appropriation: Rape Task Force. ~
Mr. Agnor said that at its February 13, 1985 meeting the Board approved an appropriation of
$1,300 for the Task Force on SSxual Assault, but did not make the appropriation itself. Mr.
Agnor said the money can be transferred from the oontingency account in the Board of Supervisor'
budget.
. Mr. Bowie made motion to adopt the following resolution~~ Mr. Lindstr~m seconded the~motion
saying he understands that the Board will see the questionnaire of the Task Force before it~is
presented to the public for survey purposes. Mr.~Agnor said this is correct. Roll was called'
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ·
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
. 107
Februar 20 t 8 Re ular Ni ht Meeti
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $1,300 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Board of Supervisors Contingency Fund 1-1000-11010-999999 and
coded to 1-1000-91033-561700 entitled Task Force on Sexual Assault;
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 12. Transfer: Brownsville Roof Replacement.
The Board received the following memorandum from Mr. David Papenfuse, dated February 12,
1985, concerning a request for a transfer within the Capital Improvements Budget:
"We have received bids on the Brownsville roof replacement project and are
~pleased to report the job will cost $91,000 less than was budgeted. Intense
competition among roofers resulted in a bid of $64,000 against a budget of
$155,000.
With this in mind, the School Board at its February 11, 1985 meeting requested
the transfer of appropriated funds be made to replace the roof at Greer
Elementary School. In light of current market conditions a budget of $85,000
should be sufficient.
After a recent snowstorm, a major leak developed in the Greer roof, causing
damage to ceiling tile, furniture and carpeting. This leak has been patched,
but the balance of the roof is in very poor condition.
This roof replacement project is scheduled for FY 1986-87 in the present
Capital Improvements Program; however, it cannot wait until then without
further damage to the building and contents."
Mr. Agnor said that after the appropriation for Greer is made there will be about $6,000
left for use on the Brownsville School or it will just go back into the balance of the Capital
Improvements Fund.
Mr. Henley asked who monitors the work to see that the roofs are done correctly. Mr. Agnor
said the Education Department has a full-time Clerk of the Works. Mr. Fisher asked why the
school system has so many roof problems. Mrs. Cooke said flat roofs, which many of the schools
have, are worthless.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion to adopt the following resolution:
carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie seconded the motio~
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $85,000 be, and the same hereby is, transferred within
the Capital Improvements Fund from Roof Repair - Brownsville coded
1-9000-60622-300405 to code 1-9000-60625-300405 entitled Roof
Repair - Greer;
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Consultant Study of the Data Processing Department.
Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that it had asked for a study of the Data Processing ~
Department, specifically to include recommendations of the County's auditors (Price Waterhouse)
and the five-year capital needs of that department. Such a proposal was advertised and ten
firms responded to the advertisement for bids. He summarized the following memorandum for the
Board:
"Ten proposals were received from six auditing firms and four data
processing consultant firms to conduct a study of the Data Processing
Department and its operations. Three proposals did not meet the
specifications for the study. The remaining seven were reviewed and
scored on the following factors:
3.
4.
5.
Analysis of the work plan,
Technical expertise of the firm,
Staff assigned to the project,
Cost, and
Response from references.
The review and scoring of the bids was assigned to three staff members who worked
independently of each other. None of them are employed in the Data
Processing Department. Ail three ranked the same firms in the top
three slots, with variations on the sequence. The scores were averaged
to determine which firm had the best proposal. The entire process was
developed to provide an objective selection.
The firm of McGladrey, Hendrickson and Pullen, Certified Public Accoun-
tants, of Richmond was selected as the best proposal. The cost for
their services is $23,800, and the time estimated to complete the study
is approximately eleven weeks. A copy of their proposal is available for
review, if desired.
i08
The staff has reservations conserning the cost, and the time required
of County staff to be available to the consultants, when compared to the
anticipated results of the study. Should the Board desire to proceed, it
is recommended that the County Executive be authorized to execute a con-
trac~ with the funds being derived from the Board's contingency fund that
currently has an unencumbered balance of $66,980."
Mr. Agnor said the staff would like to implement hhe study soon, if that is the Board's
desire. Pricing on the proposals, ranged from $12,500 to $81,000. He said the staff does not
feel that a review of the audiors recommendations would be necessary, but a review of the fiV~
year plan would be helpful. The price for the audit study alone would be $10,000 and the price
for the data processing review would be $11,000. If the Board wishes to do this, Mr. Agnor said
the staff recommends that the County Executive be authorized to sign the contract.
Mr. Bowie said the request for a study came about as a result of the Board hiring a
different auditing firm and by request of the recently-formed Audit Review Committee consisting
of himself and Mr. Fisher. He disagrees with the staff summation that a review of the auditors
recommendations is not needed. He feels the Board needs an independent look at the Data r~
Processing Department because the County should get the most efficient use of equipment in that
department. Next year's budget request contains $180,000 for new equipment and the Board needs
to know if it really needs to spend that much money. He said there is evidence that the 4
department does not need that much, and he, for one, wants verification of the need. Mr. Bowie
then made motion to authorize the County Executive to sign a contract with the firm of McGladrey
Hendrickson and Pullen to conduct the study which is to answer six specific questions of the
Audit Review Committee. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Agnor has any comments. Mr. Agnor said the staff feels that the
items mentioned in the auditors' management letter of 1984 have been addressed already. Mr.
Fisher said there seems to be disagreement between the independent auditors and the staff on
that point. Mr. Agnor said the County also has a Data Processing Management Committee of five,
in-house people who review equipment needs and prioritize projects. This is no~, he said,
totally objective, however. Some of the updating, he said, is done internally.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if anyone has looked at how the Clerk of Circuit Cour~ might use the
County's main computer system. Mr. Bowie said that was mentioned in the bid form, but the Clerk
would like her own system. A terminal in the Clerk's Office could, however, be connected into
the mainframe in this building. This will be investigated in the next five-year plan.
Mr. Henley said he cannot, after his conversations with Mr. Agnor, support this study. He
said he could not say why without stepping on some toes, but he just cannot appropriate this
amount of money. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think this contract is being awarded in a way
that is contrary to earlier Board conversations. Mr. Henley said he has some questions about
the bidding process.
Mrs. Cooke said she would have to abstain from voting on this matter because she was not
~ble to attend executive session when this matter was discussed, so lacked full information.
Hr. Way agreed for himself, also.
Mr. Fisher said he had no qualms about the process of selection and he would support the
~hole process.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote:
~YES: Mr. Bowie, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom.
IAYS: Mr. Henley.
~BSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way.
Mr. Agnor pointed out that authorization of an appropriation requires four votes. Mr. St.
~ohn advised Mr. Agnor not to sign the contract until an appropriation is made with the f~
~ecessary four votes. Otherwise the Board may be locked into a contractual agreement that it
cannot honor.
Agenda Item No. 14. Special Appropriation for 1984-85.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County
~xecutive, dated February 13, 1985 on a special appropriation for this year:
"The mid-year review of the Financial Report plus the current budget
work sessions with department heads have uncovered projected over-
expenditures in three departments - Police, Registrar and Staff Services.
Police Department: Last spring when the budget for the Police Depart-
ment was presented, it was recognized by this office there was a potential
need for overtime. However, there was no documentation to evaluate that
need. It was also recognized that a portion of that need would be reim-
bursable and a portion would not be reimbursed. From July 1 to December
31, 1984, the following is an accounting of overtime:
,
Februar 20 1 8 Re u~ar-Ni ht Meetin .
Reimbursable Overtime
PVCC (Community College special events)
UVA (athletic events)
State Farm
Albemarle Schools (dances, athletic events)
Private Organizations (dances, races, etc.)
Six Month Total
Projection of Remaining Six Months
$ 280;00
224.00
866.68
2,982.00
5,796.00
$10,148.68
4.000.00
$14,148.68
(Note: It is projected that only 40 percent as much overtime will occur
in the last six months because most of the athletic events requiring
police protection occur in the fall and early winter.)
2. Non-Reimbursable
1204 hours (actual through 12/84)
Projected from 1/85 to 6/85
$12,040.00
6,000.00
$18,040.00
(Note: Approximately 40 percent of the overtime has been in
investigation and 60 percent in patrol.)
The request for an additionai appropriation is for $20,000 represented
above by the $14,000' in reimbursable overtime plus the $6,000 needed to
cover non-reimbursable overtime for the last six months of the current
year. The remaining $12,000 will be covered by salary savings on unfilled
positions during the first half of FY 84-85.
Re'cent examples of overtime are:
Investigations: Two officers worked 38 hours of overtime on the Keene
murder case in three days.
Patrol: On February 5, eight officers were called in to assist working
fifty wrecks reported in a three-hour period. Of the fifty wrecks,
sixteen were passed to the State Police. Also, there will be over-
time required to cover patrol duty while existing officers are taking
training required by state law.
~egistrar: The current budget for the Registrar's office did not include
the actual salary established by the State Board of Elections. The
registrar's salary was budgetsd at $19,815 and later set by the State Board
of Elections at $20,585, a salary difference of $770. Thus, an additional
request for $990 is needed to cover salary and fringes. This amount is
reimbursable by the State.
Staff Services: The current budget for Staff Services was projected to
cover the operation of the McIntire Building for only three months. It is
obvious that we must continue its operation at least through NoVember 1985.
The major portion of the operating costs will be offset by rents. There
are existing leases that produce $42,000 in rent annually. Any capital
improvement costs will not be offset by the annual rents unless we are
successful in renting all of the available space. As of this date, approx-
imately twenty percent of the available space is not occupied. This space
(4,000 square feet), if totally rented would produce another $12,000 in rent
per year.
Also, there have been two major breakdowns which produced some rather
large expenditures in the Staff Services budget. Repairs to the blower
of the air handling equipment cost $6,400 and repairs to the chiller
in the cooling system are estimated to cost $15,000. Both of these
breakdowns occurred at the County Office Building in late 1984. The
budgeted amount of $20,000 for repairs and maintenance will be spent
for general repairs. Therefore, it will be necessary to request a
special appropriation to cover the two major breakdowns.
Since the County will operate McIntire for another year, we should
remove the asbestos found on the steam pipe joints. Federal regulations
require the removal of asbestos in public facilities. The removal of
asbestos is estimated to cost $3,000 and is included in this request.
Increased premiums on fire insurance during the past year have resulted
in actual costs exceeding the original appropriation by $10,000 in FY
1984-85. This, additional funds are also requested to cover this increased
cost·
SUMMARY: The following amendment to the budget is respectfully requested:
Revenues:
Charge for Services - Police Department
State Shared Expenses - Registrar
Revenue from Rent of Property - McIntire
Appropriation from General Fund Unallocated Balance
$14,000
99O
30,000
34,80O
$79,790
February 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
Expenditures:
Code 31010 Police Department
100100 Salaries - Overtime
200100 FICA
Sub-total
$20,000
1,400
$21,400'
Code 13020 Board of Elections
100100 Salary
200100 FICA
200200 VSRS
Sub-total
$ 770
55
65
$ 990
Code 43000 Staff Services
510100 Electricity
510200 Heating
540700 Repairs and Maintenance
520300 Fire Insurance
Sub-total
$10,000
13,000
24,400
10,000
$57,400'
Grand Total Expenditures
$79,790
The above budget amendment which revises the annual operating budget by
$79,790 is well within the State law limitations of one percent; there-
fore it does not require advertising. Official action may be taken by
motion. However, if you feel the above items are of public interest,
you may set a public hearing for the regular day meeting in March."
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Agnor is expecting more such requests in the coming months. Mr.
nor said he is not. He hopes there will be no more until the quarterly review in April.
the schools have at least two that will come up then, he feels.
He
Mr. Lindstrom made motion to accept the recommendation of the County Executive and to adopt
following resolution. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Way asked if the $12,040 in non-reimbursable overtime for the Police Department will
be paid to these employees. Mr. Agnor said yes. In fact, some of the overtime has already
paid through use of funds left over from staff vacancies.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
: None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Virginia, that $79,690 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the gener~al fund and coded to the following:
1-1000-43000-510100
1-1000-43000-510200
1-1000-43000-540700
1-1000-43000-520300
1-1000-3lO10-100100
1-1000-31010-200100
1-1000-13020-100100
1-1000-13020-200100
1-1000-13020-200200
Electricity $10,000
Heating 13,000
Repairs and Maintenance 24,400
Fire Insurance 10,000
Salaries 20,000
FICA 1,400
Salaries 770
FICA 55
VSRS 65
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Revenues section of the 1984-85 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of the following:
1-1ooo-16ooo-16o3o3
2-10oo-2300o-230600
2-1ooo-15ooo-15o23o
Police Department
Registrar
Rent - McIntire
$14,000
890
30,000
FURTHER RESOLVED, that $34,000 be, and the same hereby is, appro-
priated from the General Fund balance and coded 2-1000-50000-510100;
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appointment.
On motion by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Theodore N. Gardner was appointed as
of the Welfare Board to represent the Scottsville District; term to expire December 31,
1987. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Lindstrom said. the Board normally receives the proposed County budget from Mr. Agnor,
olds a number of work sessions on the budget, and then holds a public hearing before approving
· He suggested that the Board begin this year's budget process by having a public hearing
~efore the presentation by Mr. Agnor, to receive comments in general from citizens as to :~
~erceived needs before the 'work sessions begin. These comments would then be received wh$n the
~ard still has some flexibility. He suggested this be done on the evening of March 6, 1985.
. Fisher remarked that there will be four work sessions scheduled with a public hearing before
after the process. Mr. Lindstrom said he suggests this just be to take public comment_ in
eneral and not comments from agency heads. Mr. Lindstrom then made motion to hold an ~0A?
~ertised public hearing on March 6, 1985 to receive public comments on a County budget for FY
B5-86. Mr. Way seconded the motion.
February 20, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Bowie agreed. He said the staff is heavily involved with the many agencies and the
staff has done a lot of the work already. Mr. Lindstrom said these would be public comments.and
the agencies would be instructed to save their presentations for the work sessions. Mrs. Cooke
said she agrees with just having public, non-agency input.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and May.
None.
At 11:26 p.m., Mr. St. John requested that the Board go into executive session to discuss
several legal matters. Cason vs. Albemarle County, Benton Patterson vs. Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors, the truck repair (Hall Body Shop) appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the
Gartick tract suit, and a legal item relating to the letting of a contract for the Data
Processing Study. Mr. Way made motion to do so, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. The motion carried
as follows:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
AYES:
NAYS:
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjournment.
The Board emerged from executive session at 11:50 p.m. and immediately adjourned.
-- ~ CH~AN