Loading...
1983-10-19October 19, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 19, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,· Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom, and Miss Ellen V. Nash. ABSENT: Mr. James R. Butler. OFFICERS PRESENT: Acting County Executive, Ray B. Jones; CountY Attorney,. George R. St. John; and Director of Planning and Community Development, Robert W. Tucker~ Jr.~ Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-83-7. SP-83-38. SP-83-39. John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. John L. Wildermuth. (These three petitions were deferred from September 7, 1983.) Mr. Fisher said the following request from the applicant to postpone the above petitions was received October 6, 1983: "Confirming our telephone conversation with Ms. Lettie Neher today, we are requesting that our hearing before the Board of Supervisors on the above ~hree items be postponed until the December meeting." Motion was offered by Mr. LindStrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer action on the above three petitions as requested by the applicant, to December 7, 1983. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-83-55. Edith Batten. Request to locate a mobile home on 17.76 acres zoned RA. Property on east side of Route 729 (Deferred from October 5, 1983). Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development, was present and noted that SP-83-55 was originally deferred from September 21, 1983 to October 5, 1983 in order that the property could be visited to select a location for the mobile home, and to determine if the mobile home could be located no closer than one hundred feet from the property line nor closer than one hundred and fifty feet from the road right-of-way as stated in condition number 1 of the Planning Commision report. However, due to an illness, the applicant requested deferral from October 5 to this date. Mr. Tucker said he and Miss Nash visited the site and he personally feels the location recommended by the Planning Commission would place the mobile home on the drainfield utilized by Mr. Hensley (the mobile home owner with life tenancy on the prope~rty). Therefore, in order that the mobile home is not placed on the drainfield and also is not visible from Route 729, same should be placed a minimum of three hundred feet from the road right-of-way of Route 729. Mr. Tucker then suggested that the one hundred and fifty foot requirement in condition number i be changed to three hundred feet and a fourth condition be added that the existing mobile home be removed within thirty days after vacancy by Mr. Hensley. Miss Nash said there is a nice road back into the woods to the subject property and she did not feel there would be any problem getting the mobile home past Mr. Hensley's drainfield. Mr. Tucker agreed and noted on a map the location of a roadway past Mr. Hensley's drainfield. He said there is room for another septic field on the property and the proposed location appears to be a good area for the mobile home. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone from the public cared to comment on this petition. Mrs. Edith Batten, applicant, was present and felt there is some confusion about the location of the mobile home. Her intent is to locate the mobile home on the right hand side of the property in the wooded area, and not behind Mr. Hensley. She distributed photographs indicating the area intended for her mobile home. Mrs. Batten said the road is not graveled and is a dry weather road. Mrs. Batten said the mobile home in the wooded section would not be visible from Route 729 and there is approximately five or six hundred feet of road frontage in the area in questio There was no one else present to comment on the petition. Miss Nash asked the location for the septic field with Mrs. Batten locating the mobile home beside Mr. Hensley's trailer. Mr. Tucker said possible areas would be either on the side of Mrs. Batten or directly behind the mobile home adjacent to Mr. Hensley's drainfield. Miss Nash offered motion to approve SP-83-55 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but including the suggestion of Mr. Tucker for condition number 1 and the addition of condition number 4: October 19~ 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Zoning Administrator determination of mobile home location so as to minimize adverse visual impact from adjoining properties and the public road; it is the intent of the Planning Commission that the mobile home be located no closer than 100 feet from any property line nor closer than 300 feet from the road right-of-way; Maintenance of vegetative buffer around mobile home to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Removal of the existing mobile home within 30 days after being vacated by the present occupant, Mr. Hensley. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-82-15. J. G. Dawson. Rezone 8.28 acres currently zoned VR to HC, County Tax Map 130A(1), Parcel 47. Scottsville Magisterial District (Deferred from April 2O, 1983). Mr. Tucker said a letter dated September 26, 1983 was received from Mr. George F. Allen, the applicant's attorney, requesting withdrawal of ZMA-82-15 without prejudice (copy on file Clerk's Office). Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, as of its meeting on October 4, 1983, accepted the withdrawal without prejudice and he recommended the Board do likewise. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept the withdrawal of ZMA-82-15 without prejudice as requested by the applicant's attorney. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing. SP-83-64. Vincent Yeaton. Request to locate a coun~ try store on .537 acre zoned RA, Rural Areas. Located on the northern side of Route 690 at the Old Greenwood Country Store. County Tax Map 54, Parcel 55. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 4, and October 11, 1983.) Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report: ".Re.quest:. Country store (Section 10.2.2.22) Acreage: 0.537 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 54, Parcel 55, is located on the north side ~f Route 690 at its intersection with Route 691 at Greenwood. Character of the Area: This property is developed with a retail store building (formerly Greenwood Country Store), with a warehouse building to the rear. fThe store has a second story apartment. The warehouse to the rear is currently housing a Class B home occupation, the making of ~ p~ototype computer cabinets. A dwelling is located directly to the west and Greenwood Elementary School is located to the east. The Greenwood Post Office is located on the south side of Route 690. Staff Comment: A varianee from the area regulations related to utilities is to be heard prior to Commission public hearing on this petition. The septic system serving this property, located across Route 691, has been approved by the Health Department for the proposed usage. At this time, the applicant is proposing to use not more than 1,500 square feet of the first floor for the country store. Area for parking appears adequate, however, parking spaces should be delineated. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended limitation of access to the site. Staff has reviewed the proposal under the criteria for issuance of a special use permit (Section 31.2.4.1) and recommends that with appropriate conditions of approval: a) A country store in this location would not be of substantial detriment to adjoining property nor change the character of the area; b) The use is not in harmony with zoning regulations since variance ~s required; however, this should be weighed against existing development of the property. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Staff and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of parking layout and controlled access to the site; Building and Fire Official approval~ Staff approval of expansion of store usage beyond 1,500 square feet within existing building. Expansion shall be consistent w~h zoning regulations and all other applicable law." October 19, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) 413 Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 11, 1983 unanimously recommended approval of SP-83-64 with the three conditions recommended by the staff. Mr Fisher noted a letter dated September 20, 1983, from Mrs. J. A. Shirley, property owner in the area, stating support of the petition because the property has been a store for years and there is a need for a grocery store in the area (Copy of letter on file in the Clerk's office). Miss Nash asked the reason for requesting a variance. Mr. Tucker said the variance was granted in order that the country store, which will be a nonconforming use under the exist- ing zoning, could be reestablished. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Vincent Yeaton, applicant was present. Helhas had a great deal of encouragment from the Greenwood community to do something with the building; specifically as a country store. Therefore, he felt the proposed use is a response to the people in the community. Mr. Fisher asked what will be sold in the store. Mr. Yeaton said he plans to begin with a convenience store selling groceries. Depending on the needs of the community, he may consider selling hardware and open a meat market. Mr. William Washington was present and said a country store has been at this location almost continuously since 1910. However, the building had been vacant for two years and lost its qualification as a nonconforming use. Mr. Washington said at a recent meeting of citizens in the Greenwood Community, the only question about the petition was the hours of operation. However, he informed the citizens that since this was a special use permit request, such concern could be handled. He added that the community is very anxious to have the store re- opened. Mr. Washington concluded that the drainfield located six hundred feet away from the store in a pasture field which he rents, presents no problem. Mr. Fisher asked if he felt the hours of operation should be a condition of this permit. Mr. Washington said yes. He under- stands that Mr. Yeaton plans to operate between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. six days a week. There being no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Miss Nash commented that having had a close association with the Greenwood community, she felt this store has always provided a good service to the community and she did not feel parking is a problem. Mr. Henley asked if a condition were placed that the hours of operation be from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., would Mr. Yeaton have any problem in the future if he desired different operating hours. Mr. TUcker said the same process would be required; specifically amendment to the special permit. Mr. Lindstrom felt the hours should be other than 7!00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. in order that Mr. Yeaton does not have to return in the future for a change of hours. He recommended that the hours be from 7:00 A.M. until 9:00 or possibly 10:00 P.M., since that is a time many people stop in at a convenience store. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to approve SP-83-64 with the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and the addition of a fourth condition to read: "Operating hours are to be from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., six days per week." The motion was seconded by Mr; Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 6. Request from Region Ten Community Services Board re: cial Projects Fund (Deferred from October 12, 1983). Establish a Spe~. Mr. Ray Jones, Acting County Executive, explained that this request was deferred from October 12, 1983 in order that the resolution adopted by the Region Ten Board, explaining the purpose of the special projects fund, (the resolution had not been delivered to the Board on October 12 ), could be reviewed by both himself and the County Attorney. The resolution has been reviewed and although most of his questions have been satisfactorily answered, he would prefer to discuss this request with the Price/Waterhouse auditing firm before making any recommendation, and requested that this item be deferred until November 9. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this request could be approved subject to later approval by the auditors. Mr. Jones said he would have no problem with such action. However, Mr. Fisher felt that since Mr. Jones has some concern he would prefer to defer action until all concerns are resolved. He asked if there is any existing County fund similar to the requested fund. Mr. Jones said the County's debt service reserve which is set aside to meet certain debt payments, and the Capital Improvement Fund, both being outside of the operating fund. Mr. Jones said he understands this request came about because contributions came in late during the last fiscal year and the money could not be utilized before the end of the fiscal year. According t.o State regulations, this balance becomes a part of the State allocation and that is what the Region Ten Board is attempt lng to prevent. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem with the request and felt that Mr. Jones is only desiring a review by the Price/Waterhouse auditors. Therefore, he offered motion to approve the request from the Region Ten Community Services Board for the establishment of a special projects fund subject to the review and approval by Price/Waterhouse auditing firm. Mr. Fisher did not feel the auditors could approve or disapprove the request.- Mr. Lindstrom said should the auditors find problems with this request, the request could then be returned to the Board. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. St. John suggested Mr. Jones be authorized to approve the request if he determines that the comments made by the auditors are favorable, and if not return the request to the Board for further discussion. Mr. Lindstrom amended his motion to include the suggestion of Mr. St. John and Mrs. Cooke accepted same to her second. 414 Ontoh~_~ 1 9, 1 9g3 (R~g~]~ar N~ght Meet~!~g~-- ....... Mr. Fisher expressed concern over setting up this type of fund for public agencies and said he did not feel this is a proper precedent to set and he could not support the motion. Mr. Lindstrom felt the request was provoked by bureaucratic attempts to control and-involve itself in things which he did not feel are the responsibility of government. Mr. Henley felt the request is reasonable and concurred with Mr. Lindstrom in that the Region Ten Board would have a better chance of receiving private contributions if allowed more control over where to spe~d funds. Mrs. Cooke agreed with both Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Henley, and added that these .will be private contributions, and the handling of same should be between the contributor and the agency. She did nov feel policing of private contributions is a responsibility the gov- ernment needs to assume and supported the request if the auditors do nov offer any negative comments. Miss Nash stated that the Region Ten Board has done some very good things and performed their own financial work very efficiently and even if this is setting a precedent, she supported the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 7. Request from Patricia Cooke re: County Building. Mrs. Cooke referred to her letter dated October 14, 1983, addressed to the Board. (~opy of letter is on file in the Clerk's Office.) Mrs. Cooke proposed that a three member committee be appointed by the Board to work with a committee from the Albemarle County Histori- cal Society in drafting a plan for beautification of the interior of the County Office Buildin~ She added that if the committee is established, perhaps some contributions could be solicited from private citizens since interest to do so has been expressed. Mrs. Cooke hoped that a plan could be implemented and completed in time for the 25.0th Anniversary of Albemarle County in 1994, beginning in 1984 with the dedication of the land- scaping project that is underway in front of the County Office Building. Mrs. Cooke proposed that the Board discuss this concept in order to accomplish this proposed task. Mr. Fisher sai~ he~-and Mrs. Cooke have discussed this over the past few years and felt a procedure was needed to accept gifts and loans for the beautification of the County Office building. Mrs. Cooke felt the committee could decide which areas needed to be enhanced and what objects, such as paintings and furniture would be required to have the plan done in a coordinated manner. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Jones felt a staff member could be on the committee. Mr. Jones said yes. Miss Nash felt the committee should be comprised of individuals with practical knowledge and with an aesthetic ability. Mrs. Cooke agreed and felt the committee should also have one professional interior designer as a member for establishing appropriate guidelines. Mr. Lindstrom supported the concept. Mr. Fisher suggested action be taken to establish the committee with the appointments to same to be made at a later date. Mr. Lindstrom said the committee also needs to consider how donations will be protected. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the concept for the beautification of the Albemarle County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs'.. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. , Agenda Item No. 7(a). Appropriation: Court Square Project. Mr. Jones said the Board has previously authorized that plans and specifications for the renovation of the County Buildings on Court Square be drawn. Bids were taken on October 18, 1983 and the low bid from J. S. Mathers, Inc., came in lower than the amount approved in the ~current Capital Improvements Budget. Mr. Jones further explained that the base bid ~$1,364,700; with $3,000 for alternate #1, milled brick work to match the existing structure, removal of asbestos in the existing structure, and a secure door for the holding cell in the basement; $136,770, contingency (10%); $135,403 for the architect's fee; $10,000, moving expenses; wit.h $97,000 being~deducted from this total for the prior allocations made to this project. Therefore, Mr. Jones said an appropriation in the amount of $1,552,873 is being requ.ested from the Capital Improvements Fund for this project. Mr. Jones noted the $10',000[I stated above for the moving expenses is for work outside of the contract such as tiling the basement floor in. order that the Clerk's Office can be moved there while construction is occuring on the other floors. Mr. Jones said action is also needed for the. County Executive to be authorized to execute the contract documents for this project. Motion was then offered by. Mr. Lin~strom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of SUpervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,552,873.00 be, and .the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital Improvement Fund and coded to 1-9000-97000-976000 - Court Square Project. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. 415 October 19, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to authorize the County Executive to execute the contract documents for the Court Square Project on behalf of the County. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 7(b). Project. Draft letter: Certificate of Public Need for Replacement Hospital Mr. Fisher said he received a letter dated September 23, 1983 from Dr. William H..._ Muller, Jr., Vice President for Health Affairs, at the University Medical Center, regarding the intent to apply for a Certificate of Public Need for a replacement hospital projeet (C~py of letter is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Fisher said according to Dr. Muller, the exist- ing facilities are outdated and extremely overcrowded. Although frequent renovations have been undertaken to improve the quality and quantity of space, a significant improvement of the facilities is necessary. Mr. Fisher said the intent is for construction of a new building containing four hundred and forty-five beds and renovation of the existing buildings to house two hundred and eighteen beds with a connection between the two facilities. Also, the existing parking garage and the heater/chiller plant are to be expanded. Mr. Fisher said the letter was sent to him to formally advise the County of the Center's intent and any comments are welcome. Therefore, he had suggested that Mr. Tucker review the letter and comment on same. Mr. Tucker has prepared a draft letter for the Board to consider. Two issues which Mr. Tucker felt should be addressed in the planning of the project are mentioned. First, proper stormwater drainage facilities are of essential importance because of the destructive effect drainage can have on downstream properties. The second issue is adequate traffic circulation with safe and con- venient access to the facilities. Mr. Fisher concluded by requesting the Board's authority to forward the letter to Dr. Muller. Mr. Lindstrom acknowledged appreciation for the opportunity to review this project and felt the two issues addressed should be stressed. Miss Nash suggested adding the words "and parking areas" in the second paragraph after the words "access to the hospital" to assure that same are also considered. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to authorize Mr. Fisher to sign the letter drafted by Mr. Tucker to Dr. Muller including the suggestion of Miss Nash. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 7(c). Receipt of letter from C. L. Mooney re:- land in Buck Mountain. Mr. Fisher said a letter dated October 14, 1983, has been received from Mr. and Mrs. C. L. Mooney, requesting the Board to intervene in the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's decision regarding the proposed Buck Mountain acquisition boundary; specifically as same affects the Mooney property. A public hearing by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is scheduled for October 25, 1983. Therefore, Mr. Fisher felt this request should be delayed until after that public hearing is held and the matter analyzed further by the Authority. Mr. Fisher did not favor individual situations being reviewed by the Board prior to the hearing. A brief dis- cussion followed on a resolution to be presented at a later date regarding the Authority being allowed to consider individual situations and making whatever boundary line adjustments found to be necessary. Mr. Fisher said the Authority may be returning with some recommendations after the public hearing and therefore felt no decisions should be made until that time. In conclusion, Mr. Fisher said he intends to convey this to the Mooney's. No objection was received from the Board. Agenda Item No. 7(d). .Authority Bond Financing. Notice: Carben Corporation - Proposed Industrial Development Mr. Fisher referred to a letter from Mr. James B. Murray, Chairman of the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority, dated October 18, 1983, which explained that the Car2en Corporation of Roanoke, Virginia, has approached the Industrial Development Authority to seek approval to use bonds issued by the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke; said bonds are for financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of a furniture warehouse facility to be located on 9.1 acres of land on Fifth Street Extended; (the property is the former James River Supply Company warehouse and more recently the site of the Albemarle County Fair). Mr. Fisher said a hearing will be held on this request at 4:00 P.M. on October 27, 1983, by the Authority. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Murray had mentioned this request to him and he suggested same be presented to the Board as information. However, he had informed Mr. Murray that he did not feel the Board could do anything about this request. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not certain what will happen if the Industrial Development Authority denies the request. Mr. Fisher felt action was taken by the Board years ago stating that the Board does not desire projects funded by industrial bonds from other authorities to be located in Albemarle County, without the Board's approval. 416 October 19, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. St. John. said he received a letter dated September 21, 1983 from Mr. Harwell Darby, Jr., attorney representing Carben Corporation, explaining the request as previously noted by Mr. Fisher. He responded to Mr. Darby on October 6, 1983 and noted that although no statutory provisions for this are to come before the Board, the Albemarle Zndustrial Develop- ment Authority has the power to not approve the financing until approved by the Board. He did not feel that was a good position for the Authority to take. He also felt the Board would probably want to hold a public hearing if reviewing this request. Although Mr. Murray's lette~ indicates that the Authority will probably act on the matter, the feelings of the Board member~ is desired for the Industrial Development Authority's guidance. Mr. St. John suggested that ~fore the Board makes any decision on this, to have someone, either staff or Board member to attend the Authority meeting on October 27, 1983. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Murray indicated to him that action could be taken at that meeting Therefore, unless the Board requests the Authority take no action, immediate action will be taken. If the Board takes no action, then he is concerned that an incentive will be created for local businesses to go to other counties who will finance anything which circumvents the Board's policy. Mr. St. John said there is a distinction in this case because this is a package deal where the Authority in Roanoke is being requested to finance warehouses in three counties outside of Roanoke. If the Board took the position to no~ consider this without bond~ from the County's authority, such could be an untenable position. Mr. St. John concluded by recommending that the Board take no action, but rather let the proposal be dealt with by the AMbhority itself. No objection was received about the recommendation and the matter was considered only as information. Agenda Item No. 8. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said a letter dated August 9, 1983 has been received from the Virginia Chil~. dren's Museum expressing an interest in using the McIntire School building; said letter was accompanied by a proposal for the use of the building (copy of letter is on file in the Clerk' Office). Mr. Fisher asked that the staff request the same information from the Children's Museum as has been requested from others. Agenda Item No 8(a). Executive Session: Personnel. Mr. Fisher said Mr. St. John is prepared to respond on issue of a variance sought by the Amvest Corporation. This was part of an executive session on October 12, 1983 and can be included in tonight's executive session. At 8:52 P.M., motion was offerd by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters and legal matters dealing with the recent waiver by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the Amvest Office building and potential legal proceedings. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. (The Board reconvened into open session at 9:50 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 9. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M.