Loading...
1981-01-21January 21, 1981 Regular Night Meeting 0'42 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 21, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-80-24. Hunter Faulconer, Jr. Petition to rezone 41.20 acres from A-1 to RPN/R-1 with 48 lots on 22.9 acres and 17.5 acres of open space. Property located on north side of Route 250/~9 Bypass between St. Anne's-Belfield School and Canterbury Hills. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 24, portion of. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 7 and JanUary 14, 1981.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Dir~ report: "Requested Zoning: RPN/R-1 Existing Zoning: R-I, Residen~ Acreage: 41.2 acres Location: Property is describ~ Jouett District. Located between St. Anne's-Belfie ~ctor of Planning, then presented the following staff ~ial ~d as a portion of parcel 24 on tax map 60, Jack on the north side of the Route 250/29 By-pass .d School and Canterbury Hills. Character & Existing Zoning in the Area: The Canterbury Hills Subdivision is located to the east of this site and is zoned R-2, Residential. The average size of the lots in Canterbury Hills is 0.5 acres. Immediately to the north of the site, the residue parcel is. zoned R-i, Residential. St. Anne's-Belfield School lies to the west of the site and is zoned R-1. Property to the ~south of the site is owned by the University and is zoned R-1. Comprehensive Plan Recomm~'ndation: The site is located within Neighborhood Seven of the Urban Area and is designated low density residential with a recommended density of one to four units per acre. Condition of the Roads Serving the Site: This section of Route 855 carries 382 vehicle trips per day and is listed by the Highway Department as tolerable. The Highway Department in their Site Review comments recommended that several sharp curves along Route 855 be improved. Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that the soils on the site are deep and well drained with bedrock between 40 inches and 60 inches. Land Use Data: Population Vehicle trips per day Projected school enrollment Single-family detached units Single-family attached units Total 149 336 228 26 22 ----~units Acres in lots Acres in open space Acres in roads Total 22.9 acres 17.5 acres (42%'of site) 2.08 acres 41.2 acres Proposed Gross Density Proposed Net Density Average lot size (SFD units) Average lot size (SFA units) 1.17 dwelling units per acre 2.10 dwelling units per acre · 67 acres .25 acres RPN Proposal: The applicant is proposing a total of 48 units, 26 units to be single-family detached units and 22 to be single-family attached units (duplexes). The roads in~o the site are proposed to be privately maintained. Public water and sewer ar~ proposed to serve the development. Staff Comment: The new Zoning Residential as opposed to The Comprehensive Plan re compliance. The new zoni requires a density of .97 of the bonus factors whi Ordinance designates this property as R-I, its A-1 designation in the old ordinance. ~ommendation and the proposed plan are in ag, however, under the conventional development units per acre. The applicant can meet two naintaining wooded areas and serving the site ~h would allow for a with an internal road 30% increase in density or 1.26 units per acre. ~he proposal, therefore, complies with the new R-1 zone in density r~quirements but the applicant is requesting approval for flexibility ~n the unit types for the duplexes. Single- family attached units are~not allowed by right in the R-1 zone. 043 January 2½~ 1981 Resular Night Meeting Staff is concerned that the request for approval of ~rivate roads into the site is not in accordance with recent Planning Commission policy requiring State roads particularly in the urban area. The Planning Commission and Board may want to consider this in their action. Staff suggested at the Site Review meeting that the applicant consider serving this site through the State roads in Canterbury Hills. The applicant did not propose this and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has made no recommendation for this. Staff recommends approval of this application for the following reasons: The RPN proposal designates most of the steeper areas as common open space. Staff feels that the plan protects the areas that are more environmentally sensitive. The Comprehensive Plan recommends this site for low density residential in Neighborhood Seven of the Urban Area with a recommended density of 1-4 units per acre. The proposal complies with this. This proposal is substantially in compliance with existing zoning in the area." Recommended conditions of approval: Approval is for a maximum of 26 single-family detached units and 22 single- family attached units with a maximum gross density of 1.17 dwelling units per acre. Location and acreages shall substantially comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in accordance with the number of units approved. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance into Route 855, if needed; Fire Official approval of fire flow and hydrant locations prior to final approval; Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements prior to final approval; 5. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance prior to final approval; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer lines prior to final approval; County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements prior to final approval to include maintenance of open space, roads, the lake and dam, drainage and appurtenant structures; County Engineer approval of road plans prior to final approval; An easement shall be provided at the lake and shown on the final plat for maintenance and access; (Mr. Tucker said the property lines goes to center of the lake and the Commission wanted to assure the property owners that they would have access for maintenance of the entire lake and therefore the requirement for an easement be granted.) 10. County Engineer approval of dam specifications and County Engineer and Zoning Department inspection of the dam construction; 11. Only those areas where structures, utilities, roads, or other improvements are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 18, 1980, unanimously recommended approval with the~conditions recommended by the staff, but changed No. 8 to read: "Virginia Department of HighwHys and Transportation approval of road design in accordance with current standards." Mr. Fisher questioned the requirement that the roads be built to state standards and accepted into the State system and then condition #7 requires maintenance of roads be included in the homeowners' agreements. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission intended to have the roads built to state standards and accepted into the state system. He then suggested including in condition #8 the words "for acceptance" after "current standards" He also noted that the reference to roads in condition #7 could be deleted. The public he,ring was?opened. Mr. Robert McKee, representing the applicant, was present. He said the intent of the rezoning is to provide a retirement village and the traffic count will be substantially lower than the 336 on the land use data in the staff report. He also noted that the projected school enrollment will be less than shown. Mr. McKee said the intent is to provide security at the entrance and he did not feel such is possit if the road is public. The applicant does agree to design the main road coming into the project in accordance with state standards in the event that in later yea~s the state has to maintain the road. Mr. McKee then explained a drawing showing the profile of the roads. Mr. Fisher asked if the intent is to dedicate the roads to public use. Mr. McKee said that was probably mandatory. Mr. Fisher said his concern about the private roads is due to some past problems with such. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Le ~anuarY221, 1981. Regular Night Meeting Mr. Fisher then a~ked the following questions. If an applicant wants to have a private road and installs a gate across the roadway, how do,property owners with lots in the back have legal access? Do those people get just an easement across the other properties? Mr. St. John said such is possible but the easement could also be deeded to the homeowners' association and maintained by the homeowners association. Such is not an easement but rather a fee simple ownership in the homeowners~agreement~and the roads are part of the commonly owned ground. This is the way most are done rather than by an easement. Mr. Fisher said if it shown on the subdivision as a dedicated right-of-way and dedicated to public use even though privately maintained, then access cannot be denied, ill, Mr. St. John said yes and that is a hybrid and explained such. He said if there is a privately owned road with adequate right'of-way such could later be dedicated to public use when the homeowners desire such. Mr. Fisher asked if other adjoining properties had access to other public roads. Mr. Tucker said yes and explained the access. Mr. Fisher then asked which watershed this property is in. Mr. Tucker said Moore's Creek. Dr. Iachetta noted that this property will be served by the new interceptor. Mr. Fisher asked if the intent is to have public water and sewer. Mr. Tucker said yes. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve ZMA-80-24 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher asked the intent of the motion concerning the roads. Dr. Iachetta said the intent is to leave condition #7 as is with the County Attorney to resolve witl the owner the proceedings to achieve the purpose and the roads to be built to state standards. Mr. Fisher felt the intent of the applicant was to avoid grading of the road to the west and asked Mr. McKee if that was correct. Mr. McKee said the intent was to design the primary road state standards to serve the twenty-two single-family dwellings and to get up the ridge from that with a private road that would most l~kely not be designed to state standards. Mr. McKee said he understood from the Planning Commission meeting that that was a possibility and one the County may accept. In conclusion, Mr. McKee sa~d the intent is to design the main road to state standards and the road up the ridge for approximately 400 feet be private. Dr. Iachetta said as he understands, the roads have to be to state standards. Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission conditions Would give the applicant the flexibility to build to whatever standards the county engineer would approve. Mr. Lindstrom then noted hearsay that the Planning Commission has a new policy about roads and asked for a clarification of that. Mr. Tucker sai. d the word "policy" is used quite loosely and did not feel such is really a policy. The Planning Commission has ~ncouraged that more public roads in the urban area be built using urban crossese~mms rather than rural cross-sections. Mr. McCann said this subject has come up several times before and he suggested that the Board look at the question of private roads in the urban areas. He was not in favor of operating case by case on a policy~and felt if there is to be a private road ordinance such should apply county wide. M~. St. John felt the Planning Commission recommended that the roads to be in the state system be built to state standards and the roads not to be in the state system, be built to private standards and be a part of ~the homeowners agreement. Mr. Fisher said that is not des'ignated in the conditions. Dr. Iachetta then withdrew his motion and offered motion to defer action in order to allow the applicant to come back with what he would like to do on the problem of roads. Mr. Fisher felt all the roads should be public as this would solve problems for the homeowners forever. Mr. Fisher did not feel it was worthwhile for the applicant to go to the expense of building t~e~'roads to state standards if the road is not going to be in the state system. Mr. Fisher did not feel deferral was necessary because the applicant has stated he desires private roads but is willing to build all the roads to state s~am~ds. Based on that, he felt the matter should be resolved tonight. Mr. McCann again stated that an ordinance should be considered on private roads and felt urban areas should have public roads. Mr. Fisher felt the project is reasonably planned and most of the problems have been resolved in his mind except the question about the roads. He feels that a new development particularly in growth areas should have state maintained roads. M~Henley did not have any problem with private roads in this subdivision because the roads are not going anywhere. Mr. Peter Sharon, architect for the applicant, requested an opportunity to make a statement. He said the possibility of having a road connected to Barracks Road from the site was considered in the master plan for the entire parcel. However, such a road would break down the quality of the development since the public would use that as a shortcut from Barracks Road to Route 250 West. He also noted no problems with building the road to.~state specificatio Mr. Sharon said ~he desire for the private road is for security reasons and ~elt the home'owners should be allowed to decide whether they wanted to pay for the maintenance in order to have security. M~~her was cone~rned since the homeowners do not now exist. Mr. Sharon noted that the duplexes are marketed to be in the range of $150,000 to $200,000 and the deVelppment will not have people that cannot afford to pay for these types of services. Mr. Fisher then closed the public~hearing. Mr. McCann said he had no strong feelings about this subdivision but did feeZ a decision should be made on the ordinance. Miss Nash then offered motion to approve ZMA-80~24 with the conditions of the Planning Commission and with the roads being brought to state standards. Mr. Fisher asked ~f that meant the property owners would have the option of maintaining the roads as private. Mr. St. John felt that was correct. Mr. Lindstrom suggested adding to condition #8 "dedication at the option of the owners". Miss Nash accepted that to her motion. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher then expressed his concerns about the property on the other side ~the~ak~ Mr. St. John said that is for the owner and not the County to be concerned about. Roll was then called on the foregoing m~ion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta (second McCann's observation about the private roads policy), Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS' Mr. Fisher (favored the development but not the private roads). '045 January 21, 1981 Regular Night Meeting Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-80~25. James Reil!y, Jr., etal. Petition to rezone 2.8 acres from RA to C-1. Property located on northwest side of Route 22, approximately 600 feet southwest of Cismont. County Tax Map 65, Parcel 12C, part thereof. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 7 and January 14, 1981.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: C-1 Commercial Acreage: 2.8 acres Existing Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 65, Parcel 12C, part thereof, is located at the intersection of Routes 22 and 231 at Cismont. Character of Area: This property is developed with a general store. The Cismont area is a crossroads village characterized by small-scale commercial uses and small lot residential development. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends Cismont as a smaller Type 2 Village. Route 231 is recommended for scenic designation in this area. Staff Comment: Three special use permit petitions have been reviewed in the last two years for small-scale commercial uses in this area (two antique stores; one commercial kennel), showing a perceived need for additional commercial use in the area. Approval of this petition would bring the existing general store into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and also permit location of a second business on the property. Staff recommends approval of this petition for the following reasons: 1) Staff opinion is that the request substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation that Cismont develop as a Type 2 village; 2) The C-1 Commercial district is appropriate to the village scale of development; 3) Approval would bring the existing store into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance; permit expansion of the store; and permit a second business." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on January 6, 1981, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-80-25. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant was present. The applicant was not. Mr. Bob Broan, property owner adjacent to the store, was present and said the area is quiet now and his concern is the increased noise which could occur. He then asked the followir questions. Why is the zoning being requested, what is the second business going to be, why the amount of acreage requested and how much of a pandoras box is being opened by rezoning the property commercial. Mr. Fisher said a rezoning request does not require an applicant to submit to the Board the intent of the.~rezoning and any use permitted under the requested designation is allowed. As for the question on the amount of acreage requested, such is for the~applicant to answer. Mr. Tucker then read the uses allowed by right in the C-1 zonecas requested by Mr.2Fisher. Mr. Broan felt the applicant's intent is for an eating establishment. Mr. Tucker said that was the indica~mn at the ~anning Commission meeting. Mr. Tucker said the reason 2.8 acres is requested is due to a new requirement in the ZoningOOrd~nance requiring each commercial establishment to have enough area for an individual drainfield and well if~necessary. Mr. Bro then expressed his concern about the establishment becoming a beer joint and also noted that the intersection is dangerous. Mrs. Bob Broan spoke next and noted that the residents in the area have not expressed a desire for the store to be rezoned. Mr. McCann had received several calls about this request and the concern is what will happen if the store becomes a restaurant. Mr. McCann said this is the reason he suggested at the last meeting that special use permits be required for restaurants in the RA district. Mr. Fisher said the past procedure has been to defer a request when the applicant is not presentcand sm~gested this ~ublic hearing be deferred to February 11, 1981 in orderi~to allow the applicant to be present. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to defer ZMA-80-25 to February 11, 1981. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mess~s~ Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-80-76. Willoughby Corporation. Petition to amend the Willoughby PUD to allow 128 duplex units on 14.5 acres, with 7.0 acres in open space and 5.0 acres in roads. Property is located off the south side of Harris Road just south of the City limits. County Tax Map 76M(2), portions of parcels 6B and 7. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 7 and January 14, 1981.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Amend SP-79-48 for the Willoughby PUD Acreage: 27 acres Location: Property described as a portion of parcels.7 and 6B on tax map 76M(2), Scottsville District; located off the end of Harris Road in Willoughby and adjacent to Moore's Creek. History: SP-534 for the Willoughby Corporation was approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 22, 1976. This PUD was approved with a total of 720 dwelling units. SP-79-48 for the Willoughby Corporation was approved by the Board o~ Supervisors on November 7, 1979. This was an amendment to SP-534 for a reduction in the total number of dwelling units by 135 units bringing the new total to 487 units. January 21, 1981 Regular Night Meeting 046 Proposal: SP-79-48 called for 63 duplex units and 72 single-family lots. This proposal is to amend the single-family lots in the previous approval for duplex lots. Comparative Impact Statistics: SP-534 : Acres No. units approved Gross density 135 acres 720 units 5.3 dwelling units per acre SP-79-48: Acres 48 acres No. units approved 135 units* Gross density 2.8 dwelling units per acre *(reducing the total to 487 units) SP-80-76: Acres 27 acres No. units proposed 128 units* Gross density 4.7 dwelling units per acre *(bringing the total to 547 units) Land Use Data: Total acres Acres in lots Acres in roads Open Space Minimum Lot Size 27.0 acres 14.5 acres 5.0 acres 7.0 acres 3,200 square feet Staff comment: This proposed amendment is a reduction in the overall density of 5.3 dwelling units per acre approved in the original PUD (SP-534). The number of units proposed brings the total for the County portion of Willoughby to 547 as opposed to the 720 units as originally approved and the 487 units approved as amended. Staff recommends approval with conditions." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval at its January 6, 1981 meeting with the following conditions: Approval is for a maximum of 128 duplex units on 27 acres. Location and acreages shall remain substantially the same as the approved plan. Amend the overall PUD master plan to reflect recent changes and submit three (3) copies prior to final plat submittal. Note proposed access into future development area on the plan, prior to final plat approval and abandonment of temporary turnaround. (Mr. Tucker said the temporary turnaround is presently at the end of Harris Road and the plan is to discontinue extending Harris Road as originally proposed.) County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans, including sidewalks, for acceptance into the State Highway system. (Mr. Tucker said the applicant is requesting a five foot wide asphalt sidewalk to be located along Harris Road and this does not meet the Highway Department standards for acceptance.) Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of Harris Road (provided sidewalks on southern side may be deferred until the development on the south side is approved). Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements prior to final plat approval. Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service Authority. 8. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements. 9. No grading shall occur prior to final plat approval. 10. Only those areas where roads, utilities, or other improvements are located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. 11. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. 12. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow. Mr. Tucker said the ~pp!icant desired to leave the L-shaped intersection as it exists. Mr. Tucker said the staff and the highway department agree that this road should be realigned to tie in because there are no-plans to extend such. The applicant would rather not have,to rebuild the road and loose the construction a!rea~y on the grmu~d. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Roy Parks, representing the applicant, was present, and Hoted that the curve will serve two purposes. One to save money and reduce speed~ Mr. Parks did not want sidewalks on both sides of Harris Road°and ~oted the preference is to have a 25 mile per hour speed limit. The radius of the curve is 212 feet and that slows down traffic. Mr. Parks said condition #5 ~s~a~'~m~lem because the applicant prefers that the sidewalk be on the north side. Then, in the next phase of the development the other side could be addressed for a sidewalk. Mr. Parks then pointed out where the next phase of development will take place. He said a master plan has been done but not printed. The plan is for 130 duplexes on one side of the creek in Willoughby. Mr. Parks also noted that the road has been sized for all of tha~.property left on the creek. 047 January 21, 1981 ~egular Night Meeting Mr. Fisher asked why duPlexes are being requested when a year and one-half ago the reques was for single-family lots. Mr. Parks said the builder has more of a demand for duplexes. With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve SP-80-76 with the conditions of the Planning Commission and the amendment of condition #5 as follows: "Sidewalks shall be provided on the north side of Harris Road (provision for sidewalks on the southern side to be considered when plans for future development in that~ area has been submitted)." Miss Nash seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstr~om noted for the record that he had represented the bondholders who were the predecessors to the Willoughby Corporation in the unfortunate circumstances but had never been involved with the Willoughby Corporation except back in the early '70s. Therefore, he did not feel he had any current conflict of interest. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Appropriation: Beaver Creek Dock Facility. Mr. Agnor said the Beaver Creek Dock is in need of some repairs due to several years of floating problems resulting from high and low water levels. Some desi'gn work has been done and bids let. There are someffunds in the Capital Budget designated for the Chris Greene Tot Lot and Parking Lot which will not be utilized. Therefore, the request is that those funds be assigned to the Beaver Creek Dock project in the amount of $6,000.00 so that the facility may be improved before next summer's recreational season. Mr. Fisher agreed that the dock needed repairs. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $6,000.00, be and the same hereby is tranferred from Code 9700-7060.40-- Chris Greene Tot Lot and Parking in the Capital Improvements Budget to Code 9700-7060.35--Beaver Creek Dock Facility; said funds to rebuild the existing dock at Beaver Creek which has deterioriated by weather and heavy use. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 8.- Authority to employ architect for Library. Mr. Agnor. said the Building Committee for the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board of Trustees has completed their review of architectural firms interested in the Scottsville Library project. The firm selected to do the architectural work is John B. Farmer, Jr. Mr. Agnor then requested authorization to execute an agreement between the County of Albemarle and the architect, John B. Farmer, Jr. and in conjunction with the County Attorney's office to complete the employment of the architect. Miss Nash offered motion to authorize the County Executive to execute the Standard Form of Agreement between the County of Albemarle and the Architect, John B. Farmer, Jr. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. At 9:00 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:11 P.M. Agenda Item No. 6. Employee Health Insurance Plan. Mr. Agnor said Messrs. Prather and Southall, associates of the Living Library, Ltd., were employed by the County in the fall of 1980 to evaluate the County's present health. insurance program. The consultants were to advise hhe County on the following questions: Should the benefit plan be amended? Should the rates be redistributed with the county assuming a larger portion of the costs? Should changes in retired employees participation be considered? Should the program be rebid? What is the best month for the contract anniversary date? Mr. Agnor said Messrs. Prather and Southall met with representatives from the Albemarle County Service Authority, Regional Jail, School Division and the County's General Government; all are involved in the plan. The following questions came up at those meetings: 1) Possibi of including a dental program; 2) consideration of a rate structure t~ provide for a subscriber and spouse; and 3) the consideration of a deductible program and the impact this would have on the rate structure. After the consultants examined those questions, the followi recommendations were submitted and summarized in m~morandum dated January 16, 1981: "1. Continue the present plan for eight months to its anniversary date of October !, with a rate structure increase of approximately 70%. Do not add a dental program, requested by employees. (Mr. Agnor said that 100% of those carrying family coverage would have to agree to this change and due to the increased costs~in the plan alone he did not feel all the subscribers would agree.) .ity lg January 21~ 1981 Regular Night Meeting o Establish a policy that requires employees who retire to convert their health insurance with the carrier, and not continue to be carried in the group. Allow existing retired employees, however, to continue in the group plan. Add a rate for employee with spouse, if one-half of the employees who carry family coverage qualify." Mr. Agnor said the consultants recommended continuing the present health insurance program and but if the Board desired to make any changes, the following alternatives were suggested: "1 · Reduce the in-patient days from 365 per confinement to 30. This reduces premium rates by $2.00 per month on subscriber (employee) rates, and $5.78 per month on subscriber and family rates, thereby reducing the cost to t'he employee who pays to carry the family by $3.78 per month ~ ($5.78 subscriber and family less $2.00 subscriber cost paid by County). This shifts the costs to the subscriber who incurs the most serious illnesses. (The consultants do not recommend this alternative.) Provide a choice to employees on an individual basis between the present plan (called a 7510 contract)and a plan with reduced benefits (called a 6010 contract)iwhich decreases the subsoriber rate by $4.60 per month, and the subscriber and family rate by $15.50 per month, reducing employee costs by $10.90 ($15.50 subscriber and family less $4.60 subscriber). (The reduction in benefits are described on page 9, paragraph B of the report which is on file in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Office. Include a $100 deductible for in-patient care which decreases the subscriber rate by $1.26 per month, and subscriber and family $3.46, reducing employee cost by $2.20 per month ($3.46 less $1.26). The report does not recommend this alternative, the reduction in premiums being insufficient to compensate for the $100 deduction. Lastly the report does not recommend rebidding the program at this time. (Mr. Agnor said the consultants feel a greater experience as a total group for at least three years needs to be done with the present program before bidding for another program.) The consultants have compared the costs of other jurisdictions' programs and emphasized that the County's rate schedule must be increased and brought into line with current costs, and with other plans. The report has been reviewed with department and division staffs, and representative employees of all of the divisions involved (School Division, Service Authority, Joint Security Complex, General Government). The increased costs, the alternatives, comparisons of other jurisdictions' programs and their costs were considered. Based on these discussions, the following recommendations were made: 1. Renew the program eight months on a modified cost plus rating method. (Mr. Agnor noted that the consultants recommended the prospective rate which is 2% higher than a modified cost rate. Mr. Agnor said if the shift were made at this time all the claims that are "in the pipeline" now have to be paid by the County to Blue Cross/Blue Shield up to February 1, 1981. The~C6un~y~does not feel it should make that change. The ~reason~that the consultants recommended the prospective method is because they believe the trend factor that Blue Cross is using to get the proposed rates is not sufficdent in the medical field to cover the increased costs. The trend factor that Blue Cross is using is a 20.5% annual increase. Mr. Agnor also noted that the program is going to have to be watched closely and on a quarterly basis.) 2. Defer the inclusion of a dental program to a contract anniversary date when rates are not increasing as dramatically as now. 3. Offer the 6010 plan as an option to employees with dependent coverage, with the County carrying the costs of the subscriber rate for the 7510 plan. 4. Add the "Subscriber and Spouse" rate if one-half of the employees who now carry family coverage can qualify. 5. Add chiropractic benefits. These benefits were offered in December to all Blue Cross groups and were not a part of the consultant's review. These benefits add 145 to the monthly subscriber rate, 225 to the monthly subscriber and one minor rate, 366 to monthly subscriber and family rate or subscriber and spouse rate, and are requested by employees. 6. Pay the cash deficit of the plan in the 80-81 and 81-82 budgets of the several funds involved on the ratios of the income that each fund provides to the plan. Since the September 1980 report was made on the program, which reported a deficit through June 30, 1980, of $264,655 and recommended a staged rate increase beginning October, 1980 and increasing again in February, 1981, the experience of the plan for July through October, 1980 has increased the deficit to $341,376. The division of this liability on the income ratio of the funds involved would be as follows: .049 January 21, 1981 Regular Night Meeting Fund General Fund School Fund Jail Fund Service Authority Vo-Tech School Totals Ratio 80-81 81-82 75.6 129,040 ~ !~9,040 3,0 5,120 5,120 2.5 4,268 4,268~ 2.3 3,926 3~, 926 100.0% $170,688 $170,688 The,General Fund has $20,000 in insurance reserve accounts and the School Fund $60,000 in each of the fiscal years, which could be used for this purpose. This would leave a balance of $8,334 in the General Fund and $69,040 in the School Fund to be paid in each of two budget years. It is recommended that this balance not be authorized as an additional operating appropriation, but be distributed through each budget where the Director of Finance can determine adjustments can be made. These adjustments (transfers) would be subject to the approval of the School Board and the Board of Supervisors. 7. Beginning in April 1981, a quarterly report on the financial status of the plan be prepared by the Director of Finance and distributed to the~ several boards involved.TM Mr. Agnor then explained h~ th~._h~h,:~n~a~a~o~!!p~o~a~'~o~2iai~ta~p~sent condition. He noted that in 1979 the health insurance program was reviewed and the rates recommended to be increased ten percent. There were some serious flaws in the program.particularly with the fact that a large number of claims for the School System had gone back to the previous carrier. The experience of those claims wiped out the reserve built in the school sYstem. Mr. Agnor also noted that a large number of the employees on the program are ten month employees and the months of August and September are the highly used months for the school employees. Therefore, the summer experience is higher than the rest of the year which results in a deficit.~ Mr. Agnor said his recommendation is to authorize the Director of Finance to disburse the cash deficit of the plan in the 1980-81 and 1981~2 budgets as set out above in recommendation #6. Mr. Agnor also noted that he had communicated with the Blue Cross/Blue Shield officials in Richmond and they have acknowledged acceptance of the rate changes not being effective until March !, 1981 due to the County not having adequate tim~ to get the new information to the computer by February 1, 1981. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to accept the above recommendation of the County Executive. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and ~same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Motion was then offered by Dr, Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to renew the Employee Health Insurance Program with Blue Cross/Blue Shield for eight months on a modified cost plus rating method,, offering the 6010 plan as an option to employees with dependent coverage with the County carrying the costs of the subscriber rate for the 7510 plan and adding the chiropractic benefits. Roll was called on the fOregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. · Mr. McCann said he hoped after the County picks the deficit UP this time, any deficit at a later time should be shared by the County and the employees. Agenda Item No. 7~ Discussion: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will be presented by Mr. Tucker. Some of the amendments are obwious changes and can be advertised[~for public hearing and some are more questionable and perhaps the Board would like to refer them to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. Mr. Tucker then presented the following for the Board's action: "Section 2.5~?requires Health Department approval of two septic drainfie!d locations prior.to issuance of a building permit on any lot. Staff recommends an exemption for lots of record on the adoption date of the ordinance. (The Board recommended this be referred to the Planning Commission for their comment.) ~ection 4.3 co~d%~e~rburdensome and time-consuming for the Zoning Administrator, since it would apply to all lands. Historically, drainage concerns have been addressed in subdivision, site plan, run-off control, soil erosion/grading plan reviews. Since no other mechanism exists fOr review prior to activity, it is likely the Zoning Administrator would be placed in a corrective role, attempting to settle disputes between neighboring property owners. Staff, after consultation with the Zoning Department, recommends deletion of Section 4.3. (Mr. Fisher felt the Planning Commission should offer their comments on this matter.) ~here are currently no lot width requirements in the ordinance. Staff recommends the following amendment: Section 4.6.1 LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS Lot width shall be measured at the building setback line and shall be the same in dimension as required frontage for the district in which such lot is located. (Mr. Tucker noted that the underscored wording is for clarification of the section for the Zoning Office. The Board felt the request was clear and recommended same be advertised for public hearing.) O,.SO January 21, 1981 Regular Night Meeting In order to avoid confusion in front yard measurement, staff recommends the following wording which is similar to Section 4.6.4 Rear Yards: Section 4.6.3.1. Front yards of the depth required in the district shall be provided across the full width of the lot adjacent to the street. Depth of a required front yard shall be measured from the right-of-way of the street in such a fashion that the rear line of the yard shall be parallel to the street's right-of-way across the full width of the lot. (The consensus of the Board was to add the word "front" in between "the" and "yard" in order to clarify which yard. Due to the technicality of the wording, the Board suggested this be sent to the Planning Commission for their comments.) Section 4.11.2. Accessory buildings in required yards is currently in conflict with other yard requirements. Also, this is a more logical location for the provisions of Sections 4.8.4 and 4.8.5. The staff recommends the following: Section 4.11.2 A~~-~~M$~ STRUCTURES IN REQUIRED YARDS No portion of any accessory ~~ structure shall be permitted in any required yards; except as herein expressly provided. Section 4.11.2.1. If no utility or drainage easements or other easements are adversely affected, accessory structures or portions thereof may be erected no closer than five (5) feet to adjacent lot lines in the case of detached ~~* structures, or to a common wall in the case of attached ~~ structures, or to a common wall in the case of attached ~~ structures; provided further that setback requirements for the district shall be maintained. Section 4.11.2.2. PUBLIC TELEPHONE BOOTHS Public telephone booths may be located within required yards, but no closer to any street than the existing right-of-way line or right-of-way reservation line, provided that: Such booths shall be equipped for emergency service to the public without prior payment; The location of every booth shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator to ensure that the same will not adversely affect the safety of the adjacent highway; Every such booth shall be subject to relocation, at the expense of the owner, whenever such relocation shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator to be reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare or whenever the same shall be necessary to accommodate the widening of the adjacent highway. Section 4.11.2.3. ~$~ FENCES, MAILBOXES, AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES Fences, free-standing mail and/or newspaper boxes, signs advertising sale or rent of the property, and shelters for school children travelling to and from school shall be permitted in all districts and shall be exempt from all setback and yard requirements except as otherwise provided in Section 4.4. For the purposes of this section, the term "fence~' shall be deemed to include free-standing walls enclosing yards and other uncovered areas. (The consensus of the Board was to advertise for public hearing the above changes on page 44 of the ordinance and also to repeal Sections 4.8.4 and 4.8.5 due to the above.) For consistency with other parking regulations, amend Section 4.12.6.6.2 in the following subsection: -Testing, Repairing, Cleaning, Servicing of Material Goods or Products: One (1) space per two (2) employees on the main shift, plus one (1) space per each five hundred (500) square feet of floor ~area open to the public for customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces. (The consensus of the Board was to advertise this for public hearing.) ~his proposal would make the requirement of submittal of the report for the industrial performance standards at the discretion of the County Engineer (also change in Section 26.7 Industrial Districts, Generally): Section 4.14.8 CERTIFIED ENGINEER REPORT SUBMITTAL Each future occupant of an industrial character shall submit, ~ as required by the County Engineer, as a part of final site development plan approval, a certified engineer's report. . (The consensus was to advertise the recommendation for public hearing, i After comment from Zoning and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, the following amendment is offered: 051 Section 5.2 HOME OCCUPATION Section 5..2.1 CLEARANCE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED Except as herein provided, no home occupation shall be established without approval of the Zoning Administrator. Upon receipt of a request to establish a Home Occupation, Class B, the Zoning Administrator shall refer the same to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for approval of entrance facilities. and the Zoning Administrator shall determine the adequacy of existing parking for such use. No such clearance shall be issued for any Home Occupation: Class B, except after compliance with Section 5.2.3 hereof. (Mr. Tucker said review by both the Zoning Administrator and the Highway Department would be for Class B occupation only. Class A would still have review by the Zoning Administrator but would not have to go to the Highway Department for entrance approval. The consensus of the Board was to advertise the amendment for public hearing.) For your information, the~e were uses listed ~n the A-1 zone which were carried over to the R~zone: ~y right: educational institutions (private schools are by special permit mn RA); temporary horseshow grounds ~y s.pe.q~l permit: public garage; hospital; professional office; executive office; sand and gravel operations and borrow pits (requires NR designation); temporary trailer parks; home for adults. (The consensus of the Board was to advertise public garages by special use permit for public hearing because the general feeling was that garages are needed in the country.) "Churches and adjunct cemeteries" were by right in the A-! and are now by special permit in the RA. Therefore, a special permit is requried for expansion of existing churches. (The Board had some question about churches being added in the RA district as a by right use, but churches and adjunct ~tem~r~es needing a special permit for any expansion. Therefore, the consensus of the Board was to have the Planning Commission review and comment on this matter in order that something could be provided in order that a church could expand without having to obtain a special use permit.) Delete ~~ a~d_frontage requirements in the R-4 district as ~as done in R-6 and higher den~ties. Single-family attached (duplex, triplex, townhouse, etc.) development would be more practical and would alleviate some existing problems where duplex and other single-family attached development has occurred. (The consensus of the Board was to advertise this amendment for public hearing.) Amend parking requirements for Industrial Districts, Generally, as follows: Section 26.5 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS ~eeS&e~-~?~&-~e~-&~Ee~&,a~-~eee?.e~e-~a~&~-e~aee-e~a~&-~e-~e~&~e~-¢e~ eae~-e~&e~ee-e~-$~e-~a~e~-we~-e~&~$e~ ~--~e~-e¢¢&ee-~eee~-e~e-~a~A&~-e~aee-eha~-~e-~e~&~e~-¢e~-eae~-8~-e~a~e ~ee$-e¢-~e$-¢&ee~-a~ea~ e~--~e~-eemme~e&a&-~ees~-e~e-~a~&~¢-e~aee-e~a~&-~e-~e~&~e~-¢e~-eae~-em~eFee a~-e~e-~a~&~-e~aee-e~a~-~e-p~e~&~e~-~e~-eae~-~-e~a~e-¢ee~-e¢-~e~- 2ee~&e~-~$~?2 Ail e~e~ off-street parking and all off-street loading space requirements shall be in accordance with Section 4.12. (The general feeling of the Board was to advertise this. amendment for public hearing.) Amend General Regulations to require that when site plan or subdivision approval is pending, no grading permit shall be issued until such plan approval has been granted. (Mr. Lindstrom was of the opinion that this was in the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said such was discussed but never amended. He also noted that the Planned Development section of the ordinance does require that a grading permit not be issued until the final plans have been approved. Due to the concerns of the Board and the uncertainity of the matter, the Board requested this be referred to the Planning Commission.) Amend the Mobile Home Park Section as follows: Section 5.3.2.2. Mobile home lots served by either a central water or sewer system shall consist of ~&~-~e~a~-~~ forty thousand (40,000) square feet or more and shall have a width of one hundred (100) feet or more. ~ Section 5.3.2.3. Mobile. home lots served by neither a central water or sewer system shall consist of ~e~-~e~a~-~~ si~ty thousand (60,000) square feet or more and shall have a width of one hundred and thirty (130) feet or more. (Mr. Tucker said this amendment is to make the wording consistent with the rest of the ordinance. The consensus of the Board was to advertise a public hearing on the matter.) Amend RA District concerning development rights by right: Section 10.3.1. ~Regulations in section 10.5 governing development by right shall apply to the division of a parcel into e~-~$~-~-~e~ ~e~e-e~-~a~ee~e-~e~&~-a~-~e~&~e-~a~ee~e five (5) or fewer lots of less than 21 acres in area and to the location of e&~-($~ five (5) or fewer dwelling units on any parcel in existence at the time of adoption of this ordinance. (Mr. Tucker said this section resulted from concerns of several board members that the wording was ~mt correct concerning o -o ~ .. · end) ~ · 0 0 ---m" .JE ¢ ~¢ ~ .~ ~ ~ o 0 o .~ ~ o~ ~ o~ ~ j oo o ~ 0 o.H ~ O~ ~o ~ oo~ m -0 ~o~O ~ ~ ~ ~O~ ~ O ~ -H · ~ ~ ~ ~ O .H ~o~ ~ ~00 ~ ~ ~ 0 O -~ ~ o~ -- O ~ ~ O,H · ~ -~ ~ ~ O -H~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ O .... ~ .... ~ -OO ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ o o 0 0 bOO ,~ o Or~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 c~ 0 (]3 0 0~ ~ 0 O-P 0~ 0 ~ · r-t O (D © 0 ~ 0 0 ~ o 0 0 rH 0 © 0 ~ 0 ~ · · hO 4o4o ~bDd Od~ ~ O O · d .~ 0 ~0 0 · H ~ 0 · d ~ ~ O ¢ 0 ~ 0~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~0~ ~0~ ~00 ~ o · r-I .d © 0 4o © m (1) 0-~4o ~ 0 · H ~ *~ or-t ~0 0 · 0 Cz, 0 0 o ~ ~ 0 (D 0 0 ~ .t-I CO ~ · ~ 0 0 ~0 0...~ 0 0 ~ · r-I .r-t · r-I 0 ..-qO 0 ~ · 0 0 ~d 0 .H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~anuary ~'f, ±~± ~journed Night Meeting] January 21, 1981 Regular Night Meeting At 11:10 P.M., by request by Mr. S.t. John, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nas~, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Roll was called-on the motion and same carried by the following recorded~vote: AYES: NIYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 11:35 .P.M. following resolution for the Board's consideration: Mr. St. John then presented the BE IT ~EREBY]~RES~LYED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, as follows: The firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates is hereby engaged by this Board in behalf of Al~emar!e County, as consultants in connection with the relationships between Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, to perform such specific work as shall be'~rom time to time assigned by legal counsel in coordination with the 'county executive. The consultants shall be compensa~ad~as set out in their proposal of January 20, 198~ attached hereto~ (Copy on file in Clerk's Office) The consultants shall ~egin work upon acceptance of these terms and shall submit monthly statements for payment. This conSma~t shall be terminable at will by either party; upon termination consultants shall be entitled to payment for all work performed prior to their receipt of notice of termination. Motion was offered by Mr. Linds~rom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the foregoing reso!uB~n. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following reco~R~d vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. M~Y~Y~Mr~MeOann. Agenda Item No. 11. At 11:37 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adjourn to ~a~amy 27, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Roll was galled on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Hem%~y, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. An adjourned meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on January 27, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from January 21, 1981. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:40 P.M.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M., by Agenda Item No. 2. Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Agnor read his memorandum dated January 8, 1981as set out in the minutes of January 14, 1981. Mr. Fisher stated his concern that it is becoming increasingly difficult to allocate sufficient funds to the Capital Improvements budget each year to finance the number of projects requested. Mr. Fisher noted that in Group II there are now three items which were not even on the list last year, and now are indicated as the three top priority items, i.e. Woodbrook Masonry repairs; Jouett, Henley, Brownsville repairs; and Albemarle High School Renovation Phase II for a total of $1,765,000. Mr. Agnor said that statement is partly correct, adding that the masonry repairs are new to the list. The Albemarle High School Renovation is not new to the list, but was moved upward in priority. Mr. Fisher noted figures from the 1979 capital improvements budget, and then said that the costs for these projects are consid- erably higher in this budget. Mr. Agnor said that is due to poor cost estimates received when the Capital Improvements Program was first initiated. Mr. Agnor said increases are also due to inflation. Dr. Iachetta said if a total is given to items four and five from Group II and projects one and two from Group III, it would total $8.2 million dollars to be funded by March, 1982, which is obviously impossible. Dr. Iachetta asked about the possibility of a bond issue. Mr. St. John said if funds are obtained from the Literary Fund or the Virginia Supplementary Retirement System, then no referendum is required. However, if bonds are sold on tha open market, a resolution is required first from the School Board, then from the Board of Supervisors requesting the Circuit Court to authorize a bond referendum be placed on the ballot. If the referendum is approved by the voters, another resolution must come from the School Board requesting the Board to sell said bonds. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be hesitant to authorize a tax rate increase on contro- versial issues without first meeting with the School Board and discussing its prioroties