Loading...
1980-04-23April 23, 1980 (Adjourned from April 16, 1980) THIS AGREEMENT, made this 23rd day of April, 1980, by and between the Count of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), and the City of Charlottesville, Virgini~ (the "City"): WITNESSETH : Factual Background. (a) Albemarle County has proposed that a demonstrati( project be established for fixed route transit services on U.S. Route 29 betwee~ University Hall to the south and the Lake Saponi area to the north (the "Projeci The purpose of the Project is to determine a demand for more permanent bus serv~ on this route (the "29 North route"). The County will pay for the Project part~ through a grant administered by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpo~ and partially through the collection of fares. (b) The City of Charlottesville, through its Charlottesville Transit Serv~ proposes to carry out the demonstration Project as shown in a document entitled "Proposal for Providing Route 29 North Service Charlottesville Transit Service,' dated March 31, 1980, pages 1 through 8 (the "Proposal"), which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises contained herein, the County and City do agree as follows: 1. General Responsibilities of Ci~..y. The City, through its Charlottesville Transit Service, shall take all step~ necessary-to provide the Project for fixed route transit service on U.S. Route North, generally in the area between University Hall to the south and Lake Sapor to the north. In this regard, the City hereby covenants and agrees to the following: (a) The mass transportation service provided in the Project will be open to the general public and not restricted to a single group of clients. (b) The City has the requisite physical-, managerial, and Legal capability to carry out the Project. (c) The City shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and all requirements imposed by the United States Department of Trans- portation in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, or handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under programs or activities included under the mass transportation service provided by the City. (d) The City shall comply with all regulations and requirements specified by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for this Project, including, but not limited to, all requirements set forth in a document entitled "State Aid for Experimental Mass Transportation and Ride,Sharing Projects -- Program Information and Administration -- Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation -- Public Transportation Division," dated October, 1979, consisting of pages 1-18, appendices A-K, which document is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. 2. Staffin~ and~.Location of Offices. ~. April 23, 1980 (Adjourned from April 16, 198£ (b) Saturday Service. Charlottesville Transit Service shall operate on 60-minute headways from A.M. to 6:00 P.M. between University Hall and Airport Road. (c) This is a demonstration project. The County, after consultation with ~ity, shall have the right to fix the routes that buses shall travel between ~rsity Hall and the Lake Saponi area/Airport Road, set the stops on such ~s, and make changes in the routes as rider demand so dictates. 5 · Fares. The City shall charge the following fares for the transportation services Lded during the term of this agreement: (a) Fifty cents (505) regular fare; (b) Twenty-five cents (255) elderly and handicapped fare. (c) The City shall be entitled to keep all fares collected. 6. ComPensation to 'City. The 'City shall be compensated for the Project as follows.: (a) The City shall keep a daily log of all miles traveled by each of zehicles on the 29 North route. The City further shall keep a daily log of Pares collected by each of its vehicles on the 29 North route. The City 1 submit such mileage and fare figures to the County on a monthly basis. (b) The City shall receive from the County on a monthly basis ~-five cents (655) for each mile traveled by its vehicles on the 29 North during the preceding month. The County shall deduct as a credit to this ~he total amount of fares collected by the City during the preceding month, ~hall pay the balance to the City. 7. Marketing Plan for 29 North Route. The City shall provide an adequate marketing plan for the 29 North route as Forth on Page 7 of the Proposal. 8. Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be in effect for a period of twelve (12) months from date Project operations commence or until such time as Virginia Department ighways and Transportation demonstration grant funds for the Project are msted, whichever shall occur first. The commencement date will be formally tified in a letter from the City to the County,-and upon approval by the ty, shall be incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. 9. Use of Grant FUnds. If any portion of Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation grant s disbursed to the City by the County are used by the City as local matching s to obtain a federal grant, the City agrees that all the proceeds of any federal grant will be used to continue or expand the public transportation April 23, 1980 (Adjourned. from April 16,-1980) The foregoing motion carried by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: NAYS- ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley and Mr. Roudabush. (The contract, as signed, is set out below.) THIS AGREEMENT, made this 23rd day of. April, 198~0, by and between the Cour of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), and the Jefferson Area United Transport~ Inc. ("JAUNT"): WI TNE S SETH : Factual.Background. (a) Albemarle County has proposed a demonstration r~ sharing pr~oject for Albemarle County and surrounding areas (the "Project"). T? County w~ill pay for the Project through a grant administered by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. (b) JAUNT proposes to carry out the demonstration Project as shown in a document entitled "Proposal For Ride-Sharing Program -- Jefferson Area United Transportation,~Inc.," dated March 31, 19~0, pages I thro~ugh 7 with accompanyi~ Exhibits A through J, (the "Proposal"), which is incorporated herein by refere~ and made a part of this agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises contained~here, the CouBty .and JAUNT do agree as follows.: 1. General Responsibilities of JAUNT. JAUNT shall take all steps necessary to provide the Project for ride-shari for Albemarle County and surrounding areas of the Thomas Jefferson Planning Dis Commission. In this. regard, JAUNT hereby covenants and agrees to the fallowing (a) The ride-sharing Project will be open to the general public and not. restricted .to a single group of clients .... (b) JAUNT has the requisite physical, managerial, and legal capabili to carry out the Project. (c) JAUNT shall comply with Title. VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all requirements imposed hy the United~States Department of Transpartation accordance with .Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of~1962 that no person shall, the grounds of race, color, sex, .national origin, ~or_handicap, be exdluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discr nation under programs or activities included under the ride-sharing services provided by JAUNT. (d) JAUNT shall comply with all regulations and requirements specifi by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for this Project, inc but not limited to, all requirements set forth in a document entitled "State Ai for Experimental Mass Transportation and Ride-Sharing Projects -- Program Infor and Administration -- Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation -- Pub Transportation Division," dated October, 1979, consisting of pages 1-18, apPend A-K, which document is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. April 23, 1980 (Adjourned from April 16, 1980 JAUNT shall indemnify and' hold harmless the~ CountY and its officers, agents, ~ployees acting within the scope of their official duties against any claims ability, including, but not l~mited to, liability for Personal injury or rty damage including liability for costs and expenses resulting from the tion of all Project equipment or the use of all Project facilities. a Item No. 5. Land Acquisition - Self-Help Program. Mr. Agnor said that in March had been requested to approve the purchase of seven lots in ~Bishop Hill Subdivision roject. At'~that time, the Board wasconcerned about the availability of water for sage and the appraised value of the land as compared to the asking price by the Carrol Wright's appraisal of the land was lower than the asking price, but Mr. ter has agreed to a sales price of $66,000. Concerning water, inquiries were made ted States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and the County Both Mr. Gordon Yager and Mr. Harvey Bailey were of the opinion that geologic in the area indicate that there may be difficulty in finding adequate ground water bdivision. In an effort~t~° get a more definitive indication of water ~availability, I was drilled. This drilling resulted in a well producing 20 g.p.m. A drawdown ucted in accordance with Mequirements specified by the County Engineer, is now in gnor said he has discussed this project with Mr. Russell Otis, Housing Coordinator, The architectual design 'of the houses has already been selected, the people ing in .the project have an interest in constructing their ~own homes, and although ave been preferred to have selected an area closer to the growth areas, they both these houses will be an asset to the County. This is a test program for the Whole 'irginia. Under this grant, 16 - 18 homes are to built. There will be seven homes d in Bishop Hill Subdivision. With the pricing on this part of the program, it the County to select another area for completion of the t'ot~al' project. Mr. Agnor that the staff be authorized to execute a contract and deed transfers to get this Lder way. ~ 'isher asked if the drawdown best 'on the .well had~ been completed. Mr. 'Obis Said no; ,t be completed until sometime next week. He then asked that the Board forego the ~est until such time as'it'~is ~ecided to bui~lt a centra~l well system. Mr. Otis said Lriller was so convinced of the availabilit~- of water on this site that he offered a ~no mOney'' contract. Mr. Otis also noted that the people who are to build homes in ~vision would prefer to have individual wells; having a central well would add a lot ~e to getting the project finally approved by F.H.A. 'isher said he-was concerned that the Board'might authorize the~ purchase of this ;hen not be able to build the~houses because of lack of water. He would prefer to ~umpdown test completed first. Dr. iachetta asked Mr. Morris Foster if it would problems for him ifthe Board waited until the test is completed.. Mr, FOster said lted a long time and done everything asked of him by this Board. Dr; Iachetta then ~tion to authorize the ~ousing-Office staff together into':an agreement to purchase ~ in Bishop Hill Subdivision after a pumpdown test has been completed Which Shows a ~ven gallons per minute minimum. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried _lowing recorded vote: ~srs. Fisher, Iachetta,~Lindstrom and Miss Nash. ~r. Henley and Mr. Roudabush. ~a Item No. 7. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Dr. Iachetta asked that Mr. Agnor April 23, 1980 (Adjourned from April 16, 1980) this study should help to determine the life of the reservoir, and also show which of the Reservoir are first being impacted with sediment. Mr. Fisher said he.felt i better to find out if this study can benefit the 208 Program before approving same. Lindstrom said the best thing this Board can do for the watershed is to schedule so sessions on what the Board Committed 'itself to during work on the Comprehensive Pla was no further discussion. Agenda Item No. 6. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said this was work session on the proposed, revised zoning ordinance since the' individual members Board had meetings with citizens throughout the County. He said he felt it would b to begin work by concentrating on the text of the ordinance and leaving any discuss map until the Board has decided on the text of the ordinance to be presented at a p' hearing. The biggest issue with the text ~e6msvto~.be the Rural Areas district (see of this district on page 287, Minute Book 18, January 14, 1980, meeting). Mr. Roud raised a question about how the County will record "development rights" when land i several times. Mr. Fisher said he believes this can be handled through the Subdivi Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said the staff has developed a procedure for insuring compliance wi' Rural Areas District which basically deals with maintaining accurate records with r, the limitation on the number of lo'ts permitted by right and the different densities by right, i.e., one to five lots.at a two-acre density, and with mandatory clusteri~ 20 lots at a five-acre density. The procedure involves maintaining a "Tax Map and i Land Book" which reflects all lots of record at the effective adoption date of the This Land Book would show the original or parent parcels zoned Rural Areas. The Pll Staff would then maintain an up-to-date division record of all approved lots relati] parent parcel zoned RA, In order to maintain this current record, the Subdivision ( must be amended to require that all divisions in the RA District, whether exempt fr, provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance or not, must be signed by the Director of Pi "Approved for Recordation." This would insure an up-to-date division record in the and would allow the staff and public to determine the number of lots remaining in ti parcel which could be developed by right. Mr. Tucker said without an amendment to Subdivision Ordinance, divisions would be on a first-come, first-served basis. Als( not think the County wanted to become involved in how development rights are proporl parcel. Mr. Fisher said he felt that if there is incentive to get a plat recorded ~ then everybody will be dividing up land. However, if the development rights are so: reserved without dividing land, there will not be a stampede to have land subdivide¢ recorded. Mr. Lindstrom said the person selling the property has the option of res~ unto himself, in the written contract, the development rights. Mr. St. John said b~ ordinance does not prescribe how the 20vlo~s by.right would be affixed, this leaves County only with a first-come, first-served system, which will be hard_for the staf~ administer. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Subdivision Ordinance be amended'~so that of land would be exempt from the requirements of same and all plats would have to b~ the Planning Office for the purpose of keeping up-to-date records. Mr. Lindstrom s~ this procedure might be administratively difficult at its inception, but once the p~ is put into effect, it Will not be much more complicated than putting deeds to reco~ Nash felt such a~procedure would be cumbersome. Mr. St. John said the administrative difficulty he preceives is that the staff to keep, forever, tax books showing how every parcel in the County looked at the da~ adoption of this ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom did not preceive that as a big problem. Tucker said he would give an example of the problem. A parcel has been divided int¢ acre parcels. The owner-of parcel A brings in a plat showing 15 lots, but in the~me the owner of parcel B has already brought in a plat showing large lots which does nc Planning Commission approval and the staff has signed that plat. The owner of Parc~ April 23, 1980 (Adjourned from April 16,.198C ~isher said he has been trying to decide if the Planning Commission's proposal will ~ what is stated in the~Comprehensive Plan, to discourage development in the rural ~o encourage development in areas where money will be spent on facilities. To him, ~sal seems permissive. Mr. Tucker said it is not permissive compared to the present Dr. Iachetta said this proposal will still allow 80% of the growth to occur in the ~. Nothing in the proposal will alter that pattern. Mr. Fisher said this proposal ~ive compared to restrictions in some states-where a 40-acre minimum lot size has ~ed to try and keep farming an active occupation. Mr. Tucker said this County's ~ encourage and~maintain the-agricult~rai character of the area. Mr~ St. John said ~e of the ordinance is not to keep the-~gl%~o£~dev~lopment from occurrinE, but to ~arge development which would have a tremendous, uncontrollable impact on a given ~ being approved as a matter of right. lindstrom said.the Planning Commission's proposal was obviously a political compromis lng Commission started with two rural districts; Agriculture-Forestry and Rural ~1. Those fell by the wayside.~ The 20 lot provision was in large par~t a response ~sal from the Albemarle Property~Owners Association. However, this proposal does ~s the fact that there are no utilities in about 90% of the County and a developer be able to develop certain densities because of that lack. Dr. Iachetta said one ~gest problems is the County's inability to deal with any transportation problems ~easonable timeframe. Unless the Board can alter the patterns of growth away from ~ on an already overloaded Secondary Road system, not much will be accomplished. tta said he is not satisifed that the Planning Commission's proposal will alter that out he has not been able to come up with anything better. He asked if there were alternatives proposed that would be reasonable. ~isher asked if the Board would like to discuss, at the next meeting, other alternabi' by the Planning Commission. The Board members concurred with this idea, but Mr. did no~'feel~the Board should consider the less restrictive proposals discussed by ing Commission. da Item No. 7. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Fisher noted receipt of notice from the State Water Control Board dated April 17, t six public hearings have been scheduled to receive testimony on Virginia's water tandards. The meeting for this area i~i~n Har~sonb.urg on June 28, 1980, at l:00 Fisher noted receipt of notice from the State Water Control Board dated April 16, a public meeting to be held on May 16, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in Richmond, to draft the nternal Program Work Plan and FY 1981 Section 106 Grant Application. Fisher noted receipt of notice from Virginia Electric and Power Company ~for of electrical facilities under Section 56,46.1 of the Code of Virginia and for tion of Certain Facilities under the Utility Facilities Act.~ (Charlottesville- Transmission~line for ~30 kv operation.) Several hearings on th~se requests scheduled and are set out in the'notice. Fisher noted that the Virginia Citizens Planning Association 1980 Annual Conference eld on May 8, 9 and 10, 1980. the watershed issue discussed April 28, 1980 (Night Meeting) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginis held on April 28, 19~0, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Buildir Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from April 23, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta~ C. Lindstrom (arrived at 7:35 P.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush (arriVed at 7:39 P.M.). 6fficers present: County~Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Georg St. John; County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and Assistant County Planner, Rona Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:39 P.M. by the Chair~ said that on Thursday of last week a letter was hand-delivered from City Council i~ that it would'not be wise for the City/County Negotiating Committee (Boundaries and Sharing) to meet this afternoon. City Council noted that they have employed consul (Harlan Bartholomew) to put together proposals concerning boundaries, revenues, gro services. The consultant's report will not be ready until about August 15. Mr. Fi the Committee did meet this afternoon and the letter was publicly read. Mr. Fisher had asked if the consultant's work will be applicable to either negotiating a settl an annexation agreement. The City's negotiating team said yes, but also noted that intends to present one or more proposals. Mr. Fisher said he then indicated that i City's consultants take several months to draw up complex proposals, the County mig be in a position of having to employ consultants to evaluate the proposals. In the the staffs of the City and County will continue to investigate cooperative delivery services, and if any proposal comes out of these talks, these staff proposals may b to the Board and Council before August 15. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked the sta review the various proposals discussed by the Planning Commission on the rural area Mr. Tucker said the staff analyzed the five alternatives discussed by the Plan Commission. There were two or'her proposals (the EDA Proposal for Best ~gr~culgural which the Planning Commission felt could create a higher density in the rural areas that now allowed under A-I) and (proposal from the Albemarle Property Owners Associ which called for mandatory clustering of atwo-acre density by right, and a five-ac for conventional development) which were scrapped by the Planning Commission. Mr. then presented the following memorandum: As requested by the Board in its work session of April 23, 19~0, the Planning evaluated the various rural district proposals considered by t-he Planning Comm The staff has limited review to those proposals which received the most oonsid by the Commission. The primary difference in all proposals is: lot s~ze; con vs. cluster development; and the number of lots by right. 1) Existin~ A-1 Zone has been evaluated for purposes of reference and contras to other proposals in this report, the A-1 zone is "wide open" in terms of dev 2) Rural Exempt Div.~sion (RED) permitted the division of three, two-acre lots all other divisions'by special use permit. 3) Agriculture-Forestry (AF) permitted cluster subdivisions at a five-acre de: conventional ten-acre lots by right, limited in both cases to 20 lots. More tl or two-acre density was provided by special use permit. Rural Areas (RA) permits five, two-acre lots by, right; six to 20 lot divis April 28, 1980 (Night Meeting) Cluster subdivision applies to three lots or more with an average lot size of 1.25 acres. e) All special use permits would be denied. Iaintenance of Rural Character is evaluated on the basis of perceived space (i.e., low density development) in addition to ordinance defined space. Since this factor deals with the rural aesthetic, evaluation .fficult. For example, in public hearings, cluster development has .mes been viewed as "high density" compared to conventional development ~e same density because smaller lots are employed. This appears to be ~ase even when the development physically reflects existing development ~e area (i.e., setbacks, yards, building separation, etc.). Staff's Lation employs the existing two-acre lot as providing moderate ~faction of perceived open space and assumes denial of all special use .ts. This factor is evaluated separately from the agricultural factor ~ methods of achieving the two can be markedly different (i.e., · acre minimum lot size). Jimiting. Rural Development assumes a continuance of the historical 'plat distribution of rural development as presented in Table II. ~e in the rate of rural development is employed. Values given are ~ums which assume denial of all special use permits. No quantitative evaluation of'the public costs (i.e., government expenditure ttilities, facilities and services) for rural development would require ~sive study., this factor, can be used as an indicator (i.e., the greater ~ount of rural development, the greater the public costs). ~rivate Costs relates to expenses incurred and time consumed by a ~rty owner seeking to develop, and to reduction in yield as compared to ~ing A-1 zoning. Depending on ordinance administration and market .tions, costs may be real or perceived in certain cases. Ldministrative Costs relates to staff, Commission and Board time, and ~se of administration as compared to existing A-1 zoning. ~oard Discretion deals with the Board's ability, .given existing enabling ~lation, to approve, deny, and place conditions on development. ~dvanced Knowledge. deals with the property owners expectations for .opment. Considerations of the Subdivision Ordinance and other regulations .thstanding, advanced knowledge would be the highest where the least it of variables are involved (i.e., no limit on by right development; no ting or special use permit required) and lowest where development is .tted only by special use permit or rezoning and no guidelines for ~ation are stated. Main- Main- Limit- Private tenance tenance ing Costs of of Rural Agri- Rural Develop- cultur, Char- ment al Land acter Admini- Board Advanc strative Disc- Knowl~ Costs retion Expec~ tions ~ing Zoning ~g~iculture ~ 0% Mod. 0% Low Low Low High Ewe_mot Divi ~i on Nod. Low/ Low Himh April 28, 1980 (Night Meeting) Mr. St. John said the County Attorney's Office had reviewed a lot of alternati' they were discarded for one reason or another. If the Board wants maximum effectiv, discouraging development in the rural areas and encouraging development in the urba~ villages and communities, the only tool available for this is exclusive agricultura An exclusive agriculture zone would allow only farming; there would be no division by right. If the Board does not adopt such a concept, the next alternative would bt non-residential zoning. Under the other proposals discussed, the Board would be ent development in one place, while discouraging it in other places, but would actually real control over development. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had considered an Agriculture/Forestry district, but after the staff attempted to identify the areas of the County which c~ the Best Agricultural Soils, the Planning Commission decided to drop this idea unti~ soil survey is completed. The 1932 soil maps used by the staff are too generalized trying to relocate soil types from those maps onto tax maps proved too great a diff~ Mr. St. John said the Zoning Steering Committee realized early in discussions that of best agricultural soils was not the only goal for establishing a Rural Areas dis1 but another goal is to protect the rural character of the County. Mr. Fisher said the staff had looked at areas where there are operating farms and the number of peo! claiming exemption for agricultural uses under the Land Use Tax Ordinance. Mr. Tucl a land use evaluation was attempted, but without up-to-date soils information, this fruitless. Dr. Iachetta said figures in Table II show that 53% of all lots subdivided fal~ category from one to five lots. In that sense, the proposed RA district would funct exactly as the present A-1 district does. The categories from six to 19 lots show ! the activity. The two categories combined total 89% of all lots put to record. Th~ difference in the RA proposal is that from six to 20 lots there would be a five-acr~ Mandatory clustering may or may not be appropriate in some cases and the amount of Z to cluster those 20 lots could be as much as 100 acres. Also, the proposal for clue does not carry with it the same setting of conditions that is presently done on an ~ Therefore, he did not feel that the RA proposal is different in a better way than t~ present A-1 zone. The Board continued for a short time discussing clustering as op~ requiring an RPN, development rights, transfer of same, and recordkeeping of develo~ rights. Mr. Fisher said that at last week's meeting, the Board had talked about the tee mendations of the Planning Commission and how those recommendations would be admini~ He said that in order to implement the recommendations, the Subdivision Ordinance we to be modified to require that every division of land be brought to the Planning Off before a plat is put to record, in order to make sure that development rights have ~ assigned and show on the plat. Mr. Roudabush said one of the biggest objections ag~ regulations is the fact that someone has to review everything. Mr. Lindstrom said Planning Commission's recommendation would not require that every plat be approved ~ Commission. It would only be a matter of keeping records on the "by right" categorJ Roudabush said he felt this would be a burden not only on property owners, but also County's staff. He did not think it would be easy to keep these records. Miss Nask see any difficulty from an administrative point of view. Mr. Henley said he had a problem with requiring mandatory clustering. Mr. Lind said there seems to be a mixture of goals and he felt the Board should first decide Planning Commission's recommendations are acceptable as written. If not, then the ¢ becomes one of a more restrictive or less restrictive ordinance. He felt that ques~ could be addressed by deciding if 20 lots by right is appropriate. Past that numbez lots, there would be a special use permit situation which could be handled by a rez¢ an RPN category to give the Board more discretion in setting conditions. Mr. Fishez what has been Orooosed is to allow a certain number of ~ots bv ~bt. M~ ~k~ ~f ~ April 30, 1980 ourned meeting of the Board of SuperVisors of Albemarle'County,~Virginia, was held , 1980, at~ 2:30 P.M ~in theBoard Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes- inia; said meeting being adjourned frOm April 28, 1980. t: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 2:40 P M.), F. Anthony Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V~. Nash and Mr. W S. Roudabush. None. rs present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. y Planner, Robert W. TuCker, Jr.; and Assistant County Planner, R0nald Keeler.' Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:36 P.M. by the-Chairman. Mr. ~ there have been some matters dealing with the procedure for hearing the proposed~ nance that Should be discUssed. The deadline for advertising for a public hearing was at 11:30 a.m. today. Therefore, he had decided to let the staff advertise for aring on the Zoning Ordinance recommended to this Board by the Planning Commission. an change that action and continue work sessions since by continuing with the May ~ the Board runs a risk of holding a second public hearing at some future date. said, if the Board wanted to go ahead with the May 14 hearing, a motion was needed" as the date. Motion was then offered by Dr~ Iachetta, seconded 5y Miss Nash, to~ 'or a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Planning this hearing to be held on May 14, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. at Jack Jouett Middle .sher said he is concerned with the furious pace at which subdivision plats are ~nted for Planning Commission approval in anticipation of the new ordinance. Mr. aid he felt strongly that the only ordinance th±s Board should consider at a .ing at this time is the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission. He he understood that the Planning Commission did not hold a public hearing on the ~mitted to this Board. (Mr. Henley and Mr. St. John arrived at this time. Mr. .ained the motion on the floor.) Mr. Roudabush said the individual Board members ~etings throughout the County to explain the ordinance recommended by the Planning- and that is the ordinance most people feel will be presented at a public hearing. ,lled at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~rs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ~ Item No. 2. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said this work session ~ntinuation of diScussion of the rural areas. He had used the report distributed 'd on April 28 and looked at the various goals of the Planning Commission. He said ~ises that have come about on the rural areas district may not be effective in Lral development, maintaining agricultural land, and maintenance of the rural istated Planning Commission goals). He asked for comments from the Board members ~oats they thought were trying to be achieved through this revised ordinance. mdabush said after the discussion on April 28, he had thought about the goals of of agricultural land and maintaining the rural character, and felt it would be ~ccomplish if there were a separation of rural lands and agricultural lands. The is not all agricultural land, and although he knows the problems the staff and )mmission faced when trying to devise two rural areas, he felt it would be easier goals with two separate districts. He then asked if the staff had looked at Lcultural uses taking place in the County as a way of identifying agricultural April 30, 1980 Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks preservation of agricultural lands and maintenanc, rural character are important, but he feels that having subdivisions in a part of tl where there are no public utilities and roads available is of the utmost importance not feel that distinguishing between other rural lands and agriculture lands will s~ problem of unsuitability for subdivisions. Using the statistics furnished by the Pi Staff at the April 28 meeting, permitting 20 lots by right on all parcels presently existence, will not address the problem. Dr. Iachetta said that following the discussion on April 28, he had thought ab~ reason for the original two-acre zoning. The original Zoning Ordinance left 90% of County with no zoning at all. The two-acre category was created because it would r. rezoning for anything that was different, but it was never intended to create 89% activity in the County in two-acre lots. With the history of what has happened thel years, he feels it would be a serious error to continue this practive. If the RA d~ to be a holding zone, or a place where the intense uses of today will not be allowel of lack of public utilities, what criteria could be used and what type of zoned~ to allow some minimum activity which gives the Board reasonable control over change~ use, particularly in areas where services cannot be provided. It is clear that the concept of two-acre zoning was a legal device that required a rezoning for a more use. But, many people now think that they have an automatic right to divide all la~ two acre lots. Mr. Henley said he has friends who feel they should have a right to their land any time they want to do so. He has never felt this way, but does not kl the compromise should be. Mr. Lindstrom said he would suggest that the Board allow three, two-acre lots in a single agricultural zone; all other divisions in the rural area would have to ~ through a rezoning to an RPN or some other zoning classification. He also suggeste~ Subdivision Ordinance be amended to exempt subdivision of lots 25 acres or larger il Mr. Henley said he would be hesitant to vote on something like this proposal before the public hearing. Mr. Roudabush said he did not think the Board should change an~ before the public hearing. Mr. St. John said that technically, under State statute Board should advertise and hold a public hearing on the recommendations of the Plan~ Commission. However, this does not prohibit the Board members from discussing thei~ about the recommendations before that public hearing is held. Dr. Iachetta asked what kind of recordkeeping problems this proposal would cre~ Tucker said the recordkeeping would be essentially the same; volume-wise it would b~ Mr. Fisher asked if there would be records kept of the exempt lots. Mr. Lindstrom : any time the number of lots which can be divided is based on existing parcels, ther~ recordkeeping problems. A purer approach to the RA zone would be to allow only 25-~ parcels or larger by right. If the Board wants to allow some number of small lots 1 then there will be recordkeeping involved. Mr. Fisher said he sees a problem with ~ rights on parcels at the date of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. He knows there 1 recently been a number of plats filed in order to make divisions before this ordinal adopted, and he thought that the effective date for establishment of those rights m~ retroactive date in order to slow down that rate of divisions. Mr. St. John said tl theoretically that can be done, but he did not believe the Board wanted to attempt ~ People will record petitions until the date of enactment of the ordinance and the B~ cannot stop them. Mr. St. John also said that some people will have non-conforming rights. Mr. Lindstrom said another way to deal with the problem which would be mort forward would be to have no lots by right tied to existing parcels. Mr. Fisher fel' proposal would cause a greater number of divisions to be applied for before the ord~ adopted. Dr. Iachetta felt that subdivisons made in a rapid, simple manner often h~ detrimental effect. Mr. Fisher said he had a question about Section X.7.2.1 of the Rural Areas tex~ April 30, 1980 ~ould be permitted in an RPN. Mr. Lindstrom said he had some concern about this se by right. He felt this could be used in the design of an RPN even if it were not a the base zone. Dr. Iachetta said there is a housing mix allowed in the ?RD. r said if the Board decides to provide for a PRD in the RA zone, the staff will have the PRD again. A PRD is basically designed for urban densities. Mr. Fisher asked PRD concept would be applied. Mr. Tucker said in the urban areas and the two es. The density in a PRD goes up to 20 units per acre or higher. Mr. Lindstrom the bonuses apply to PRD's. Mr. Tucker said no. Dr. Iachetta said he did not he Board.would want a PRD in the RA zone. Mr. Roudabush said it would give the e control over design than other concepts would. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board residential exclusion zoning ordinance which permitted basically only agricultural he RA zone, then there would be two ways to allow development. One, by special use nd two, through a rezoning. The most natural approach to a rezoning would be a PRD id encourage a more efficient use of land. Mr. Tucker said if the Board used a ermit or a PRD in the rural areas and did not give any guidelines or specifications ty, what would a landowner submit. MrJ Tucker felt the landowner would ask the t to submit, and the staff would end up doing an entire staff proposal and study on el(s) of land. Dr. Iachetta said he does not think mandatory clustering makes good a requirement, but if there was a PRD requirement to set the density, then the might be able to make better use of the land without requiring clustering. Althougt g density might be a wording problem, there should be some clear way to let the know that he could take advantage of this particular category. Mr. Roudabush felt equirements should be spelled out in the ordinance. He said there are professionals siness of designing developments, and he did not think the Board of Supervisors y which is the best way to develop a design. Mr. Lindstrom said if a particular s set, he felt the landowner will automatically apply for that density. If no s set, maybe the landowner will apply for the density that is appropriate for the without needing public water and/or sewer.~ Dr. Iachetta said the criteria might be .e density possible without pUblic water and/or sewer. Fisher said he would summarize the conversation. It appears that the PRD as presentl s designed for very high density areas and is not easily transferred to the rural ir. Tucker said that was correct. If the Board decides on some form of special use rezoning other than what is already set out for the rural areas, something will e developed which contains maximum density standards and minimum lot sizes. Mr. .id he did not really disagree with that theory. He then noted that Mrs. John Ewald .eh a letter and asked to address this Board. He had told her that the proper place Ler comments was at the public hearing, but she was insistent and was present today. ~trom said he had no objection to hearing from any citizen, but the Board needs to ~ame "rule of thumb" at future meetings. John Ewald noted that her property, Tandem, will be rezoned from RTM to RA under ~osed ordinance. The property was purchased in 1973 and a large amount was paid ,f the RTM zoning. She and her husband were mindful of living on an interchange and ~at they could do their own kind of zoning so any use put on the property would not ~atible with their own house. Therefore, a lot of money was spent on Professionals ~earch to decide how the land could best be used without interfering with the charact~ Lnd. The Chamber of Commerce has listed and shown the Tandem property for its RTM ~nd brochures (one in file) have been printed and mailed. Studies such as zoning, ~y, geology, water supply, borings, waste disposal, storm drainage, energy and roads, ~ done. Being rezoned to RA would be a substantial loss to the estate. Under in the Comprehensive Plan, this property would rank as a No. 1 priority except that L sewer are not presently available. She asked that the Board reconsider the RTM ~ation for the Tandem property. Fisher asked if the Board had anything else to discuss on the ordinance today. Miss ~^ ~ ~oo~ ~o ~,~~ ~ ~~ which will ~e a separate ordinan~ April 30, 1980 Mr. Agnor said he had discussed this system with the City Manager. The City i in a central law enforcement dispatch which is the foundation for the 911 system. discussed the matter with the three law enforcement agencies and Mr. Hendrix planne discuss the request with City Council. They both feel that Ms. Linda Peacock, Emer Services Coordinator, would be the logical person to assign the tasks of putting th proposal together. Mr. Fisher said he would suggest a small committee of police,~f rescue squad officials be selected and that the commitee work out the details of a system, estimat~ the cost of such a system and then make recommendations for fundin system. Details to be returned to the governing bodies at a later time. Agenda Item No. 4. Request for Appropriation of Capital Funds for Buriey School and Albemarle High School. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Clarence McClure, Division Su in a memorandum dated April 23, 1980, states that as plans have developed for the r projects for these schools, it has become clear that this work will have to be phas several years in order to do it during the summer months when the schools are close School Board has asked its architects to expedite plans for Phase I of these two pr which include some of the most obvious needs and those jobs that can be planned and during the summer months. The budgets for these buildings break down as follows: Burley Middle School Science lab renovation (plumbing and new tables) Painting corridors, entry way, auditorium and cafeteria Range hood for kitchen Replace and repair lockers Minimal lighting repair in auditorium Testing and surveys, clerk of works, printing and reimbursables, contingencies ~ Total project cost, estimated $ 50,000 20,000 6,000 24,000 2,500 11,5010 $114,000 Albemarle High School Courtyard renovations to solve entry/exit to Home Economics area and to create useful outdoor areas without mud Painting corridors (older building) plus entry foyer Testing and surveys, clerk of works, printing and reimbursables, contingenies, equipment Total project cost, estimated $ 70,000 13,000 14~000 $ 97,000 Mr. Agnor said these renovation projects were included in the Capital Improvem~ with an appropriation of $50,000 being made for architect fees to determine the ext~ renovations and estimated cost of same. The combined project was carried as a $500~ but was listed as a deferred project pending determination of costs. This request ~ approve the projects in their entirety, but to appropriate funds for improvements nc summer, which are necessary whether the projects are later approved in part or in t~ entirety. The decision on the balance of the projects should be made when the Capi~ Budget is revised later this year. Since the renovations can only be made during t~ months, this appropriation request is made in advance of the Capital Improvements B~ revisions. Funds for these projects can be obtained from the additional $500,000 ir Fund loan funds which were obtained for the Albemarle High Gymnasium project and whJ not contemplated in budget revenues. This additional loan makes $500,000 in local ~ allocated to the Albemarle High School gym, available for other needs. Of this amo~ $290,000 has been allocated to the Scottsville project since the Capital Budget was last August, leaving $210,000 to meet this $211,000 request. An appropriation as rE is recommended with the realization that the use of these funds for thess projects ~ funding of other school projects in the Capital Budget revision to be presented to t Mr. Fisher said APril 30, 1980 ~a Item No. 5. Discussion of Watershed Issue. Mr. Fisher said when the Comprehensi~ ?inally adopted several weeks ago, there was much discussion about the watershed ~ow to address perceived problems in the watershed. He then distributed the followi~ ~ list: Runoff Control O~dinance (applies to all reservoir watersheds): a. Reduce 5% impervious area exemption; b. Reduce permitted pollution quantities in runoff; c. Increase setback from streams; d. Change formula (include variable for soil type); e. Reduce maximum slopes for new construction; f. Change or delete exemption for road construction on steep slopes. Zoning Ordinance: a. Create overlay district or new watershed zone for watersheds; (1) Lower density for development; (2) Require clustering; (3) Require pervious surfaces for private roads, parking areas; (4) Site plans: require detention basins for commercial, industrial, multi-family zones; (5) Control tree removal; Reduce base zoning density in watershed; c. ~ Increase zoning density outside watershed. CaPital Improvements: Restrict construction of new public facilities (schools, roads, utilities, etc.). Comprehensive Plan: a. Reduce Crozet density; b. Reduce Ivy density; .c. Reduce rural density; d. Increase densities outside watersheds. Taxation: a. Replace land use tax with agricultural districts; b. Use transferable development rights concept (when permitted by State); c. Use taxes to encourage forestation of idle land. Public Water Supp. ly Laws: Restrict development within fixed radius of water intake (basis for moratorium). Reduction of Existing Pollutants: a. b. Hire watershed management official; ~ Fund improved treatment for point source pollution (interceptor if Crozet is to grow considerably, or package plant); Encourage forestation through Virginia Division of Forestry, etc.; Increase inspection of construction areas; Correct existing stream bank erosion. Soil Erosion Control: a. Review ordinance; b. Review procedures for enforcement of ordinance; c. Increase inspection; d. Increase penalties for violation. Albemarle County Service Authority: April 30, 1980 Creek) is still being studied by staff. The question of funding another evaluation reservoir problem, he was not ready to address at this point. Mr. Lindstrom asked ~ 208 Study being conducted by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will accomplish. Fisher said they are monitoring at the reservoir. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Agnor if k ever received an answer to the request from Dr. Grant Goodell about flying over, and aerial photographs of, the reservoir. Mr. Agnor said he had talked to George Willis Mr. Williams wanted to talk with the 208 Study Committee before taking the request t Rivanna Board. Miss Nash asked if the County had enough technical staff to keep tract of #1 ar Mr. Fisher said the County has the capability to do a lot of that work; soil erosior try to keep up with all projects. There followed a short discussion of soil erosior and devices approved under the Runoff Control Ordinance. Miss Nash asked what the watershed management official will do. Mr. Lindstrom will work with farmers to encourage them to use more effective soil cultivation met? deal with general runoff problems from agriculture. Mr. Fisher said the job descrir includes such things as working with homeowners on the use and care of land and fert iMiss Nash asked if that person should also be looking into soil erosion and runoff ¢ problems. Mr. Fisher said this person will report directly to the County Executive have responsibility to see that other activities are working. Mr. Fisher said this was just a few of the things the Board might work on. Mr. has suggested that the Board wait until it is determined what will be set up for thc areas. Agenda Item No. 6. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said because length of this meeting, he would suggest that the Board defer any further work on t~ Ordinance until after the public hearing on May 14. He suggested two work sessions scheduled; one for the afternoon of May 21, and one for the afternoon of June 4. Agenda Item No. 7. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor said the Count~ called the bond on the Rio West Office Building in order to complete site work not ~ by the developer. The bond money was deposited in the County's General Fund. A coz was hired to complete the work and authorization is needed to pay the contractor, a~ appropriation is needed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Rouda~ adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 18C.12, Road and Site Work Completion, for site work completed un~ a bond called on "Rio West Office Buildings". The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. At 8:47 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.