Loading...
1979-12-19NDecember 19, 1979 (AdjOurned AfternOon) December 19, 1979 (Regular Night). An adjourned mee6ing of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgini~ December 19, 1979 at 3:30 P.M., in the County Executive's-Conference Room in the Cz Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from Decem~ 1979. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Ht Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, and W. S. Roudabush. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 3:38 P Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion for the Board to adjourn int~ session for the purpose of discussing personnel~ property acquisition and legal ma~ The motion was seconded by Dr. Iach~tta. At the request of the Board, Miss Ellen Col. William Washington attended the executive session. Roll was called, and the carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 7:40 P.M., the meeting reconvened into regular ~session, and immediately ad~ A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, on December 19, 1979 at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesw Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs.. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Ht Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, and W.S. Roudabush. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. At 7:40 P.M., the meeting was called to o~ Board Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. Mr. Fisher requested a moment of silence. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher noted that this would be the last scheduled meeting 1970's. He also noted that it would be the final meeting for Supervisor Lindsay D~ and asked him if he would like to make a few closing remarks regarding his term in Mr. Dorrier said a great deal has been accomplished by the Board during the past fl years, including the rewriting of the ComPrehensive Plan. He complimented his fell supervisors on being hard working, conscientious, honest, and having the citizens ~ county foremost in their minds. He hoped that in the coming year, the Board would adoption of a revised Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety, an~ "shorter Board meetings". He concluded by stating he was certain the Scottsville 1 was going to be well represented by Miss Ellen Nash, and wished her the best. December 7-9' _(Rq .~, _ _ ' __._ , : Summary: Acres % al 15.3--~ ~3.5 arvice Facilities 1.20 3.5 right-of-way 2.01 5.8 16.86 47.2 35 .V3 100 ~-- ~ype Summary: Number Units % nily: Attached 42 ~ [ly: low-rise 33 13 [ly: mid-rise 180 71 255 lOO~ arative Impact Statistics: Existi~g!~kmg Propos~d.z.=~c~ZW]~i~ RPN/R-1 RPN/R-2 lings 132 25~ ~ty 3.7 du/ac 7.2 du/ac lation 392 380 ~le Trips/day 960 840-1130' ~1 Children 75 0 [mate provided by applicant and accepted by Virginia Department of Highways and ~portation F Comment: Staff opinion is that a development of this character should be awed for intensity of development rather than simply on the basis of residential [ty. Though more dwellings are proposed under this application than under the ~ous RPN, staff opinion is that overall this proposal would be of comparable ~t: Traffic impact would be comparable; There would be no school enrollment impact; Visual impact would be comparable; Building coverage would be comparable. recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Approval is for 255 dwelling units and a 100-bed nursing care facility. locations and types shall be as shown on the approved plan; Dwelling Virginia Department of Highway and Transportation approval of commercial entrances and road improvements as shown on the approved plan; County Engineer approval of internal roads and parking, drainage, grading plans, and impoundment dam; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans including booster station and other appurtenances; Fire Official approval of fire hydrant locations and fire flow requirements, emergency access provisions, and handicapped parking; Approval of all appropriate state, local, and federal agencies prior to certi- December 19, 1979 (Regular Night) this plan, they tried to respect the scale of the adjacent developments at the Boa and Ednam Village. The existing Ednam Mansion will be renovated for offices and f for residents. Almost 50% of the site is retained in open spaces. Mr. Bain locat positions for three highrise apartment structures, townhouse structures and reside and the central services facility. Mr. Bill Palla~i¢ini, Engineer for the project the storm water runoff protection for the property, sewage system leading to the M Creek Interceptor and Treatment Plant, and water lines connected to the Albemarle Service Authority lines with a booster station located on the property. Dr. Fritz Berry, a resident of Ednam Forest, said this request is not in keep the neighborhood. He said he was most concerned about the traffic situation this create. He said there will be six entrances off Route 250 within a 200 yard dista added that the traffic speed through this area is 55 m.p.h, and then reduces sudde 45 m.p.h, right at the entrance. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petiti Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher questioned a request for a zoning variance to reduce the number of spaces for this project. Mr. Bain, said this request is based on a study of the n automobiles expected to be used by the residents; statistics show the number of ye to be much lower than normal in this type of facility. Mr. Fisher said the parkin seemed to be based solely on residential units and asked if the nursing facility w considered in the traffic count figures presented. Mr. Bain said it was not, but would not amount to anything substantially above the figures presented. Mr. Fisher stated his concern for water runoff at the site, stating there is a runoff problem created by construction at the Boar's Head Inn. Mr. Pallavicini construction would be done with the County's Stormwater Detention Ordinance as a g line, and that project engineers would be on site to maintain constant watch for a potential problems. Mr. Fisher next asked about fire protection in the high rise and whether the watertower has sufficient capacity to provide adequate fire protec Mr. Pallavicini said the tower proposed will provide 1,000 g.p.m., which is more t adequate water flow for fire protection for the normal residences. Water required fire protection of the central facility will be higher,~also, the length~of time w flow will be able to be provided to such a community has yet to be determined. Dr. Iachetta said he was not happy with the way the community was laid out in t±on to water flow and fire protection. He said the tallest buildings are located highest~ ground, which would require the most pressure. Also these buildings are t central facilities and the health care center, where it would be most difficult to people. Mr. Tucker presented the following letter from the County's Fire Prevention 0 , Ira B. Cortez: "November 26, 1979 I am in receipt of a letter dated November 21, 1979, in reference to the avai fire flow. This letter states that the fire fl$w from the existing 300,000 g~ storage tank would have a maximum flow of 1300 GPM. Though this~flow should ' GPM, there are ways (sprinklers, adding fire wall, etc.) that this flow Will i adequate." At 8:35 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess in order for the Board to vi~ model of the proposed community being discussed. Meeting reconvened at 8:40 P.M. the County Attorney being present. December 19, 1979 (Regular Night) ~ssion then turned to the proposed road improvements to Route 250 by the applicant. ~ers expressed their concern that the applicant would not be bound by any condition Ipromised road improvements. Mr. Lindstrom said he wished the Highway Department ,nt to discuss the road improvements to Route 250. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. St. le applicant were bound to do the road improvements, or could he say he would ~e roads, and then not complete the roads as promised. Mr. St. John said it was ~ord that the applicant voluntarily stated that he would do the road improvements. ~rom asked if it would nullify the rezoning if the applicant failed to complete · ovements. Mr. St. John said even if this were in a proffer or a condition the ~ed on the applicant, the Board could not nullify the rezoning approval, The Don'' the Board has is to say that if the applicant does not do 'the road improvements this whole rezoning was done under a "fradulant inducement" and could be brought m that basis. Mr. Henley said he would only vote favorably for this request if · ovements are accomplished. Dr. Iachetta again expressed his concern about the ~tures being located on the high ground of the property. He felt they would have well as ecological impact on the surrounding communities. ~indstrom and Mr. Dorrier both stated their main concern is with the road improvement De of the reduced density and the fact that these elderly people are projected to automobiles and therefore make fewer vehicle trips per day (most likely during ~, both said they would be in favor of this project's approval. Dr. Iachetta and ~ush next asked for clarification of the road improvements to Route 250; specifically .anes proposed. Mr. Bain said in discussions with the Virginia Department of ~nd Transportation, it was agreed that full frontage development would be used in lort turn lanes. ~n was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZMA-79-42 with the conditions ~d by the Planning Commission, with an additional condition #8 reading "Use of ~d nursing care facility is limited to residents of the Ednam RPN". Mr. Lindstrom that this motion is made relying heavily on the applicant's offer to develop lane on Route 250 at his own expense, and he would not have offered the motion ~re not the case. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the recorded vote: srs. Dorrier, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. srs. Fisher and Iachetta. ta Item No. 3. S?-79-69. Fruit Growers Coop. Petition for a veterinarian satellite 1.570 acres zoned B-1. Property is located in the northeast quadrant of the ~on of Routes 240 and 810, in Crozet. County Tax Map 56A1, Parcel 01'65; and Map 56A2, Parcel O1-27. White Hall District.. (Advertised in the Daily Progress ~r 5 and December 12, 1979 ) [enley said he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on this item, as he is the Coop. ~ucker read the Planning staff report as follows: ~est: Veterinary clinic ~ga: 1.57 acres ~g: B-I Business ~ion: Property, described as Tax Map 56A(1), Parcel 01-65 and Tax Map 56A(2), ~1 01-27, is located in the northeast quadrant of Route 240 and 810 in Crozet. ~cter' o~f ~t'~e'A~r'ea: This property is de~eloped with foUr buildings housing nine The applicant has obtained a variance from the area requirements related to December 19, 1979 (Regular' Night) Agenda Item No.4. ZMA-79-41. Martha B. Bacon. Petition to rezone approxima 0.6 acre from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business. Property is on the southeast side Greenfields Court in Greenfiel~s Subdivision, east of Route 631. County Tax Map 4 Parcels 150 and 151. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress December 5 and December 12, 1979). Mr. Tucker noted receipt of letter from Larry J. McElwain, attorney represent Bacon, requesting that public hearing on this petition be deferred. Mr. Tucker th suggested deferral until January 2, 1980. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, sec Mr. Roudabush, to defer this request until January 2, 1980. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-79-43. South 29 Land Trust. Petition to rezone 39.2 from A-1 to R-3 and 16.0 acres from A-1 to B-1. Property is located on the south Route 29 and northeast of 1-64 interchange. County Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B, ~a~k Y District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 5 and December 12, 1979)~ Mr. Tucker read the Planning staff's report as follows: "Requested Zoning: Acreage: Existing Zoning: 39.261 acres to R-3 Residential General 16.0 acres to B-1 Business 55.261 acres A-t Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B, is located in the s quadrant of Route 29 and Route 782 adjacent to Charlottesville. Character of the Area: This property, recently auctioned by the state is hea wooded in cultivated pine. Steep slopes occur toward the rear of the propert is bordered by a stream and along Route 782, which borders and passes through portion of the property. Comprehensive Plan: The Planning Commission has recommended that this area b for medium-density residential (10 du/acre) in the Comprehensive Plan. Due t ting commercial usage in the City in proximity to this area, the Planning Com] did not recommend commercial usage for this property as requested by the appt recent review of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: As proposed with a commercial zoning 600 feet in depth along Route 29 frontage, staff opinion is that the R-3 portion would have to be dev to a high net density due to the topography of the remaining property. The r~ net density may be so high that preservation of existing trees in the develop, would be difficult. Route 782 appears inadequate to accommodate any increased traffic. Sight dis· and grade at the intersection of Route 782 and Route 29 are poor. Staff woul, support access to Route 782 regardless of zoning. Staff makes this point at time in the event the applicant should choose to parcel the property (several exempt divisions of this property could occur). Staff opinion is that the request does not comply with the Comprehensive and therefore staff recommends denial of this petition." December 19, 1979 (Regular N~ight)~ Fisher declared the public hearing opened. No one wished to speak either for or ~his petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. ~on was offered by'Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to accept the recom- 1 of the Planning Commission to rezone this property, including the proffer for R- .on the whole property with 10 units per gross acre. This motion was seconded by .er. A brief discussion developed regarding the intensity of the development on ~rty. Mr. Fisher said it concerned him that it will not actually be !0 dwelling · acre, but much more due to the amount of land unusable because of steepness of )r. Iachetta said he would much rather see this density near the city where the will eventually be servicable then far out in the County where water and sewer cannot be provided. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote: ~ssrs. Dorrier, Fisher (with misgivings), Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ~ne. Ida Item No. 6. SP-79-72. Forest Hill Associates, Inc. Petition to locate a ~r's office on 4.09 acres zoned B-1. Property is located on the north side of ) East adjacent to Lowe's. County Tax Map 79, Parcel 4, part of. Rivanna Dis- [Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 5 and December 12, 1979). Roudabush said he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on this application le thought his firm was recently involved in'the subdivision process of this piece ~or another owner. Tucker read the Planning Staff report: ~uest: Contractor's Office 4.2 acres B-1 Business ~age: lng: ~tion: Property, described as Tax Map 79, Parcel 4, part thereof, is located on north side of Route 250 East, 400 feet west of Lowe's. ~acter of ~the Area: This property is lot 2 of Hunter's Hall, a commercial-zoned ~ivision recently approved by the Commission. ~he property slopes gently to Route ?f Comment: The applicant proposes an office and small woodworking shop. No ~ide storage of equipment and materials is proposed other than parking of business ~. Staff recommends approval subject to: Access restricted to Hunter's WaY only; Site plan approval; No outside storage of equipment or materials except for parking of trucks. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 4, 1979, unanimously ~ed ap.proval subject to the same conditions recommended by the staff. Walter Lumpp, owner of Forest Hill Associates, Inc., was present and said he glad to answer any questions the Board might have. There were no questions from abers. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. No one from the pu6iic ~ speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public ~losed. December 19~, ~979 (Regular Night) this rezoning request which would increase traffic on Route 678 without provi realignment as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.* *Existing zoning could generate 56 vehicle trips per day. generate 117 vehicle trips per day." Proposed zoning co Mr. Tucker noted that at its meeting of December 17, 1979,, by a vote of 8-0- Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request to RS-~ of 16.975 Mr. Tucker also noted receipt of a letter dated December 19, 1979 from Mrs. Virgin Ashcom. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Dic representing B and T Properties. Mr. Gibson said meetings were held between the s the Highway Department, and B and T Properties' engineer, Mr. R. O. Snow, and a de arrived at for realignment of Route 678. Mr. Gibson said this realignment would r the purchase of a small piece of property; and he noted that the alignment will be as not to disturb any existing structures. Mr. Gibson noted that there will be pr wells and septic tanks used for this development. He concluded by saying that thi is not suitable for farming and there will be only two more lots under this reques zoning than there would be under A-1. Mr. Jack Taggart and Dr. Charles Borchardt, owners of B and T Properties, sai would be building their personal residences on the property, and wished this land remain as beautiful after development as it presently is. Also, this proposal is keeping with the "cluster" development recommended for the Ivy Village. Mr. Fisher asked if the historic "Locust Hill" site will be protected. said the house and four acres will be divided from the remaining land. Mr. ~ Mr. Jay Marymor, said he lives directly across the road from this development. He the road is presently very dangerous and narrow, and that the sight distance is po also said that further development uphill from his land will cause even greater dr onto his property than he already has (during the last heavy rainfall he claims th 18 inches of water across his driveway). Mr. Marymor presented photographs to the showing the sight distance from his driveway in both directions. He said as far a could see, the only solution for Route 678 is to widen the entire length of the ro Mrs. Virginia Ashcom, said she agreed with Mr. Marymor that Route 678 needs g improvements than the developers are suggesting. She said as an adjoining propert she would prefer to see this development exit onto Route 250 rather than Route 678 she would hate to see an increase of accidents on an already dangerous road. Mrs. Martha Seldon said she would not like to see further increased traffic o 250. She also hoped for better road alignment on Route 678 before development in area becomes too concentrated and road alignment is impossible. Mr. Fred Landess, representing Mr. and Mrs. M. Mayo who own property to the w the site,~ said in the past he has witnessed the Board deny rezoning requests on basis that the subject property is not served by public water and sewer and has ix road access. He said this property fits that description. He also claims this wo spot zoning, as all lands west on 678 are zoned A-1 at the present time, and to re this one parcel would seem to be spot zoning. Mr. Gibson said a strip of land extending across the entire front of the prop that has been dedicated to the State for right-of-way for future widening of the r also said there is a commercial entrance on Route 678 and it will meet all sight d requirements. He said he also did not feel this development would further add to December 19, 1979 (Regular Night) Gibson said it would probably be apProPriate for the applicant's to withdrawn !uest at this time,~ without prejudice, with the hope that it can be resubmitted in future with the proper proffer. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded ~udabush, to allow withdrawal of this application without prejudice. Roll was .nd the motion carried by the following recorded vote: .ssrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ~neo da Item No. 8. SP-79-73. Berkmar Associates, Ltd. Peti.tion for l~ght warehousing acres zoned B-t. Property is located on Berkmar Drive, adjacent to U-Stor-It. x Map 61MU, Section 2, Parcel 9, Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the gress on December 5 and December 12, 1979). Tucker read the Planning staff report as follows: uest: age: n.g: Light Warehousing 1.729 acres B-1 Business tion: Property, described as Tax Map 61MU, Section 2, Parcel 9, is located on mar Drive, southeast and adjacent to the existing Mini-Stor warehouses. acter of the Area: An existing light warehouse use is to the northeast and a ractor's office is to the southwest. Other properties in the immediate vicinity vacant. rehensive Plan: The Planning Commission has recommended commercial usage~for area in the Comprehensive Plan. f Comment: Staff opinion is that this use is consistent and compatible with ting development in the area and recommends approval subject to: Site plan approval by Planning Commission including landscaping/screening plan; Ail storage shall be enclosed. No outside storage shall be permitted." Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of December 4, 1979, ly recommended approval of this special permit with the conditions recommended by ing Staff. Sandy Lambert, representing Berkmar Associates Ltd., said the history of the area that this request is consistent with the present development inthe area. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. No one wished to speak either for or his application, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was red by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve SP-79-73 with the s recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion ¥ the following recorded vote: ssrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. se. da Item No. 9. Lottery Permits: ~s Jefferson Civitan Club: Mr. Agnor presented the application for raffles held December 19, 1979 (Regular Night) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of SuperVisors of Albemarle County, Virginia~ $60,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and tr~ to Code 7C-226F.1--Advanced Contribution to the Stony Point Volunteer Fire De~ RolI was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if there had been any assistance gi~ families involved in the large fire which swept the Berkshire Apartments last week. Agnor said there were no applications made to the Housing Coordinator for the rent program, but that other County departments have coordinated their efforts to try ar assist the many families left homeless. Mr. Agnor said he would present the Board report when more details are available. He added that the public response to help been tremendous, with many offers of temporary housing, clothing and food for the ~ victims. Mr. Fisher said he has been notified that the Section 18 Grant Funds applied ~ JAUNT have been approved, but that the County Attorney has not signed the agreement would keep that program going. Mr. Agnor said Mr. St. John informed him that he c¢ legally sign that agreement because of Constitutional prohibitions. Mr. Agnor said request for a waiver has been sent to the Department of Labor, but no response has been received. Mr. Fisher reported receipt of the New Zoning Ordinance from the Planning Com~ and asked if the Board wanted to hold a public hearing immediately or first have a sentation given to the Board and then hold public hearings. Board members were in that they would like to have a presentation to them by the Planning Staff, then hay ordinance presented to the public. Board members agreed on January 14, 1980 at 7:] in the Albemarle County Courthouse to receive a presentation from the Planning Star the New Zoning Ordinance and Map. Mr. Fisher suggested this presentation be advert notify the public, but was specific in stating that it would be a work session only not opened to public comment. Dr. Iachetta requested the Board to consider the following resolution for adop WHEREAS, the Compensation Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia, by commu dated December 14, 1979, notified this Board of the salaries approved by the C sation Board for the Commonwealth Attorney elect and the Assistant Commonwealt Attorney for Albemarle County for the period of January 1, 1980 through June 3 1980; and WHEREAS, the amounts approved by the Compensation Board were less than th reasonable amounts requested by that officer of Albemarle County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board, pursuant to the provision Section 14.1-51 of the Code of Virginia of 1950 as amended, hereby objects to allowances approved by the Compensation Board as aforesaid upon the ground tha allowances are inadequate, And this Board further requests that a hearing be held by the Compensatio on these objections after notice as provided by law,