1979-07-18Ny (Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Freeman for his comments. He said that many of the suggestions
are already being worked on by the County staff. Some months ago, the staff began
working toward reduction of energy in vehicles; cross~raining of Inspectors i~ being
investigated as one method to conserve on gasoline consumption. The Transportation Com-
mittee has been working on several things. Mr. Fisher said he has asked the S~haol
Board to investigate theuuse of school buses as a means to get people to work ~-~should
there be a severe ~nergy crisis. Last year, the County undertook a study of school~
buildings and their use of energy. The County is working to expand the JAUNT operation as
a-~ethod to implement public transportation. A school bus routing system study is underway.
This study should make recommendations as to a more efficient use of school buses in the
collection and distribution of children in the school system. Mr. Fisher said this is
just the beginning and there is a possibility that more can be done in the near future.
At 4:06 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.
Agenda Item No. 30.
Chairman
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of A~bemarle County, Virginia was held on
July 18, 1979, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthon
Iachetta and C. Timothy Lindstrom.
Absent: Mr. W' S. Roudabush.
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. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher, with a moment of silence.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-79-29. Robert Vanderveer. Petition for a duplex on 3.045 acres
zoned A-1. Property located in Riverview Farms Subdivision on Route 785 near the North Fork o
the Rivanna River. County Tax Map 33, Parcel 18 (part thereof). Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 6 and July 12, 1979).
Mr. Tucker noted that this petition had been withdrawn before the Planning Commission
at its meeting on July 10, 1979.
Appeal:
Rutledge Farm Preliminary Plat.
(Deferred from July 11,
Agenda Item No. 3.
1979).
Mr. Fisher said this appeal was deferred at the request of Dr. Iachetta who was out of
town on July llth. He then asked Dr. Iachetta for his comments.
Dr. Iachetta said he had listened to the tapes ofthhe July llth meeting and has also met
with residents of Bedford Hills. He then presented the Board with a copy of the foIlowing
proposal from Bedford Hills residents:
"July 17, 1979
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County, Virginia
To:
We, the residents of Bedford Hills and associated areas, would like to summarize
our position, after much study and consideration, as to the proposed Rutledge
Farm Subdivision and its impact on related areas.
We believe the best possible solutions are as follows:
The alternate entrance as proposed by the Bedford Hills residents be approved
as the entrance to Rutledge Farm.
Roads in Rutledge Farm be made to conform to state specifications, including
a connecting link to the Bedford Hills roads, to the rear of the dam.
The residents of Bedford Hills will repair the pipe under Madison Drive, clear
ditch lines, clean out entrance pipes, and bring drainage to state specifications.
The developers of Bedford Hills shall be responsible for sealing the roads of
Bedford Hills as required by the Virginia Department of Highways.
The Board of Supervisors with the cooperation of the Virginia Department of
Highways shall pre-stipulate that a 35 mile-per-hour residential speed limit
be established in Bedford Hills.
JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL
Bedford Hills Entrance:
Land is not available for left turn lane·
Land is not available for right turn lan-e and needed right-of-way probably cannot
--~- - -~ - ~ ?uly 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
3. Present entrance will not be sa~e for heavier traffic loads without major improve-
. ment to State Route 743.
4. At a previous meeting, the Highway Department had indicated a cost factor of from
$t0,000 to $14,000 to lower the vertical curve in front of Bedford Hills entrance,
not including any turn lanes.
Rutle. dge Farm Alternate Entrance:
It appears that land is available for both l~ft and right turn lanes.
A 60-foot right-of-way has previously been dedicated.
With some realignment of the 60-foot right-of-way, the developer can improve
sight distance and cost of construction.
With more land available, a safer entrance can be constructed to State
specifications.
The cost of constructing this entrance, if land costs are considered, will be
considerably less than the necessary improvements at the Bedford Hills entrance,
if like standards are applied.
COST FACTORS
Developer's Proposal--Bedford Hills Entrance
A. 'L~d uu~b uf bu~'n
B. Lower the vertical curve on Route 743
C. R~inforce part of Culpeper & Madison Drives (S-5)
D. Lower the vertio~& curve on Culpeper Drive
E. Build new 'extension to Madison & Monroe Streets
F. Turn lanes
Residents' Proposal--Alternate Entrance
A. Land cost of turn lanes
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Lower the vertical curve on Route 743
Extend either Madison or Monroe Streets
R~inforce Madisonaand part of Culpeper
Lower the vertical curve on Culpeper Drive
Turn lanes
Connect new entrance to proposed road ~ystem
Addition of Lot #27
And in addition, seven more lots will use
Bedford Hills roads.
Not Available
$ 10,000.00
12,000.00
40,000.00
13,000.00
Equal Cost
$ 75,000.00
Accessible to
Developer
$ 10,000.00
6,500.00
Nnne
None
Equal Cost
20,000.00
$ 36,500.00
- 1~,500.00
$ 20,000.00
SUMMARY
The residents of Bedford Hills have made a concerted effort to cnnsider all parties
concerned with the development of Rutledge Farms, as well as ~he commitment made bY
the Bedford Hills ~orporation to its original purchasers. We believe the financial
impact on the developer has been considered, as well as the safety factors involved.
Et is also our belief that economic and social impacts have been fairly weighed,
concerning all parties involved.
Further growth~ in the immediate area impresses upon us that our proposals are
sound and fair judgments which will allow all parties to fulfill obligations in' a
just and equitable manner.
Your consideration is highly appreciated by all parties concerned.
Respectfully submitted,
Residents of Bedford Hills"
Dr. Iachetta said this proposal is for an entrance to Rutledge Farms on Route 793 at the
60-foot easement mentioned' at the June 13th meeting or at another location about 120 feet
south of that easement. This new entrance would then be connected to Rutledge D~ive being
connected to Staunton Street in Bedford Hills. This proposal would provide alternate
access for the land at the back of Bedford Hills and the subdivision which is now served
by Culpeper Drive off of Staunton Street.
Mr. Fisher asked if it was Dr. Iachetta's intent that all of the roads be broEght up
to State standards and accepted into the system. Dr. Iachetta said yes. Also the alternate
access is desirable no matter what other conclusion is drawn about this property since
there is the potential for future development on the property at the back of Bedford Hills
Subdivision. The residents of Bedford Hills have stated their willingness to help with
certain items set out under #3 of the proposal. No 5 addresses the vertical curve on
Culpeper Drive. The residents would like the speed limit reduced to 35 to be consis2ent
with existing sight distance so no major work will be required. There is also the
possibility that a turn lane can be installed at the proposed alternate entrance. If the
alternate entrance is moved about 120 feet south, the amount 5f work necessary on Route 743
will be reduced significantly and that is the idea behind the suggestion; it will reduce
the cost to the developer. The study made for the residents by Mr. Morris Fo2ter showed
that by changing the roads in the o~iginal proposal, one extra lot can be achieved, thus
lowering the costs even further. This proposal will provide a safer entrance and will a2so
provide alternate access for what will be a growing area. The sight distance problem on
Route 743 is not impossible to correct. (Dr. Iachetta initialed and dated a proposal by
Mr. Foster which would provide better sight distance than the original proposed entrance
and filed same with the Clerk.). Dr. Iachetta tbeu off~ m~m ~ ~~ ~ ~,*~
400
July 18, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Farm Preliminary Plat with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission being
modified as follows:
1. Any connection to the Bedford Hills central well system or any new central
water supply system will require approval of all appropriate agencies.
2. An entrance to Rutledge Drive shall be created using either the existing
60 foot easement or by moving the entrance south of that easement (as
proposed by the Bedford Hills homeowners); that turn-lanes and needed
improvements to R~te 743 related to this entrance be provided ~ubject to
approval of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
3. A loop road through Rutledge Farm and Bedford Hills ~ubdivision shall be
established by using Rutledge Drive, extending Staunton Street to the
existing Staunton street, the existing Staunton Street to Culpeper Drive,
and Culpeper Drive. The existing Staunton Street and Culpeper Drive in
Bedford Hills Subdivision shall be brought to State standards and accepted
into the State Secondary System of Highways.
4. Monroe Street and Madison Drive in Bedford Hills Subdivision shall be
upgraded and brought to State standards and accepted into the State Secondary
System of Highways. The final subdivision plat shall show the McClatchy
property as being served by either Madison Drive or Ru~ledge Drive.
5. Compliance with Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances.
6. Fire Official approval.
7. Written Health Department approval.
8. Dedication of 25 feet from the center!ine must be shown for Parcel 49C(1) on
Tax Map 45.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
At this point, Mr. Fisher opened the meeting to comments relating to Dr. Iachetta's
motion.
Mr. J. F. Bishop, the applicant, was present. He said he did not feel that Dr. Iachetta
was qualified to tell Mr. Roosevelt what the safety aspects are of installing another
entrance on Route 743. Mr. Bishop referred to several statements in the Staff's addendum
report of July 3, 1979. Mr. Bishop reiterated his statement made at an earlier meeting
that the developers of Rutl~dge Farm do not have a controlling interest in Bedford
Hills. The developers do not want to improve roads for the benefit of someone else,
when they have an access from their property. He felt that if the residents in Bedford
Hills need an exit out of Bedford Hills other than across the dam, they should be willing
to allow Rutledge Farm an exit through that subdivision. Mr. Bishop said the roads in
Bedford Hills have been maintained by the developers for 16 years and there has been only
one complaint in that length of time. He personally favors private roads.
Mr. Donald Hemmer, a resident of Bedford Hills, said the gravity problem mentioned
in the Staff's report could be eliminated by improving the vehtical curve on Route 743.
The entrance to Culpeper Drive is at the crest Of a hill and he feels this to be a
dangerous entrance. There are also two private roads entering on Route 743 serving several
residences which could be eliminated if Rutledge Drive were extended as proposed by
t~he residents.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, said the Highway Department is interested only
in obtaining adequate site distance at an entrance or entrances. If turn lanes can be
installed, he will support the idea of two entrances. The proposal for an alternate
access and the connections between the subdivisions is an internal problem that the
-Highway Department is not directly connected with. The section of Culpeper Drive across
the dam and the sight distance.problem is one that cannot be corrected by simply
reducing the speed limit. There is some grading that will be required before that section
of Culpeper Drive can be taken into the State system.
Br. Iachetta said he could understand Mr. Bishop's unhappiness with his proposal and
he is sympathetic, but he personally has correspondence dating back to 1975 on the condition
of the roads. There is a long-standing history of the residents trying to get the roads in
Bedford Hills into the State system. The Rutledge Farm plat shows seven lots which front
on roads in Bedford Hills. That is 25% of the lots in this new subdivision that directly
impinge on Bedford Hills roads. Ridgefield Subdivision is also served off of Culpeper and
Staunton Drives, so if this question is not addressed at this time, and if other areas at
the back of Bedford Hills are developed, the problem will be back before the Board in the
future.
Mr. Henley said he did not know how the Board could require Mr. Bishop to bring the
roads in Bedford Hills up to State standards if he does not own those roads Mr Fisher
said there are a number of lots in Rutledge which would be using Bedford Hills roads.
Based on that, the total number of lots using the Bedford Hills roads would require, under
present County ordinances, that the roads be brought to State standards. Mr. Henley asked
if it was legally possible to impose such a condition on Rutledge. Mr. St. John asked if
the right-of-way through Bedford Hills has been dedicated to public use. Mr. Roosevelt
said yes. Mr. St. John said if the roads have been dedicated to public use, Mr. Bishop
would have no problem of ownership in going on those roads to build them to State standards
as long as some of the lots in Rutledge are shown as being served by those roads.
At 8:10 P.M. the Board recessed to allow the Clerk time to change recording equipment.
The Board reconvened again at 8:18 P.M.
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
Dr. Iachetta said he would like to mention that the proposal from the Bedford Hills
Homeowners would require that less money be spent by the developer than the proposal
approved by the Planning Commission. The owners of the~individual lots in Bedford Hills
have expressed their willingness to participate in what is needed to bring the roads up
to State standards. He feels they have made an effort to find a reasonable compromise.
He also feels that this is better planning. Mr. Henley said he was willing to go along
with this proposal, but feels there will be problems in the future when other lands at
the back of Bedford Hills are developed.
Roll was then called on the ~oregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP~79-25. Viola Irene Turner. (Deferred from June 20, 1979).
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report:
Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Mobile Home
4.98 acres
A-1 Agricultural
Property, described as Tax Map 128A(1), Parcel 33, is located on the north
side of Route 757 at the end of state maintenance.
Character of the Area
This area is characterized by small lot development.
in the area.
Several mobile homes are located
Staff Comment
A mobile home was approved under SP-77-81 for this property in January, 1978. That
mobile home has been located on the property without compliance with the conditions
of approval. It is not known ih the mobile home is occupied (the applicant has
until August, 1979, to comply with the conditions of approval or the special permit
is void. Staff opinion is that the questions of whether or not the applicant has
proceeded in good faith is a matter for the Zoning Adminisrator). The second mobile
home is also on the property.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the
following conditions:
Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Zoning Admini~strator approval of screening (such as landscape screening,
fencing, etc.) prior to issuance of a building permit;
Removal of debris and rubble of dwelling destroyed by fire at this site to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a
C~rtificate of Occupancy;
Continued maintenance of property so as to ~emain orderly and clean to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Tucker said the P. lanning Commission, on June 19, 1979, unanimously recommended
approval of this petition subject to the staff's recommended conditions.
Mr. Fisher noted a letter of objection signed only "Concerned Citizen" which had
brought this petition to the Board. He also noted copy of a report from a County Zoning
Inspector which stated that there are two mobi.le homes on the site and neither complies
with setback requirements.
At this point, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Turner was present in support of
her petition. Mr. Fisher asked if both of the mobile homes are vacant. Mrs. Turner said
yes because of the lack of money for installation of septic facilities. A member of the
Health Department staff is trying to decide on the proper size for a single septic
facility to serve both mobile homes because she cannot afford to install two separate
facilities. She also noted that both mobile homes have now been moved further back on the
p~operty to a spot marked by the Zoning Inspector, and one,home iscariot visible from the
roadway. Mr. Fisher asked who will occupy these mobile homes. Mrs. Tuener said they are
being placed for her daughters. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Condition No. 1 would not take
care of the setback requirement. Mr. Tucker said yes.
With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion to approve SP-79-25 with conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission
was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. H~nley, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Ztem No. 5. SP-79-28. Floyd R. Shifflett.
Mr. Tucker read the staff's report:
(Deferred fromJJune 20, 1979).
4O2
July 18,1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Mobile Home
8+ acres
A-1 Agriculture ....
Tax Map 32, parcel 29(0)1, located on the south side of Proffit Road
(Route 649) approximately one quarter mile east of Route 29 North.
Character of the Area
There are a number of single-family detached homes on both sides of Proffit Road within
this section of the Hol~ymead community. The land is gently rolling, with patches
of open space alternating with dense brush. One mobile home is located directly
adjacent to applicant's property to the west on Proffit Road.
Staff Comment
The applicant proposes to locate a mobile home on an already developed, 8+ acre piece
of property. Other structures located on the property include a single-family
residence fronting on Proffit Road (Route 649), and a mobile home located in the
western rear corner of the lot.
The site of the proposed mobile home is located o~e~ha sha~Worise approximately
200 y~a~s from the entrance and does not appear to be visible from the roadway. The
site is visible-from the adjacent property to the west on Proffit Road.
The applicant is requesting relief from Section 11-14-2, provision A-6 s~ating that
"no rental is to be made of the mobile home."
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition,
staff recommends the following conditions:
Compliance with relevant provisions of Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on June 26, recommended approval subject to
the following conditions:
Compliance with the following provisions of Section 11-14-2 of the zoning Ordinance
a. Albemarle County building official approval;
b. Setback of a minimum of seventy-five feet from the right-of-way
of any public highway;
c. Minimum side and r~r yards and lot area to be established and maintained
in conformity with the provisions of the district in which the mobile home
is to be located;
d. Landscaping to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning
administrator;
e. Skirting around mobile home from ~round level tp base of the mobile home;
f. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable
satisfaction of the zoning administrator and the local office of the
Virginia Department of Health.
Please note that the Commission waived the provision: "No rental to be made of
the mobile home; the same to be occupied by the owner of the land on which it is
located or by his lineal relative or bona fide agricultural employee."
2. ~irginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance.
Mr. Tucker noted letters of objection from Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Smith and Ms. Nellie
Moubray and a sketch showing the existing house and where the mobile home will be located.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Shiff!ett was present and said he was surprised
that Mr. and Mrs. Smith objected to the mobile home because they live in a mobile~home
adjacent to the. proposed location of this mobile home. Ms. Moubray does not even live on
her property which is adjacent to the proposed location. He had talked to Mr. Willard Hall,
who would be closest to the mobile home, and Mr. Hall expressed no objections. Mr. Shifflett
said the septic tank and well are installed and he has had the driveway b~acktopped.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Shiffiett the reason for requesting waiver of the rental clause.
Mr. Shifflett aaid he has lost his health and woul~ get someone to live in the mobile
home who can help him mow grass. Mr. Fisher said the intent of the County's ordinance
is to provide homes for people who own mobile homes to live in, but not to provide rental
mobile homes around the County. Mr. Shiff!ett said his son used to live in a mobile homa
on this same site but his son has since bough~ a home. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Shifflett
how long the other mobile home has been on the property. Mr. Shifflett said a douple of
years. Mr. Fisher asked him if that mobile hom~ is rented. Mr. Shifflett said yes.
There being no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public
hearing was closed.
Dr. Iachetta said the objections he had heard were based on the request for waiver of
the rental provision, but these people were not opposed to the mobile home itself. The
neighbors are afraid this will turn into a mobile home park. Dr. Iachetta said he felt if
the County's ordinance has a no rental provision, the provision should be applied uni-
formly and rental be limited to bonafi~e mobile home parks. He could not support the
request to waive this provision and then offered motion to deny SP-79-28.
Mr. Henley said he would vote to deny the petition if the mobile home was to be rented,
but felt this petition~could be approved leaving the "no rental" provision as one of the
conditions and let Mr. Shifflett decide. Mr. Henley said he has never voted against a
~~o~ ~.~=~ ,n l~r~ q~ ~h~ m~h~l~ home ~imself. but could not Ko
403
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said he Would support the motion because he did not think approval
without the waiver would help Mr. Shifflett. He would prefer to see the motion to approve
the~ permit without the waiver and let Mr. Shifflett decide.
Mrs Dorrier said he also would support the motion because he feels a mobile homelis
basically defined as a temporary home. It is permanent in the sense that it is attached
to the land, but in view of the fact that it is mobile, he does not feel it should be
rented. Mr. Henley did not agree. Mr. Fisher said he feels the provision for mo~ile
home parks, which is designed primarily~ for the rental of mobile homes, is sufficient to
take care of the rental needs for mobile homes. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Shifflett if
approval of~the~permit without the waiver would do him any good. Mr. Shifflett said he
would not be furnishing the mobile home, only the land on which to set the mobile home.
' , Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mess~s. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS: ~'None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-79-30. James and Lila P. Gibson. To locate a mobile home on
4.28 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the north side of Route 29 South approximately
one mile northeast of the intersection of Routes 29 South and Route 745. County Tax Map
75, Parcel 15. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 29, 1979.)
Mr. Tucker read the staff's report:
Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Mobile Home
4.28 acres
A-1 Agricultural
Tax Map 75, Parcel 15, is located on the western side of Route 29 South
approximately six miles south of the City/County line.
Character of the Area
The applicant's property is located on the edge of Route 29 South where it passes
between Britts Mountain and the Ragged Mountain to the south of the City. The
passage is very marrow at this point and accommodates the roadway, the Southern
Railway, and Moore's Creek. At both sides of the roadway, the mountains slope very
steeply upwards. The road is sparsely developed with approximately six" single family
structures within a quarter mile of the applicant's property. One home is within
100 ya~aso~ the property to the north on the s.ame side of the roadway.
Staff Comment
The applicant proposes to locate a mobile home just to the south of an existing
structure, approximately 150 feet from the edge of Route 29 south. The mobile home
would be visible from both sides of Route 29 and possibly visible from the adjoining
property which is set on a hill overlooking the site.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this
petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
Compliance with Section 11-4-2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Location of the mobile home outside of the flood plain of Moore's Creek.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6/1, on July 17, 1979, recom-
mended approval of this application subject to the staff's conditions.
Mr. Tucker noted one letter of opposition from Mr. and Mrs. T. M. Whitten for the
following reasons: "1) Inadequate water supply - we have supplied them water for the
past two summers because their spring goes dry, and 2) it will lower the value of our
property. We consented a year ago for the State Highway to remove large signs on our
property to help the scenic view. We will appreciate your taking this into consideration."
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mrs. Katherine
Walker, who was present to speak for the applicants, her brother and mother, who are hard
of hearing. Ms. Walker said she did not know why Mr. Whitten is opposed sinca her mother
owns this parcel of land. Her motAer will live in the mobile home and the applicants
(Mr. and Mrs. Gibson) will move into the house since it is too large for her mother.
Mrs. Walker said her mother's property is valued at $65,000. There was a mobile home on
this site several years ago and it did not lower the value of the property. There are no
other buildings on the property other than a amall shed used for tool storage.
Mr. Whitten was also present. He said he was at the Planning Commission meeting and the
applicant said he would meet the conditions placed on this permit. If this is done, he has
no objection to the mobile home. Mr. Fisher asked if there is a problem with inoperable cars
on the property. Mr. Whitten said there are presently five or six cars on the property.
Mrs. Walker said arrangements have been made to have have the cars removed. Mr. Whitten said
in this case, he would withdraw his objection since he does not want to deprive anyone of a
place to live.
Mrs. Walker's mother (Mrs. Gibson) was present and said a well will be drilled and a
septic field installed. She said her son wants to stay near her because she is sick quite a
bit.
There being no one else present to speak for or against this petition,~the public hearin~
was closed. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve SP-79-30 subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and sam~ e~r~ ~
4O,4
July 18, 1979 ~Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-79-13. Twin Group. To rezone 16 acres from A-1 to RPN/RS-1.
Property is located on the southwest side of Route 654 an~abuts Colthurst Farm on the south-
west. Property is approximately two miles northwest of Barracks Road Shopping Center.
County Tax Map 60, Parcel 68 (part thereof). Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on July 6 and July 12, 1979.)
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report:
Character of the Area: The site is bordered to the north by the Montvue
Subdivision, to the southeast by the Colthurst Subdivision, and the Old
Salem Apartments are to the east of this parcel. The topography of the
site ranges from 5% to 50% slopes with the majority being in rolling to
moderate slopes (10% to 24.9%).
Existing zoning in the Area: Montvue and Colthurst Farm are zoned R-1 and
A-1 Agricultural. The Old Salem Apartments site is zoned R-3.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The site is located in the Urban Area
and is recommended for low density residential (one to four units per acre).
Condition of Roads Serving the Proposal: The 1978 traffic count on this
section of Route 654 is 4579 vehicle trips per day and is currently listed
as tolerable.
Comparative Impact Statistics:
Dwellings
Population
Vehicle Trips Per Day
School Impact
Existing A-1 RPN/RS-1
Approx. 7 12
21.7 37.2
49 84
3.99 6.84
Land Use Data:
Number of Lots
Total Area
Estimated Total Lot Area
Estimated Total Open Space
Average Lot Area
Proposed Gross Density
Gross Density Permitted
12
16.0 acres
11.0 acres
5.0 acres
40,000 square feet 1.33 acre/unit
I dwelling unit/gross acre
RPN Proposal: The applicant proposes 12 single-family lots with a gross
density of 1.33 acres with 5.0 acres in open space. The site is proposed to
have access on private roads. Public water is available and is proposed to
be utilized for this proposal.
Staff Comment: The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
recommended that the road be widened along the development side of the road
to accommodate a left-turn lane for vehicles headed northwest out of
Charlottesville. Sight distance can be obtained for a commercial entrance.
The staff has some concern about the steep slopes as they relate to the
building sites shown on the plan. Mr. Gordon Yager, the Site Review Committee's
representative from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service commented that the steep
slopes would create "excessive erosion when disturbed."
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 12 lots. Location and acreages of land uses
shall comply with the approved plan. Open space shall be dedicated in
accordance with the number of lots approved in the final subdivision
process.
2. Acreage approved for open space shall not include roads.
3. No grading shall occur until the final subdivision process.
4. Compliance with the Runoff Control and Soil Erosion Ordinances.
5. Health Department approval of two septic field locations for each lot.
6. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Agreements prior to final sub-
division approval to include the use of open space for septic facilities,
and for private road maintenance agreements.
7. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations, prior to final subdivision
approval.
8. Ail lots shall have access only on the interior road.
9. County Engineer ~approval of road plans prior to subdivision approval.
10. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrance and improvements to Route 654 prior to final subdivision approval.
11. No buildings shall be constructed on slopes of 25% or greater and appropriate
changes made on the plan for building site locations.
12. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, road or other improvement
approved in a final plan are to be located shall~be disturbed; all other
land shall remain in its natural state.
13. Ail units shall be served by a public water supply system and approved by
appropriate agencies prior to final subdivision approval.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on June 26, 1979, unanimously recommended
approval of this petition subject to the staff's conditions but changing No. t0 to read:
"Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance and
improvements to Route 654 in accordance with the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans~
portation letter dated June 6, 1979, prior to final subdivision approval." (Note: Highway
Department comments follow: "The entrance location shown appears to have adequate sight
distance. We ~ould recommend widening along the development side of the road to accommodate
a left turn lane for vehicles leaving Charlottesville headed northwest. A commercial entrance
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
4O5
Dr. Iachetta said in looking at the slope map, it appears that a number of the lots are
on steep slopes. He agrees with Mr. Yager's comment that when the soil is disturbed, an
erosion problem will result. Dr. Iachetta asked if the soil on this land is shallow. Mr.
Tucker said Mr. Yager's comments were made as to steepness of the terrain~only; he did not
address the depth of the soil. Mr. Tucker said on two of the lots, house siting will have to
be carefully considered in order to stay out of the 25% slope area. That is why Condition
No. 11 was recommended for this application.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that the possibility of using open space for drainfields was discusse~
by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said two septic field locations are required for each
lot because the land is within the Rivanna Reservoir watershed, but when there is open space
on a plan, the staff is recommending that provisions be made for its use for drainfields in
the event this should become necessary. This eliminates the need for the applicant to return
at a later date to have the plan amended.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Max Evans, represent~
the applicant. Mr. Evans said the site consists of 16 acres, portions of which range from 5%
slopes to over 30% slopes. A slope study map had been made by Mr. Evans and he pointed out
to the Board that in looking at the map, there is enough area on each parcel t.o get a residenc~
and septic field without disturbing the portion Of the slope that is 25% or greater. The
vegetation on the site is mature hardwood trees which are well spaced. He said the applicant'
idea, which was agreed to by the Planning Commission, is not to disturb any area except what
is actually needed for a residence, driveway and septic field. He feels the houses can be
sited between the trees thereby retaining many of the trees. He said there is some heavier
vegetative cover along the slope off of Barracks Road and the applicant plans to supplement
this with additional evergreen cover. The Comprehensive Plan calls for development in this
area of one to four units with an optimum of two and one-half units per acres. This land is
within the designated Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan and Mr. Evans feels it is compatibl
with the surrounding areas. He noted the following statistics on surrounding subdivisions:
Colthurst:
61 units ~ 1.88 acre/unit - Average Net = 114.68
Smallest Lot = 0.87 acre - Largest Lot - 3.56 acres
Montvue:
33 units ~ 1.84 acre/unit - Average Net = 61.00
Smallest Lot = 1.03 acres - Largest Lot = 4.35 acres
Stillfield: 18 units ~ 1.39 acre/unit - Average Net = 25.02
Smallest Lot = 0.95 acre - Largest Lot = 2.56 acres
Mr. Evans said the applicant considered bringing in public sewer, but would then have to
go to a higher density and three of the lots could not be served by public sewer because of
the topography of the land. ,Water will be supplied by the Albemarle County Service Authority
with hydrants as required. A field check by the Highway Department showed that the single
access to the property by the private road proposed has good sight distances from both the
east and west; the west sight distance being approximately twice the minimum required.
Mr. Jimmie Jessup, the applicant, was present. He said he was concerned about the
density in this area and decided to do something about it. He bought 54 acres in 1970, and
another 60+ acres in 1974. The 60 acre parcel includes a house which is currently rented for
$100 a mont--h just to have it occupied. His immediate concern is the 16 acres behind the
house. The entire property has had a negative income for him. He thinks this plan is a good
one and he feels the 12 units proposed are complimentary to Colthurst. The entrance to the
house will be closed and moved. He is also concerned with the beauty of Colthurst (which he
developed) and the surrounding area and he feels this plan is in keeping with that beauty.
The plan has a minimum density for Route 654. Mr. Jessup said he wants to sell the house and
the only way to do so is through this plan, or development of the whole area. He asked for
approval of his application. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Jessup his plans for the balance of the
property. Mr. Jessup said he has no plans for development of the rest of the property. He
also noted that this development will physically touch only one lot in Colthurst.
Dr. M. C. Wilhelm, resident of Montvue, spoke in opposition to the petition. He said
the residents of Montvue are concerned about the density because both Colthurst and Montvue
have more acreage per lot than the proposed subdivision. He feels nine units would be a more
suitable density for this area. The open land on the proposed RPN is unusable to the property
owners and should not be called "open space" Therefore, this application should not qualify
for RPN designation. He said Mr. Fisher had asked a very pertinent question aboUt the
balance of the acreage. Will the Board keep the remaining acres to the density proposed by
this~subdivision or keep it at the density of Montvue and Colthurst?
Mr. Norman Graebner, resident of Colthurst, also opposed the petition. He said this is
a magnificent piece of land, and it separates Colthurst from Barracks Road. The residents in
Colthurst moved to Colthurst under the conditions established by previous decisions of the
Board concerning lot sizes and types of houses demanded by those lots, The residents have
tried to make this one of the finest middle-income residential areas of the County. Mr.
Graebner felt the density should be set by what is already established in Colthurst.
Mr. Tom McEachern, resident of Colthurst, said Mr. Stephen Bredin, President of the
Colthurst Property Owners Association, was not able to be present and had asked that the
following statement be read into the record:~'
"The Board of Directors of the Colthurst Property Onwers Association met on
July 16, 1979, to discuss certain aspects of the recently approved rezoning
of a property adjacent to Colthurst from Agricultural (A-I) to RPN (RS-i).
The Board wishes me to advise you that it vehemently opposes the rezoning of
this area, which abuts Barracks Road on one side~ and touches the Colthurst
subdivision on the other. The action of the Planning CommisSion in approving
on June 26 this variance, establishes a precedent not in keeping with the low
density character of the general area. The Board see's no legitimate reason
for the action of the Planning Commission in deviating from the general zoning
plan for the area, a plan deliberatel~ develooed after a~f~l ~~*~ ~
ng
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
sewage problem anticipated to surface within a few years and costly to rectify;
but it is concerned principally with seemingly capricious changes in the general
plan for the zoning of this county. The Board did not believe sufficient study
had been made of all the factors involved; the steepness of the slopes; the
potential percolation problems to be encountered on each of the 12 lots. Above
all, the Board believes this action by the Planning Commission represents approval
of blatant misuse of the Resi.dential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) concept, since the
proposal in question does not represent a development with carefully planned
community green spaces, but, rather represents precedent-setting approval for
a high density subdivision which simply uses that terrain that cannot be built
on to satisfy the green space requirement of the RPN category. We do not believe
the approved plan meets the basic intent of the RPN category. The Board requests
that the Board of Supervisors deny this recommended rezoning action categorically,
or at a minimum, delay the rezoning until further study of the desirability of
this deviation can be carried out by the Planning Commission."
Mr. John DeMaso, resident of Colthurst, asked for denial of this application. His main
objection is that rezoning of this property would set_a precedent for the rest of the parcel
and for surrounding parcels that would not be in keeping with the density in Colthurst or
Montvue. He did not think there is a good reason for this request since this property can be
developed under existing zoning. There is already a concern among residents in the area
about the density approved for Stillfield Subdivision and he wonders where it will stop. The
residents of Colthurst bought land and built houses under the assumption that the area would
be developed at the same density. He asked for denial of the application.
Mrs. Virginia Roynyak, resident of Montvue, said there is no good reason for rezoning
this property except to make money for the developer. She reminded the Board that Stillfield
Subdivision was originally zoned R-i, so no rezoning was requested.
Mr. Jessup felt most of the objections raised tonight were addressed by Mr. Evans in his
opening remarks. The people speaking are his neighbors and while Mr. Jessup said he will
agree that Mr. Graebner has a nice house in Colthurst, it is built on 1.14 acres of land and
Mr. DeMaso has his house on 1.36 acres. He feels these two subdivisionsare compatible.
Mr. Graebner said the best way to compare lot sizes is to look at a map of the entire
area. That way you can see at a glance how much difference there is in lot sizes.
Mr. DeMaso said it is true that Mr. Graebner's house ~s built on 1.36 acres, but he owns
four surrounding lots, just as many residents in Colthurst do. The density in Colthurst is
low because of this fact.
Mr. Evans said he knows Mr. Graebner does have a small lot because he did the landscaping
plan for the lot. He feels the whole idea of the RPN legislation is to allow the developer
to cluster lots and leave undesirable, unusable land in common open space. Mr. Fisher said
that is one interpretation. He personally thought the common open space would be usable land
for ballfields, playgrounds and so on. Mr. Evans said many lots in Montvue and Colthurst are
too large to take care of and many have very steep slopes. Clustering lots, fitting those
lots to the land, and leaving steep slopes in buffer leaves more of the lot area for the
residents themselves. Also, with internal roadS, there is not that much stripping of highways
The whole idea of the RPN legislation is to fit good, net bui!dable sites within a total
gross acreage and retain common open space. Ail of the open space in this plan is not unusabl
The Board recessed and reconvened at 9:50
At 9:44 P.M., the public hearing was closed.
P.M.
Mr. Lindstrom said his main concern with this application is the topography. The
Comprehensive Plan has been referred to with respect to density, but another feature of the
Plan is concern about critical slope areas. He personally feels this land is not easily
developable as anything other than an RPN. He agrees that the open space cannot be used for
anything because of the topography. The applicant had mentioned bringing in public sewer
lines, but that also would require a rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan refers to a density
for this area, but also refers to a neighborhood plan (which has not yet been seen by the
Board). Initial discussions on the neighborhood plan referred to a density such as that
already established in this area. There has been a change in the thinking of the staff about
density, partly due to concerns expressed by citizens on the proposed zoning ordinance. Mr.
Lindstrom said there seem to be a number of reasons why this property should be left at the
existing zoning, which, in theory, would per~it eight dwelling units, but in reality would be
hard to obtain because of the topography. He said the use of an RPN simply to make developmer
of a difficult piece of property feasible, is not the best use of an R?N and he has serious
problems with this application.
Dr. Iachetta took issue with Mr. Evans' comment that the sole intent of the RPN category
is to make it possible to take out of a plan the land that cannot be used. Dr. Iachetta
thought the RPN category was enacted in order to provide usable open space for use by the
residents and provide more than the nominal buffering on the edges of the development. He
said in terms of how to use the land to get the maximum yield out of the land, this proposal
is probably as good as any, but he is not convinced ~t is the best use of this 16 acres.
Mr. Dorrier said the slopes on this property are his main concern, but the developer
will have to meet sewer and water requirements or he will not be able to obtain Health
Department approval. Mr. Dorrier said the Board is basically talking about the difference
between eight dwelling units under existing zoning or 12 dwelling units under the RPN designal
He has supported RPN's in the past because he feels they do not slice up the land and do
contain open space which is not required for standard subdivisions. Mr. Dorrier said this
land is in an area designated for growth in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board has only
discussed the number of lots that could be put on this piece of land, and he feels the Board
should decide if this is the best plan for that site. The staff stated concerns about the
steepness of the slopes, but recommended approval. Mr. Dorrier asked the County Planner if
eight lots could be sited on this property. Mr. Tucker said staff review of this proposal
~tat~s that about seven lots could be put on the parcel, assuming the applicant built state
407
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said this application has caused him great concern. This parcel has ~many
good things in its favor. It is located on a road which the Highway Department lists as
tolerable; although there would be times of the day when citizens would disagree with this
assessment. This land can be served by public water. It is in an area designed for growth
in the Comprehensive Plan. It is a natural "infill" which is one item that was discussed
when the Comprehensive Plan was designed. It is better than strip development. Mr. Fisher
said he had just attended a national meeting where the preservation of agricultural land was
discussed. He feels the Board should encourage development in areas that can he served by
existing utilities. The topography of this site appears to be very difficult because usually
the Soil Conservation Service makes no comments until a site becomes extremely difficult.
Looking at the patterns of development in the subdivisions to the north and west and with
most of the surrounding land still being zoned A-i, Mr. Fisher said it occurred to him that
an average density of one dwelling unit to one and one-half acres would be better. If this
proposal were scaled down to 10 units, the gross density would be 1.6 acres per unit. If the
zoning is left as A-l, he feels the property will be developed anyway, and Mr. Fisher said he
feels the RPN designation ~as to be used in some cases to encourage better development than
can be accomplished under zoning by right. Bonus densities have been discussed, and in the
RPN category, the Board has an opportunity to approve same. Mr. Fisher said he would favor a
compromise on both sides, using the R?N category to protect the steep slopes, but with a
density that would permit about 10 dwelling units.
Mr. Henley said in talking about preserving agricultural land, this is the kind of land
that should be developed. ~e felt that to delete two units the Board should have a good
reason. If the Board approves the plan with 12 units and those units cannot be sited on the
property, the problem will have taken care of itself.
Mr. Lindstrom said he shares the Chairman's dilemma. He recently voted in favor of the
Ashcroft RPN because he felt it was a meaningful RPN plan and was a better plan than could
have been accomplished under existing zoning. On this peice of land, he does not feel the
overall number of units is a big concern, but he is concerned as to whether this property
should be developed at all without public sewer. Existing zoning would permit eight units
and although this is a request for only four additional units, it is a 50% increase in density
and half of the lots could not be served by public sewer because the gravity flow would be in
the wrong direction. Mr. Lindstrom said the Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan, if it were
developed to the densities recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, has sufficient room for
growth in the Urban Area. There are other sites where the topography is better and those
sites do not have the potential problems which this site has. Mr. Lindstrom felt that Mr.
Jessup would get a fair amount of money for the lots and the houses built would be comparable
to the ones existing in Montvue and Colthurst Subdivisions, so he has no problem with that
aspect of the question. His problem is with the topography.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were further-comments. There being none, motion was offered
by Mr. Henley to approve ZMA-79-13 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Dr. Iachetta said he could not support the motion. He said he has been "crow-barred"
into voting for a number of RPN's on the theory that the application was batter than the
worse thing the~Board could approve. He thinks that is the wrong principle to use and he has
decided that it is time for him to vote for an RPN based on what is provided in the plan
itself. His main concern with this plan is with the open space (or lack of), and he cannot
support this particular design for that reason.
Mr. Fisher said he cannot support a 50% increase in density on this topography. He also
is concerned about the open space because it is essentially unusable.
There being no further discussion, the motion was defeated by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier and Henley.
NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-79-18. James M. Maupin (Jarman Gap RPN). To rezone 73.4 acres
from A-1 to RPN/RS-1. Property is located on the north side of Route 691 and south of Route
1206 southwest of Crozet. County Tax Map 55, Parcel 65. White Hall District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on July 6 and July 12, 1979.)
Mr. Tucker read the following staff rePort:
Character of the Area: The site is bordered to the west b~ Jarman Gap Estates
and the northeast by Orchard Acres. The area is generally flat with some
steeper areas wihin the designated open space.
Existing'Zoning in the Area: Jarman Gap Estates is zoned RPN/RS-1 and Orchard
Acres is zoned R-2. Other parcels surrounding the site are zoned A-i, Agricul-
tural. 17.4 acres of this site are zoned RS-1.
History: (ZMA-78-18) The Board of Supervisors approved this rezoning of
17.4 acres from A-1 to RS-1 on November 15, 1978. (Foothill Village Prelimi-
nary Plat) The Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for 14 lots on
the RS-1 property on December 19, 1978.
Comprehensive Plan: In the Crozet Community this area is designated low density
residential with recommended densities of one to four dwelling units per acres.
4O8
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
Comparative Impact Statistics:
Dwellings
Population
Vehicle Trips Per Day
School Children
Land Use Data
Number of lots
Total Area
Area in Roads
Estimated Total Lot Area
Estimated Total Open Space
Average Lot Area
Proposed Gross Density
Existing A-1 and RS-1 RPN/RS-1
Approx. 41 47
128.3 145.7
290,0 329.0
23.57 26.79
47 parcels
73.4 acres
6.11 acres
43.15 acres
24.14 acres
40,000 square feet
One dwelling unit/1.56 acres
RPN Proposal: The applicant proposes 47 single-family lots on 73~4 acres to
be developed in three sections. Ail lots are proposed to have access from
private roads from either Route 691 or Route 684. The lots will be served by
public water which will be utilized in accordance with the regulations of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Staff Comment: The 1978 traffic ount on this section of Route 691 is 722
vehicle trips per day and this romte is listed as non-tolerable. Route 684
carries 376 vehicle trips per day and this section is listed as tolerable.
Staff recommends approval of this proposal for the following reasons:
This plan is in compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan
for one to four dwelling units/acre~o
The staff feels that this proposal is comp~a~ble with the existing develop-
ment in the surrounding area.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Approval is for a maximum of 47 lots. Location and acreages of land uses
shall comply with the approved plan. Open space shall be dedicated in
accordance with the number of lots approved in the final subdivision process.
No grading shall occur until final subdivision approval.
Compliance with Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances.
County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Agreements prior to final subdivision
approval to include the use of open space for septic facil±ties and for
private road maintenance agreements.
Health Department approval of two septic field locations on each parcel
prior to final subdivision approval.
Fire Official approval of hydrant locations.
Only those areas where a structure, utilities, road or other improvement
in-a final plan are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land
shall remain in its natural state.
Ail units are to be served by a public water supply system and approved by
the appropriate agencies prior to final subdivision approval.
Compliance with the private road ordinance prior to final subdivision
approval including County Engineer approval of road plans.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances
on Routes 691 and 684, and frontage improvements, prior to final sub-
division approval.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 26, 1979, recommended by
a vote of 5-4 that this application be denied. One reason for the recommendation was that
some members felt the residents of this proposed subdivision might not use the access off of
Route 684 to go into the subdivision, but would possibly go through Orchard Acres to get to
Crozet. Mr. Lindstrom said the other objection was that some members of the Planning Commiss~
did not consider this development to be a true RPN.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, was present. He said this 73.4 acres lies
totally within the Crozet Community. It is surrounded by a subdivision containing smaller
lots than those in.this proposal. Jarman Gap Estates (also an RPN) is nearby and contains 22
lots of which about 50% are developed. On this parcel, there are two lakes and only one area
has steep slopes. The vegetation is mostly mature hardwood trees and there are apple and
peach orchards which the applicant proposes to retain. Evergreen trees will be planted in
some of the open space areas to give a winter separation from some of the public lands.
There is no immediate possibility of having public sewage facilities in the Crozet area.
Soil Conservation Service shows the land to be acceptable for septic fields. Public water is
already in Jarman Gap Estates and there is also water available from Route 684. Concerning
Route 691 which the Highway Department terms non-tolerable, standard deceleration lanes and a
common entrance will be built, along with regrading the shoulder and ditch line along the
entire front of the property. Mr. Evans said the applicant feels these road improvements are
fair.
Mr. Evans said some of the Planning Commission members voted against this proposal
because they did not feel it looked like an RPN. He then explained his interpretation of
the RPN philosophy. He said the applicant was surprised by the vote of the Planning Commissi¢
since the Comprehensive Plan~ calls for development in this area. They have made an effort
to preserve the-maximum amount of open space and~have tried to provide good, usable lots for
every owner.
Mr. Fisher asked the meaning of some black lines shown on the upper left-hand corner of
the RPN Plan. Mr. Evans said this area contains Lots A8, A9, Al0 and Area "X". There is an
existing driveway which comes into an existing residence and barns. If the Board approves
this plan, the applicant would like the option of selling off these three lots a~d Area "X" a~
,n
4O9
July i8, 1979 ~'Regular Night Meeting)
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or
against the petition, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Henley said he had received only one ammment about this request and ~at was one in
favor of the type of housing that Mr. Maupin builds. Mr. Lindstrom felt this RPN plan shows
an efficient use of the land, the plan contains some usuable open space, and the land does
not have problems' with topography.
Mr. Fisher asked what would happen to the open space shown as Area "X" if the lots are
sold s~parately. Mr. St. John said the open space would still be owned by whoever owns it at
the present time. That open space would become a parcel of land, legally, the same as if it
had never been included in this plan, unless the applicant voluntarily puts it into the rest
of the open space when the lots are sold. Mr. Henley suggested adding a statement to one of
the conditions that if Lots A8, A9, and Al0 are sold as three parcels, that the open space in
Area "X" would become a part of the RPN. Mr. Evans said the applicant would agree to such a
condition, or conversely, if Lots A8, A9, and Al0 and Area "X" are sold as one parcel, that
the open space would be put into the RPN if these lots and Area "X" are further subdivided.
Mr. Fisher said if this RPN plan is approved, the homeowners' agreements should require
that the homeowners would maintain the lakes and dams and replace the dams promptly if they
are destroyed for any reason. He suggested adding to Condition No 4. the following words:
"County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Agreements prior to final subdivision approval to
include the use of open space, septic facilities and for dam maintenance and private road
maintenance agreements. The Homeowners' Agreements shall require that all homeowners be
responsible for routine dam and lake maintenance and for prompt replacement if the dam or
dams are destroyed." Dr. Iachetta did not feel the homeowners should be required to rebuild
a dam since they may want to use that area for another purpose. Mr. St. John said if the
homeowners agree to maintain the dam and it washes out and destroys property downstream, then
there is a question of whether it is the responsibility of the purchasers in the R?N or the
original developer to repair that damage, or the County's responsibility through approval of
the RPN plan. Mr. St. John said this is a new concept through a recent court case and it is
now possible that the County could be responsible for this kind of damage. Mr. Henley said
these are small lakes and he did not believe they would damage anything if they did wash out.
Mr. Fisher said he assumes these lakes act as a sediment catch basin for the lands above
them, and if one did wash away, there would be a greater flow of water on to the properties
downstream. Mr. Henley said these lakes were originally build to be used to irrigate orchards
and they are not very big. Mr. Henley said a bigger problem might arise from children living
in the surrounding areas. The homeowners might want to drain the lakes at some time in the
future and use that area for another purpose. Mr. St. John did not feel that a prospective
buyer would want to buy in where there is an open-ended liability to keep replacing a dam.
Mr. Fisher reiterated that the downstream property owners should be protected.
Dr. Iachetta suggested as a Condition No. 11: "Homeowners' Agreements shall contain a
provision requiring that the land now in and around ponds be protected against erosion should
the dams fail and not be replaced."
Mr. Lindstrom then suggested as a Condition No. 12: "Lots A8, A9 and Al0, and A~aa"X"
may be sold as one parcel, with Area "X" to remain in open space. If at any time, Lots
A8, A9 or Al0 become subject to separate ownership, Area "X" should become part. and parcel of
the total open space provided the in the RPN and subject to all provisions of the Homeowners'
Agreements."
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve ZMA-79-18,
~th~a~nd~tions 1 - 10 recommended by the staff and Conditions No. 11 and 12 as s~t out
above. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-79-31. A. L. Kyser, Sr. To locate retail stores and shops on
one acre zoned R-3. Property is located on Route 631 approximately 1/4 mile east of the
intersection of Routes 631 and 781. County Tax Map 75, Parcel 52L(1). Scottsville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 6 and July 12, 1979.)
Mr. Tucker noted receipt of the following letter:
"July 17, 1979
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Director of Planning
Albemarle County
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Dear Bob:
Mr. Keyser, Sr. called on July 15, 1979 at 4 p.m. and retained me to review
the merits of his going forward with his special use permit to the Board of
Supervisors. I understand the Planning Commission unanimously recommended
denial.
As I am not at all familiar with the site and his desires nor the merits of
his application, I respectfully request deferral on the hearing to a late~
August or early September meeting date of the Board. Anytime after August 25,
1979, will be appreciated.
Respectfully,
410
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked if anyone was present to speak about this application. There being no
one present, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to defer the public
hearing on this petition until September 19, 1979. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Not Docketed: Mr. Henley said he would like to request that the Board reconsider the
vote on ZMA-79-13. When he made the original motion for approval, he thought someone would
come up with a compromise before the vote was taken. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr.
Fisher said there were many matters yet to be heard on the published agenda. Mr. Lindstrom
said he does not expect to change his vote on this petition, but if Mr. Henley wants to
reconsider the vote, he is willing to do so, but not tonight because those in opposition have
left the meeting. Mr. Dorrier said the only reason to reconsider would be if the RPN carried
a lesser density. Dr. Iachetta asked if the applicant made a change to a lesser density, if
that would not be considered a "substantial change" so the applicant could reapply through
the regular hearing process. Mr. St. John said yes. Dr. Iachetta said he would.prefer that
the applicant reapply if he wishes to make a change. Mr. Fisher said he will not vote to
reconsider because he feels the applicant had a full and open hearing and those in opposition
have left the meeting feeling that a final decision was made. Mr. Dorrier said although he
seconded the motion, he also feels it would be better if the applicant reapplied, and he will
not support the motion. Mr. Fisher then called for a vote on the motion which failed by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Henley.
NAYS': Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-79-32. Virginia Television Co., Inc. Petition for a TV tower
site with small aperture receiving terminal on 6.~ acres zoned A-1. Property located on the
west side of Route 743 approximately 1/2 mile south of the intersection of Routes 676 and
743. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 16A. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised tin the Daily Progres~
on July 6 and July 12, 1979.)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report:
Request: Amend SP-400 to permit additional receiving antenna.
Acreage: 0.63 acres
Zoning: A-1 Agriculture
Location: Property described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 16A is located about 500
feet west of Route 743 about 1/4 mile north of its intersection with Route 635.
Character of the Area: Properties in the area are currently undeveloped as
zoned. A television receiving antenna and equipment shed are located on this
property.
Staff Comment: This request is to permit satellite receiving antenna to augment
the existing receiver on the site. The new antenna would be a 15-foot dish type,
ground-mounted receiver about 15 - 20 feet in height. Since the receiver would be
tied into the same equipment, no increased maintenance traffic is predicted. Staff
recommends approval subject to Building Official approval."
Mr. Tucker said on July 10, 1979, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended
approval with one condition: "Building Official approval."
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be appropriate to put a height limitation on this
permit. Mr. Tucker said he could see no problem, but the Board should ask the applicant what
height that should be, Mr. Howell Bowen was present for Virginia Television. He said he
would prefer to have this antenna on the ground but since that is impossible because of the
angle, the dish type antenna is about 20 fe%t high, but will be at the foot of a 120 foot
tower and will be placed at about a 17° angle.
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for against this petition,
the Public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a 25-foot limitation would be correct.
Dr. Iachetta said a 15-foot dish antenna placed at a 30° angle would only be seven and one-
half feet high, so he felt a 25-foot limitation would be fair. Mr. Lindstrom then offered
motion to approve SP-79-32 subject to the following conditions:
Building Official approval.
Height of structure shall be limited to no more than 25-feet from
ground level.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr.~Iachetta and carried by the following recorded
vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-79-33. Roadway Express. To locate a truck terminal on Broadway
Street (Carlton Extension), and is approximately 1/2 mile north of 1-64 East. North side of
property abuts the C and 0 Railroad. County Tax Map 77, Parcel 40F (part thereof). Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 6 and July 12, 1979.)
-!
July 18, 1979 ~Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report~
Request.: Truck Terminal
Acreage: 1.18 acres
Zoning.: M-1 Limited Industrial
Location: Property described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 40F, part thereof,~is
located on the northeast side of Broadway Street adjacent to Cardinal Recycling.
Character of the Area: Properties in the area are zoned for industrial
development. Cardinal Recycling is the only other industrial use in the area
at this time.
Staff Comment: Roadway Express obtained approval of a special permit to
locate a terminal on the Cardinal Recycling site in 1977 as a market-test
terminal. In this application, a permanent facility is requested. As in
the previous application, staff finds this request appropriate to the area
and recommends approval of this petition. (Note: A matter of concern is
the current status of Broadway Street. When constructed some years ago, the
Highway Department approved the developer's plans except for pavement. The
Highway Department will not accept the road until it is constructed to its
standards. In the interim, the road remains in "limbo". The staff is aware
of no provisions for maintenance.)
Mr. Tucker said at the Planning Commission meeting it was noted that the road will be
brought up to standard and taken into the Secondary System. The Planning Commi~ssion told the
applicant that at the time a site plan is submitted, that such acceptance will be required
before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of
July 10, 1979, by a vote of 8/1 recommended approval of this request with no conditions.
Mr. George McCallum was present to represent the applicant. He said Roadway Express has
been operating under a special use permit for almost two years and have found the results of
this test facility good. They now wish to locate a permanent facility on thi~ property.
There is a contractual basis for having the road brought up to standards.
The public hearing was opened.
the public hearing was closed.
With no one present to speak for or against this petition
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it should be a condition of this permit that a certificate of
occupancy would not be issued until the road is brought to standards and accepted. Mr.
Tucker said the Planning Commission did not place this condition on the permit, but put the
applicant on notice that this will be required during site plan approval. Mr. McCallum said
the applicant would object to such a condition on the special permit because it might come to
pass that the building would be ready for occupancy, the road ready for acceptance, but yet
all of the paper work was not completed. In such a case, the Planning Commission could waive
such a condition placed on a site plan, but if the condition were placed on the special permit
the applicant would have to come back through the public hearing process to have the condition
changed.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-79-33 as recommended by the
Planning Commission without any conditions. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-79-19. John Bosely and S. Leigh Wynne. To rezone 1.441 acres
from A~i to B-1. Property is located in Mechunk Acres on the .east side of Route 616 just
south of 1-64. County Tax Map 94A, Parcel A(1). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on July 6 and July 12, 1979.)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report:
Character of the Area: This property is located in Mechunk Acres subdivision
which is undeveloped and wooded. The surrounding area is rural in nature with
sparse residential development.
Comprehensive Plan: This area is termed as "other rural land" in-the Comprehensive
Plan indicating no critical environmental factors requiring special attention.
Staff Comment: Currently, over 24 acres of vacant B-1 zoning exists in three
quadrants of this interchange. Staff recommends denial for the following reasons:
Staff opinion is that this interchange is commercially overzoned.
While the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges commercial development
pressures of interstate highway interchanges, staff opinion i~ that
existing zoning is inconsistent with recommended scale of development
(vacant B-1 zoning is equivalent to from two to five neighborhood
shopping centers). ~
Since only one use has been proposed for the existing commercial
zoning in this area, staff cannot determine any immediate demand for~
increased B-1 zoning.
Staff would note one aspect favorable to this application. In 1976, the Board
apPrOved the rezoning ~o B-1 of four lots in Mec~Unk Acres which are adjacent
to this property.
Mr. Tucker said at the July 10, 1979, meeting of the Planning Commission, by a vote of
6/3, the Commission recommended approval of this'petition.
4!2
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
an auction house. None is really desirable for commercial sites.
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against this petition
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said he has always voted against B-1 zoning requests at this interchange.
Basad on the staff's recommendation against such requests because of the amount of existing B-
i, and he cannot support this request for that reason. Mr. Lindstrom said he also cannot
support this request and hopes that when the new zoning map is adopted the Board will not
perpetuate the B-1 zoning in this area.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to deny ZMA-79-19. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom. Mr. St. John advised the Board to consider whether this parcel can be used for
anything. Mr. Dorrier agreed that the land should be usable for some purpose.
Mr. Bosely said he has a contract for purchase with Mr. Dewey Hicks for a country store.
Mr. Bosely said he bought the land from Exxon Corp as being B-1 land and he contracted to sell
the land to Mr. Hicks based on its being B-1. Now he finds that the land is actually zoned
A-i, although the County Real Estate Office carried it for some years as B-1.
Mr. Tucker said a country store is a use by special permit in the A-1 zone, but Mr.
Bosely would have to reapply. The acreage of this parcel is 1.441 and the minimum acreage
required in A-1 is two acres, but he could meeti~e 60,000 square foot area requirement for a
septic field and well on a parcel, and since this is a non-conforming lot of record, he should
have no problems with area requirements.
Mr. Dorrier asked why the four lots were rezoned in 1976. Mr. Tucker said there was a
group from Richmond who said they wanted a neighborhood shopping center and they were also
involved with the development of Mechunk Acres. Mr. Dorrier said this parcel is next to other
B-1 areas, and he cannot image what use the land could be put to other than B-1. Since the
Board did rezone the four other parcels, which are not being used, it seems unfair to this
applicant to deny his request because there is too much B-1 zoning at this interchange. Mr.
Henley could not see anything wrong with having B-1 zoning at an interchange. Dr. Iachetta
said the fact that the other parcels have not been used in four years would indicate that they
were not needed.
Mr. Bosely said he realizes that Keswick does not want any growth in the Keswick area,
but, He feels this corner is a logical area for Keswick's growth and did not think the residen
in Keswick would mind growth coming their way from Boyd's Tavern. Wood's Edge Subdivision is
in this area. There is also water in the area and many pieces of beautiful vacant agricul-
tural land.
Mr. Dorrier said he could see no reason to deny such a small use in business acreage. He
said the use fits in and he did not see other than business use for the property.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS: Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Henley.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA-79-20. Cedar Hill Homes, Ltd. To rezone 4.85 acres from A-1
to M-1. Property is located on the northwest side of Route 29 north approximately 1/2 mile
north of Airport Acres. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 22I (part thereof). Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 6 and July 12, 1979.)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report:
Request: M-t Limited Industrial
Acreage: 4.85 acres of a 25.98 acre parcel
Existing Zoning: A-1 Agricultural
LoOation: Property described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 22I, part thereof, is located
on the west side of Route 29 North, north and adjacent to the Nor%hside Industrial
Park.
Character of the Area: Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park is located on the rear of
this property. The property is adjacent to the Airport Industrial Park property
and Northside Industrial Park.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is on the fringe of the Hollymead Community in
the Comprehensive Plan. The land use plan recommends commercial and industrial
zoning in the vicinity of this property. This site ranks as a priority #1 through
employment of the priority factors for potential industrial land from the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: The applicant has requested this rezoning in order to relocate
a mobile home sales business from its current location on Pantops. Staff finds
this request in compliance with the locational recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan, consistent with zoning in the area, compatible to the existing use of the
property, and the proposed use is non-detrimental. Staff recommends approval.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 10, 1979, by unanimous
vote, recommended approval of this request.
Mr. Ben Dick was present to represent the applicant. He said the Crenshaw's haverbeen ir
business for a long time, but have had to move about six times. In 1970, Dr. Hurt obtained a
special permit for this use at Free Bridge and the Crenshaw's have been operating under that
permit. Dr. Hurt has now sold that land and the Crenshaw's were given 30 days in which to
move their operation. M-1 zoning is the only zone in which both mobile home sales and service
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom inquired about policy on frontage improvements on Route 29 North since the
Board adopted the Highway Department's Cross-Over Policy. Mr. Tucker said this section of
Route 29 is listed for controlled access. Where a cross-over is permitted, the next cross-
over will be no closer than 1500 feet.
Mr. Fisher said when he first saw this application, he was concerned about perpetuating
strip zoning along Route 29. Also, there is no guarantee of how the M-! land might be used.
Dr. Iachetta said he was more concerned about leaving a piece of A-1 land in the middle of M-1
zoning. Mr. Crenshaw said this was done so that their taxes would not increase, thereby
causing them to increase rents.
Mr. Dorrier did not feel this request will cause problems. This land'is in an area
which already has industrial zoning and this site is a priority #1 according to Comprehensive
Plan factors. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to approve ZMA-79-20. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Iachetta who said he could not visualize any different future use for this property
and the application seems to be compatible with the surrounding area.
Mr. Fisher said he is not comfortable with this proposal, but will vote for same because
it is a good "infill" and this parcel is surrounded by M-i, M-2 and B-1 zoning and he assumes
the land will be used primarily for some form of industrial use in the future. Mr. Lindstrom
said he will also support the motion, but is concerned about the number of access points on
Route 29 North. Roll was called on the motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 14. Contract: JAUNT and County of Albemarle.
Mr. Agnor said JAUNT has been advised that under new State law, in order for them to be
able to serve citizens other than the handicapped, elderly, or persons under contract with
social service agenc.ies, that JAUNT will have to contract with the local jurisdictions in
which they operate to provide a transportation system that will be available to anyone willing
to pay for the service. Mr. Agnor then presented to the Board a draft contract to overcome
this difficulty. Essentially, the contract sets out several services already being provided
such as the fixed routes between CrozetZCharlottesville and Scottsville/Charlottesville, and
a demand responsive system in the Esmont/North Garden area. A paragraph was added to the
contract saying: "Other transportation services as mutually agreed upon by JAUNT and the
County." Mr. Agnor said this is an expedient contract drafted to overcome a difficulty that
has arisen from the drafting of legislation by the last session of the General Assembly. Mr.
Agnor said the County Attorney has reviewed and concurs in the form of the contract as written
He then recommended that the Board approve this contract so JAUNT will not be charged with a
violation of the law by operating a transportation system that will provide transportation to
people in areas of the County on the basis that they pay their own way.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this contract settles the question of what fee will be charged to
passengers. Mr. Agnor said JAUNT is using their current fee in this contract-, but this is
not the fee that will apply to the proposed Route 29 North service. Mr. Fisher noted that
the word "who" should be inserted before the word "represents" in Section 5(a), line 4, and
in Section 7, line 2, the word "or" should be inserted between the words "assigned" and
"transferred."
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the following contract:
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this first day of July, 1979, between
Jefferson Area United Transportation, Inc. (JAUNT), and the County of
Albemarle, Virginia (the County).
1. TERM OF CONTRACT: This agreement shall cover the period from
July 1, 1979 through June 30, 1980, inclusive.
2. SERVICES PROVIDED: JAUNT shall provide fixed-route and demand-
responsive transportation to residents of Albemarle County, including but
not limited to the following:
de
Fixed-route service between Crozet and Charlottesville.
Fixed,route service between Scottsville and Charlottesville.
Demand-responsive transportation in the Esmont and North
Garden area, coordinated with JAUNT'S contract services
for human service agencies in that area.
Other transportation services as mutually agreed upon by
JAUNT and the County.
3. FEE FOR SERVICES:
For the above described services, JAUNT will charge its
passengers according to its rate schedule in effect on
July 1, 1979. A copy of this rate schedule is attached
and hereby made a part of this agreement.
The County hereby agrees to appropriate $6,000 for the
support of JAUNT'S operating deficit from services provided
in the County.
4. SCHEDULING: Transportation may be scheduled in advance, through
the JAUNT Dispatcher's office, or an individual may flag down the JAUNT bus
en route. Scheduled transportation covered under this contract may be
cancelled at any time up to the point where the passenger is in the JAUNT
vehicle and the vehicle has begun to move, at noJ~'charge to the passenger.
Once the vehicle has begun to move, the passenger is liable for a minimum
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
vote:
5. SPECIFICATIONS OF PERFORMANCE:
JAUNT shall provide the above-described services in a timely
and courteous manner, in clean, safely maintained vehicles.
JAUNT shall not be obligated to provide transportation
services during hazardous driving conditions, or to carry
any passenger who represents a threat to the safety or comfort
of the other occupants of the vehicle. Requests for service
outside the hours of 6:30 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. of the regular
work week or on State and/or National holidays shall be
honored at the discretion of JAUNT.
The County shall assist in making these services known in
Albemarle County.
6. RENEWAL OF CONTRACT:
agreement of both parties.
This contract may be renewed by the written
7. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT: This contract may be modified by the
written approval of both parties. This contract may not be assigned or
transferred by either party without prior consent of the other.
8. TERMINATION: This contract and its obligations may be terminated
by either party on sixty days written notice.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
None.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 15. Agreement: Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau. Mr. Agnor presented
for the Board's review a draft agreement which was drawn first by a committee, amended by
suggestions from Mr. Fisher, and then further amended by City Council. The agreement dis-
cussed read as follows:
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of July, , 1979,
by and among ~he CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, a municipal corporation of the
Commonwealth of Virginia (the "City" herein), the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a
political subdivision in the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "County" herein),
and the CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (the
"Chamber" herein), for the purpose of operating the THOMAS JEFFERSON VISITORS
BUREAU (the "Bureau" herein).
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the following mutual covenants,
promises and conditions, the City, County and Chamber (the "parties" herein),
agree as follows:
1) The parties shall operate the Bureau to enhance tourism within the
Charlottesville and Albemarle area. The Bureau shall be an unincorporated
association of the parties under the administrative control of a Managing
Committee composed of the County Executive, the City Manager and the Chamber
Executive Vice President.
2)' Each of the parties shall appoint three members of a Commission
which shall: (a) establish policy~ ~&~ee~&e~e ~e~ ~e ~ea~ a~ a~&~e ~e
M~a~&~ ~e~m.~t&~ee ~e~a~ ~Ae ~e~±e e~e~a~Ae~ &~e~A~ ~e a~&ee
wASh ~ee~ee~ ~e ,~¢ ~ ~e~&~ e~ ¢~e~ (b) develop, programs,
(c) deve'Zop t'he b'ud'ge't,''and ('d)'adVise the ~anaging Committee. (NOTE:
This change was made. by City Council.) '"
3) The Managing Committee will direct the activities of the Director
of the Bureau and, with the advice of the Commission, will oversee the
Bureau's operation including staff and budgeting of funds.
4) The staff of the Bureau shall be employees of the Chamber, which
shall be reimbursed by the Bureau for the full costs of their salaries and
fringe benefits.
5) The Bureau shall commence operations upon the appointment, by the
Managing Committee of a Director for the Bureau. Commencing on the first
of the month within which the Director is appointed and for the e~eeee~&~
~we&~e (&~ me~$~e remainder of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980, funding
will be provided on a pro rata basis of the remaining year as follows:
$20,000 by the City and ~10,000 each by the County and the Chamber (the
Chamber's share may be made up from sources other than the Chamber such as
the Retail Merchants Association, the Charlottesville and Albemarle Restaurant
Association, the Charlottesville and Albemarle Restaurant Association, private
business Sponsors of the Bureau, Publications, etc.) Funding for subsequent
periods shall be renegotiated by March 1 of each year commending in 1980.
(NOTE: This change suggested by Mr. Fisher.)
6) The location o~the Bureau's operations will be left to the
Managing..Committee. ~ ~e~e&~e~ ~e ~ee~e~ ma~ ~&~a~e~ ~e ee~a~e~
&~ The 'f%rst O'~o2ce 'for 't'he 'ZOc'at'i'on of 'the B~'~eau is the Bicentennial Center
adjacent to Piedmont ~irginia Community ~'ollege. (NOTE: This change was
made by City Council.)
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night ~eeting)
7) The Managing Committee shall elect its own chair~e~man annually~
shall meet monthly and shall meet with the Commission at least quarterly. The
Commission shall elect its own chair~e~,e~man annually, shall perform a semi-
annual evaluation of the Bureau using criteria such as are annexed hereto and
shall report their findings to the parties of this agreement. The Commission
shall meet nine times a year. (NOTE: Change in first and third lines was
suggested by Mr. Fisher and further amended by City Council. Last sentence
was added by City Council.)
8) Financial reports of the Bureau's operations will be delivered to
the Managing Committee and the Commission monthly. On an annual basis the
Managing Committee shall cause audited financial statements and an annual
report to be presented to the parties and the Commission.
9) The agreement shall be for a three year period commencing July 1,
1979. Each party shall have an option to terminate its participation in the
agreement by giving notice of such on or before March 1 of any given year
commencing in 1980, provided that without regard to such termination the
financial committments set forth in paragraph 5 above shall continu? through
the balance of the period set forth therein.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING the effectiveness of the Thomas Jefferson Visitors
Bureau (TJVB) on a continuing basis during a three year trial period.
3,
4.
5.
6.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Willingness of business community to increase their percentage share of
the total operating budget.
City/County receipts of the Transient Lodging Tax, indexed to inflation.
(NOTE: Added by Mr. Fisher.)
Occupancy rates in area motels and hotels.
Number of visitors at area attractions (e.g. Monticello, Bicentennial
Center, Chamber of Commerce, Ash Lawn, etc.)
Number of travel writers to visit community.
Editorial space in print and the related cost for space if it had been
purchased. (Net benefit of the space v. the cost of hosting travel
writers and related costs.)
Tourist brochures distributed. Bulk and individually.
Posters and other brochures.
Advertising coupon for travel ads. Number returned for information.
Survey (six months later) of coupons to determine money spent in community,
duration of stay, etc.
Number of tour buses to visit attractions.
Number of tour buses and tour groups booked through and because of
efforts of TJVB.
Number of people to attend due to tours and dollar impact on the community.
Number of bookings and people who see films and audio visuals on the
community during year.
Receipts of sales tax in retail and restaurants.
(NOTE: In general, the above listed criteria must be taken into account with
the state'of th~ economy and tourism in general. Such as "Is toUrism on the
State level on ~he incline or decline?" and "How is this area v. other areas
of the State, R~gion or Nation.")
Mr. Agnor said
rewOrded. It is the
logistically be conn~
employees of either
benefits which are r~
to establish a retir~
Lindstrom suggested
"The staff of t
for payroll rec¢
the Bureau for
Mr. Agnor said
that the previous wo
Paragraph 6 was chan
LO changes were suggested for Paragraph 4, but he feels it should be
intent of this paragraph that the employees of the Tourism Bureau will
.cted to the Chamber, but not be full employees of the Chamber. As
he City or the County, these persons would be eligible for all fringe
~quired to be available to public employees. The Committee did not want
~ment plan, etc. -during the first trial year of this agreement. Mr.
~hanging Paragraph 4 to read:
Le Bureau shall be considered employees of the Chamber solely
,rds and fringe benefit purposes, which shall be reimbursed by
he full costs of their salaries and fringe benefits."
he change in Paragraph 5 was recommended by Mr. FiSher who was concerned
'ding might put the Bureau on a cycle other than a fiscaI year cycle.
led by City Council and this change was previously recommended by this
Mr. Agnor said the County Attorney has suggested adding Paragraph 10 to read:
Board.
"The County's ob
by the Board of
Dr. Iachetta sug
shall meet at least n
ligations hereunder are subject to annual appropriation
Supervisors of the County."
gested changing the last sentenceoin Paragraph 7 to read:
ine times yearly."
"The Commissio:
Mr. Lindstrom said the change in Paragraph 2 shifts responsibilities. Dr-. Iachetta said
it was the intent of the committee who drafted this agreement that the Managing Committee
would implement a policy drafted by someone else. Although he was satisfied with the language
as originally written, Dr. Iachetta said he was willing to approve the language suggested by
City Council. He then offered motion to approve the agreement as amended and set out above,
with further amendment to Paragraphs 4 and 7, and the addition of Paragraph 10. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Iachetta and Lindstrom. (Mr. Lindstrom said he has not been in favor
of th±s request from the beginning, but because of the transient lodging tax he feels
the County has an obligation.)
NAYS:
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley. (Mr. Henley said he would not support the motion because
he feels this function can be handled by the private sector.)
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 16. Resolution: Regional Library. Mr. Agnor presented the draft of
the resolution requested by the Board on July 11, 1979 concern±ng a new State requirement
that 20% of the Library's operating budget be devoted to book purchases. Dr. Iachetta added
the phrase "or suspend the mandated Conditions" at the end of the resolution. He then
offered motion to adopt the resolution as follows:
WHEREAS regulations adopted by the State Library Board require that
local and regional libraries expend 20% of their funds for the acquisition
of books; and
WHEREAS the Commonwealth of Virginia has never authorized full funding
for public libraries under State aid programs, resulting in local governments
annually increasing their proportionate share of public library funding needs,
NOWi~i THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Super-
visors that the Virginia General Assembly be implored to adequately fund the
public libraries of this Commonwealth, particularly mandated requirements as
adopted by the State Library Board, or suspend the mandated conditions.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Roudsbush.
Agenda Item No. 17. Report: Hours of Operation-Gasoline Retailers. Mr. Agnor noted
receipt of the following letter: (See minutes of July 11, 1979, for request.)
"12 July 1979
Mr. Charles Kidder
Energy Division
State Office of Emergency and Energy Services
310 Turner Road
Richmond, Virginia 23225
Dear Charlie:
As per Governor Dalton's Executive Order Number Twenty-Four (79),
representatives of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County met
with the local Gasoline Retailers' Association on Wednesday, July llth,
to discuss the development of a plan to implement staggered hours of
operation.
Because local retailers, through their voluntary efforts, have provided
adequate week and weekend coverage and therefore have minimized local
supply problems, it was agreed to continue with this approach and not
institute a staggered hours plan. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber
of Commerce and the Western Virginia Visitors Center will continue to
monitor local station operating hours each Friday in order to update
the Chamber's Travel Assistance information hotline and will notify this
office of any operating hour and/or availability problems. We will
continue to work with local retailers and your office to resolve special
supply problems.
Given the relatively good situation locally, we plan at this time to make
no changes in the present system. Rather, government officials are encour-
aging dealers to continue with voluntary scheduling efforts.
If you have any questions or need further information, please don't
hesitate to call me.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Linda Peacock
Emergency Services Coordinator"
Mr. Fisher said it has been agreed that the County will take no action (one of the
options established in the Governor's Order) on this request.
Agenda Item No. 18. Review Bids on Renovation of Post Office Building. Mr. Agnor said
five bids were received on the Post Office Renovation. The two low bidders are within seven-
tenths of one percent of each other on the base bid. The spread between the base bids and
all the alternates was less than four percent. Mr. Agnor said when the base bids are this
July 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
417
close, it is a good bid. The Library Building Committee met last week to go over these bids
and they now request that the City and County consider for acceptance the base bid with
Alternates 1, 4 and 8. Alternate No. 1 is a mezzanine in the middle of the lobby which will
give the library an open feeling. Alternate No. 4 is a Smoke alarm system. Alternate No. 8
is storm s~sh glazing for energy conservation. Mr. Agnor said Mayor Brunton, the City
Manager, Mr. Fisher and himself met and discussed the Library Building Committee's recommendat
City Council has taken action to request that the low bidder review his base bid and the
three listed alternates with the architect to determine if there are any potential savings on
types of materials, or construction items that are special made rather than being stock
items. This information will be ready for this Board's final review before the end of July.
July 31 has been set as a deadline for award of a bid by one of the Library's private bene-
factors. Mr. Fisher suggested meeting on July 30 at 4:00 P.M. in the County Executive's
Conference Room to take action on this request. The other Board members were in agreement.
Agenda Item No. 19. Appointment: County Attorney and Deputies. Mr. Agnor noted that
the terms of Mr. St. John, Mr. Payne and Mr. Bowling had expired on June 30th. Motion was ~
then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to reappoint Mr. George R. St. John as County Attorney, Mr.
Frederick W. Payne as Deputy County Attorney, and Mr. James M. Bowling, IV, as Deputy County
Attorney, retroactive to July 1, 1979, for a one-year term ending June 30, 1980. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted response from the School Board in regard to hiring
practices of minorities.
Mr. Fisher said at the National Association of Counties' Annual Meeting in Kansas City,
President Carter spoke and was warmly received. The President wants help from localities in
the conservation of energy and suggested that local energy commissions be appointed. These
commissions should be comprised of citzens who would review public uses of energy, trans-
portation uses, and then make recommendations to the Government, businesses, industries, and
c~tizens on this problem. Mr. Fisher said the Board might discuss this in more detail at the
August meeting. Mr. Dorrier said the Board members are having enough trouble finding _
interested citizens to serve on existing commissions without creating another one.
Agenda Item No. 20. At 12:58 A.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn this
meeting until July 30, 1979, at 4:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
.On o