HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-17February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
598
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on February 17, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs.
Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter
Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney (arrived at 8:30 P.M.); and Mr. John T. P. Home,
Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:31 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept Items 4.1 through 4.3 as information and to
approve Item 4.4 as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. COoke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 4.1. News Release from the National Park Service on Shenandoah
National Park Gypsy Moth Management Actions for 1988; received as information.
"Gypsy moth populations in Shenandoah National Park are expected to
be at a level that management actions will be needed to control these
exotic pests in some of the park~s visitor use areas. Acting Park
Superintendent Gerald W. Tays states that, 'the National Park Service
finds it necessary to exercise the full ~range of control techniques
this year in order to protect these areas from severe impacts.
~ S
Extremely high gypsy moth larva ~opulat~on are expected this spring
near the Piney River Ranger Station, in~i~the Skyland Lodge Area,
sections of the Big Meadows Campground,~'ithe South River Picnic Area,
and along some sections of the Skyline Drive in the North District.
These areas must be treated in o~der to ikeep them open for public use
and to protect area resources from highi!levels of tree mortality.'
The Park's first Gypsy Moth Integrated ~est Management (IPM) Plan was
approved in 1984. Since then, s~veral IPM strategies have been used
to deal with the presence of thi~ pest.'~i This year, according to
Acting Superintendent Tays, the ~erial ~Pplication of biological and
chemical pesticides is proposed to be included in the control pro-
gram. ~
The Park's proposed gypsy moth annual management activity program
contains the following actions.
(1) Protection of Foliase and R~lated Resources: The following
areas designated as special value areas in the Park's gypsy moth IPM
plan are proposed to be treated as follOWs: DICKEY RIDGE VISITOR
CENTER AND PICNIC AREA - 10 acres of ground treatment with biological
methods; SKYLINE DRIVE - a 200-~oot wide. swath on each sideof the
Drive over an estimated ten miles of roadway for a total of approxi-
mately 500 acres. Because the ~reatment~iband is so narrow and will
be sub3ected to blow-~n of larva from nearby areas, mt wmll be
necessary to treat this roadsid~ band wiih Dimilin in order to obtain
needed foliage protection; SKYLAND LODGE!AREA - 124 acres will be
treated with Bacillus thurinsie~sis (Bt)i BIG MEADOWS CAMPGROUND - 46
599
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
acres with Bt; SOUTH RIVER PICNIC AREA - 43 acres with Bt. Total
aerial treatment with both pesticides combined equals 723 acres.
(2) Reduction of Artificial Spread: The allowable length of stay in
campgrounds may be reduced from 14 days to 2 days during critical
time-periods to reduce the risk of gypsy moth life stages being
carried by campers to uninfested areas.
Campers will be required to inspect their equipment and vehicles
prior to departure. All gypsy moth egg masses located will be
removed.
(3) Population Monitoring: Gypsy moth population levels will be
monitored each year. This information will be used to evaluate
potential resource impacts and to determine what control actions will
be needed.
(4) Habitat Management: Whenever possible, the developed zones in
the Park will be managed to reduce the preference of these areas as
gypsy moth habitat. This may include the reduction of the total
number of trees, their distribution in these zones, or the removal of
preferred food trees and subsequent replacement withiltree species
that caterpillars will not feed on. The overall objective will be to
reduce the likelihood of gypsy moth larva populations reaching such
high numbers in the future, i
The Park staff has also developed long-term researchilprojects to gain
a better understanding of this forest pest. In addition to research,
information and educational materials will be provided to Park
visitors and local residents. Park interpreters will also include
pertinent information about gypsy moths and their impacts on the Park
in evening campfire Programs and other appropriate Park activities.
In accordance with the National, Environmental PolicY: Act (EPA), the
public is invited to comment on the Park's gypsy moth management
proposals. Written comments should be sent to: Superintendent,
Shenandoah National Park, Route 4, Box 348, LUray, VA· 22835. Letters
must be received in the Park prior to March 4, in or'er to be consid-
ered in the decision-making process."
Item No. 4.2. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,~. dated February 11,
1988, re: County/City Revenue Sharing FY 88-89; was received as information.
"The Revenue Sharing Agreement requires that the ann~al amount be
calculated each year in January for payment the following January,
and that the amount be agreed upon by this office an~~ the City
Manager. For your information, the payment for next ~ear would be
$2,513,521 except for the cap in the formula, which l~mits the
payment next year at $2,368,027, an increase of $90,0~4 over FY
87-88, or a 3.96 percent increase. ~
The cap in the formula limits the payment to one tenth of one percent
of the taxable real estate base. That percentage translates to 10
cents per $100 of the assessed value of taxable real ~state, which is
the 10 cents added to the County tax rate to fund the~agree~nent. The
factors used in the formula are two years old (1986 f~ctors), there-
fore the Real Estate Tax Base cap is the 1986 assessment base.
Attached is a history of the payments and the caps since the agree-
ment's inception.
February 1~¥ 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
600
REVENUE SHARING
Increase Over
Fiscal Calculated Amount of Previous Year
Year Payment Cap Pa.%anent $ %
82-83 $1,293,552 Did not apply $1,293,552 -
83-84 $1,664,067 $1,530,991 $1,530,991 +$237,439 +18.36
84-85 $1,635,984 $1,579,753 $1,579,753 +$ 48,762 + 3.18
85-86 $1,909,389 $1,875,179 $1,875,179 +$295,426 +18.70
86-87 $1,942,509 $1,956,554 $1,942,509 +$ 67,330 + 3.59
87-88 $2,417,318 $2,277,953 $2,277,953 +$335,444 +17.27
88-89 $2,513,521 $2,368,027 $2,368,027 +$ 90,074 + 3.96"
Item No. 4.3. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for February 2,
1988, was received as information.
Item No. 4.4. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance,
Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of January,
1988 were approved as presented, by the votelshown above.
Agenda Item No. 5. Leaf Burning Ban - jefferson Village (deferred from
January 20, 1988). i
The Chairman asked if anyone from the pqblmc was present concerning this
item; there was no response. Mr. Bowie saidiat the January 20 meeting there
was some misunderstanding on the part of thelapplicants as to what would
happen to the leaves if they were not burned. When the applicants found out
that the leaves would be their responsibility, they asked for more time to
think about the request. Seeing that no one is present, he would assume that
the applicants are withdrawing the petition, but he suggests deferring the
item to later in the meeting. There was no further discussion at this time.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-87-16. Seville Associates. Rezone approximately
1.56 acres from RA, Rural Areas, to HC, Highway Commercial. Property located
in southeast quadrant of intersection of Route 250 East and Interstate 64.
Tax Map 78, Parcels 34 and 60A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on February 2 and February 9, 1988.)i
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-87-94. Seville Associates. Allow above grade
parking in conjunction with conventional facility adjacent to existing Quality
Inn Motel. Property is zoned HC and is located in southeast quadrant of
intersection of Route 250 East and Interstatel 64. Tax Map 78, Parcels 60 and
60A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and
February 9, 1988.)
Mr. Home presented the following joint ~taff reports (portion of origi-
nal staff report dated December 15, 1987, and addendum report dated January 26
1988, respectively) and letter (dated December 15, 1987):
"Petition: Seville Associates petitions~the Board of Supervisors to
rezone 1.47 acres from RA, Rural Areas to HC, Highway Commercial.
Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 34 and 60A, is located in
the southeast quadrant of the 1-64/Routei250 East interchange in the
Rivanna Magisterial District.
601
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Petition: Seville Associates petitions the Board of Supervisors to
issue a special use permit for a PARKING STRUCTURE (24.2.2.12) on
0.87 acres to be rezoned from RA, Rural Areas to HC, Highway Commer-
cial. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 60A is one of two
parcels subject to ZMA-87-16.
Character of the Area:
This rezoning is sought by the owners of the Quality Inn which is
adjacent to these properties. Other development in the area consists
Of a well driller's office and yard, single family dwellings, and a
small mobile home park. Property across Rte. 250 East is zoned HC,
Highway Commercial, and has been subject of recent litigation involv-
ing a flea market operation.
Existing Conditions:
These properties are located between the Quality Inn and Rte. 250
East Parcel 78-60 consists of 4.4 acres zoned HC, Highway Commer-
cial, and is developed with the 100-unit Quality Inn and restaurant.
Parcel 78-60A, subject of this petition and consisting of 0.87 acres,
is developed with a motel parking lot which covers about two-thirds
of the site. Parcel 78-34, also subject to this petition and consis-
ting of 0.6 acres, is currently developed residentially. A third
parcel is located between the Quality Inn and Rte. Z50 East; Parcel
78-35, consisting of 0.3 acres and developed residentially, would be
bordered on three sides by HC zoning if this petition were approved
and would, therefore, in staff opinion be clearly susceptible to HC
zoning in the future.
Description of Request:
This is a conventional rezoning as opposed to a proffered rezoning
request. While accompanied by a special use permit,~no representa-
tions made by the applicant are legally binding. According to the
applicant Parcel 78-34 under HC zoning 'would permit.~landscaping,
water fountain, on-grade parking, and an 80-foot beautification and
buffer strip.' The special use permit request is for~a three-story
structure which would provide ground-level and roof top parking. The
center two floors would be available for 'convention, fitness, and
related motel facilities.' While not rectangular, the structure
would measure about 130 feet by 290 feet in width and length.
Comprehensive Plan
The INTERSTATE INTERCHANGE DEVELOPMENT policies of the Comprehensive
Plan recommend that the Shadwell interchange of 1-64~be considered
for interstate-oriented development including 'highway service
businesses which primarily rely on the interstate traveller as a
market including hotels, motels, restaurants,' and other such uses.
Regional uses including convention centers should also receive
consideration. The Comprehensive Plan identifies four urban inter-
changes to receive consideration for such development.
At these interchanges, the Comprehensive Plan does no~ specify that
areas susceptible to this policy be restricted to th~ designated
Urban Area. In the case of ZMA-81-20 Joe and Sallie ~ieck, the Board
of Supervisors approved HC zoning for 13.3 acres located outside of
the Urban Area (and across Rte. 250 East from this current request)
subject to a proffer that the property be developed £n accordance
with uses specified in the INTERSTATE INTERCHANGE DEVELOPMENT poli-
cies which were pending Comprehensive Plan amendmentsi at the time."
"Two changes have occurred since completion of the original staff
report for this petition. On December 15, 1987, the applicant sub-
mitted a written zoning proffer. On January 12, 1988, the Board of
Zoning Appeals granted four variances.
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
602
VARIANCES
Variances were granted to allow for construction of the proposed
garage/commercial structure as proposed by the applicant:
Relief from Section 4.12.7.2 and 21.7 to reduce the number of
required loading spaces from eight (8) to zero (0) spaces;
To reduce setback from a public street from seventy-four (74)
feet to five (5) feet;
To reduce setback from an adjacent Rural Areas district from
ninety-four (94) to zero (0) feet;
To reduce the buffer area required adjacent to a Rural Areas
district from twenty (20) feet to zero (0) feet. (The applicant
indicated that a five foot tree buffer would be provided).
No conditions were attached to these variances, therefore, the
applicant's proffers under this rezoning petition would govern usage
of the property (Conditions which may be imposed under this special
use permit petition are effective only if the special use permit is
pursued).
As to the relationship of these variances to Commission and Board
review of this rezoning petition and special use permit petition,
staff offers the following comments:
1. Development of the property as proposed by the applicant is
inconsistent with requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Except
as specifically provided in the Zojing Ordinance, the Commission
and Board have no authority to var~, modify, or waive zoning
regulations. Therefore, the Commission and Board could not
approve the applicant's proposal without these variances. The
Board of Zoning Appeals action was'.~!in anticipation of rezoning
approval, therefore, if rezoning is not approved these variances
have no effect; ~
2. Section 31.2.4.3 of the Zoning Ord{nance states in part that
'the Board of Supervisors may impose upon any such permit such
conditions relating to the use for ~.!which such permit is granted
as it may deem necessary in the public interest .... ' Specifi-
~ a
cally included in the list of itemM the Board m y address in
conditions are 'the establishment ~f special requirements
relating to the building setbacks, ~!front, side and rear Yards,
off-street parking.' Therefore, w~ile the Board may not relax
setback requirements, review under ~special use permit does not
limit the Board to minimum requirements (i.e., variance setbacks).
APPLICANT' S PROFFERS: ~
The applicant has submitted zoning prof{ers intended to improve the
posture of these petitions. Generally, ~hese proffers:
1. Propose development in accordance w~'th proposed building and
landscape plans; ~
2. Limit usage primarily to motel-related facilities. An area not
to exceed 1,000 square feet would be available for commercial
personal service uses. A gasoline service center is also
proposed (Tax Map 78, Parcel 60A);
Lighting would be shielded from the adjoining residence, Inter-
state 64 and U. S. Route 250 East (while not part of the
proffer, the applicant has stated that a brick parapet wall
would be incorporated around roof top parking to shield
headlights);
603
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Usage of Tax Map 78, Parcel 34 would be restricted to parking,
landscaping, buffering, and other landscape improvements (Note:
The last sentence of this proffer states that 'this proffer 'will
continue the limitation of above-ground use of Parcel 78-34
until zoning of rural is changed on parcel 78-35.' Staff does
not favor zoning proffers which anticipate some future legisla-
tive action by the Board of Supervisors, and does not recommend
acceptance of this proffer).
The original staff report discussed four issues of concern relative
to these petitions. Staff offers additional comment in view of the
variances and zoning proffers:
Full compliance with recommendations of INTERSTATE INTERCMANGE
DEVELOPMENT policies: The proposed structure would be clearly
visible to eastbound traffic from Interstate 64. Setback
variances would preclude substantial landscaping buffering.
(Note: Some trees shown on the proffered landscape plan would
be located in right-of-way for Interstate 64). Therefore, the
Commission and Board should determine if the proposed building
itself is visually harmonious to Interstate 64.
Access and access improvements: No change to a~cess or access
improvements are proposed. Staff is unsure as ~o whether
improvements (if warranted) to the intersectionl~of the frontage
road and U. S. Route 250 East can be required a~ time of site
plan approval. The proffer governing usage would significantly
reduce traffic generation as compared to conventional Highway
Commercial zoning.
Intensity of development and 'overdevelopment':.i When consider-
ing this interstate interchange quadrant and the relationship of
the proposed use to existing interchange uses in this quadrant
(i.e., Quality Inn), staff does not feel the us~ constitutes
overdevelopment of the quadrant. The use compliments the
existing hotel, utilizes the existing access to ithe hotel, is
appropriately located as regards proximity to Interstate 64, and
will practically utilize existing grade of the plroperty through
a multi-level design.
However, as regards the parcel to be developed, staff would
define 'overdevelopment' as a case requiring special approvals,
reduced design standards or other exceptions toi~ccommodate
development which exceeds nor~al limitations, where such excep-
tions are occasioned by intensity of development~ as opposed to
provision of reasonable use of the land.
Variances granted for this development would in staff opinion
preclude effective application of the site plan :~rdinance
related to screening and buffering. While staff~has not
referred the proposed plans to the Site Review Cpmmittee,
maintenance of adequate sight distance may be a problem.
Utilities: The applicant has stated that past p~oblems with the
on-site water system where in terms of operational deficiencies
as opposed to system deficiencies. Increased fire protection
will be necessary for the new structure. Whethe~ or not to
require connection to public water can be addressed at site plan
stage.
As stated in the original report, staff opinion is that this property
is susceptible to the INTERSTATE INTERCHANGE DEVELOP~M~T policy of
the Comprehensive Plan. Approval would permit expansion/improvement
of an existing business.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-87-16 provided ~hat the fol-
lowing language of the written proffer is not accepted: 'This
proffer will continue the limitation of above-grgund use of
Parcel 78-34 until zoning of rural is changed on,Parcel 78-35.'
Also, proffer related to landscaping plan shall be applicable
February 17.', 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
604
only with the understanding that landscaping shall be provided
and that such proffer shall in no manner foreclose the require-
ment of additional landscaping or other buffering by the Plan-
ning Commission at time of site plan approval.
Staff recommends approval of SP-87-94 subject to the following
conditions:
County Engineer approval of increased usage of central
sewer system prior to Planning Commission review of site
plan;
Submittal of landscape plan at time of site plan submittal.
Landscaping/buffering measures to be approved by Planning
Commission.
Staff shall recommend reduced building length or other
measure if such action is necessary to maintain sight
distance."
"December 15, 1987
Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
Dear Mr. Keeler:
On behalf of Seville Associates, I, Walter N. Alford, Agent, hereby
proffer in accordance with ZMA-87-16 the following measures and
limitations.
Building design and structure to be per general building
plans as submitted, prepared by Forrest Coile Associates
and landscape plan as prepare~ by George Carter, Ivy
Nursery. ~
Building use to be used for convention, health and fit-
ness, related motel facilitiesl, 1,000 sq. ft. maximum of
commercial personal services area, 2 levels of parking
with gasoline service center which must be within building
structure as designed. This ~se of parcel 78-60A should
provide reasonable limitations~of traffic volume and access
to Route 250. Access, traffic flow and volume is a vital
part of motel success and this building structure and its
use are crucial to motel guest' needs and development.
Roof top parking landscaping tO be in general accordance
with Carter landscape plan and!further proffer lighting
design to shield light from overflow onto adjacent resi-
dence on parcel 78-35 and 1-64~and Route 250.
Parcel 78-34 Seville Associate~ desire, by formal 20-year
lease requirement and this pro~fer will limit~ parcel 78-34
use to only include front 30 feet to landscaped lighted
entrance, pond signage. The next 60-foot strip of parking
(excluding buses, trucks). Th~ next and rear 80 feet by
lease requirement will be and ~emain landscaped buffer of
adjacent residence on parcel 75-35. This proffer will
continue the limitation of abo~e ground use of parcel 78-34
until zoning of rural is changed on parcel 78-35.
I trust this proffer in addition to plan~, utility letter, and formal
presentation to planning commission, and~Board of Supervisors will
permit Seville Associates request to be ~pproved.
SEVILLE ASSOCIATES
Walter N. Alford
The Alford Corporation
Seville Associates"
605
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 26,
1988, by a vote of five to two, recommended approval of ZMA-86-16 and
the staff's recommendations as related to the proffer with the deletion of
"This proffer will continue the limitation of the above-ground use of Parcel
78-34 until zoning of rural is changed on Parcel 78-35."
The Planning Commission, also at its meeting on January 26, 1988, by a
vote of four to three, recommended approval of SP-87-94 subject to the three
conditions recommended by the staff and a fourth condition as follows: "4.
Public water to be extended to property at no public cost."
Mr. Horne said at the Planning Commission meeting most of the discussion
related to the visual impact of the structure relative to Interstate 64 and
the issue of overdevelopment of the parcel. He indicated on an aerial photo-
graph the location of the proposed structure. The entrance roadway is the
frontage road off of Route 250 and along the edge of 1-64. The parcel subject
to the rezoning and special permit presently contain a parking lot. The
frontage parcel which is subject to the rezoning, presently contains a house
which is to be removed and an existing residential parceI which is not subject
to the rezoning.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the location of the variances. ~r. Horne so indi
on the map. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any variances relative to Route
250. Mr. Horne said he does not know, but the frontage road is a state
maintained public road. Because of the treatment given frontage roads by the
Highway Department, the staff does not know if it could require any improve-
ments.
Mr. Home said Seville Associates does control otheri~.properties that are
being used in conjunction or as part of the rezoning. Mri~ Lindstrom asked if
Seville Associates can locate the parking structure further into the property.
Mr.. Home said the applicant needs to address that question. Topographically
another location might not work as well. Also, there have been some discus-
sions where the applicant has indicated a desire to use other portions of the
properties for other future use.
Mr. Perkins asked if it is safe to put the gas station in the building.
Mr~Horne said it has been done in other parking structures and would be
reviewed by the Building Official.
Mr. Horne then described the landscape and buffering;~plan submitted as
part of and referenced in the proffer. He presented a drawing indicating how
the structure would appear from 1-64. As pointed out in the staff report,
although there are trees shown on the plan, the structure~is very close to the
edge of roadway and the staff has some concerns as to whether trees would ever
grow to a size that would effectively screen the structure. Also some of the
trees in the plan are shown within the interstate right-of-way over which the
applicant has no control. While the staff fully intends,'iif this request were
approved, to institute as much of the buffering and screening as possible, the
Board should also try to determine whether the structure is visually compati-
ble with 1-64.
Mr. Home said according to the applicant, the railing on the upper level
shown on the drawing is actually a brick parapet wall designed to shield
headlights from the upper parking level. Mr. Bowie asked ill that was part of
the proffer. Mr. Home replied no, but the Board can make that a condition of
the special use permit. Mr. Bain asked the height of the ~estern end of the
building. Mr. Home said the structure is 40 feet up to the lower parking lot
level and then there is the parapet wall and some additional stairway struc-
tures.
Mr. Home said other property in the area applicable to the Interstate
Interchange Policy is the Gieck property, zoned HC, and is~ currently undeve-
loped except for the Flea Market operation. There is a recommendation in the
Interstate Interchange Policy that there be a minimum separation of 1,000 feet
between the interstate/interchange ramps and the first entrance into a commer-
cial development. Because of the access location of this development, that
recommendation cannot physically be complied with. Again an attempt has been
made to proffer traffic generation as a proxy for meeting that separation.
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 606
(Page 9)
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the applicant plans to enforce such a proffer. Mr.
Horne said by limiting the amount of commercial service area in the structure
to 1,000 square feet and by listing the service as personal services. As
described by the applicant, personal services are beauty parlors, barber shops
and small retail areas that would be useful to the occupants of the motel. A
fitness center is also planned, but would not be restricted to use by occu-
pants of the motel. The other use planned is convention meeting rooms.. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if the amount of convention space was proffered. Mr. Home
replied no, but there have been some building plans submitted. Mr.. Lindstrom
asked how the staff looks at the traffic generation for the use of the conven-
tion and health center. Mr. Home said the staff is comparing this use to
conventional HC which is a high traffic generator. The proffer is not an
attempt to reduce the current level of traffic generation, but an attempt to
reduce the traffic generation that would be allowed by HC zoning. Mr. Lind-
strom asked how much extra traffic would be generated at the entrance. Mr.
Home said he thinks there will be a relatively significant increase in
traffic. It all depends on the frequency and types of conventions held.
Mr. Bain asked if there is a deceleration lane coming off of Route 250.
Mr. Horne said he thinks there is a small lane. If the Highway Department
treats the frontage road as a connection to a state maintained road, there may
be no improvements that can be required of the applicant, because that would
be an off-site public roadway. The Highway Department has not yet provided
the staff with a firm answer on how it will look at that area.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for the specifics a~out the variances and where they
are located. Mr. Horne described the variances as outlined in the staff
report.
There being no further questions for Mr~ Home, the public hearing was
opened.
Mr. Walter N. Alford, representing Seville Associates, addressed the
Board. Seville Associates purchased the hotel in May, 1987 and are in the
process of major renovations within the moteS. Parking was the first major
problem recognized. People have to climb a t%ill to get from the parking area
to the motel which is the reason for the proposed four stories of the struc-
ture. A need was discovered for more convention space. Thus, the facility
must be at a size where it will be economica%. The design as proposed by the
applicants would restrict view from Monticello, 1-64 and Route 250. The
applicants have worked closely with Mrs. Washington, the owner of the adjacent
residential property. Mrs. Washington concuCs with and supports the request
for rezoning. The applicants have a 20-year*!lease on the property located in
front of Mrs. Washington's property and are prohibited from any use Other than
landscaping and the small area shown for par~ing. The applicants want to
create an attractive entrance into the motel.t They want to do nothing that
will inhibit or interfere with the appearanc~ of the motel or its access
thereto. He thinks the applicants have done~ good job of sliding the struc-
ture into the hillside so that about one-thirtd of the building is actually
sitting underground which would then accommodate the first entire level of
grade parking.
Mr. Alford said no one has opposed the plan as submitted. The proposed
design of the building is brick. The applicants have built projects through-
out the east coast including the old Del Monte building in Charlottesville.
The applicants do high quality work and are ~p~otective of trees and landscap-
ing as well as other aesthetics. He thinks this is the best plan possible for
this property.
Mr. Alford said the size and the reason for the variances are extremely
critical. The width of the structure must be as proposed in order to get the
fitness area within it and for the utilization of the parking area above and
beneath the structure. The reason for the length of structure is to get in as
much parking as possible. The property at the top of the hill is owned by
Seville Associates and is zoned RA, but there are no plans for that property
at this time.
Mr. Alford said there is a tremendous need in the motel industry now for
a facility that is more than a place to sleep,~ The proposed health and
fitness facility contains approximately 42,000 square feet. That space is
607
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
double-decked for the pool and handball area, and utilizes the second level
for aerobics and a jogging track. It would not be economical to restrict use
of the health and fitness center to occupants of the motel,'therefore, it will
be available to other people. Mr. Alford then described the features and
appearance of the building.
,Mr. Bowie asked where in ,the building the health facility will be located.
Mr. Alford said the health facility will be located on the second and third
levels, and 10,000 square feet of the second and third levels will be used for
the convention center. There is approximately 35,000 square feet on each
level. So as to not be misleading, he has provided detailed information to
the staff on what will be used in each area of the building.
Mr. Bowie asked if there is a ramp at the bottom level to get to the top.
Mr. Alford said no, there will be an elevator to get to the top level.
Mr. Alford said the entrance roadway is state maintained for approxi-
mately half its length. For some reason, the applicants own the real estate
in fee simple on the entire roadway along the side. Landscaping of 1-64 and
Route 250 is within the fee simple ownership of the owners. He feels that the
fully nurtured trees buffering 1-64 and Route 250 will serve as adequate
screening.
Mr. Bain asked if there are deceleration and acceleration lanes. Mr.
Alford said there is a short 300 foot deceleration into the entrance of the
property and a shorter acceleration lane exiting onto Rou~,.e 250.
There being no one else from the public present to speak on the applica-
tions, the public hearing was closed.
(Mr. St. John arrived at the meeting at 8:30 P.M.) Mr. Bain asked if the
Board can, as a condition to a special use permit, require an extension of a
left turn lane into a commercial site when the Highway Department may not have
the legal means to require it themselves. Mr. St. John said yes, if the need
of the lane is generated by the use that is subject to the special use permit.
Mr. Lindstrom asked why the applicant had not acquired Mrs. Washington's
property and requested rezoning of all of the property. Mr. Alford said the
applicant has the right of first refusal to purchase the parcel that is leased
for 20 years and Mrs. Washington's property. Mrs. Washington made the deci-
sion to not sell her property because she wanted to live there throughout her
life.
Mr. Bowie said he is concerned with shielding flashing headlights on the
upper floor. He is also concerned with the dangerous intersection. He would
like to insure that there be an approved deceleration lan~ on the westbound
lane of Route 250 and an improved left turn lane on the eastbound of Route 250
so as not to have a stacking problem and blocking of 1-64~! He would suggest
that those two items be added as conditions to the special, use permit. Mr.
Alford said he does not mind stating that the applicants Will build a decele-
ration lane whether legally required to or not as well as ~an acceleration
lane. There is sufficient right-of-way to extend that de~ieleration lane a
reasonable distance. With regard to shielding the headlights, included in the
applicants plan is a proposed brick parapet. ~
J
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by MrS. Cooke, to approve
ZMA-87-16 as proffered in the letter dated January 20, 198~8, correcting the
typographical error in Condition #2 to read "two levels of! parking" and
deleting the following language from the proffer: "This piroffer will continue
the limitation of the above-ground use of Parcel 78-34 un~il zoning of rural
is changed on Parcel 78-35." The portion of the proffer ~elated to the
landscaping plan shall be applicable only with the understJanding that land-
scaping shall be provided and that such proffer shall in mo manner foreclose
the requirement of additional landscaping or other buffering required by the
Planning Commission at the time of site plan approval.
Mr. Bain said this is a tough issue to decide, but the use is there now
and he would rather see use of that end of the property rather than up on the
knoll above the property because of exposure to traffic on 1-64. He thinks
February 17~ 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 608
(Page 11)
the applicants have done a reasonably good job with the building structure.
He is still concerned and thinks there will be traffic problems. He will
support the motion.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-87-94 subject to conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and
two additional conditions as set out below:
County Engineer approval of increased usage of central sewer
system prior to Planning Commission review of site plan;
Submittal of landscape plan at time of site plan submittal.
Landscaping/buffering measures to be approved by the Planning
Commission; ~
Staff shall recommend reduced building length or other measure
if such action is necessary to maintain sight distance;
4. Public water to be extended to property at no public cost;
A brick parapet wall must be built around the rooftop parking
area to shield headlights;
The deceleration lane westbound on Route 250 and the left turn
lane be extended and approved to handle additional traffic.
Extent of improvement to be determined during site review.
Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-87-17. Four L Partnership and/or W.A. Lynch
Roofing. Rezone 16.061 acres from R1, Residential, to LI, Light Industrial,
to allow for contractor's office and equipment storage yard. Located on east
side of Route 742 (Avon Street Extended), ~orth of intersection with Route 742
and Route 20. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
February 2 and February 9, 1988.)
Mr. Home presented the following staff report:
Petition: Four L Partnership petitions the Board of Supervisors to
rezone 16.061 acres from R-l, Residential, to LI, Light Industrial.
Property described as Tax map 91, Parcel 13, is located on the east
side of Avon Street just north of the~ entrance to Lake Reynovia in
the Scottsville Magisterial District.I
Character of the Area: This site is ~acant and heavily wooded with
evergreens. Mill Creek PUD and Lake ~eynovia are across Route 742.
Parham Construction borders a portio~ of the site on the north and is
zoned LI, Light Industrial. All other properties adjacent to the
site are zoned R-i, Residential.
Comprehensive Plan: The Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan
recommends medium-density residential use in this area. Chapter 10
Comprehensive Plan Standards - Indus[rial Land Use Standards states
among other things that: ~
Industrial uses should seek locations adjacent to compatible
uses (commercial, public or other industrial, etc.) as opposed
to residential, agricultural or other sensitive areas. Con-
sideration should be given to transitional uses such as com-
mercial offices.
609
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Objectionable aspects of an industrial use should be addressed
through a combination approach including realistic performance
standards, buffering and special setback regulations. This
approach should be flexible so as to accomplish the objective
without creating burdensome and arbitrary regulations. At time
of rezoning, the applicant should submit proposals to mitigate
objectionable aspects.
STAFF COMMENT
As stated earlier, Parham Construction is north and adjacent to this
site. In turn, north and adjacent to Parham Construction is property
now or formerly of Mary ¥. Doggett. The Doggett property was subject
of two rezoning petitions:
ZMA-85-26 petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone the
property from R-I, Residential, to LI, Light Industrial. Staff
noted that the property was recommended for medium density
residential use. This petition was denied.
ZMA-86-07 petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone the
property from R-l, Residential, to PD-MC, Planned Development
Mixed Commercial. While staff again recommended disapproval,
six modifications to the Application Plan were 9ffered. This
petition was denied.
Section 1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance states in part that 'this ordi-
nance is designed to treat lands which are similarlyi~situated and
environmentally similar in like manner .... ' Staff can distinguish no
circumstance to distinguish this property from the Doggett property.
Staff recommends denial of this petition for the following reasons:
1. The request is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Land
Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan.
Be
The request is inconsistent with some recommendations of Chapter
10 Comprehensive Plan Standards relative to industrial uses.
Staff cannot distinguish between this request and prior peti-
tions reviewed for the Doggett property. Unles~ such distinc-
tions can be made, approval of this petition inlstaff opinion
could be viewed as arbitrary and capricious.
During current review of the Comprehensive Plan,i development
interests have complained as to the availabilit~ of residential
land within growth areas. The Planning Commission has proposed
expansion of the Urban Area to maintain holdingi.!capacity and in
response to this complaint. In the past, staff~has cautioned as
to loss of residential capacity due to underdevelopment or
rezoning to commercial/industrial. Staff will give more emphasis
to this concern in future rezonings.
Mr. Home presented the following letter of proffer dated February 10,
1988.
"February 10, 1988
Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director
County of Albemarle - Dept. of Planning
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Horne:
In conjunction with ZMA-87-17, the Applicants hereby Offer the
following proffers for consideration along with this application:
The maximum land coverage by buildings on an individual lot
shall not exceed 0.25 times the land area of the lot.
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
610
Structures erected on this property will not exceed 45 feet in
height.
No portion of any structure except permitted signs will be
erected closer than 100 feet to any public street right of way.
Parking and loading spaces will be located a minimum of 25 feet
from any public street right of way.
Adjacent to residential or agricultural zoned land, no struc-
tures, except permitted signs, shall be located closer than 100
feet to any agricultural or residential district, and no parking
or loading space shall be closer than 50 feet to any agricultural
or residential district.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Four L Partnership and W. A. Lynch Roofing Company, Inc.
by:
(Signed)
William A. Lynch, Jr."
Mr. Home said the intent of the proffers is to address the land use
standards referenced by the staff and to make future industrial use on the
property more compatible with the surrounding residential planned areas. Mr.
Home then described and indicated on the zoning map what is shown in the
Comprehensive Plan for the area.
Mr. Way asked the size of the Doggett p~operty. Mr. Horne replied
approximately eleven acres. Mr. Way asked about plans of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for the back portion of the Doggett property. Mr. Home
said the Service Authority has discussed moving its maintenance facility on
that property, but that would require rezoni~g of the property. He would like
to emphasize that this is not an active proposal and the staff has not indi-
cated support of the project. Mr. Lindstrom ~asked if the location of tanks by
the Service Authority would require zoning action. Mr. Horne replied no.
Tanks are a necessary public utility use and are permitted in all districts.
The location of the tanks are a physical requirement and must be placed at the
appropriate elevation so as to stabilize the ~xisting water system. Mr. Bowie
asked the height of the water tanks. Mr. Home replied approximately 40 feet.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the tanks have a direct visual impact on the 16 acres.
Mr. Horne said the tanks would be visible from some portions of the property.
He would not consider them to be visually intrusive as to make it impossible
to develop residential property. For examplei, there are tanks near Ashcroft.
While the tanks may not be ideal immediately ~djacent to someone's home, they
do not preclude residential use of property in the area. The tanks have not
affected the marketing of Mill Creek.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission a~ its meeting on February
1988, recommended denial of this request.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bill Roudabush, representing Four L Partnership, said W. A. Lynch
Roofing has been in business in this area for~51 years. It is a family
business that will continue. This applicatioh is an endeavor to keep the
business operating and continued by other members of the family. The company
works primarily in the Central Virginia area Snd presently there are 55
employees. The business is not a large traffic generator because most of the
employees report to their perspective jobs oniconstruction sites. These
employees do not come into the central office, The company presently owns and
operates 30 to 35 vehicles, but most of those~are at the homes of the employ-
ees for their use during working hours. There is very little walk in business
activity. Most of the work is done by contract and a lot by telephone.
Mr. Roudabush said the inventory maintained on premises of W. A. Lynch is
primarily materials used for smaller construction, residential and repair
jobs. For larger jobs, the manufacturer ships the material directly to the
611
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
job site. Roofing materials have changed significantly in recent years. Most
roofing material is rubberized and comes in rolls which are sealed together,
and no tar is necessary.
The Lynch family has spent several years looking for a long term, perma-
nent business site. There is the need for a ten to twelve acre tract to
operate this business. The proposed site is ideally located for road access
to major thoroughfares. Topographically the site is ideal. Due to the
terrain of the property, shop and storage buildings, which would be separate
from the primary office building, would be shielded from the road and would
not be visible. There is a natural area at the rear of the property for
stormwater detention and total drainage control which could be developed in a
manner that the runoff from the rear of the property would be controlled and
not affect the property owners. The building will be architecturally attrac-
tive. There would be no traffic impact on the existing road due to the fact
that the intended use is less of a traffic generator than~a residential
development. Total access to the property would be from Route 742 and there
would be no use of the 20 foot access road to the rear of the property. The
existing development along Route 742 is primarily nonresidential or institu-
tional. There are 31 major business facilities located between the corporate
limits of Charlottesville and the intersection with Route 20.
Mr. Roudabush said the staff's basis for denial of the request was based
on the Doggett petition, which was cited as a precedent to not rezone this
property industrial. The circumstances in this case are ~different. This is
not a speculative rezoning application. There is a specific use intended by
the applicant which was not the case in the former application. The circum-
stances are not the same today as when ZMA-85-26 and ZMA-B6-37 were submitted.
Since those submissions, the Service Authority has acquir,gd the Doggett
property through condemnation and it is subject to the us~s specified in their
certificate of taking. The certificate of taking for the'i~tract of land that
has been used as a precedent to recommend denial of this application states
that "it is taken in connection with the installation, maintenance, replace-
ment of a water tank for the water pressure improvement and for a maintenance
yard for the Authority". The Service Authority took a great deal of land,
more than what was needed to install two water tanks and ~t is his thought
th~at the property is not going to be used for residential !purposes.
" Mr. Roudabush said since action was taken by the Planning Commission, the
applicant is offering four proffers. The proffers are an!attempt to alleviate
some of the concerns expressed by the neighbors. The prof~fers were submitted
to show that the applicants have no need to develop the p~operty intensively
and intend to develop it more compatible with a commercial office facility.
Most on-site materials would be stored inside the buildings. This would be a
compatible use in that area based on the existing nonresidential uses along
that highway. He would like to reemphasize that the Boar~, should not use
denial of the Doggett request as a basis to judge this application. Again,
the circumstances are not the same and a governmental agen~cy has acquired the
adjacent property and intends to use the property for a nQnresidential use.
Mr. Bain asked the size of the property where the office for Lynch is
currently located. Mr. Roudabush said the main facility ~s located on two
acres and there is some open storage area across the road.~l At the present
location they are cramped for space.
Mr. Jeff Schnelle said he intends to purchase a lot in Mill Creek and is
opposed to the rezoning. He thinks there are other alternatives for this land
that the applicant has not considered which would be more conducive to an
industrial area rather than destroying the residential area.
Mr. Bob Sleeth said he resides on one of the parcels iat the base of the
proposed site. He has mixed feelings about the request. He is sympathetic to
the need for more commercial and industrial zoning in the icounty and feels
that the County is lax in allowing commercial and industrial growth. He is
concerned about the storage of materials and the runoff b~cause of the pro-
posed location. Approximately 10 of the 16 acres, from t~is property, slope
downward into his watershed. He questions the need of th~ applicant for a
175,000 square foot building on 16 acres because the business cannot possibly
grow to the extent that it needs 16 acres. He is also con~cerned about the
height restriction of 45 feet. The existing facility for this business is not
February 17,, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 6]_2
(Page 15)
filled to capacity and he cannot understand the need for this tremendous
increase. He does not object to Mr. Lynch's use of the property as long as
his watershed is protected.
Mrs. Donna Hill said she and her husband own parcel 35I which borders the
applicant's property on Avon Street. She objects to the rezoning for the
following reasons: (1) this area of Avon Street is residential, (2) Avon
Street is not all imdustrial land, (3) this property sits in the middle of the
Mill Creek development, (4) this property does not have easy access to 1-64,
and (5) this business may not increase traffic but the quality of such traffic
for an industrial area directly across from a large residential area will
decrease significantly. Before moving to this area., her husband operated a
small three man electrical business in Kentucky. The business did not gener-
ate anywhere near the business this company generates and her husband still
had to have equipment delivered in 18 wheelers. Transporting materials to the
job sites will require some kind of large vehicle. That kind of quality of
traffic is incongruent with the type of traffic that is already on Avon
Street. These residential areas should be preserved because there are already
industrial sites to the north and south. This area is beautiful and should be
preserved. She asks the Board to keep that property residential and not make
the area another Route 29 North.
Mr. Arlin Martin said his property adjoins to the northeast. He does not
appreciate having Parham Construction 300 feet from his back yard, nor having
another industrial site in his front yard which is what it would be if this
request is approved. He is opposed to this ~ezoning.
Mr. Heinz Ehrhardt, a resident of Mill Creek, said he is opposed to the
rezoning. He was greatly influenced in his decision to purchase property in
Mill Creek by the beautiful views that are a~forded both to the west and east
of Route 742 and by the residential area. ~
There being no one else from the publicito speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this application provides a good example of
the importance of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the predictability of
land use for people who already own property,i This application runs counter
to the Comprehensive Plan, which despite the pituation of the Doggett property~
is still considerably residential in character. Although the proffers do
limit the extent of development of the proper~y, they do not limit the charac-
ter of the use of the light industrial and there are a lot of other uses that
could be made if something happened to this ~pplication or the applicant
decided to change his plans. He thinks the B~ard should continue to preserve
this area for residential use.
Mr. Way said he travels this road almost daily and has a lot of mixed
emotions about the application. He has a great deal of respect for Lynch
Roofing Company and the business it has done 'in the community, and he has no
doubt that it would do everything to develop the property to make it attrac-
tive and safe. He does not think this proposal would obstruct the views of
the residents of Mill Creek. Also, it must b~_ taken into consideration that
Avon Street is a hodgepodge of zoning, but there is a lot of residential
area. He agrees with Mr. Lindstrom that he cannot support the industrial use
at that location.
Mr. Bain said he concurs with Mr. Way's pomments. It is an area which
can still be preserved. He is more concernedI with residences which have been
there for years and front on that road next to this property more so than with
Mill Creek. He does not feel this would have~' a significant impact on Mill
Creek. He agrees with the Comprehensive Plan~ in preserving residential land
in the urban area and to take this property o~t of that use would be a mis-
take.
Mrs~ Cooke said she concurs with previous statements made by Board
members. She thinks that when the Board can preserve a residential area it
needs to be done.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, secOnded, by Mrs. Cooke to deny
ZI~-87-17.
613
February 17, 1988 (RegUlar Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Bowie said it is obvious h~svote is i~naterial, even though he
thinks there is absolutely no relationship between this property and the
Doggett property. He, therefore, will support the motion and at a later time
will question the idea of protecting residentially-zoned properties.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carl
with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom (Mr. Lindstrom
prefaced his motion by saying his statements were in support of the Comprehen-
sive Plan which lays the foundation for zoning), Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
At 9:44 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:51
P.M, with Mr. Perkins and Mr. St. John absent.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-87-109. Albemarle County Fair, Inc. Allow for
county fair. Located on approximately 50 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas,
agricultural/forestal district, north side of Route 692 west of intersection
with Route 29 South. Tax Map 87, Parcel 3. Samuel Miller District. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9~ 1988.
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
PETITION: Albemarle County Fair, Inc. petitions the Board of Super-
visors to issue a special use permit for a TEMPORARY EVENT SPONSORED
BY A LOCAL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION (10.2.2.42) on ~50 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 3, is located
on the north side of Route 692 about 600 feet west Of U. S. Route 29
South at North Garden in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This site is open pastureland. Properties between this site and
Route 29 South are developed residentially. Other properties in the
area are large farm tracts.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
This site is within the designated North Garden village in the
Comprehensive Plan, however, remains zoned Rural Areas. The property
is currently within an AgriCultural/Forestal district. The Compre,
hensive Plan objectives recommend that the County 'continue to
examine the County's policies which support agriculture and forestry
and where necessary, modify policies to encourage such support.'
Staff's opinion is that the County Fair is consistent with agricul-
tural support objectives and would not detract from the existing
agricultural/forestal district.
STAFF COMMENT:
The 1982 County Fair was held on Fifth Street Extended on industrially
zoned property. Since that time the fair has been held at Claudius
Crozet Park. As the fair has become more popular, space needs have
increased. The proposed North Garden site is over t~ice the size of
Crozet Park.
The Albemarle County Fair would be conducted on six days prior to
Labor Day (Attendance estimates by Fair officials. Traffic estimates
by staff assume three people/vehicle):
DATE/HOURS
ESTIMATED
ATTENDANCE
Mon 29 Aug (4PM-11PM) 1,000 persons
Tues 30 Aug (4PM-11PM) 2,500 "
Wed 31 Aug (4PM-11PM) 1,600
Thur 1 Sept (4PM-11PM) 1,800
Fri 2 Sept (4PM-11PM) 3,200 "
Sat' 3 Sept (9AM-11PM) 6~000 "
TOTAL
16,100 persons
ESTIMATED
VEHICLE TRIPS
670!vehicle trips
1675~i "
1070 "
1200 "
2140 "
4020 "
10,775 vehicle trips
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
614
Major events of this nature are governed by such conditions of
approval as may be imposed by the Board of Supervisors in a specific
case as well as specific regulations of 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
of the Zoning Ordinance. The remainder of this report will discuss
logistical concerns of accommodating such an event.
OFF-SITE TRAFFIC: Staff anticipates that the largest percentage of
traffic to the site would access from the southbound lane of Route 29
South and that the majority of traffic would access through the Route
29 South/692 intersection. Western portions of the County would
access by Routes 692, 635 and other secondary roads.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that:
'The existing right turn taper lane on southbound Route 29 at
the Route 692 intersection is approximately 150 feet in length.
With a heavy right turn movement at the intersection of Routes
29 and 692, the existing taper lane is inadequate. The existing
left turn lane from northbound Route 29 is approximately 100
feet in length with a 150 foot taper lane. The existing cross-
over at the intersection of Route 29 and 692 is fairly wide and
unmarked. Pavement markings in this intersection should help
control traffic."
The Virginia Department of TransportatiQn will provide recommended
pavement markings at the crossover, however, has stated that if the
Board of Supervisors requests turn lane~improvements such a project
would likely not occur for two to three ~years at the earliest.
Existing turn lanes do not meet current ~irginia Department of
Transportation standards and, in staff Qpinion, should be improved
regardless of the outcome of this petition.
Due to inadequacies of the Route 29 Sou~h/692 intersection to accom-
modate fair traffic, other traffic control measures should be deve-
loped by the Albemarle County Police DeP~rtment, Virginia Department
of Transportation, and Planning staff.
SITE ACCESS: Access to the site would b~ from Route 692. The
Virginia Department of Transportation ha~ stated that:
'This section of Route 692 is currei~tly tolerable. The minimum
550 feet of sight distance requiredion Route 692 exists at a
location approximately 50 feet eastilof the bridge. However, the
sight distance to the east is no mo~e than 550 feet and with the
volume of traffic using this site d~ring the fair, the Depart-
ment recommends that the entrance bt further to the west where
visibility is much better. A commercial entrance with adequate
radii will be required for this proposal. The Department recom-
mends for right turn and taper laneiion Route 692 to serve this
entrance due to the volume of traffic and the possibility of
traffic queueing at the entrance.'
Many people attending the fair will be u~familiar to the area and
therefore maximum facility of access shogld be provided. Staff
recommends that site access be establishgd where sight distance is
best. A turn and taper lane should be p~ovided in accordance with
the Virginia Department of Transportation; recommendations to avoid
interference with local through-traffic.
SITE DEVELOPMENT: Fair officials have obtained a five year lease for
this site. Section 5.1.27 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that 'a
separate special use permit shall be required for each event.' Staff
recommends waiver of this provision and approval for this special use
permit for a period of five consecutive years, subject to Planning
Commission (as opposed to administrative) approval of a preliminary
site plan. Matters of public concern relative to development of the
property not addressed in this petition would be addressed at time of
site plan approval. While staff has no intent to contravene provi-
sions of the lease agreement, certain improvements are viewed as
appropriate. The following comments are provided to aid fair offi-
cials in plan preparation:
615
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Objectionable uses/activities located in vicinity to adjoining
dwellings will be discouraged. Fair officials should consult
adjoining property owners during plan preparation;
The County Engineer will provide recommendations to the Planning
Commission as to specifications for the entrance road and
parking areas in accordance with intensity of usage. Should the
property owner object to such improvements, the County Engineer
may require a bond appropriate to restore such areas consistent
with provisions of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance;
Planning staff will recommend reasonable separation of vehicular
and pedestrian circulation. Separate public road access and
adequate on-site circulation for emergency service vehicles will
be recommended;
The site plan will be referred to the Site Review Committee
which for the purposes of this petition consists of representa-
tives of the Department of Planning and Community Development,
County Engineering Department, County Fire Official, Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia Department of Transportation, and
Soil Conservation Service. Recommendations of these agencies
will be presented to the Planning Commission. .Fair officials
are encouraged to work with these agencies as well as the
Department of Inspections in plan preparation.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
This special use permit is issued for a period .of five con-
secutive years beginning in 1988 and ending in 1992 to allow
five County Fair events. Such events shall be iimited to six
consecutive days excluding Sunday. Hours of operation shall be
limited to 4 PM to 11 PM Monday through Friday and 9 AM to 11 PM
on Saturday with no operation on Sunday ('Operation' shall mean
the period of time during which the fair is open to the public
and shall not include setting up, dismantling, and restoration
activities). This permit is issued for the conduct of the
Albemarle County Fair by Albemarle County Fair,-Incorporated,
and shall not be used for any other event requi~ing special use
permit pursuant to Section 10.2.2.42 and 5.1.27:1~of the Zoning
Ordinance;
The applicant shall notify the Albemarle Countyi?Police Depart-
ment, Virginia Department of Health, and servicing fire and
rescue squads 60 days prior to each event and shall make ade-
quate arrangements for the conduct of the event!with each of
these agencies;
The applicant shall submit a preliminary plan i~ accordance with
Section 32.4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for Plan~ing Commission
review no later than June 1, 1988. Such plan shall be reflec-
tive of: comments offered in this report; Virginia Department
of Transportation comments of January 21, 1988, rrelative to
access to Route 692; and Virginia Department of Health comments
of January 13, 1988.
(Mr. Perkins returned to the meeting at 9:56 P.M.)
Mr. Horne~ noted the following letter from Mr. James ~T. Kildea, Presi-
dent, Albemarle County Fair, Inc., dated February 8, 1988~ was received:
"Should the Fair not be granted a permit for the full five year term
of its lease on the property, its investment in this ~location would
be in jeopardy, as the possibility of a denial of a permit in the
second year would create an air of uncertainty. Surely, the Fair
would have to reconsider its plans for this site. If the request for
the permit is reasonable, and both the Planning Department Staff and
the Planning Commission found it to be so, then the term of the
permit should be reasonable also.
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
616
The Board of Directors of the County Fair, therefore, respectfully
requests the County Board of Supervisors to approve this special use
permit, and to grant approval for the five year period, from 1988
through 1992."
Mr. Horne said at its meeting on February 2, 1988, the Planning Commis-
sion unanimously recommended approval of SP-87-109 with an amendment to the
first condition as follows: "1. This special use permit is issued for a
period of one (1) year beginning in 1988 and ending in 1989." The remainder
of Condition #1 remains the same.
Mr. Horne said there was a lot of discussion at the Planning Commission
meeting as to adequacy of traffic control at the intersection of Route 29
South and Route 69Z. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting there was a
meeting held with all of the involved parties and it was generally agreed that
with temporary traffic control by police officers or trained traffic control
officers during the Fair event, the Police Department felt the existing
intersection could be adequately controlled. There was some discussion as to
whether a turn and taper lane should be required along Route 692 and it was
the general consensus of the Planning staff and the Fair officials that again
with temporary traffic control that probably~could be handled without the
necessity of building a full turn and taper lane. He would point out that
VDoT is recommending a turn and taper lane. ~The final determination of that,
if it is not determined here tonight, would 5e done at the site plan hearing.
The reason for providing that lane would be {o allow easy movement of through
traffic. Traffic along that road is not extremely heavy or high speed.
Without a turn and taper lane there would bei!~additional congestion on that
roadway as there are tremendous traffic volU~es at certain times of the day.
It is the staff's opinion that even with a turn and taper lane there would
still be stacking at times. There was not alfull determination by the Commis-
sion as to their feeling oa that particular ~ssue.
The reason the Commission recommended a!i~change in Condition #1 was to
address some concerns expressed by neighboring property owners. The property
owners were concerned about disturbance of t~e rural character, congestion on
the roadway, the environment, and the general concerns that the Fair was an
unknown entity in this location and if it were approved for five years, after
the first year there may not be adequate mea~s to address problems, if there
were some. The Commission, therefore, felt ~hat it was more appropriate at
this point to issue a one year permit. Reapproval would have to be applied
for next year and concerns could be addresse~ at that time. The staff does not
feel that it may be in the best interest of the Fair to issue a one year
permit because of the expenses involved.
Mr. Lindstrom said he can understand the concerns of the Fair on a one
year limitation if it is required to invest in a lot of infrastructure. Mr.
Home said his understanding was that the th~ Fair would install infrastruc-
ture that can be removed totally when not in ~peration so that the property
would go back to its agricultural state. Mr.~ Lindstrom said the lease could
be revised to reflect the one year circnmsta~ce and there would be less of an
investment. Mr. Home said he thinks that no~ matter what is done in terms of
negotiations there are significant infrastructure items either temporary or
permanent that must be put on the site to conduct a fair of this size. One
permanent fixture would be electricity for lighting. Basically the land is an
open pasture. Mr. Lindstrom asked if was possible to just add a condition
that the special permit would be reviewed at the end of one year to see if
additional conditions need to be added to address whatever problems came up.
Mr. Home said the staff's basic idea was that the application be reviewed
each year from site planning point of view. ~e has always understood that
from a legal perspective, once an application~has been approved, additional
conditions cannot be added at a later date unless it has come back up as a
legislative act.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jame~ T. Kildea, President, Albemarle
County Fair, said Mr. Home made an adequate presentation of the Fair's
position. The Fair would request approval for the full five year term of the
lease because of the expenses of improvements~that will have to be made. Most
of the improvements are part of the lease or things needed to conduct a fair
at that site. The two major requirements that the Fair must do as part of the
617
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
lease agreement is construction of a fence to separate the fair area from the
rest of the farm and removal 'of an existing old barn at the corner of the
property. The Fair will need to install waEerlines under the grounds and
provide electrical service which are costly items. He has no problem with
review of the site plan on an annual basis following thefirst year. If there
are some needs to be met, those can be addressed at that time. Speaking for
the Fair Board, they do not want to have to go through this whole process
again next year after putting thousands of dollars into the operation.
Next to address the Board was Mr. Richard Carter, Attorney for Mr. Morris
Sutherland, a landowner, and some landowners in the area. He would characte-
rize the concerns about safety, preservation of the soil, etc., as more than
general concerns. Those are serious concerns that some of the landowners
have. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:15 P.M.) He will preface
his comments by saying no one is against the Fair. He regularly attends the
Fair in Crozet. The residents are just against using this site for the fair.
The main reason is the traffic problem. During the peak times of the fair,
traffic will be increased on Route 29 significantly. That intersection is
very dangerous. There is no traffic control. VDoT has stated that the
deceleration lane on the right turn coming down Route 29 South is intolerable
which he thinks translates into unsafe. Safety is a major issue which is why
taper lanes on Route 692 should not be dismissed. He thinks that one lane of
traffic would have to be blocked off to get people out ofthe fair site. This
is a residential area. There are 50 homes within a half mile area. The
second important issue is the soil quality. The Soil Conservation Service has
calculated severe wetness for approximately 21 of the 50 acres. It would be
virtually impossible to restore land to pasture after the. fair is over. The
present Crozet site for the fair has some problems but it is safe. The Board
would be making a mistake to approve this for even one year because it is the
wrong place.
Mr. Blair Turner said he lives in the Village of No=th Garden, on the
other side of Route 29, on a hill overlooking the property. He thinks the
fair is an important part of the County, but he is concerned about the traffic
issue. Visibility is very poor. Regardless of a deceleration lane traffic
will be backed up on Route 29. Trucks travel anywhere from 60 mph to 70 mph
andl it will be extremely dangerous especially when traveling the road after
dark. Leaving the fairgrounds is a more serious problem as cars have to cross
Route 29 and enter onto a small median. He is concerned with public safety.
Although he believes this area is rural and suited for this type of event,
this site is not the right one. The second major problem~is the lease and the
economics of the deal. He realizes the Board has no control over lease
arrangements between the owner and the Fair Committee, bu~ the agreement has
no limitation on renewing the lease at the end of a five ~ear period. If the
Board looks at the costs involved, it will know that this~'is not a short term
expenditure considering that $48,000 is to be spent to prepare the site. The
fair is already in a populated area of the County which he thinks increases
the attendance. He also believes that County government needs to take an
active role in the annual County Fair. Specifically that~i!means finding a
suitable location for the fair. It should be on County 1And such as a County
park. Before approving this request, the Board needs to ~ook at the longer
term ramifications, i~
Mr. Mort Sutherland said after speaking with the District Soil Conserva-
tionist, it was his interpretation that the land is too wet. The soil has a
high water level anywhere from zero to two and one-half f~et which means that
water is right on the surface. It is dangerous and unsuitable.
Mrs. Belle M. Woodson said she is in opposition to t~e request. She and
her husband own five acres bordering this property. The ~ air would be on one
side and Route 29 on the other side. She is concerned that if this is ap
the infrastructure will remain there and this will be the fair's permanent
location. If that be the case, the five acres she owns will be worthless.
She thinks there are other places in the County for the f~ir. She is not
against the fair, but is personally against North Garden Erowing.
Ms. Norma Sutherland, a property owner adjacent to t~e property, said she
also is opposed to the Fair in.this area because of traffic, noise and dust.
There must be other acreage in the County that would be more suitable for a
February 17,~ 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 62L8
(Page 21)
fair rather than having it in this rural area and near the residences. In
addition, the Fair should be spending money on a permanent site rather than a
temporary one.
Mr. David Bass said he is a County resident and is very fond of the
County. He is embarrassed for the County because the government should be
involved. Everyone enjoys attending the fair and it does a lot of good for
nonprofit organizations, but there is no leadership here. Just because
someone is willing to donate 50 acres free for five years does not mean that
should be the fair site. Someone should be planning for a permanent County-
owned fair site in Albemarle. If this is approved for five years, the Board
would be creating another ad hoc solution to a problem.
There being no one else desiring to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how traffic would exit from the proposed site. Mr.
Home said some type of traffic control officers at the intersection would be
directing traffic. He does not know if traffic could be stopped on Route 29.
There is no plan to install a stop light. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned
about traffic leaving the Fair site, not so much the traffic entering. Mr.
Home said he does not think there are any crossovers in the County designed
to handle that type of traffic without some extraordinary measures. Mr.
Lindstrom said he lives near Foxfield which is heavily used twice a year and
traffic is a serious problem. Mr. Home said that is true but, the desire is
to want people to be able to get onto a majo~ highway and not overload a small
secondary road. This would be for one week a year and extraordinary measures
would have to be taken.
Mr. Bowie said he has been in the traffic from the Fair in Crozet with 50
to 60 cars waiting to make a turn. If that ~uch backup is on Route 29, it
will overrun the right turn lane and will ta~e a long time to get c~.~a~f He
thinks it would take flashing lights, police iofficers and some way to physi-
cally stop traffic.
Mrs. Cooke asked about the soil with re~ard to its wetness and stability
of the land after a significant rain. Mr. H~rne said that depends on what
level of infrastructure the fair is required ito install. There are ways to
address that issue. The staff has not done ~ detailed soil analysis or site
plan so he cannot say specifically. The Fai~ cannot just assume all it will
need to do is throw down two inches of gravel. No matter where the fair is
located, if there is rain during the week before, it will cause chaos. There
are a lot of questions he cannot answer until he sees the site plan, but if
during site plan review the staff finds that this condition is likely to
exist, it will recommend that certain measures be undertaken. Mrs. Cooke said
she thinks the Fair needs to look at these considerations from a financial
standpoint before making such a heavy investment. She is in favor of ~ne fair
and would not like to see it go down the tubes because of something that coui~
be avoided by better planning from the standpoint of site selection. Mr.
Perkins said the Board has no right to tell the Fair how to spend its money,
but this certainly looks like a bad business deal to him.
Mr. Bain said he does not think there islany question that traffic
north will have to be stopped. Mr. Bowie com~ented that the Board was
previously that it could not stop traffic on a major highway when this came up
with regard to the Scottsville parade. Mr. HOrne said stopping traffic has
never been discussed, but it can be controlled.
Mr. Lindstrom said the temptation is to go along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation, but he does not ~now if that is fair to the Fair.
In terms of the road, traffic can be stopped And controlled on a secondary
road. He thinks safety is the main issue her~ and he is not convinced that
the County has the authority to effectively control through traffic on Route
29. :
Mr. Bain said to grant this permit for j~st a year is a mistake. If it
cannot be done for five years, he does not think it should be done at all.
His main concern is also the traffic issue. Mr. Bain then offered motion to
deny SP-87-109. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
619
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mrs. Cooke said she will support the motion because she can see many
pitfalls that could possibly damage the success of the Fair in the long run.
She thinks the fair is one of the most positive things to happen in the
community.
Mr. Bowie said he will also support the motion. The problem is traffic
safety. He would have preferred a deferral while considering the safety
issue. He also is convinced that the Board cannot stop traffic on a primary
road and there is no way this site will work if that cannot be done.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Way asked that Agenda Item No. 12 be taken up at this time. The
applicant needs to be at work at 12:00 midnight and needs to leave the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-87-107. Glenn Weathersbee. i Locate single wide
mobile home on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property ~located on east side
of Route 622 east of intersection with Route 618. Tax Map 123, Parcel 23A.
Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progression February 2 and
February 9, 1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Petition: Glenn D. Weathersbee petitions the Boar~ of Supervisors
to issue a special use permit to locate a single-wi~e mobile home
(Section 10.2.2.10) on 8.1 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas. The property
is described as Tax Map 123, Parcel 23A, located on the west side of
Route 622, approximately one-half mile from its intersection with
Route 716.
Character of the Area:
This site is moderately rolling and completely wooded with mature
deciduous trees. The area is typically rural with limited low
density residential development. One mobile home exists on a parcel
directly adjacent to this site. There are two mobil~ homes existing
within a one mile radius of the proposed site.
Staff Comment:
One letter of opposition has been filed against this petition. The
letter reflects concern that the location of a mobile home will
'significantly change the developing character of this area'. An
adjacent property owner also maintains that mobile h6mes have adverse
effects on adjacent property values.
The applicant proposes to locate the mobile home approximately 750
feet back from Route 622, reducing its visibility substantially from
passing vehicles or adjoining properties.
The applicant will live in the mobile home, rather than rent the
dwelling. ~
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervis6rs choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following:
Recommended Condition of Approval:
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 9,
1988, recommended approval of SP-87-107 subject to the condition of the staff.
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 620
(Page 23)
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Glenn Weathersbee, the applicant,
said the mobile home will be set back nearly 800 feet from the roadway. It
cannot be seen from the roadway or any of the adjacent properties. The mobile
home will be temporary, approximately two and one-half years, until the land
is paid for. At that time, a permanent structure will be put on the land.
There being no one else from the public present on this request, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve
SP-87-107 subject to the following condition recommended by the Planning
Commission:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-87-19. Republic Capital Corp. Rezone approxi-
mately 25.6 acres from R-l, Residential, to HI/LI, Heavy/Light Industrial, to
allow for warehousing facilities. Located on west side of Route 29 North
between Airport Acres Subdivision and Norths~de Industrial Park. Tax Map 32,
Parcel 22. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February
and February 9, 1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff ~report:
"PETITION: Republic Capital Corporation petitions the Board of
Supervisors to rezone 14.6 acres from R~i, Residential, to HI, Heavy
Industrial, and 11 acres from R-l, Resid~ential, to LI, Light Indus-
trial. This is a PROFFERED zoning petition applicable to both
rezoning actions. (Note: Proffer #3 is applicable to the existing
nine acres of HI owned by the applicant. Property, described as Tax
Map 32, Parcel 22, is located on the west side of Route 29 North
south and adjacent to Northside Industrial Park in Hollymead in the
Rivanna Magisterial District.
BACKGROUND:
This property was subject to previous petition by Republic Capital
proposing rezoning from R-i, Residential~ to HI, Heavy Industrial.
ZMA-87-11, also a proffered rezoning waslultimately disapproved on a
tie vote by the Board of Supervisors in December, 1987. Staff has
attached the prior staff report, zoning proffers and Planning Commis-
sion minutes to this report.
STAFF COMMENT:
A major issue with the prior rezoning petition was appropriateness of
Heavy Industrial zoning adjacent to Airpdrt Acres Subdivision. Under
this petition, the applicant is proposing Light Industrial with a
depth of over 400 feet adjacent to Airport Acres.
In addition, the applicant has submittedlseven proffers many of which
would reduce objectionable aspects of industrial rezoning to Airport
Acres. The Airport Industrial Park, zoned Planned Development-
Industrial Park, also adjoins Airport Ac~es subdivision with about
three times the length of common boundar~ as the Republic Capital
property. Staff's opinion is that proteC~tive measures proffered by
Republic Capital exceed protective measu=~es imposed upon the Airport
Industrial Park. Staff recommends approval and acceptance of the
applicant's proffers."
621
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 2,
1988, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-87-19, as proffered. Mr. Horne
then reviewed the proffers as submitted by the applicant and outlined in the
following letter:
"January 18, 1988
Mr. Ron Keeler
County of Albemarle
County Office Building
McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Airport Business Park
Dear Mr. Keeler:
In conjunction with our request for rezoning of our property at
Airport Business Park we would like to make the following proffers:
e
In order to provide a tangible incentive for the extension
of public sewer to this industrial propertY, but in
recognition of the lack of same currently, we hereby
proffer that prior to the installation of public sewer the
uses that will be allowed will be those that do not require
public sewer and which can be served by domestic septic
fields. Furthermore, the buildings which Hill be con-
structed will have less than a total of 2215,000 square
feet, until such public sewer is available~
We hereby proffer a restriction of the types of uses of the
property for that portion of the property Hhich will be HI.
The uses that will be prohibited on the prgperty would
include the following: brick manufacture; concrete mixing
plants, manufacturing of sewage disposal systems, manufac-
turing and recycling of tires; petroleum, gasoline, natural
gas and manufactured gas storage; sawmills~ wood preserving
operations.
We agree to restrict the uses of the nine Acres of Parcel
32-33C which is already zoned HI in the sa~e way as provided
in Section 2 above.
We proffer to restrict the development of ~he property to
the general outline of the master plan which has been
submitted as part of this rezoning applica{ion.
?
In the way of road improvements, we proffe~ to limit
development of the property to not exceed ~he capacity of
the access road until such time as the road is improved to
accommodate the additional traffic generated by the added
development of this rezoning. The capacit~ of the access
road is that capacity which will accommodate the traffic
from the contiguous properties if fully de~eloped under the
existing zoning.
We will expand the undisturbed buffer areaifrom the required
30 foot width to a 50 foot width along the lot line which
abuts the lots of Airport Acres.
No portion of the buildings will be within the four acre
buffer zone adjacent to the lots of Airport Acres.
Please call me if you have any questions about these proffers.
Yours truly,
Blake Hurt (Signed)
President"
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) .622
(Page 25)
Mr. Lindstrom asked how many years this property has been shown in the
Comprehensive Plan for industrial use. Mr. Horne replied, at least since
1982. This report did not review the Comprehensive Plan and many of the other
issues reviewed in the previous staff report, but for the Board's information
the previous staff report was forwarded.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Blake Hurt, the applicant, said he
does not think this plan is quite as good as the previous plan in terms of
suitability for the overall community, but does feel that this addresses the
issues that were brought up by the Planning Commission and the neighborhood.
The major change from the previous plan is the designation of eleven acres
adjacent to Airport Acres as Light Industrial and the designation of four
acres of that as being a buffer. This plan would accommodate a lot of the
demand for industrial space in the County. He has discussed providing public
utilities to serve the project with the Albemarle Service Authority. He hopes
that the Board will approve the request.
Mr. Bowie asked what utilities are on the property. Mr. Hurt said the
property presently has public water.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands this ~s a new application and the
applicant is not bound by previous proffers.' Proffer #1 is almost identical
to the previous application except in the proffer before the Board tonight the
applicant has deleted the provision "subsequent to installation of public
sewer, construction will be limited to an additional 225,000 square feet or
for both pre-public sewer and post public sewer a limit of approximately
450,000 square feet". Mr. Hurt~said when he~was before the Board previously,
he did not think that statement created any ~oncern. He thinks the square
footage is harder to determin9 because it wa~ an ambiguous figure, and because
there did not seem to be any real oppositionil he decided simplicity was the
best way. Mr. Lindstrom saidihe wa~ particularly concerned about the previous
proffers regarding the exterior styling of the buildings, the buffer area and
grading. Mr. Hurt said he deleted ~hose from the proffers, but he has no
problem with putting them back. As he has p~eviously stated, he intends for
the project to be reasonably consistent throughout because he believes that
enhances the value of the property and as a ~esult makes it more attractive.
The elevations for the topographic lines wer~ deleted because they evidently
caused more confusion than understanding. THose lines can be included when he
can get more accurate topographic maps. He ds not sure where the berm would
be. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that instead of idealing with a buffer area and
grading for parking and the roadway, that th~ rear of the building be used as
a distinction. Mr. Hurt said he would be wil~ling to include #10 and #11 from
the previous proffers as #8 and #9 in the new proffers with a modification to
#10" edge of the parking or roadway . . "to read" edge of the
building . "
Mr. Carroll Goode said he is an adjacent property owner and is still
opposed to the rezoning. The arguments that ithe Board heard from the residen-
tial owners opposing ZMA-87-17 are still the ~ame. He was glad to hear Mr.
Hurt agree to certain proffers because those are things that also concern him.
If the Board must approve the rezoning application, he would request that all
of the old proffers be included as part of th~s application.
Mrs. Jean Jarvis said she appreciates th~ support the homeowners got from
members of the Board on the last request. She also appreciates all of Mr.
Hurt's efforts. She does oppose the light/heavy industry next to a residen-
tial area. With regard to this industrial zoning being in the Comprehensive
Plan, this is a 30 year old subdivision and thus the zoning came after the
fact. She opposes the rezoning for the following reasons: (1) the Comprehen-
sive Plan recognizes this as a residential area, (2) there are already 700
acres in this area slated for industrial use, t(3) this is not for the good of
the community as there is other land available, (4) there is the danger of
depletion or contamination of the homeowners Qell water, (5) traffic will be
increased by tractor/trailers, and (6) property devaluation. If there is
other land available that land should be usediinstead of taking away the value
from the homeowner. She also feels that if this use was proposed near any of
the Board members homes or Mr. Hurt's home that person would be present oppos-
ing the rezoning.
623
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
There being no one else from the public to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowie said a previous proffer provided twice the screening require-
ment for any disturbed areas within 100 feet of the lots in Airport Acres and
asked why that was taken out. Mr. Hurt said there will not be any disturbed
areas within 50 feet. He has no problem with screening the area, but it did
not seem appropriate since the building was backing up to the roadway and
therefore the building itself would act as screen from any of the traffic. If
the Board feels that is important he would make it part Of the proffers. Mr.
Bowie said he would feel better if the previous proffer #7 was included with
these proffers as #10.
Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the Comprehensive Plan and thinks this
application is consistent with the Plan.
Mr. Bowie said he opposed the previous request because he thought the use
was too intense and he could not accept the entire property being heavy
industry. He thinks this plan would have passed the last time around. The
homeowners have essentially all of the protections for the subdivision by
adding the proffers and this use is in the Comprehensive Plan. He will
support the request and thinks it is a proper use of the land.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve ZMA~87-19 with the seven condi-
tions contained in the Proffer dated January 18, 1988, conditions #7, #10 and
#11 from the proffer of November 20, 1987, and #10 modified to reflect the
building as opposed to parking or roadway and as agreed to by Mr. Hurt. Mr.
Lindstrom said he thinks #11 in the December 2, 1987, proffer addresses the
issue better than in the November 20 letter. Mr. Hurt said if Mr. Lindstrom
feels strongly about #11 he will include all of it for those buildings that
back up to Airport Acres and all of the previous #11 for the rest of the
buildings. Mr. Perkins asked what limit would be put on the buildings away
from the light industry. Mr. Hurt said he would be happy to state with regard
to #11 of December 2, but have the height increased from .25 feet to 30 feet
and from 20 to 25 feet on all of the structures. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no
problem with the 30 feet on the heavy industry.
Mr. Bowie said with the light industry he is not as aoncerned with the
height as he was before and repeated his motion to includ~ #11 from the
December 2 proffer as modified and agreed by Mr. Hurt, a~ as set out in full
below:
"January 18, 1988
Mr. Ron Keeler
County of Albemarle
County Office Building
McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Airport Business Park
Dear Mr. Keeler:
In conjunction with our request for rezoning of our property at
Airport Business Park we would like to make the foll6wing proffers:
1. In order to provide a tangible incentive fdr the extension
of public sewer to this industrial property, but in recogni-
tiOn of the lack of same currently, we hereby proffer that
prior to the installation of public sewer the uses that
will be allowed will be those that do not ~equire public
sewer and which can be served by domestic septic fields.
Furthermore, the buildings which will be c~nstructed will
have less than a total of 225,000 square f~et, until such
public sewer is available. ~
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
624
Be
We hereby proffer a restriction of the types of uses of the
property for that portion of the property which will be HI.
The uses that will be prohibited on the property would
include the following: brick manufacture~ concrete mixing
plants, manufacturing of sewage disposal systems, manufac-
turing and recycling of tires; petroleum, gasoline, natural
gas and manufactured gas storage; sawmills; wood preserving
operations.
We agree to restrict the uses of the nine acres of Parcel
32-33C which is already zoned~HI in the same way as provided
in Section 2 above.
We proffer to restrict the development of the property to
the general outline of the master plan which has been
submitted as part of this rezoning application.
In the way of road improvements, we proffer to limit
development of the property to not exceed the capacity of
the access road until such time as the road is improved to
accommodate the additional traffic generated by the added
development of this rezoning,i The capacity of the access
road is that capacity which will accommodate the traffic
from the contiguous properties if fully developed under the
existing zoning. ~
We will expand the undisturbed buffer area from the required
30 foot width to a 50 foot wi~.th along the lot line which
abuts the lots of Airport Acres.
7. No portion of the buildings will be within the four acre
buffer zone adjacent to the lo~ts of Airport Acres.
Please call me if you have any question~ about these proffers.
Yours truly,
Blake Hurt (Signed)
President"
"December 2, 1987
Mr. John Home
Planning Department
County of Albemarle
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22901
Northside Industrial Park
Dear John:
After discussion with Mr. Lindstrom about his questions on the
additional proffers, I would like to modify proffers 10 and 11 of my
letter to you dated November 20 to read as follows:
~O:--~he-bn~fer-area-adjacent-to-the-Airpork-Acres-muhd~vi-
s~on-witt-be-graded-~-as-~o-maintain-the-natnrat-t~pogra-
phy-o~-that-property-np-~o-~he-area-reqnired-~-grade-the
pr~per~y-on-a-~wo-to-one-stope-~o-the-edge-~-the-parking
~r-roadway-~n-sn~h-a-manner-as-~-~ont~nne-prov~d~ng
adeqna~e-s~rm-drainage-~a~t~ies-~or-~hat-me¢~ion-o~-the
pr~per~yr--~he-ptanting-~f-s~reening-and-~he-bn~td~ng-o~
berms-wi~t-be-d~ne-in-a-manner~-insnta~es-as-~ar-as-is
feasibte~-~he-adjaaent-residenE~at-ne~ghborhood-from-~he
gtare~-n~se-and-v~sib~tity-~the-project-and-mcreening
shalt-be-to-~he-rea~onabte-~a~ae~on-o~-~he-Ptann~ng
~ommissionv--Att-screening-veg~a~i~n-mhatt-be-ma~n~a~ned
by-~he-ownerr ~
625
11.
February 17, 1988 (.Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
The exterior architectural styling of the buildings will be
reasonably consistent throughout the project. The building
will be substantially masonry or concrete wall construction
with brick, stucco, textured concrete or masonry facades,
finished in natural earth tones on all building sides
facing residential zoned land. Structure heights shall not
exceed 25 30 feet except that no portion of any structure
within 300 feet of the Airport Acres shall exceed 28 25
feet. Building designs shall be reviewed in the schematic
fashion with the Planning Staff for their comments prior to
construction.
I would appreciate it if you would add these changes to my proffer
for the Board review.
Sincerely,
Blake Hurt (Signed)
President"
"November 20, 1987
Mr. John Home
County of Albemarle
County Office Building
McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Home:
In conjunction with our request for rezoning of our property at the
Northside Industrial Park, we would like to summarize all the proffers
we have made to date. We have also added the .two additional proffers
suggested by Mr. Lindstrom at the Board meeting on Navember 18.
~=---~n-order-to-prov~de-a-tang~bte-~ncentive-~er-~he-extens~n
of-Pubt~e-~ewer-to-~h~-~ndus~r~at-proper~y~-bn~-~n-re¢~g-
n~n-~f-~he-ta~k-ef-same-enrrentty;-we-he'reby-pr~fer
~ha~-pr~or-~o-~he-~nstattat~on-of-pnbt~c-sewer-~he-n~es
~hat-w~tt-Se-att~wed-w~t-~e-~h~e-that-d~n~-re~n~re
PnBt~a-~ewer-and-wh~h-aan-Se-served-~y-d~me~¢-~ep~c
~etdsv--And-~nrther-~hat-~he-5n~td~ngs-wh{~h-w~tt-~e
e~n~trm¢~ed-w~tt-have-temm-tha~-a-~at-~f3225~888-~gnare
Snbse~nent-~e-~he-instattatien-of-pnbt~e-sewers-~onstrna-
~ion-wontd-be-t~mi~ed-~o-an-additionat-225~OOO,sgnare-fee~
~r-for-both-pre-pnbti~-sewer-and-p~s~-pnbt~-sewers-a-tim~
ofrappr~xima~ety-45O~OOO-s~nare-fee~r
R=---We-hereby-proffer-a-res~r~ct~on-on-~he-~ype~-ef-nses-e~-~he
preper~y-~nae-~t-~m-zened-heavy-~nd~s~r~at~,-The-n~e~-~ha~
w~tt-net-be-att~wed-en-~he-pr~perty-w~ntd-~n¢tnde-~he
f~tt~w~ng-t~--br~k-man~faa~nr~ng~-~ne~e~e-m~x~ng
ptants~-mannfaatnr~ng-~f-sewage-d~sp~sat-~ym~emm~-mannfae-
~ur~ng-and-recy~t~ng-o~-~re~;-petr~tenm~-ga~t~ne~_na~nrat
ga~-and-mann~a~nred-ga$-s~rage~-sawm~tts~w~d-pre~erv~ng
~pera~onsv
3=---We-proffer-to-res~r~t-~he-deve~opment_o~_~he_property_to
the-generat-ontt~ne-of-~he-mas~er-ptan-wh~¢h-ha~-been
mnbm~tted-as-par~-o~-~his-rezon~ng-appt~eat~on=
4=---tn-~he-way-~-road-~mprovemen~s~-we-pr~er~t~-t~m~t
devet~pment-~-~he-pr~per~y-t~n~t-ex~eed-~e-~apae~y-~
the-aaae~m-r~ad-nnt~t-mn~h-~me-as-~he-r~ad+~s-~mpr~ved-t~
a~e~mm~da~e-the-add~nat-~ra~f~a-genera~e~-Sy-~he-added
devet~pment-~f-th~s-rez~n~ng:--The-aapa~ty~-~he-aaae~s
r~ad-~m-~hat-aapa~ty-wh~¢h-w~tt-aea~mm~da~-~he-~raf~¢
fr~m-~he-~nt~gn~-pr~per~e~-~-fntty-dev~t~ped~nnder-~he
ex~s~ng-zon~ng~
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
626
5=___We-agree-to-add-~he-9-acres-o~-Parcel-BR-33S-to-the-~6
acres_~or-the-pnrpose-o~-restr~c~ng-~he-heavy-~nd~r~at
use-~ha~-we-have-pro~ered-on~he-~6-acres=
6:___We_w~tt-expand-the-nnd~sturbed-bn~er-area-~rom-~he-38-~t
w~d~h_~o-~he-~8-~oo~-w~dth-atOng-alt-the-totm-a~-A~rp~rt
Acre~-abn~t~ng-the-pr~per~Y=
We will provide twice the screening requirement stated in
the ordinance for any disturbed areas within 100 feet of
the lots in Airport Acres.
8=___No-por~ien-o~-the-bn~td~ngs-w{tt-be-w~th~n-~88-~ee~-of-the
t~s-~-A~rpor~-Acresv
9v___We-w~tt-rearrange-Phase-t-so-khat-the-f~rst-~w*-bn~td~ng~
~5~8-rather-~han-parattet-~-R~n~e-~9-N~r~hv
10. The buffer area adjacent to t~e Airport Acres subdivision
will be graded so as to maintain the natural topography of
that property up to the area ~equired to grade the bank on
a two to one slope to the edg~ of the park~ng-~r-roadway
building and in such a manner!as to continue to provide
adequate storm drainage facilities for that section of the
property. The planting of th~ screening trees or the
building of berms will be don~ in a manner to insulate as
far as is feasible the glare,"noise, and visibility of the
project from the adjacent residential nemghborhood.
~v--~he-ex~er~r-arah~teaknral-s~l~ng-~-the-bn~ld~ngm-w~ll-~e
s~ru~t~on-and-w~tt-be-rev~ewe~-~n-a-~¢hema~a-~ash~on-w~h
We hope these proffers adequately address the concerns expressed
by the staff, the Planning Commission as~ well as Mr. Lindstrom and
the other Supervisors.
Yours truly,
Blake Hurt (Signed)
President
Mr. Lindstrom then seconded the motion. There being no further discus-
sion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom said this has been a long struggle but he thinks the manner
in which everyone has been able to deal with %his so effectively is because
the applicant has been willing to work "above,and beyond the call of duty".
This also allowed the Board some flexibility it might not otherwise have had.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-87-20. Virginia Land TR. Rezone 5.023 acres
from LI, Light Industrial, to HI, Heavy Industrial, to allow for mobile home
sales park. Located on east side of Route 29!North, north and adjacent to
Badger Powhatan. Tax Map 32, Parcel 5E. Rivanna District. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on February 2 and February!9, 1988.)
Mr. Home presented the following staff ~eport:
PETITION: Virginia Land Trust petitionslthe Board of Supervisors to
rezone 5.023 acres from LI, Light Industrial, to HI, Heavy Indus-
trial. Property described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5E, is located north
and adjacent to Badger Powhatan on the east side of Route 29 North in
the Rivanna Magisterial District.
627
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
February 17, 1988 ,(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
This site is currently vacant. Badger-Powhatan is to the south. The
Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant is to the east. Property to the north
has been subdivided with one lot approved for an auto parts distribu-
tion shop. Ail of these properties are zoned LI.
STAFF COMMENT:
Oakwood Mobile Home sales must relocate from its current site across
from Woodbrook Subdivision due to development of that site for other
purposes. Alternate sites along Route 29 North were discussed with
staff. This particular site appeared advantageous due to access and
past usage (This site was formerly occupied by Cavalier Mobile Homes
and Ward's Mobile Homes). Of the two zoning districts which permit
mobile homes sales, HI, appeared more appropriate than HC.
As with most reviews along Route 29 North, transportation matters are
a concern. Virginia Department of Transportation has commented that:
The property in this request is not shown in the Comprehensive
Plan. The traffic generation from LI and HI properties is
fairly similar with the major difference being the size and type
of vehicles involved. As with this request for a mobile home
sales park, the vehicles are long in length and normally will
have heavier loads. The access to this property should align
with the existing crossover on Route 29 across !from Route 1510.
This would require a joint entrance with Badger~Powhatan and
upgrading the existing entrance. The existing right turn lane
on Route 29 for the Badger Powhatan entrance is approximately
100 feet long with a 60 foot taper lane. If this request is
approved, the right turn lane should be upgraded to accommodate
the existing usage and to meet current standard~. If the access
to this property does not align to the crossover then there is
the problem with 'U-turns' for the mobile home trailers.
Staff agrees with VDOT recommendation (The prior Ward's Mobile Homes
sales used a joint entrance with Badger Powhatan which also serves
the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant). Additionally, staff noted,
during review of International Auto Parts, that easement through this
site could be required to serve International Auto Parts and other
industrial sites to the north (Section 32~7.2.6 of the Site Develop-
ment Plan section of the Zoning Ordinance)."
Mr. Horne said the applicant submitted the following-proffer at the
Planning Commission meeting:
"Virginia Land Trust proffers deletion of certain HIiuses for that
parcel known as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5E, effectively l~miting usage to
the following:
o
Mobile home sales.
Uses permitted in the HI zonewhich are permitted by right in
the LI zone. ~
Uses permitted in the HI zone which are permitted by special use
permit in the LI zone, subject to special use permit approval."
With those three clarified proffers, the Planning Co~nission, at its
meeting on February 2, 1988, recommended approval of ZMA-S7-20.
Mr. Home said access to the site is something that C~an be appropriately
addressed during site plan review. Based on staff's review, access through
the site out to a joint entrance can be accommodated with0~t severely limiting
the mobile home site. It is his opinion that to provide safe and convenient
access to an additional commercial site in this area, it will be necessary to
use a joint entrance into this site through Badger PowhatZn.~ He thinks this
can be required during site plan review. Mr. St. John said he thinks that can
be required of the applicant, but not of Badger Powhatan as it is not the
applicant before the Board. Mr. Home said it is true that if the applicant
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 628
(Page 31)
cannot obtain legal access to that entrance, it cannot be conditioned. Mr.
Lindstrom commented that the Board cannot condition the application, all it
can do is either accept an amended proffer or act on what it has. Mr. Horne
said he is uncomfortable accepting from the applicant an absolute proffer to
use a joint entrance to provide access across that property. He would not
like to have the applicant verbally proffer that and find out that it cannot
be done.
The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Virginia Gardner, the applicant,
said she thinks action on this request may require deferral. She cannot speak
tonight on the access issue, but knows that the applicant does have an ease-
ment on the Badger Powhatan property. Mr. Lindstrom suggested deferring the
request to bring back a proffer that addresses the issue.
Ms. Virginia Putnam, manager of Oakwood Mobile Homes Sales, said she
wanted to let the Board know that the property has always had access and that
entrance is used.
There being no further comments from the' public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowie said he does not have any prob!emwith the application but
because there is the entrance issue, he will offer motion to defer ZMA-87-20
until March 2, 1988. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried with the following recorde~ vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
(Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 11:55 P.Mi')
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-87-108. Donald & Judith Lawhorne. Locate single
wide mobile home on 3.1692 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located on
south side of Route 674 west of intersection With Route 673. Tax Map 26,
Parcel 14 (part of). White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on February 2 and February 9, 1988).
Mr. Home presented the following staff Ceport:
Petition: Donald Lawhorne petitions the!Board of Supervisors to
issue a special use permit to locate a single-wide mobile home
(Section 10.2.2.10) on 3.1 acres. The p~operty is located on the
south side of Route 674, approximately one mile west of its intersec-
tion with Route 673. Tax Map 26, Parcel~14 (part of). Zoned RA,
Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: ~
This site is moderate to gently rolling, ~and is densely wooded with
young pines and mature hardwoods. The Mqormans River is adjacent to
this property at its southernmost portion. This site will be well
screened from parcels to the east and so~th. There are approximately
three mobile homes existing within a one mile radius of this site.
Staff Comment:
Two letters, of opposition have been filed against this petition.
Both letters raise concerns over propert~ devaluation and contend
that mobile homes 'detract from the natural beauty of the land'
Traveling west on Route 674, it appears t~hat the proposed mobile home
site will not be visible. Traveling east~ the mobile home will be
visible from the state road due to the topography of the site. The
mobile home does not seem to be visible f~om adjacent residences.
The applicant intends to reside in the mobile home, rather than rent
the dwelling.
629
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
ShoUld the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
o
That the applicant maintain a 30-foot buffer of existing trees
to east and south of the proposed location."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 9,
1988, unanimously recommended approval of SP-87-108 subject to the conditions
in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened. (Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at
12:01 A.M.)
Mr. Donald Lawhorne, the applicant, said he plans to live in the mobile
home and intends to screen it from view.
Ms. Ann Campbell said she objects to moving a mobile home adjacent to her
because it will devalue her property. She has a vested interest in the area.
She purchased her land 10 years ago and eight years ago she built a house
there, She presented pictures of the place where Mr. Lawhorne has been living
which now has been condemned by the County. This is what he plans to bring to
the neighborhood, if he is allowed this permit. It is her belief that a
mobile home is not compatible with the existing area. She presented some
pictures of the homes in the area. Taxable values of the~!homes in the neigh-
borhood will be affected. She thinks that if the situation were reversed and
she wanted to put a mobile home beside Mr. Lawhorne's home, he would make the
same objection. She is all for a quality environment.
The next person to address the Board, Mr. Richard Porter, submitted a
petition signed by 25 residents reading as follows: "We ~he undersigned
landowners, homeowners, taxpayers and registered voters i~ the County of
Albemarle, do hereby most strongly object to SP-87-108 to ~locate a mobile home
on property adjacent to Route 674." The individuals who signed the petition
collectively own in excess of 70 acres in the area which represents an
extremely large tax base,
Mr. James Nix said he signed the petition. There-are also the aesthetic
considerations. The area is beautiful. To put a mobile home there will
definitely change the character of the neighborhood and ig will be an unfavor-
able change.
Mrs. Pat Porter said she would like to reiterate the ~previous statements
made. The land is indeed beautiful. The Highway Department is proposing to
pave the road and in the process will take 25 feet on either side. That will
cause the setback even further. No matter what screening~is done, the mobile
home will still be visible.
Mrs. Judith Nix said she also lives in the neighborhood. There are three
mobile homes in the area which are all virtually invisible from passing
traffic. The way this lot is arranged there is no way a mobile home can be
placed on the property without it being very visible to traffic coming from
the west. She disagrees that it would not be visible from adjacent proper-
ties. The immediate adjacent properties may not be able to see it but there
are several homes in the neighborhood from which this spot'is quite visible.
A mobile home would devalue both the property values and aesthetic values of
living in that area. ~
Mr. Layton McAllister said he owns 22.2 acres south of this property and
is making preparations to build a home there. This site fbr the proposed
mobile home would be approximately 600 feet from where he proposes to build.
A great deal of the vegetation and trees have already been*removed. There is
not going to be much screening. If the existing screening3would have remained
the mobile home would have been screened considerably. He agrees with the
previous speakers about a mobile home devaluing property. Mr. Lindstrom asked
Mr. McAllister if he previously owned this parcel as part of a larger tract.
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night MeetinE? 630
(Page 33)
Mr. McAllister responded yes. He gave this three acres to his daughter and
she later sold the parcel. Mr. Lindstrom asked if he put any restrictions on
the land when he gave it to his daughter. Mr. McAllister responded no.
Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews said she wrote a letter to the Board expressing
her feelings in opposition. She feels this is not in the best use for the
people in the neighborhood. She questions the setback from the road and would
appreciate any consideration that the Board can give the residents. The
residents did attend the Planning Commission meeting and voiced their opposi-
tion to the petition.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Perkins said he has Mrs. Matthews' letter and said it indicates the
statements made by some of the other people. He feels that some of the
comments that have been made are in conflict with statements made by the
Planning Commission. The mobile home at it's proposed location would be
visible going west because it is on the highest point on that piece of property.
If there is no grading done where the stakes are located, one end of the
mobile home would be on the ground and the other end would be four feet off
the ground. There had been a lot of trees cut which has destroyed the screen-
ing that was there. To him, it looks like the proposed road will be going
straight up a 15 percent hill and would create runoff and erosion problems
straight into the state road. Mrs. Lawhorne interrupted and said the Highway
Department is the one that determined the location of the road.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Lawhorne held~title to the property. Mr.
Lawhorne replied yes. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about the location
of the mobile home on the site, but he thinks!that the Board has traditionally
tried to work with the applicant as well as the neighboring property owners to
see that the mobile home is feasible in a location where there can be adequate
screening. If there needs to be a little mor~ done in that area on this
application, he thinks the Board should defer~action and allow the staff to do
that. It sounds to him as if there is a diffArence of opinion with regard to
the location of the mobile home and he thinksiit is rather critical that it be
located carefully and screened properly. He finds it difficult to discrimi-
nate between one kind of single-family residence that is going to be owner-
occupied and another type of residence. He c~n appreciate the concerns about
aesthetics, but there are houses that are permanent structures that are much
more unsightly than mobile homes. He personally has a problem making the
distinction that one is better than the other~ The Ordinance has served the
Board well in allowing it to be particular about screening and the location of
the mobile home on the site, but he is concer~ed about how much beyond that
the Board can reasonably expect the law to aliow it to go. He would suggest
deferral to allow the staff to work with the ~pplicant in terms of placement
of the mobile home and the screening. ~
Mr. Perkins said he has concerns about t~e proposed location of the
mobile home as well as the entrance road because he does think there is a
better location for the road. He also thinksithere is a better site for the
mobile home than the one proposed. Mr. Bain asked if the buffer of existing
trees is still there~ Mr. Perkins said a lot~of the trees have been cut. One
of the requirements is ~hat the applicant maintain a 30 foot buffer strip of
existing trees east and south of the proposed~location and he would like that
to also be to the north and west. Mr. Home ~aid the reason for not making
that a condition is because trees do not exist in that direction. Mr. Perkins
said it really disturbs him that work has already been done to the site which
changes it and takes away its natural buffer.
Mr. Bowie said he hopes a solution can be found. He is personally
troubled with someone giving away a piece of property and then making demands
on that property. If there was a certain use the person did not want on the
land, he should have restricted it as such. He will support deferral.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstromi seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer
action on SP-87-108 until March Z, 1988, to allow Mr. Perkins, staff and the
631
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
applicant time to find a .better location on the site for the mobile home and
to discuss the location of a driveway. Roll was called and the motion carr
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-87-114. Donnie Lawson. Locate single wide
mobile home on 107 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Located on private easement,
south side of Rt. 776 southwest of intersection with Rt. 664. Tax Map 18,
Parcel 9. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February
and February 9, 1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Petition: Donnie Lawson petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue
a special use permit to locate a single-wide mobile home (Section
10.2.2.10) on 107 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property is
described as Tax Map 18, Parcel 9, located approximately .5 mile on a
private road off Rt. 776.
Character of the Area: The site is located at the end of a private
easement which serves four additional parcels. The proposed site is
completely cleared of trees. There are approximately five mobile
homes existing in a one mile radius of this site, including a mobile
home that exists directly north of the proposed location.
Staff Comment:
Three letters of opposition have been filed against this petition. A
letter from an adjacent property owner who presently uses the exist-
ing private road has concern over increasing traffic on the road.
Other letters filed reflect concerns of property devaluation.
Due to its proposed location at the end of a private road, the mobile
home will not be visible from Route 776. The proposed site is below
the elevation of the private road, but the mobile home may be visible
from some portions of this road. It will not be visible from adjoin-
ing residences.
The applicant does intend to reside in the mobile ho~e, rather than
rent the dwelling.
Should the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following condition:
Recommended ConditionOf Approval:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 9,
1988, recommended approval of SP-87-114 subject to the condition in the staff
report.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Donnie Lawson, the applicant, said he
is already using the road as he presently lives with his mother. He just
wants a separate home for his family~ Mr. Perkins asked where the mother
lives. Mr. Lawson said in a house on the 107 acres. The~iexisting mobile home
on the five acres belongs to his brother. Mr. Perkins asked who maintains the
road. Mr. Lawson replied three families are involved.
Mr. Bain offered motion to approve SP-87-114 subject to the condition
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr.
Perkins asked Mr. Lawson if he would have to drill a well and install a
drainfield. Mr. Lawson said he will use his mothers well for a while, but
will have to be on a separate drainfield. Mr. Perkins suggested some buffer-
ing because the mobile home that is presently located there does not have any
screening. Mr. Lindstrom commented that Section 5.6.2 provides for screening.
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting.)- 632
(Page 35)
Mr. Home said the language states "screening to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator" and if the Zoning Administrator does not feel there is
any point in screening, he will not require it. Mr. Perkins said he thinks
there should be some screening provided. Mr. Bain amended his motion to
require screening to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning staff. Mrs.
Cooke accepted the amendment as seconder. The conditions are as follows:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Screening to the satisfaction of t~e Planning staff.
There being no further discussion, roll,was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. SP-87-103. Christ Community Church. To allow for a
church to be located on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located
within Roslyn Ridge Subdivision on east side 'of Roslyn Ridge Road and west
side of Rt. 743 near the Rock Store. Tax Map 45, Parcel 21. Jack Jouett
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2 and February 9,
1988.)
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 12:36 P.M.)
Mr. Home presented the following staff report:
"Petition: Christ Community Church petitions the Board of Supervi-
sors to issue a special use permit to locate a church (Section
10.2.2.33) on 21.1 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property,
described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 21, is located on. the east side of
Roslyn Ridge Road at the intersection of~Route 743 (Hydraulic Road)
and Route 631. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Character of the Area:
The proposed site is presently vacant, and partially covered with
mature trees. The topography of the site is moderately rolling.
The recently approved Roslyn Ridge Subdivision surrounds the subject
parcel to the north and west, while the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints is directly east on an adjacent parcel. Properties
across Hydraulic Road are in the Urban Area and are primarily commer-
cial and high density residential in usage.
Staff Comment:
This applicant proposes to construct a building of 5,000 square feet,
with a seating capacity for 250 persons. Preliminary plans indicate
100 parking spaces being provided, with approximately 3,000 square
feet proposed as future expansion area.
The Virginia Department of Transportation is recommending that access
to this site be restricted to the existing Roslyn Ridge Road. If
this request generates more than 145 vehicle trips per day, the
right-of-way width on Roslyn Ridge Road ~ould have to be increased to
50 feet from the present 40 feet, and the shoulder width increased as
well as the pavement design upgraded. THe Virginia Department of
Transportation recommends no direct access to this non-tolerable
section of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road).
Staff has worked with the applicant in a~ effort to minimize the
amount of impervious cover in the Watershed Water Supply Area. The
County Engineer and Watershed Management Official are satisfied with
the preliminary plan.
633
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with criteria for
issuance of a special use permit, and it is staff's opinion that a
church in this location would not be obtrusive nor out of character
with other uses in the area.
Staff recommends approval of this petition subject to the following:
1. Sanctuary seating limited to 250 persons;
Sanctuary and classroom expansion, and Day Care or other such
uses will require amendment to this petition;
Approval of this petition will require the site to access Roslyn
Ridge Road only;
Administrative approval of site plan after review by the Site
Review Committee."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 9,
1988, recommended approval of SP-87-103 subject to the conditions in the staff
report with an amendment to Condition #2 as follows:
Expansion of either sanctuary, classroom seating capacity, day
care, or other non-worship uses will require amendment to this
petition.
Mr. Horne said there was some discussion at the Planning Commission
meeting as to what other potential uses there might be and it was the intent
to clarify that for any future use.
Mr. Horne said the majority of the developed portion of this site falls
within the watershed boundary and would drain ultimately ~nto the South Fork
Rivanna Watershed. The Engineering Department and the Watershed Management
Official are reviewing the plan to institute whatever runoff control measures
they can to minimize runoff pollutants into the watershed area. (Mr. St. John
returned to the meeting at 12:41 A.M.)
Mrs. Cooke asked the capacity of the parking lots. Mr. Horne said that
a total of t00 parking spaces shown.
Mr. Lindstrom said the application to connect this church to public water
and sewer has been withdrawn and he asked if there is a septic field. Mr.
Home replied yes, which causes the staff a dilemma. From a policy point, the
staff loathes providing public utilities outside the area !that naturally
drains to the urban area because then they are extending into the watershed.
There was a conflict between policy and what may be in the long run be better
for water quality. It was decided by the staff and applicant to just decide
on a church in the RA area and everyone will do everything possible to main-
tain water quality. The issue of sewer service is getting complex and how to
deal with that and not set a precedent for sewer extensions into the watershed
boundary. Mr. Lindstrom commented that there is a lot of room for expansion
on a 21 acre lot such as this.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bruce Wardell said the applicant
worked closely with staff on placement of the building. The applicants did
withdraw the request for public water and sewer because they felt it would
limit future possibilities on the site. The applicants worked with staff in
controlling the stormwater runoff almost down to the gallon so that water is
not diverted from one watershed district to another. With~regard to the
second condition, there are certain normal functions of a ~hurch that are in a
grey area. There was no public opposition to the request And he is present to
answer any questions. :~
Mr. Karl Boulden, a member of Christ Community Church, said he is
in the church. The church currents meets in a rented facility not far from
this site. The church is looking for a permanent home as it grows and they
are excited about the prospects of this endeavor.
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 634
(Page 37)
There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said this property lies in his district and the only other
church in the watershed is also in his district. He could not support that
request and he cannot support this. His primary concern is that if the church
is successful, it will be difficult to confine the congregation to 250 persons.
With respect to the watershed, this is a kind of impervious surface being
created. The biggest areas of concentration~being in the parking lots. He
does not think this is the right location for the church. Approval of this
request has some obvious land use implications.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to deny
SP-87-103. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstr6m, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: Application for Public Water and
Sewer Service. Christ Community Church. To ~amend Albemarle County Service
Authority service area boundaries to include property adjacent to Roslyn Ridge
Subdivision for both water and sewer. Lot 1~ Tax Map 45, Parcel 21. Jack
Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily P~ogress on February 2 and February
1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following letter' dated February 16, 1988, from
Mr. Bruce Wardell:
"In reference to the application on behalf of Christ Community Church
of Charlottesville for consideration to receive public water and
sewer to their lot at Roslyn Ridge, we Would like to request with-
drawal of the application at this point in time. With the informa-
tion concerning the drainage divide and stormwater requirements, it
was most expedient to place the building outside of the boundary of
the urban area, thus making the supply Of public water and sewer
unlikely. Should the church decide in the future to expand into the
urban area, the application would be reactivated at that time."
Agenda Item No. 17. Acceptance of Gift of Dogwood Trees. Taken up at
the afternoon meeting.
Agenda Item No. 18. Appropriation: Funding of Joint Security Complex
Expansion. Because of the lateness of the hour, the item was not discussed,
but moved to the March 2, 1988, agenda.
Agenda Item No. 19. Approval of Minutesi March 18 (Afternoon), April 15
(Night), September 9, and September 16, 1987.~ Because of the lateness of the
hour, this item was not discussed and thus moved to the March 2, 1988, agenda.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and the Public.
Mr. Agnor said the Virginia Municipal League and the VACo are holding a
rally on Thursday, February 25, 1988, 9:30 A.M., at the Richmond Marriott, on
the Governor's plans for education. This ral%y is to try to get the state
mandate on salaries eliminated or get additional funding for school systems in
¥irginia. They are requesting all localitiesito send letters to their dele-
gates outlining these efforts. A copy of a dCaft letter is provided to the
Board for information. Mr. Perkins said he thought that because the County
gave big increases to teachers last year it wduld be exempt this year. Mr.
Agnor said he is not certain whether the County is or not. Since 1980-81,
Virginia has had eight straight years of salary increases for teachers to meet
the national average. ¥irginia is now becoming known as a state that mandates
salaries for one group of employees which is Causing long range disparities
and resentment among other employees of local governments.
635
February 17, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the Chairman take whatever action is
necessary. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 12:55 A.M.