Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-02December 19, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom told the Board that the city of Charlottesville is delaying making a decis- ion on whether or not to oppose the t~ca~imn~f~.t~e~a. Piedmont Corridor~highway. He said he had been told by a member of the City Council that the Council's opinion is not necessarily that of the staff. He presented a short letter for the chairman's signature to City Council if the Board agrees. , Mr. Lindstrom made motion that the letter be sent to City Council, with Mr. Fisher's signature. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. January 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting.of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 2, 1985, at 7:30 p.m., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401~ Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. ~ Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke. Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:34 p.m,) and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; Mr. Ronald S Keeler Chief of Planning. ' · Agenda item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mr. Agnor, County ~e, who noted ~for the record that he would act as temporary chairman during the organi--~? zational meeting until the Chairman should be elected under Agenda Item NO. 4. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Election of Chairman. Mr. Agnor asked for nominations for the office of Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. · Lindstrom nominated Mr. Fisher and Mrs. Cooke seconded the nomination. Mr Agnor asked if there were other nominations. Hearing none, Mr. Bowie made motion that the nominations be closed and Mr. Fisher be elected chairman by acclamation. Mr. Henley.seconded the motion, carried by the following recorded vote: : Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. : None. N: Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher told the Board members he considers it a pleasure to serve on a Board with so members who have the ability to be leaders themselves. He said he appreciates the Board's confidence and will do his best to assist the Board members in the leadership of Albemarle County. Agenda Item No. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman. Mrs. Cooke, 1984 Vice-chairman of the Board, said she wished to make some comments before new vice-chairman is elected. She said the job carries with it few responsibilities and little authority, so while the extra stipend received by the vice-chairman is nice, the office does not warran~ it. She said she has been able to accept the stipend O~ly because she been serving as liason to the Planning Commission for the Board. Therefore, she suggested the Board list the job of liason to the Planning Commission with the office itself, so the vice-chairman would always have this responsibility.. In the event that the vice- n should have to assume the duties of chairman, other arrangements could be made for the on position. She reminded the Board that the Planning Commission meets each Tuesday night attending those meetings is a big responsibility. Mr. Lindstrom made m~tion to elect Mrs. Cooke to be vice-chairman of the Board and also to the Board's liason to the Planning Commission. Mr. Way seconded the nomination. Hearing no nominations, Mr. Fisher ruled that nominations cease and called for a vote. The motion by the following recorded vote: : Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. : None. : Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 6. Appointment of Clerk and Deputy Clerk. Mr. Fisher asked Mr Agnor 'for a recommendation for the appointment of clerk and deputy clerk to the Board. Mr. Agnor recommended that Miss Lettie E. Neher be appointed to the posi- tion of clerk for another term and Mrs. Linda W. Leake be appointed depUty clerk. He said the other employee'in the Board's office is still undergoing training and is not eligible for appointment. Mr. Bowie made motion to appoint Miss Neher and Mrs. Leake as Clerk and Deputy Clerk, respectively, to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion, which carried.bY the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowi.e, Mrs.' Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ' Agenda Item No. 7. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 1985. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to continue the schedule the Board followed in 1984, meeting at 7:30 p.m. on the first and third Wednesdays of the month and at 9:00 a.m. on the second Wednes- day. in the County Office Building at 401 McIntire Road. Seconded by Mr. Bowie, the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Set dates for Hearing Zoning Text Amendments Requested by citizens. Mr. Fisher'noted that the Board had received the follow±ng memo from Miss Neher concerning for Zoning Text Amendments: "Section 33.10 of the Zoning Ordinance states, that'the Board of Super~fi~ visors shall consider zoning text amendment'petitions by property owners at specified intervals of six months. Therefore, the Board at its first meeting in January has specified these dates to be the first meeting in June and the first meeting in December. Based on prior action by the Board, same would be appropriate for 1985." Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker and Mr. Keeler if they felt these dates should be changed in any way. They indicated they did not. Mr. Lindstrom then made motion that the first meet- ing in June and the first meeting in December be set aside for hearing zoning text amendments from citizens. Mr. Henley seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote: : Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. rS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Rules of Procedure. Mr. Fisher noted that the Rules of Procedure are the same ones the Board has adopted for ~he last few years. No changes were proposed by any Board member. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to adopt the Rules of Procedure for the Albemarle County Board ~f Supervisors as last set out in the minutes of January 4, 1984. Seconded by Mr. Bowie, the ion carried by the following recorded vote: ~S: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. : None. Agenda Item No. 10. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr, Lindstrom, the consent agenda was approved by the [lowing vote: ES: [YS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item No. 10.1. Copy of staff report dated December 10, 1984, from Satyendra Huja, Direc- ;or of Planning and Community Development for the City of Charlottesville re: Piedmont Corridor "I. Introduction and Backgr'o'u'nd The purpose of this memorandum is to briefly respond to you~ memorandum dated November 26 on the above topic. In preparation fox.this response, we have talked to the County planning staff and the State Highway staff and reviewed data available in our office. This review indicates that there is very little factual data on the topic. The County Board of Supervisors adopted'a resolution opposing the Piedmont Corridor Plan on July 18, 1984. The County Board also adopted a CATS study in December, 1982, deleting the Western Bypass. The County Board in May, 1979, adopted a 29 North Corridor Study by the State Highway Department which indicated six laning of 29 North, inclusion of a Western Bypass and McIntire Road extension. The Thomas Jefferson January 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) 613 Regional Planning Commission, on the sixth of December, 1984, adopted a position against the Piedmont Corridor. MPO has had numerous discus- sions on the problems of north-south traffic in the Charlottesville- Albemarle area, as well as on a larger regional context. The Piedmont Corridor was originally proposed~ by people of the southern part of the state, to have a better access to that area from the northern part of the state and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas. The State Highway Department has drawn a generalized location of the Piedmont Corridor which was placed on detailed maps by the County. It is evident from the County maps that if the location they have shown is used, this would have a significant adverse impact on the resi- dential areas. Furthermore, we have also received correspondence from the watershed management official for the City and County who has indicated that, in his view, the Piedmont Corridor would have a signif- icant adverse impact on the Rivanna Reservoir and a number of creeks and subwatersheds. He has outlined what is being proposed but has not provided any factual information as to how a road would adversely impact the water quality. In terms of traffic data, relating to the 29 North Corridor for the year 2000 it shows that approximately 25 percent of the traffic on this corridor is projected to be external traffic, not going to the City or the surrounding urban area. In our discussion with the State Highway Department, we understand that at present 29 North has a level of service in traffic movement between Level C and D. It is also their opinion that unless there are eastern and western bypasses, the level of traffic service on 29 North will be close to an F, which is unacceptable. They have indicated that six-laning of 29 North plus construction of the eastern bypass could improve the level of service to Level E, which would still not be satisfactory. ~Th~ State Highway Department is presently conducting a brief study of the 29 North Corridor, to be presented to MPO (the Metropolitan Planning Organization) by March 15, 1985. The purpose of this study is to see what improvements can be made to the 29 North Corridor and what are other alternatives for this corridor traffic. In the early part of 1984, the City discussed the highway situation and the City's position was clearly outlined in a letter, dated March, 1984, to Mr. Ken Lantz, which included some alternatives to 29 North. At that time, the City expressed serious concern about 29 North and the desire to prevent north/south traffic from going through the heart of the city of Charlottesville. The city suggested to the State Highway Department and to the County the possibility of exploring other western and eastern alternatives as well as alternatives to automobile traffic. II. Staff Comments' on 'this Issue A. LiMe'Ii'~Oo'd 'o'£ the Piedmont Corridor - Based upon the review of the position of the State Highway Department and available funding, it seems unlikely that the Piedmont Corridor could be built in any forsee- able future unless local and state highway allocation priorities are radically changed. B. County Position - The County position from the point of view of the County Board and Commission, is obviously reasonable to them as they do not want to adversely impact the residential neighborhoods and as they believe it would adversely impact the watershed. As indicated to you earlier, there is no factual data available to us as to the impact on water quality. It is a fact that the proposed corridor goes through the watershed area. As to the reasonableness of the County's position, it seems to us that there needs to be equitable sharing of the north/south traffic between City and County, and if the County continues to take the position that there can be no western alternative, we do not believe that would lead to a great deal of equity in sharing the traffic burden, unless there are other viable alternatives of which we are not aware. C. Watershed - A memorandum from Mr~ William Norris, Watershed Management Official, outlines his position, but no where does this memorandum indicate how this will lead to an adverse impact on the water- shed. It seems that it implies there are no reasonable ways to avoid an adverse impact on the watershed if this road was built. We are not so sure that this is a well thought out conclusion. D. Effect on the City - In terms of the effect on the City, we think that unless some alternatives to the present traffic are found, lack of a western bypass in some form would encourage through traffic through the city of Charlottesville and would adversely impact the residential and business areas of the city. Please keep in mind that traffic is increasing in the 29 North area faster than projected in the CATS study. If it was found that the Piedmont Corridor does affect the.water quality, then it would affect the city, as that water supply is used by the City also, but this kind of conclusion can only be arrived at based on a more careful environmental study and a study of the alternatives. Januar.~- 2. 18~ (R~u_~ar ~ht Meetin~___~ E. Improvements to 29 North - Improvements to Route 29 North can be made to the extent that it would be six-laned to the 250 'bypass. Furthermore, separate interchanges can be created at Rio Road and Hydraulic Road, but it is the view of the State Highway Department that these changes would still result in a traffic Level E or F on 29 North. Furthermore, there is no reasonable possibility of widening Route 29 south of the Bypass, and thus there need to be some alternatives for through traffic. F. Alternati~es''to' t'~e''Pie~dmont Corridor - In a letter to Ken Lantz, dated March ~8, 1984, we have suggested eastern and western alter- natives which are likely to have a minimal impact on the watershed and residential area and could provide relief to the 29 North problem, but the County has taken the position that no western alternatives should be studied by the State Highway Department. At this time the MPO has asked for a study of the eastern alternatives. III. Conclusion Based upon available information, and our involvement in these issues for some period, we think that probably City Council should wait until March before it takes any formal position on this issue. Our reason for this is that, at the time the~State Highway,Department~will have completed the study of 29 North alternatives, the City will have a better idea of the factual situation. It is also evident to us that the Piedmont Corridor proposal is not well thought out and probably not the best solution for the City or the County. But opposing this alternative puts the burden on the City and County to be willing to find other alternatives.-which equitably share the traffic burdens." Item No. 10.2. Building Activity Report for the month of November, 1984, from the Plan- ~ing Department dated December 13, 1984 (copy on file). Item No. 10.3. Notice dated December 13, 1984, from the State Corporation Commission, re: Rappahannock Electric Cooperative for an application to expand experimental load management program and to implement a certain new program - public hearing to be held March 19, 1985, at 10:00 a.m. in Richmond. Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-84-22. William Bailey. Request to rezone 1.09 acres from R-10, Residential, to CO, Commercial ~Offices. Located on the east side of Rio Road, +2,000 feet south of its intersection with Route 29 North, the property is described as Tax-Map 61, Parcel 128. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 18 and December 24, i984.) Mr. Keeler presented the staff report: "Request: CO, Commercial Office Acreage: 1.09 acres Zoning: R-10, Residential Location: Property described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 128, is located on the northeast side of Rio Road about 800 feet west of Route 652 (Old Brook Road). CHARACTER OF AREA: A single-family dwelling on this property has been con- verted to office usage. Property immediately southeast, zoned R-2, residential, is currently vacant but has been approved for a church (SP-84-45). Farther southeast is Merridale Schoal, zoned R-2, Residential. Directly east is Raintree subdivision, zoned R-2, Residential. To the northwest are properties zoned R-10, Residential (proposed townhouses,) and CO, Commercial Office (ZMA-84-18). SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: A special use permit and site plan have been appro~d~t~pn~e~y for use as professional offices. The Com-J ~rehensive Plan was amended to recommend commercial office usage in this area. Properties to the northwest were rezoned commerc.iat office; a special use permit was approved for a church southeast of this site. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-84-22. COMMENT: Approval of this rezoning would provide business office and other uses permitted in the CO district in addition to the current professional office uses. CO zoning on this property would be consistent with other zoning and uses along this area of Rio Road as well as the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval." Mr. Keeler noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 20, 1984, recom- mended approval of ZMA-84-22. Mr. Bailey was present to present his request to the Board. He said he has been in this location since October under a Special Use permit. He is not trying to change anything or alter the business in some way, but only wants, he said, to make the zoning on the property as legal as it should be. He said he had no other comments, but would answer questions. Mr. Fisher reminded Mr. Bailey that his operation is legal now, with the special use permit. He then asked if others were present to speak on this application and finding none, he ~loSed the public hearing. 615 January 2. 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John what would happen to the special use permit if the change in zoning were approved. Mr. St. John said the Board would have issued a special use permit for something that is a matter of right. He said he thought the special use permit would be merged into the zoning. Mr. Fisher said he did not know whether the County would have to keep records and inspections alive for years on the property after the use becomes a matter of right. Mr. St. John said the only question is whether the Board has placed conditions on the Special use permit to allow or disallow certain actitivies or construction. If that was done, then the special permit can be kept alive to monitor those conditions. If there are no conditions, the ~ermit can be kept alive or annulled as the Board sees fit. Mr. St. John said there is no ~recedent for this, and it is just a matter of logic for the Board. Mr. Bailey noted for the Board that he had obtained two variances after the special use permit was issued. One variance was for setback and the other concerned the size of his business sign. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Keeler if he knew of any limitations placed on the property by the special use permit. Mr. Keeler said he thinks there is a limitation on building expansion, a setback and size requirement on a sign and stockade fencing. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bailey if his intention is to make the full property into CO zoning, eligible for use as a commercial property. Mr. Bailey said there is not much he can do with the property because of the terrain. Mr. Fisher said he sees no sense in continuing the special use permit unless some specific requirement or problem was addressed in conditions on that permit. Mr. St. John said that if this rezoning is approved, the conditions will no longer be allowed because there will be no way to enforce the restrictions. Approval of site plans for the parcel will become an administrative action after the zoning is changed. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Keeler to find the exact conditions imposed on the special permit and report to the Board in a moment or two. Mr. Fisher declared a short recess at 8:58 p.m. The Board reconvened into open session at 9:02 p.m. Mr. Fisher reported that the placed on the special permit read: 1. That stockade fencing or some similar means of buffering from adjoining residential areas be used, and 2. That the building be limited to the maximum total floor area of 4,500 square feet. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bailey if the floor space requirement is the approximate size of the building he now has. ~:~Mr. Bailey said he had only about that amount of floor space. Mr. Fisher said most of these conditions seem fairly minor. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that the point is that the special use permit is for a professional 3ffice. Commercial Office zoning can include business offices, medical, dental and optical ~ffices, financial institutions, churches and cemetaries, libraries and museums, public util- ities. By special use permit, funeral homes and large scale public utilities are allowed along ~ith hospitals. Mr. Way said it makes perfect sense for the Board to do this, and so he made motion to approve the rezoning of this parcel from R-10 to CO as recommended. Mr. Bowie seconded the ~otion, which passed by the following recorded vote: ~YES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Fisher noted that the record-should show that the Board considered the conditions ~laced on the special use permit and the Board believes, on the advice of the County Attorney, .hat the conditions of the special use permit.ceased to exist when this application was approve~ .nd the property will now have all the rights inherent in Commercial Office zoning. Agenda Items 12 and 13 were considered together because they relate to the same parcel of land. Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-84-24. Fred Landess. Rezone~31,000 square foot parcel from HC, Highway Commercial, to LI, Light Industrial. Property described as Tax Map 61U, Parcel 01-?A, is located on Berkmar Drive, 700 feet west of Route 29 North. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 18 and December 24, 1984.) Agenda Item No. 13. SP-84-22. Fred Landess. Request to locate a pharmaceutical labora- tory and product facility on a 31,000 square foot parcel. Property described as ~ax Map 61U, Parcel 01-7A, is located on Berkmar Drive, 700 feet west of Route 29 North. Charlottesville ~agisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 18 and December 24, 1984.) Mr. Keeler presented the staff reports: "Request: LI, Light Industry, with proffer.~ Acreage:_ 31,000 square feet Zoning: HC, Highway Commercial Location: East side of Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive) about 700 feet west of Route 29 North. Zoning and Character of Area: Ail properties east of Berkmar Drive and bounded by Route 29 North and Rio Road are zoned Highway Commercial. All'properties west of Berkmar Drive and adjacent to Berkeley subdiv- ision are zoned C-i, Commercial except the frontage property on Route 29, which is zoned Highway Commercial. Berkmar Drive is developed in office and commercial uses appropriate to HC zoning. r 1. 8 ~Re lar. iht. Meetin Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proffer (below) is incorrect as proposed for the LI zone, since it includes uses not permitted at all in the LI zone, as well as uses which require a special use permit in the LI zone. The proffer cannot be approved as submitted. Summary and Staff Re'c'omme~n'd'at'i'ons: This property was fez.ned previously (1975) from LI to Commercial based on Comprehensive Plan recommen- dations and the existing character of the area· Adjacent properties which were zoned LI prior to 1980 were shown on the new zoning map as HC and C-1 zones, consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan· Staff recommends denial based on: Current zoning is correct based on the Comprehensive Plan and existing zoning in the area; 2. Current zoning provides reasonable usage of the property; The request constitutes spot zoning. Staff can determine no public interest to be served by. rezoning, rather, it serves to satisfy the proprietary interest of the appli- cant. 4. Rezoning would set a precedent for similar requests; The County has made an effort to zone large usable indus- trial centers where industries could expand without affecting other uses in the area; The impact of industrial zoning in this area has not been examined through a Comprehensive Plan amendment; Industrial zoning in this area has the potential for incom- patibility with adjacent residential zoning. STAFF COMMENT: Staff would emphasize the spot zoning and precedent setting aspects of this request. While this area meets certain zoning criteria for the establishment of an industrial distr~ct, Such as adequate public utilities and facilities, the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend such a change. It is apparent from the zoning history that.[~this area has~been studied previously and judged more · suitable for commercial type uses. While staff has not researched the reasons for the 1980 zon~.~g change ~rom industrial to commercial in this area, the following comments are offered: * The area was developing in commercial uses; * The Comprehensive Plan recommended commercial-office uses; * Industrial ~oni~g had proven~unwise - there had been a protracted controversy over an industrial Use (Pampered Pet Kennel) adjacent to residential uses. Rezoning this property couldsset a precedent for similar requests on other vacant properties.on Berkman~Drive. Staff notes Section 1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, Relation to .Environment, which deals with similar treatment of similarly Situated and env~ronmentally s2mitar lands.. If this rezoning were approved, it would be difficult to distinguish other vacant Berkmar properties with similar requests. It should be noted that the lot sizes on Berkmar Drive could prove!insuffi- cient for industiral type uses.. The industrial zones contain setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio and landscaping requirements~which are larger than the requirements in commercial zones. Future expansion of industrial uses would be limited. A v~riance for minimum district area has been received. Staff.iis of the opinion that any future variance requests would be self-imposed. It is not clear whether such a rezoning request requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment since no guidelines are available. Section 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordi- nance, Purpose and Intent, states one purpose of the Ordinance is to 'fac'ili- tate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community.' The possibility of future similar requests indicates a ~ed to review the area as a shole for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. This was done recentlY under CPA-84-8 when commercial-office uses were prop~e~ on R~p Road. Staff recommends denial of this request for reasons outlined above." "SP-84-82. Fred Landess~for Raymond V. Long, et. al. Request: Pharmaceutical laboratory Acreage: 31,000 square feet Zoning: HC, Highway Commercial (petition pending for LI, Light Industry) Location: East side of Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive) about 700 feet west of Route 29 North. ~ 617 january 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Applicant's Proposal: The applicants propose to locate a pharmaceutical laboratory and product facility on this property. The proposed use was previously reviewed (SP-84-57, Otic Realty) for a different site near Ivy, which was found to be inappropriate due to lack of public utilities. Therefore, staff will not go into detail in this report about the nature of the proposed facility. A Performance Standards Report was previously reviewed and approved by the County Engineer for the Ivy site. That report has been amended by a report dated December 10, 1984 submitted by Pleasant Associates and approved on December 11, 1984 by the office of the County Engineer. The site will utilize a waste connection to the sanitary sewer at Berkmar Drive. A revised list of usage and disposal of chemicals has been submitted to the Albemarle County Service Authority for their comment. A copy of the amendment to the previous report is attached, which includes a proposed floor plan. Staff Comment: Staff recommends denial because the concurrent rezoning request is not appropriate. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve the rezoning, then the following conditions on the Special Use Permit would be in order: 1. Site plan approval; Albemarle County Service Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority approval prior to discharges to the sanitary sewer; Approval is based on compliance with performance standards as submitted by UNOGEN, Inc.., prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc., dated September 17, 1984 and amended by report of Pleasants Associates, Inc., dated December 10, 1984. Any changes or modifications to these standards will require approval by the Board of Supervisors; Ail chemicals listed in Appendix G of the performance standards report shall be secured in a manner to prohibit vandalism; Ail State Health Department requirements to be met, including approval of materials to be landfilled, and report submitted to Bureau of Toxic Substances Information; 6. This special use permit is issued to the applicant for UNOGEN, Inc. Any change in occupancy will require an amendment to the special use permit. Summary and Sta'ff Recommendation - Staff cannot recommend approval because the req'uested rezoning is not appropriate." The following unsigned, undated prof .!~As~a~D~rt of the application to rez Commercial to Light Industrial with requests and agrees to the impositio of the subject property to facilitie and compounding of drugs, including chemical as well as pharmaceutical; supplies; research and development a testing; laboratory or other facitil carry out all of the previously ment usages: convenience stores; educati factory outlet sales - clothing and financial institutions; fire extingu and service; furniture stores; food specialty shops as bakery, candy, mi home and business services such as g landscaping and other repair and-mai light warehousing; machinery and equ modular building sales; motor vehicl automotive parts sales; newspaper pu and professional offices; office and vice; eating establishment; fast foo and greenhouses; sale of major recre wayside stands - vegetable and agric tribution; temproary construction us recreation establishments; veterinar compounding of drugs, including biol as well as pharmaceutical; artists' office machines and equipment; cosme toiletries and perfumed toilet soap; electrical lighting and wiring equip equipment and components including r cation equipment, TV receiving sets, purchased glass; industrial controls products such as die-cut paperboard ducts, bags and containers; photogrs ing processing and developing plant; electrical parts such as coils, cond holders; surgical, medical and denta sporting and athletic equipment, exc ~er was submitted with the staff report: one Lot 7-A, Berkmar, from Highway Bpecial Use Permit, the applicant a of a condition limiting the usage s for the manufacture, processing ~iological products, medical and nedical diagnostic materials and ctivities, including experimental ties needful or necessary to ioned purposes; and following onal, technical and trade schools; ~abric; feed and seed stores; isher and security products, sales ~nd grocery stores including such lk dispensary, and wine and cheese shops; rounds care, cleaning, exterminators, atenance services; hardware; ipment sales, service and rental; s sale, service and rental; new lishing; administrative, business business machines sales and set- restaurants; retail nurseries ~tional equipment and vehicles; ~ltural produce; wholesale dis- ss; indoor theatres; commercial y office and hospital; auction houses; ogical products, medical and chemical supplies and equipment; business tics, including perfumes, perfumed drafting supplies and equipment; nent; electrical and electronic ~dio, telephone, computer, communi- phonographs; glass products made. of jewelry, silverware; ~paper .nd cardboard, sanitary paper pro- ~hic equipment and supplies includ- rubber, metal stamps; small ~nsers, transformers, crystal 1 instruments and supplies; toy, spt firearms, ammunition or fire- works; watches, clocks, and similar timing devices; wood cabinets 61'8 JanUar 2 1 8 Re ular Ni ht Meetin a~d(~n~i~r~.upholstery; publishing, printing, lithography and engrav- ing, including but not limited to newspapers, periodicals and books; preparation of printing plates including typesetting, etching and engrav- ing; research and development activities including experimental testing; scientific or technical education facilities; engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrication of machinery and components, including such on-site accessory uses as machining, babbitting, welding and sheet metal work employing machinery not exceeding fifteen (15) horsepower per unit and excluding such uses as drop hammering and foundry; electric gas, oil and communication facilities excluding multi-legged tower struc- tures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility, water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority, except as otherwise expressly pro- vided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law; public uses and buildings such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or.federal agencies, public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; business and professional office buildings; laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical; and temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations." Mr. Keeler said Mr. Landess had just submitted a revised proffer prior to the beginning of this meeting and he had not had a chance.to read it yet. In addition, the Board of Zoning appeals has granted a variance on size of the industrial.property. Mr. Keeler said normally a parcel would have to include or be attached to at least five acres to be considered for Light Industrial zoning. This property is only about.three quarters of an acre in size. Mr. Keeler asked if he should speak concerning the revised proffer, and Mr. Fisher told IIhim to use the proffer that was Presented with the staff report, because that was the only one lithe Board has seen. Mr. Keeler said that in the opinion of the staff, the proffer is not Icorr~ct because it takes uses from two zoning categories (Highway Commercial and C-i, Commer- Icial) and makes a hybrid category with uses from both. Mr.'Keeler said the Zoning ordinance is Inot constructed to allow this sort of mixing of uses. He said the staff recommends that the proffer not be accepted as currently written. Mr. Fisher said he had seen nothing in his package of materials that even looked like a proffer. The Board had only a three-page, unsigne¢ undated statement with no indication of where it had-originated. At the conclusion of the staff report, Mr. Keeler told the Board that the Planning Com- mission recommended denial of both the zoning map amendment and the special use permit. Mr. Bowie asked where industrial properties exist in the County that have public water and sewer now. Mr. Keeler said there is industrial land on Avon Street and in the Woolen Mills area. There is industrial property on Airport Road, but it does not have public water or sewer. Mr. Fisher said the Board would merge the public hearings on the Zoning Map amendment and the Special Use Permit. Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing. Mr. Fred Landess was present to speak on behalf of the applicant. He said the reason for the petition is for the applicant, Raymond ¥.-Long, .et. al.. to build a building for the use of Unogen, Inc. He said there would be several speakers because the issue is an unusual one-and has created some confusion. Mr. Fisher said he would like to state for the record that all the members of the current Board heard the request from Unogen last year when it applied for a special use permit at another location. He said the Board will not be in this meeting all night, and while he wants to be fair, he will stop the explanations when he thinks Un0gen has used up the time it could reasonably be expected to have. Mr. Landess said the staff report and questions being asked indicate that there is confu- sion about Unogen, and he would like to clear that up. First, he said, Unogen is not an indus- trial use. It cannot operate in a traditional industrial site because the smoke, dust, noise and confusion are prohibitive-.~ The proffer, Mr. Landess said, points out what the applicants are trying to do at the Board meeting. He apologized for the lateness of the delivery of the amended proffer, and said the original one proffered that in the event of Unogen leaving.the property, the zoning would revert to Highway Commercial usage. The staff did not feel that was proper, because some uses allowed in Highway Commercial are not allowed in Light Industrial districts, and so the revised proffer was written to allow only those uses that are allowed in both districts. Mr. Landess said the proffer now lists only those uses that are allowed in both groups and is more restrictive than either zoning category. He said the reason for the proffer is to reiterate that Unogen is not an industry. The proffer would give the Board the flexibil- ity to have Unogen in an area where other industrial uses would not be appropriate, so the iBoard would not be setting a precedent if it granted the zoning. He said the applicants agree ithat all industry does not belong .on this particular street, but Unogen is an exception and would suit this setting. The proffer should eliminate the problem of spot zoning. Mr. Landess said he does not feel this sets a precedent, bad or otherwise. He said he thinks the Board is in a position to legally allow the rezoning for Unogen without setting a bad precedent and ~ithout spot-zoning the property. The ordinance ~is flexible enough to allow the zoning here ~ithout creating a bad situation in the future, should Unogen leave the property. Mr. Landess said as a final comment, that the applicant has no objections to the conditions recomme-nded by [the staff for the special use permit. ~ ~ JanUary 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) 619 Mr. David O'Donnetl said he is with the Governor's Office staff, in charge of marketing ~irginia to science and technology oriented businesses. He has come before the Board because Unogen is an example of a new trend in Virginia business -- that toward science and technology as opposed to traditional manufacturing and distribution. A large number of states are com- peting for high-technology industries and the states that succeed in attracting them are those who are aware of the.different needs that research and development indmstries have. Governor Robb initiated a task force on science and technology, asking for a report on how Virginia could attract such businesses. ~0ne outgrowth or.that is the Center for Innovative Technology, which seeks to ~draw together the resources from Virginia's universities and put it at the.disposal of these industries. The University of Virginia.is one of the prime components iof the Center, and an attraction for research and development industries to Charlottesville' lin April of 1984, Mr. 0'Donnell said the task force and he himself contacted Mr. Lorente of Jnogen and suggested Charlottesville as a good location for Unogen's operations. Mr. O'Donnell said he found that Unogen was already looking at Charlottesville. He then convinced Mr. ~orente that Charlottesville and Albemarle County would be receptive to Unogen's kind of ,usiness. The core of research and development businesses is creativity, not productivity, as it is .n traditional manufacturing. Creativity needs different resources, including a quality envi~ ,onment. Some localities are creating industrial parks called office research parks for high- ~echnology industries. This concept is new to the marketplace and needs much higher aesthetics it does not fit the traditional office building because it needs things like higher ceilings ~nd floor drains. In terms of traffic flow, it operates more like an office than an industry. Research and development companies are a new economic resource for Virginia, and fre- quently they want to locate near a university, which makes Albemarle County a prime choice. Mr. O'Donnell said he would do anything he could to help the Board find a place for Unogen and he would be willing to work with the County to help it be in a position to catch research and development industries as they seek places to locate. These industries are clean and he feels the County would like to attract that sort of industry. Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. O'Donnell for coming from Richmond, and said that every member of the Board indicated at the last hearing on Unogen that the County would be delighted if Unogen located here, but in a correctly zoned district with public water and public sewer. He said the county has taken pains to create special districts with strict controls on noise, dust, etc. and there have been no takers. Mr. O'Donnell said several areas have had similar experiences, because research and develo ment industries want an existing building and do not want to spend their resources on building facility or developing a research and development park. Mr. Georgio Lorente, President of Unogen, spoke next, saying the source of the misunder- tanding about Unogen has been in the categorizing. The company, he said, has a five-year usiness plan, is financially sound, and employs only a small staff. Its goals are to develop nnovations in the area of high technology. Unogen will develop products and patent them. The honey from royalties and the like will provide Unogen's income, while it supplies other com- panies, such as medical research labs and pharmaceutical companies the raw material for ~ ~esearch. Unogen is not a smokestack industry; it has no assembly lines, no shipping problems, no traffic. Unogen, he said, will be like a doctor's office with a few scientists sitting around in a decent environment. Mr. Stowe has planned a building that Unogen likes, and it will need the clean area this location presents. Mr. Michael Woodward, a scientist with Unogen, told the Board that Unogen's business is the manufacture of_monoclonal antibodies, done by merging a cell that can live forever with the cell making the antibodies of interest. When this is done, the product is sent to companies that can use it. Unogen .is not a pharmaceutical company. It does not make drugs. It looks at antibodies, what they do, and how they can be made to produce desirable results, He said the only problem with Unogen's safety that came to light in the other hearing was that_it needed public water and sewer systems just to keep the waste products isolated. The Berkmar Drive site has both these utilities, and the engineers' reports have laid to rest all the other public health concerns. The only production involved is two boxes full of tissue culture cells. Mr. John Harrup, assistant professor at the University of Virginia Medical School and director of the Lymphocyte Culture Center, told the Board that his department makes monoclonal antibodies for the University's use. He said he is speaking as a citizen of the area who is interested in high-technology industry and.as a consultant for Unogen, supporting Virginia's attempt to attract high-technology industry. The Planning Commission and Board have seen the environmental impact statement and agreed that there is no environmental danger from Unogen. The problem is that the Comprehensive Plan does not include a place for biotechnological industries, so Un0gen falls into the 1.ight industry category, where it perhaps does not belong. The business uses fewer volatile chemicals than a printer's establishment or gas station. Unogen has less radioactive material on the premises than does a doctor's or dentist's office. The monoclonal antibodies it produces are manufactured all the time in the bodies of everyone present at this meeting, thus making them a natural product. The antibodies are not a product to fear. Antibodies are not pharmaceutical products -- Unogen does not use complex laboratory synthesis. It farms cells. It should perhaps he classified as an agricultural use rather-than an industrial one. Mr. Harrup said~that even though this is said somewhat in jest, he does want to suggest that Unogen has been classified wrongly and the Board should perhaps consider what category it best fits under. The Comprehensive Plan is outdated where Unogen is concerned. )ecause it does not address this type of business at all. 820 January ~ 19~5 (Regular Night Meeting.) Mr. Harrup said the Board should consider how other communities have positioned the mono- clonal antibody producers in their areas. In Seattle a manufacturer called Genetic Systems. is located near the Seattle Center and numerous downtown restaurants and other offices, apartments and a theatre. Albemarle should consider this positioning, close to utilities and amenities. Mr. Harrup said he knows of two other industries that are closely watching the response to Unogen and the manner with which the Board responds to this request will dictate whether they choose to locate here or not. Unogen and industries like it, Mr. Harrup said, take risks by looking to the future in biological, electrical and technological fields. While the temptation is to have industry in the area remain in a traditional form, Mr. Harrup said he would have the County grow by accep- ting a new form of. industry. He said at the Planning Commission hearing a woman said she would prefer to see a flower shop in this spot rather than the production of monoclonal antibodies because she has no-use for the antibodies. Mr. Harrup said many people do have uses for them, especially those diabetic and cancer patients whose diseases may be cured or ameliorated by the use of the biological products in drug production and research. This year, Mr. Harrup said, the first successful producers of monoclonal antibodies were awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Tom Parsons, a microbiologist at the University of Virginia, said Berkmar Drive is an appealing site because it is clean and appealing to those who work creatively. It is the kind of area that appeals to scientists, who do nov like being flanked by smokestacks. Mr. Fisher pointed out that Albemarle County does not have any smokestack industries. He asked why everyone is so upset about being in an industrial zone with smokestacks when there are none. He suggested that the smokestack issue is something of a dead horse. Mr. Caleb Stowe, owner and developer of the property, told the Board that the original zoning in this area was M-1 Industrial. The area now holds the Daily Progress' printing offices construction companies and other offices. He does not consider himself an adversary of the Board, but thinks this zoning should be changed~because the parcel is residual from the original M-1 industrial area. He demonstrated a site plan of the building, saying it is similar tp other offices. He said he had heard about the zoning problems Unogen has had in the past, and he looked at the properties he had to see if he could find a place for them. While he was aware that the. zoning of Berkmar Drive is not correct for an industry, he felt that Unogen is a unique cate- gory. He felt it would be sensible to ask the Board to rezone this area because the area has such a mixed-bag of uses anyway. This building would be as attractive or more attractive than what is already there. Mr. Landess said he wanted to respond about the smokestack industries comment and the comment about creating a park for high-tech industries that no one uses -- it seems to Mr. Landess that someone was trying to tell the Board something. A research and development firm aeeds an environment like an office park, not a planned industrial park, where it can be creative. Ms. Joanne Jordan, a resident of Williamsburg Road near Berkmar, said she thinks the company should be in the County, but not on Berkmar Drive. She objects to the risk of cancer and deaths from chemicals involved in this kind of production. She said people read in news- papers and see on television the leakages into water and sewer systems from so-called "safe" businesses. She said there is plenty of room in the County and this industry ~a~ not have to locate one block from a residential neighborhood. She said the Board would not want to live in an,~area where a company was making dangerous chemicals.. She said she is very strongly opposed to this, because even though Unogen says it will stay small, it will have five acres (sic) and can expand. She does not want it near Berkeley subdivision, permeating the safe neighborhood. Ms. Joan Graves asked the Board if the applicant can proffer for a use that is not allowed by special use permit. Mr. Fisher said Mr. St. John would have to think about that. Mrs. Graves said the public did not have access to the proffers, and she feels the special use cannot be conditioned. Mr. Fisher said the Board is not considering any proffer except the :one that it received with the staff report. It has not seen any new proffer. Mrs. Graves said she does not think Light Industrial zoning is proper in this area, but fighting this use is like fighting je. llo. While she does not think this is necessarily an application that is the lesser.: of two evils, she does not think Unogen is proper or necessary in the Berkeley area. The Berkeley residents need to be able to rely on the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to keep industry out of the area. If the Board allows this Zoning Map amendment, the area will be opened wide to high-tech industries. The residents do not like all of the uses that are there now, but those uses are there by right. The residents do not want to accept uses that are not by right. 'Speaking on behalf of himself and his family, Mr. James Cosby of Berkeley said he felt ~any of his neighbors feel the same way he does. He said the Board has heard 53 minutes of testimony on the benefits of Unogen and about 90 percent of the conversation center~d-~!~he )roducts, processes and company business of Unogen -- not on the zoning amendment it seeks. Albemarle County, Mr. Cosby said, now has a Comprehensive Plan that can be used to stan- idardize development in the county. This plan provides several different kinds of uses, but it Iseparates the industrial uses from the residential ones. An LI district does not belong next to a subdivision such as Berkeley. The Board could be setting a dangerous precedent if it ~pproves this, because it will have a hard time turing down other industrial applications for the same area. The Comprehensive Plan was designed to help the County avoid spot zoning. Mr. Cosby said he would like to address the merits of the industry, primarily the safety lement. The building is a clean, nice building. But he does not feel one has to violate the sanctity and security of one's own home just so high-tech industries can have a nice place to work. This area is a population center of the county, and this type of industry does not belong in this area. We have to consider the impact that high-tech industry has. He does not know if the product is safe or not, but ~he. can read, and the permitted uses in this proposed zoning category do not appeal to him. January 2, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tom Sauer, resident of Berkeley, told the Board that Unogen had spent a lot of time telling what it is not, i.e., not an industry, not a pharmaceutical concern. Unogen, he said, is experimental, and that is why it does not fit into any of the categories. He does not want his neighborhood to be an "experimental neighborhood" in terms of zoning. He said that while he knows that zoning variances can be granted, he does not want the Board to set a precedent in Berkeley. Mr. Sauer said there are rUles of the game, and the Berkeley residents have played by the rules. This business is not playing by the rules, but is asking that the rules be changed to suit it. Mr. James L. Finley told the Board he does not approve of this use in this area at all. It will be within 100 feet of his house, and he does not think the zoning should be changed. The existing commercial use should remain on the property. He said all the real estate agent wants is the money for the property, not the best interest of the neighborhood. It would not be right to change the zoning law just for this one concern and for the interest of the realtor. He suggested that the business move further into the county. Mr. Victor Junke asked the Board to leave the zoning on the property as it is. The zoning ordinance constitutes an agreement with the area, and the Board should preserve the sanctity of that agreement. When the Board makes zoning changes, those changes have ramifications that go long past what it intends. This zoning change would be unlocking a Pandora's box. This company he said, is no more special than any other company; it can locate in other areas. If the County shows preference to Unogen, it will have to show special treatment to other companies as well. The industry will increase traffic, the velocity of traffic, and the tranquility of the neigh- borhood will be destroyed. Guy Moffat, another Berkeley resident, said he does not object to Unogen as an industry, but he does object to the zoning change. He does not understand the proffer, but thinks that if-there has to be a conditional zoning, it might as well remain commercial and allow Unogen in that district. Industrial zoning, remaining on the property, would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood -- the conditions placed on the property might be forgotten. If the land remains commercially zoned, at least it will not develop with a use worse than some already in the neighborhood. Mr. Chris Kelley, a neighborhood resident, said he worked in a tissue culture lab at the University of Virginia and he does not think it is~all that safe. He said he does not think it should be located in the Berkeley neighborhood. Mr. Landess approached the Board again, saying that so many people have said the industry would be all right somewhere else in the county, but it is not safe enough for this area. If the indsutry is not safe, then it will not be safer anywhere else in Albemarle County. If it is safe, then this is the perfect neighborhood for it. It creates less traffic, noise and confusion than many uses allowed by right in highway commercial districts. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Landess about the amended proffer mentioned earlier. Mr. Landess said he gave it to Mr. Keeler, to explain the whole concept of the zoning. He said that if Unogen leaves the property, he had originally proffered that the property would revert to Highway Commercial zoning. The staff said this was too lenient, so the amended proffer sets out only those uses allowed in both the Highway Commercial District and the Light Industrial district. Mr. Fisher asked when this proffer was given to any county staff person. Mr. Landes said he gave the proffer to Mr. Keeler before the Board meeting began this evening. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Keeler has not had time to review the proffer and cannot say whether~.i~ally says what Mr. Landess just stated. Mr. Landess apologized for putting the Board in what Mr. Fisher called "an awkward posi- tion.'' The applicants' initially wanted to say that there would be no uses allowed other than those allowed under Highway Commercial zoning. Mr. Lindstrom said he understood the amended ~roffer to say that industrial uses other than Unogen could locate in the building should it ~ecome vacant. Mr. Landess said only if they are also permitted in the Highway Commercial listrict. Mr. Fisher said the proffer lists the uses specifically, so if the zoning ordinance changes tomorrow, the property will still have the development rights listed in the proffer. Mr. Landess said he attempted to make this highly commercial zoning with this one usage. That is why it is so complicated. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Landess is trying to have both highway commer- cial and industrial zoning. Mr. Landess said his attempt was to essentially have this use in a highway commercial zone. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Landess if he wanted to withdraw the original proffer and put the one he gave Mr. Keeler tonight in its place. Mr. Landess said his desire is to "limit that in that way" and he has been told by the staff that this is the proper way to limit the special use permit. Mr. Fisher said this is not what he asked. Mr. St. John said Mr. Landess cannot withdraw a proffer that has never been accepted. Mr. St. John said the first proffer was a very simple thing, and he cannot see why the Code would not allow it. It simply said the zoning would revert to Highway Commercial zoning if Unogen vacated the property. Mr. Fisher said this would amount to zoning by use. Mr. St. John said it cannot be done, anyway. ~Mr. Landess was told this by the staff, and decided to do the next best thing by listing all of the uses as a matter of right. He was told again that he cannot do that. Mr. Landess was then told to limit his fall-back uses to those in both districts because no one could object to getting only the uses the property has now. Mr. St. John said, in his opinion, Unogen has been classified in the wrong category. The laboratory has been placed in the category of a light industrial use. The people in the area do not want an industrial zone; the applicant does not want an industrial zone. Both the staff and the applicant tried to find a way around the categorization, and as a result, the application has gotten more and more complicated. Mr. St. John wonders why a pharmaceutical laboratory is not just listed as a use by right in a Highway Commercial zone. That zoning change would be easier than all these changes. Mr. Fisher said the Board does not have this issue before it. Mr. Landess said this whole issue goes back to the decision of Mr. Michael Tompkins, Zoning Administrator, that Unogen is an industrial use. The Zoning Map amendment and the special use permit were attempting to correct this misplacement and create a special situation that would allow this industry to be where it belongs and at the same time protect the area from less desirable industrial uses. .Mr. Fisher said the Board now has two proffers and no idea of which to believe.~Mr. Landes: said he and the appliants want the new proffer, the more.restrictive one. Mr. Lindstrom said he understood that the staff would not accept the.first proffer because it is not in compliance with the Code. Mr. St. John said the staff did not have the authority to refuse the proffer, but did say in the staff report that the p~offer did not seem to be in line. The proffer that. was offered tonight is a legal proffer that is properly before the Board. said the Board should ta'ke time to compare the proffers and to let the staff~ll Mr. Lindstrom study this proffer, since it would have to respond immediately to this new material. Mr. St. John said the impact of the zoning change is lessened with this proffer, but it stiI1, in his opinion ~onstitutes spot zoning -- a piece of industrial zoning right in the middle of commer- cial zonmng -- done to accommodate not a public need for industry there, but this one industry. It violates the Comprehensive Plan. But, Mr. St. John said, if this particular industry does not belong ina Light Industrial district, then it is being punished for being mis-categorized by this very procedure If this is the case, its zoning category should be changed. Mr. Lindstrom said this cannot be done on the application that is before the Board now. Mfr.-St. John agreed that it cannot. Mr. Landess restated that the whole zoning issue relates back to the initial categorizing of the Unogen use as industry. Mr. St. John said the Board and staff should consider if .this is Where this use really belongs. Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. Keeler, if, on the basis of what has been said, the staff recommendation would change. Mr. Keeler said he still thinks its spot zoning. The proffer just adds this one use to a limitation of other uses under Light Industrial/Highway Commercial zoning. He said he is not sure that the animal the applicants have created is the animal they want. If this rezoning is approved, it would be difficult to distinguish another request for the same type of thing. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Keeler what uses are allowed in light indus- trial zoning. Mr. Keeler read the list in the LI section of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Fisher said procedurally the receipt of an unsigned, undated piece of stuff presented to the Board as a proffer limiting the uses on a piece of property is very unusual. Ail of the proffers the Board has received before this date have been on letterhead stationery, dated and signed, as a binding sort of offer. He said he hopes that if anything of this sort comes from these applicants in the future, they will follow these procedures. He then closed the public hearing. Mr. Fisher said the first thing the Board must consider is ZMA-84-24 with proffer entered- into the record dated January 2, 1985, received from Mr. Fred Landess: "As a part of the application to rezone Lot 7-A, Berkmar from Highway Commercial ~ to Light Industrial ~ith Special Use Permit, the applicant requests and agrees to - the imposition of a condition limiting the usage of the subject property to facit~ it' mes.~or the manufacture, processing and compounding of drugs, including biological products, medical and chemical as well as pharmaceutical; medical diagnostic materials and supplies; research and development activities, including experimental testing; laboratory or other facilities needful or necessary to carry out all of the previously mentioned purposes; and following uses: convenience stores;~ educational, technical and trade schools; sales and service; furniture stores; food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary, and wine and cheese shops; light warehousing; machinery and equipment sales, service and rental; news~ paper publishing; administrative, business and professional offices; office and business machines sales and service; wholesale distribution; temporary construction uses; compounding of drugs, including biological products, medical and chemical as well as pharmaceutical; artists' supplies and equipment; business, ~office machines and equipment; cosmetics, including perfumes, perfumed toiletries and perfumed toilet soap; drafting supplies and equipment; electrical lighting an~ wiring equipment; electrical and electronic equipment and components including radio, telephone, compu~.~. ter, communication equipment, TV receiving sets, phonographs; glass products made of purchased glass; industrial controls; jewelery, silverware; paper products such as die-cut paperboard.and cardboard, sanitary paper products, bags and containers~; photographic equipment and supplies, including processing and developing plant; rubber, metal stamps; small electrical parts such as coils, condensers, transformers, crystal holders; surgical, medical and dental instruments and supplies; toys, sport- ing and athletic equipment, except firearms, ammunition or fireworks; watches, clocks and similar timing devices; wood cabinets and furniture, upholstery; publishing, printing lithography and engraving, includihg but not limited to newspapers, peri- odicals and books; preparation of prin~ing plates including typesetting, etching and engraving; research and development activities including experimental testing; scientific or technical education facilities; engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrication of machinery and components, including such on-site acces- sory uses as .machining, babbitting,, welding and sheet metal work employing machinery not exceeding fifteen (15) horsepower per unit and excluding such uses as drop hammering and foundry; electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding multi-legged tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility, water distribution and sewerage collecton lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority, except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law; public uses and buildings such as schools, offices parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies, public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; business and professional office buildings." 1~ .Tanuarv 2. 1985 (Regular Night Meetin.~.) 623 Mr. Lindstrom said it is always difficult when an application comes back for a second time with a basically good use. He said he has heard hours of testimony on this and has no doubts as to the safety of the process, but is still concerned with the zoning and the precedent it is setting. He said he is aware personally of available, suitably zoned properties, with public utilities available. Until Unogen manages to locate itself on some of this land, Mr. Lindstrom is going to have a hard time supporting the application. Mr. Henley said he cannot support spot zoning. He said he does not feel as comfortable as Mr. Lindstrom with the availability of other industrially zoned property, seeing as how the only land with LI zoning and utilities is on Avon street. Mr. Bowie said he supported Unogen last time, and would like to see them in the area, but ~e cannot support spot zoning, even though he does not always agree with the comprehensive plan. Mrs. Cooke said she feels she should go along with the rest of the Board as far as spot oning goes. She would like to see the applicants come back with an application for property with the correct zoning. She also wanted the staff to look at the category in which Unogen was placed and to see if there is some way to re-categorize industries like Unogen. If the zoning classification is wrong, the County may frighten other research-oriented industries that might be desirable. Mr. Way said he has nothing to add to the statements the Board has already made. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to deny ZMA-84-24. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was 3alled and it carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom then made motion that SP-84-82 be denied. carried by the following vote: Seconded by Mr. Bowie, the motion AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Bowie asked what the Board should do now in terms of getting Unogen reclassified and putting the owners in touch with property that has the utilities it needs. Mr. Fisher said that if the Board wants to amend the ordinance for pharmaceutical plants or a broader category, the staff will have to have some direction or would have to make a recommendation about what zones these uses belong in. If the Board wants to put uses such as Unogen~in CO, C-1 and HC districts, the whole county will be complaining. He suggested that the Board~ask the staff to consider what it would recommend. Mr. Bowie said he would like to request such information. Mr. Keeler said that if Mr. Bowie was referring to the research and development use in general, and if he correctly interprets the Board to be saying that this use does not belong in the industrial zones, he has no idea what area the staff will find that is compatible with this use. He said the staff would need some information from Unogen as to what type of district it ~ould prefer. Mr. Bowie said he is not referring to Unogen specifically, but this type of industry is ~oming and it is rather high-tech, high tax-base industry, and the county may miss out on these industries. They need water and sewer, and there does not seem to be that much available land in a good area. Mr. Henley said he could see allowing the Unogen-type industries in certain commercial areas by special use permit. He sees nothing wrong with Unogen in a Highway Commer- cial area, for instance. Mrs. Cooke suggested that the Board more specifically define what Unogen is and perhaps then it will better fit into a category. Mr. Fisher said the staff will need information from sources other than Unogen, perhaps from other communities.. Mr. Fisher said that every few. years someone comes up with something new and-says the County does not have a place for it. Albemarle County has a place for Un0gen, but Unogen does not like the place. Mr. St. John said the word "industry" conjures up the image of huge chem- ical plants in people s minds. Unogen does not fit that description. Many other uses listed as industrial really are not, but are campus industries. He thinks the Board and County'-are going to have to find a new category for these industries so they are not lumped in with chem- ical plants that conjure~up the vision of Union Carbide. M~j Fisher said many industrial uses are not stereotypically industrial, but that does not mean that the County wants them in every district. Mr. Fisher said the Board only wants to know what other communities are doing in similar situations. Mr. St. John said he would look into the situation. Mrs. Cooke suggested that Unogen has not properly named itself or~classi- fied itself before the Board. Mr. Landess said the County could Create a research and develop- ment office park, or allow these industries by special use permit in any commercial district to give the Board some control over the placement of the industries. Mr. St. John said he would report at the February daY meeting. Agenda Item No. 14. Finalize Community Development Block Grant. Mr. Agnor said two actions should be taken before the County's CDBG is signed, in order to ~omply with Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development requirementS. Th'~ Board ~eeds to hold a hearing on the appropriation of the grant money, which cannot be done tonight, ~nd it needs to adopt an equal employment policy. Mr. Agnor said this policy has been used by ~he school system, basically by the general government as well, and just says the County will ~onsider all persons who might be qualified for employment under the grant. ~anua~_r= 2 I:~8 Re u~ar Ni~ Mr. Lindstrom made motion to adopt the policy. carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, which AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY It shall be the policy of the Board that all persons are entitled to equal employ- ment opportunities and that it does not discriminate against its employees or applicants for employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, handicap or other nonmerit factors provided they are qualified and meet the physical requirements established for the position. Agenda Item No. 15. Other matters Not List. ed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Fisher presented the following letter from Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation Department Commissioner Harold C. King: "December 19, 1984 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman A~bemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Dear Mr. Fisher: I appreciate the opportunity to meet with l~cal officials in Charlottesville to ~iscusslthe Piedmont Corridor Highway. As I indicated at the meeting, we are still examining a number of alternatives for improving the north-south travel through the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The alternative a~alysis which we anticipate completing in March 1985 will examin~ several proposals for the improvement of existing Route 29, along with several possiSle bypass routes. When completed the results of this study will be dis- tributed to the local jurisdictions for their review. I have directed the staff that the western bypass proposal be removed from consideration. The alternative analysis will identify preliminary alignments and e~amine traffic data. Should the March alterna~iye study not yield a con- cept plan that can meet the travel demand or be supported by the local officials and the Repartment, the Charlottesville Major Thoroughfare Plan and the Piedmont Corridor Study will be Complited with 'the indication of the corridor deficiency with no proposed solution. Further study would not be undertaken until funds are available for the initiation of a project. Again., I appreciate your hospitality~ I hope that everyone understands that the location and nature of the Piedmont highwgy corridor improvements remain under study, and there are no immediate prospects for their implementa~ion. With best regards (S~NED) Harold C. King, Commissioner" Mr. Fisher said he had been getting quite a number of letters on the subject. He presen- ted the Clerk with a large bag of mail and asked that the names of the senders of letters be listed. Mr. Fisher said the Citizens for Albemarle had mounted a campaign against the bypass and sent form letters to be returned to him with his name and address on them. At 10:12 p.m., Mrs. Cooke made motion that the Board go into executive session for person- matters. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and it carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 16. 10:50 p.m. Adjournment. The board reconvened into open session and adjourned at