1992-09-16September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.42, Pg. 204
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on September 16, 1992, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin and Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
The following Certificate for the afternoon Executive Session was
adopted:
MOTION~ Mr. Bain
SECOND: Mrs. Eumphris
MEETING DATE: September 16, 1992
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires
a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that
such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia
law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each
member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the executive meting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Marshall.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Marshall
Agenda Item No. 4.
Public.
There were none.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve 5.1, and to accept the remaining items
on the consent agenda as information. There was no further discussion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Item 5.1. Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board for
the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and
Clerk, Circuit Court, for the Month of August, 1992, were approved as
presented by the vote shown above.
Item 5.2. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the
Beginning of the First Day of .January, 1992, of the Property of Gas and
Pipeline Distribution Corporations in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
M.B. 42, Pg. 205
State Taxes Extended for the Year 1992 (on file in Clerk's office), was
received for information.
Item 5.3. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the
Beginning of the First Day of January, 1992, of the Property of Telecommuni-
cations Companies in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State Taxes Extended
for the Year 1992 (on file in Clerk's office), was received for information.
Item 5.4. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the
Beginning of the First Day of January, 1992, of the Property of Water
Corporations in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State Taxes Extended for
the Year 1992 (on file in Clerk's office), was received for information.
Item 5.5. Statement Showing the Equalized Assessed Value as of the
Beginning of the First Day of January, 1992, of the Property of Electric Light
and Power Corporations in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State Taxes
Extended for the Year 1992 (on file in Clerk's office), was received for
information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated September 27, 1992, providing notice of a
triathalon to benefit the Lake Monticello Fire and Rescue Squads scheduled for
September 27, 1992, was received for information.
Item 5.7. Copy of letter dated September 8, 1992, addressed to Ray D.
Pethtel, Commissioner, Department of Transportation, from Robert W. Paskel,
Division Superintendent, Albemarle County Public Schools, re: Closing of
Bridge on Route 671 over Moorman's Rivert was received for information.
Mrs. Humphris said she thought Dr. Paskel expressed the feelings of
frustration over this sudden occurrence very well and felt this letter should
be brought to the attention of everyone.
Item 5.8. Monthly Bond and Progress Report for Arbor Crest Apartments
(Hydraulic Road Apartments) for the month of August, 1992, was received for
information.
Item 5.9. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's 1993 Annual
Budget, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6~ Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend & reenact
Section 2.1-4(b) of the Code of Albemarle known as the "Totier Creek
Agricultural and Forestal District" by adding 3 parcels totalling 1392.220 acs
located between Scottsville & Howardsville, N of Rt 723/Rt 626 & W of Rt 627.
Review date for the entire district is June 20, 2001. The existing district
contains 7246.52 ac. (Advertised in the Daily Progress September 1 and
September 8, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"Purpose: The purpose of an agricultural/forestal district is 'to
conserve and protect and to encourage the development and
improvement of the Commonwealth's agricultural and forestal lands
for the production of foods and other agricultural and forestal
products...' and 'to conserve and protect agricultural and
forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which
provide essential open space for clean airsheds, watershed
protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes.'
Factors to Consider: The following factors must be considered by
the Planning Commission and the Advisory Committee, and at any
public hearing when a proposed district is being considered:
The agricultural and forestal significance of land within
the district and in areas adjacent thereto;
2e
The presence of significant aqricultural lands or
significant forestal lands within the district and in areas
adjacent thereto that are not now in active agricultural or
forestal production;
The nature and extent of land uses other than active farming
or forestry within the district and in areas adjacent
thereto;
4. Local developmental patterns and needs;
Se
The Comprehensive Plan and, if applicable, the zoning
regulations;
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 4.B. 427 Pg. 206
(Page 3)
Se
The environmental benefits of retaining the lands in the
district for agricultural and forestal uses; and
7. Any other matter which may be relevant.
Effects of a District:
The proposed district provides a community benefit by
conserving and protecting open space resources such as
forests, farmlands, stream valleys, wildlife habitat,
cultural and aesthetic resources.
Se
The landowner receives certain tax benefits*, and
restrictions on public utilities and government action (such
as land acquisition) to protect the agricultural/forestal
use of the land. In exchange, the landowner agrees to not
develop his property to a 'more intensive use' during the
specified number of years the district is in effect.
* Since Albemarle County currently permits all types
of use value assessment, a district designation may
not provide any additional real estate tax reductions.
Land in a district is protected from special utility
assessments or taxes.
3e
Future land use decisions must recognize the
agricultural/forestal district. The district may have no
effect on adjacent development by right, but could affect
proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit which are
determined to be in conflict with the adjacent
agricultural/forestal uses.
4e
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land
use. The property owners in the district are making a
statement that they do not intend to develop their property
in the near future, and that they would like the area to
remain in the agricultural and forestal uses. Adjacent
property owners may be encouraged to continue agricultural
uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent
lands.
Location: The proposed addition is located between Scottsville
and Howardsville, north of Route 723 and Route 626, and west of
Route 627.
Acreaqe: The proposed addition contains 1392.220 acres in three
parcels. The existing district contains 7246.52 acres.
Time Period: The proposed time period is the same as for the
original district, or ten years from June 29, 1991. The Totier
Creek District was established in 1983, and was renewed last year.
Aqricultnral and Forestal Siqnificance: Land in the proposed
addition is being used for agriculture (cattle, crops) and
forestry.
Siqnificant Land not in Aqricultural/Forestal Production: The use
value assessment program is a good indicator of the actual use of
the properties. Ail three parcels are enrolled in the program.
935.53 acres are enrolled under agriculture; 452.69 acres are
enrolled under forestry; 4.0 acres are non-qualifying due to
dwellings.
Land Uses Other Than Aqricultural/Forestr¥: There are four
dwellings in the proposed addition.
Local Developmental Patterns and Needs: This area consists of
large farms and scattered dwellings. It is well suited for
enrollment in a district.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoninq Requlations: This area is located
in Rural Area IV in the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned RA, Rural
Areas. The nearest Growth Area is Scottsville Community, a
distance of about 4.5 miles east. Preservation of agricultural/
forestal resources in the Rural Areas is a major goal of the Plan.
The Open Space Plan shows this area to have important farmland and
forestal soils. The flood plains of Ballinger Creek and Joe Creek
are within the proposed addition.
Environmental Benefits: Environmental benefits include protection
of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat and open space.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends approval of the addition as
proposed.
Advisoz7 Committee Recommendations: The Advisory Committee at its
meeting on July 27, 1992, recommended unanimously to approve the
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
M.B. 42, Pg. 207
Addition to Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District as
proposed."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to
approve the Addition to Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District as
proposed.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. There being no one from the
public to speak to this issue, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt an ordinance
to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(b) of the Code of Albemarle known as the
"Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District" as set out in full below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
None.
Mr. Marshall.
0 R D I N A N C
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Section 2.1-4(b) of the Code of Albemarle
known as the "Totier Creek'Agricultural and Forestal District"
BE IT ORDAI~q~D by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4, subsection (b) known as the "Totier Creek
Agricultural and Forestal District", of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby
amended and reenacted to read as follows:
(b) The district known as the "Totier Creek Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax
map 121, parcels 70, 72C, 85; tax map 122, parcel 5; tax map 128~
parcels 13, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 27, 29, 29A, 30, 72; tax map 129,
parcels 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7A, 7D, 9, 10A; tax map 130, parcels 1, 4, 5,
5A, 7, 7A; tax map 134, parcels 3, 19; tax map 135, parcels 7, 10, 11.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend & reenact
Section 2.1-4(k) of the Code of Albemarle known as the "Lanark Agricultural/
Forestal District" by adding 32 parcels totalling 4625.885 ac located in the
Carters Mtn area on Rt 795, Rt 727, Rt 627 & Rt 20. Review date for the
entire district is April 20, 1998. The existing district contains 996.05 ac.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"Location: The proposed addition is located in the Carter's
Mountain area on Route 795, Route 727, Route 627 and Route 20.
Acreaqe: The proposed addition contains 4625.885 acres in 32
parcels. The existing district contains 996.05 acres.
Time Period: The proposed time period is the same as for the
original district, or ten years from April 20, 1988.
Aqricultural and Forestal $iqnificance: Land in the proposed
addition is being used for agriculture (grassland, crops) and
forestry.
Siqnificant Land not in Aqricultural/Forestal Production: The use
value assessment program is a good indicator of the actual use of
the properties. Ten of the 32 parcels (103.889 acres) are not
enrolled in the program. 1375.994 acres are enrolled under
agriculture; 3118.002 acres are enrolled under forestry; 28 acres
are non-qualifying due to dwellings.
Land Uses Other Than Aqricultural/Forestr¥: There are 32
dwellings in the proposed addition.
Local Developmental Patterns and Needs: This area consists of
large farms and scattered dwellings. It is well suited for
enrollment in a district.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoninq Requlations: This area is located
in Rural Area IV in the ComPrehensive Plan, and is zoned RA, Rural
Areas. The nearest Growth Area is the Urban Area, a distance of
about one mile west. Preservation of agricultural/forestal
resources in the Rural Areas is a major goal of the Plan. The
Open Space Plan shows most of this area to have important farmland
and forestal soils. The flood plains of Massey Creek, Lee Jones
Creek, Slate Quarry Creek and Murphy Creek are within the proposed
addition as well as is Carter's Mountain. The proposed addition
includes two National Register properties, Morven (91-21) and
Blenheim (103-10B). Two other National Register properties lie
adjacent to the addition: Ash Lawn and Redlands. Route 20 is a
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 427 Pg. 208
(Page 5)
County Scenic Highway, Virginia Byway, and a designated Entrance
Corridor.
Environmental Benefits: Environmental benefits include protection
of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes,
the historic landscape, and open space.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends approval of the addition as
proposed.
Advisory Committee Recommendation The Advisory Committee, at its
meeting on July 27, 1992, recommended unanimously to approve the
Addition to Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District as proposed.
Mr. Cillmberg said the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to
approve the Addition to Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District as proposed.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. There being no one from the
public to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt an ordinance
to amend & reenact Section 2.1-4(k). of the Code of Albemarle known as the
"Lanark Agricultural/Forestal District" as set out in full below. Roll was
called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Numphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
O R D I N A N C E
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Section 2.1-4(k) of the Code of Albemarle
known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal District"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4, subsection (k) known as the "Lanark Agricultural
and Forestal District", of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and
reenacted to read as follows:
(k) The district known as the "Lanark Agricultural and Forestal
District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 90B,
parcels 11, 12, 13; tax map 91, parcel 20, 21, 2lA, 2lB, 31, tax map 92,
parcel 64, 64A; tax map 102, parcels 33, 35B, 37, 40, 40A, 40B; tax map 103,
parcels 1, iA, lB, lC, iD, 1E, iF, 1G, iH, 1J, 1K, iL, 2A, 3, 5, 9, 10, 10A,
10B, 10C, 10D, 43.
Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: SUB-92-097. Brook Ridge Preliminary Plat.
The appeal was from the Maple Grove Christian Church, in a letter dated
August 14, 1992, addressed to the Board of Supervisors (copy on file), by Ray
L. Leake, Trustee. He cited four concerns: recreational area, sidewalks,
traffic congestion which would be created, and drainage areas.
Mr. Cilimberg said for reference he is including the conceptual layout
which was submitted as part of the rezoning for this property earlier in the
year. This subdivision will create 28 lots off of Route 649, Proffit Road.
There will be approximately 9600 square feet on the average, per lot with 2.22
acres of open space.
This property is zoned R-10. The property was rezoned earlier this year
at which time the applicant was not sure of the exact density he would need to
achieve his development. The plat does reflect the proffers of that rezoning.
There has been provision for access to adjacent properties where reasonably
practical. Staff's opinion is that the plat complies with the requirements of
the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as well as meeting the intent of the
proper zoning. Staff's only concern with this subdivision is the number of
small lots which results in the under utilization of land zoned for ten
dwelling units per acre. Approval was recommended by staff subject to
conditions.
At the Planning Commission meeting, concerns were expressed by
neighboring owners about lack of a recreational area. There is open space
area shown on the plat, but not an active recreational area. Other concerns
were the lack of sidewalk, potential traffic congestion on Proffit Road
created by the development, and questions of drainage and suitability of
drainage areas to accommodate the development. Some concerns were also
expressed about an area for on-site parking and also that there was no= a
buffer provided on the back of any of the lots adjacent to properties which
are primarily residential except for the Maple Grove Christian Church. The
Planning Commission did approve this subdivision plat by a unanimous vote
subject to the following conditions:
me
The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final
plat until tentative approvals for the following conditions have
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
M.B. 42, Pg. 209
been obtained. The final plat shall not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:
Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations;
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
Ce
Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage
plans and calculations;
do
Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention
plans and calculations;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
f. Fire Officer approval of hydrant locations;
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans;
Staff approval of open space easements documents, to include
access to the open space;
i. Note area reserved for access to Tax Map 32, Parcel 33;
2. Staff approval of the final plat.
Mr. Bill Roudabush was present to represent the applicant. He repeated
that this property is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for high density
development. Action was taken in January, 1992 by the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors to rezone this property based on the application of
the owner at that time. This property lies in an area of the County that is
now actively being developed. All utilities are available; the owner made
sewer available.to this property during development of the townhouse A and B
sections of Forest Lakes. The lots in Forest Lakes vary in size. These lots
are comparable in size to a nearby subdivision called Section 8 in Forest
Lakes. The market in this area has already been established by Forest Lakes
for the price-range of homes, as well as the size of lots. The homes in
Forest Lakes are not all built by one builder. There was a statement made
that these lots may be available to a number of people. There were at least
ten different builders involved during development in Forest Lakes and this
property will be available and offered to those ten builders, as well as any
other builder who wishes to purchase the lots. Four proffers were made at the
time of rezoning, all of those proffers have been incorporated in the plan for
development. As to sidewalks, there are no sidewalks in Forest Lakes, it does
have a series of jogging trails which extend from the Community Center to the
Swim and Tennis Club and various neighborhoods. Forest Lakes is a much larger
neighborhood and there is a need to interconnect various neighborhoods. The
only way to go from one section to the other is by the jogging trails or
walking paths.
Mr. Roudabush said a recreation area is not required by the ordinance
for conventional single-family dwellings. This project is not a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) or a Residential Planned Development (RPD). It is a small
tract of land that could not support such things as a swim and tennis club or
large recreational area. An area of 2.2 acres has been set aside to be deeded
to the Homeowners Association once final subdivision has been approved and a
homeowners association is in place. This association can do what it chooses
with that property, it can be developed into passive recreational area or an
active recreational area. It will be usable and serve the neighborhood needs°
Restrictions similar, in many respects, to those in Forest Lakes will be
developed once the project is approved. This property will not be used to
build duplexes as some people fear.
Mr. Roudabush showed the Board a map and said it may be of some help to
recognize the relative location of this property. He talked about different
areas on the map.
The plan includes the dedication of additional right-of-way for Route
649, 30 feet from the existing centerline and another nine feet is requested
for a bicycle trail. The owners have complied with all comments made during
the rezoning process and all which were brought up and suggested by staff.
The owners feel that the application complies with all of the requirements of
the County in every respect. The owner is also present.
Mr. Bowerman then asked if there was a representative of the church who
would like to speak. There was none.
Mr. Martin said he has met with a lot of the people in the area who have
concerns. They are aware of his feelings and understand them. Mr. Martin
then made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to reaffirm the Planning Commission's
decision to approve SUP-92-097.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
M.B. 42, Pg. 210
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-92-53. St. John's Episcopal Church (owner),
Elaine Clark (applicant). Public Hearing on a request for a day care on 5.35
acs zoned RA. Property on N sd of Dick Woods Rd (Rt 637) approx 800 ft E of
Miller School Rd (Rt 682). TM73,P20&20B. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: This site is developed with a church, one
dwelling, a fellowship hall and a cemetery. There are four
dwellings visible from the church property. The Ivy Landfill is
located approximately 0.2 miles to the east.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant intends to use the existing
fellowship hall as a day care for nine children ages two and a
half to five. The applicant and one other individual will provide
the day care. The day care will operate from 9:00 a.m. - 12:00
noon Monday through Friday from September through May. The
facility will be run with the assistance of the Church, but is not
a church day care.
Planninq and Zoninq History: None available. (Staff notes that
Elaine Clark was issued SP-81-46 which established a twenty child
day care at Crozet Park. That permit is not transferrable. The
applicant is not making use of that permit at this time.)
Comprehensive Plan: Staff believes that because the day care will
be operating in an existing building on the church site, that this
proposed use is not in conflict with the intent of the Rural Area.
In addition, there are no other day care centers in the general
area. The Willis day care, Millstone of Ivy, (SP-90-115 and SP-
92-05) is located in Ivy, but is remote from this site. Millstone
of Ivy is approved for a maximum of 45 children.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff opinion is that certain uses such as churches, day care, and
schools contribute to the well-being and moral fiber of the
community. In this posture, staff review is confined to issues of
physical development while other considerations of appropriateness
of use to a given location is a matter of legislative discretion.
Staff has identified 15 requests heard by the Board of Supervisors
for day care centers in the Rural Areas since the adoption of the
current Zoning Ordinance. Of these requests, one was the
reapproval of an expired permit and one was an amendment to
increase the number of children allowed by a previous permit. Of
the remaining 13 requests (all approved), four involved the use of
a new structure and nine involved the use of existing structures.
Past day care centers approved by the County in the Rural Areas
have been for nine to 83 children. Requests by churches have
ranged between ten to 83 while other service providers have been
smaller, ranging from nine to 45 children.
Staff opinion is that due to existing development, the proposed
use will have a minimal impact on the adjacent properties and the
Rural Areas. Staff has identified one issue regarding this use
which is not consistent with Section 31.2.4.1. The existing
entrance to this site has only 275 feet of sight distance to the
east and 450 feet is required (sight distance to the west is
adequate). No alternative entrance locations exist which would
provide for the minimum necessary sight distance. Removal of a
retaining wall, relocation of at least two grave sites and
substantial grading are required to achieve the minimum sight
distance for the existing entrance. Staff is unable to support a
request which does not have adequate sight distance due to the
stated purpose and intent of the ordinance with particular
reference to Sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.6.
Staff has historically not supported a reduction of sight
distance, a matter of public safety. Based on the lack of
suitable entrance location, staff recommends denial of SP-92-53,
Elaine Clark. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to approve
this request, staff offers the following conditions:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
No such use shall operate without any required
licenses. It shall be the responsibility of the
owner/operator to transmit to the Zoning Administrator
a copy of any required licenses (or proof of exemption
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.42, Pg.211
(Page 8)
from licensure) and all renewals thereafter and to
notify the Zoning Administrator of any license
expiration, suspension, or revocation within three
days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this
ordinance;
be
Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by
the Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with
the provisions of this ordinance; and
Ce
These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated
herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Health,
Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state
or federal agency.
2e
Maximum enrollment shall not exceed nine students or such
lesser number as may be approved by the Health Department.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September
10, 1992, recommended approval with the conditions recommended by staff, but
added a number three reading: "Improve sight distance to Virginia Department
of Transportation commercial entrance standards by October 25, 1992."
Mr. Bain said after reading the Planning Commission minutes he can
support this limited special permit. He is not happy with the entrance, but
it has been there for years. Since it will be used mostly during daytime
hours and there will only be a small number of cars, he can support the
permit. Mr. Bain then made motion, seconded Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-92-
53 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission as set out
in full below.
Mr. Perkins said he would like to point out on the sight distance that
there is an inconsistency. At the intersection of Routes 637 and 708, which
gets all the traffic from trucks going to the landfill, you are taking your
life into your hands if you cross Route 637 going south because you do not
have any sight distance to the west.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(SP-92-53 approved subject to the following conditions:)
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
No such use shall operate without any required licenses. It
shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to
transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of any required
licenses (or proof of exemption from licensure) and all
renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning Administrator
of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within
three days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance;
bo
Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the
Albemarle County Fire Official at his discretion. Failure
to promptly admit the Fire Official for such inspection
shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of
this ordinance; and
Ce
These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated
herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Health, Virginia
State Fire Marshall, or any other local, state or federal
agency;
2o
Maximum enrollment shall not exceed nine students or such lesser
number as may be approved by the Health Department;
Se
Improve sight distance to Virginia Department of Transportation
commercial entrance standards by October 25, 1992.
Agenda Item No. 11. Loan Request - East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Department.
Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report:
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Me,ting)
(Page 9)
M.B. 42, Pg. 212
"BACKGROUND: East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department is
approximately $200,000 shy of being able to finish their new fire
station at Glenmore. This amount was to have been realized from
the sale of their old fire station at Keswick. The potential
buyer of their old station is now unable to close on the sale. On
September 9, 1992, a special meeting of the Jefferson Country Fire
and Rescue Association was called at the request of East Rivanna
in order to consider a resolution of support to ask the County to
help East Rivanna so that they will not have to stop construction
within the next several days. The new building is approximately
six weeks from completion.
At this Jefferson County Fire and Rescue Association meeting, a
unanimous resolution was passed supporting East Rivanna's request
for the County to consider either that an additional $200,000 be
put into the Advance Allocation Loan Program (as all current funds
are encumbered) or a bridge loan of up to $200,000 be considered
by the County until bank financing can be secured. A repayment of
not more than six months was recommended on either process.
DISCUSSION: If the Board considers placement of an additional
$200,000 into the Advance Allocation Fund to be made available to
East Rivanna, this would eliminate the costs to the fire
department associated with bank financing for both interest and
'points.' It would guarantee a regular repayment schedule through
their annual allocation from the County if set up for a 15 year
term to coincide with their original draw of $504,000 from this
fund. If their old building is sold, this could be paid off
immediately. As a drawback, staff has some concern about the
precedent that this action could set in dealing with future
requests for loans when all Advance~Allocation Funds are
encumbered.
The alternative of a bridge loan to keep the contractors on site
and avoiding remobilization costs would be structured such that
draws could be made against the loan for a period of time until
bank financing could be obtained. This period of time is expected
to be approximately 90 days. At the tLme of this writing, East
Rivanna representatives advise that they will forward a letter of
pre-approval from a lending institution prior to the Board meeting
on September 16.
A bridge loan to be repaid from bank loan proceeds removes the
County completely from the transaction once permanent financing is
in place. It will cost the fire department some additional
expense for the period of time it takes to sell their old
building.
East Rivanna's old building has been listed by a real estate agent
and is generating some interest. Both of these alternatives are
proposed in an effort to prevent the County from being in the
position of having to approve a land use change for the old
property in order to be repaid loan proceeds.
RECO~4ENDATION: If the Board chooses to make any type of loan,
staff recommends that a bridge loan be considered to alleviate the
precedent involved in adding funds to the Advance Allocation
Process."
Mr. Bowerman said a bridge loan, if the Board decides to do this, is
being considered rather than an outright loan because of the concern's of the
Board. The Board's concern is that in the event it made the loan, then the
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company had a contract purchaser for the property,
and the contract was subject to a rezoning, this Board would be put in a
difficult situation. Also, the bridge loan, with a preapproved guarantee for
take out financing by a lending institution was to preclude the Board from
getting into that situation. The letter received today from Jefferson
National Bank (copy on file) does not do that.
Mr. Tucker said this letter does not guarantee the loan. He thinks
letters of preapproval can be secured, however, it does sometimes take 30 to
45 days to get a loan approval of this nature.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the situation is with East Rivanna Volunteer
Fire Company in terms of construction at the site. Mr. Tucker said they only
lack a few weeks of completing construction and the idea of the bridge loan
was to allow them to maintain the construction crew on-site to complete the
construction.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any representatives from the East
Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company or the Jefferson County Fire and Rescue
Association, Inc. present. There were none.
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
M.B. 42, Pg. 213
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks this request puts the Board in a difficult
situation. Mr. Tucker said East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company would try to
have some type of preapproval for the Board to acknowledge. This is basically
what the bank has provided.
Mr. Perkins said he feels the Board should do something so that
construction can continue and the building be finished. It would be joint
ownership by the County and East Rivanna Fire Department and if anything ever
happened to East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, it would become County
property. It will save the County money in the long run.
Mr. Martin said the fact that the letter from Jefferson National Bank
indicates that the loan stands an excellent chance of approval gives him the
feeling that they will get approval unless something "out of the ordinary"
happens.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there is any way the Board can condition approval
to make sure that no special permits come before it during this period of
time. Mr. Tucker said the Board could do this. Mrs. Humphris said if the
Board did, it would remove one of the things this Board is most afraid of and
prevent it from acting on a special permit because of the outstanding loan.
If approval was subject to such a condition, she would support it.
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Tucker knew anything about the construction
contract. Mr. Tucker said he did not. Mr. Bain said this would help the
Board make its decision in terms of where East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company
is in the process. Mr. Richard Huff, Deputy County Executive, said he met
with East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company last week and again yesterday. He
has also looked at the fire station. The glass doors on the building are to
be installed by the end of this week so it can be shut off from the weather if
there is that need. Bruce Eades Construction is handling the construction
contract and was a full participant in the discussions. The contractor is
aware of East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company's position. Presently, East
Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company is not obligated to any contractor beyond the
financial resources they have in hand. At this point, they do not owe anyone.
The issue of the bridge loan only came up as an alternative late last week.
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company went to Jefferson National Bank late
Wednesday night and gave them their financial information. This was the
position the bank felt most comfortable with since it takes some time while
the loan application goes through the procedure. East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Company felt good about the loan when he talked to them yesterday and received
the letter from the bank.
Mr. Huff said he mentioned the issue to East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Company that if the loan runs three to five months and there is a buyer they
will end up back before the Board. This would be an uncomfortable position.
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company did not have a problem with accepting the
condition that should they get a buyer, closing could not happen until bank
financing was in place and no special use permit request could be sent to the
Board while the bridge loan is outstanding. They purposely did not send a
representative tonight.
Mr. Martin asked if in zoning matters the Circuit Court is ultimately in
charge, and if the Board could disqualify itself if something came in the form
of a special use permit. Mr. St. John said no, the court has no jurisdiction
until the Board has acted. Mr. St. John also said he could understand the
feeling of the Board and its discomfort in having to judge its own issuance of
a permit when County money is involved in the outcome. It is not a conflict
of interest for the Board to do this because it has no personal stake in the
outcome. Rezoning is supposed to promote the public interest and part of that
interest is considering the services the fire company renders. The County is
equal co-owner with East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company on the deed to this
land at Glenmore.
Mr. Martin said he feels the Board should go with the bridge loan.
Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve a request
from the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department for a bridge loan in the
amount of $200,000, for a period not to exceed six months, to be repaid from
bank loan proceeds; with the condition that the Board will not consider any
applications for the property (old fire station) East Rivanna is attempting to
sell until after repayment of the loan or six months, whichever occurs first.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
None.
Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. lla. Discussion: Meadow Creek Parkway Information
Meeting.
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
M.B. 42, Pg. 214
Mr. Tucker said two dates have been suggested for a joint meeting with
the Planning Commission to review the recommendations on Meadow Creek Parkway;
October 1 or 15, 1992. He learned from Mr. Cilimberg this evening that Mr.
Tom Blue cannot make the October 1, 1992 meeting, nor can Mr. Bowerman or Mr.
Martin.
There was a consensus of the Board to set a meeting for October 15, at
7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, to discuss the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-90-03. Wendell Wood. P~blic Hearing on a
request to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by changing the land
use designation from Industrial Service to Regional Service and High Density
Residential on approximately 125 acres of land west of Route 29 and east of
Route 606 in the Hollymead Community. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 1 and September 8, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Backqround: In the recent past there have been several requests to
develop mobile home parks in areas designated for Industrial Service use
in the Land Use Plan. These requests have been based on the applicant's
desire to gain a return on the property and meet a need in the market.
However, such proposals are inconsistent with the present Comprehensive
Plan's standards for land use designations and residential land uses,
and are also not permitted under the current zoning regulations° Mobile
home parks are not permitted in any industrial zones.
It is recognized that industrially designated land often sits idle with
limited opportunities for a financial return until market demand
'catches up' with the available inventory. This fact along with the
recognition that the availability of affordable housing is a significant
problem in the County, as is the particular need for spaces for mobile
homes, suggests that there may be an arrangement which can address both
issues.
Such an arrangement would be to permit mobile home parks in lands
designated for Industrial Service uses. The intent of this change would
be to allow industrial land to be used for mobile home parks until
market demands dictate a change to an industrial land use. No specific
time limit on the existence Of the mobile home park is anticipated to be
set. These mobile home developments could also be allowed as a
permanent secondary use on the site.
In order to locate a mobile home park in a designated Industrial Service
area, the property would have to be rezoned LI, Light Industrial. Parks
would not be permitted in the HI, Heavy Industrial, district°
~ssues:
PROS:
-Opens up additional areas for the location of mobile home parks.
-Allows owners of industrially designated/zoned properties an interim
use of their property. This may deter the number of Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment requests to change to other uses that
are dictated by current market demands.
-The nature of mobile homes and mobile home parks make them an ideal
interim use. Physical design characteristics and property ownership
would allow for a relatively 'easy conversion to the ultimate intended
use.
CONS:
-Such development of mobile home parks could consume vacant inventory of
industrial land. The County staff would consider these areas as under-
developed in its land use inventory and, therefore, available for
industrial development. However, to potential buyers/developers the
existence of residential areas that have to be removed to develop the
site could be considered a negative and, therefore, ultimately affect
the marketability of the property.
-This proposal does not ensure the provision of permanent mobile home
sites. Because property is zoned LI, Light Industrial, other industrial
uses would ultimately be anticipated. The parks developed under this
scenario would be temporary in nature. How long they remain would be
dictated, in theory, by market demands for industrial land, the ultimate
use intended for the property (the property would be zoned LI).
-It may be politically difficult to approve a subsequent industrial
development which could impact or eliminate an existing residential
neighborhood (mobile home park).
September 16, 1992 (Regular Nigh% Meeting)
(Page 12)
M.B. 42, Pg. 215
-This proposal differentiates between dwelling type in terms of the
protection of those residential communities from dissimilar and non-
compatible uses. Mobile homes will be the only unit type permitted
within an industrial zoning district.
Possible Chanqes: Staff believes such changes as presented below hold
merit in the potential they provide for opening up areas to a type of
more affordable housing. Obviously, it is not an alternative without
its drawbacks, nor is it the total answer to the affordable housing
problem. Should the Board support this approach, staff recommends that
changes be made to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance,
specifically the LI, Light Industrial District~
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The amendment to the Plan would be text
changes to the Industrial Land Use Standards (p. 154):
Industrial Land Use Standards
The following GENERAL STANDARDS are recommended to guide industrial
development. Add a subsection "f" reading:
f. Permit mobile home parks within industrial service areas as an
interim use until the development of the site for industrial uses.
Mobile home parks may be permitted as secondary uses to industrial
development if as part of a planned development concept and
provided they are desiqned to minimize impacts of noise, traffic,
liqht and odors from the adjacent industrial uses and otherwise
meet the Residential Land Use Standards of the Plan (pp. 155-156).
(See ~also Transportation section, Table 39: Design Standards,
page 114,' and Growth Area section, Table 46: Non-Residential Land
Use Guidelines, page 161).
The Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines, Table 46, would also be amended
to indicate mobile home parks may be permitted as an interim use of
these designated areas and as a potential secondary use under a planned
development concept.
Zoninq Text Chanqe: The Zoning Ordinance would have to be amended. The
LI, Light Industrial, district would be amended to include mobile home
parks as a by riqht-use. Additional regulations may need to be
established to set criteria/standards for location relative to adjacent
non-residential uses."
"Request: This Comprehensive Plan amendment request is to change the
land use designation from Industrial Service to Regional Service and
High Density Residential on approximately 125 acres of land west of
Route 29 and east of Route 606 in the Hollymead Community.
The applicant is proposing a'mixed use development totalling
approximately 175 acres consisting of Industrial Service and commercial
areas, and a residential area which would be developed as a mobile home
park.
The applicant has offered to participate in the extension of sewer
service through this site if this amendment is approved in order to make
this service reasonably available to the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport. Currently the Airport is served by a septic system. The
proposed development concept also includes the construction of a
connector road between Route 29 and Route 606.
Backqround: This request was submitted in March of 1990. The Planning
Commission failed to recommend further study, and recommended denial of
this request on May 15, 1990. The Board of Supervisors~ on June 13~
1990, adopted a Resolution of Intent to study the proposed amendment and
instructed staff to work with the applicant to obtain additional
information concerning the development concept. The applicant provided
no additional information until late August of 1991. At that time, two
possible development concepts were provided to staff. No additional
information has been provided since. Staff's evaluation of this request
is based on these conceptual .plans and information submitted initially
by the applicant.
Based on the Board of Supervisors' directive at the time of adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan, the Hollymead Community was evaluated for
possible expansion. It was determined that expansion of Hollymead was
not appropriate at that time due to a number of outstanding issues or
additional planning work that needed to be undertaken. These issues/
activities include:
Development of a Community Facilities Plan;
Development of an Open Space Plan;
Development of a fiscal impact model and analysis of the County in
order to determine impact of growth on the County~
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
M.B. 42, Pg. 216
4e
Resolution of the Route 29 Bypass location;
Resolution of the Meadow Creek Parkway;
Development of a Utilities Master Plan.
With the exception of the fiscal impact model/analysis, all other items
have been addressed or are currently under study.
The staff and Planning Commission are recommending that the fiscal
impact model development and analysis be undertaken this fiscal year or
early next fiscal year. Once this model and initial analysis is
undertaken, the County will be able to re-evaluate all expansion/
modification requests for the Hollymead Growth Area.
Summary of Findinqs: The following is a summary of findings from
staff's evaluation of this request. Following this section and
recommendation section is a more detailed analysis of this request.
- Staff finds that this request is not consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan in regard to the current Land Use Plan/Map, location
criteria for residential and commercial areas, and specific
recommendations for the development of the Community of Hollymead. The
applicant's request includes three major offers to the County: (1)
Extension of sewer service through this property 'up front' which would
allow the Airport to connect to public sewer at a greatly reduced coste
Short term alternatives for obtaining sewer service for the Airport are
limited. Continued use of a septic system is not seen as a viable
alternative; (2) Provision of a location for a mobile home park. Spaces
for mobile homes are needed in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area.
However, the proposed location is within the Airport Impact Area and
would be surrounded by Industrial Service and/or CommercLal Service
uses. While the need for mobile home space is great, this is not
considered a prime location, particularly with regard to noise impact
from the Airport; and (3) Development of a connector road between Route
606 and Route 29. Although this connection has not been evaluated with
the regional traffic model, it does not appear that this road will
significantly reduce the need to make other road system improvements to
Airport Road and Route 29. A number of crossovers on Route 29 in
Hollymead have been closed as recommended in the Route 29 Corridor
Study. This new road will necessitate a new crossover on Route 29
creating the potential for additional friction. Intersection with the
existing crossover/intersection at Hollymead would be preferred.
- A Regional Service land use designation is not considered appropriate
in this location. There does not appear to be a need for an additional
Regional Service area in the short-term. If additional Regional Service
area is to be designated, expansion of the existing area designated at
the Airport-Proffit Road/Route 29 intersection is considered a more
appropriate location in order to avoid commercial 'stripping~ of Route
29 and to consolidate highway oriented uses to major intersections.
- The intent of the Land Use Plan is to have the area west of Route 29
accommodate employment center activities. To this end, a land use
designation which can accommodate employment centers would be considered
appropriate. These would include Industrial Service, Office Service, or
Office/Regional Service. The Office/Regional Service land use
designation would permit the applicant Regional Service uses. However,
commercial development would be based on the timing and total square
footage of Office Service development. A planned development approach
is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
- Staff does not recommend approval of this amendment request as
presented in either alternative.
- Land use changes/expansion of Hollymead should be considered upon
completion of a fiscal impact analysis to be undertaken this fiscal year
or early next fiscal year. In the Annual Report of the Comprehensive
Plan staff recommended that a fiscal impact model be developed and an
analysis be undertaken this year to determine how development and
population trends and projections will affect revenues and expenditures
of the County. Upon completion of this item, staff recommends that an
evaluation of growth area modification/expansion be undertaken to
accommodate anticipated land use needs. The Hollymead/Piney Mountain
area should be given particular emphasis.
- If the Commission and/or Board see merit in changing the Plan to take
advantage of the proposal's beneficial public facility aspects, it is
staff's opinion that the most appropriate change would be to Office/
Regional Service. This would require a planned development approach
with phasing of commercial development in accordance with office
development and allow residential use as a secondary use. It is not
recommended that the road connection be shown due to the uncertainty of
its public value in this location.
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Mee%Ing)
(Page 14)
M.B. 42, Pg. 217
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Evaluation Criteria: The Board has adopted
criteria for evaluating Comprehensive Plan amendment requests. These
five criteria (A through E) are noted below followed by staff comments
regarding this request's consistency with these criteria:
The Comprehensive Plan provides a lonq-ranqe quide for direction
and context of the decision-makinq process for public and private
land uses. The Comprehensive Plan is qeneral in nature rather
than attemptinq to identify specific qeoqraphic locations. The
Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan suqqests the relationship
of recommended uses to qeneral areas. Proposed amendments to the
Land Use Map should be reviewed for compliance with the qeneral
plan rather than area-specific or parcel-specific requests for a
chanqe in the recommended use. The purpose of the Land Use Map is
to provide and plan for a balance of land uses, equipped with
adequate utilities and facilities, in a comprehensive, harmonious
manner. Any proposed chanqe in the Land Use Map will be evaluated
for protection of the health, safety and welfare of the qeneral
public rather than the proprietary interests of an individual.
The general intent of the Land Use Plan for Hollymead is to
provide employment center uses on the west side of Route 29, with
residential and support commercial uses on the east side of Route
29. This is based on the following:
Industrial uses and employment centers are to be
consolidated in close proximity to the transportation
facilities (highway, rail, airport) not only for
convenience, but also to avoid traffic conflict with
residential areas. These uses are considered more
compatible with impacts of the Airport (Industrial Land Use
Standards, Comprehensive Plan, pp. 153-154).
Residential areas should be located east of Route 29 to
minimize impact from the Airport. Route 29 creates a
logical boundary between residential and industrial service
uses.
Commercial areas located primarily on the eastern side of
Route 29 are to provide convenient and accessible support
services to residential areas, thereby avoiding unnecessary
crossing of Route 29. Regional Service Areas are to be
located along major highways and intersections (such as the
Proffit-Airport/Route 29 intersection).
A general concern with this request regarding health, safety and
welfare is the location of the proposed residential area within
the Airport Impact Area Overlay District. Due to noise impacts
and safety considerations, this is not considered an appropriate
location for a residential area, particularly a mobile home
development which may have difficulty meeting noise abatement
requirements.
Ail areas surrounding the residential area are designated for
Industrial Service Use (and Regional Service Use if this request
is approved). This land use pattern combined with the relative
location make this a less desirable location for residential
development. Areas to the south of this site would have to be
considered for land use changes which would be more compatible
with a residential use. It is questionable whether a mobile home
park would be a viable long term use in this area given the
ultimate development pattern of the area.
The merit of the Comprehensive Plan amendment request shall be
larqely determined by the fulfillment of support to the Goals and
Objectives specified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The recommendations for development outlined in the Plan's
Growth Area Profile for the Community of Hollymead include:
No commercial uses are to be established on either
side of Route 29 up to the entrance of the existing
Hollymead Subdivision. It is the intent of the Plan
that the large regional use area south of the Rivanna
River not extend north of the river on the east or
west side of Route 29. Service areas as shown on the
Plan are sufficient for the foreseeable future (pp.
183).
This recommendation is intended to limit large regional commercial
development from extending up to the Hollymead subdivision
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night'Meeting)
(Page 15)
M.B. 42, Pg. 218
entrance. This proposal is just north of the Hollymead
Subdivision entrance.
Service areas as shown on the Plan are still considered sufficient
for at least the short term (five years). Analysis conducted with
the Annual Report of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that there
may be a need for additional commercial areas in the long term
based on national projections of commercial activity and local
inventory of available land.
The area west of Route 29 is intended for industrial and
office uses as a large employment area. It is expected that
these uses will be of a large scale and have a significant
airport orientation. Existing residential areas on the west
side of Route 29 are recognized, but are not intended to
expand except for an undeveloped area of medium density
north of Cedar Hill Trailer Park (pp. 183).
With one exception, the Plan does not intend for additional
residential development to occur west of Route 29 due to
compatibility with the Airport and its impact and to the ultimate
development of the area as an industrial/employment center. The
area north of Cedar Hill is out of the Airport Impact Zone and was
intended to permit the possible expansion of an existing mobile
home park.
The intent is for the area west of Route 29 to provide locations
for large employment activities of an industrial/office nature.
To this end, land use designations which support these activities
would be acceptable. These designations include Industrial
Service (which is the current designation), Office Service and
Office-Regional Service.
Establish a Regional Service area on Route 29 at Route 649.
This area is intended to serve commercial service needs for
the Hollymead Community, the Airport, and Route 29 traffic.
This location is expected to accommodate multiple uses for
future commercial development convenient to a variety of
users (pp. 183).
The intent is to consolidate regional/highway oriented activities
to this intersection as opposed to 'stripping' large scale
commercial activities along Route 29.
It is staff's opinion that the most appropriate location for
additional Regional Service area would be around the intersection
of Route 29 and Airport/Proffit Road. These highway oriented
regional scale uses should be located at or near this major
intersection.
Establish a Community Service area south of Route 649 on the
east side of Route 29 to provide general retail needs in the
Community and the northern part of the County.
Establish a Community Service area centered around the
entrance to the Hollymead subdivision. This recognizes the
approved commercial area in the Hollymead PUD. While too
large to be a neighborhood service area, the scale of
commercial development is to be in keeping with the
residential nature of the Hollymead subdivision and oriented
to the subdivision rather than highway uses. The area is
intended to meet local convenience shopping and professional
service needs and is to be screened and buffered from
adjacent residential areas. Access to high density
residential areas to the north and south is to be reserved.
Establish a neighborhood service area on Route 649 in the
northern portion of the Community intended to meet local
convenience shopping and professional service needs,
including medical and financial services.
Community scale commercial activities are intended to be located
within convenient proximity to residential areas and Route 29.
Sufficient undeveloped acreage exists in these areas to
accommodate short term needs. This proposal is west of Route 29
and is for a Regional Service designation.
o Transportation improvements include:
-Limitation of access points on Route 29 North to joint
entrances, frontage roads and side streets (pp. 184).
The applicant is proposing to construct a road which would connect
Route 29 with Route 606 at the southern end of the Airport runway.
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
M.B. 42, Pg. 219
Three crossovers between Hollymead subdivision and Airport Road
have been closed in accordance with the Route 29 North Corridor
Study and the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan in order to
minimize traffic conflict/friction points on Route 29. No new
crossovers are proposed in this area.
o Water and sewer improvements include:
-Extension of the Powell Creek Sewer Interceptor and
development of necessary collection lines to accommodate
development in the Route 29/Airport Road area, the Airport,
and northern residential areas of Hollymead along Route 649.
The applicant is proposing to construct a sewer line through this
site to the north end of the property. The extension will bring
sewer within close proximity of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport, permitting it to connect to sewer service. The newly
expanded Airport is now served by a septic system, and the
existing septic system needs to be replaced with a larger system
to accommodate the expansion. Cost estimates for a new septic
system is $100,000. The Health Department has indicted the
probable life expectancy would be approximately five to seven
years based on soil characteristics and experience with the
previous system.
2. Comprehensive Plan Goal: Promote a variety of safe,
sanitary and affordable housing types for County residents
of all income groups (pp. 20).
There is an ever increasing need for sites to locate mobile homes.
Several public and private development projects in both the City
and County will be displacing mobile homes in the near future.
This request does include a proposal to develop a mobile home
park. However, there are concerns related to location for the
park which have been previously addressed.
Ce
A primary purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use MaR
is to facilitate the coordination of improvements to the
transportation network and the expansion of public utilities
in an economical, efficient and judicious manner.
Comprehensive Plan amendments which direct qrowth away from
desiqnated qrowth areas shall be discouraqed unless adequate
~ustification is provided. Amendments to the boundaries of
qrowth areas may be considered appropriate if the request is
comprehensive, proposes to follow a loqical topoqraphic or
man-made feature and is supported by adequate justification.
No Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be considered in areas
where roads are non-tolerable or utilities are inadequate
unless the improvement of those facilities is included in
the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal.
Public sewer is located along the stream at the north end of the
Hollymead subdivision east of Route 29. Public water runs along
the frontage of Route 29. Adequate capacities are available to
provide service to this area. The applicant has indicated that he
will participate in the 'up front' construction of sewer through
this site in order to make service reasonably available to the
Airport. Extension of this service to the Airport is not
currently scheduled in the Albemarle County Service Authority
Capital Improvements Program for funding. Alternatives to provide
service to the Airport are limited. There is currently no
available capacity in the Camelot treatment plant and sewer lines
would have to be extended to the Airport which would involve
pumping stations. As noted previously in this report, continued
use of a septic system is not considered a viable long term
alternative.
Although staff has seen no formal agreement to construct this
sewer line to date, the applicant has been in discussion with the
Albemarle County Service Authority and Airport Management. The
offer to construct is a basis for this Comprehensive Plan
amendment request.
The applicant is also proposing to construct a connector road between
Route 606 and Route 29 as part of the development of this site. While
this concept may be appropriate to serve the development itself, it does
not address any identified road system need in the area. Although not
reviewed with the regional traffic model, it does not appear this road
will eliminate the need for any anticipated road improvement projects°
Improvements to Airport Road and Route 29 will still be needed. This
road will also create a new intersection just north of the Hollymead
subdivision entrance. According to the VDoT Resident Engineers sight
distance along the frontage of this request is limited due to the
vertical curvature of Route 29. The reconstruction and widening of
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
M.B. 42, Pg. 220
Route 29 from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road has
been identified in the Six Year Primary Road Plan for construction in FY
1995-96.
Do
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be evaluated for
qeneral compliance with the adopted County plans, policies,
studies, and ordinances and to determine if correspondinq chanqes
are necessary.
Transportation--The following are comments related to the
request's consistency with current transportation plans and
studies:
CATS--Recommends construction of Meadow Creek Parkway to
Route 649 as a long term (Phase IV) improvement.
Route 29 North Corridor Study--Recommends the closure of a
number of crossovers and the consolidation of major access
points to adjacent properties. One crossover along the
frontage of this property has already been closed (near
Holly Memorial Gardens). The only crossovers to remain open
along this segment of Route 29 are at Hollymead subdivision
and Forest Lakes subdivision.
VDoT Six Year Primary Plan--Route 29 from Rio Road to
Airport Road is to be widened to six lanes. Construction is
projected to begin in FY 95-96, or after completion of the
widening project from Rio Road to the South Fork Rivanna
River.
The Community Facilities Plan--This Plan identifies the need for
improved police and fire services in the Hollymead area. Hollymead has
been recommended for the location of a police satellite station, a new
fire station and a possible location for a permanent library to
ultimately replace the existing leased facility at Albemarle Square
Shopping Center, if, or, when determined necessary.
This request will not change the anticipated need for these facilities
although the type of services/responses in the case of police and fire
may be different. The type of fire calls and response demands would be
different for commercial and residential uses as opposed to industrial
type uses.
Except as otherwise provided, the followinq conditions may be
considered in the evaluation of a request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan: (1) chanqe in circumstance occurs, or; (2)
updated information is available, or; (3) subsequent portions of
the Comprehensive Plan have been adopted, or; (4) a portion of the
Plan is incorrect or not feasible, or; (5) preparation of the Plan
as required by the Code of Virqinia was incomplete or incorrect
information was employed.
The Board has directed staff to evaluate this request. There has
been no major change in circumstances. There is no significant
update of information identified that would warrant a change in
the Comprehensive Plan at this time.
Analysis for the Annual Report of the Comprehensive Plan indicated
that High Density Residential and commercial (Regional and
Community Service) land use designations have developed at a more
rapid pace than anticipated in the Plan. Some High Density areas
may need to be replaced in the short-term. However~ the available
commercial area should be sufficient in the short-term.
There is a need to provide sewer service to the newly expanded
Airport. There is currently $75,000 in the ACSA Capital
Improvements Program in this biennium to participate with the
Airport in development of this project. This amount is
insufficient to fund the full cost of the improvement. The
importance of providing this service to the Airport should be
balanced against the consistency of this request with the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan or with other alternative designations
such as the Office/Regional Service designation."
Mr. Cilimberg said the following changes have occurred since staff
review of the request: (1) The applicant offered to participate in the
cost/construction of extension of sewer service from the site to the Airport.
A contract has been awarded for this project and right-of-way is being
acquired. Construction should begin within the next two weeks; (2) The
applicant has revised the request for high density residential; and (3) A
consultant's contract analyzing Meadow Creek Parkway alternatives has been
expanded to review possible alternative extensions west of U. S. Route 29 to
the Airport area that may affect this property.
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Me~ting)
(Page 18)
M.B. 42, 221
Staff continues to recommend denial of this request until a fiscal
impact model and analysis can be completed and a comprehensive evaluation of
the expansion of Hollymead is undertaken. It has been the Board's position in
the past that there be a comprehensive evaluation of the expansion to
Hollymead rather than piecemeal considerations of individual requests. As the
Board may be aware, in February, Towers Land Trust reactivated its
Comprehensive Plan amendment request; however, it has not been heard by the
Planning Commission due to deferral. The Towers' request is similar to Mr.
Wood's request in the types of land uses being requested. Staff recommends
that the Board not act on this amendment request until the Towers' request can
also be considered. It is anticipated that the Towers' request will be
scheduled for Planning Commission review in September.
Regarding the applicant's specific proposal to provide a mobile home
park on this site, staff suggests that the Board consider permitting mobile
home parks as a by-right use within the LI, Light Industry, district. This
would require amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance and would be applicable to all such designated and zoned properties.
The purpose of this change is to provide additional opportunities to locate
mobile home parks, as an interim use, in areas designated for industrial use.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September
1, 1992, by a vote of 4-3, recommended approval of CPA-90-03.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Wendell Wood said he first submitted this proposal two and a half
years ago. He keeps hearing that there is a need for affordable housing in
the County. A mobile home park is the best way to provide affordable housing.
A mobile home park has a lot of benefits that are not in a mobile home
subdivision. A subdivision ceases to be affordable because the owner has to
purchase the land and the mobile home. This way the owner can purchase the
mobile home and pay a small rental fee. Albemarle County, is not presently
conducive to having a mobile home park built in it. Property zoned high
density is needed for this purpose, which is quite expensive. In order to
make such a project feasible, public water and sewer facilities are needed.
For public water and sewer in the current zoning, the land will cost from
$50,000 to $75,000 per acre. In today's market, to build a mobile home park
and make it viable, the maximum cost per acre for the property can only be
from $12,000 to $15,000. Although it may be considered a negative aspect of
the project to locate a park near the airport because of the noise.
Mr. Wood said in addition to the sewer line another benefit the County
will receive from this project is the road that would be built from Route 29
North to the back of the Airport which could alleviate a considerable amount
of traffic in the area. The road would be from Route 29 across from Holly
Memorial Gardens to the end of the Airport runway.
Mr. Wood said every time this request has come forward there has been
some reason for the Board to study it a little longer. He does not know what
the request from Towers Land Trust has to do with this piece of property.
Towers Land Trust will not build a mobile home park because they cannot afford
to. He can build this park for the trade offs of what he is here asking. In
this case, he does not believe small individual users of industrial use are as
desirable as a large regional development of commercial.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the property in the rear of this property, zoned
LI, is $12,000 per acre without infrastructure. Mr. Wood said industrial land
that has water, sewer, and is zoned industrial in the Airport vicinity, is
probably a minimum of $50,000 per acre. Mr. Bowerman asked if this is without
infrastructure in place. Mr. Wood said that is correct.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Wood would object to dividing this request and
looking at the mobile home park as one entity and looking at the other part of
the request for the land along Route 29 North as part of the request for the
Hollymead area. Mr. Wood said from an economic stand point, the proposal will
not work if the mobile home park is taken out. If the mobile home park is all
he can do on this piece of property then he does not want to do a mobile home
park since it is not economically viable. The land is valued at $50,000 per
acre. There is not a driving force for him to do this. He has been asking
for this request to be heard for two and a half years and he does not want to
wait any longer. Every time he makes his proposal the Planning Department
asks for something new. If the Board wants to defer this request again and
wait for something to happen, fine, but there is a need for his proposal and
that need will not change or go away.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the harm is in proceeding with one part of the
request and then looking at the frontage of the property as it relates with
the entire plan for the Hollymead area. Mr. Wood said the Board wants him to
commit to doing the mobile home park, but he does not want to wait and be at
the mercy of whoever is on the Board ten or fifteen years from now. He needs
to know that the zoning is available so the land can be shown, promoted and
presented. That is important to him. He wants the Board to look at what the
land would be if it were not developed for regional type uses. Mr. Bowerman
M.B. 42, Pg. 222
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
said that is why he wants to look at the whole plan for the Hollymead
Community. He, personally, cannot do that without looking at the other tracks
along Route 29 North. He can separate out the mobile home portion because of
the public need.
Mr. Wood said the Board is telling him that it needs to look at the
overall plan and what he is asking the Board to look at is what can be done
with the property today. The property is zoned industrial and can be stripped
along the frontage with that type use. There are nine parcels along the
frontage. He has invested $25,000 in a sewer line that cannot wait because he
needs a return on his investment. He may be forced into starting to develop
this property as it is currently zoned. He does not feel that is as desirable
as what has been presented to the Board. In the same process he is also
offering to build the mobile home park. If this request is denied, tomorrow
he can make a request for five acres on the front. When the County needs
something it looks to him. He asked the Board what it would do if this land
was in the hands of the original 30 owners. The Board would not have the
opportunity to do a nice, full-scale development of it. The development would
be piecemeal. This is an opportunity for good planning.
Mr. Bowerman asked for other public comments.
Mr. Russell Mooney said he lives on the property adjoining this request.
He expressed concerns about quality of life the people will have if Mr. Wood
is allowed to put this mobile home park in this area. He expressed concerns
about the property's proximity to the Airport, i.e. runway, noise, odor and
fumes. It would be a bad situation to put this mobile home park here and then
have all the people come to the Board requesting something be done about the
problems. Mr. Mooney said at one of the Planning Commission meetings, Mr.
Wood admitted that a mobile home park was not a permanent solution for this
area and in ten or fifteen years he may want to change this use. He does not
think that is a feasible plan once money is spent on utilities and streets.
He feels the best thing to do would be to deny the request for the present
location. If the park were moved several hundred yards north or south, then
this problem will not exist.
Ms. Ginny Decker, President, League of Women Voters, said the League
opposes this request to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Proposals to amend the
Plan, to modify or to expand the Hollymead community have been around since
1989. The League has supported the County's position that the necessary
planning tools, including the Fiscal Impact Study (FIS), should be in place
before the County considers land use changes. Until the FIS is in place and
complete, it is difficult to determine how much it will cost taxpayers to pay
for the schools, roads, police protection and other County services required
for the development of the "residential area". Staff has in the past
recommended that upon completion of that study "an evaluation of the growth
area modification and expansion be undertaken to accommodate anticipated land
use needs for the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area". If that were done, then
this request would be evaluated in the comprehensive review with all of the
proposals and requests that have been made for land use changes, not in the
piecemeal basis that is before the Board tonight.
The League does continue to be concerned about the Comprehensive Plan,
maintaining its integrity and the amending process. Among the criteria for
amending the plan is the condition that proposed amendments "should be
reviewed for compliance with the general plan rather than be specific or
partial specific requests for change". The request is partial specific and
does not meet this criteria. Another amendment criteria is that "any proposed
change in the land use map should be evaluated for the protection of the
health, safety and welfare of the general public, rather than the proprietary
interests of an individual". While the League does not doubt that the
proposal to develop a mobile home park in a light industrial area is based
partly on a perceived need, it is also based, as the staff report notes, on
the applicant's desire to gain a return on the property. It is also important
to remember that approval of this request designated for one specific parcel
would result in changes to the industrial land use standards that would allow
residential development for mobile homes in all industrial service areas in
the County.
Ms. Decker said the League strongly supports the County's efforts to
extend the availability of affordable housing, and carefully planned, well-
designed mobile home parks are an alternative worth exploring. It seems wrong
to place a mobile home park in an area that does not have the same protection
from non-compatible uses as do other residential communities. The League sees
a need for a comprehensive review of all proposed changes and no~ a piecemeal
approach. The League urges the Board to deny this request°
Mr. Reuben Clark, representing Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC)~
distributed a statement (copy on file) supporting the proposed amendment with
the following suggested provisions incorporated in the approval:
1. To insure consistent quality in the management of a
manufactured housing park of the size contemplated by CPA-90-03 it
M.B. 42, Pg. 223
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
is the preference of the Board of Supervisors that any such park
developed pursuant to this amendment should be managed and
administered with the assistance of a qualified public or
nonprofit agency, such as the Charlottesville Housing Foundation;
should offer appropriate opportunities for housing counseling to
residents; and should give priority to providing housing to lower
income residents of Albemarle County;
2. To insure the quality of the surroundings of residents in the
area designated high density residential by CPA-90-03, given its
proximity to the commercial and light industrial areas also
provided for in this Plan amendment, the area shown for high
density residential in this amendment shall be surrounded by an
effective vegetative buffer;
3. To insure that the significant changes contemplated by
CPA-90-03 result in a meaningful opportunity for affordable
housing in the County any manufactured housing park developed
pursuant to this Plan amendment shall contain at least 100 units
and shall not be significantly reduced in size or character for a
period of at least 15 years from the date of the issuance of final
site plan approval for such park except pursuant to legislative
action by the Board of Supervisors;
4. To insure that the significant changes contemplated by CPA-90-
03 result in a meaningful opportunity for affordable housing in
the County it is the express intent of the Board of Supervisors in
approving this Plan amendment that no rezoning or development of
the commercial area designated in this amendment shall precede
rezoning and development of the high density residential area
designated in this amendment for use as a manufactured housing
park as provided in conditions 1, 2 and 3; and
5. PEC supports the staff recommendation of Office/Regional
Service for the substantial portion of the area subject to
CPA-90-03 proposed for commercial use. At a minimum, to insure
that the substantial area designated for commercial use along
Route 29 designated in this Plan amendment is not developed in a
strip fashion approval of CPA-90-03 should state that it is the
intent of the Board of Supervisors in approving this amendment
that entrances onto Route 29 for all property covered by this
amendment shall be limited to no more than three and that any
commercial rezoning pursuant to this amendment shall provide for
development of the entire commercial area designated by this
amendment pursuant to an overall plan of development subject to
review and approval by the Board of Supervisors prior to
commencement of any development of such area.
Mr. Clark said PEC believes that the foregoing conditions should be
contained in the approval of this Plan amendment and should be the basis of
any rezoning action to implement the land use changes contemplated by this
amendment. The Board of Supervisors can and should refuse any rezoning of the
property subject to CPA-90-03 until it has before it a rezoning request
containing proffers which will insure development of the property consistent
with these provisions and any others which the Board chooses to incorporate in
its approval. We believe that failure to include provisions such as those PEC
suggested as part of the approval will undercut the Board's authority to
insure that the chief benefits proposed as justification for this Plan
amendment, names the provision of a substantial manufactured housing park and
the replacement of fragmented light industrial use characterized by numerous
curb cuts with the development of a planned, attractive and cohesive
commercial area.
Mr. Don Wagner, representing the Towers Land Trust, said in 1989 when
the Comprehensive Plan was last reviewed, Towers Land Trust went before the
Planning Commission and asked that the northeast quadrant of the intersection
of Airport Road, Proffit Road and Route 29 North be added to the growth area.
The Planning Commission basically said it was a good idea, but not at that
time. Towers Land Trust came before the Board with the same request. When
the staff report was written, staff recommended denial stating a lot of
studies were needed, i.e. fiscal impact study and studies on public
facilities. The market is going to decide what happens to this property and
how it is developed. He asked the Board not do anything tonight that would
keep Towers Land Trust from getting a fair hearing on its request when it
comes before the board in mid-October. He has no problem with the Board
acting on the affordable housing aspect now and waiting until October to
decide on the regional service. He agrees with Mr. Wood that they cannot wait
any longer for the County to do more studies.
Ms. Peggy Sacuto, a County resident, said she understands that there are
proposed approximately 300 mobile homes in this park. The impact on schools,
the burden on taxpayers and the traffic situation have not been discussed.
She asked if it was absolutely necessary to decide on this request tonight.
M.B. 42, Pg. 224
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting}
(Page 21)
She asked if there were any other proposals or plans to look at the whole
problem of affordable housing in the County. It seems that there must be some
other solution.
Mr. Wood again addressed the Board and said he is shocked that PEC has
made a proposal on his behalf but he is gratified. He has no problem with Mr.
Clark's recommendations as part of the conditions.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
(The Board recessed at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened at 10:22 p.m.)
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. St. John to comment on the recommendations made
by PEC. He asked if they could be incorporated into any rezoning action at a
future date without presupposing what a future Board may or may not do. Mr.
St. John said conditions cannot be attached to approval of a Comprehensive
Plan amendment. He thinks that what PEC intended, and what the Board can do,
is in the Public Facilities Plan, for example, use these recommendations as
guidelines for part of the goals and strategies.
Mr. Cilimberg said similar statements were included in the Comprehensive
Plan amendment for Glenmore which were called recommendations. If the Board
wanted to include this language, staff needs to work on the wording. Mr.
Bowerman asked Mr. Cilimberg how he felt about proceeding with something like
this. Mr. Cilimberg said as far as taking these recommendations and drafting
language to be used as guidelines for future development, he thinks it can be
done and is not a problem.
Mr. Martin said the Housing Committee's Report has been completed and
there are a lot of recommendations. Of all of the recommendations in the
report, mobile homes provide the quickest solution and have the most impact on
affordable housing. He understands what Mr. Wood is trying to do and he knows
that Mr. Wood is trying to make money. He also knows that there are two
things the Board really wants; one is fewer entrances on Route 29 North and
the other is affordable housing. He sees housing as an important issue and if
this Board continues to do nothing, no other developer is going to make this
offer. Mr. Martin believes Mr. Wood is offering something and asking for
something that everyone can live with. He plans to support the request.
Mr. Bowerman asked about overcrowding at Hollymead and the possible need
for another elementary school. Mr. Martin said this project will only produce
the need for another elementary school if it is filled by people who would not
normally be in this County. The School system has done a good job of
anticipating growth and what needs to be done to accommodate that growth.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there has been any research to indicate whether
these 300 mobile home units will house current Albemarle County residents.
Also, the Board needs to know the impact of this additional growth.
Mr. Tucker said currently there are several hundred people in the County
on a waiting list for Section 8 housing. Even with Crozet Crossings, there
are people who qualify, but there are only a handful of units available.
There are more than an adequate number of people on the waiting list to take
advantage of any type of rent-subsidy housing or other types of affordable
housing that may be provided.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Wood to comment on Mr. Mooney's comments about
fumes and moving the location of the park. Mr. Wood said he is not sure that
is a problem. One of the reasons the location is good for a mobile home park
is that the terrain is not steep. He has walked the property many times and
does not see the problem of a pocket there that will carry fumes. Deerwood
Subdivision is in similar proximity to the Airport and he has not heard any
complaints from residents within that subdivision.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the market will determine whether Mr. Wood does
strip development along Route 29 North. Of course, stripping would adversely
affect the rest of the land Mr. Wood has in terms of its marketability. He is
concerned about the entrances along Route 29 North. He feels the Board needs
to look at this area comprehensively. Affordable housing and mobile homes are
a critical issue. He does not think this means the Board has to "jump through
the hoop tonight" and say yes because of this one proposal. He would like to
consider staff's recommendation regarding PEC's proposal. It is also critical
to look at what else is happening around this area. He also thinks the Board
should look at this proposal and Towers' proposal together. He thinks this
request needs to be considered as part of the entire package.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg why the Planning Commission did not
discuss more of the potential problem that was presented by the new Meadow
Creek Parkway situation. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know but it was
called to their attention. Mrs. Humphris asked why they did not discuss the
potential impact on the schools. Mr. Cilimberg said he did not know. Mrs.
Humphris asked if there were any plans for future expansion of the Airport and
if so, where this would happen. Mr. Tucker said there are no plans for any
M.B. 42, Pg. 225
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
major expansion. The Airport Board is currently updating the overall master
plan and will be reviewing it every five years.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Commission discussed the fiscal impact of
this project or what it would cost to support such a project. Mr. Cilimberg
said that was not discussed.
Mr. Perkins said he is willing to support the concept of this amendment,
but he feels this Board needs to get Mr. Wood to incorporate the basics of
what PEC presented. He has some concerns about the timing of the mobile home
park and if it will be there for 15 years, or if it will be built and five
years later another Wal-Mart be put there. He feels there needs to be some
guarantee, but he does not know the process or how that can be incorporated.
Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board wants staff to consider PEC's
recommendations, the best way to do that is to have the recommendations
incorporated in the text of the Comprehensive Plan so that they can be looked
at as part of the overall plan for the Hollymead area.
Mr. Bowerman said he has spent a lot of time thinking about this
application, going over the report and trying to accommodate conflicting goals
in the Comprehensive Plan. There are benefits to be gained from a total
examination of the Hollymead area because there would be a cohesive area to
look at. He does not think when the Board gets to that point, that it will be
that much clearer. The conflicts today will be just as difficult to deal with
at a later time. There may be more information, but he does not feel it will
lessen the decisions this Board needs to make.
Mr. Bowerman said he is trying to balance the affordable housing goals
with other items in the Comprehensive Plan. If Mr. Wood agreed to separate
his requests, he would not have a problem with how the frontage of the
property is developed or the timeframe in which it would be developed in
relationship to the residential development of the mobile home park. Mr.
Bowerman asked Mr. Wood whether he would be willing to work with the Count~-in
the future if it was determined that the western leg of Meadow Creek were an
important part of the transportation plan. Mr. Wood indicated that would be
something he would consider if he did not have to build the whole thing.
Bowerman said he is willing to vote for the amendment with the incorporation
of the goals and objectives which have been presented to the Board.
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Bowerman meant he could vote for the request
tonight. Mr. Bowerman said "yes." Mr. Bain said he has never known this
Board to vote to adopt a CPA without having the information requested. It
will not take staff two weeks to review this additional information. He has a
real problem with approving this request tonight. This is not long-range
thinking.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bain if he would be acceptable to a positive
approach to this if staff was given a couple of weeks to look at the proposal
from PEC. Mr. Bain replied "yes." He has heard Mr. Wood's immediate
response, but there is nothing in writing in hand. He would like to see the
recommendations set out in writing.
Mr. Martin asked if the public hearing would be continued on this item
if it is deferred. Mr. Bowerman responded "no," it would be for Board
discussion only.
Mr. Bain said the Board cannot force proffers as part of a rezoning, but
if there are recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan, they would have to be
adhered to. If a few words are changed maybe this could apply to the general
concept of Hollymead and not just a specific piece of property or parcel.
Mr. Wood said the only comment he has is that he sees merit to what PEC
has proposed, but he thinks there are different interpretations of the
recommendations. There are certain statements he cannot agree with.
Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer CPA-90-03 to
October 7, 1992, to allow the staff, applicant and Piedmont Environmental
Council (PEC) an opportunity to review the recommendations for incorporation
into the amendment. Roll was called and motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: November 13, 1991.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of November 13, 1991, pages 58 (~16)
to end, and found them to be in order.
M.B. 42, Pg. 226
September 16, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Mr. Bain made mo%ion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the minutes
of November 13, 1991, pages 58 (#16) to end. Roll was called and motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Martin requested the staff to report to the Board on October 7,
1992, if possible, on the feasibility of appointing an eighth member to the
School Board. This eighth member would be a minority to serve for a one or
two year term at such time as there are no other minorities on the School
Board.
Mrs. Humphris requested information on when the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority plans to do a bathymetric study. She mentioned an area near Shack
Mountain, near the Ivy Creek Natural Area, where a pond on private property is
filled with sedimentation.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:08 P.M.