1992-06-10June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
M.B. 41, Pg. 206
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 10, 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, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and
Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
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 7:01 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Ms. Mary Loose, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jaycees, was
present to request funds from the Board for their Fourth of July fireworks
display. She said that even after contacting local businesses for five months
this year, they will only be able to fund $1500 of the $4000 cost. The Board
of the Jaycees voted to approach both the Board of Supervisors and City
Council for help with this project since the Fourth of July is a special day
for the nation. The cost of this project will impact on other projects of the
Jaycees such as: food baskets at Thanksgiving and Christmas, and sponsoring
retarded citizens at Camp Virginia Jaycees. The Jaycees feel that when the
economy brightens, local sponsors will contribute again. Ms. Loose then asked
for funding of $2000 for this project with the City.
Mr. Bowerman said he knew Ms. Loose would be present, and he feels staff
should talk to City people to determine the implications of such funding, and
then present a report to the Board at the June 17 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Items 5.11 and 5.12, and to accept
all but Item 5.3 of the remaining items as information. (Discussion which
occurred will be shown with that agenda item number.) Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall andMr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Letter dated May 26, 1992, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner,
Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that the road at Paul H. Cale
Elementary School had been taken into the State Secondary System effective
May 21, 1992, was received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated April 15, 1992, the follow-
ing addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby
approved effective May 21, 1992.
ADDITION LENGTH
PAUL H. CALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Route 9572 - From Route 742 to 0.16 mile East
Route 742
0.16 Mi"
Item 5.2. Letter dated May 26, 1992, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner,
Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that addLtions to and abandon-
ments from the Secondary System at Stony Point Elementary School, Crozet
Elementary School and Yancey Elementary School were approved effective May 22,
1992, was received as follows:
"As requested in your resolutions dated April 15, 1992, the
following additions to and abandonments from the Secondary System
of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective May 22, 1992.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
STONEY POINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Route 9008 - From Route 20 to 0.10 mile Southeast
Route 20
0.10 Mi
CROZET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Route 9010 - From Route 810 to loop 0.19 mile East
Route 810
0.19 Mi
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
YANCEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Route 9771 - From Route 627 to 0.10 mile Southeast
Route 627
ABANDONMENTS
STONEY POINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Route 9008 - From Route 20 to 0.10 mile Southeast
Route 20
CROZET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Route 9010 - From Route 810 to loop 0.15 mile West
Route 810
YANCEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Route 9771 - From Route 627 to 0.08 mile Northeast
Route 627
M.B. 41, Pg. 207
O. 10 Mi
0.10 Mi
0.15 Mi
0.08 Mi"
Item 5.3. Letter dated May 26, 1992, from Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner,
Virginia Department of Transportation, enclosing a copy of the "Tentative
1992-93 Construction Allocations and Six-Year Improvement Program for the
Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, as well as Public Transit,
Ports, and Airports, was received as follows:
"May 26, 1992
Tentative 1992-93 Construction Allocations and
Six-Year Improvement Program
County Board of Supervisors
Dear Board Members:
Enclosed is a copy of the tentative construction fund allocations
for fiscal year 1992-93 for the Interstate, Primary, and Urban
Highway Systems, as well as Public Transit, Ports, and Airports,
including an update of the Six-Year Improvement Program through
1997-98.
This is the first program update since the federal Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act was signed by President Bush
on December 18, 1991. This act provides a new focus for federal
transportation, with emphasis upon multimodal improvements as well
as increasing the efficiency of our existing facilities. A
national highway system program has been created as the successor
to the interstate program and extends eligibility to a greater
number of projects. The congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement program provides additional federal funding in areas
found to be in non-attainment of national clean air act. These
changes have been incorporated into the program update.
Preliminary approval of these allocations was given by the Common-
wealth Transportation Board at its May 21 meeting. Final action
will be requested after the Board holds public hearings in Salem
and Richmond in June as indicated on the enclosed notice.
We greatly appreciate the valuable help provided by the many
county officials who participated in our recent preallocation
hearings and contributed to the allocation and planning process.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner"
Mrs. Humphris said there are significant differences in the tentative
1992-93 construction allocation, namely in funds for the Western Bypass, the
Greenbrier Interchange on Route 29 North, and the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr.
Bain also questioned the figures for Preliminary Engineering on Route 29 and
acquisition of property for the interchanges. Mrs. Humphris said there have
been changes in the timetable as well as the dollar amounts. She then asked
that the Board request the staff to bring a report to the July 1, 1992,
meeting, on what those changes are. There were no objections raised.
Item 5.4. Letter dated May 29, 1992, from Thomas F. Farley, District
Administrator, Virginia Department of Transportation, giving notice of a
location and design public hearing for the Route 691 (Tabor Street) Project
0691-002-234,C-501, was received as information. Public hearing will be held
on Tuesday, June 16 at 7:30 P.M. at the Crozet Elementary School.
Item 5.5. Letter dated May 29, 1992, from Thomas F. Farley, District
Administrator, Virginia Department of Transpor~'ation, giving notice of a
location and design public hearing for the Route 20 (Scottsville Road) Project
0020-002-S21,PE101,C501, was received as information. The public hearing will
be held on Thursday, June 18 at 7:30 P.M. at the Cale Elementary School.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
M.B. 41, Pg. 208
Item 5.6. Local Funding - Social Services Department. Notification
that total local funds approved for 1991-92 in the Social Services budget will
be exceeded by approximately $23,500 from an unexpected $26,000 refund from
the State due to a reporting error in the Foster Care Program, was received as
follows:
"Between July, 1991 and May, 1992, the County experienced a 70
percent increase in expenditures for Foster Care, 38 percent in
Transitional Day Care and 83 percent increase in JOBS Day Care
over estimates in the FY '92 budget. These are mandated programs
which are 50 percent reimbursed by the state but which require
local funds based on actual expenditures. Due to these large
increases, local funds willbe overexpended by approximately
$20,000 in the current fiscal year.
Within the Housing Office, local funds are anticipated to be
overexpended by approximately $3500 due to an unexpected law suit
filed by a client which resulted in a $3500 deductible for defense
costs related to the suit. No monetary award was made as a result
of the legal action.
Total appropriation within the department will not be exceeded so
that an additional appropriation is not required, however, staff
felt the Board should be made aware of these overexpenditures in
local dollars. Fortunately, to help offset these overexpenditures
in local funds, the County expects to receive approximately
$26,000 from the state after July 1st as a reimbursement for a
reporting error in the Foster Care Program."
Item 5.7. Copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for May 26 and
June 2, 1992, was received as information.
Item 5.8. Copy of Minutes of the Albemarle County Service Authority
Board of Directors for April 16, 1992, was received as information.
Item 5.9. Copy of the Albemarle County Planning Commission's 1991
Annual Report, was received as information.
Item 5.10. Copy of notice dated May 29, 1992, of an Application filed
with the State Corporation Commission by Virginia Power seeking a general
increase in its electric base rates, was received as information.
Item 5.11. Request for salary increase for Jefferson Madison Regional
Library personnel for Fiscal Year 1992~93, was received as follows:
"The 1992-93 Jefferson-Madison Regional Library budget did not
include funds for staff salary increases due to expected signifi-
cant state cuts in funding. Now that most of the state funding
has been restored and no salary increases were provided last year,
the Library Board now requests participating jurisdiction's
concurrence with granting two and one-half percent increases from
their existing funds which are delineated in the attached letter
(on file) from Donna M. Selle to Robert W. Tucker, Jr. dated May
29~ 1992. No additional funding from localities will be needed.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors concur with the
Regional Library Board's desire to grant the small salary increase
from approved funds."
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the request to grant the
requested salary increase from approved funds.
Item 5.12. Resolution requesting acceptance of Colston Drive into the
State Secondary System of Roads. By the above recorded vote, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229,
the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby re-
quested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart-
ment, the following road in Colston Subdivision:
Colston Drive
Beginning at Station 19+87, a point common with the edge
of pavement of State Route 708 and the centerline of Col-
ston Drive, thence in an easterly direction 1636 feet to
Station 36+23, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40 foot unobstructed
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 209
(Page 4)
right-of-way and drainage easements along this requested addition
as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 848, page 444, Deed Book
893, page 640 and Deed Book 1070, page 505.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Appointment of a School Board
Member for the At-Large Position. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
May 30, 1992.)
Mr. Bowerman said the purpose of this public hearing is to read into the
record the names of the applicants, and then to give the applicants and the
public a chance to address the Board. The Board will then conduct interviews
of the applicants on July 1, and a decision will be announced either that day
or at a later date.
Mr. Bowerman said there were thirteen applications received. He then
read the following names into the record: Keith E. Johnson, Robert A. Lester,
Mitchell E. Neuman, Beverly D. Tirrell, Dhanyant Goradia, Edith C. Irwin,
Ervin W. Jordan, Jr., Russell Madison Cummings, Jr., Michael J. Marshall,
Gregg E. Newschwander, Arnold H. Skaar, Cathy L. Cabot, F. Charles Carmichael.
He then invited the applicants to speak.
First to speak was Mr. Arnold Skaar. He said he had been a resident in
this locality since 1968. He has two children in Western Albemarle High
School. He thinks it is imperative to have the excellent education that this
community desires. It is the one thing that local people can do. Mr. Skaar
said that two negatives pushed him to apply for this position. His daughter
was elected to the Honorary Society and was sent a mimeographed invitation to
attend a meeting. A week later his son got a letter from the School signed by
two principals and the librarian on embossed stationery. That is what he has
seen in education for a long time. Excellence is not being required either of
students or the teachers.
Mr. Skaar said he was also stirred by what the present School Board is
doing. He recently read that they had a long meeting on the definition of the
term "outstanding", and he wondered why they did not go to another locality,
ask for a copy of their mission statement, and draft one from that. He
realizes that the School Board is an appointed position and is subject to the
mandates of the State Board of Education, however, he feels it should not seek
to do the minimum required by the State Board, but should go above and beyond
those requirements.
Mr. Skaar noted that his background is in finance and economics. If
given a budget he can always find items that should not be included which is
one of his strengths. He mentioned that a lot of parents are disturbed who
have not said a lot in the past. They have been quiet because so many people
get into this position and then move on to the Board of Supervisors. These
parents do not want that. He will commit himself to three or four years as a
School Board member. He said he is not issuing a threat, but he wants the
position, and if he does not get the position, he will run for Board of
Supervisors' member from Ivy, appoint.himself to the School Board and resign
as a member of the Board of Supervisors to get where he wants to be. He
thinks it is time to make education "the" priority. He invited other candi-
dates to adopt the same position.
Ms. Dee Irwin said she taught school for ten years in different loca-
tions, teaching for four years at Albemarle High School. She has three
children who were educated in Albemarle. She has been employed for seven
years at the University of Virginia's Academic Computing Center. For several
years, she has thought about applying to be a School Board member. Last month
she attended the college graduation of her youngest child and the guest
speaker, Marian Wright Edelman said: "Service is the rent we pay for living.
It is the purpose of life and not something you do in your spare time." This
gave her the boost she needed to apply for a place on the School Board.
Mr. Marshall Chase was present on behalf of the Albemarle Education
Association. He said the AEA is concerned that no member of the School Board
be selected on the basis of a single issue of which he or she is an advocate.
They should not already be embroiled in controversy. They should not have a
stacked agenda, either public or hidden. The school system should not be run
by a closed-minded individual who believes in running things by decree. The
AEA urges the Board to fill the at-large position with a person who is willing
to listen, willing to collaborate, and who welcomes the value of employee
expertise in the decision-making process. Not filling this position with such
a person will be detrimental to the system, hurtful to an already diminished
employee morale, and harmful to children who depend on us to work together to
give them nothing less than the best education possible.
Mr. Mike Marshall, the incumbent, said it took a while before he decided
to reapply, even though he has held the position for only six months. When he
talked to the Board in January he had a rhetorical thing on class size and he
has not changed his feeling on that subject. He thanked the Board for funding
the School Board's priorities for FY 92-93 on such things as new teaching
positions (28 new). The schools are still 25 positions short of being
adequate. If reappointed, he will work to get those positions. He said the
Board knows his record and a couple of things have been controversial. One is
the "things over people" motion, as it was termed by some of its detractors,
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
M.B. 41, Pg. 2'10
and the "bus" motion to end credit financing. He believes the economy is
essentially in a coma and is being artificially sustained through massive
federal borrowing. He expects that after the next election there will be less
federal borrowing, and less federal spending. That means less federal money
for education, and less federal money for states, which will cause a "trickle-
down" effect to the localities. He believes Albemarle will have more pres-
sures on it for resources. He will not, if reappointed, ever agree to credit
financing of the school system except for new construction.
Mr. Marshall said there is one thing that needs to be worked on in the
system. The kids who are going on to college are doing fine. They are
getting a better education than the people in this room tonight had, and they
have more opportunities. The kids not in the college track are not performing
as well as is needed. In fact, they are performing so poorly that we are
looking at the possibility of the collapse of democratic institutions over the
next few generations. What should be worked on now is raising the expecta-
tions on students and making sure,these expectations are clearly defined
goals. The School Board was recently told that they were trying to "reinvent
the wheel" by addressing the "goals and objectives" issue. That may be truer
but the School Board is going to look into that issue. The reason this is
needed is because education is a war on ignorance, and the front line in the
war is the classroom. If he is on the School Board, he will keep pressuring
the system to make sure the classroom environment is its top priority. That
means more teachers, and it means that the teachers be given a set of expecta-
tions, and the kids be given high expectations of what they are supposed to
learn.
Ms. Cathy Cabot said her sole purpose in applying for the position is to
contribute to the betterment of her community. As a retired marine, housewife
and mother, she can commit her full-time to this position which is really,
under this governmental setup, a part-time activity.
Mr. Gregg Newschwander said he is a resident of Rivanna District with a
son in the first grade at Stone Robinson. He ran as a candidate for the
Rivanna seat on the Board of Supervisors last year, and his thoughts as to why
he-would be an effective board member have not changed, nor has his willing-
ness to commit the time and energy it will take to do the work. He has a
masters in pediatrics, and a doctorate in education. He is a faculty member
at the University of Virginia, so he knows about the challenges inherent in
trying to maintain the quality of instruction and to foster the ideal of life-
long learning in an environment of ever shrinking resources.
Mr. Newschwander said he believes the schools are at a critical junc-
ture. Students, parents and teachers are concerned about what they see today,
and about what the future will bring. They are also concerned, rightfully,
about who will make the decisions concerning the nature and quality of the
education available to the children of this county. The School Board should
be well-equipped, as well as well-intentioned, and the people on the Board
have the knowledge and skills necessary to formulate the policies which will
carry us effectively into the next century. He can be that kind of Board
member, and he hopes the Board will give him the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Madison Cummings, Jr. said he is a pharmacist at the University of
Virginia and has two children in county schools. He has been President of the
Red Hill PTO, a member of the School Improvement Team at Henley Middle School,
and an active member and participant of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Educa-
tion. He is also an advocate of public school education. His wife is a
teacher at Red Hill. His involvement with Albemarle County schools as a
spouse, parent and taxpayer, coupled with his concern over the direction in
which the education system is heading, persuaded him to apply for this
position. He knows that times are "tough" for budgets, but he is concerned
that significant other factors have contributed to a malaise among school
employees. For the first time in recent memory, Albemarle County Schools seem
to be less progressive, and moving backwards. He feels that Albemarle County
has good schools, with the potential to be the best. Burgeoning growth in
school population, severe state budget deficits, the ever presence of state
mandates, and the perceptible attitudinal change have all impacted the School
Division. It is incumbent upon the community to "get back ahead of the game"
to ensure the best for our children in both excellent facilities, and chal-
lenging and excellent curriculum.
Mr. Cummings said he had several specific proposals. The School Board
should provide vision focus to the School Division. They do not have the time
or expertise to be involved in micro-management of the schools. Second, there
must be greater attention paid to involving the entire community in promoting
and endorsing the incomparable value of a good education. All must be
persuaded that educating our children is our most important task, that the
time and money we spend now on quality education will be infinitely less than
what will be needed in the future to reeducate or incarcerate. Third: there
should be more emphasis on academic, fiscal and administrative accountability.
This does not mean more standardized testing, but a sense of responsibility in
the areas of administration and budgeting, as well as in the classroom.
Mr. Cummings said that, finally, there should be a strong endorsement of
universally agreed upon ethics, or values, such as tolerance, self-discipline,
honesty and respect for others, time, property and person. The Blue Ribbon
Commission attempted to practice receptivity to suggestions~ a spirit of
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
M.B. 41, Pg. 211
collegiality, flexibility, and a willingness to compromise on the contro-
versial issues before it. He pledged as a potential school board member to
continue this open-mindedness and spirit of compromise.
With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Bowerman said this item on the
agenda was now concluded.
Not Docketed: Mr. Bowerman noted that the Board had not adopted the
required certification to come out of this afternoon's executive session.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the
following:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETINO
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma-
tive 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
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 meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURINOMEETIN~: None.
ABSTAIN DURIN~ VOTE: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Request from Murray Whitehill to have property
included in the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service
Authority for "water only" service.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Request: The applicant, A. Murray Whitehill, III (for Mrs. R.
Douglas Whitehill), requests servi~e (jurisdictional) area desig-
nation for 'water only' because the well serving the residence on
this parcel 'is now inadequate to serve the needs of a family.'
The property is being sold and the new owners wish to connect to
public water. The well serving the residence is located on an
adjacent parcel and was established in the early 1950's. A
twelve-inch water line exists along the frontage of this parcel in
the shoulder of Route 678. Adjacent parcel 58-75D is designated
for 'water only to existing structures.' The nearby Ivy Oaks and
Lewis Hill subdivisions are designated for 'water only0'
Comprehensive Plan: This parcel is located in the Rural Areas as
designated by the Comprehensive Plan and within the South Fork
Rivanna River Reservoir watershed. Regarding provision of public
utilities, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in
objective and strategies as to where and under what circumstances
public utilities should be made available.
Objective: Provide public water and sewer services to the
Urban Area and Communities.
Strateqies: Follow the boundaries of the designated
Growth Areas in delineating service areas.
Only allow changes in service areas outside of designated
Growth Area boundaries in cases where the property is: 1)
adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health or safety
is endangered.
Further, the Comprehensive Plan warns that 'such utilities are not
to be extended to the Rural Areas as these services can increase
development pressures.' This request appears to be consistent
with the second strategy listed above. The applicant has indicat-
ed quantity problems in supporting documentation (on file).
Apparently, the residence has experienced problems during occupan-
cy and use by more than one person.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7) ~
M.B. 41, Pg. 212
History: This well originally served the parcel's residence and a
second dwelling on Parcel 58-75D. On June 11, 1986, the Board of
Supervisors unanimously approved service area designation for
Parcel 58-75D. This was at the request of Mr. and Mrs. A. Murray
Whitehill, III, who were experiencing quantity problems due to the
shared well. At the public hearing, it was indicated that the
owners of Parcel 58-75 were not interested in a water connection.
Recommendation: As a general policy, staff has advised that
public utility capacities be reserved to support development of
designated growth areas. Past actions by the Board have typically
been to limit utility service outside the designated growth areas,
particularly in a water supply watershed. However, where proper-
ties have experienced quality/quantity problems and are adjacent
to existing lines, the Board has granted service area designation
for 'water only to existing structures.' Staff would recommend
proceeding to public hearing for such a designation for Tax Map
58, Parcel 75, based on such a finding."
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, to
set this request for public hearing on July 1, 1992. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-92-01. Charles McRaven. Public Hearing on an
amendment to Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit outdoor theater
by special use permit in the rural areas. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on May 26 and June 2, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Petition: Charles McRaven petitions the Board of Supervisors to
amend the Rural Areas zoning district to allow "OUTDOOR DRAMA
THEATER" by special permit.
Summary and Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this zoning text
amendment for Consistency with specific provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance:
1.4, PURPOSE AND INTENT;
1.5, RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT;
1.6, RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
4.8.1, DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING UNSPECIFIED USES.
Staff offers the following comments:
1.4.8. To provide for the.preservation of agricultural
and forestal lands - Making agricultural and forestal
lands available to unrelated commercial uses is not a form
of preservation but contrary to such effort°
1.5. Relation to Environment - Staff is unsure of any
study or economic policy which recommends as appropriate,
additional commercialization of the Rural Areas. To in-
troduce large-scale, commercial uses on the one hand and
attempt to limit subdivision development on the other hand
may be difficult to justify. The Comprehensive Plan con-
tains no policies directed at the tourist economy.
1.6. Relation to Comprehensive Plan - This section of the
zoning ordinance explicitly states that 'development is to
be encouraged in Villages, Communities and the Urban Area,
where services and utilities are available and where some
development will not conflict with the agricultural/
forestal or other rural objectives; and development is not
to be encouraged in the Rural Areas, which are to be de-
voted to preservation of agricultural and forestal lands
and activities, water supply protection and conservation
of natural, scenic and historic resources and where only
limited delivery Of public services is intended.' Analy-
sis in this report concludes that the proposed use is con-
trary to this objective of the zoning ordinance.
4.8.1. Determinations concerning Unspecified Uses states
that: 'Uses other than those specified in district regu-
lations as permitted by right or accessory uses may be
added to a district on application by a landowner if the
commission and board of supervisors find:
That there is no clear intent to exclude such uses;
and
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
M.B. 41, Pg. 213
That the proposed use is appropriate within the
district and would have no more adverse effects on
other uses within the district, or on uses in ad-
joining districts, than would uses of the same gen-
eral character permitted in the district.
In such cases, the board of supervisors shall proceed to
amend the ordinance in accord with the provisions of sec-
tion 33.0.
As will be discussed later in this report, Board actions have been
consistently supportive of the intent of the Rural Areas district.
Compatibility of 'outdoor drama theater' to other RA uses is also
discussed.
The remainder of this report will examine the proposed amendment
in regard to general and specific issues related to the Zoning
Ordinance section cited above as well as other considerations. A
topical summary of this examination follows:
Adequacy of current requlations: Uses similar in charac-
ter are confined to commercial districts° Uses in the RA
district that draw larger crowds are of limited operation-
al duration.
Statement of Intent of RADistrict: 'OUTDOOR DRAMA
THEATER' does not contribute to or support the four stated
purposes of the Rural Areas district. To the contrary,
aspects of the use could compete with or be contrary to
these objectives. 'OUTDOOR DRAMA THEATER' is not compati-
ble to intensive agricultural and forestal operations.
Disposition of amendments to RADistrict, 1980 to present:
There has been consistent decision since adoption of the
1980 Zoning Ordinance not to include into the Rural Areas
district uses which do not contribute to, are not support-
ive of, or could conflict with the agricultural/forestal
objective. This statement is bolstered by the fact that
the Board of Supervisors has taken positive action to
constrain or repeal uses deemed inconsistent with the
Rural Areas objectives.
Recommendation: While many tourist uses may desire rural
location, only small-scale uses have been permitted in the
Rural Areas district. Inclusion of this use would be in
opposition to: intent of the RA district; recommendations
of the Comprehensive Plan; deliberate actions of the Board
of Supervisors relative to uses in the Rural Areas dis-
trict
STAFF RECO~HENDS DENIAL OF ZTA-92-OI. HOWEVER, SHOULD THE BOARD
CHOOSE TOADOPTTHEAHENDHENT,.STAFFRECOHNENDS THAT THE DEFINI-
TION PROVIDED LATER IN THISREPORTBEINCLUDED IN SECTION 3.0,
DEFINITIONS.
Additional Summary and Comment: Tourist-oriented uses are not
discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Rural Areas zoning
district provides for limited commercial uses. The Rural Areas
district comprises the majority of the County and has received
more discussion and attention than any other zoning district.
Currently, 61 use categories are permitted by right and special
use permit, more than specific listings for any other conventional
zoning district. Clearly the RA district provides for reasonable
use of land.
Section 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a purpose of
zoning is 'to encourage economic development activities that
provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base.' Clearly,
· outdoor drama theater' and other tourist businesses would enhance
the County's tourist economy and provide employment. However,
under the current Comprehensive Plan, the Rural Areas are to be
devoted to agricultural and forestal sectors of the economy.
Definition: This section of the staff report will propose and
discuss a definition of 'outdoor drama theater.'
THEATER, OUTDOOR DRAMA: An establishment whether operated
for profit or not, providing live performance recreations
of events of historic significance to and having actually
occurred within the locality or immediately adjacent lo-
calities.
This definition attempts to restrict 'outdoor drama theater' to
historical preservation as opposed to an unrestricted menu. Staff
generally does not favor such limited and narrow definition.
However, some uses allowed in the Rural Areas district have been
narrowly defined in an attempt to exclude similar uses (agricul-
tural museum; temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9) ~
M.B. 41, Pg. 214
organizations which are related to and supportive of the RA, Rural
Areas district).
Adequacy of Current Requlations: 'Outdoor drama theater' is not
specifically listed as a use in the Zoning Ordinance. Uses
similar in character are: drive-in theater (HC district); commer-
cial recreation establishment (C-1 and HC districts).
Within the Rural Areas district, no similar listed uses appear.
Two uses - the County Fair and Foxfield Races - draw larger crowds
than anticipated for this use, but are both temporary operations.
The County Fair operates about a week annually and the Foxfield
Races is specifically limited to two races per year. An outdoor
drama theater would operate during warmer months.
Based on existing ordinance provisions, uses similar in character
are confined to commercial districts. Uses in the RA District
that draw large crowds are of limited operational duration.
Statement of Intent of RA District: This section of the staff
report will discuss the relationship of the proposed use to the
stated intent of the Rural Areas zoning district. The statement
of intent of the RA district was substantially amended in Novem-
ber, 1989 to reflect the increased emphasis of the Comprehensive
Plan to identify the purposes of the Rural Areas.
As to the four stated purposes of the RA district, the
following comments are offered:
Preservation of aqricultural and forestal lands and activi-
ties: 'Outdoor drama theater' would use land for commercial
usage as opposed to agricultural/forestal use. Amending the
Zoning Ordinance to add commercial uses in the RA district
adds 'commercial value' to properties to the disadvantage of
agriculture and forestry. (In this regard, staff would not
anticipate multiple applications for 'outdoor drama theater'
and inclusion of this particular use may not affect land
values).
Water supply protection: Outdoor drama theater could in-
volve extensive parking areas and other areas of impervious
coverage.
Limited service to the rural areas: Traffic generated by
such a use could be significant. Of concern is accommodat-
ing a use of this scale on well and septic system. Recent-
ly, the staff recommended that an 800-seat church would be
more appropriately located within a designated growth area
where public utilities are available. (The church subse-
quently petitioned to connect to public sewer.) Based on
the scale of operation, public utilities may be initially or
subsequently required.
Conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources:
Agricultural and forestal uses are more appropriate to this
objective. Making rural land available to commercial uses
appears contrary to this intent, since it would provide
additional variety of development.
Therefore, staff analysis is that 'OUTDOOR DRAHATHEATER' does not
contribute to or support the four stated purposes of the Rural
Areas district. To the contrary, aspects'of the use could compete
with or be contrary to these objectives.
The statement of intent of the RA district also emphasizes
conflicts between residential development and agricultur-
al/forestal activities. While 'outdoor drama theater' would
operate evening hours, as described, it should be noted that
commercial agricultural and forestal uses are industrial in
character and can involve intensive activity, extended hours
of operation, heavy machinery, noise, chemical and manure
applications and odors. The RA statement of intent includes
the language that 'in relation to residential development,
agricultural/forestal activities shall be regulated only to
the extent necessary to protect public health and safety.~
Staff opinion is that 'OUTDOOR DRAHA THEATER' is not compat-
ible to intensive agricultural and forestal operations.
Disposition of Amendments to RA District, 1980 to Present: Staff
has compiled a summary report to provide background as to the
disposition of zoning text amendments initiated by citizen peti-
tion or request since adoption of the current zoning ordinance in
1980. Staff opinion is that this listing demonstrates consistent
decision regarding the intent of the Rural Areas district:
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
M.B. 41, Pg. 215
Amendments Approved:
Farm Winery
Hydroelectric power generation
Convent, monastery
Agricultural museum
Temporary events supportive of Rural Areas
Amendments Denied:
Restaurant
Health resort/health farm
Expanded definition of public garage
Rural salvage yard
In addition, the following uses have been repealed as being incon-
sistent with the intent of the Rural Areas:
10.2.2.24~' Motels and inns
10.2.2.26 Restaurants located on or adjacent to motel
premises
Also, the definition of 'public garage~ was narrowed to exclude
renting and selling vehicles and to limit the use to repair and
service.
Finally, the following uses permitted in the prior A-1 zone were
not included in the RA District when it was adopted in 1980:
Planned communities
Country clubs
Hospitals
Horse trailer sales, limited
Professional offices
Executive offices on a minimum of 100 acres in which are
employed a maximum of 15 persons, etc.
Slaughterhouse, custom
Homes for adults
Staff opinion is that there has been consistent decision since
adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance not to include into the
Rural Areas District uses which do not contribute to, are not
supportive of, or could conflict with the agricultural/forestal
objective. This statement is bolstered by the fact that the Board
of Supervisors has taken positive action to constrain or repeal
uses deemed inconsistent with the Rura/ Areas objectives."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 19,
1992, by a vote of 4/2, recommended approval of ZTA-92-01, with wording as
recommended by staff, based on the tourism aspect of the request.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was the
applicant. Mr. McRaven said he had applied for the zoning text amendment
because of the problems encountered in getting land for the proposed use.
Originally they had looked for commercially-zoned property. Mr. McRaven said
they are working with the Institute of Outdoor Drama, a national-organization
out of North Carolina which has developed guidelines for such a use based on
their experience with 92 such theaters around the country. Entertainment is
big business in this country. Outdoor drama has been around for a long time.
The one in Nags Head, North Carolina, is the oldest (54 years), and it serves
as a model for what he wishes to do in Albemarle. He proposes a 2000 seat
theater open for three and one-half months each season. There is an unusually
large tourist flow in this area, something other localities did not have when
they started their theaters.
Mr. McRaven said he has worked with outdoor drama in the past. He is a
writer and a historian. They have done a great deal of research working with
people at Monticello and the Tourism Commission. The Institute of Outdoor
Drama was hired to do a feasibility study and make recommendations on such
things as ticket prices, rain-out policies, a site, site cost, expected
attendance, etc. The study has begun, with the complete results due in the
fall. Over 40 sites have been looked at since last summer, but most have been
rejected. The sites that have been considered are necessarily rural/
agricultural land because commercial sites available are basically for
factories and industries. In order to put together an outdoor drama which
will succeed, they need an area which is away from noise (highways, railroads,
airplanes) and light pollution. Mr. McRaven said they need a piece of land
within a short distance to a major highway (I-64, 250, 20, 29) for up to 400
cars and tour buses per night. The site still needs to be rural in the sense
that it not be next to a factory, or something that makes noise. Mr. McRaven
said it is difficult to find such a site. With the help of the Outdoor Drama
organization they have narrowed their search considerably. There are such
sites, but they are quite expensive.
Mr. McRaven said they expect such a theater, at its maturity, to bring
160,000 to 200,000 people to the production. There are at the present time
560,000 people a year coming to Monticello. If those people were given some
nighttime entertainment, he believes they would be encouraged to stay over-
night and spend money in the area.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.Pg. 216
(Page 11) ~
The drama that is proposed would be historical in nature, accurately
depicting events from Albemarle County and the Charlottesville area during the
Revolutionary War. This drama is planned to be both educational and artistic,
and in addition, a financial success. This will be an investor-owned project;
it will pay taxes and create jobs (at least a dozen of those will be year
round jobs). There will be an internship program also. They want the local
people to support this theater so plan to have discounts for those local
people, and hope they will bring their visitors to the drama.
Mr. McRaven said they want to keep this drama on a high plane, and to be
good company for Monticello and the University of Virginia. They do not want
a lot of neon lights, a theater that looks like a shopping center or something
ultra modern. They need 60 to 100 acres of land in the middle of which 10
acres can be taken out of agricultural production, keeping the remaining acres
in agricultural production. An integral part of this plan is to provide a
rural/agricultural experience for the people visiting the facility. Only a
part of the site would be used for a theater three to four months of the year.
The rest of the year, 90 percent of the site would be in an agricultural use
anyway. That is the nature of what they propose. Mr. McRaven offered to
answer any questions the Board members might have.
Next to speak was Mr. Gordon Stevens from Cismont. Mr. Stevens said he
had spent all of his life in this area except for four years in Colorado. He
graduated from the University of Virginia in drama. It bothered him upon
graduation because he could not live in Charlottesville and be employed in
what he wanted to do. There are a number of talented actors, scene designers,
and writers who would love to stay in Charlottesville and work, but that is
not possible. This is the first opportunity he knows of where people in the
theater would be able to stay in the area and work. For that reason, he
encouraged the Board to let the local artists make a living at what they do
best°
Mrs. Marianna Turner said she is a teacher and feels this is a good
idea° As a teacher she travels in the summer, and she sees a lot of junk.
She believes that many times tourism lowers the quality and lifestyle of
American's lives. She also believes that tourism has the opportunity to raise
the quality of our lives and that is what it should be doing. Society
cherishes its leisure time and Americans spend a lot of money on entertainment
because it engages the interest as textbooks do not. In order to address the
problems that face us, particularly in a nation that is fast forgetting its
history, leisure time must be addressed along with the schools. Opportunities
need to be provided so that leisure time can be spent in ways that are enrich-
ing and inform us of our past and who we are as Americans. She encouraged the
Board to adopt the proposed amendment.
Mr. Scott Leake said he is a resident of the City and hopes the Board
will not hold that against him. Since the prospect of an outdoor drama
surfaced a few weeks ago, there has been considerable interest expressed by
the hospitality industry. He believes this drama could enhance the area
without any adverse impact. It would expand the base of the food and lodging
business locally. Summer is not the peak of the season for these industries;
it is the five home football games in the fall, or graduation weekend at the
University. When the University year is over in June, a lot of open wallets
and willing workers leave town. Adding the drama would bring about two
economic benefits. First, motel beds and restaurant tables would be filled
without the need for new physical construction. The capacity is already
available. Also, with University students out of the job market, positions
will open up for local people, both residents, teenagers, and college students
returning to the area for the summer.
Mr. Leake said he finds the intrinsic historical value even more compel-
ling. He agrees that there has been a decline~in knowledge of our Revolution-
ary War past, and appreciation for the incredible political theories that are
the legacy of that era. Nothing makes history come alive more than a live
drama. Albemarle County would make a huge contribution to school children
across the nation by holding such a drama. Ne thinks these willing entrepre-
neurs should be given a chance to help keep our heritage alive and relevant
for another generation.
Mr. John Hermsmeier was present to speak for Citizens for Albemarle.
He said they support the idea of an outdoor drama for the good reasons
presented tonight. Their reasons for concern have to do with location and the
implications on the growth policy in the county. If the Board decides to
adopt this zoning text amendment, they urge the Board to make it as narrow as
possible so that undesirable or unintended activities could not take place
because of the text change.
Mr. Hermsmeier said this case illustrates that the growth areas are not
providing what they were designed to provide. It is discouraging to think
that the only place that might be peaceful enough, or have enough trees, or
enough privacy, would be in the rural areas. They feel it would be prudent to
have growth areas that allow for the public facilities that this drama theater
will require, but still have other things preserved in growth areas that
people enjoy. The idea of villages was~mentioned in the staff report as a
place to locate such an activity in an area designed for development but
closer to less dense development. In providing the history of this area
during the Revolutionary period, Citizens for Albemarle hopes that fifty years
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
M.B. 41, Pg. 217
from now a pageant might be portrayed about how the 1990's were the era that
preserved the rural character of this county and not simply present a pageant
about what it used to look likeo
Ms. Amanda McRaven, a sophomore at Western Albemarle High School spoke
next. She said there is a lack of interest in history in her school and among
her peers. It is looked upon as dull and a waste of time to study things that
happened ages ago. Youth need to realize that the world today is based on the
ideas and dedication of many gifted leaders. Many youth take the area for
granted because a love of history was not instilled in them during childhood.
Ms. McRaven said a theater such as that proposed would provide the interesting
yet enjoyable experience in history that is often neglected in the textbooks.
She also noted that many teenagers are interested in theater in the community,
but are too old for children's theater, and too young for adult theater. The
installation of this type of theater would also expose teenagers to the
culture that is a necessary part of any education. She.asked the Board to
considerr when it takes the vote tonight, the young people of the community,
and the important role that their elders take in the growing process.
Mrs. Linda McRaven said she would like to read into the record two
letters from people who could not be present tonight. The first letter was
from Mr. Edward Garris who said he had lived for many years on Garth Road. As
a backpacking enthusiast and white water paddler, he has an extreme admiration
for the rural nature of Albemarle County. When he visits his former home, he
now passes many new subdivisions and residences. Although these are not high
density developments, they are occurring outside of the designated growth
areas. Putting pressure on the rural areas of the county is the new popula-
tion which must have housing, and even if directed to the designated growth
areas, these areas will fill up and new areas will have to be specified as new
designated growth areas. Where will that land come from but the rural areas.
The County has recently discussed the location of a Fortune 500 company here.
Anytime a new business locates here, it adds to the tax base and provides jobs
for the local residents. However, when that business transfers employees it
creates extensive developmental pressure on the County including the rural
areas.
Interestingly enough, the proposal before the Board can go a long way
toward protecting the rural nature of Albemarle County. In the case of an
outdoor theater, families come, spend the night, shop, eat and then leave. No
housing or services have to be provided. These people eat, sleep and shop in
commercial areas. They are projected to bring $25.0 million to the local
economy each year. To reap these benefits, the County will have to provide
usage of a small part of its rural lands. An outdoor theater of the type
being proposed will occupy less than 10 acres, and be surrounded by an
extensive buffer of undeveloped land. This is the kind of usage that should
be encouraged in order to protect the rural nature of the county. Also~
consider the job opportunities for the youth during the summer. There are
numerous benefits to this proposal. The County has an excellent opportunity
to impact the local economy without impacting the rural areas. However, if
the County embraces a rigid, rather than flexible, point of view relating to
the use of rural lands, Mr. Garris said the County will find that it has been
shortsighted in the long run
Mrs. McRaven also read from a letter written by Dr. Gary Marshall, an
associate professor of medicine at the University, and Mrs.~Marshall. They
support the concept of an outdoor theater. They have lived in the County for
six years and have enjoyed the summer productions at Ash Lawn and other local
theaters. Dr. Marshall notes that there are no continuous nighttime theaters
during the summer of a type suitable for families. Visitors coming to
Charlottesville are interested in local history and the natural beauty of the
areas. After visiting Monticello, Ash Lawn and the University, there is
little else of an historic nature to show them. An outdoor drama would fill
the void. It is essential to the concept of an amphitheater that it be physi-
cally appealing. The play will bring to life a vital part of the area's
history for tourists and locals alike. From a commercial point of view, there
can only be positives for the County by holding overnight thousands of
tourists during its summer run. It will directly provide employment for many
people and indirectly to many more in the hotel, restaurant, and retail
industries. Dr. and Mrs. Marshall live in the Earlysville area and are aware
of the concerns many have about preserving the rural nature of the County°
They believe this amphitheater will not detract fromw but will add to the
natural environment. They have been impressed with the planningw expertise
and vision of the principals of 1781 Productions, and hope the County will
give them its support.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Marshall said enough had been said, and he could not add anything to
what he has heard tonight, and he would like to personally offer whatever he
can to the success of this operation. He then offered mo%ion to adopt
ZTA-92-01 as recommended by the Planning Commission which would allow "the-
ater, outdoor drama" as a use by special use permit in the Rural Areas. Mr.
Perkins gave second to the motion.
Mrs. Humphris said she had a couple of questions. She asked if the
Institute of Outdoor Drama is doing a market survey. Mr. McRaven said "yes"e
His group is providing them with information such as the population density
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg.218
(Page 13 )
within a 200 mile radius, to show how much population there is to support such
a venture. In this area there are 23 million people, almost one-tenth of the
nation's population. Other research is also being conducted such as: how
long visitors stay in Charlottesville, the traffic flow down 1-81 and Route
29.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. McRaven had made the decision to proceed
before receiving results of the market survey. Mr. McRaven said basically the
answer Ks "yes". The feedback from the Institute has all been positive. They
have said that this is one of the best locations in the country, so they do
plan to go ahead with the theater if possible.
Mrs. Humphris asked where the figures of 2000 people per night, 400
vehicles, etc. came from. Mr. McRaven said this is based on theaters of this
size in other areas of the country. About one-half of the attenders to these
theaters come on tour buses, and if you had just two people per~.~car, there
could be as many as 500 cars. Usually there are more than two people per car,
and with one-half of them coming on tour buses, it will probably be more like
300 cars per night when the theater reaches its peak attendance of 2000 per
night. Records of the Institute kept since 1970 show that many-of these
theaters reach their peak within three to five years. This area is unique in
that there are people from all over the world coming to Monticello. They do
not want to have a huge theater so that sound amplification equipment would be
required. A 2000-seat theater is manageable.
Mrs. Humphris asked if theaters such as this are usually publicly or
privately owned. Mr. McRaven said most of the outdoor dramas in the United
States are nonprofit. The Lost Colony is on National Park Service property,
and the Federal government sets the ticket prices, determines what can be sold
in the gift shop, etc. A few of them, such as the one he and his wife worked
with in Missouri, are privately owned. Most of them are nonprofit for the
reason that it is easier to donate land, and less work to get people, for a
tax write-off, to do something like this. Mr. McRaven said he and his wife
have launched several projects in the past, and people work harder if they are
investing in the project. When people volunteer for something like this, they
do so in their spare time.
Mrs. Humphris asked what caused the demise of The Common Glory in
Williamsburg. Mr. McRaven said it was basically the building of Busch
Gardens. It was administered by the College of William and Mary and it was
difficult for the Drama Department to take on that business enterprise in
addition to the other things they had to do. The fact is that there is so
much to do now in Williamsburg, that a play at night is too much for a person
to see in addition to what they can see during the day.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the sewer situation and what capacity would be
required for these 2000 people, since it is stated in the staff report that
well and septic system is acceptable. Mr. McRaven said the Health Department
has given temporary guidelines. Since there is no actual site, they cannot
get too specific. They say to expect 10,000 gallons of water usage per day.
A 60 to 100 acre site would normally handle that, but that will be a contin-
gency of site selection. If possible, .they would like to locate where county
sewage service could be extended. The places they have reviewed so far where
county sewage is available have not been acceptable sites.
Mr. Bowerman asked about hooking to County water. Mr. McRaven said upon
site choice, if they are beyond where county water can be obtained, they will
probably have to drill several wells and tie them together. If they can
locate where there is county water service, they would prefer to do that.
Some of the land they looked at was ideal, but it was down a narrow, twisting
road. They do not want to have to widen a road, either. They are looking at
places closer to where there is sewage and water, and three-phase electric
current. There are requirements which must be balanced, and that means there
are fewer and fewer sites to choose from. There are several sites which the
people at the Outdoor Drama Institute and he agree are excellent sites; some
have the possibility of sewage and water service, and some do not.
Mrs. Humphris said a gift shop was mentioned in the presentation. She
asked what else is envisioned. Mr. McRaven said they do not want to fragment
their energies and start a restaurant, at least not in the beginning. He
would not want to limit it to the extent that they created a business which
later generated the need for something they could not provide. The buildings
envisioned are a rain shelter, a gift shop, ticket booth, rest rooms~ etc. He
would like to have the possibility of related buildings and spin-offs in the
future if they are called for. Now, he wants to concentrate on the theater
since it will take several years to get this project "off the ground."
Mrs. Humphris said the vision then goes beyond history. Mr. McRaven
said "not necessarily". His plan is to offer antiques and hand-made crafts in
the gift shop. He does not want things sold in the shop that do not relate to
the historical period. He would have the people parking cars wear costumes.
Everything would be in that period so that it would be an historical experi-
ence for the people who come to see the drama. This can be done well or
poorly, and they intend that it not be done poorly. They would not be serving
popcorn and coke at a refreshment stand. They would be serving something
appropriate to the period.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14) ~
M.B. 41, Pg. 219
Mrs. Humphris said there is a mention in the staff report of there being
no lighting in the parking area because that is an environmental consider-
ation. She asked if it is possible to have a safe parking lot for 400
vehicles that is not lighted at night. Mr. McRaven said there would be some
form of lighting, specifically they do not want overhead flood lights° They
will work with landscape architects and their own architect to keep the
lighting minimal, but adequate.
Mrs. Humphris said this is a difficult decision because it is such a
wonderful idea. The whole idea of presenting history in an appealing way,
supporting the economy, and boosting the tourism business is close to her
heart. However, she wonders where there is a place in Albemarle County where
this is possible. Mrs. Humphris said she knows the McRavens live in a rural
area, and she asked what they would do if the Board allowed 400 plus vehicles
and tour buses to roar into a site next to their home every night for three
and a half months during the summer months. Mr. McRaven said that is the
biggest problem to be overcome. The only way he sees to address it is to
shorten that distance as much as humanly possible, and to limit the number of
houses the traffic has to go by. They have eliminated from consideration,
sites that would require traffic to go by a lot of houses, even several
houses, because they know this will be a problem. That is a reason for having
acreage around them so that they have a buffer around what they do, so that
once the traffic is on the site, the neighbors are insulated.
Mrs. Humphris said the time period people would be affected would be
from the afternoon if they came to picnic and enjoy the rural area until late
at night. Mr. McRaven said production time would be from 8:30 until 10:30.
The Outdoor Drama Institute said it has been fairly successful in some areas
to have some short entertainment after the drama to stagger some of the
leavings so there is not a bumper-to-bumper procession. There will be people
directing traffic, there will be night watchmen, and security, but they will
take advantage of every possibility to help alleviate traffic problems. That
does limit the number of sites, but some have been found, and these are being
narrowed down.
Mrs. Humphris apologized for all of the questions, but said she is
really interested in this project, but is also "torn". There are pluses in
the history, the drama, the economics, jobs and tourism, benefits to the
hotels, motels and restaurants, and all of those good things. Then she has to
think, what if it were next door to Forrest's house. He would not love it
next door to his house. Without knowing the actual site, and without being
able to know the actual impact on anybody in Albemarle, she wonders how much
the Board would be giving and what they would be getting in return. Mrs.
Humphris said she loves the idea and wants to be one hundred percent in favor
of it, but she cannot be until she knows what the impact would be, and what it
would do to the rural area. She does not have a clear picture as to how much
the sacrifice would be.
Mr. McRaven said they definitely want to be adjacent to a growth area;
close to a major highway. Putting this facility way out in the county would
not work for them. If it would help, he would be glad for the Board to enact
a restriction that this theater be near a growth area.
Mr. Martin said he thinks all the Board is being asked to do tonight is
to give Mr. McRaven the opportunity to find a site the Board may be able to
approve of at a later date. He thinks the Board should give Mr. McRaven the
opportunity to come back with a perfect site, and then the Board will make the
other decisions at that time.
Mrs. Humphris said a good reason not to approve this amendment is
because the Board is back to the same old problem of making a zoning map
amendment without having any consideration given through the comprehensive
plan process to help to determine the appropriateness of a new activity, and
how it would relate to the rural area. The Board is actually being asked to
do a "zap" on the zoning map instead of going through the process of changing
the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Martin said the comprehensive plan cannot anticipate everything that
can possibly come before this Board. There are procedures to enact these
zoning text amendments. He thinks Mr. McRaven should be given the opportunity
to find a site the Board can approve.
Mr. Bain said that is what staff tried to point out in their report.
When you weigh all the pros and cons, it is not just this application.
Although Mr. McRaven is before the Board tonight, the zoning text amendment is
for everybody. Staff also said they are concerned with the language and tried
to gear it toward one particular use and not make it too broad,, which is the
way most language in the zoning ordinance is directed.
Mr. McRaven said the definition which went with the Planning Commis-
sion's recommended approval was that the applicant present one kind of thing,
and that it not proliferate into rock festivals and other activities. One
commissioner was concerned that that would spell the doom of the project,
because if the original proposal did not work, they would have no other
alternative under the definition.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
M.B. 41, Pg. 220
Mr. Bowerman said while this amendment might be technically not in
compliance with the comprehensive plan, staff has clearly identified areas
under which they have to review this and they have pointed out the problems.
What he perceives to be the spirit and intent of the comprehensive plan, in
terms of what is to be accomplished for this community, is met in a use like
this. If Monticello came before this Board today, the Board would have the
same discussion. They have a gift shop and sell hot dogs. They have abun-
dance of traffic on a highway that is not good. While Monticello is not an
historical drama, the character that that feature adds to Albemarle County is
absolutely incalculable. Mr. Bowerman said when viewed in that light, it is
not at all inconsistent for him to support this zoning text amendment. He can
support it wholeheartedly. There are questions which must be answered as to
location, utilities and sewage disposal and water if public utilities cannot
be obtained. Mr. Bowerman said the way Mr. McRaven responded to the questions
convinces him that Mr. McRaven knows what he is doing, and that is an impor-
tant part of making this a success both for Mr. McRaven and the-~communityo
For those reasons, he has no problem supporting the request.
Mr. Bain said this is an issue only because it is to be allowed in the
rural areas. It is a terrific proposal, and there are benefits. Looking at
the zoning text amendment, this will be a major use in the rural areas, and
that gives him a problem. As a result, he will not support the motion to
approve. His overriding concerns outweigh what Mr. Bowerman just said.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like to point out some of the concerns.
She does not believe a lot of the members of the public understand how complex
this issue is when it comes to preserving the rural areas. Preserving the
rural areas in Albemarle County is the focus of all the planning that is done.
The staff report says "to introduce large-scale commercial uses on one hand
and attempt to limit subdivision on the other hand, may be difficult to
justify." In another place, and equally as important, it states "Two concerns
arise specifically in regard to the rural areas district. The first is
excessive commercialization to the extent that the rural areas become a catch-
all as opposed to an area devoted to agricultural and forestal uses. The
second concern is in terms of alternative usage of development. As an
example, most country stores are not desirable for residential usage or other
by-right usage, therefore, should a country store fail as a result of competi-
tion, it may prove difficult to resist petitions for alternate uses including
rezonings to a commercial designation." Mrs. Humphris said if the McRaven's
are able to do this and it be a success, that is one thing, however, if it
were to fail, what would that outdoor theater become? People would want the
owners to get some kind of beneficial usage that would bring in a financial
return. What would that use be? It would not be another historic outdoor
drama.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there are two definitions involved, and he
takes for granted that the motion includes both the definition to go in
Section 3.0, as well as the addition to the special permit allowances under
Section 10.2.2. Those two actions need to be adopted together. The defini-
tion is very limiting, and it is worth noting that the definition does not
anticipate a lot of supporting type activities on the site such as restau-
rants, or more commercial types of activities. A gift shop may not be
inconsistent, but that is subject to interpretation of the Zoning Administra-
tor at such time as the use is established. The definition strictly speaks to
an outdoor theater and a specific orientation of that theater.
Mr. St. John said the interpretation would not be left to the Zoning
Administrator since it is a special permit use. Whatever is going on the site
would have to be set out in the application. Mr. Cilimberg said conditions of
approval can be placed on the permit. However, what happens if everything is
not anticipated at the beginning, there may be need to have some supporting
use, and the question of whether or not that suPPorting use is allowed under
the permit would be left to the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Cilimberg said he
wanted to mention that for the applicant.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation as to whether restaurants would
be allowed. Mr. Cilimberg said they would not be allowed under this defini-
tion.
Mr. St. John said if there were a special use permit issued for this
use, the applicant would get what was on the special use permit, and anything
else would have to have a change of the special use permit.
Mr. Marshall said this goes back to his questions earlier about the
Comprehensive Plan and what the Board is about to do with the Open Space Plan.
How staff reads this, how the public perceives it, and how the different Board
members read it, are different. He understands the comments of Mrs. Humphris
and Mr. Bain, but he looks at the Comprehensive Plan in an entirely different
light. He remembers the hearing on the health spa when the Board voted 3/3,
and it didn't come here. For the same reason he supports this request, he
supported that request. It would have provided income to the County with very
little impact. He respects the rural areas, but there comes a point in time
when something has to give; it is not a "sacred cow".
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Marshall wanted 500 cars a night coming down his
road. Mr. Marshall said he already has more than that now. Mr. Bain said it
would add 500 cars to existing traffic. Mr. Marshall said it would make no
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.41, Pg221
(Page 16) ·
difference on that road. He said the Board is not dealing with a site, but
with a zoning text amendment. Mr. Bain said it is still a use in the rural
areas.
Mr. Martin said he does not believe any of the Board members are going
to change their minds in regard to this question so why not go ahead and make
the decision.
Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Cilimberg was pointing out for the benefit of the
applicant that he may not be able to have some of the things he expects to do
because the Zoning Ordinance does not allow it.
Mr. Marshall said the County Attorney said that is done under a special
use permit, and the Board is not at that point tonight. Is that not correct?
Mr. St. John said the Board should not decide now whether or not a given use
will be allowed. Mr. Cilimberg said he does no= believe a restaurant can be
included under this definition.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board is being asked to amend Section 10.0, Rural
Areas, to permit this use as covered in Section 3.0, Definitions. Approval
would add this as a permitted use by special permit in Section 10.0, and the
text for Section 3.0 is on the top of page 4 of the staff report. He asked
what language would be included in Section 10.0. Mr. Cilimberg said it would
be to add as a use by special use permit, section 10.2.2.44, Theater, Outdoor
Drama.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks it is time to vote on the motion. He thinks
the McRaven's have "more hurdles to go over" and the Board may as well vote to
see if they get to do that.
Roll was called on the motion to adopt an Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Sections 3 and 10, as discussed
above. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bowerman, Marshall and Martin.
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris.
(Note:
follows:)
The zoning text amendment is set out in the ordinance which
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
IN SECTIONS 3 AND 10
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Section 3, Definitions, and Section 10.2.2,
Uses by Special Use Permit in the Rural Areas District, are hereby
amended and reenacted by the addition of the following words:
Section 3.0, DEFINITIONS, add the following definition:
Theater, Outdoor Drama: An establishment whether operated
for profit or not, providing live performance recreations
of events of historic significance to and having actually
occurred within the locality or immediately adjacent lo-
calities.
Section 10.0, RURAL AREAS DISTRICT~ aA, add the following use:
10.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
44. Theater, Outdoor Drama.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-92-02. Donnie Dunn. Public Hearing on an
amendment to Section 30.4.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the storing
and bottling of spring water by special use permit in the Natural Resource
Overlay District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2,
1992.)
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:47 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Public Purpose to be Served: To allow for the bottling of spring
water for sale.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to amend Section 30.4.2.2
to add the following:
spring Water Extraction and/or bottling which does
not involve pumping of water to the surface.
This report will address the proposed zoning text amendment's
relationship with the: Current State Regulations Governing Water
Bottling Activities; the Comprehensive Plan; Purpose and Intent of
the Natural Resource Overlay District; Purpose and Intent of the
Zoning Ordinance; and Purpose and Intent of the Rural Areas.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
M.B. 41, Pg. 222
Summary of the Current State Requlations Governinq Water Bottlinq
Activities: Staff has discussed the issue of riparian rights with
the County Attorney and is of the opinion that the use of water
for bottling is permitted, provided that downstream entities are
not unreasonably affected. Issues of reasonable use are best
addressed by the courts. The water bottling industry is regulated
in Virginia by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
with the assistance of the Department of Health. The regulations
address the quality of water used for bottling and sanitary
practices for bottling. The quantity of water used is not ad-
dressed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Virginia has adopted the guidelines of the Federal Food and Drug
Administration as they relate to bottled water. Staff opinion is
that no County regulations are required to ensure the safety of
the water source or bottling facilities.
The Natural Resource District is now, and is likely to remain, an
overlay district found predominately or exclusively in the Rural
Areas. This request was analyzed under this assumption.
Comprehensive Plan: The issue of water extraction from springs is
not directly addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. Spring water
extraction is not a use directly related to agricultural/forestal
activities which are the primary activities of the Rural Areas.
However, the utilization of spring water may enable the preserva-
tion of agricultural/forestal lands without the subdivision of
land. This is accomplished by allowing the landowner to derive
benefit from a natural resource occurring on-site thereby removing
the desire to develop the land for residential use. Regarding
water resources the Comprehensive Plan states as a goal: 'Protect
the County's surface water and groundwater supplies for the
benefit of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, the Town
of Scottsville, and downstream interests.'
Regarding water resources, the Comprehensive Plan provides several
comments:
Protection of water resources is of vital importance to
Albemarle County and Virginia in general. Albemarle's
location adjacent to the Blue Ridge Mountains provides
both the advantage of clean headwaters, and a responsibil-
ity to protect them.
The County's Rural Areas play a crucial role in water
supply protection, including protection of surface drink-
ing water impoundment watersheds and protection of ground-
water supplies for the Rural Area population.
Therefore, it has been a County policy to severely re-
strict development in water supply watersheds ....
The Plan states generally that the County's water resources,
surface and groundwater, are to be treated in such a manner as to
preserve quality and quantity. Water bottling should not adverse-
ly affect water quality but will affect quantity. The use of
water for bottling is currently allowed in the LI, Light Industry,
District. Therefore, spring water extraction may be considered
inconsistent with the water resource portion of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The Water Resources Manager was contacted regarding this use and
those comments are included as Attachment A (on file).
The Comprehensive Plan states on page 73 'Natural Resources in
Albemarle include its surface and groundwater, flood plains,
wetlands, aquatic and wildlife habitat, farmlands, and forestal
resources, other wooded and open areas, critical slopes, soils,
minerals, and air.' The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the exis-
tence and importance of natural resources. Natural resources are
to be utilized provided that the negative effects of the resource
utilization are mitigated.
The location and character of a request and its consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan could be considered during the review of
each rezoning and special use permit for its overall impact.
Purpose and Intent of the Natural Resource Overlay Distric~ is as
follows:
This natural resource extraction overlay district (hereaf-
ter referred to as NR) is created to provide for the uti-
lization of the sand, gravel, stone and other mineral
deposits within the County in a manner compatible with
adjacent land uses.
NR districts may be established where deposits of sand,
gravel, stone or other minerals exist; where the uses per-
mitted hereunder are unlikely to create effects adverse to
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
M.B. 41, Pg. 223
public health, safety and welfare or to the value of adja-
cent properties; and specifically where existing roads
will not make it necessary to conduct trucking operations
through developed residential areas or areas likely to be
developed for residents during the course of any extrac-
tive use.
The purpose of this district is primarily extractive, however,
some processing activities are permitted (concrete batching and
asphalt mixing plants). The resources listed for the district are
mineral in nature. Staff recommends the inclusion of spring water
as a natural resource if this ZTA is approved in order to clarify
the proposed use within the intent of the NR district.
In order to ensure that the proposed use is operated in a manner
compatible with adjacent land uses, staff recommends that.~each
special use permit be reviewed with emphasis on:
1. Effect of water withdrawal on downstream properties;
2e
Size and appearance.of water collection and bottling
facilities to ensure compatibility with adjacent
uses;
3e
Access for trucks transporting water and bottling
materials;
4. Adequacy of water source for consumption;
Se
Measures to limit withdrawal of water during periods
of drought.
With appropriate review of each request, this use may be consid-
ered consistent with the purpose and intent of the Natural Re-
source Overlay District.
Purpose and Intent of the Zoninq Ordinance: One of the stated
intents of the Ordinance is 'to encourage economic development
activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax
base.'
The proposed amendment provides for a use not currently listed in
the Zonin9 Ordinance. The addition of this use may result in
increased employment. However, under the current Comprehensive
Plan, the Rural Areas are to be devoted to agricultural and
forestal sectors of the economy.
Purpose and Intent of the Rural Areas: The Rural Areas district
is intended to encourage and protect agricultural and forestal
activities. Development not related to bona fide agricultural and
forestal activities is encouraged to locate in the designated
growth areas. As has been.stated..previously in this report, the
NR district is now found and is likely to continue to be found in
the Rural Areas. Therefore, staff opinion is that any amendment
to the NR district must be reviewed with consideration to the
Rural Areas which is the most probable underlying district.
Current by-right processing activities in the Rural Areas are
limited to Farm Winery, 10.2.1.17. By special use permit process-
ing activities are limited to sawmills, 10.2.2.14, and packing
plants, 10.2.2.23. All of these uses are directly related to
agricultural and forestal uses. The proposed use is not directly
related to agricultural and forestal uses. The Planning Commis-
sion and Board of Supervisors should take into consideration the
limited processing uses allowed in the predominate underlying
district (RA) when considering an expansion of processing uses in
the NR district.
Staff opinion is that the processing activities, while not related
to agricultural/forestai uses, can be regulated in such a manner
as to minimize their impact. These regulations may include but
are not limited to limitations on building size in order to
restrict the appearance of the bottlin9 activity to a scale
similar to that currently existing for farm wineries. These
regulations would be determined during the review of each applica-
tion.
Summary: Staff has identified the following factors which are
favorable to this request:
Current state regulations exist to protect the pub-
lic safety.
Allows opportunity for use of RA land that may avoid
its further development and does not remove it from
agricultural/forestal production.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 4.B. 41, Pg. 224
(Page 19)
Natural Resource utilization is anticipated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
4e
Other Natural Resource extraction uses are permitted
and spring water extraction and bottling is less
intensive.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable
to this request:
me
The proposed use may increase truck traffic on rural
roads.
2e
3e
Spring water extraction is not directly related to
agricultural/forestry.
Inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan water resource
goal.
While neither a positive or negative factor, staff notes that the
requested water withdrawal use is not currently permitted in any
Zoning District (Bottling as a use is permitted by-right in the
Light Industry District). Staff opinion is that each request
could be reviewed to ensure that the use is consistent with the
area in which it is located. Conditions of approval for each
request can limit the activity to a level that does not adversely
impact adjacent properties or downstream interests.
Staff opinion is that the positive factors outweigh the negative
factors.
Staff recommends approval of ZTA-92-02 with the addition of
language to clarify the intent of the NR district, supplementary
regulations governing sprin9 water extraction and bottling, and a
definition of spring water.
Staff reco~ends the following additions to the Zoning Ordinance:
In Section 3.0 add: Sprinq water - Water derived at the surface
from an underqround formation which flows to the surface throuqh
natural cracks and fissures under natural pressure.
In Section 5.1, Supplementary Regulations. add 5.1.33, reading:
Sprinq Water Extraction and/or bottlinq.
No such use shall operate without approval of the
Virqinia Department of Aqriculture and Consumer Ser-
vices;
No such use shall be established without approval of
a site development plan;
Bottlinq facilities on-site shall be used only for
the bottlinq of sprinq water obtained on-site.
Water used for bottlinq shall not contain any addi-
tives or artificial carbonation other than those
requ/red by requlatinq aqencies for purification
~ur~oses;
All structures shall be similar in facade to a sin-
qle-femily dwellinq, private qaraqe, shed, barn or
other structure normally expected in a rural or
residential area and shall be specificallF compati-
ble in desiqn and scale with other development in
area in which located;
These provisions are supplementarF and nothinq stat-
ed herein shall be deemed to preclude application of
the requirements of any other local,state or federal
aqency.
In Section 30.4, Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District -
NR, amend Section 30.4.1 as follows:
30.4.1 INTENT
This natural resource extraction overlay district
(herein referred to as NR) is created to provide for
the utilization of thc sprinq water for off-site
consumption, sand, gravel, stone or other mineral
deposits within the county in a manner compatible with
adjacent land uses.
NR districts may be established where deposits of
sand, gravel, stone or other minerals exist; where the
uses permitted hereunder are unlikely to create ef-
fects adverse to public health, safety and welfare or
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.41, Pg. 225
(Page 20)
to the existing roads will not make it necessary to
conduct trucking operations through developed resi-
dential areas or areas likely to be developed for
residents during the course of any extractive use.
In Section 30.4.2.2 add:
Sprinq water extraction and/or bottlinq which does not
involve pum~inq of water to the surface."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 26,
1992, by a vote of 4/2, recommended approval of ZTA-92-02.
Mr. Bain asked if there is a procedure set up for enforcement. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Zoning Department looked at all of the supplementary
regulations. Pumping, in and of itself, does not fall under the regulations
of the Virginia Department of Agriculture or their monitoring/licensing
procedure. That would have to be part of the County's enforcement. Mr. Bain
asked if the County has the personnel to do that. Mr. Cilimberg said it would
have to be done by the same personnel who respond to complaints.
Mrs. Mumphris asked if anyone is responsible for protecting the water-
shed of this spring from pesticides and other pollution. Mr. Cilimberg said
the overall water quality, as well as quantity, would fall under riparian
rights laws. The State Water Control Board is involved with water quality
issues. They are not out regulating and inspecting on an on-going basis. The
permitting process for bottling would involve the Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services who would track the quality of the water
being bottled and marketed.
Mr. Bowerman said a spring produces water which flows out of the county.
It is not extracted from the ground by pumping. The only difference is that
instead of letting some of this water run down to streams, more will be taken
out of the streams by coming out at the source.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Donnie Dunn said he would be happy to answer any questions from the
Board.
Mrs. Humphris asked the size of the operation. Mr. Dunn said it is as
he has stated previously, starting with two spring sites, and setting up an
operation. There will have to be some type of reservoir or holding system set
up. It will be whatever is required by the Virginia Department of Agricul-
ture. Then there will be retention tanks and a storage facility.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Department of Agriculture checks all of this.
Mr. Dunn said "yes." Mrs. Humphris asked if there is a certificate of
approval given. Mr. Dunn said there are regulations in place to guarantee
standards of quality, adequate protection to preclude contamination of the
water and the system itself.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Dunn had sold any water yet. Mr. Dunn said
"no," but he grew up on that property and they used the water for several
years. He has now purchased the property.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 9:57 p.m.)
Mr. Marshall asked if the water is tested in the same manner by the
Health Department as wells are tested. Mr. Dunn read from several sets of
regulations which are in effect for water bottling. He said if the water
fails to meet any of the requirements listed, it is substandard and it cannot
be used. He responded to an earlier remark about the effect of water with-
drawal. He said this was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, and
this was answered in a letter from the Watershed Management Official. He then
proceeded to read from the letter which ended "... Bottling operations which
utilize a natural spring are not typically using all of the available water
from the spring. Impacts to downstream water resources, such as a public
water supply, would be negligible from a quantity standpoint, and probably
difficult to detect."
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Marshall,
to approve ZTA-92-02, by adopting the following ordinance amending and
reenacting the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Sections 3, 5 and 30.4.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
M.B. 41, Pg. 226
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
IN SECTIONS 3, 5 AND 30.4
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Section 3, Definitions, Section 5, Supple-
mentary Regulations, and Section 30.4, Natural Resource Extraction
Overlay District, NR, are hereby amended and reenacted by the
addition of the following words:
Section 3.0, DEFINITIONS, add the following definition:
Sprinq Water: Water derived at the surface from an
underground formation which flows to the surface
through natural cracks and fissures under natural
pressure.
Section 5.1, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, add the following words
as:
5.1.33
SPRING WATER EXTRACTION AND/OR BOTTLING
me
No such use shall operate without approval of
the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Con-
sumer Services;
be
No such use shall be established without approv-
al of a site development plan;
Ce
de
ee
Bottling facilities on-site shall be used only
for the bottling of spring water obtained on-
site. Water used for bottling shall not contain
any additives or artificial carbonation other
than those required by regulating agencies for
purification purposes;
All structures shall be similar in facade to a
single-family dwelling, private garage, shed,
barn or other structure normally expected in a
rural or residential area and shall be specif-
ically compatible in design and scale with other
development in area in which located;
These provisions are supplementary and nothing
stated herein shall be deemed to preclude appli-
cation of the requirements of any other local,
state or federal agency.
Section 30.4, NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION OVERLAY DISTRICTS, NR,
amend the Statement of Intent to read as follows:
30.4.1 INTENT
This natural resource extraction overlay district
(herein referred to as NR) is created to provide for
the utilization of spring water for off-site consump-
tion, sand, gravel, stone or other mineral deposits
within the county in a manner compatible with adjacent
land uses.
NR districts may be established where deposits of
sand, gravel, stone or other minerals exist; where the
uses permitted hereunder are unlikely to create ef-
fects adverse to public health, safety and welfare or
to the value of existing properties; and specifically
where existing roads will not make it necessary to
conduct trucking operations through developed residen-
tial areas or areas likely to be developed for resi-
dents during the course of any extractive use.
Section 30.4.2.2, BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT, add the following use:
Spring water extraction and/or bottling which
does not involve pumping of water to the sur-
face.
(Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 9:04 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-92-06. Public Hearing on an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance under the Commercial Office District to provide medical and
pharmaceutical laboratories as a use by special use permit. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
M.B. 41, Pg. 227
"Oriqin: Planning staff
Public purpose to be served: To increase available office service uses
to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: On May 5, 1992, the Planning Commission, at staff
request, adopted a resolution to amend the CO zone to include
'laboratories-medical or pharmaceutical' by special use permit. The CO
district is intended to allow very limited uses adjacent to residential
areas, but it also is intended to accommodate Office Service Area uses
described in the Comprehensive Plan which would include corporate/major
office parks, research/development, and information systems. 'Labora-
tories' are listed under Industrial Service Areas, however, the Communi-
ty Development Division has stated that there was no specific intent to
preclude laboratory uses from Office Service Areas and that 'laboratory'
may be viewed as allied with 'research/development.' This-position is
bolstered by standard reference material.
Review of Anderson's American Law of Zoninq (3rd, 1986) shows a change
in treatment for 'research laboratories.'
Research laboratories have been seeking space in the sub-
urbs. While these establishments usually are related to a
profit-making corporation and are commercial uses, many of
them present few problems to their neighbors. They gener-
ate a volume of traffic which varies in relation to their
staffs and their need to receive deliveries of materials,
and they require parking space, but commonly they produce
little of the noise, litter, dust, or glare which are
usually associated with commercial and industrial uses.
Research laboratories cannot always operate in industrial
neighborhoods, and commercial surroundings may interfere
with their activities. Thus, one kind of research may
require the use of precision instruments which cannot be
used in a place subject to excessive vibration. Another
type may be adversely affected by noise and air pollution.
Anderson continues to state that 'an increasing number of munici-
palities are anticipating th, need for space to accommodate
research laboratories, and are meeting it with a floating zone for
planned research office districts.'
Neither medical nor pharmaceutical laboratory under the definition
proposed by staff would be confined purely to scientific investi-
gation, as may be anticipated by the term 'research laboratory,'
however, staff opinion is that environmental requirements are
similar and that these uses would be compatible to other uses-
recommended for Office Service Areas~
Staff recommends the following amendments:
Add to the CO COHHERCIALOFFICE district by special use
permit:
23.2.2.13, Laboratories-medical or pharmaceutical
2. Add to 3.0, Definitions:
LaboratorF, Medical: A building or part thereof devoted to
bacteriological, biological, x-ray, pathological and s~m;lar
analytical or diagnostic services to medical doctors or
dentists including incidentatpharmaceutics; and production,
fitting, and or/sale of optical or prosthetic appliances.
LaboratorT, Pharmaceutical: A building or part thereof
devoted to the testing, analysis and/or compounding of drugs
and chemicals for ethical medicine or surgery, not involving
sale directly to the public."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 26,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-92-06 as set out in the staff's
report. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has confirmed with Mr.
David Westby, that the definition meets the needs as seen by the medical
profession at the University of Virginia. That was a question raised at the
Commission's hearing.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Cilimberg were addressing, specifically, the
use of the word "ethical" Mr. Cilimberg said that word was also discussed,
and it can be deleted if the Board is not comfortable with the word. There is
already a reference in the Zoning Ordinance to "ethical pharmacy" which is a
reference to the American Medical Association's Code of Ethics. Mrs. Humphris
said she questioned it only because the Planning Commission did so, and their
attorney also questioned it.
Mr. Marshall asked if this facility will not be doing IV's. Mr. David
Westby, Director of the University of Virginia's Real Estate Foundation, said
they don't have a specific use yet. No user has been identified. Mr.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.Pg. 228
(Page 23)
Marshall said he was trying to relate this to things that are already done at
the University. He asked if these would mainly be used in the Hospital. Mr.
Westby said "not necessarily". This might be for other companies not directly
related to the University who are interested in the types of research going on
at the University, but not necessarily hospital-related.
(Note: Mr. Martin returned at 9:10 p.m.)
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Notion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve ZTA-92-06, by adopting the following Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Sections 3 and 23.2.2. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
IN SECTIONS 3 AND 23.2.2
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Section 3, Definitions, and Section 23,
Commercial Office, are hereby amended and reenacted by the addi-
tion of the following words:
Section 3.0, DEFINITIONS, add the following definition:
Laboratory, Medical: A building or part thereof devoted
to bacteriological, biological, x-ray, pathological and
similar analytical or diagnostic services to medical
doctors or dentists including incidental pharmaceutics;
and production, fitting and/or sale of optical or pros-
thetic appliances.
Laboratory, Pharmaceutical: A building or part thereof
devoted to the testing, analysis and/or compounding of
drugs and chemicals for ethical medicine or surgery, not
involving sale directly to the public.
Section 23.0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, CO, add the following use:
23.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
13. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
(Note: The following two petitions were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-92-03. University of Virginia Real Estate
Foundation. Public Hearing on a request to rezone 53.52 ac from PD-SC & R-10
to CO. Property on S side of Fontaine Ave E of & adjacent to Rt 29 Bypass.
Site located in Neighborhood 6 is recommended for office service in the
Comprehensive Plan. TM76,P17B&17E1. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2, 1992.)
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-92-13. University of Virginia Real Estate
Foundation. Public Hearing on a request to allow supporting commercial uses,
research development activities & medical and pharmaceutical laboratories on
53.52 ac to be rezoned under ZMA-92-03 (see description above). (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report which follows:
"PETITION: The University Real Estate Foundation petitions the
Board of Supervisors to rezone 53.53 acres from Planned Develop-
ment-Shopping Center (25 acres) and R-10, Residential (29 acres),
to CO, Commercial Office (Proffered). This rezoning is sought
under Section 9.0, Guidelines for Establishment of Comprehensive
Plan, in order to allow for unified development of the site and to
establish an Office Service Area as described by the Comprehensive
Plan, together with special use permit petition for: supporting
commercial uses (23.2.2.11); research and development activities
(23.2.2.12); and medical and pharmaceutical laboratories
(23.2.2.13).
ZONING APPLICATION PLAN: The proffered zoning Application Plan
proposes a maximum gross floor area of 389,000 square feet housed
in seven buildings. Five percent of the floor area (19,450 square
feet) would be devoted to supporting commercial uses. Private
roads would be provided internal to the development.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24) M.B. 41, Pg. 229
A summary of land uses follows:
Building Envelopes
Parking/Driveways/Roads
Landscaped/Open Space
Site
Acreaqe Percentaqe
2.93 5%
13.75 26%
36.84 69%
53.52 acres 100%
The buildings would be three to four stories resulting in a floor
area ratio (FAR) of 0.16 (i.e. - floor area is equivalent to 16
percent of the site while building coverage is about five percent
of the site). This relatively conservative development schedule
is, in part, reflective of site constraints to development.
SU'~4ARY AND RECOI~IENDATIONS:
University Research Park is consistent with the guidelines set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan for Office Service Areas. As the
first petition subject to Section 9.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, the
applicant has been most cooperative, the process has worked
smoothly, and the result is a project'proposal clearly superior to
past development proposals for this site.
The applicant has substantially addressed comments by the City.
The project would not adversely affect residential areas in the
City. University Research Park substantially complies with
detailed recommendations of the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine
Avenue Area "B" Study. It also substantially complies with the
following plans and individual site development plans will comply
with the following regulations:
Plans
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
JPA/Fontaine Avenue Area "B" Study
Albemarle County Open Space Plan (unadopted)
Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicycle Plan
Albemarle Pedestrian Obstacle Study
Requlations
EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District
FH, Flood Hazard Overlay District
Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance
Wetlands requirements (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Site Development Plan/Zoning Ordinance
Critical Slopes
Urban Stormwater Management
Tree Canopy/Landscaping/Buffering
4.14, Performance Standards
Private Roads
In revision of the University Research Park plan, effort has been
made to provide formal building organization and open spaces while
ensuring a respect for the natural features and environmental
sensitivity of the site.
The Virginia Department of Forestry and UREF have been cooperative
in planning for a single access to Fontaine Avenue. This access
will serve all property to the south of Fontaine Avenue in the
County. Staff requests maximum discretion in issuance of grading
permits in order to accommodate forestry and initial research park
occupant.
UREF has proffered to upgrade and extend public utilities and
serve the site as well as relocate and modernize the antiquated
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) eighteen-inch raw water
line which traverses the property, the cost of all improvements to
be borne by UREF.
UREF, through proffers, has proposed adequate measures to provide
public utilities to the site while upgrading the RWSA system at no
cost to the public. On-site convenience services would be provid-
ed to employees.
VDoT and staff recommend that proffer #1 adequately addresses road
improvement needs as may be occasioned by the proposed UREF/Fore-
stry development.
SP-92-13, Uses by Special Use Permit: Provision of supporting
commercial uses would not only be a convenience to employees, but
would also reduce off-site traffic, consistent with traffic
reduction efforts.
23.2.2.11, Supportinq Commercial Use~: Staff recommends approval
of this special use permit subject to the following condition:
In addition to limitation under Proffer #6, total floor area
devoted to supporting commercial uses shall not exceed ten
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
M.B. 41, Pg. 230
(10) percent of total floor area at any time during phased
development.
23.2.2.12, Research and Development Activities includinq Experi-
mental Testinq; and 23.2.2.13, Laboratories-Medical and Pharmaceu-
tical are appropriate within an office service area and would not
be objectionable to this site. Staff recommends approval subject
to the following conditions:
Compliance with Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the
Zoning Ordinance.
In order to provide accomplishment of the phasing plan as proposed
as well as to allow variations in the development schedule, staff
should be granted authority over approval of all phases of devel-
opment as well.as administrative approval of all site development
plans and subdivision plats, if any.
Staff recommends acceptance of the applicant's proffers together
with the proffered rezoning application plan. In the spirit of
Section 8.5.6.3, the Director of Planning and Community Develop-
ment should be authorized discretion over reasonable variations
from the zoning A~plication Plan.
OFFICE SERVICE AREAS: This section of the report will discuss the
appropriateness of this site for CO, Commercial Office, zoning in
relation to recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
An Office Service area as described in the Comprehensive Plan
would require a site area in excess of 20 acres to accommodate a
building floor area of 150,000 square feet or more. The site
should be situated adjacent to a major collector or arterial road
and be provided with adequate internal circulation. The purpose
of an Office Service Area is to provide major employment center
with limited production activities and marketing of products.
Primary uses include corporate/major office parks, research/
development activities, and information systems as well as pro-
fessional uses providing services to the County and the region in
general. Secondary uses may include residential development,
supporting commercial uses, and hotel/motel/conference center.
Rather than adding several hybrid districts to the zoning ordi-
nance, staff developed measures intended to implement the various
service area proposals of the Comprehensive Plan through existing
conventional and planned districts. Section 9.0, Guidelines for
Comprehensive Plan Service Areas, provides strategies and regula-
tory provisions for implementation of service areas. Simulta-
neously, with adoption of Section 9.0, various zoning districts
were amended to incorporate uses envisioned in these service areas
(all service areas are mixed use in nature with major distinction
being the primary intended uses).
Section 9.3, Relation of Comprehensive Plan Service Areas to
Zoning District Regulations, suggests three zoning districts as
appropriate to establishment of an Office Service area:
23.0, CO, Commercial Office
27.0, Lit Light Industry
29.0, PD-IP, Planned Development-Industrial Park
In September, 1990, UREF submitted a rezoning petition for Planned
Development-Industrial Park (PD-IP). In June, 1991, the zoning
ordinance was amended to provide for the various service areas of
the Comprehensive Plan. The PD-IP zoning was abandoned in favor
of a CO, Commercial Office, designation as being more in keeping
with UREF's intent for the development.
Employing the guidelines set forth in Section 9.0, UREF has peti-
tioned for Commercial Office zoning accompanied by three special
use permit requests including support uses as envisioned by
Section 9.4. The rezoning petition is accompanied by a set of
proffers pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
petition is also accompanied by a proffered Application Plan and
other supporting plans which have been reviewed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures set forth in Section 8.0, Planned
Development--Generally. (While this is a proffered rezoning, the
applicant has submitted the petition for review as for a planned
development. Staff analysis and recommendations will be as
required for a planned development.)
Staff opinion is that the proposed University Research Park is
consistent with the guidelines set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
for Office Service areas.
PLANNINO COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR~:
Prior sections of this report have provided background as to the
development of Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this site
and general area and selection of zoning approach. Section 8.5.3
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
M.B. 41, Pg. 231
of PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS-GENERALLY requires an applicant
'to meet with the planning staff and other qualified officials to
review the Application Plan and original proposal prior to submit-
tal' in order to 'assist in bringing the application' into confor-
mity with various planning and zoning regulations and policies.
This process, informally and formally, has involved four years and
has included multiple meetings with various agencies of the Site
RevieW Committee as well as other agencies. The applicant has
endeavored to address all issues raised by various agencies as
well as adjusting plans to accommodate regulatory measures adopted
during this time period.
At this time, under Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the
University Research Park petition is forwarded to the Planning
Commission which 'shall proceed to prepare its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors,' and, specifically, 'recommendations of
the Commission shall include findings as to:
The suitability of the tract for the general type of
PD district proposed~in terms~of: relation to the
comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the
land; and its relation to surrounding area;
be
Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities
and services;
Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitabil-
ity of any proposed agreements, contracts, deed re-
strictions, sureties, dedications, contributions,
guarantees, or other instruments, or the need for
such instruments or for amendments in those proposed;
and
Specific modifications in PD or general regulations
as applied to the particular case, based on determi-
nation that such modifications are necessary or jus-
tified by demonstration that the public purposes of
PD or general regulations as applied would be satis-
fied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifi-
cations.
Based on such findings, the commission shall recommend approval of
the PD amendment as proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated
modifications, or disapproval.'
While this petition is for a conventional zoning district, the
applicant has voluntarily postured the petition under 8.0, Planned
Development-mGenerally. in that respect, staff has viewed the
proffers as proposed agreements as specified by 8.5.4.c. above.
Staff has attempted to ensure that this development will be
compatible to the area in which it is to be located and that the
development will provide its 'fair share' to infrastructure
improvements. That is to say that the proffers reflect the
'rational nexus' test and are not inadequate nor excessive.
The remainder of this report will address these various considera-
tions. Items a. and b. will be discussed in the context of the
Comprehensive Plan. Item c. is addressed by the applicant's
proffers and phasing plans (Subsequent assurances such as bonds
may be required at time of site plan approvals). Item d. will be
specifically addressed under 'Staff Recommendation.'
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE RECOMMENDATIONS: Charlottesville has made
seven specific recommendations relative to this project. (These
recommendations are provided by City staff). These recommenda-
tions are separate from and do not carry endorsement from the
Planning and Coordination Committee (PACC) Technical Committee.
Fontaine Avenue Development: The applicant should be re-
quired, at this time, to provide a four-lane road with
divided medians as proposed in the JPA Study aqreed by the
City/ County/University. This is not so diss{m!lar a
requirement from previous proffer in this property for four-
laninq of Fontaine Avenue. Proffers l, 2, 3 and 4 in staff
opinion adequately address this issue (see Fontaine Avenue
Improvements in this report).
2. Sidewalk: Sidewalks should be across all the frontaqe of
this Droperty and not only the part as shown. My recollec-
tion from the public hearinq in the County on the JPA Study
was that many people use this area for walkinq and joqqinq.
The sidewalk as proposed would provide pedestrian access from
the City to University Research park. Staff would not recom-
mend encouraging walking/jogging in vicinity of the inter-
change until signalization controls are provided.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
M.B. 41, Pg. 232
Bike Lane: This is a desiqnated bike lane in the City/County
jointly adopted plan. Thus, the applicant should be required
to provide improved bicycle lanes frontaqe. The applicant
proposes a bikeway along the full frontage of the property.
Location and design would be reviewed by Community Develop-
ment staff.
Landscapinq/Buildinq: Landscapinq should be appropriate in
keepinqwith the entrance corridor concept accepted by the
City/County/University. The nature and location of buildinqs
should respect the character of buildinqs in the City and its
urban settinq. This property is subject to Architectural
Review Board (ARB) review under the EC overlay district. One
member of the ARB is familiar with the project, which has
also been reviewed by the ARB's Design Planner. City com-
ments will be forwarded to the ARB for consideration.~ Prof-
fer #ll states that 'strict architectural and landscape
architectural guidelines and restrictions will be adopted
which shall govern the design and construction of all build-
ings and parcel specific site development.'
Drainaqe: Due to extensive surface parkinq and severe
slopes, we want to be assured that this development adequate-
ly handles its drainaqe: This site is subject to urban
stormwater management requirements and on-site detention will
be required.
JPA/Maury Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Intersection: The County
should make a special effort to assure that this development
does not adversely affect the above intersection and that
appropriate remedial measures are provided if necessary.
This intersection is signalized and if traffic flow problems
are encountered, the phasing of signals could be changed (see
Fontaine Avenue Improvements in this report).
Future Road: The JPA Study adopted by the City/County/Uni-
versity indicates a road throuqhthis property connectinq to
Sunset Avenue to take care of future development without
adverse impact on the City streets. We understand that the
aliqnment shown in this study is not feasible. We feel that
the applicant should be responsible for suqqestinq alterna-
tives which are feasible. This is the second time in the
County review of developments when proposed aliqnments west
of the City have been deemed unfeasible without provision~
for alternate routes. This can only lead to future problem~
unless confronted now. Due to the requested zoning change on
this property (which would significantly reduce traffic
generation in volume) and the City's closure of Sunset Ave-
nue, the need for any new roadway should be reassessed by the
County. The applicant previously provided an assessment of
the feasibility of the Fontaine/Sunset connector, which has
been determined as unfeasible to build by PACC and the County
Board of Supervisors. No alternative connection seems to
exist. However, it is proposed that emergency access be
retained over Route 782 to residential areas south of the
railroad if Route 782 is abandoned by the Board of Supervi-
sors. ..
While not mentioned in the City's comments, this project is
adjacent to a small residential development in the City. Due to
intervening Route 782 and a stream, the closest dwelling is about
250 feet from a parking area and 400 feet from a building. UREF
proposes landscaping to further buffer this residential area.
Proffer #10 states that 'UREF will design and install landscape
buffer area as shown on the plan to screen the project from
Fontaine Avenue and residential neighborhoods adjoining the
Research Park.'
Staff opinion is that the applicant has substantially addressed
comments by the City. The project would not adversely affect
residential areas in the City.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN--SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS= The July, 1989
Comprehensive Plan was substantially amended in October, 1989 to
incorporate recommendations of the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine
Avenue 'Area B' Study as stipulated in the Three-Party Agreement
among the University, City and County. This section of the staff
report will address recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan as
identified by the Community Development Division as applicable to
this petition.
To the extent feasible, traffic reduction measures should be
encouraqed. Specifically, sidewalks should be provided to,
and on the site. CTS and University Transit Service should
be encouraqed to serve the site. Proffer #3 stipulates that
'UREF will construct at its expense sidewalk improvements
along the south side of Fontaine Avenue from the proposed
entrance to the Research Park to the eastern most entrance of
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.41, Pg233
(Page 28) ·
the property.' Off-road walkways are proposed to add to a
park-like atmosphere within the development. Proffer #3
states that 'UREF will encourage traffic reduction measures
within the Research Park through the provision of CTS and UVA
bus drop off points and on-site (supporting) commercial
uses. '
The Pedestrian Obstacle Study and JPA/Fontaine Avenue Area
'B' Study recommends sidewalks along Fontaine Avenue. Side-
walks should be provided on the south side of Fontaine Avenu~
from the UREF entrance eastward along the length of the
project improvement related to this site. As stated in #1
above, the applicant has complied with this recommendation
under proffer #3.
3e
The City-County.Bicycle Plan recommends a bikeway along
Fontaine Avenue. These improvements should be incorporated
as a part of road improvements. The desiqn standards of the
Bicycle Plan call for a separated bicycle path. Proffer ~2
stipulates that 'UREF will construct at its expense, full
frontage bikeway improvements to be incorporated along the
eastbound travel way of Fontaine Avenue. The bikeway shall
extend from the northbound off-ramp of the U. S. 29 Bypass to
the eastern most corner of the Research Park.'
40
The Community Facilities Plan indicates fire service to thin
general area of the County may be insufficient. Under coop-
erative agreement, the City Fire Department would be the
first company to respond to this site. The applicant has
stated an unwillingness to provide site area for a fire
company due to lack of available area.
Staff recommends the closure and abandonment of Route 782
from Fontaine Avenue to the railroad as a public road. Th~
road alignment should remain, however, for emerqency acces~
to this area. The County will be addressing this issue with
the City and VDoT. The existing proffer on the property to
improve Route 782 is no longer considered necessary for this
development. Historically, the Board of Supervisors has
dealt with public road abandonments and right-of-way vaca-
tions without input fromthe Planning Commission. This
matter will be presented to the Board of Supervisors.
6. Consider the recommendations of the JPA/Fontaine Neighborhood
Study. Particular consideration should be given to these
recommendations concerning road design characteristics and
frontage improvements. The applicant has made these design
plans available to the PACC Tech Committee, City. Planning and
University Architect (also a member of the County ARB).
Negotiations as to visual design aspects will be addressed
during site development plan review.
Staff opinion is that UniversityResearch Park substantially
complies with detailed recommendations of the Jefferson Park
Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Area 'B' study and other Comprehensive Plan
documents.
OTHER PLANS AND REOULATIONS: This project is subject to several
plans and regulatory measures. Previous sections have outlined a
few of these documents. The University Research Park substantial-
ly complies with the following plans and individual site develop-
ment plans will comply with the following regulations:
Plans:
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
JPA/Fontaine Avenue Area 'B' Study
Albemarle County Open Space Plan (unadopted)
Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicycle Plan
Albemarle Pedestrian Obstacle Study
Requlations:
EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District
FH, Flood Hazard Overlay District
Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance
Wetlands requirements (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Site Development Plan/Zoning Ordinance
Critical Slopes
Urban Stormwater Management
Tree Canopy/Landscaping/Buffering
4.14 Performance Standards
Private Roads
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE; RELATION TO SURROUNDING
AREAS= In approaching physical redesign of the University
Research Park plan, a primary focus of McKee/Carson and other
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29) :
M.B. 41, Pg. 234
consultants was to define the physical and environmental con-
straints to development and to respect these constraints in the
development proposal. Additional considerations were access/
circulation considerations, desire to maximize usage of existing
site features to produce a formal building layout, and to capital-
ize on mountain views.. The plan significantly down scales devel-
opment from the 880,000 square feet proposed in 1990 to the
current proposal for 389,000 square feet of floor area. As
described in the applicant's textual narrative, the following site
characteristics were investigated (mapping also provided):
Site Characteristics:
- Soils and Geology
Slope and Terrain
- Surface Drainage and Wetlands
- Vegetation
Depth to bedrock is four to five feet. An area of unconsolidated
spoil would be reworked. (Staff recommends the spoil area not be
subjected to 4.2 Critical Slopes.) Soils on the site are very
erosive. Proffer #12 states that 'Best Management Practices will
be implemented in all areas of earth-disturbing activity. No
earth-disturbing activity shall be permitted within the limits of
the flood plain.'
In revision of the University Research Park Plan, effort has been
made to provide formal building organization and open spaces while
ensuring a respect for the natural features and environmental
sensitivity of the site.
Initial development of this site will be construction of a major
office building complex on the adjoining Virginia Department of
Forestry site (this is the same project originally proposed along
Route 53 and subsequently on the Hillcrest tract between Routes 20
and 742). Several years ago, staff recommended that the Forestry
Department be provided access through the UREF site. Forestry is
agreeable to this recommendation and, therefore, construction of
the access to the University Research Park site may precede
development within the site itself. Also, an initial occupant for
the research park may submit site plan prior to Board action on
this rezoning request. Due to the time demand on this user, staff
will process the site plan as though requested zoning were in
place. The Virginia Department of Forestry and UREF have been
cooperative in planning for a single access to Fontaine Avenue.
This access will serve all property to the south of Fontaine
Avenue in the County. Staff requests maximum discretion in
issuance of grading permits in order to acco~odate Forestry and
initial research park occupant.
PUBLIC UTILITIES: An eighteen-inch raw water line located in a
thirty-foot easement traverses the site parallel to and about 700
feet from Fontaine Avenue. This is an old cast iron line with
leaded joints and unknown bedding susceptible to leaks and fragile
to development activity. UREF is negotiating with the RWSA to
relocate/reconstruct this line. The line should be field located
and surveyed and method of relocation approved by RWSA prior to
review of any final site plan or grading activity. Proffer #8
states that 'UREF will relocate the existing eighteen-inch raw
water line in a manner acceptable to and in accordance with the
standards of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.'
A twenty-inch finished water line is in proximity to the site. A
new eight-inch sewer line is under construction adjacent to the
site. Proffer #9 states that 'UREF will design and construct at
its own expense all improvements and upgrades of utilities which
are occasioned by the development of the Research Park.'
Consistent with County policy, UREF has proffered to upgrade and
extend public utilities to serve the site as well as relocate and
modernize the antiquated RWSA eighteen-inch raw water line which
traverses the property, the cost of all improvements to be borne
PUBLIC FACILITIES/SERVICES: As stated previously in this report,
UREF has proffered provision of sidewalk and bikeway consistent
with recommendation of the Community Development Division, but is
unwilling to provide a site for a~volunteer fire company. A park-
like atmosphere would be provided on the site to provide employee
open space amenity. In addition, a maximum of 19,450 square fret
of building area would be devoted to employee convenience uses
such as, but not limited to: day care center, post office, banks,
drug store, newsstand, dry cleaning/laundry, health club, and
restaurants. Each use would be reviewed for consistency with CO,
Commercial Office, subordinate uses and uses envisioned under
Section 9.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B 4]~ Pg. 235
(Page 30) '
UREF, through proffers, has proposed adequate measures to provide
public utilities to the site while upgrading the RWSA system at no
cost to the public. On-site convenience services would be provid-
ed to employees.
PUBLIC ROADS:
FONTAINE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS: Under existing PD-SC, Planned
Development-Shopping Center, and R-10 Residential zoning, poten-
tial traffic generation would be about 13,900 vehicle trips per
day from the UREF site only. Under proposed zoning for the UREF
site and traffic from the Forestry property, anticipated traffic
would be about 4400 vehicle trips per day. While total traffic
under proposed zoning would be about one-third of traffic levels
under existingzoning, differences in dynamics became the focus
and peak-hour traffic became the concern. The UREF site.is
situated in proximity to the U. S. Route 250/Route 29 South
interchange and peak-hour capacity of the interchange as well as
level of service of Fontaine Avenue was investigated and projected
(staff had informally observed that during the a.m. peak, the
northbound bypass off-ramp appears to be approaching capacity).
The applicant's traffic consultant (Wilbur Smith & Associates) and
VDOT ran separate capacity analysis studies of Fontaine Avenue and
the Uo S. Route 250/Route 29 South interchange, which provided
staff with the following condensed review context:
me
The Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS)
shows a U4 (Urban 4-lane) typical section for the proposed
improvement. Fontaine Avenue is a Phase IV (final phase)
improvement. The CATS projected an ADT of 10,700 for the
year 2000. The 1990 ADT was 12,900.
VDOT and Wilbur Smith agreed to an annual background traffic
increase of 2.7 percent to apply to all studied areas.
3e
UREF anticipates a 15 to 20 year build-out and, therefore,
projection year is 2011o
VDOT agrees that the interchange would be in failure in year
2011 due to increase in background traffic but also states
that the UREF development would accelerate that condition.
VDoT stated that background traffic will make Fontaine Avenue
operate at Level of Service (LOS) 'E' in 2011 and with addi-
tion of site generated traffic, LOS will drop to 'F'
Regarding interchange ramp failure, VDOT agreed with the
staff assessment that the northbound off-ramp would fail
initially.
VDOT stated that 'eventually (by the year 2011 for the traf-
fic analysis submitted) the ramps for the Route 29 inter-
change will need to be signalized and upgraded due to the
anticipated normal (background) traffic increases. This
development would hasten (in about eight to ten years~ de-
pending on the amount of time for build-out) these needs.~
Staff approached these issues from the following perspective:
What improvements to the bypass interchange and Fontaine
Avenue were necessary to avoid accelerated failure of these
facilities due to introduction/conflicts of UREF traffic?
That is to say, what improvements could be directly attribut-
able to the UREF development?
2e
Are these improvements (proportionately) equivalent to or
superior to existing proffered improvements? In other words,
would the proposed zoning compared to existing zoning equally
or better serve the public interest regarding transportation
improvements?
Following multiple meetings involving people from UREF, VDOT, the
PACC Tech Committee, and/or staff concerning various road improve-
ments/contributions on behalf of UREF, VDOT and staff recommend
proffer ~I adequately addresses road improvement needs as may be
occasioned by the proposed UREF/Forestry development. While staff
has calculated UREF traffic to represent 16 to 19 percent of the
improvement need, UREF construction costs for improvements would
represent 24 to 26 percent of the total costs to improve Fontaine
Avenue to a U4 typical section in the City and County (i.e. - from
Jefferson Park Avenue (JPA) to the Route 250/Route 29 Bypass) as
recommended by CATS.
Lastly, the City staff has stated about the JPA/Maury Avenue/
Fontaine Avenue Intersection, that 'The County should make a
special effort to assure that this development does not adversely
affect the above intersection andthat appropriate remedial
measures are provided if necessary.' Wilbur Smith Associates
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 4.B. 41, Pg 236
(Page 31) '
assigned 30 percent of site traffic to arrive from the City by
Fontaine Avenue and 70 percent to arrive from the bypass. VDOT
accepted this distribution. This would represent a daily increase
of 1320 vehicles through this intersection. Fontaine Avenue, at
this intersection, provides three lanes eastbound (exclusive left,
through, and right). Maury Avenue, approaching this intersection,
provides three lanes southbound (right slip, through, left). JPA,
approaching this intersection, provides three lanes (right slip,
through, left), and, JPA westbound provides two lanes (right/
through, left). It would appear that any additional lanes would
negatively affect existing development in the intersection quad-
rants (staff is unaware of the extent of road right-of-way in this
intersection. UREF does not have the right of eminent domain).
SP-92-13, USES BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT: UREF has requested three
categories of uses by special use permit, all of which are intend-
ed to be provided under appropriate circumstance, within areas
shown for Office Service Area in the Comprehensive Plan. As
stated earlier in the report, the closest dwelling is about 400
feet from the closest proposed building in the development and,
therefore, the proposed uses, regardless of location, should not
be obtrusive to the area (i.e. - the minimum setback for a heavy
industrial use from an adjoining residential property is 100
feet). Special use permit requests include the following:
23.2.2.11. Supporting commercial uses are described by
the applicant to possibly include uses such as: day care
center, post office, branch bank, drug store, newsstand,
dry cleaning establishment, small health club and restau-
rants. Uses permitted as supporting commercial uses would
include uses permitted by right under the C-1 zone, as
modified by Section 9.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant has proffered not to exceed the total floor area
limit established by 9.4.2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance
(i.e. - 50 percent). Provision of supporting commercial
uses would not only be a convenience to employees, but
would also reduce off-site traffic, consistent with traf-
fic reduction efforts.
23.2.2.11, Supporting Commercial Uses: Staff recommends approval
of this special use permit subject to the following condition:
In addition to l~-;tation under Proffer ~6, total floor area
devoted to supporting commercial uses shall not exceed ten
(10) percent of total floor area at any time during phased
development.
23.2.2.12, Research and development activities includinq
experimental testinq and, 23.2.2.13, Laboratories -
medical and pharmaceutical are appropriate uses within
Office Service Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. As stated
earlier, the closest dwelling to a proposed building is
about 400 feet distant and these uses should therefore not
be objectionable to the area (As a comparison, minimum
building setback in the Heavy Industrial district from an
adjoining residential area is 100 feet). An additional
assurance, these uses should be subject to the County's
performance standards for industrial uses.
23.2.2.12, Research and development activities including testing;
23.2.2.13, Laboratories - medical and pharmaceutical are appropri-
ate within an office service area end would not be objectionable
on this site. Staff recommends approval subject to the following
condition:
Compliance with Section 4.14, Performance Standards of the
Zoning Ordinance.
PROJECT PHASING: Three phases of development are proposed with
the first phase being most extensive in terms of site preparation.
As described earlier in this report and in the UREF textual sub-
mittal as well as plan maps, a substantial volume of unconsoli-
dated fill needs to be removed and reworked (this is the only area
of significant intrusion into steep slope, which are in this case,
man-made). Mass grading would also occur during Phase 1 develop-
ment, as would all Fontaine Avenue improvements. Substantial
design/economic consideration has been devoted to the phasing
schedule which would provide basic infrastructure together with
public road improvements in the initial phase. In order to
provide accomplishment of the phasing plan as proposed, as well as
to allow variations in the development schedule, staff should be
granted authority over approval of all phases of development as
well as administrative approval of all site development plans (and
subdivision plats, if any).
PROFFERS.= Thirteen written proffers, as well as the proffered
Zoning Application Plan, accompany this petition. Most of these
proffers have been discussed in the text of this report. Staff
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) ~4.BPg. 237
(Page 32) ·
recommends acceptance of the applicant's proffers together with
the proffered rezoning application plan. In the spirit of Section
8.5.6.3, the Director of Planning and Community Development should
be authorized discretion over reasonable variations from the
Zoning Application Plan."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 26,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-92-03, subject to Proffers 1 -
13 as outlined in letter from Robert B. McKee addressed to Ron Keeler, dated
May 15, 1992 (on file).
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 26,
1992, also unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-13, subject to the
following conditions (They did not include a recommendation in the staff's
report to limit under Proffer #6, total floor area-devoted to supporting
commercial uses .... ):
23.2.2.11 Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0),
23.2.2.12 Research and development activities including experimental
testing, and
23.2.2.13 Laboratories, medical and pharmaceutical, subject to:
1. Compliance with Section 4.14, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Bain asked about Proffer #5, dedicate sufficient right-of-way to
accommodate all roadway improvements along its property frontage, and if this
includes all additional laning that is on UREF's side of the road. Mr.
Cilimberg said "yes". Because of the level of improvement on Fontaine, they
will utilize that right-of-way along most of the frontage of the property.
Mr. Bain asked about buildings being limited to four stories in height,
but not mentioning the actual height requirement. Mr. Cilimberg said the
ordinance sets a maximum of 65 feet. They will not need more than that height
to accommodate the buildings they anticipate building.
Mr. Bain asked about #1, construction improvements contingent upon the
City allowing the necessary transitions. He asked the status of this state-
ment. Mr° Cilimberg said he would allow the applicant to speak to this
question. Mr. Bain said the County is accepting a proffer which is a contin-
gency. What happens if the applicant does not get it Mr. Cilimberg said the
contingency was to define how the proffer would be exercised. If, for some
reason they cannot exercise the proffer under the contingency, that would come
back to the Board. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Roosevelt has indicated that the
Highway Department will accept the tapering back as the road enters the City.
Mr. Tucker, Mr. Sandridge and Mr. Hendrix are working with the Highway
Department to get some increase in funding for that section of the roadway in
the City so all of Fontaine can be improved at the same time.
Mr. Bain then asked if #13 concerning traffic reduction measures is as
specific as the language will get. Mr. Cilimberg said it is as specific as it
can get. UREF is also accommodating bike lanes in the site, as well as side-
walks for pedestrian access. Staff has indicated that it will be looking for
the accommodation of bus circulation on the site.
Mr. Bain asked about parking requirements. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has
not addressed that issue specifically. The Board may feel that parking
requirements should be authorized under a traffic reduction approach. The
applicant has not asked for any reduction of parking area requirements. To
market their property, they do need to provide the parking necessary for
marketing purposes.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Westby said he had nothing to add to staff's report. Mr.
McKee, the architect, is also present tonight.
Mr. Bain asked for an answer to his question concerning access. Mr.
Westby said he had nothing to add to Mr. Tucker's statement. It is being
worked on, and the City is also anxious to get this done.
Mr. St. John said the Plan goes with the zoning request and not with the
special use permit. The last staff recommendation is to authorize discretion
over reasonable variations. He asked if one of the proffers says the appli-
cant will adhere to the Application Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has
normally done that. Because this uses Section 9.0 of the Zoning Ordinance,
staff basically made reference to an Application Plan. He does not think the
applicant would have a problem with including that as a fourteenth proffer.
Mr. St. John asked if staff would feel better if this were spelled out. Also,
the enforcement statqte speaks to the enforcement of proffers, so he would
feel better if that were included. Mr. Cilimberg said that is a good point.
Mr. Westby said the applicant voluntarily agrees to a fourteenth proffer as
just mentioned by Mr. St. John. Mr. St. John said theJrecord is clear that
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.BPg.238
(Page 33) '
the proffer is that "The development will substantially adhere to the Plan
which was submitted with the zoning application, subject to this last para-
graph of the staff's recommendation."
Ms. Alicia Kyser, JPA Neighborhood Association, said they have come
before City Council several times about traffic in the area. The only comment
about this plan is the generation of increased traffic in the neighborhood.
It is obvious that the University needs its research, but they do have
neighborhoods all the way up to the University that will be accessed by
traffic going in and out of this research park. She recommended pushing the
City to expand their part of Fontaine Avenue.
Mr. Kevin Cox said he was present to support the entire project. Me
works at the University for a researcher who is on the cutting edge of
unraveling the mysteries of dNA. He knows that others there are developing
some amazing new products. These things will have a profound impact on the
global environment and the local environment. He feels there are a lot of
businesses and industries that will want to locate near this "hot bed" of
research. There has been a problem keeping people at the University because
their spouses could not find work in the area to pay them what they were
worth. He hopes this Board will work with UREF to get this project up and
going, and also on the larger project at the Airport, so the University can
continue to provide the contribution it provides to all of us.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bain said there was nothing in the report to indicate that the
Highway Department is committing to doing anything about traffic. He asked
the sequencing of this. Mr. Cilimberg said initially there was a lot of
discussion as to where traffic improvements should be concentrated. It was
VDoT's position that when traffic warrants it they can deal with the ramps and
signalization. They felt the best use of funds from UREF would be in the
actual upgrade of Fontaine Avenue. What has been proposed is a four-lane
divided facility. In actuality, that is a greater contribution by UREF than
what their traffic justifies, but there is a public benefit involved. That
means that any additions to lanes, or ramps, or signalization~ will be at the
discretion of VDoT.
Mr. Bain asked if VDoT has committed that any upgrading of those lanes
would be under primary arterial funds, or is it coming out of the secondary
allocation. Mr. Cilimberg said it would be from primary funds. They did not
get into the specifics of funding sources since they will be changing shortly
with the new Federal monies available. Mr. Bain said he feels it will have to
be addressed very soon. Mr. Cilimberg then showed to the Board a drawing of
proposed road improvements and explained each°
Mr. Bain said there is no question but that there has been a thorough
study and examination of the development of this property. An enormous amount
of time has been spent planning the project as well, and most of it was proba-
bly well-spent. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain to approve ZMA-92-03 with
the thirteen proffers, all as outlined in a letter from Robert McKee dated May
15, 1992, and a fourteenth added tonight reading: "Development shall substan-
tially adhere to the Proffered RezoningApplication Plan submitted with this
petition. In the spirit of Section 8.5.6.3, the Director of Planning and
Community Development is authorized discretion over reasonable variations from
the Zoning Application Plan."
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
UREF will construct at its expense along its property front-
age improvements to Fontaine Avenue as recommended in the
City Urban Design Plan and which are further described in the
JPA/Fontaine Avenue Neighborhood Study. Generally these
improvements will consist of a four-lane, landscaped median
divided roadway which shall be designed to VDOT Collector
Road standards. Based on traffic studies prepared for the
project, these improvements are considered more than adequate
to accommodate the additional traffic occasioned by the
development of the University Research Park. Specifically,
these improvements will consist of:
(a)
(b)
(c)
an additional full frontage eastbound lane extending
from the existing northbound exit ramp of U.S. 29/250
Bypass to the eastern most corner of the property~
upgrade of the existing eastbound lane,
provision of a 100-foot taper plus 100-foot right turn
lane adjacent to the new eastbound lane,
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.BPg. 239
(Page 34) '
(d)
median improvements consisting of curbed landscape
median extending from the project entrance west to the
Bypass,
(e)
median improvements consisting of curbed landscape
median to accommodate the necessary left turn movements
into the park from westbound Fontaine Avenue,
(f) left turn lane into the project, and
(g) two westbound through lanes from the eastern most prop-
erty line to the northbound on ramp of the Bypass.
Specific design standards and specifications for all turn
lanes and construction necessary for the widening of Fontaine
Avenue shall be determined upon further discussion with
County Staff and VDOT. Construction of these improvements is
contingent upon acceptance by the City of Charlottesville in
allowing necessary transitions into and within the City
limits. Construction of these improvements is also subject
to the successful acquisition of additional right-of-way
and/or easements necessary for construction with the City
limits.
2e
UREF will construct at its expense full frontage bikeway
improvements to be incorporated behind the curb along F-
ontaine Avenue. The bikeway shall extend from the northbound
off ramp of the U.S. 29 Bypass to the eastern most corner of
the Research Park.
UREF will construct at its expense sidewalk improvements
along the south side of Fontaine Avenue from the proposed
entrance to the Research Park to the eastern most corner of
the property.
Se
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Ail frontage improvements outlined in items 1-3 above will be
undertaken in a manner which will allow further extension of
the ultimate road section into the City.
UREF will dedicate sufficient right-of-way to accommodate all
roadway improvements along its property frontage.
UREF will limit total development on the site to 389,000
square feet of gross building area. Support commercial uses
shall be limited in building area to 19,450 square feet.
Ail buildings will be limited to four stories in height.
UREF will relocate the existing 18-inch raw water line in a
manner acceptable to and in accordance with the standards of
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
UREF will design and construct at its expense all improve-
ments and upgrades of utilities which are occasioned by the
development of the Research Park
UREF will design and install landscape buffer area as shown
on the plan to screen the project from Fontaine Avenue and
residential neighborhoods adjoining the Research Park.
Strict architectural and landscape architectural guidelines
and restrictions will be adopted which shall govern the
design and construction of all buildings and parcel specific
site development.
Best Management Practices will be implemented in all areas of
earth disturbing activity. No earth disturbing activity
shall be permitted within the limits of the flood plain.
UREF will encourage traffic reduction measures within the
Research Park through the provision of CTS and UVA bus drop
off points and on-site support commercial uses.
Development shall substantially adhere to the Proffered
Rezoning Application Plan submitted with this petition. In
the spirit of Section 8.5.6.3, the Director of Planning and
Community Development is authorized discretion over reason-
able variations from the Zoning Application Plan.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve SP-92-13, with uses and condition as follows:
23.2.2.11 Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0) (without the limit
of ten percent as shown in the staff's report),
23.2.2.12 Research and development activities including experimental
testing, and
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) ~4.BPg.240
(page 35 ) ·
23.2.2.13 Laboratories, medical and pharmaceutical, subject to:
AYES:
NAYS:
Compliance with Section 4.14, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, of the Zoning
Ordinance.
In order to accomplish phasing of the plan as proposed, as well as to
allow variations in the development schedule, staff was granted authority
over approval of all phases of development, as well as administrative
approval of all site development plans (and subdivisions plats), if any.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
(Note: At 9:44 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:50 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-92-16. Scott W. Campbell (applicant), George A.
Ragsdale (owner). Public Hearing on a request to establish auto sales &
rental on 1.6 acs zoned C-1. Property at end of & on the N of Rt 650 just E
of Rt 631 (Rio Rd). TM61,P148. Charlottesville Dist. (This property lies in
a growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2,
1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This site is the former location of a
tire store. The Southern Railway tracks are located adjacent to
the east. Petroleum storage tanks are adjacent to the south. A
gas station is adjacent to the west. Two dwellings are located
beyond this site on Route 650 on the opposite side of the Rail-
road. This site is substantially lower than Rio Road. The area
proposed for storage of the automobiles is level and open.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to operate a car
sales and rental operation in connection with the repair service
provided in the existing structure. The area proposed for the
storage of autos is shown in Attachment C (on file). The proposed
storage area is anticipated to be adequate to store 35 automo-
biles.
Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Neighborhood
Service in Neighborhood 2.
Staff Comment: Staff refers the Board to Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance were the board of supervisors reserved unto
itself the right to issue all special use permits, etc.
Staff reviewed this request for consistency with Section 31.2.4.1
of the Ordinance and offers the following comments and observa-
tions. This use will not be detrimental to adjacent properties
nor will it change the character of the district due to the
commercial activity in the adjacent properties. The nearby
residential development is separated from this site by the South-
ern Railway and staff will recommend conditions to minimize the
impact of this activity on those residential properties. (Those
conditions include staff approval of a lighting plan and prohibi-
tion of loudspeakers.) This use will have minimal visual impact
on Rio Road due to the lower elevation of this site and the
existence of other commercial activity between this site and Rio
Road. Route 650 is a low volume, dead-end road; the 1990 trip
count indicated 30 vehicle trips per day. Staff notes that this
type of use, auto sales and rental, does not generate more vehicle
trips than other uses which are permitted by-right. The Depart-
ment of Transportation has provided comment regarding this re-
quest. Staff recommends a condition to ensure that an adequate
entrance is constructed to serve the site.
Summary: Due to the existing adjacent commercial development, the
position of this site at a lower grade than Rio Road and the'
separation of this site from adjacent residential development,
staff opinion is that this use will have minimal impact. With
appropriate conditions, staff opinion is that the potential nega-
tive impact of this site can be mitigated. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of this request subject to the following
conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Staff approval of lighting plan and landscape plan;
2. No loudspeakers;
3. There shall be no flags, pennants, banners, streamers or
strings of lights;
4. Area for storage and display of vehicles for sale or rent
shall be limited to that area shown on Attachment C, ini-
tialled "WDF" 4/10/92;
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg.241
(Page 36)
Se
Construction of a commercial entrance prior to the commence-
ment of storage, sales or rental of motor vehicles."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 5,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-16, with conditions 1, 2 and 3
as set out in the staff's report. They deleted condition #5, and reworded
condition #4 to read: "Area for storage and display of vehicles for sale or
rent shall be limited to that area approximately shown as 'New Parking Area
Addition' on Attachment C, initialled 'WDF' 4/10/92."
Mrs. Humphris asked if there would be any reason to put a limit on the
number of cars that can be stored at any one time. Mr. Cilimberg said a
limitation could be added if the Board feels it is necessary.
Mr. Bowerman said he would be more concerned if they started to store
off-site. If the area is limited as shown on Attachment C, that should take
care of his concern.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Campbell was present to answer
questions. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing
was closed.
Mrs. Humphris asked for Board comments on her question. Mr. Martin said
he feels Mr. Bowerman's logic works. Mrs. Humphris agreed to include an area
instead of numbers and immediately offered motion to approve SP-92-16 with the
four conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Marshall. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are:)
1. Staff approval of lighting plan and landscape plan;
2. No loudspeakers;
4e
There shall be no flags, pennants, banners, streamers or
strings of lights;
Area for storage and display of vehicles for sale or rent
shall be limited to that area approximately shown on "New
Parking Area Addition" on Attachment C initialled WDF
4/10/92.
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-92-19. Albemarle County Fair, Inc (applicant),
Elizabeth Scott (owner). Public Hearing on a request to amend SP-88-90 to
permit a fair. Property containing 50 ac is zoned RA & EC is located on N
side of Rt 692 approx 0.4 mi W of Rt 29. TM87,P3. Samuel Miller Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This site is open pasture land. Proper-
ties between this site and Route 29 South are developed residen-
tially. Other properties in the area are large farm tracts.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is seeking approval of this
permit in order to allow the fair to continue to operate as it has
in the past. The applicant has obtained a 30 year lease for the
property.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is in the Rural Areas. The report
for SP-87-109 stated, 'Staff's opinion is that the County Fair is
consistent with the agricultural support objectives and would not
detract from the existing agricultural/forestal district.' The
Comprehensive Plan has been readopted since that time, however, it
is the opinion of staff that these comments remain valid.
Staff Comment: In 1991 the Fair attracted approximately 25,000
visitors. Staff is unaware of any significant problems and no
complaints have been received regarding the past use. Staff and
the applicant have met with the Police Department to determine
alternate methods for traffic/parking control designed to improve
the traffic patterns in the area. The recommendations of the
Police Department are included as Attachment D (on file). A
condition is needed to address these recommendations as it is
currently addressed by Condition 2 of the previous approvals.
Staff has noted the recommendation of the Police Department as
evidence that past approvals have contained adequate conditions to
react to changing needs. Staff sees no change in circumstance to
warrant disapproval of this request or change in conditions
governing the operation of the Fair° Therefore, staff recommends
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
M.B. 41, Pg. 242
approval of SP-92-19 with the following conditions which are
identical to past conditions with the exception of a time limit
for the approval and the deletion of the condition requiring site
plan approval.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Such events shall be limited to six consecutive days exclud-
ing Sunday. Hours of operation shall be limited to 4:00 p.m.
to 11:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. on Saturday with no operation on Sunday ("Operation"
shall mean the period of time during which the fair is open
to the public and shall not include set up, dismantling and
restoration activities.) This permit is issued for the
conduct of the Albemarle County Fair by the Albemarle County
Fair, Incorporated, and shall not be used for any other event
requiring~special use permit pursuant to Section 10.2.2.42
and 5.1.27 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2e
3e
The applicant shall notify the Albemarle County Police De-
partment, Virginia Department of Health, and servicing fire
and rescue squads 60 days prior to each event and shall make
adequate arrangements for the conduct of the event with each
of these agencies;
Traffic management shall be approved annually by the Albe-
marle County Police Department, Virginia Department of Trans-
portation and Albemarle County Planning Department, with the
final responsibility being that of the Police Department."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-19, with the three conditions
as set out in the staff's report.
Mr. Cilimberg brought the Board's attention to a memorandum dated May 26,
1992, from the Zoning Administrator, in which she questions uses which have
taken place at the Fair in past years. Mr. Bowerman asked if the County had
received complaints about the vendors at the Fair. Mr. Cilimberg said he
knows there were complaints about the sale of knives and hot tubs. Mr. St.
John said he believes there have been complaints, but not until after the Fair
was over. He remembers that the complaints came from people who had not tried
to set up at the Fair because they did not believe their businesses were
appropriate for it, and then they found that their competitors did display at
the Fair.
At this time~ the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Steven Meeks, President, Albemarle County Fair, Inc.~ said when the
Fair came to the Board four years ago, their request was for a five-year
permit because that was the duration of their lease. They now have a thirty-
year lease. Mr. Meeks said Mr. Cilimberg had just handed to him a copy of the
Zoning Administrator's memorandum, so the Fair Board and Fair Committee have
had no chance to review it. To comply with what she has in mind would be
difficult. Time constraints are the first problem. The list of people
exhibiting is usually not firmed up until the last minute. Nobody has an
exclusive on any item, except for the nonprofit groups who have exclusives on
food sales. Everything is open, it is just a matter of space. Nobody has
ever been turned away who wished to exhibit. The Fair Board feels that
commercial exhibits are very much a part of the Fair. This goes back to the
first fair in the United States in Fredericksburg. A fair is a place to
showcase all aspects of life in the community. To screen who may and may not
exhibit would be difficult and subjective on the part of the Fair Board.
Mr. Meeks said he feels uncomfortable with the Zoning Administrator's
recommendations and hopes that the Board will pass the special use permit as
presented by Mr. Cilimberg.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the hearing was closed.
Mr. Bain asked if the entire fifty-acre site is shown on the site plan.
What is meant by "amending the plan"? Mr. Cilimberg said the Fair is subject
to the Plan, and if they need to add area that is not covered by the Plan,
then, irregardless of the special use permit, the staff will require that the
area be shown.
Mr. Bain said requiring a site plan is no longer a condition of the
permit. Mr. Cilimberg said staff felt that since the Fair had submitted a
plan, there is something they must abide by, so recommended deleting that
condition. Any alteration or expansion would come under that plan approval or
would be looked at as a change. Mr. Bain said he believes approval should be
tied to some plan.
Mr. Martin asked if there were a change in the site plan, if that would
not come to the Board. Mr. Bain said that is no longer a condition. Mr.
Bowerman said he feels it is a point well-taken. Mr. Bain said he raises it
as a question because there was an existing site plan, but, unless it is
covered under some other part of the ordinance, he questions the wisdom of
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.417 Pg.243
(Page 38)
leaving it out as a condition. Mr. Cilimberg said he would try to come up
with some language so it could be approved by staff and not have to go to the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman said he respects the opinion of the Zoning Administrator,
but he does not think it is necessary to do what she has suggested. He can
understand her point of view as to the enforcement issue, but he wants the
Fair Board to have enough flexibility so the Fair will be a success as it has
been since it began.
Mr. Martin said if you took away from the Fair all the things that did
not have something to do with agriculture and forestry, there would not be
much left.
Mr. Marshall did not feel many people would attend.
Mr. St. John said the definition of a fair is "Temporary event sponsored
by local, nonprofit organization which are related to and supportive of the RA
Rural Areas District." It then refers the reader to a supplementary regula-
tion which defines what is supportive and that in turn brings in the idea of
things related to agriculture, forestry and that kind of thing. Mr. St. John
said he has not been authorized to speak for the Zoning Administrator, but he
does not believe she is concerned about anything other than whether she has a
duty to enforce these words which are in the ordinance, If it is the consen-
sus of the Board that the fair is open to any kind of exhibit, first-come,
first-served, the Board need only put that in the record so that she is not
exposed to charges of failing to enforce the conditions. She does not want to
be guilty of not enforcing something.
Mr. Bowerman said the Fair Board is a responsible body that has as its
objective the presentation of the fair. If they do something that is clearly
objectionable, then it is not in their best interest. He is concerned that if
the fair were strictly limited to agriculture/forestry products, it might not
be a success economically. He wonders whether it would have the agricultural
and forestry benefits the Board would like to see displayed. He believes that
if it were absolutely limited to that, it would not be an economic success and
could not be continued. All fairs have these other things in them.
Mr. Bain said the only things being talked about are the games and the
rides. Everything else is related.
Mr. Martin said they were talking about the hot tubs, the photographer,
and what about the nonprofit organizations which are selling food. How can
the Democratic and Republican parties put a booth out there?
Mr. Marshall said the definition does not fit the situation. Mr. Sto
John said if the Board wants to leave it open and say the Zoning Administrator
has no duty to determine if a given display fits the criteria, then just pass
a resolution to that effect.
Mr. Martin said instead of saying the Zoning Administrator has "no duty"
since there may come a time when she needs to exercise that authority, why not
just say what Mr. Meeks said that exhibition and participation in the Fair is
open to everyone at the Fair Board's discretion? Then, if there were ever a
conflict between the Zoning Administrator and Fair Board, she would have some
authority.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Cilimberg for language concerning the site plan. Mr.
Cilimberg said that in looking at prior language it appears to be worded to
make sure there is a plan and that the Planning Commission make a decision in
a timely manner. For the staff, timely manner would be at least 45 days
before the Fair is to begin. Me then suggested that a condition be added
reading: "The applicant shall abide by the approved site plan and submit any
requests for amendments for administrative approval at least 30 days prior to
each event°"
Mr. Bain agreed with the recommended Condition #4, and then offered
motion to approve SP-92-19 with the three conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission, and a fourth condition with wording as set out above.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval read as follows:)
Such events shall be limited to six consecutive days exclud-
ing Sunday. Hours of operation shall be limited to 4:00 p.m.
to 11:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. on Saturday, with no operation on Sunday ("operation"
shall mean the period of time during which the fair is open
to the public and shall not include set up, dismantling and
restoration activities). This permit is issued for the
conduct of the Albemarle County Fair by the Albemarle County
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 244
(Page 39)
Fair, Incorporated, and shall not be used for any other event
requiring special use permit pursuant to Section 10o2.2.42 and
5.1.27 of the Zoning Ordinance;
The applicant shall notify the Albemarle County Police De-
partment, Virginia Department of Health, and servicing fire
and rescue squads 60 days prior to each event and shall make
adequate arrangements for the conduct of the event with each
of these agencies;
3e
4e
Traffic management shall be approved annually by the Albe-
marle County Police Department, Virginia Department of Trans-
portation and Albemarle County Planning Department, with the
final responsibility being that of the Police Department.
The applicant shall abide by the approved.site plan and
submit any requests for amendments for administrative approv-
al at least 30 days prior to each event.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris,
to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the exhibits/displays admitted to the Albemarle
County Fair shall be at the sole discretion of the Albemarle
County Fair Board.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. SP-92-20. Crozet Church of God. Public Hearing on
a request to construct a church on 5 ac zoned RA & EC. Property on S side of
Rt 824 approx 800 ft W of Rt 250. TM55,P96A. Samuel Miller Dist. (This
property does not lie within a growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 26 and June 2, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This site consists of a prominent knoll
with a Virginia Power transmission line crossing to the rear.
Other properties in the area are rural in character with the
closest dwelling over 1000 feet away. A Virginia Department of
Transportation maintenance shed is located at the end of Route
824.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing a church with a
maximum seating capacity of 250 persons. The existing church in
Crozet (St. George Avenue) will be used for day-care and the
parsonage. No day care will occur at the Route 824 location.
Planninq and Zoninq History:
June 18, 1986 - The Board of Supervisors approved SP-86-26 and
SP-86-27 permitting a 250 seat church and a 60 child day-care
center.
May 17, 1989 - The Board of Supervisors approved SP-89-25 and
SP-89-26. These special use permits were for reapproval of the
previous permits which had expired. At that time, the Board of
Supervisors granted staff administrative approval of the site
plan.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in the rural areas
(Rural Area 3) and is approximately 1.25 miles from the Community
of Crozet.
Staff Comment: The Board of Supervisors has approved the appli-
cant's request for a church on this site on two prior occasions
(see above). The findings of SP-86-26 were reaffirmed during the
review of SP-89-25. The current request is before the Board of
Supervisors due to the expiration of the previous approval. The
prior requests indicated day-care, the current request does not
include day-care. Staff opinion is that there has been no change
in circumstance to warrant disapproval of the applicant's current
request. This request has been reviewed and approved by the
Architectural Review Board.
Staff recommends approval of SP-92-20 subject to the following
conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Administrative approval of site plan;
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 4.B. Pg. 245
(Page 40)
Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy of septic
system, not to exceed a maximum seating of 250 persons;
Approval is for worship and related church use only. Day-
care or other such uses will require an amendment to this
permit."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 26,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-20, with the conditions set
out i~ the staff's report.
The public hearing was opened. The pastor of the church was present, but
did not care to speak. The public hearing was closed, and motion immediately
offered by Mr. Bain to approve SP-92-20, with the three conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin
NAYS: None.
(Note:
1.
2.
3e
The conditions of approval are set out in full below):
Administrative approval of site plan;
Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy of septic
system, not to exceed a maximum seating of 250 persons;
Approval is for worship and related church use only. Day
care or other such uses will require an amendment to this
permit.
Agenda Item No. 16. SP-92-22. Dale Wilberger (applicant); Roger Ward
(owner). Public Hearing on a request to permit outdoor storage & display of
autos, trucks & trailers on 0.49 ac zoned HC & EC Overlay Dist. Property
located on N side of Rt 250E, W of & adjacent to White House Motel. TM78,
P57B. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 26 and June 2,
1992.)
(Mr. Bain said he represents the owner of the property. He abstained
from the conversation and left the room.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This site and all adjacent properties are
commercially developed. This site is and has been used as an
automobile repair and sales facility.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to operate a
vehicle rental service for autos, trucks and trailers, in addition
to the current operation of auto repair and sales. (The auto
sales use is grandfathered as it was in existence prior to the
adoption of the Entrance Corridor District [ECl.)
Comprehensive Plan: This site is recommended for Regional Service
in Neighborhood 3. The Comprehensive Plan lists auto dealer as a
primary use for this service designation. Staff opinion is that
rental of vehicles is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: This use is by special use permit due to the use
of outdoor storage and display of vehicles and trailers within the
EC District. This use is permitted by-right in the underlying HC
district. The Architectural Review Board has reviewed this
request for its visual impact on Route 250. Staff's opinion is
based on the ARB's conditional approval that this use is consis-
tent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive
Plan. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of SP-92-22 subject
to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness
is issued by the Architectural Review Board;
Storage areas shall be limited to those areas noted on sketch
dated 4/16/92 and initialed 'WDF'."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5/1, recommended
approval of SP-92-22, with the two conditions set out in the staff's report.
He said the major topic of discussion with the Planning Commission was
(Attachment C), the location of the one U-Haul van for display on the east
side of the property near the entrance. The Architectural Review Board
allowed it in their approval, but there was concern voiced by the dissenting
commissioner about that particular allowance.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.246
(Page 41)
Mrs. Humphris asked how the existence of a specified parking space along
the road where a U-Haul vehicle will be used as m billboard, fits in with the
proposed Sign Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know. Mrs. Humphris
said she thought this was something the Board had specifically not allowed,
and she was surprised to find it in this permit. Mr. Cilimberg said the Sign
Ordinance has not yet been adopted, so this use would not have to abide by
that new regulation.
Mr. Martin said in this case, you are not talking about a vehicle that
has nothing to do with the business. Mrs. Humphris said this was something
that was not to be allowed. There are numerous examples of it on Route 29
North.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is a specific size truck allowed by the ARB.
Mr. Cilimberg said "no".
Mrs. Humphris asked how far back from the road the designated U-Haul site
is located. Mr. Cilimberg said it is approximately 70 to 80 feet off of the
road.
Mr. St. John said he did not believe that vehicles painted with their
usual logo should be considered signs. Once you do that, it makes no differ-
ence where they are located, they are still signs, and there would be too many
of them, and the mere parking of them anywhere on the site would be a viola-
tion of the sign ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman said the confusion has come about because the truck was
identified as a sign. He thought there would be no other sign, the U-Haul
truck would be the sign. That needs to be clarified by the applicant.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Dale Wilberger was present to speak. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr.
Wilberger will use a sign. Mr. Wilberger said there will be no sign at all.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there will be a sign on the building identifying "Impact
Auto Sales". Mr. Wilberger said in the picture, they redid the red framed
sign. At this time, the third parking spot back from the road, closest to the
building, will be for the U-Haul truck. Only a ten or a fourteen-foot truck
will fit in that spot. Anything larger would hinder the garage operation.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin and seconded by Mr. Marshall
to approve SP-92-22 with the two conditions of the Planning Commission. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vo~e:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr.'Bain.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness
is issued by the Architectural Review Board;
Storage areas shall be limited to those areas noted on sketch
dated 4/16/92 and initialed WDF.
(Note: Mr. Bain returned to the room at this time.)
Agenda Item No. 17. ZMA-91-03. Dominion Land. Public Hearing on a
request to rezone 8.79 ac from R-6 & C-1 to PD-MC. Property in SW quadrant of
Rio Rd/ Berkmar Dr approx 3/10 mi W of Rt 29. Site is located in Neighborhood
1 & is recommended for Community Service in the Comprehensive Plan. TM6P1B,
Sec 12. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 26
and June 2, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The site is currently wooded with a strip
of cleared land on the northwest boundary. The site slopes upward
from Rio Road. The Seminole Trail Fire Station is adjacent to the
south as is the Berkeley Subdivision.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to rezone 8.79 acres
to Planned Development-Mixed Commercial (PD-MC). Currently 0.67
acres are zoned R-6 Residential and 8.12 acres are zoned C-I,
Commercial. The applicant proposes to construct' 13 dwelling units
on 1.39 acres and 63,400 square feet of commercial use, including
a drive-through window for Building 'C' on the remainder of the
site. Two entrances on Berkmar Drive and one entrance on Rio Road
are proposed.
Planninq and Zoninq History: Three requests were made for this
site. All were withdrawn on February 22, 1984. Those requests
were: SDP-84-3, VEPCO District Headquarters; ZMA-84-04, request
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.247
(Page 42)
to rezone to LI, Light Industry; and SP-84-04, request to locate
office and materials storeroom and microwave tower.
Staff Comment: The applicant is seeking PD-MC zoning as it is the
Comprehensive Plan's recommended approach for commercial rezonings
of three acres or greater. A Planned Development (PD) approach
offers advantages to the County by permitting review of the
project as a whole. The PD approach offers the developer the
advantage of unified review and approval of the project (see
Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Staff will address each item of Section 8.5.4 individually.
ao
The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD
district proposed in terms of: relations to the comprehen-
sive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and~its
relation to surrounding area;
This site is recommended for Community Service in the Comprehen-
sive Plan. Adjacent land use designations are Community Service
and Low Density Residential (1 to 4 dwelling units per acre) to
the south, Medium Density Residential (4.01 to 10 dwelling units
per acre) to the west and north, and Community Service to the
east. The rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map designation. The applicant has submitted a PD
rezoning request which is the method of rezoning recommended by
the Comprehensive Plan for sites of three acres or more° Medium
density residential may be included as a secondary use. The
proposed residential development is within the range listed for
medium density. (The applicant's proposal results in a density of
9.4 dwelling units per acre.) Agreements have been provided that
prohibit those uses which are of Regional Service intensity.
The development of the site does not involve activities on criti-
cal slopes. However, due to the natural grade of the property,
substantial clearing and grading will be required to provide
building footprints as well as parking and access aisles meeting
slope requirements.
The site is adjacent to the Berkeley Subdivision. The residential
development is proposed adjacent to Berkeley as is one commercial
building. The building closest to Berkeley will be restricted by
agreement to those uses provided in the C-I, Commercial, and CO,
Commercial Office, districts. This represents the currently
permitted C-1 uses and the less intensive CO uses while prohibit-
ing the more intensive HC, Highway Commercial, uses. Detailed
landscaping and screening plans will be required where commercial
development abuts residential development. The applicant has
proposed an eight-foot high privacy fence where the proposed
development abuts Berkeley. (Screening is not required by the
Zoning Ordinance between residential developments and is provided
by the applicant in excess of zoning regulations.)
Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the Compre-
hensive Plan and that the agreements provided limit uses and
activities which may be objectionable to adjacent residential
development. Existing Zoning Ordinance requirements will allow
for screening and landscaping which minimizes the impact of the
commercial development on adjacent residential properties.
Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and
services;
This development proposes full frontage improvements on Berkmar
Drive. A single entrance is proposed on Rio Road. The Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) has stated that a right turn
lane is required to serve this entrance. In addition, VDOT will
require construction of a left turn lane on Rio Road to serve the
entrance while Rio Road is two lanes. The length for this lane
would be dependent upon the left turn lane length for Berkmar
Drive (Extended). This left turn is recommended with the Rio Road
widening project scheduled for construction in 1995. The proposed
development is anticipated to generate 4890 vehicle trips per day.
The entrance on Rio Road is anticipated to accommodate 4060
vehicle trips per day (2030 entering and 2030 exiting). Staff
believes that the left turn requirement of VDOT addresses concerns
about access before Rio Road is widened. Further, staff feels it
is unnecessary to have an agreement for a left turn lane with the
widening of Rio Road. If development of the site occurs concur-
rent with or after Rio Road is widened, a left turn may be de-
signed into the widening project or required during later site
plan review if it is determined that the left turn lane is needed
to provide safe and convenient access. It is the opinion of staff
that this site will have safe and convenient access as required by
Section 32.7.2 and 32.7.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B41, Pg. 248
(Page 43) '
This site is served by public water and sewer. Due to the exist-
ing fire flows in the area, it is likely that the buildings will
need to be sprinkled.
At the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning staff
reviews residential rezoning requests for their fiscal impact on
public and transportation facilities. This analysis is limited to
those rezonings that have some effect on facilities that are
identified in our Capital Improvement Program (CIP) or Six Year
Road Plan and have a cost associated with them.
The analysis is based on a fair share determination of a particu-
lar development's impact to affected facilities. It must be
pointed out that this analysis is cursory, due to the lack of
information on revenues and the amount attributable to this
development. The cost outlined by staff only indicatesthe
proportionate share of construction costs from the additional
development generated by the rezoning over by-right development.
This development results in nine more units than could be achieved
'by-right'.
The following are those facilities which will be affected by the
rezoning request and have a cost associated with them.
A. Schools
Schools affected by this proposal which have a cost as iden-
tified in the CIP are:
Burley Middle School
New Middle School
Agnor-Hurt Elementary School
$ 480,000
$ 8,291,000
$ 1,500,000
Based on the additional students as estimated by multipliers
currently used by the County, one additional elementary
school student and two additional middle school students are
anticipated. Costs attributable to this development based on
the proportion of students is $14,979 or $1152 per dwelling
unit.
B. Libraries
This proposal is considered to be in the service area of the
Northside Library ($300,000). Based on the proportionate
impact to library capacity, the proportionate share cost of
this project is $165 or $13 per dwelling unit.
Recreational Facilities
Recreation facilities affected by this proposal which have a
cos= identified in the CIP are:
Rivanna Five Senses Trail
Albemarle High School Tennis
Rivanna Park
Urban Area Elementary Recreation
$ 25,000
$ 75,000
$ 143,144
$ 40,000
Based on the additional population generated by this request,
the proportional share cost of this project is $311.50 or
$23.80 per dwelling unit.
Summary of Fiscal Impact:
Projects
Cost/DU
Proportionate 13 DU
Total Costs $ Share $ $
Agnor-Hurt Elementary School
~ur[eyMidd[e School
Hew Middte School
Rivanna Five Senses
Albemarle High School Tennis
Rivanna Park
Urban Area Elementary Recreation
Northside Library
TOTALS
1,500,000.00 2,700.00 208.00
480,000.00
8,291,000.00 12,279.00 944.00
25,000.00 27.50 2.10
75,000.00 82.50 6.30
143,144 O0 157.50 12.10
40,000.00 44.00 3.30
300,000.00 165 O0 13.00
10,854,144.00 15,455.50 1,188.80
Consideration of the fiscal impact of the development needs to be
balanced against considerations of the County's growth management
policy and other County policies. Excessive development exactLons
could have the effect of discouraging utilization of the holding
capacity of area, and thus, lead to accelerated development in the
Rural Areas.
Ce
Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of
any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sure-
ties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other in-
struments, or the need for such instruments or for amendments
in those proposed; and
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44) M.B. 41, Pg. 249
This parcel is under single ownership.
Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as ap-
plied to the particular case, based on determination that
such modifications are necessary or justified by demonstra-
tion that the public purposes of PD or general regulations as
applied would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree
by such modifications.
The applicant is requesting a modification to allow grading
within the 20 foot undisturbed buffer adjacent to residen-
tially-zoned land to the west. The area is currently an open
field. Preservation of the undisturbed buffer would not
provide for any landscaping/screening features. It is the
opinion of staff that landscaping/screening can be installed
at the time of development that meets the requirements of the
ordinance and is superior to the existing situation. No
other modifications are proposed with the exception of agree-
ments intended to offset potential negative impacts.
Based on such findinqs, the commission shall recommend approval of
the PD amendments as proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulat-
ed modificat,ions, or disapproval.
Staff opinion is that the proposed development is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation and that adequate
agreements are proposed which are designed to minimize the deve-
lopment's impact on adjacent development.
The Department of Transportation will require improvements on
Berkmar and Rio sufficient to ensure that this site has safe and
convenient access.
Summary: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to
this request:
Request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map designation.
Agreements are proposed designed to minimize the impact of
this development on adjacent property.
Currently the site is zoned C-1 and R-6 which permits a
character of development similar (but less intensive as to
use and number of dwelling units) to that proposed. However,
the Planned Development approach provides for a unified
development allowing multiple issues to be addressed at one
time.
Staff has not identified any significant factors which are unfa-
vorable to this request and, therefore, staff recommends approval
of ZMA-91-03 subject to the acceptance of the following agree-
ments:
2e
3e
6e
Building E shall be limited to those uses permitted in the
CO, Commercial Office, and C-l, Commercial, Districts.
The following uses shall be prohibited:
a. Hotels, motels and inns 24.2.1(2);
b. Motor vehicles sales, service and rental 24.2.1(5);
c. Mobile home and trailer sales and service 24.2.1(23);
d. Modular building sales 24.2.1(24);
e. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles
24.2.1.1(32);
f. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
24.3.1(22).
g. Heating oil sales and distribution 24.2.1(39).
Ail exterior lighting shall be face mounted to the exterior
of the buildings.
Roof mounted mechanical structures shall be adequately
screened from adjacent residential development.
Landscaping shall be of species similar to that on the adja-
cent Daily Progress site.
Plan shall be revised to indicate not more than thirteen
dwelling units.
Administrative approval of final site plan."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-91-03, subject to agreements 1 -
7 as set out in the staff's report, and a No. 8 reading: "Privacy fence shall
be maintained in good condition."
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45) M.B. 4~ Pg. 250
Mr. Cilimberg said that based on the Planning Commission's concerns about
the issue of fencing, staff and the applicant have prepared additional
agreements, as follows:
Privacy fence shall be maintained in good condition by the develop-
er, his successors or assiqns.
9e
Fencing, designed to prevent pedestrian access, shall be installed
adjacent to the residential development (and existing right-of-way
shown in Deed Book 804, P. 527) in Berkeley prior to the commence-
ment of grading activities for development of the site.
10.
An eight (8) foot high privacy fence shall be installed adjacent to
the residential development (and existing right-of-way shown in Deed
Book 804, p. 527) in Berkeley and shall overlap for ten feet the
existing privacy fence on Tax map 61M, Block 9, Parcel 9.
Mr. Cilimberg said, if the Board approves this request and wishes to
consider these agreements, they may be added to those recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg said one other issue came up at the Planning Commission
meeting, and that had to do with burning. Mr. Bill Fritz talked with staff in
the Inspections Department, and was told that they will require use of the pit
burning method on this site, and the applicant must obtain a permit for that
burning because the site is within five miles of the Airport. They noted that
prohibition of on-site burning would require specific action by this Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked who monitors the burning. Mr. Tucker said it is done
by the Fire Prevention Officer. While Inspections can deny a burning permit,
it would be helpful for the Board of Supervisors to make statement that can be
included with the record of this petition.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this staff member would be on-site during any
burning. Mr. Tucker said they would probably not be on-site all the time, but
they would be monitoring from time-to-time. The County has experienced
problems when the use of pit burning was allowed. Mr. Bowerman said there is
a trailer park across Rio Road. There is also the retirement center, and an
urban\suburban center, and other businesses on Rio Road. Mr. Bowerman asked
if the other alternative is to truck the debris to the landfill or another
site. Mr. Tucker said "yes"
Mrs. Humphris said she would like to remind the Board of the disastrous
situation that occurred when the Colonnades was built. It was supposedly done
under permit, and it was a horrendous happening. For some reason~ Inspections
decided the property was in a rural area. It is actually in one of the most
populous areas in Albemarle County. The people in the area suffered detrimen-
tal health effects, so after that experience, she decided that if anything
else like it came up, she would be opposed to any burning in the urban areas.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob Smith, a commercial real estate
broker, said he would probably be part of the group that takes on this
project. The property belongs to Dominion Lands which is a subsidiary of
Dominion Resources. Mr. Steve Plasko is present to represent Dominion Lands.
Mr. John Greene, Engineer, and Mr. George Gilliam, Attorney, are also present.
They will answer any questions posed.
Mrs. Patsy Moore said she lives in Berkeley which has been almost overrun
with development. They no longer have a neighborhood association, but she
feels that certain promises have been made in the past as developments
occurred. These are small things which do not have a lot of impact, but on
her home, her family and the neighborhood, they do have an impact.
Mrs. Moore said the Dominion Land property is ten feet from her home.
She does support the Planning Commission on changing the zoning to PD-MC, with
the conditions imposed. She has to trust the Planning Commission that this is
the best change for her situation. She has two issues, one being the safety
fencing, and the other is burning. When Heritage Hall was developed, burning
occurred, and it rained ash, approximately one-inch over her home and proper-
ty. They called the fire department which went to the site and stopped the
burning, but it was too late.
Mrs. Moore asked that the Board not allow burning, but, instead to
prohibit it. It is too close to a residential neighborhood, being just ten
feet from her property line.
Mrs. Joan Graves said she lives in Berkelely, but she does not represent
the people living there. She did not contact any of them, but feels she could
have filled the room with people concerned about the burning. Mrs. Graves
said she would not ask the Board to deny the rezoning. The property in
question was to have been a part of the residential development of Berkeley
and that is the reason there is only the ten-foot setback from Mrs. Moore's
house. Mrs. Wickline's house is on the other corner across from the Moore's.
The Wickline's have built a new house and she will move even closer to the
development. The road rights-of-way through Berkeley to the property in
question were closed by action of this Board°
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
M.B. 41, Pg. 251
Mrs. Graves asked that the Board not allow burning. She said she had
suffered through the building of Shopper's World, through the building of
Branchlands, and through the building of Heritage Hall. She said smoke
affects her personally, and it affects her home. She believes that the only
proper course to maintain the health, safety and general welfare of the
inhabitants of the County is to just not to allow it.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Smith to address the issue. Mr. Smith said it has
not been a problem until two or three weeks ago. He does not have any
definitive answers. He met with Mrs. Moore and Mrs. Graves last summer~ and
both brought up the subject of burning at that time° He is well aware of
their concerns. There are two problems with burning: one is burning the
whole tree on site; the other is taking the limbs off of the trees and burning
the root system on site. The applicants have contacted people who do timber-
ing and have found that most of the mills are full. They do not know the
monetary aspects yet, so he is not ready to commit to that type of solution.
They are aware of the problem, but he does not know how to address it.
Mr. Smith said this site has been designated as a borrow site for the
Berkmar Road extension project. He does not know what the plans of the low
bidder on that contract are, but he is committed to clearing off the area he
needs to get to in order to get the dirt out. He does no~ know how a change
might affect that bid. It is a major problem, and the applicants are very
concerned.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Smith would prefer to have the petition
deferred until he can answer the question, or have approval conditioned on "no
burning", if it comes to that.
Mr. Marshall said he can support the request, but he agrees with Mrs.
Humphris about there being no burning in this area.
Mrs. Humphris said she can support the petition with i1 conditions, with
No. 11 being "No burning on site." She then move4 approval of the petition
with 11 conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said these are not conditions, but agreements, and to be
included, the applicant must agree.
Mr. Bowerman then asked Mr. Smith or Mr. Gilliam to address the sugges-
tion. Mr. Eowerman said he understands the applicants do not yet know the
financial consequences, but there has been a serious expression here tonight
concerning burning.
Mr. Smith said it is critically important that things move ahead because
a site plan has been approved. He would like for the Board to move forward
based on Mrs. Humphris' suggestion, and he would like to come back to the
Board in 30 days with a plan that the Board would vote up or vote down. He
will accept the condition if he can come back and present a plan to the Board.
Mr. Martin asked if the terminology "any burning" bothered Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith said there may be some varying degrees of burning.
Mr. St. John asked why there could not be a condition added to this
permit since it is for a planning development. If they don't accept the
condition, they can't go forward. Mr. Cilimberg said he thought there had to
be agreements on planned developments.
Mr. Bain said he would have no problem in Mr. Smith coming back in 30
days with a plan. Mr. Bowerman said it is important that the County integrate
its plans, which are very immediate, to whatever condition the applicant is
held to. Mr. Tucker said he is not sure of what other options the County has
in terms of fill dirt. He will need to talk to the Director of Engineering.
Mr. Smith said, as he understands the bids, it is in the County's best
interests that the dirt come off of this site.
Mr. Perkins asked if the applicant had looked at "whole tree chipping".
Mr, Smith said that is one of the options. Mr. Perkins asked if they would
give the wood away. Mr. Smith said they would be happy to give the wood away.
Mr. Bowerman said he understands Mr. Smith has said that today he can
agree to the "no burn" stipulation the Board wants. The County has a concern
in this also, the Board would like to have no burning in either case. Any
other thing would have to come back to the Board, but he guesses that it does
not sound likely that this Board will approve anything that involves burning.
At this time, Mr. Martin gave second to the motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
(The agreements of approval are set out in full below:)
Building E shall be limited to those uses permitted in the
CO, Commercial Office, and C-l, Commercial District;
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 4]~ Pg. 252
(Page 47)
2. The following uses shall be prohibited:
fo
ge
Hotels, motels and inns (24.2.1.2);
Motor vehicles sales, service and rental (24.2.1.5);
Mobile home and trailer sales and service (24.2.1.23));
Modular building sales (24.2.1.24);
Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles
(24.2.1.1.32);
Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
(24.3.1.22);
Heating oil sales and distribution (24.2.1.39);
Ail exterior lighting shall be face mounted to the exterior
of the buildings;
4e
Roof mounted mechanical structures shall be adequately
screened from adjacent residential development;
Landscaping shall be of species similar to that on the adja-
cent Daily Progress site;
6e
Plan shall be revised to indicate not more than thirteen (13)
dwelling units;
7. Administrative approval of final site plan;
Privacy fence shall be maintained in good condition by the
developer;
9e
Fencing, designed to prevent pedestrian access, shall be
installed adjacent to the residential development (and exist-
ing right-of-way shown in Deed Book 804, P. 527) in Berkeley
prior to the commencement of grading activities for develop-
ment of the site;
10.
An eight (8) foot high privacy fence shall be installed
adjacent to the residential development (and existing right-
of-way shown in Deed Book 804, p. 527) in Berkeley and shall
overlap for ten (10) feet the existing privacy fence on Tax
Map 61M, Block 9, Parcel 9;
11. No burning on site.
Agenda Item No. 18. Economic Development, Discussion of Draft letter on.
Mr. Marshall said he would prefer not to send the letter. He thinks it
defeats what he was personally trying to do. He wants to convey to the people
in Richmond that the people in Albemarle County are open to business coming to
Albemarle. What has been done, he thinks, is to water it down and dress it up
so it looks like we have a lot of restrictions that will make it difficult for
anybody to come to Albemarle.
Mr. Bowerman asked if any other Board member felt the same way. Mr. Bain
said he does not feel it is important to send the letter, but he does not
object. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to send the letter. Mr. Martin said
he thinks this is the best this Board can agree to do. Mr. Bowerman said the
State people know it is not a "bed of roses" here, but he did want to convey
to them this information.
A few corrections were then noted and staff was directed to have the
following letter prepared for the Chairman's signature, and mailing:
"The Honorable L. Douglas Wilder
Governor of Virginia
State Capitol
Richmond, Virginia 23219
~ear Governor Wilder:
As the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, I
want to convey to you our continued support in maintaining an
active dialogue with the unknown Fortune 500 company which has
expressed interest in Albemarle County. I felt it important to
share this information with you, due to Mr. Framme's recent depar-
ture from your Cabinet.
I believe you are well aware of the interest in this company both
from our business community and the general public. While there
are planning issues yet unresolved, I can say these are not
considered unsolvable impediments. Employment, traffic impacts
and environmental concerns are examples that require further
analysis and can only be resolved with further information.
want to emphasize our desire to have the opportunity to consider
these issues. We are happy to work with them, or any other such
business, on finding mutually agreeable solutions to these and any
other issues or concerns~ whenever possible.
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 48)
M.B. 41, Pg. 253
We believe our process of rezoning and development is a positive
yet flexible process that ultimately provides us all with results
that are compatible with our County's long range goals and objec-
tives. The next step in this process would be a rezoning applica-
tion from the applicant. This Board, our staff, and this communi-
ty would welcome the opportunity to review the details surrounding
possible location in our community by this company.
In closing, we request your support in these efforts in conveying
our comments to the appropriate individuals,"
Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments. Mo%ion was offered by Mr. Bain,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to reappoint Mrs. Grace Carpenter, Mr. Harold
Dixon, and Mr. Joseph T. Henley, III, to the Piedmont Virginia Community
College Board of Directors with terms to expire on June 30, 1996. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Approval of Minutes: May 20 (afternoon) and May 20
(night), 1992. No minutes had been read.
Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Perkins said he had talked to the Chairman and he suggested that the
Board authorize him to draft a letter to Westvaco encouraging them to keep
their facility at Ivy open and not to move it out of the County.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Perkins if he had a conflict since he works for
Westvaco. Mr. Perkins said the office in which he works will not be affected
one way or the other. Mr. Bowerman said the point made to him is that a lot
of people in Albemarle County take advantage of this wood yard being here. If
the wood yard is relocated, it becomes a question of whether or not they can
afford to transport the logs to the new site. He asked where that site is.
Mr. Perkins said there is one to the east of Charlottesville, or the logs
can be trucked directly to the mill in Covington. A person is limited on the
size of the truck, or the tracks, that can be used. On a small piece of
property, such as the one in the Dominion Land application, it becomes hard to
find someone interested in cutting that land if they have to truck it all the
way to Covington. Essentially, a lot of that wood goes to the landfill. He
thinks it would be in the best interest of this County to encourage the
company to continue their operation in Ivy.
Mr. Bowerman suggested drafting a letter and bringing it back for review
at the next Board meeting.
Mr. Bain asked that staff draft a resolution for the Board to look at
next week in honor of the 200th Birthday of Samuel Miller.
At 11:17 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris,
to adjourn into executive session for a discussion of personnel matters
relating to appointment to the School Board. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Martin.
None.
At 11:30 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was then
offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the following resolu-
tion:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma-
tive 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
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 meeting to which this certification
June 10, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B. 41, Pg. 154
(Page 49)
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
ABSTAIN DURING VOTE: None.
Agenda Item No.~'22. With no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was immediately adjourned.