1991-11-20November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
138
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on November 20, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs.
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive; Mr.
George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development.
~-,~:Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:02 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda'Item NO, 2. Pledgeof Allegiance..
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC.~. ~.The~e were~nomatters from. the public.
'~ ~ :-'Agenda'~ Item' No. 5. ~ Proclamation:. Mr; Bowie. asked: {hat..as the 'Pledge>of
Allegiance: and Moment of .Silence. occur that we keep in mind this 50th
Anniversary of the Attack:~on Pearl.~Harbor, as set out below:
..... -- 50TH '~ARY OF M ATTACK ON pF_.a. RL HARBOR
W~, on:December 7, 1941, without military provocation
Japanese armedlf0rces attackad~American~installations at Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii; and .' ~ ~
......... W]~R~A.q, the attack killed 2,403 American military personnel and
~ounded~ 1,1-78'~others; and
............. ..W]~ ~AS, the attack on Pearl Harbor carried our Nation into World
War II, where another 289,728 lives were lost, .including. the lives of
1~342 ~firgin.ians; and-:~~
?',~:;?.::?: ~:'~;',:~, ~ericans Cought,'~and ~-to :help deist the forces of
tyranny and to secure the blessings of freedom for millions of people
throughout'~h'e~.~I~.~a'
W~, the immeasurable and unselfish s.acri£ice 'of~':t~hosec-who
died~-at.;:'Pea~l:~Harbor, and. elseWhere during WorldWar II dese.rves'~onr-
higheSt'honor and praise;
NON~.~!iT~[R~KFORE~ I,:Frederick R...Bowie, Chairman~of the?Albemarle
CountyBoard,i~of'Supervisors, do hereby reeognize DecemberT,~-.1991, as
the 50TH ANN/VERSARY OF THE ATTACK .ON PEARL HARBOR and call its
si.gnifi~e& to,the attention of our~citizens~ -` ,'~,' ..... ,~ .... '
'Agenda:Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motionwas offered, byMr:.Way and
seconded b~"~M~';i.Bain'~to~approve~tem.~6.~-i and' to~accept..~the~remaining~items on
the consent agenda~for~'information..~,Roll~Was-cailed~and~-the.motion cart&ed by
th foil lng re¢6rd~dig~ei~'l ' '
AYES: Mr.
NAYS: :::' ~-None ~
ABSE~:
ttem~.6.1., ~ Stateme_nts ::of-': Expenses for- the': Dire,ctor~ ~,of Finance,: Sheriff,
Commonwealth! s A~ttorney and the:Regional Jail, for' the Month.of October.,- 1991
were received?and approved'as-presented by,.the' vote shown above.
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)~
(Page 2)
139
Item 6.2. Abstract of Votes for the General and Special Elections held
in the County on November 5, 1991, was received for information.
Item 6.3. Copy of the Minutes of the Planning Commission for October 15
and October 29, 1991, was received for information.
Item 6.4. Letter dated November 7, 1991, from H. Bryan Mitchell, Deputy
Director, Department of Historic Resources, stating the interest of Geoffrey
B. Henry in having Malvernplaced on the Virginia Landmarks Register, was
received for information.
Item 6.5. Letter dated November 8, 1991, from H. Bryan Mitchell, Deputy
Director~ DePartment~of Historic Resources, stating, the~Department!s, inte~est
in placing~Bellair once-the Virginia Landmarks Register~was~received for
information.
Item 6.6. Copy of--Monthly BOnd_Report.:~f~r Arbor Crest Apartments for
October, 1991, was received for information.
Agenda~Item ~No~ 7; ZMA-89-09. ;~Rio Hilt:~West~ ~ Public..Hearing on ~a
request' to:-'.rezone.,-9!~:t.98~.ac from-- R-6 to -R-15, , Property',,on. S side of Berkmar Dr
at-' its- intersection~ wi~h Woodbrook Dr. TM45, P29B(part), 91,92(part), 93Al&109C.
Charlottesville,Dist.. This p~perty~ies .within the designated growth area
knoWn as Neighborhood I and is recommended for high density residential in the
Comprehensive Plan~: .-, (Adverti'Sed~ in, the Daily_ P~gress On 'November~.5
.,- Motion~was made by Mrs. H~phris and seconded by Mr. Bain, at the request
of staff, to refer the petitio~ back ~.0 t~9..plan~in~ 6omission. [oll uss
called and the motio~ carried by the follouin~ recorded vote:
AYES~_ Mr. Bain, Mr, ,.Bowie, Hrs. H~hris,, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
~SE~: Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda~ It~ No.': 8'~ SP~91-58. Clifton; _ Request; to:amend.
permit, a-t4-room~ bed & breakfast ,& a 24-seat restauraht~ (Deferred,from:-: -
Nov~ber ~3, 71991;) , - - -,., : ~, :. ~
Mr.~ Cilimberg. gave the staff 'report at fotlews: . .
"PETITION: Clifton, ~e Co,try Inn petitions,the Bo~d of
"'_sors to ~end SP~87-49 in order to permit a:-14 room, bed; and breakfast
.. :'.and~,a 2'4 seat restau=ant (10~2-.2~27)'0n~ l'0,;1.acres zoned ~, Rural
Areas'. Proper~y, ~escribed as 'Tax Map 79~ Parcels :23B and ,23C, is
'.- located ~on the east-' side:?of Route_729 approximately ~0.4;:miles south of
-RoUte::,250 in the Rivanna Magisterial ~istrict. This site is not
-,,. ,located within-a designated growth area (Rural Area IV).
C~CTER OF T~ ~: The property is currently, developed with-~
', severalistructures. ~The main dw, el~ing kn~,~:.as Clifton- is: an early-
' '~:~ tgth Century ,'p, tant~tio~ -house~ ~.~e~'building-~is~.~a, state -~registered
~-.'.:~,~ ~h~storic lan~ark.
APPLIC~-'S'-PROPOS~,:, The applicant ,,is--pr.oposing to amend SP-87-49
which pemitted a seven room bed and breakfast-with a 50 seat res-
tanran~>, , ~e ~ applicant' s" current proposalf is fo=.-a t~: ,room
breakfast w~h~ a .24- seat-restaurant,'~- ,The =estaurant:~wOuld-.be, limited
to~a single ~-sea~in~:-',per-,day and ,two raoms ~are anticipated to be:. used
by; the staff of the,tnn.¢ ,. Th~ rooms :would be,:dis~ributed:.in various
existing buildings on-the.property as fotlo~s~:~'-six zooms in' ~he mai~
house, two rooms in the?cottage, thr~e room in the:car=iage-house and
three: rooms~ in ,,the stables. The tocation-,of the, structures and
improvments to the property are shown in Attac~ent C (copy on file).
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
140
The notations regarding the number of rooms in each structure are no
longer valid.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: August 5, 1987 - The Board of Super-
visors approved SP-87-49 to allow for a 7 room Inn with a 50 seat
restaurant.
April 3, 1990 - The Planning Commission recommended approval of
SP-89-83, a request~for a 12 room Inn with a 50 seat restaurant. This
request was withdrawn prior to review by the Board of Supervisors.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site is located in Rural Area IV of the
Comprehensive, Plan.~ Clifton was part of Peter Jefferson's original
~Shadwell Estate which was in turn deeded to Thomas Jefferson. The
site is on the Virginia Landmarks Register. The conversion of histor-
ic buildings to commercial uses compatible in character ~shoutd be
considered a method of historic preservation. Due to the site's
existing commercial use as an Inn, an extensive wooded area surround-
ingthe lot,~and~he lot's close proximity'to a growth area (0'~4~miles
west of the Village of Rivanna and 1~0 mile east~of the Urban Area),
it'is the opinion of staff that this proposal would not have a detri-
mental impact on the Rural Areas of the County.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff has calculated that. this use witl:.generate ~
approximately 7'12 vehicle trips per week. This figure isbased ~on the
4th Edition of the I.T.E. manual, using figures available for Business
Hotel.. While the proposed-use is not a 'business hotel, the~I.T~E.
-manual definitionfor business'hotel most ctoselyfits the applicant's
use. An analysis of traffic generation under the currently~permitted
use (seven rooms and a 50 seat restaurant) indicates'that~86I vehicle
trips per week~-coutd-be generated. Therefore, the proposed request
represents a traffic reduction of 17 percent.
The applicant's request represents a reduction in the total volume,of~
activity permitted'on site due to the reduction of.-the seating capac-
ity_of~the restaurant and the provision that therestaurant wilts-be
operated'on'la one seating pernight schedule. Guests of the Inn are
the most likely users,of the restaurant.
During the approval of SP-87-49, a condition of' approval, was~'site plan
approval. No site plan was ever submitted or approved. The applicant
is currentlyrelocating the entrance to thesite as recommended by, the
Department of Transportation and the applicant has contacted the
Health Department to determine~what~improvements areneeded...~.-.Those
improvements are scheduled tobe undertaken in the near future.~Alt
structures are~existingandno-new structures are proposed~- ~,&.,~l]
During fietdinspections staff has identified deficiencies on the site
which must be corrected. Discussions withtheZoningAdministrator
indicate thataminimum'of 20 parking spaces are required~Currentiy
graveled parking areasexist for approximately~,~'12 cars. It'is~the
opinion of staff that other,areas exist which could be used for ·
parking andwoutd~invo'lve~little or-no grading. The access road for
the site from Route 729 is approximately 450 feet,long. This access
way is approximately 10 to 12 feet wide end_does-not affo=d~the
opportunity for two. vehicles to pass. This access way should be
widened to a minimum~of '20 feet in accord with Sections?4~12.6.2 and
32.7.2.5. Staff.recommends that the existing one-way access aisles in
front of the existingparking area and-house be permitted to remain.
This recon~nendation is due to the existing character of the site which
would.be changed~iftheseaccess aisles were widenedv
In addition to the provision ofadditional parking and increasing~the
widthof the access-road to 'the site, all parking-areas ~and access
ways shall be improved as required by the provisions.of Section ~
~:.12.6.3. ~
In order to insure compliance with~the provisions of the zoning
ordinance, staff will recommend that a plan be' submitted to the~~'
Planning Departmentfor administrative approval.
141
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
SUMMARY: The applicant's request represents a reduction in the total
amount of activity permitted to occur on site. It is the opinion of
staff that this request will not affect adjacent properties or change
the character of the district. The use may be considered consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan as stated previously in this report.
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following
conditions of approval.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Approval is limited to 14 rooms for overnight travellers and a 24
seat restaurant. Except for lodging guests and occasional
luncheons~..w, edding~,~eceBtions, cocktail parties and the like,
restaurant usage is limited to not more than 24 diners per
evening, and such 24 diners shall be seated during those hours
~.s~t forth in condition~#3;? - ~_.. :. : -~.
2, Building and'Fire Official approval;:
3.' Hours of;'operation for the restaurant shall be from 6 p.m. to. 11
p;m.; .- . .
4. Health Department approval;
5. Completion of entrance improvements to obtain necessary sight
distance; ....
6. ~Staff.approvat or,plan i~ndicating a minimum-of..20 parking spaces,
a'minimum of? 20;'foot acces-s~ road.~and improvements to 'the acc:ess
ways and parking areas .in accord with Section 4.~12.6.3. (NO~E:
At~the'-Planning: Commission meeting, staff recommended a 14 foot
travelway. )"
Mr; Citimberg stated that:.thePlanningCommissiOn, at itsmeating.~on
November 7, :1991, unanimously recommended approval subject to the, conditions
received'.bystaff, adding the words "... except for occasional activities
outlined in Condition No, 1;!' toCondition No. 3 and also changing No. 6 to
read !'Planning Commission approval~0f site plan." Mr. Cilimberg said the
applicant, since the Planning Commission meeting, has improved the entrance
into CliftOn~from,Route 729 as a 14 foot gravel drive which had been recom-
mended at the Planning Commissionmeeting. Also the staff has verified that
ample parking area~exists for_th~number of vehietes~thatwould park'at ~the
establishment andbecause_350 .ve-hicle trip:s per.week witlnot.beexceeded,
surface treatmentiwill~not be necessary and this-will simply remain as~a~-
graveled parking area; Mr~ Cilimberg also-stated, wi.th all-of the above, a
site plan will not be necessary since cOnditions regarding the site plan. were
met a week following the Planning Commission,s action initially on this item.
Mr, Bain asked~,what :.is meant' by a..single.-seating, since,.,the' restaurant
will be open from 6 p.'m; to 11 p.m.,-Mr. Cilimberg responded that the appli-
cant has indicated that in a dining session any seat' will only be occupied
once by'those dining, either staying over or coming in from the outside; Mr.
Bain asked if that condition was in the previous application. Mr. Cilimberg
stated the prior application was for:,50 seats and was not for a single~ seat-
lng; Mr. ,Bain stated he, personally, thinks it is unenforceabte~
There:. being.'no, further-' questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Bowie _opened,~,the
public', hearing.
The applicant, Mr. Steven Boehmfeldt, Direct'or of_ Operations, for Country
Inns Extraordinair and~General Manager and Innkeeper of Clifton, The'Country
Inn, came forwards, stating he-felt they had fully complied to all of the
requests made by staff. Health Department approvals have been secured and are
all intact as well as any other necessary ~permits or licenses for~Clifton~to
be~ abte~ to >operate ~legitimately. Mr.. Boehmfetdt stated that the entrance im-
provements had been completed according to~the.Virginia ~Department of Trans-
portation standards~ and~.there has been~ a commercial entrance way constructed.
on- the ~property ~ ~-. ..:: ....
.... L ......... ~ -~ '~ . , '. ' .... . ~, ~ ,-q ~ -
142
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Bain asked how the single seating would be enforced since the opera-
tion of the restaurant will be from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. Mr. Boehmfeldt replied
that it would be appropriate to give a little background of Clifton. Clifton
is on the National Register of Historic Places as well as being listed on the
Virginia Landmarks Register. It is an old plantation home and basically is
operated as a transient country inn. There are several common areas, the
dining room and a couple of small adjacent areas, which would allow 24 people
to be seated comfortably. The Inn is operated as a modified American plan so
with 12 rooms being occupied there would be 24 guests for dinner. The dinner
is in a pre-fixe dinner format which allows one sitting with a pre-fixed or
pre-set menu. There is some flexibility of time that a guest would be on the
property for the one sitting. Of course, the exception to that would be
~on~tion2~, Whi~h~,~s~f~r.-individn.ai~:lunCheons, teas, receptions, etc., which
area_not the focus or mainstay of the business.
Mr. BoWie stated.:he'.liveS:-about:500 yards, from Ctifton3Inn~:and.:does~nog-
have any~objection~ but does~not~understand~"the~one~se~ting,~wh~hwould~.imp~y
that the~reStauran~woutd~not~be.~open to the:publi~,'~Mr.~Boehmfeldt stated~
that~,the~plan~is='to~',open to the~publ~c,-because the, Inn does'not always have~2~
~t00~Percent:~occupancy~ soqas to,~deveiop additional revenue fromtthe~foOd and
beverage as an additional option.~ ~ ~-~.
~ ~',Ms~.Pam Vanderets~came forWard stating~in reply to~Mr~ Bain~'s question~
she:had been'out to Prospect Hill,and~that was how. it worked~at~Prospect
Which does not seat-~more:than once in an evening.. :With ho. one else coming
forward, Mr.,Bowie closedthe public hearing.
.o'~-There being nO~.further~,~discussion~a motion~was offered ,by-Mr. Bai~ and~
seconded~by Mr.'~Wayto~ approveuSP-91-58 subject to the first five conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, deleting No. 6 as recommended by Mr.
Cilimberg.~uRoli was,~cailedand~the,motion~arriedby~the following recorded-
vote:: .... ~ ~ ~. ~ ' _~ : h ~v ' ~ ~-'~ -,~- ~
~YES: Mr. Bain,-Mr~,-Bowie~ Mrs.;.Humphris~.~.Mr. Perkins and~:Mr~-:.Way~u::: ;;~.~:
ABSENT~: Mr.:Bowerman:'.~ --,-.:'
,(The:conditions:of~approval..are-~set out~in..full below:):;~i'-~
~. 1-~ ~;.Approval~islimited to~14rooms:for, overnight travetlers,'and~4
- ~,seat restaurant.:, Except for lodging guests and occasional lun-
cheons, wedding receptions, cocktail parties, and the like, restau-
~._:::rant usage;is iimi~ed: tonot, mo=e..than24diners, per evening,~'.and:,~-
· ~;~-':. such 24.diners:shall be seated during thosehoursset.,f0rtkin
' -' · . condition #3;.-~ . ' .... -
:.:.,:. 2, Building and Fire Official approval;
~ 3~:,,.Hoursof.,operation~for the;,'restaurantshalt.t~be~from6-p~m, to tl
~.~, ;_..--p.m., except for-occasional, activities outlined in'condition,-#1;~..
4. Health Department approval;
5. Completion of entrance improvements toabtain necessary sight
Agendat;Item'N0-.
.(owner). Public/'Hearing on, a,request.for a:Sheet?me~al'shop'on property zoned
HC on N side:of-Berkmar Dr approx 500 Ft W of Rt 29. TM61U,PS,Sec 1.
Charlottesville Dist. This property lies within a designated growth area~
(Advertised in the Daily. Progress'on November 5 and November 12, 1991.)
Mr, Citimberg ga~e~the~staff~report.as~follows:~ _~ .-.~ ~ . . .._
~p · o
ETITION: .-W~.ll~am Wibert petitions the Board of Supervisors to
tocate~'a sheet, metal shop'.(24.2.2.8) on 0.5 acres zoned, HC, Highway
commer, cial and EC, Entrance~vCorridorOverlay ~District. PropertY,
described~as.TaxMap 6tU; Section'l, Parcel 5,~is'~loca~edon th~.-north
side of'Berkmar Drive approximately 500'feet west of Route 29.in the
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
143
Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in Urban
Neighborhood I.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This site and adjacent sites are developed
commercially. The property immediately to the west is vacant, howev-
er, the Planning Commission has approved a preliminary site plan for
development of the adjacent lot (Lot 6).
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to form sheet metal into
flashings, gutters, downspouts and the like for use in roofing. The
applicant then transports the finished product to his job site.
Material is not prepared for use by others. Roofing materials are
stored on site in~ limited'~ qUantities. Large quantities of material
are sent directly to the job site.
PLANNING AND ZONING HI-STORY: June 25~ 1991 The Planning Commission
approved a preliminary site plan on the adjacent lot (Lot 6) which
required that the parcel under review modify the parking and access
ways'.
STAFF COMMENT:.Staff has visited the site and met-with~the applicant
and is of the opinion.that this use is a contractor's office and
equipment storage yard. The applicant stores a limited amount of
materials'on kite.~ There are currently three employees~whichspend a
limited amount of time onsite preparing materials for use on jobs~
The majority· of the employee'·s time is spent·at the job site. All
adjacent uses. are commercial. .The use is not a~hightraffic generator
ms there is o·nly, limited·:traffic to _the site due to the fact ~that
customers do notvisit the site and all other traffic is employee and
delivery related.
~TheVirginia Department of Transportation.has statedthat the existing
entrance is inadequate. During the-approval of the. site plan for Lot
6, the Planning Commission required revisions to access and circula-
tion on this parcel which is the subject of this review~ Staff
opinionisthat entrance improvements~ should~be deferred untit~the~
development of Lot 6~ :This opinion is based on thefact that-this~use
will be a low traffic generator and other uses which are high' genera-
tors could be established 'by-right'.
Staffhas made this application available to the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) which~has not-commented on this proposal. -The' structure
currently exists and~no, change in the appearance of the'structure~is
proposed. No outside storage is proposed and staff recommends a
condition prohibiting outdoor storage. With such a condition, it is
staff's opinion thatthis development is not required to obtain ARB
approval.
Staff opinion is that this use will not conflict with adjacent uses
and that the useis consistent with Section 31.2.4.1. This opinion is
based on the ~character of the·.area, commercial,-'and the limited
activity that occurs on site. Therefore, staff recommends~approval~of
SP-91~.46 subject :to the-following conditions:
RECOMMENDEDCONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1~. Nowelding-shalt occur on'site.
2.~ Ail materials shall he,.stored indoors'."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 15,
1991, by a vote of five to one, recommended approval subject to the two
conditions in the staff·'s report, but based that approval onthe Zoning-~
Administrator's~opinion outlined~in a memorandum to Bill Fritz,'Senior~
Planner, from Amelia. M~atterson~,Zoning Administrator,.dated 0ctoberl5,
1991, as set out below: ~ ~ - ' ~ ·
"It is my opinion that the use as proposed by this applicant, is a
contractor s~office. This iS'based on the following:
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
144
Ail sheet metal work is pre-formed for roofing installed by this
applicant;
No roofing is prepared for sale either directly to the consumer
as on a retail basis, or tO other contractors as on a wholesale
basis;
The sheet metal work is customary and incidental to the contract-
ing business of installation of metal roofing;
4. Such work to 'make up' the materials used in construction is
customary and incidental to other contractors, such as plumbing
- or electrical businesses.
It is my understanding that the sheet metal work is performed with two
small,~ relatively quiet machines and,hand toolS. .These machines' cut
and fold, but do not hammer. Should the Planning Commission and Board
be so inClined, they may choose to require a certified engineer's
report for-hompliance with performance standards (Section4.14),~
Mr. Cilimberg stated according to the Zoning Administrator's opinion the
intensity and scale of use was considered to be rather supportive of the
contracting businsssas a roofing contractor and. not the primary activity .on
site. He ~also stated that upon visiting the site, he found a couple of pieces
of machinery, one is a hand-operated brake for bending the metal and the other
is a cutting machine, which is a very small scale machinefor cutting metal.
The machinewasoperating while staff wasthere andthere was little'noise
generated.~ Allof the machinery was inside and the area devoted to the
activity is fairly small. They have indicated that the major part of the work
· is actually done on the site of the roofing installation. Mr. Citimberg said
staff opinion is that the use,will,not conflict with the adjacent uses and
will ,not affect-t'he character of thedistrict or the purpose ofthe-ordin,ance.
Mr. Cilimberg said hewouid like to,note that there is some soldering
associated with the limited fabrication activity, but welding is notan
activity that occurs with this particular use~ One.additional condition that
the. Board may want to include wouldbe to limit operationto the specific
address on Berkmar Drive.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. St. John for his opinion on a definition of te~ms,'."and
whetherthis request fits thedefinition of :a contractor's storage, yard~ Mr.
St, John stated that he concurred with the Zoning' Administrator totally. He
further' Stated thatif this special permit, is-approved, it'should be approved
in, terms of a contractor's office and equipment storage yard and not the way
it is stated on the agenda as a sheet metal shop,, A sheet metal shop is. what
w~s applied for but there is no such use in this particular zoning dist-ri-ct.
The special'use permit,would have to'be for a contractor's storage yard~and:
the Zoning Administrator has determined that as far as she is concerned, some
activity-like this is part of the normal activities, that go on .in a _
contractor's storage yard. Mr~Bain asked,.if there was a problem with the way
·the petition was advertised~ Mr. St. John stated that .it is insignificant-and
witlnot create.:a legal barrier.
Mrs. Humphris saidthis gave her concerns. The petition was for a sheet
a contractor s-office::
metalshop, but-in staff's opinion the use is actually: '
and equipment storage yard, The applicant states that he will-fabricate
metal, that he uses a brake and ,solder on' the site and she does not see how it
could.,be~a contractor's office and equipmentstorage yard. Mr. St.:,John-'said
according to what the applicant stated, and' what staff observed, the workon
sheet metal is only a small percentage of. whattakes place on thesite.
Should the. Board. members visit the site, they would'see materials stored!for
use on-job sites, roofing materials, etc. The applicant isa roofing
contractor. There is.an office where customers and suppliers contact them'.'.~
Mrs. Humphris ~ask-ed ifthis ~ork is~already going on. Mr. Cilimberg ~said
"yes"~; they bad-been cited for a violation. Mrs. Humphris saidthat
information should have'been a part of the report'the Board received..~
Mr. Bain said he knows people do not always know what is needed to get a
license to begin their operations, but he agrees withMrs. Humphris.~that~the.'
Board should~havethe information to go overbeforethe~'hearing..~ Mr. Bowie
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
145
stated that he agreed with Mr. Bain. In starting a new business it is very
difficult to find all the little things that a business has to comply with,
however, the Board should be informed as to how the application was brought
before the Board.
Mr. Bowie then opened the public hearing. Mr. Bill Wibert came forward
stating that he would answer any question he could. Mr. Bowie asked if Mr.
Wibert's business made continuous guttering. Mr. Wibert replied that they
made specialty gutters, ones that are odd sizes or have a drip edge. Mr.
Bowie asked if most of this is done on site. Mr. Wibert replied that the
gutter was made in the shop in eight foot lengths and taken to the site and
put together and installed. With no one else coming forward, Mr. Bowie closed
the public hearing. ......
Mr. Bain asked staff to look at the definition of welding, fabrication
and soldering, in the Zoning Ordinmnce, since he. feels these may need to ~be
clarified.- Mr.. Cilimberg respOnded that-as~ far as the soldering activity is
concerned, Mrs. Patterson, Zoning Administrator, does: not think the level ~'of
activity associated with what the applicant is doing would be considered a
welding activity. Mr. St. John stated that the same equipment is not used for
soldering that is' used for welding. Mr. Cil.imberg stated,, that other consider-
ations played an important part in Mrs. Patterson's opinion, such as the.land
use activity, the intensity of. the use, and the ~fact that the primary activity
is the contr-acting operation. Mr. Wibert is a contractor mnd his .business is
off-site. Mr. ~St. John stated that he did.not' believe that anything: is~being
"slipped in" on ~this-application that does not.fit under the normal person's
understanding of what goes on in a contractor's~office.
Mr. Tucker stated that the important thing is whether this request is
secondary or incidental to the primary use~ If~. the primary use is. a. contrac-
torts office, most-operations will-do some type-of fabrication, Mr.-St.-~John
said that welding is an ancillary use to almost any_ contractor's yard.'.'~
Mr. Bowie said .this property is located in~-Mr._Bowerman's district. Mr.
Bowerman could not be present tonight because of.an injury, but has no. obj~c.-
tions to any of the items on the agenda in the Charlottesville District.· Mr~~
Bowerman did not ask for a deferral and stated that he had no objections.
Mrs. Bowie said he had two concerns, one is that. the application is~ for~ a
sheet metal shop, and secondly the October 15 memo .from the Zoning-Administra-
tom -should be put- into the record 'as. the Board'.s understanding of. what i-s~
going to happen there. Mr.. St~. John stated that the minutes of this meeting.
will contain all of this information. It will benefit whoever has to enforce
this special permit to know exactly what was. approved and it will~ benefit~ the
applicant ~in case someone later,~objects and says '~there is soldering~ going-~on~
here, and you are doing roofing. - '
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain ~and seconded~by Mr. ~Perkins to approve
SP-91~46 ~as a contractor's office .and equipment storage yard (as' recommended.
by Mr.~ St. John), subject', to the-two conditions recommended by the. Planning~
Commission and a No.~ 3 to read: "This special use permit is .limited 'to the'-
specific address of 2116-D Berkmar Drive. ~'~ The 'basis.of this approval .is
outlined in a memorandum to Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, from Amelia M.
Patterson,' Zoning Administrator, dated October 15,--1991~ (which is set out'.in
full above). '
Mrs. Humphris :stated she was going to support the motion but she is not
comfortable with things that have a "fuzzy appearance" like this petition and
she. understands that there probably is a fine line that has to be drawn here;
She hopes that 'with Mr.-Bain.'.s motion '
including~ Mrs.-' Patterson s memorandum-of
October--15~ 1991, that.at'l of the bases have been covered to keep this
application t° exactly what it says-it is, a contractor's office and equipment
storage yard. With no further dis. cussion,- roll was called and the motion
· carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr~ Bain, Mr. Bowie, .Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins.and Mr. Way~
NAYS': None. ~ ' ·"
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. ·
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
146
1. No welding shall occur on-site;
2. Ail materials shall be stored indoors;
This special use permit is limited to the specific address of 2116-D
Berkmar Drive.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-91-06. Greenbrier Square Ltd Partnership.
Public Hearing on a request to rezone 3.1 ac from HC (Proffered) to HC & C-1
(both proffered). (Deferred from November 6, 1991.)
Mr~ Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
~'PETITION: Greenbrier SquareLimited Partnership petitions the Board
of Supervisors to rezone 3.1 acres from HC, Highway Commercial (Prof-
fered), to:HC, Highway Commercial (Proffered) and C-i, Commercial
(Proffered). Mr. Cilimberg stated that this proposal would actually
only rezone the'front 1~12 acres of-this parcel fr.om HC~(Proffered), : ·
to C-1 (Proffered). Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 1,
Block A, Parcel 5, is located on the north side of Greenbrier Drive
~ . approximately 500 feet west of Route 29 in the Charlottesville
Magisterial District. This site is located within Neighborhood 1 and
is.~recommended for Community Service~ This site is within-the.~ EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:' This property is the location of Greenbrier
Square. Adjiacent properties are developed.commercially.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to rezone 1.12 acres
of the front portion of the property from HC (Proffered) to C~i
_(Proffered). -This~area includes·that portion of the site most visible
from Greenbrier Drive._ The rear, portion of the :site is currentty¥
zoned· HC (Proffered). The applicant is requesti~ng that the~proffers~
for the HC-a=ea be amended to broadenthe~ permitted uses. A list of
the~new proffers is included as Attachment C (·copy on'file). No new
buildi~ngs are proposed. The purposeof this rezoning request is to
provide for a greater list of permitted uses. ~
-PLANNING AND:ZONING HISTORY: January 13, 1984 - The Planning Commis-
sion approved Pargo's Restaurant and Office Condominium site plan.
February 14, 1~85 The Planning Commission~recommended denial of
ZMA-84-32 stating that the scope and possibility of uses was too
broad~.
February 20, 1985 -The Board.:of Supervisors approvedZMA-84~32. This
action~rezoned the property from C-l~-to. HC:with proffers.
June 11, 19.85~- .The 'Planning Commission approved ~Greenbrier~Park site
plan.
July 30, 1985 '-~ The Planning Commission recommended approval of
ZMA-85-18 which amended .the previous rezoning to allow motels, and
approved the Super..8 Motel siteplan. '
August 7, 1985'- The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-85-18 (PROF-
FERtID). This,added hotels., motels, and inns as anallowed use for a
portion of the site.
March 21, 1990 The Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-90-01 (PROF-
FEI~D) which added-fast food. restaurantto, the lis~of alloweduses~
November 7, 1990 The Board of Supervisors app.rovedZMA-90-15 (PROF-
FERED)_ which permitted churches-~ ~ ''
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This site is recommended for community service
~se in Neighborhoodl, Staff has inctudedthe non-residential :use
guidelines as Attachment D (copy on file). In working with the s~aff,
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
147
the applicant has proffered out uses which are Regional Service uses,
such as auto dealer and mobile home sales, as well as other uses which
are high traffic generators. Therefore, the proposed rezonings may be
considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant, as justification to support this
request, has stated:
'Existing HC proffered zoning has proven to be exceedingly restrictive
for flexible commercial space and has created ongoing monitoring
problems for the staff and Zoning Department. Ail surrounding pro-
perties are zoned C-1. The purpose of this application is to rec-
~'-' ogniz~ the, nature.of existinguses on the property. The street
' ~-frontage building (for which rezoning is requested) consists of retail
uses better defined under the C-1 zone and the two rear buildings are
used for purposes, including light warehousing and, d~strihution~
businesses, which-are only allowed in' the HC zone. The' HC proffer, is
also being amendedto allow the. Zoning Administrator greater~flexir~.
bility in dealingwith applicati'ons by.mixed use commercial tenants
whose businesses often do not fit clearly under one use category.'
staff generally agrees with this statement. The original rezoning for
the property, ZMA-84-32, included a list of proffers which provided
for a limited, number of uses. ~Subsequently, staff~-has processedfour
rezoning applications. The original~rezoningproffered out uses which
were high'traffic generators. The-sub'sequent rezonings.~were all
reviewed with particular concern~on limiting increased traffic,.
The current request'would return 'the front portion of:the property to
C-1 which was-the zoning prior to ZMA-84-32~ However, the applicant
has.proffered outsome.:uses in the C-1 district, which are high:traffic
generators such as ~financial -institutions. The modification"of
permitted uses inthe HC portion of .the site isalsoproffered so-that
high traffic generators..are not permitted. To aid: the Planning
Commission-and Board'of Supervisors, staffhas included a list of the
uses permitted by right in the HC and C-1 district and the uses
currentlypermitted on the site as proffered by previous actions.:
Ir'is the opinion of staff that-the~proffered uses'are consistent~with
the~past efforts:to prohihit uses which~are high traffic generators.
In addition,'~he~use-:permitted would .be nonsistent with~thelCommunity
Service designation ~of~this area. Approval of this raquest~would
provide a more reasonable.use of. the land and would provide~for easier
a~ministrationof the 'site .by the County.'. Therefore, staff-recommends
approval of ZMA-91-06. subject to the following proffe=s."-
Mr.~-Citimberg stated that the proposal would rezone..the front l.~t2.~acres
from HC:to-C-1 with profferswhi'chwere included by ,the applicant .... -Much of
the rest 'of the, zoning in the area is C-1. The rear portion or. the site which
is currently zoned HC would remain HC, the proffers would allow for a broad-
ened list.of pe=mitteduses. There are no new buitdings~proposed,-~this would
just simply apply to the' buildings that are there on this site now. This area
is recommended in the'Comprehensive. Planf:or Community. Service. use which:is
the middleintensity type of.Commercial use. Si:ncc theoriginal:rez~oning of
this property several amendments'have been processedthroughthe Planning
Commission and~Boardof~Supervisors..that have. changed proffers, to allow for
additional usesnot ori'ginally anticipated.- Thebasic zoning there no~, as
originally.applied:for, proffered'out uses whichwere high traffic generators.
Trafficgeneration onto Greenbrier Drive and. Route 29North has been a.concern
in all subsequent rezonings. The uses proffered out on the C-1 front parcel
would be the high traffic generators, for example, financial institutions.
The modification:of the uses in theHC portion .of the :site 'to therear~'has--'
also proffered out.those uses that are high traffic generators'. Mr,.Cilimberg
stated'it is the opinion of' staff that the proffered uses.are consistentwith
past efforts toprohibit useswhichare high traffic generators. Staff feels
that approval of this current request would be consistent with prior.actions
and the intent with the original rezoning of the property. It also would
allow for-an easier administration'of the site because the overall uses
broadened and,: hopefully, the appliCantwould not.~need to come back numerous
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
148
times for amendments to allow specific uses which are covered here in one
action.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Conmuission, at its meeting on October t,
1991, unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning as requested by the
applicant with proffers as presented in Attachment C (copy on file).
With no questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jim Murray came forward on behalf of Greenbrier Square management
which operates the Greenbrier Square project. He stated that this is really a
rather peculiar rezoning, unlike any one that he had seen before. Technical-
ly, it is a rez0ning.. There are 40,000 square feet on this property located
in three buildings that have been in existence for seven years. There are
over a dozen spaces, a dozen different tenants and the change that is needed
is-to solve ~an administrative ~headache as-much for the' County as for
Greenbrier Square management. At the risk of being facetious, Mr. Murray said
this might be considered a joint application from Mrs. Amelia Patterson and
Greenbrier Square management. With a project like this, if-'in Northern~
Virginia,~- or Tidewater, or a~ more highly developed community, ~this type of
application would be ~found in they zoning ordinance under flex space. There is
a warehouse in part of this building, offices, light retail, dance studio,
scuba equipment, all' kinds of different people.. Essentially, there are four
bare walls on each site which is then fit to suit a particular tenant. In the
initial application in 1984 by a prior owner, the entire property was~zoned
C-t. The ~'application before the Board tonight would..take part of~ the property
back ~to- that zoning.- Those owners wanted to put some light-warehousing with
warehouse doors onthe back of this space. The staff said there was no~.l~ight
warehousing in C-l, so if light ~warehousing was wanted on this site, the
property would have to be rezoned to Highway Commercial.' The prior~ owner.-
reluctantly agreed-to 'rezone the whole parcel Highway Conmuercial. The problem
~began there because ~under Highway Commercial a~host of uses are zoned out.:
Mr. Murray stated that ~over the past seven years there have been four 'or
five amendments to the proffers, as well as:half .a d~zen..different ru~ing:~'s by
the Zoning Administrator. The property should never~have been~ rezoned from'
C-t to Highway ~Commercial but' the part that contains light~ warehousing on the
back of-~the property should ~be'~-left .~as Highway Commercial-'. It would- make' a
lot.more sense. At the same~ time, this will clear up and .clean up some of the
proffers. - ....
Mr. Murray said the proposal before the Board tonight has been carefully
thought 'Out, and :contains 'a list~of proffers that he' believes will solve :
'traffic'-problems. Next .on 'the agenda are requests for two uses which would
require special, use permits no matter what the zoning: was. .He ~thinks they. are
both good :-uses~ With-the combination of .change requested .tonight and these
two permits, Mr. Murray stated.he hoped the Board will ~have seen' the last of
Greenbrier for many years to come.
Mrs. Humphri's asked Mr. Murray i.f he would object to. a simple 'rewordin~'
of the introductory sentence to 'read: "If-Greenbrier Square Ltd..Partnership
property zoning is divided, the. following are the uses we request be permitted
f~r the portion zoned Highway Commercial -HC. Ail other uses would be
proffered, out of the zone~"" Mr. Murray stated that that' sounded right to,'him~
He did. not have the text in front of him, but that sounded fine. Mrs.
Humphris stated the same wording would apply for the second proffer except
would say: .."zoned Commercial - C-i." ~" . .
Mr.-Ed Brownfie~d, real' :estate agent for Greenbrier Square, -:came forward.
Mr.~ Brownfield said when this request was put together they tried 'to? ke~p~the:
~spirit- of what the staff ha~d wanted' in the ~beginning, tow traffic generating
businesses andhe hopes it is passed, tonight, because if. it is, the biggest
benef'it will be. to '
the County s staff. Over the past couple of years an
unbelievable amount of County staff time has been utilized.
With no one else-coming forward, the public hearing~ wa~s..c:losed:
Motion was immediately offered, by Mrs. 'Humphris and~ seconded' bY Mr.' Bain
to-approve' ZMArgl.-06 as proffered in .letter dated:. September '12, 1991 ::(Revision
of August 8th Memo), to Bill Fritz, County of Albemarle Planning Department,
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
149
from Greenbrier Square Limited Partnership, Edward H. Brownfield, Jr. and
Bruce R. Murray;
amending the introductory paragraph in the proffer letter, which was
verbally agreed to by the applicant, to read as follows: "If Greenbrier
Square Limited Partnership property zoning is divided, the following are the
uses we request be permitted in the portion zoned Highway Commercial - HC.
Ail other uses would be proffered 'out' of the zone;"
and as proffered in letter dated September 19, 1991, (Revision of August
8th Memo), to Bill Fritz, County of Albemarle Planning Department, from
Greenbrier Square Limited Parnership, Edward H. Brownfield, Jr. and Bruce R.
.Murray;: '
amending the introductory paragraph in the proffer letter, which was
verbally, agreed to.by,the, applicant, to read'.as-f.ollows:,'"If Greenbrier;
SquareLimited Partnership property zoning is divided, the following are the
uses we request be permitted in the portion zoned Commercial - C-1. Ail other
uses would .be proffered'-~out" of the zone.'?
- There'.being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
byihe'following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT.: Mr. Bowerman. :
.The~roffers are set out in full below:
"TO':. Bill Fritz · . _ ' '
- County of. Albemarle Planning Department .-
FROM:.: Greenbrier Square' Ltd,~ Partnership .. ~ '
· .. Edwar:d'H. Brownfield, Jr.
Bruce R. Murray
September 12, 1991 (Revision of August 8 Memo)
-DATE:.
RE-: Revision of Proffersfor Highway Commercial ~ HC Portion of
Property
If Greenbrier Square Ltd. Partnership-property zoning is divided~ the
fottowin~ are :the _uses we request be permitted in the portion zoned
Highway Cox~ercial - HC. All other uses would be proffered 'out' of
the zone.
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL HC
24.2.1 BYRIGHT
4. Building materials sales
6.
8.
9.
-10.
12.
13.
16.
17.
18.
21.
22.
26.
27.
28.
Churches, cemeteries
Ctubs~.lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2)
Educational, technical and trade schools
Factory outlet Sales -clothing and fabric
Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22)
Fire.extinguisher and security products, sales and service
~ire and rescue squad stations (reference5.1,9)
Furniture stores
Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as
bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops
Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning,
exterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance
services
Hardware
Sight.warehousing
Machinery and .equipment sales, service and rental (no
onvsite stozage oflarge vehicles~or.~equipment)~
New-automotive ,parts sales
Newspaper publishing
Administrative, ·business and professional offices
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
150
33.
34.
35.
24.2.2
A.
29. Office and business machines sales and service
30. A. Eating establishment
B. Fast Food restaurants
a) Use for food distribution off premises only;
b) Ancillary use of retail pick-up or carry-out only;
c) No consumption of food on premises;
d) No seating on premises
Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce
(reference 5.1.19)
Wholesale distribution
Electric, gas, oil and con~nunication facilities excluding
multi-legged tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, :pipe-s, meters and related facilities for
distribution of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances~owned and operated
by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as
otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage-systems 'in conformance'with.Chapter 10 of
the Code of Albemarle and all~ other applicable law.
36. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile
facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and
:roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or. federal
agencies (reference 31.2.5; public water and sewer
transmission, main. or trunk lines, treatment facilities,
pumpimg stations"and'the like, owned, and/or, operated bythe
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority' (reference 31.2.5;
5.1c~t2-).~.{,Amendedll~-89)
37. .Temporary construction'uses(references 5~1.18)
.BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT-
All uses allowed'by Special Use Permit if a permit .is later
obtained." . ~-:.
"TO
FROM:
DATE:
Bili Fritz
County of Albemarle Planning Department
~Greenbrier Square Ltd. partnership. ....
Edwa~d..H. Brownfield,'Jr. - -
Bruce~R. Murray
September 19, 1991 (Revision of August 8-Memo)
RE:~ Revision of'Proffers for Commercial C-1 Portion of
Property
If Greenbrier-Square Ltd. Partnership property zoning is divided, the
following are the uses we request be permitted in the portion zoned
Commercial- C-1. All other uses would be proffered 'out' of the
z one.
COMMERCIAL - C- 1
22.2.1 BY. RIGHT .- ' _
a. Retail sales and service establishments
1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops
~2~ Clothing, apparel and,shoe: shops
4. · .Drug store, pharmacy
5. -Florist
' ' 6.~ F. ood and grocery stores .including such special shops?as
bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine' and-cheese,
shops
7. Furniture and home appliances (sales and service)
8..- Hardware store
9.. Musical instruments
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
151
10. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops
11. Optical goods
12. Photographic goods
13. Visual and audio appliances
14. Sporting goods
Services and public establishments
1. Administrative, professional offices
2. Barber, beauty shops
3. Churches, cemeteries
4. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference
:~5.~1.9)
6. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9)
8. Health spas
10. Laundries, dry cleaners ~
11. Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty
· at all hours during operation)
12. Libraries, museums
13. Nurseries,.day care centers (reference 5.1.6)
14. Eating establishments
1§~. . Tailor, seamstress ~-
17. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities exclud-
-lng mutti-legged~towerstructures and including poles,
lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facili-
ties for distribution of local service and owned and
operated by.a public utility. Water distribution and
sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appur-
tenances owned and operated .by the Albemarle County
Service Authority.
18. Public uses and.buildings including temporary or mobile
facilities such as schools,~~ offices, parks, playgrounds
and roads funded, ownedor operated by local, state or
~federat-agencies.(referen'ce 31.2.5); public water and
sewer transmission, main-or trunk tines~ treatment
facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or
operated 'by-the~Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
(reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12)~ (Amended 11-1-89)
19. Temporary construction uses (reference 5~1.18) -
21. Medical Center
22.2.2 BY SPECI~AL USE PERMIT .... . ....
A. All uses. allowed by Special Use Permit if 'a permit .is
obtained.
B. Special Use Permit Previously Granted:
24.2.1.30 Fast Foot.Restaurant:
a~ Use' for food distribution off premises only;
b~..~-Ancillary ~use of retailpick-up.or'carry-lout only;
c~ ~NoT.consumption of. food on.premises;
d:.~ 'No'seating on premises
Agenda Item No. Il. SPr91~43. Greenbrier Square Ltd Partnership.
Public Hearing on a request to locate billiard center on 3.1010 ac zoned"HC.
Property on N side of. Gree~brisr Dr approx 500 ft'W of~Rt.29. ~TM61W,P5,Sec
1,Blk A. Charlottesville Dist. This property lies within a designated growth
area. (Advertised in-the Daily Progress on November 5 and November 12, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave thefollowing staff report:
"PETITION: Greenbrier Limited Partnership petitions the Board of
Supervisors to permit a ~billiard center (24.2~2~1)'..on 3.1 acres
currently zoned HC, Highway. Commercial (PROFFERED).' Property, de-
scribed as Tax Map 61U, Section 1, BlockA, Parcel 5, is located on
the north side of~Greenbrier Drive.~approximately 500 feet west of
Route 29 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
152
located within Neighborhood 1. This site is within the EC, Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. (Mr. Cilimberg said this petition is
actually to be on the 1.12 acres parcel just zoned C-1 (Proffered)
under ZMA-91-06 above.)
CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This property is the location of Greenbrier
Square. Adjacent properties are developed commercially. Adjacent
uses in Greenbrier Square include pizza delivery, a dance school, and
a laundromat. Uses in the rear building include warehousing, contrac-
tor's offices and wholesale distribution.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant has provided a detailed descrip-
tion of the proposed use~ The applicant is proposing a billiard
center that would have approximately 14 to 20 tables and not more than
six video machines. A snack bar would be provided, however, alcohol
wilt not be: available. ~ ' - ~
STAFF COMMENT: The ,billiard center is to be locmted as shown in
Attachment'D-(copy on file). This is the current location of Open
Door Church (The church use will be discontinued). Staff has reviewed
this-requeSt for compliance with Section 31.2.~4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance and~can offer the following comments:
a. -The Board of' Supervisorsreserves unto .itself the right to,issue
all special use permits permittedhereunder. Special use permits
for use as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a
finding, by'the Board~of' Supervisors that,~such'use will no~'rbeJ'of
sUbst~anti~detriment to~a-djacent~property~-
~Due to the distance .to adjacent residential~lots, ,800 feet, ~nd
due to the enclosure of the recreational activity within the
building, this use will have no impact on residential~property.
~'Atl adjacentproperty is developed commercially .... 'This"is~a
~comme~cial;use which, should not'be,of substantial detriment to
other adj.acent commercial use.
b'~ .: that the character of the. districtwill not be changed thereby~
This use will have hours similar to the theatre and convenience
store .located acrQss the. street'. The.proposedhours of:operation
are:
Monday-- ,Thursday ,,.10:O0a:.m. to12 midnight
Friday - Saturday t0:00 a.m..to 2:00 a.m.
- -Sunday 12 noon to-10:00 p.m.
The adjacent restaurant will possibly benefit from the proposed
billiard'center due.to walk-in customers. The existinglaundro-
mat is compatible withthis as- it is possible that people:will
use thebilliard center while using the laundromat services. The
dance 'school should not be affected by this use. as it operates on
a system t:ypically in¥olving groups:of people coming for,sched-
uled classes. Most uses in the rear building are light warehous-
ing, contractor's officesor wholesaling and would not be-affect-
ed by this use.
and that such use will be in harmony with-the purpose and intent
of thi-s-~,ordinance, with .the uses permitted by'right in the
district~ with,additional resuLations provided,in Section 5.0 of
this ordinance~ and with_the public health~ safetyand general
welfare.
Section-5~0~contains. no additional'regulat~ions' regarding this
-use. _'In an efforttoreduce any'potentiatnegative'factorsthat
a-use' of:this'type 'could.generate, the. applicant' hasstated that
alcohol ~wilt not be served. In.addition:, the applicant.' has"
described howthe business would:be operated-and'the self-
policing proposed to eliminate problems. Staff's main concern
with the proposed use is.the possibte~pedestrian access across
Greenbrier Drive by patrons of this site and the theatre and
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
153
convenience store on the opposite side of the street. Staff is
unable to calculate any projected volumes for pedestrian access
and is unable to identify any solutions, other than signage, to
protect pedestrians, A pedestrian crosswalk of Greenbrier Drive
would not be allowed by the Virginia Department of Transporta-
tion. Pedestrian crossing of Greenbrier Drive may be considered
inconsistent with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Past actions have addressed traffic generation by this site. No
figures are available for trip generation by billiard centers.
Staff has used figures which are available for video arcade and
has attempted to make comparisons. While the proposed center
.-.~- ' .-includes up~o~rsix¥.vid~eo machines, it is primarily a billiard
center with up to twenty tables. Traffic figures are available
for video arcade on a per 1000 square foot unit of measure. It
is the,~opinion of staff that this use will-, not~generate-t~raffic
at ~a level equal to video arcade-~as several ~vide0'~machinem could
occupy t~he same area ~ as one billiard table; Therefore~ ~' the
~proposed-~ billiard ~center ~will contain more square feet than a
~video arcade while 'providing fewer 'amusement 'devices.~'--Aecording
to the I.T.E. Trip Generation manual, a video arcade ~may-generate
9~6 vehicle trips per hour~/1000 ~square'~ feet~during p.m.~
hour. Other uses permitted by right in Greenbrier Square gen-
erate the'following during p'.m:~peak.hour: 0..4~6 vehicle-trips
per hour/1000 square feet (furninure~store)~ 10.27 vehicle-trips
per hour'/1000 square feet~ (food store)~ 5.229-vehicle trips p~r
hour/1000 square feet (hardware), 0.5~8 ~vehicle .trips-per.~hour/
tO00 mquare, feet (light.:~warehousing)and 0;521 vehicle trips ~per
hour/1000 square~ feet (wholesale distribution)~ · While a video
arcade would 'be among the highest generators, it is staff, opinion
that the proposed bllliard'center~ will generate, traffic at a
lower rate which would be in keeping:with ~,past effo=ts
hibit'high traffic generators from ,this site~
SUMMARY: Staff has identified'~ the following factors, which are favorr
able to this request: ....
1. The use will have no effect on residential areas';
2. The use is consistent with' the commercial activity in. the~area.
Staff~has identified' the following factor which is unfavorable~'to-this
request: '- :~. ' -' ~ ' -'- -
1. This use-:may increase pedestrian access,across Greenbrier,-:Drive'
'which-would :be a' safety concern. - '
Although-pedestrian access.'is a concern, staff.-believes that other
elements of the proposal Sufficiently' address other possible 'concerns.
Staff: would- .not recommen~d denial based solely on: the .unknown-leve~l of
pedestrian: access.~ . Opportunity to control this pedestrian movement is
limited. Staff recommends approval of SP-91-43 subject to the fol-
lowing conditions:
RECOMMENDED'CONDITIONS'OF APPROVAL:
Use shallbelimited to'3:80.~Greenbrier'Drive;
No alcoholicbeverages shall be permitted;
~ours of operation shall~belimited to:
-Monday ~:'Thursday .. 10:00'a.m. ~o 12 midnight
'Friday --Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to'2:00 a.m.~ - . . ':~
Sunday
Mr..~ Cilimberg .said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 15,
1991, unanimouslyrecox~ended approval of SP-91-43, subject to the three
conditions-,,in '
. . the,staff s 'rDport:~
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
154
With no questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing.
Ms. Bruce Murray, half of the management and partnership of Greenbrier
Square Ltd. Partnership, came forward and stated that as owners of Greenbrier
Square she could assure the Board that they do look very carefully at any of
the prospective tenants. She assured the Board that this is not a typical
smoke-filled room, bad language, beer bottle throwing, beer joint, but a true
family entertainment center. The Cato's are strong community and family
people, and they want to add an asset to the community that many have
recognized is really lacking in the Charlottesville/Albemarle County area.
Ms. Murray stated she would be happy to answer any questions.
"Mr. Jim Cato, operator of~the.~billiard parlor, came forward. He said
this is intended as a place for family entertainment. In fact, critical to
the success of the business, the whole concept of the business is that a
wholesome image be maintained to draw the clientele that-is needed for ~this.
business to be successful. Consistent with that will be the location, decor,
priceand the fact.that no alcoholic beverages-will:be~allowed. There-will be
no loitering, peoptewho are there will be.expected'to:be playing and'no~.one
under the-age of 18 willbe allowed without a parent-or guardian.. There is
ample~parking at the location.'~ Mr. Cato said hethought that~would address
pedestrian traffic to some degree.~ .If.there areany other questions, he will
try to answer them.
Mrs. Hnmphris saidshe'admired the rules and regulations that Mr.v'~Cato
will'.attempt to .implement and asked how the:~18 .years or older age limit can be
enforced. Mr. Cato replied they would have to ask to see identification if
necessary~.~With no~'o~e~-et'se-address~ng this app.licati~n,~the-public.hearing
was. closedv ............
Motion~was offered'byMr.;.Bai~.and secO~dedbyMrs. Humphris.. toapprove
-SP-91~43-on a 1.12acre portion"of the property zoned C-1 (proffered .under~.
ZMA-91r06 'above)with.the conditions recommended by thePlanning "Con~issi~on
There'being no ~further discussion, roll was'called andthemo~ion'~carried
bythefollowing :recorded vote: :
· AYES: Mr.~ Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins-and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT:~ Mr, Bowerman. :
· -~ (The conditions, are set out in full.below.)
: 1. Use shall be limited to 380 Greenbrier Drive;
2.:..No alcoh0ticbeverages shall be permitted;.
Hours of opera~ion shall .belimited to:~'
Monday - Thursday
Friday -~Saturday
Sunday
10:00. a.m. to 1Z midnight
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
12 noon to 10:00 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-91-52-. Greenbrier Square Ltd Partnership.
Public Hearing ona request for emergencyveterinary office on 3.1 ac zoned HC
(proffered). Property on.N side of Greenbrier Drapp=ox 50~ Ft W of Rt-29.
TM61W,~5,Sec 1,Blk A~ Charlottesville Dist~:This property lies within a
designated growth area. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 5 and
November 12, 1991.:) .-
Mr. Cilimberg gave.the following staff report:
"PETITION: Greenbrier Limited-Partnership petitions the Board of
Super. visors to.permit an emergency veterinary office on 3-.1 acres
currently-zoned KC, Highway-Commercial (PROFFERED). Property, de-
scribed as Tax Map 61U, Section 1, Block A, Parcel 5, is located on
the north side of Greenbrier Drive~pproximately 500 feet west of
Route 29 inthe Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
155
located within Neighborhood 1. This site is within the EC, Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. (Mr. Cilimberg said this is actually on
the 1.98 acres portion of the property left as HC under ZMA-91-06
above.)
CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This property is the location of Greenbrier
Square. Adjacent properties are developed com~ercially.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to locate a vet-
erinary office to provide for emergency care of injured or ill animals
only. The office would be open evenings and weekends when other vets
are unavailable. No routine appointments will be made. A description
~of-the acti~ity:.~S.,provided.~
STAFF COMMENT: This activity will occur during evenings and weekends
when,~other~uses,.on,site~will be at a~minimum¥ .All animals will ~be
removed fromthe site_at' the beginning of the following week's first
busineSS day~~ Traffic figures :for this type of use:are-unavailable.
Staff anticipates that traffic generation will be extremely low.
Staff,has reviewed this raquest.~,for"compliance with SectiOn.5~l~il
which states 'in~.par~:~ ~, '.,.' ~: ' "~ ,-~.
- , ..ii. tn area'stWhere suchuses may be-infproximi~y to,other uses
' ..'i.~'i~'inv0i~ng ......,intensive activity such ~as-.shopping: centers:
other ~ban. density<location,' spaniaZ~.'attent~on
,:to protect the~p.u-hlin~ health and?~elfare.':::To'~hese'ends,'-'the'~'.~'~
~'~ommissien mnd.::boar~:'may require among other things:
..... - Separag~: bUilding:: entrance and. 'exit -~o avoid:? animaL' Co~':-i':~-~. --
AreaCfor Outs:ida:'-exercise .to be: exclusive' from access by the
· - public-by fencing or other means."
No-Outside exercise:area-is proposedas"alt~'animals would-be:ill or
injured and~would~he removed from thesite the following business day.
Staff opinion is that separate entrances are not needed as conflicts
are not likely due'to the 'low voium~ of use..an'dLthat ~only."~ill.:animals
wouldbe brought to--~h~-:.si~e.- .:.:'.~ ......... .
Other items, of Section ..5.1.-11-will be~met"b~.the appl'icant.;',~This use
will.not affent~:anyresidentiat" areas,: a:s' th~nearest ~dwelling is
approximately 800 feet distant. Ail requirements relating to the
operation_~of the.c.linic~-~such,as x--rays, and dispOsal:of dec-eased -
animals are.addressed by the approval process of the :Board of Vet-
erinary Medicine.: 9uring-the .raviewof SP~90-108 (a veterinary clinic
in Pantops" Shopping,,Center)~' s'taff,,'pr~pa~ed-,info=mation'to':address
specific concerns-~stated by~the Board;~ That information is included
as Attachment D (copy on file).
It, isYthe Opinion .of :staff that-this use:is a ,'low.traffic generator
WhiCh is consistent with~past County~efforts tolimit~traffic'on~this
site.'_'-The use.,wilt-provid~-,a servi~e !to,'the~general'public ,and!~ill
~not .interfere with'adjacent commercial ruses. '_Based.on the above
comments, staff recommends,approval'of SP-91r52 subject to the follow-
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:.
1; ~.There~shall-be-no..outside exercise area;
2'. ~?No animals":'are to::be'oonfined outside';
3. Useis limited to-.-37:0:Greenbrier Drive;
4-:.:.-::.:Hours: of:operation:'shall-he limited: to:
:Monday .... Thursday: 5':3~0 P,.M~:-'- 9,:00 .A.M;-: ..... " .L
',.~5.:30 P.M;'Fri:day until 9:00. A';M..Mon:&ay:;: ....... ~'~-":~
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
There shall be no scheduled appointments.
animals only on an emergency basis."
156
Clinic shall accept
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 15,
1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-52 with the five conditions
recommended by staff, adding Condition No. 6 to read: "Animals shall be
permitted on site only during hours of operation."
Mrs. Humphris referred to the Special Use application of Riverbend
Partnership in April and the issue of an Industrial Waste Survey Form submit-
ted to the Albemarle County Service Authority to determine if any chemicals
c:out:~'~-be disposed of:~ in: ,the 'puhlic~seWage system. The staff had recommended
approval~ of an Industrial Waste Survey Form prior to commencement of any
veterinary activities. Mrs. Humphris asked if that same condition would apply
to this l~dation ~an'd' if ,~ it -does ,~,how it would be~ set into' motion,~ ~ Mr;" ~
Cilimberg started that the tast,,time ~i,t was set into motion as part of the
conditions. It is not noted here. This will be an emergency clinic and have
less activities including disposal, but the Board may want to include that as
a condition~. Mrs. ~{Umphris ~stated that ~-she would:~propose.~,~at condition-,, if
this, appt~ication is-~approved'~ . ' .... . ' ',' ,.
W~th no further questions' for Mr. Citimberg, Mr. Bowie opened the public
hearing.
- ~ Ms~-Bruce Murr.ay came-: forward and stated~ that- the request is' for .a,.~.
permanent lOcation-for, an emer~g'ency veterinary clinic~,., '~ 'Presently,~l,-the: 1
:majority ~o:f ~eterinarians in:the area have formed an emergency ~service,
however,, this service .is- somewhat mobile,,in .that every :.two months it moues
from ,one veterinary off iCe,~ or. :hospital to~ another. ~s would~ provide~, a
permanent: locat ion ~al~ays:. available, for evenings:', and weekends .:and '~hese~ hour s
are the only time the of'flee ~ou~d be available as* stated in the. application.
Dr.: Charles Wood, veteri~narian, ? came~ forward ~, '~Current-ly the, serwice is:~~
open ..and., has been running:: for~ two years from: 6:,00 'iP-m~:'-on ~Friday :straight
through, until Monda,y:'morning at' 8:00 a.m. ~There isa gap of four hours on
Saturday morning from 8:'00 a.m. through :12:00 noon when it's closed, because
the other veterinarians' 'are ,open~ :for normal: office hours on that' morning. ~ At
8:00 ~a.m. on Monday morning this office is closed down, and all of the animals
are picked up. Mr. Bowie asked if Dr. Wood had discussed with anyone the
Industriai~' Waste~ SurveY:' Form and ~how disposal would,be handled. : Dr. Wood
responde~d that~ the question .had :not ',been brought up. ~ He'would be more ,than
wil'ting to do whatever.is nece'ssary from that standpoint:~':. Me, also'added that
the:only Waste-:he is'~ aware': of which .is really ,a problem,'occurs if an animal
dies,~:~: Hopefully,there ~i-tl 'no.t~?e many,: the-remains~are normally picked 'up 'by
the.. SPCA_Or~: Monday. All meRi:cm~L type of: '~thin~s':are. picked', up-by a:'.specific'
service,, BPI. ~ Needles ·and~ infectious waste~ things are :plac.e~ ,in ."separa~e~.
containers and then burned according to regulations.
' Mr-. Bowie:-.,~sked:: if ther~ was anyone: else ~o.' s~eak.,.-,,- ~i~th no ":one: 'cpming
'forward,.'~he pU'btic..-hearing was ~closed. ~ '. ~.- ,
- Motion was: ::offered hy Mrs .. HUmphris ~:and ::s~onded,. hy Mr .' Perkins: _to
approve. SP-91-.52 on '1v98' acres of 'the property zoned .HC -(proffered)' 'under.
ZMA-91.-.06 above,, with :'the six. conditions_..r.ecommended-:by 'the_ Planning_
Commission,,, but: addirkg, a seventh reading: : ,, Ind. trial :~aste, SurVey- f,orm to be
submitted to' the' Albemarle county Service Authority, and, approved, prior-to::
co~mnence~ent of: ,veterinary: activities." . . - ......... . .... -. '. -
· ',: There-:being no 'further, discussion, roll was~ called' and the mo~ion.':carried
,by the followings-recorded 'vote,: '~ - .. '" ' . ' - ~ -'- '.- : .
AYES.: Mr. ,Bain,-', Mr.',Bowie, ~,-Mrs;'. Mumphris, ,Mr.' Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None. - ~ '
ABSENT:~ Mr,. Bowerman'.~ ~ ~' ~, ~' · ~ ~ ~ ~ ' :~'~,"
(Conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
~. '.:t. -:: ~here.' shall _be no-- outside 'exercise area'; .....
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
157
2. No animals are to be confined outside;
3. Use is limited to 370 Greenbrier Drive;
Hours of operation shall be limited to:
Monday - Thursday: 5:30 p.m. 9:00 a.m.
5:30 p.m. Friday until 9:00 a.m. Monday;
There shall be no scheduled appointments. Clinic shall accept
animals only on an emergency basis;
Animals shall be permitted on site only during hours of operation;
Industrial Waste Survey form to be submitted to the Albemarle County
Service Authority and approved prior to con~nencement of veterinary
activities. : .
Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA-91-07. Redfields Development Corp. Public
Hearing on-a .request-.to, rezone 1'.:1 .ac from RA to PRD; to rezone 7.7551 ac from
PRD to RA-&-R~i.~; to .rezone 0.76.a~from R-1 to:,.PRD (original PRD approved as
ZMA-89-19)~- 'Located.-adjacent to sherWood Farms,& bounded by Sunset Rd & 1-64.
TM76,P22A,23,24B,47,49,49B(part); TM76N,P8B&12. Samuel Miller Dist. This
site is in ;a designated.: growth- area,shown: .in 'the:- Comprehensive Plan' as' 'low
density residential (,1-4 dweliing units per ac). (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on November 5 and November 12, 1991.)
- Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"PETITION::~. Redfields. Development Corporation: -petitions 'the Board- o:f,
Supervisors' ~to rezone 1.1498 acres from :ILk, Rural Areas to Pt[D,
Planned Residential Development, and to rezone 7.7 acres from PRD,
~lanned Residential Development, to PA, and R-l, Residential, and
0~75§6 acre~ from. R-l, Residential~ to .PRD', Ptan~ed Resident~ial
:Development~:_ Pro, perry, described as Tax 'Map ~76, Parcels.22A, .23,
',,49B (part)and ;Tam, Map 76N,-parcels:.SB and'SD, are located adjacent, to'
Sherwood Fams and-bounded by, Sunse~: :~oad an~ :Y~64 in .the-Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. :This site, .is located ~ithin a ,designated
growtk~ area ';amd., is.. :shown.-as: tow~ density ~ residential- ..(~4 · .dwel,ling ,"
units perf.'acre). - ..... '. -'.~ - : ~-:--'
CHARACTER OF THE AREA: Phase I of Redfields is currently under
davelopment~ The~ majority:of'~the site is .. wooded , Sherwood Farms is
adjacent to the .west. Multi-family units exist' to ,the east. -Property
to: the 'south,is :.,a horse':Yarm','~- Interstate: ~64~ and Route:,.' 29 border' the
pr:op, erty ,to the north and northeast. ' ~-: ~- -
,APPLICANT'S-PROPOSAL: The:'applicant is p~oposing to amend the honmd-
'a~ia~s/. of the, ~Redfields Development appro~ved with~ .ZMA-89~lS, '-This
'amen~ment~does~ not 'increase'~ the level nf ~development,~:. This amendment
i~to.-~provi'de for a::more logicat development pattern" including:
:tion ~of: roads~ andt distribution:~.of:' tots~ ',,:and, open::space. ZMAr89:~18
allowed a :~otaL of 656.,:dwelling: unitS,'~with an_-overall'_ density:~of: 2~38
d~etling units per acre~ ,The-applicant's:.:,cur~ent~proposal::reduCes
~density, to:t-.95 dwelling units per acre and 520:-d~elling units.-: In
addition, the applicant has provided more information regarding the
subdivision of the property and development,.of t~he townhomes.
STAFF,~-COMMENT: The requirements of ZMA~89r18 required, that a buffer
be p~Ovided adjacent ~to Tax Map ,76, Parcet.:.49B., :Subsequently, 'that
buffer area-.was ~dded to Parcel 49B~ The applicant now' proposes to
rezone this strip of land. from PRD to R-1 which is the zoning of
P~rcel 49B~ .vIn~ addition, a.-strip of land:was added--from~Parcel -49B to
.Redfields'~ tO allow for better.:road: alignment. 'The _applicant praposes
to:.:~ezone this .area from~R- 1 .to PRD. :' .The~:,two ar. oas p~oposed.:~ito' be·
rezoned arelshOwn as Parcel-C-:and D~..These areas:are- to.provide~: for-
b. ette.r. ~ lot~:~configurat'ion., and-basiCally'~represent, a :' land swap; :~Attach-
ment,-.D: (copy, on file)~ indicates all .areas to,be.:~ezoned..,
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
158
The Application Plan submitted by the applicant indicates 145 single-
family lots and 20 townhouse units. The applicant also indicates a
reduction from 656 units to 520 units. This plan was reviewed by the
Site Review Committee and the applicant has revised the plan to
address comments made by the Committee. The road plans have been
approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Staff recom-
mends that all lots, including townhouse units shown on the applica-
tion Plan, be approved administratively. During the approval process
staff 'will require modificatiOn or deletion of any lot which is
unsuitable for development due to slope.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residen-
,:.~' ~ 'tial,,development '(l~4"~dwelling units per acre). This proposal is
.... ~ Consistent with that designation. This proposal will slightlY reduce
the residential build-out of this area over the original approval.
St'afl opinion~-is' that the, propOsed rezoning, is consistent .wi~h,-'the
previous approvaI-: for' this development,, 'ZMA-.89~lS,:~as wetl'~'as~ ~he',3
Comprahensive' Plan and Z~ing: Ordinamce~ --Therefore staff -reco~ends
approval subject ~o-the fo'tlowimg' Agre~ents: ~.
t.; --.:_ E~ach lot shall comply ~with~ curremt building:site -provisions.- ~No
- ,driveway shall encroach more th~' ,50 ~imeat feet om: slopes of ~25
percent :or greater.?
2. Ail roads, with the exception of roads A, B and C and the private
road ~%o serve Lot 106, ' shall be buiit~ to -Virginia, Depar~ent of
~ . ,~ T,ranSport~ation- (VDoT)'.standards-:for urban cross-section and
placed ~n the Secondary Syst~-~at time,of development of those
'residen%ia~--ar~s 'utilizing th~se :=o~ds. ~ Roads A, B~and C shall
be constructed in accordance with Virginia: Department of~ Tr~s--
:; po~rtation standards, for rural cros:s~section'~.and place~'in~ the
- -,~ ,. ~-Secondary .Syst~ at-:~.the,,-time of~ ~deve-topment .of,,the~, res identi~l
'~'~', areas utilizing' those~ r. oads,: - ..: ~ :~ ~ .~.'-? ~'- 7 -.': ~
3. -Not more than-276 dwelling ~its will be constructed.~til such
t~ime as the ~ Rou~r: 631-,'improv~ts ,~ve~ be~' ':.compte%ed ~'.~,o~ - th~
,satis~action~ 0~::~he Depar~ent,~of Plannit: ahd:,Co~unity-DevelOp-
~. ,The ~roposed rec~eation:~center?:shall~, be,, const~cted:,wi, th Phase:~,I-~
5. No ,access/fr~' Redfields~,throu~h She~ood-:Far~:.Subdivision.
6, Not mo~e .than",520 total' :units.' ~'- " - ·
"Future - lot's wit~ have limited access ,to ~. Roads ,-:.A;, . B and 'C
.. accordance with' Engineering co~nts, contained in a De~Rr:'~9,
1989; memoranda.': ........
(NOTE :,- These Agreements and the Applicatio~ -Pi~: =eplace the Original
conditions:;~ proffers rand Apptieation-~:Plan:)-',- . ~-: .... '"-'.~:'"':
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Comission, at its meeting on October 15,
1991, ~animous~y.reeo~ended~approval of'Z~9.1r06 subject ~to-the Agreements
set out in the s~af.f~s- :eport, The staff reco~ended a~iniStrati~e approval
of all lo~S sho~a.:on' the'lay-out :provided un,er this ~pplication Rlm as well
as a~inistrative' approval of the site plm and:that the townhouse area. be
part of the Board's .action; Mr~ Bo~e coment~ that this is a reduction of
136 units. Mr; Cilimberg replied that was correct;- That ~as' not broken do~
in the proffer ':or.; ia' the conditions~: or Agreements :fbr
multiple7~iZy;:?'~:Mr.'~'C~limberg stated t~a~ ~he' s~n.Agreements~ a~ong with
the Application'Plan ~nld be a' part of the Board's action, and would replace
the original conditions, proffers, and Application Plan. A n~Mr of the
originaZ cond~ti:ons., on~ the first; approval are:., now -address~ .~h=o~gh no,cs..on
the Appii~ation~P~an,. so:. that .is.why there a=e fewer conditions listed for
approval. -' ' ' .
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
159
Mr. Cilimberg said there should be one further amendment to Agreement
Number Two changing the sentence from: "All roads, with the exception of
roads A, B and C and the private road to serve Lot 106, shall be built to
.... "to read: "The private road to serve Phase II Open Space and one
single-family dwelling, shall be built to .... "
With no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Bowie opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Fred Missel, from the Cox Company, representing Redfields Development
Corporation, came forward. He said Mr. Bill Barnett, who is from the
Redfields Development Corporation, is also present. The Cox Company completed
~the ma.ster~planni~g andzoni~g:~tudiesfor Redfields and based on the unani-
.mous approval by the Planning Commission, as well as the great work done by
the staff, has no further comments. Mr. Missel said the main reason for
lowering the: density~s becmuse-~f.:,further ~tudygivento~ the .carrying
capacity'of ~theroads-. They-had notstudied closely'the number."o~,'Simg~e-
family, lots~ - - ~ '-
Mr~ Bain askedwhat is meant by:."all roads." Mr. Missel replied that the
number of vehicle trips per day was essentially what was looked at. Mr. Bain
asked if this changes the-romd standards, and if once hhey get.above'~ ~.er~min
traffic count significant road work will be required. Mr. Missel replied that
the design for the roa ~ was baSed on siqR~e-fami%M~t~Wnhouse development
~~s.- Mr; Bowie asked if-the reduction in-.units~is ~n. singler'famitycQr:t
townhouses', ~Mr.~~- Misselreptied it isa mix, bu~primami'ly it:is~ s~ngle-
.family... In several in~tances~ :slop~ constraints' had aneffect;':_Mr. Bm.in
asked:-hoW:many .townhouse'units'and;, how many'singlerfamily'units-:there .wil~ be
under'this new plan~ Mr. Cilimberg,'replied that onAttachment R (.copy~on-,.
file) in the left hand.bottom cold,mn, it shows 300.:Sin§to-family detached and
220~.,cottage:an~.:,attached:unitsfOr :'a. to~at .of~.520~. Mr.~:'Bain. said'~he
development started'-..with867 units, was =educed:~o 656~_and:.:now-i.s 'Rown:...to 520
uni:ts~ Mr;.Cilimberg stated that initially it was anticipated that there
would be development of the southwest part of 'the site-for residential use.
-That part:of the property became open space in:'the process-of =eviewing'~he.!'.~
plan beu'ause it,was primarilY in. the Rural. Area designation:'~,'"'That iswherei
the.first-'t~oss off. tots: came about~ ...... : .-.-., ' '~:'~. ~'
.-Mr...Bain'asked Mr~ Citimberg'the difference, in the'road, lay-oUt;::~,Mr.
Citimbe=g said, this reqUest ;came,throughfor appro=at a few months.before the
Highway Department~changed it~,ssubdivisibn manua~;.~.,T, he'.con-sultant'~esigned
the'roads'basedon the~otdmanual :which-pro_vided ~for a more' liberal design, in
-particular, curvature,:.and'g:ade.:'-The, road;:was--designed, and, apprOved unde~
th-at old-~manua! sothe":staff_ i's-~:using' those approvals zatherthan .~ing back
and~askin§:-for,a new review.'_ Mr. Missel-said~that ,fS~or~ect.: "~ ......
Mr.;~C:ilimber-g~ said that ,after the roads were, apprO~ed;~:the .applicant
re~evalU~ted the numbe~:~f ~units, th&t could =easonab'ly. <be:,~built ~based~upon the
approved ~road p.tans. 'Based on;~cost;considerations., ,the-decision~-,~as:made that
less .dwelling units,.c~ould be:justified because ~he=e~was,a lower, cost~m'~oad
.With no one else.coming forward to address ZMA-91'07, Mr. Bowie'ct~sed-.~
.Mr.:~-Bain asked:: Mr.: Cilimberg if the: Comprehensives'Plan will have'
amended if' the~ number of: units,, on this property keeps being reduced..; Mr.:.;
Cilimber~ said--thisarea is'shown fo= low de~sityresident~a!':in,~he
Comprehensive Plan, which is one:t:o.four,.'dwe'lling units" per'acre.-,Staff knows
that thef~wer units built'in-t~e ,growth'~rea,:the more units will go 'in other
'areas and it may forcethe growth areas to beincreased'elsewhere.' One thing
that cannot ,b~cont~oiled', .obviousl,y, is'what,,~the markettdeman'dsand .~hat the,
costs ara,to developers ,forbuilding outtheir~.p:ojects.' There is ,nora floor
on.,=ezonings o~'__~densities, there, is only a ceili~g..'-.Althou§h,staf'f',enco~rages
~eve~opers.~to build ~acCordingto-.the plan,?.ther~:isno:,way,.;other.than~through
a deve~O,Per"s proffer putting a floor on the'density, to 'actually do that.
Mr.::Tucker stated:that Redfields is'at'the mid-range point-.in density',
two dwe~iing un,~ts per acre. -Mr. Bain said he:would-like to have 'staff"
consider some criteria for establishing a minimumon the number of 'units which
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
160
would be allowed in the growth areas. Mr. Tucker said if this is not done, in
ten to fifteen years the County will have to expand the growth area. Mr. Bain
said he would support this but would just as soon delete Condition number 6,
he does not want it limited to 520 units.
Mr. St. John asked if the statement concerning the 520 units is deleted,
if that will cause the Highway Department to base its road standards on the
maximum build-out possible under these plans and not on a statement of what
the develOper intends to do. He asked if that would not thwart the
developer's very purpose in getting the rezoning. Mr. St. John said if this
is left open-ended, the maximum build-out that could be achieved under
whatever zoning is put on Redfields could be accomplished and the Highway
!Department ~illlm~ke:'~thembUi!d roads.'
Mr. Cilimberg said that this new Application Plan indicates the number of
,units that Will go into torsi!and ~townhouses,~ e~en with the'~deletion off,the
Agreement~~ ~his,:,-,ptan :calls,~for that; number: of-:un'its .~. ~ ~So i65~ Units-~. ~o~ld b~
substituted for ~h~~ o~igingl~ nUmber of units.,~ Mr. -Tucker~-asked, if ~the Ptan
coutd~be~amended withont-going through this public hearing process and
amending the ZMA. Mr. Cilimberg stated it would be left at his discretion up
to that maximum,_numbe~ of~units-~since,~:this-'~s:.'a Planned Residential ',
Development!. OtherWise, thereis no.density..- -:
Mr,7-Bain said .in Agreement NUmber 7 of the previous 'approval, Item 7.3
,gave a maximum~eighborhood density nat to exceed 4.Qunits',an acre im any~
residential neighborhood ordevelopment phase. He ~asked' ii, th'at is~still
applicable.~ .Mr. Cilimherg-said the plan now shQws the=numberof units which
-wi~l,-be~ in ~each phass,~so i't i~s all,pinned down. Mr. Bain asked if that Plan
~could be incorporated as a condition, since it is not in this petition as a
condition,~-iMr. Cilimherg stated that,theApplicatio~Plan~ for.a Planned
~Residentia~:DeWelopment ~s-'_:automati:cally~p~rt ~of the-~rezoning~.:-,.".'---~
-~, .Motionwas--then of,fered by Mr.; Bain and seconded'by-'M~s;~'HumPhris~o'~.a,
a.ppro~e ZMA-91~,07'-sub3ect.'to theuse~en Agreements appro~ed',by'the- pi-arming
CommiSsion-but.-amending the-second".toread:t:7'All-..roads, with-the~.exc.eption~'of
~oads~,.~,B~_iand. C~ ~and:'the p~i.~ate troad t0 serve Phase.:I~Op~n. Space and one
single-family d~elling . "andamen~ing '#, 6 to read: "Not more than 656
total units." Which is the number: of units approved under ZMA,89,18, January
1,7, 1990.: ,~ . ' · ~.- · - ' ·
There'being no further .discussion, roll:was.called.and th~ motion carried
· hythe.f0t~lowing recorded vote:. .~.. ~ ...... . :. -
' _ ..... 7 - ' : -, - .. . , ~ : ; .... ' - ' ' -
.AYES: .Mr ..... Bain, .Mr. Bow£e,. Mrs." Humphris, Mr. Perkins :and Mr. Way.
NAYS:':,-None. ' ', - ~ ?:
ABSENT::'::Mr.,~Bowerman~ .... -. '-.'::, ~ ..':.: "~': ' ' .'
(.The~Agreements,'as:-approved, are set:out.inf~ll:bel:ow.)..-'.,'-_::
1..-.:"':!'Eachtot shall, comply, with current bui'lding:.site"provisions.-:N~'~drit~eway
:. -~ shall.encroach: moCe than50 lineal feet on Slopes~of::25 percent or-'
greater. ' . ' - : ..... ' .
2. All.roads, with the exception of roads A, Band C and the .private. road to
serve Phase II Open Space and one, single-family dwelling, shall be.built
to':.~irgin~aDepartmentof .Transportation ~(¥9oT):':~standardsfor. urban:,;:::l
~ross.rsection:andplaced-in the. Secondary System at time of development
of those residential areas utilizing those roads, Roads A, B and.C shall
be'constructed in.-accordance with Virginia Department ~'of ~ransportation
-,standards for.rural cross-section and placed in'the Secondary System at
· .::..:the:time :of:de~el:opment of the: residential areas utilizing those roads.
No:t:-~more than 276:,dwelling .units' will be-cons, t.r~uct~d until ':such time as
the-Route'531 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction, of the
;Depmrtment~of Rtanning and,COmmunity.Development ..... - ....
~The:proposed 1recreation center shall be constructed with Phase I.
5., No access from:Redfie'lds.' thr~ough SherWood Farms Subdivision'.
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
161
6. Not more than 656 total units.
Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B and C in accordance
with Engineering comments contained in a December 19, 1989, memorandum.
(The memorandum is set out in full as follows:)
"TO:
From:
Re:
William D Fritz, Planner
Peter J. Parsons, Civil Engineer,
Redfields Revised Plat (SUB-89-205)
_.:.!W~ have ~reviewed~ the a,bove ~no~te~d, preliminary plat. The following
~.~,:comments are based upon site review comments which do not appear to be
adequately addressed:
a) Additional 50 foot septic building setbacks from streams will
likely~be~necessary,~and should ~therefore be shown on the.prelim-
inary-plat~ . ~ ~ ....
b.) - The note,regarding 30-foot drainage easements over all streams
and drainage courses has not been added.
c)
d)
The issue of_-access for ~tots 23A and 22D has not been addressed.
The proposed layout .'of storm sewers appears grossly inadequate.
e) ~-Utility~,easements have not.been de~ineated.i'
-f)._.,The minimum.design speed for road 'L' is 25 mph under current · V DoT .standards.
It is our-,re~ommend-ation that_~curb'.and g~t~e~ be ~equired on~
the propos~d,~roads~ The applicant, however, is proposing curb and
gutter on all roads with the exception of roads 'A' and 'B', the
colle~tor~.~-streets~'~,;While.~ Our-~previous recommendation--remains.~'~:un~
changed, if.,m rural..cross-section-is.,alioWed for the collector roads,
entrances should be strictly limited as shown on the preliminary plat,
and a~l lo~s~.should~'access:'internat~' roads ~onl~y
Lots '.~I9, 41,-,.'42.~: 61.,,':6'2 and'.99 :'.have .sig,n:ificant areas, of cr~t~,'ca-1
slope which would likely be disturbed when the lots are built on. For
this ,~eason,,' we ~econnnend..that.:.,these: lots :>be~ deleted and dediCated as
open space. The building site and proposed lot lines 'and access for
~the~ single, ~de~ached~' ~dwelling- unit on': iot~ 106'. should.' :be: shown' ~on .:~the
preliminary_piat~to insure that disturbance of critical slopes is
minimized." " '
Agenda It~.No. i4. .CPA~90~-03~. Public Hearing: on a Comprehensi.~e' Pi~
~en~ent:: f~or the:-L~d' ~Use,:Plan of. Hotl~ead Co~un~Y;=.'~ 'Requ~t fro. ~ch~'ge 175
acs W :o~ Rt 29,:& ~S 'ef,~R~ 6~9-.(Airpor,t Rd:) from Industrial Service.to-Regional
Service:.&.,;High Uensity,Residential. ~e area"is located ~ ~. R~:.29 ~and. S:' & E
of Rt :606:;in the: Hoti~ead.,Go~ity.:. (Advertised~',:~ the Daily Progress ,on
November 5 and November 12, 1991.)
Mr. Tucker said the 'applic~t,' Mr. ~.Wendell Wood, .has requested m deferral
indefinitely, ,and?as'ked%~that~ the~Board defer :this ,=equ~t ~tit., ~he February 5
meet ing;. ~ .......... ~ "~ ' ....... :
Motion. was-off~red-.by Hr..,B~n-. and~ seconded by'Mr. Perkins ~o defer'
C~A-90-03, '~o February 5, 1992. ~ere being no further discussion, roll was
called amd ~he',~-motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:-:Mr; Bain;~ :Mr,~ Bo~ie,..,Mrs. 'H~ph~s, 'Mr~ Perk~ms and Mr'. Way.,
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
162
At 8:34 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 8:47 p.m. with Mr. Way
being absent.
Agenda Item No. 15. Statement: VDoT Proposals for Funding. (Deferred
from November 13, 1991.)
Mr. Tucker said that three of four changes suggested by Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Bowerman have been made to the draft statement sent to the Board last
Friday. Those were the only suggested changes that were received, not any
major changes but they do help the proposal and the report itself reads much
better. Unless there are other changes the draft statement is ready for
presentation or~for,sendingto_theCommonwealth Transportation Board.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve
the draft'statement-as presented to the Board. on November 20, 1991~.to be ..
presented:to VDoT in Richmond on November 26, 1991, by a staff member, as
follows:
Albemarle-County Board ~of Supervisors
Remarks on Secretary Milliken's Proposed
Improvements to Transportation Services
On behalf of the .Albemarle County Board of Supervisors,- I~ appreciate
the opportunity to _address Secretary Milliken's proposal for improve-~~
ments .to transportation services in 'the Commonwealth. Albemarle
County continues ~to maintain~',funding of transportation improvements as
a top priority and looks forward to any initiatives to increase our
flexibility in ~managing our transportation needs.
'With-this perspective in mind, I.would like to comment on the propos-
als.. These remarks must be taken with some caution as we have not
been informed of the details of the individual proposals and thus
cannot fully, asses, s/th~i~r, impact at the~ county levet-~ -In general, any
proposal that purports to increase county flexibility and responsibil-
ity but lacks legislative authOrity for resources is '.considered to be
counterproductive,- Shifting!.the"burden of funding is not a viable
solution. The County stands ready to assume greater responsibility
When the resources and authority are also provided from the, Common-:
In response to the specific proposals: ~
Establishing a separate state agency for rail and public trans
portation is not supported.. Creating another agency adds to 'the
regUlatory'and bureaucratic processes with little improvement ~in.
services. The focus should continue to be on streamlining government
services, .not proliferating more agencies. Without'*further justifica-
tion, it is difficult-to .s,ee,:~the benefit to this proposal.
Assuming more responsibility .'for certain secondary highway functions
is a ~d"ouble'..edged sword. Having more. control over. meeting .our--.
secondary h%ghway needs is supported but doing.-so will. requfre
additional county~ resources unless increased "state funding .fotlowS~
This is readily apparent if the County were to assume, responsibility
for design, maintenance and installation of traffic control devices as
suggested :by-SeCretary Milliken.. Albemarle County does not' have
qualified staff to perform this function and thus may have-to forego
the-,0pportunity'to ,assume, more responsibitity...in ,the secondary highway
Improving revenue ~sharin~ dollars and raising the :,ceiling .is supported
as an. ,opportunity .for .the County to increase our, construction .of
secondary roads;. -'.This should: not come, however,, at_ ~the expense of
reduced state funding of the Commonwealth's secondary road program.
If ~th.i.s ~were_ done~,.....:i~ .woluld further..~h~ft :the~. 'fiscal burden to the~
locality and is-one more .example of, the County!s paying..the-Price for
services primarily provided by the commonwealth.~. . ::
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
163
Establishing incentives for rural transportation planning cannot be
evaluated without further information. Although it may not directly
improve transportation services within Albemarle County, as trans-
portation planning is currently done at the local level, there may be
indirect benefits through improvements in transportation services on
the part of all our adjacent rural counties. If established, rural
transportation planning should utilize Planning District Commission's
expertise.
Lastly, requiring Albemarle County to fund a greater cost of new
secondary road construction is not supported. While such a proposal
will stretch the Commonwealth's limited dollars, the ability to
~-.?'~._:,~ctU~l!y~see ~'~n~incre~se~i~'-~construction of new secondary roads is
~-~u~likely. The reason is simple. Albemarle County cannot continue to
absorb more state mandates on the one hand while the State reduces
fun:~inK of..~hese~mandate~':~on ~t-he 'other-,hand~ ~ Thi& .i,s.: ~appening~actoss
a. ~htea~-spea~ ~rum.. of<~ state programs and having-:~cumu~a~ive~_ unf~ir~ and
adverse impact~ on~county~taxpayers. ~W~ithout broader ~and~ more'diverse
re~en~e-gen~rating author~,~y,, ~he burde~ wilL,c, ontin~e tobeborne!hy
taxpayerm own'ing, real and personal property~-::This~is not an unlimited
source .~of local .funding-..,::~e ,unfortunate,outcOme':~,~his propo.sal
wi}l-~be a':reductionlin the zate. of .~transpor~atio~and~other-.local ~
fundingneeds, such as education.
In. summary, transportation, improvement, s ~are zTeededl ~:_u...t not _at
expens~ ,of~ ~the. $ocal. taxpayer.~ Albemarle: County is a willing par~tic-
ipant .in seeking improvements-but our further,.r~view::,and assessment of
, -th:ese! proposals .requi~rep:-.mor~e,: 'in:formation.. We' look forwar:d :to: an
oppor, tUnity ,to .w. ork further~,:,with the %ransportati. oGi.Board_.a~d
.ment ~n seeking sql~tiqns~ .. -,:.'. :._, _",.:~ i, ':-::.',: ~. ..... -. -
-Thank_..~ou :for~,-the o~ortunity, to: ~present.' our: co~nt~.~- '-
Th~r~---bein-g ~no .further', dis~uss~ion, rol'~ :was call~ and~the mot~o~::~ca~,ried
by the fot~l~wing,::e, corded :-vote = ....... - . ~- , .' . ? --
AYES:.-. Messrs~ Bain,~ Bowie, Mrs;, H~phris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowe~. 'and' Mr.-~Way'. _. - :: "~ - a
Agenda~'Item.No:~- 16. ~' Draft Letter: Reply to letter dated Nov~ber :~4,
1991, ~r, om~' ~ohn'-G~.-Mii,liken~, Sec=etary of .Transpor~tation, ~::re: sequenae.._,,of
construction for :~the ,RoUts: 29 North improv~ents
(Mr,:.] Way ~tnrned ?mt' 8,:5i p.m. ) ":.', '-. ~'." :.~,~::
Mrs._.H~phris said she thought ~t the iast meeting the ,Board would hang
onto this- umt i 1'~ the -joint' '~eso, luti-on'~:was.' compl~t ed, to~,- ~k~ ~, sure *n:o~'~
any_',conf~!iC~ing~ st~bling blOcks-'with the Joint Transportation .Co~ittee. Mr.
Tucker sta~ed that the.,reso,lutions have been completed and are being' reviewed
by,"the ~;I~i~ T~spor,tmtion ~Co~ittee members and .then, will come back to the
resPecti~e~:,Boards and Councils. He said a sentence or paragraph could be
added at _'the end~-Df .:thi, m.-tetter~-,~-notifying th~ that such .a resolution- was
90m%ng,~ Mr~st H~phris said by giving her ,~approval-':of this correspondence to
Secretary Miiliken, in no way ch~ges her position ;on-the issue "of thebypass,
which rema'ins the'.same.~ M~:; ~ B~oW, ie'_ stated-~ ~t he mads:.~su~e:..~hat.'?Atb_~r.le
COunty s,.position Was~ _clearly:,,stat~d' that a;:_:~ass;.i's::~ot r:equi':~d:~'and ~hat if
all of" the CATS im~ovements, are~ co~leted~ ~:this will become evident.
T~ere~as,'a,,:~unanimous .consensus of the. Board .to' accept Mr. Bowie's letter
to be sent to Secretary Milliken as set out below:
:'-~ ~e Honorable John .G~. ~Mill'iken - -. .... ~: ~ ~
~Sec~etary--:,~f_:'.Tramspo~ta~-ion ? ~ '', ~ ,:.-, .... ~ .:: -: ....
~ '~,: Off'ice of: the:, ~overn-or' ~ '- :- ~ .: '- , - . ,-:'
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
164
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Mr. Milliken:
We have received your letter of November 4 and the Board of
Supervisors would like to thank you for your personal efforts in
clarifying issues of grave concern to us. As you know, the county's
position has always been, and still is, that the western bypass, or in
fact any bypass, is not required and that if all of the CATS improve-
ments are completed, this will become evident. Our objections hereto-
fore were not so much with the Commonwealth Transportation Boardts
(CTB) formal resolution of November 15, 1990, but with 'side comments'
~.-~.?made~by some:.~t.~t~e pUblic?hearing that Alternative 10 might be
~-~cohstructed before the CATS Plan is completed, Your letter and the
proposed clarifying resolution goes a long way in alleviating these
concerns. %.
~On. October Z~, ~t991, the three local jurisdictions (Albemarle County/
City of Charlottesville/University of Virginia) reconvened the 3oint
Transportation: Committee .to discuss ~ou~i. positions~ on.the whole>-! Route
29 .North problem.~ You will ~be ~pleased to~ know that the Committee~ is
recommending ..~hat ~we pass a .joint resolution s~mitar~.to .,the .CTB's
position and conf!rmimg ou~~ ~desires on the sequencing of construction'.
Our~ resolution.- will go. beyond ~the .OTB,s in- that both~the County.. and
the City~ will include ~cooperative effozWcs, on the.construction
Meadow.~ Creek Parkway .and the University wilt include l the construction
of ~the conmector · road~ frOm- ~the ~bypass to ~ the ? North Grounds.' ~When
- approved by ? the~ three~.~ ~eparate ? bodies ,.~ this .w.il~]~ ~become par~t.,'ofi our
C~TS_Ptan. -'.. - . -~ .' . . ~...
W~:"do-~:have~the: following specific coments or suggestions on your
letter and the proposed resolution:
Letter ~ ~ Pa~e. 1 r..~ Phase.. :I ~ Shortirange ~Recommendations ,- We f~el
.~ ,~that. the~ des.~gn..for, widening of:'Rout,e .29;-from the Route
':..~..-.bypass'._t'o' Rio Road~ should _ facilitate 'the' later -.construction 'of'
_ ~the grader.separated-interchanges ~at' :Rio, Greenbrier ~ and.~ Hydraulic
- ; Roads; It wOuld :seem fa= .more..:economical.~to' design..Route..29~ i~
- '-~his mamner' at:~his~'time than to 'ha~e. to redo part of. {the
struction :'for the: interchanges. ~e- early '~design of :;these~'~:.~:
/interchanges will'.' also: a~d the'.:County an~:City, in the prese~m-
~ tion of~ the nec~ss~.y ri~htvof~way~ ~
Letter,~ Pa~e 2 - phase II~ Medi~-ran~e- Reco~endations, Since
the three grade,separated interchanges are to be built before
~: ~ Alternative[ 10, ~t ~is requested'~that~the design of' the inter-
changes and' a~quisition of right-of-way based on hardship proce~
in the~s~e manner as is being done for Alternative 10,
:Let,ter:~:'. Page. ,3 ~t - :Final: ~.a~a~raph ..... ~ith ~' the 'above-~coments,: ~the
' letter does' meet the ~appr0val of. the .County. ' .: We ' are ~ concerned,
(however, :: with ',th~ ;co~ent~ .that,::- the County :shoutd ',:move fora=d,, -
~ith the preservation of :' necessary right-of,way_ since'.we have .no
~ay to-~do that 'except ;through the:purchase of; !a~, :for whic~'::we
have' nQ~. :resources. The" County~:~will' part4c!pate :(in ~making ~de~elo-
pers~:,~awame-~of: ~.any .proposed .rights,of-way needs ,':' inctuding?'t, he'-
bypass:'in~our .CATS ,Plan~:and working with .develope=s on any
proposed land use-change.-We trust you are aware of our legal
Reso;tution,' Final - '~R~S' ..'- We sugges~.:the, following wo~ding be
substituted :; ~ :.' ~E~S., ,: the. Board strongly., believes · .th]at.:' the~:
Route'. 29: B~'a'ss :should. be eonstruct~, in' con:cert, with the remain-
ing construction projects of the.CATS" Plan' after. Phase 1 and
.Board~.:s' NOv~ber' t5 ,' '19.90 i' resotu-
Phc:e,.. 2. ~e-c~ndat Se~s.. ~:.of: ~the '
tion:~'ha~e~ been:~completed ;' ~ : ...... . .:. ~ ......
Again ;,~ we would ~ like -:to -;:extend ;.this_:; Board~?.'s - thanks..' to~: you~ for, .your
personal efforts in res:oluing the ~cer~ainti.es,: mis~derstandings" ~d
concerns, which-'~have-- plagued.: Al~marle Cowry :f~oz~ _decades_~: ,...We~, look
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
165
forward to receiving the CTB's resolution which hopefully will put
this matter to rest. We believe that the final solution will be in
the best interest of the citizens of the local communities as well as
the Commonwealth in general.
Signed by F. R. Bowie, Chairman"
Agenda Item No. 16a. Presentation of Six-Year Road Plan Analysis by Mrs.
Humphris. Mrs. Humphris presented a slide presentation to the Board and
handed out a hard copy of her presentation, which is available in the Clerk's
office at 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Mrs. Humphris remarks
',and- "Conc l~sions;: are'-set -'out' :below:; ~_~ :-
"Remarks: CATS, Secondary and Primary Road Programs
November 20, '1991- : ~ , : .~' ~ ..... : ~..
During the,yea~s that: ~. served on the MPO Technical Committee and
since I have been a member of this board, it has seemed to me that
some-:ptanning and informational tools were needed for decision making
that we did not have.
Never-was ,this more evident"to'~me"than'~during ~he-Commonwealth::
T~ansportatio~ Board.~' s_..meeting' concern.lng, the proposed. ~Alternative 10
Bypass at Natural Br~dg, e in .October,.. 1990 and-in--,Mana'ssas in November,
1990.,~ ':. I felt 'that,, .had 'we ,been :able ,to put-~,fnto the ~handm' o~..the-
:'m~hers th~-co==ect"-~fo~a~on which they needed for proper decision
making but were not provided by their staff, the decision would surely
ha~e - been different ;"~....But all :~e could-,do was to ~say, ' That isn't
correct.' We had no data to support our position,-
~is. bothersome situation~ surfaced for me again-with .the recent
proposals -, o~,-:Secretary :Milliken for:.'c, hanges in .the ::way --t=~spor~tion
improv~ents are to be f~ded and impl~ented inour localities.,';-~en
the~ Secretary ~kes ;mo=e, specific proposals, we .ne~ the toots :.which
wi:il allo~ us, to-know how we in Alb~arle County will be affected, how
our CATS and secondary and pr~ry road progr~ will be affected.
I-'propose a,s~arti~g point by suggesting the-c~pilation, of_data: in
ways which~ pro~ide'-us with a ,better road map, so' .~o,speak, someth.i~g
which we can update~regularly which will p=ovide us with .info~t~on
-_and~compariso~s'~¢not' available in'~ one place at, this, tim~;' at ~least, not
to my-, knowledge. - ..... ~ ~ '
You:will see ~'hat, :in set~:ing~-up these;:tables, I have s~gt~ out CATS
projects for particular attention. The reason for that is this.
Al~ho~h ,the ,,next'.material may.seem to'be', repetitious, i~',is important
~o. understand: that :' th~, :~ery repet it iveness' ,of',.t.~it,': ~he '~' continnoUs
h~ring: of it, caused' ::uS ' to. tOse l'a~'.battle, - the ~-battte .'against ,a,
b~asS ~; Being <mw. arc-.of: one' important.-.ingr~dient_which':~brought that
· about, may prev~t~ ~it ~ s happening again; '. ,"' , ~ .::,:
Conclusion: '
.Fr~ my analysis,: it' is .ve=y ,obvious ~hat, if proj ect~d f~di,ng~,
-acCUrate, ",we can~ easily complete our :-CATS-Secondary Progr~',. att:of,
~he' C~nt~'s ,projects'..on,:our priority :li's~,and~ have,:additionat ~fumd~s
available, ~or other projects. ~is 'is vastly different from what the
Comonwealt~ ~:ansportation Board was 1~ to believe.
I~ have provide~-cOpies of this material, fo=.~,all of :the.Board m~bers,
for-Beb. Tucker ~;and' s~aff, m~bers, ,I; hope~ ,,that; :after ~you have :had:~.
.Perhaps you ~will..feet it isa :-start ~or'a format that could be of help
to us.; And, of course, staff and Board m~bers may have corrections,
'suggestions, additions, etc. to make. It is obvious that we n~ a
'DATE T~' which shows scheduling for every project and other 'tables
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
166
similar to what I have presented which give an easily understandable
overview of funding of all projects, Primary, Secondary and Urban.
This is merely a start on something I think could be useful to us. In
any event, I plan to keep these tables updated for my own use.
Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes: May 8 and July 17, 1991.
Mr. Bain had read May 8, 1991, pages 34 (#19) - 46 (#27), also May 8,
1991, pages 46 (#27) 53 (middle) and July 17, 1991 and all were found to be
in order.
~.~'.'~':'?'M~s. Humphrig.~had~readlMay 8-,.1.991, pages 1 - 19 (#7c) and gave typo's to
the Clerk.
'Motion was offered by .Mr. Bain:'and seconded by~ Mr'~. Way .to'approve. Minutes
for Juty't~7,· 1991,~-entire set, and,for May 8~~ 1991, pages 1 '- 19~'(#Zc)~and
pages 34 (#t9~) -~53. The. re beingno, furthez~discussion,~- roll-waS called and
the motion carried~by the following~re~corded vOte:~: -- .:
AYES: ~r. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.i .... ~,'~ - , ~' . - '~
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
~Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
:~ M=;! Bain commented about a letter from Mr. Kevin ?. Murphy, Science
Teacher at J. T. Henley Middle School, addressed to Jean Potter, Rivanna Water
and Se~r.:Authority~ dar'ed "No. vemb~r tl, 199"1'? ::~Mr;: M~r,phy ~requested~ the~,.RWSA.::
.to modify..~the sewage, settling p.ond' next to S&a~o~ C='eek-~and m~e~;i~ .-~.-
mvaitabte-~for studY, by,,the student'~s at Henley., 'Mr;.~ 'Bain: said.~he ~thi~s ~.t~hat
is a g=eat ~idea~.~ ~e, ~Iso sta~ed::,that'-,to use wh~-, is 'already there, maybe at
less expense than what is planned, is worth doing. Mr. Bain stated he would
I~ke to support, and have' 'a, message go to~ the' Rivanma':~Wa~er and Sewer Authority
'td~,'do ~hat'-: is suggested in the-letter; The othermembers concur:ed.
"TO: Jean Potter, Ri~anna Water'and Sewer AuthOrity
~F,ROM.:~ ~,Ke~in ~ Mur~phy, Science ~,eacher- -:~" - . "~ .'-'
DATE: November~ll,'1991
f'~ .~ ~ -~'~ -~ i.~~ ~ ,~ . ~. .- ~. - . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-,
':R~: Sew~g~Settii~g Pond, Hent~ey'Middle~'School ,.~' - ":'~
7 ~';~'~/.' !~. ' .: ' ~' · ...... ~.,.'i .:~' :~. :. ~ .. ~i~'' :.".' ".~i --,'] ,~ c!~,~-'~ -- ,..'
':The ~c~encestaff.'~ Henley;wish tomakeaproposal' c-once~ning;:the'old
,s~wage:settling p~nd. located on-'the,~groumds":nex~,ito
.~he"pond and .adjacent-bui:t~ing is scheduled:for ~emoval'by~theRivann-~
~ Water, and:Sewer 'Authority."tIt is assumed, that the'surface~water
be ~pumped~off~ and?the .bermhulldozed'-:to f.i.ll.'the',void,, '
~.~i'~..~ .~ ' : ,' · ' 7 ~--~'..
We feel that i~' would be more feasible to modify the pond and make it
available-for'stUdy-by thestudents atHenley. 'The plan would call
for dredging or removing alarge part of the organic accumulation in
~the bottom Of~ the pond~and"modi~ying th~:berm on ~he uphill'side so'as
to encompass part of the watershed, therefore capturing run-off from
the. hill. ~',Th~:~pond~,.is already designed with an overflow that directs
excess water'_into Slabtown Creek. Several good rains would fill' the
pond, and,.the ;suhsequent. successio~ of ::life-:could'be observed.
firsthand.' The adjacent building could bedismantled as.planned.
With-~,the'ex=eption~,of'the ~remo~val.,,of~.the, organic~'accumulation,
cost. of this venture~should be'~less~'than~.~that o.f~the'or!gin~l~plan.~~'
PriVate funds can,~be pursued by~the. He~ley'~Outdoor Club to hetp.~'defray
'the cost of dredging.~~, · ...... - ~ ,.' '
The advantages and~ oppor~tunities,.that ~ould be made, available ~to
teachers an~ students resulting from ~such~aproj. ect are .many and~
varied. Studies, cou,ld~-include:-,
November 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
167
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
15.
The process of pond succession
The development of the aquatic community
Food chains and predator/prey relationships
The processes of natural cycle
Eutrophication
Benthic and pelagic life
Improving sensory and awareness skills
Chemical analysis
Watershed management
Erosion control
Human impact on the environment
Adaptation and animal behavior
Properti~s~:of'Wate~~--
Improving and repairing the environment
Civic responsibilities (students playing an active role in
the ~restoration~project.)
We appreciate you ~taking:.the 'time to consider and' review this project,
and Iook forwards'to: your help.' in providing the best educational
experience: possibte~ :for. all students."
Agend~a Item,.No,. 19.: ,.Adjourn. There being no further business, the
meeting was adj~ourned, at 9:29 p;m~