1990-11-07November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on November 7, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County
Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and
County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris,
to adopt the following certification of executive session from the afternoon
meeting:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
Agenda Item No. 4. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
Mr. Bowie asked if anyone from the public was present on ZTA-90-13
(Agenda Item No. 12). Several people raised their hands. Mr. Bowie explained
that yesterday afternoon the staff received new information on the proposed
amendment and will recommend that it be referred back to the Planning Commis-
sion for consideration of the information. Mr. Bowie said the proposed
amendment was advertised for public hearing, so the Board will take comments
from anyone who feels he must speak when the items comes up for discussion on
tonight's agenda, but it will be referred back to the Planning Commission
without Board discussion. The ZTA will be readvertised at the appropriate
time.
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
49
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to accept the Consent Agenda as information.
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Planning Commission Minutes for October 9, October 16, Octo-
ber 23, and October 31, 1990, were received for information.
Item 5.2. Letter dated October 31, 1990, from Mr. J~ A. Echols, Assis-
tant Resident Engineer, YDoT, re: Location and Design Public Hearing Route
654 (Project #0654-002-242, C501) from 0.09 miles west of Route 656 (George-
town Road) to the intersection of Route 1406 (Surry Road/West Park Road), was
received. Mr. Echols notes that the public hearing will be held on Thursday,
November 15, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., at Jack Jouett Middle School.
Item 5.3. Memo from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., re: Reassignment of the
County Executive's staff, effective January 1, 1991, received for information.
(The memo states that staff has completed plans for the reassignment and
reclassification of two positions on the Executive's staff. Effective January
1, 1991, one of the Deputy County Executive positions will be retitled as
Assistant County Executive/Director of Development Administration. This
position will be responsible for organizing a new Department of Development
Administration. Also, the position of Management Analyst will be reclassified
to the position of Executive Assistant. This position will focus primarily on
budget preparation needs, as well as assisting the Board of Supervisors and
County Executive.)
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-90-11 and SP-90-68. Caleb Stowe (applicant);
Ednam House Limited Partnership (owner). To amend ZMA-84-12 to allow uses
permitted under Sec. 17.2.2.11 on 1.89 acres zoned R-10, Residential, with
PROFFERS. Property on south side of Worthington Dr in Ednam. Tax Map 60.
Parcel 28A1. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 23 and October 30, 1990.)
Mr. Bowie said the applicant has requested that these petitions be
deferred until the next available Board meeting. Motion was offered by Mr.
Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer ZMA-90-11 and SP-90-68, at the
request of the applicant, until November 28, 1990. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Hnmphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-90-14. Princeton Homes Corporation. To rezone
one acre from Heavy Industry to Highway Commercial. Property located on west
side of Rt 29 in northwest corner of intersection of Rt 29 and Northside
Drive. Tax map 32, Parcel 74. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on October 23 and October 30, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: Adjacent properties are undeveloped and zoned
HI, Heavy Industry. Properties to the south have approved site plans
(Rivanna Commercial Park). Properties across Route 29 are zoned RA.
The site is currently occuPied by a model house.
Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Industrial Service
in the Community of Hollymead.
Specific recommendation of the Land Use Plan for commercial service
areas in Hollymead are as follows:
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
5O
Regional service on Route 29 North at Route 649. This area is
intended to serve commercial service needs for the Hollymead
community, the Airport, and Route 29 North traffic ....
No commercial uses on either side of Route 29 up to the entrance
of the existing Hollymead Subdivision. It is the intent of the
Plan that the large regional use area ....
The intent of the land use recommendations are to specifically re-
strict regional service in Hollymead to the Route 29/Proffit Road/
Airport Road area to discourage the stripping of Route 29 with com-
mercial uses. While these recommendations specifically address the
area along Route 29 south of the Hollymead Subdivision, the general
intent of this recommendation should be consistent for all of Route 29
in Hollymead. The land use map for Hollymead indicates no commercial
service uses north of the Route 29/Proffit Road/Airport Road intersec-
tion. Recently a Comprehensive Plan amendment was submitted by Jay
Townsend for property north of this site. This request was withdrawn
by the applicant. Staff did not recommend favorably on that request
and views the current request as similar in character.
Summary and Recommendation: The applicant is requesting this rezoning
'to capture its highest and best use'. The applicant cites as further
justification for this request the 'abundance of undeveloped industri-
ally zoned property.' Additional justifications are included in the
applicant's letter. In an effort to address the site's location on a
gateway to the city the applicant has submitted the following proffer:
'We will proffer that permitted uses (1) automobile laundries,
(2) automobile, truck repair shops, (4) building material sales,
and (22) machinery and equipment service only, not be allowed.'
Site Suitability: The intent of the HC, Highway Commercial District
is to allow for uses which are 'primarily oriented to highway
locations rather than to central business concentrations. It is
intended that the HC districts be established on major highways within
the urban area and communities of the Comprehensive Plan'.
The property is served by public water and is in the jurisdictional
area for sewer. This site may not be served by public sewer at this
time as it has not been allocated any of the sewer capacity at the
Camelot Treatment Facility.
During review of previous site plans for this property, the Engineer-
ing Department noted that the soils on the site are highly erodible
and, therefore, drainage needs to be collected and not allowed to flow
overland.
Traffic Impact: Since 1978 it has been County policy and practice not
to approve rezonings which would increase traffic on U. S. Route 29
North in the Urban Area above that which would be generated by uses
allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has attempted to continue
this practice in the Hollymead Community. The Virginia Department of
Transportation has calculated that existing zoning could result in
approximately 15 to 50 vehicle trips per day. Under HC zoning, at
least 1000 to 3000 vehicle trips could be generated. Current traffic
volume on Route 1570 is approximately 211 vehicle trips per day. The
Department of Transportation has recommended improvements to the left
turn lane in the northbound lane of Route 29. Staff notes that
improvement of the turn lane was required with the approval of Phase
II for the Rivanna Commercial Park which is located opposite this site
on Northside Drive. In addition, the VDoT has recommended that the
traffic volume on Route 1570 be limited or that the road be upgraded
to handle the increased traffic.
If this request is approved it may increase traffic congestion which
would be inconsistent with several of the stated purposes of the
Zoning Ordinance.
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Summary: Staff offers the following summary comments:
This request is not in harmony with the recommended use of
Industrial Service areas as shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
This request represents a rezoning which could establish uses
characteristic of a Regional Service area. Should this request
be approved, staff would recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be
amended;
The requested HC, Highway Commercial zoning for property on Route
29 North is arguably consistent with the statement of intent of
the HC zoning district; however, any other properties along U. S.
29 North not zoned HC, Highway Commercial could be subject to the
same argument. Except under restrictive proffers, HC rezonings
on roads other than Route 29 North in the northern Urban Area
have been viewed as inconsistent With the statement of intent of
the HC district;
This request would result in an increase in traffic when compared
to existing zoning;
The development community has consistently criticized the County
as to the lack of industrial land served by public water, public
sewer, major highways and with reasonable topography;
This site possesses all of the above characteristics with the
exception of public sewer. The lack of public sewer at this time
may equally restrict commercial as well as industrial develop-
ment;
Proffers to address comments of the Department of Transportation
have not been submitted;
The applicant has stated that some industrial uses on this lot
may 'be a blight on the entryway.' Staff opinion is that suffi-
cient regulations are found in the Zoning Ordinance to mitigate
the possible negative aspects of industrial development.
~or the above stated reasons, staff cannot support this request and
recommends denial of ZMA-90-14 Princeton Homes."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 16,
1990, unanimously recommended denial of ZMA-90-14.
Mr. Bowie asked if the applicant was present and then if anyone in
opposition to the request was present. No one was present in opposition. The
public hearing was opened and Mr. Bob Smith, representing the applicant,
explained that he is the applicant's realtor. He presented pictures showing
the building currently located on the property. Mr. Smith said it is the
applicant's intent to sell the property. In response to the staff's comment
that this property should not be zoned HC because it is in violation of the
Comprehensive Plan recommendations, it is his feeling that the Comprehensive
Plan acts only as a guide, and is not property specific. It is not a valid
argument that removing one piece of property from the industrial zone impacts
the industrial use of the entire community. The staff also commented that the
County has a policy of not rezoning properties in this area. In response to
that comment, this property was subdivided and zoned industrial in 1977.
Conditions have changed since 1977 and such a policy needs to be reconsidered.
Mr. Smith read the following comment from the Planning Commission min-
utes: "Mr. Johnson interjected that he was appalled that this one acre of
property is currently zoned for heavy industry, a zoning with a public nui-
sance potential on an entrance corridor. He felt the zoning should be recon-
sidered from that standpoint." Mr. Smith said he agrees with that comment
made by Mr. Johnson. He then presented photographs (on file) of the roadway
leading into the property and surrounding properties. He restated the appli-
cant's intent to proffer out certain commercial uses not in character with the
area. In consideration of the entrance corridor, he does not think that
industrial use is appropriate for this location.
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
52
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bain said he had represented Princeton Homes in the past, but is not
a regular attorney for them. He does not think he has a conflict of interest
and will, therefore, participate in discussion of the request.
Mr. Bain asked several questions about zoning on properties in the
adjacent area. Mr. Cilimberg responded to the questions.
Mr. Bowie asked how many uses are listed for Highway Commercial in the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg responded there are 40 uses by-right.
Mr. Bain said allowing this rezoning would be strip zoning. He would
prefer that there be a specific use for the property before considering
rezoning. He does not think that HC should be allowed in this location.
Mr. Bowie said this property lies within his district. He thinks the
only reason to allow this rezoning is to allow the lot to be salable. He does
not support the rezoning request, nor does he see an advantage to the County
by allowing the rezoning. He agrees with Mr. Bain that HC should not be
allowed in this location.
Mrs. Humphris said the main reason for not allowing rezonings in this
location is the traffic impact. The existing zoning would generate approxi-
mately 50 vehicle trips per day. A rezoning could add from 1000 to 3000
vehicle trips per day. She does not think it is in the best interest of the
County to allow this property to be rezoned. Mrs. Humphris then offered
motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to deny ZMA-90-14. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-90-15. Open Door Church (applicant), Greenbrier
Square Limited Partnership (owner). To revise ZMA-85-18 and ZMA-90-01 in
order to add "church" to the uses allOwed. Property on north side of Green-
brier Dr approx. 600 feet west of Rt 29. Tax Map 61W, Section 1, Block A,
Parcel 5. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 23 and October 30, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: This property is the location of Greenbrier
Square. Adjacent properties are developed commercially.
Summary and Recommendation: The Zoning Administrator has notified the
applicant that an investigation is taking place as to the possibility
of a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has indicated
that the name of the church which has leased space is not Open Door
Church, but is Word of Faith Fellowship.
During earlier rezonings on the property, uses were limited by prof-
fers. The uses retained were designed to limit heavy traffic uses so
as not to substantially increase traffic on/and turning movements from
Route 29 to Greenbrier Drive. The zoning on the site prior to
ZMA-84-32 was C-l, Commercial, a less intensive use. That zoning
would have allowed churches 'by-right'
Churches typically experience peak traffic generation on Sundays. The
other uses on the site would be closed or would be experiencing low
traffic generation during these times. These factors indicate that
the addition of churches as a permitted use will not result in a
significant increase in traffic volumes from the site. This would be
consistent with previous zoning actions on this site which have
attempted to restrict uses which are high traffic generators.
Staff has concerns that sufficient parking is available on the site.
The Zoning Department has stated that it is unable to determine if
unallocated parking exists on the site. Staff notes that churches
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
53
would have peak parking demand during times that other businesses are
closed or experiencing low parking needs. A church or any other use
on the site would require a zoning clearance at which time the Zoning
Administrator would be able to determine if sufficient parking is
available. Addition of churches to the list of permitted uses does
not affect the requirement that adequate parking be provided for uses
on the site.
Staff opinion is that this request in consistent with the original
intent of the 1984 rezoning. Staff has reviewed this request for
compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan and recommends that uses permitted under Section
24.2.1.5 be allowed."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 16,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-90-15 to add "Churches (refer-
ence 24.2.1.5)" to the list of permitted uses.
Mr. Bowie asked if anyone was present in opposition to the request.
There was no response. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Bud Treakle,
attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board. He said the staff report
addresses the issues. He is present to answer any questions and asks the
Board to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Treakle
said the church consists of a congregation of approximately 20 families who
would like to use this property on a short term basis until they relocate to
permanent facilities. Also present were the pastor of the church and members
of the congregation.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
ZMA-90-15 to add "Churches (reference 24.2.1.5)" to the list of uses permitted
under ZMA-85-18 and ZMA-90-01. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-89. R. B. & Carolyn P. Sweeney (owner), W.S.
Figgatt (applicant). To renew SP-85-78 to allow the continued removal of sand
on 530.618 acres zoned Rural Areas. Property on east side of Rt 53 approx one
mile east of Rt 729. Tax Map 94, Parcel 17. Scottsville District. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on October 23 and October 30, 1990.)
Mr. Bowie said the applicant requests that this item be indefinitely
deferred. He recommends that it be dropped from the agenda without prejudice.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to drop
SP-90-89 from the agenda without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-90-22. Rick L. Beyer. To rezone 25.333 acres
from Rural Areas to Planned Residential Development (33.2.1). Property to be
added to the existing Ashcroft PRD. Property located adjacent to northern
section of existing Ashcroft PRD. Tax Map 62, Parcel 85 (a portion). Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 23 and October 30,
1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Applicant's Proposal: Ashcroft PRD was originally approved in 1979
and amended in 1980 to authorize a maximum of 228 lots (ZMA-90-03).
Since that time, about one-half of the lots have been platted.
Recently, the current developer has had an opportunity to obtain
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
additional land which will allow realignment of a proposed roadway to
more suitable terrain. While no additional lots are proposed, this
additional land may be more suited to residential use than some other
areas within the PRD. Any redistribution of lots can be approved
administratively by the Director of Planning and Community Development
pursuant to Section 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Summary and Recommendation: The applicant is proposing to subdivide
25.333 acres zoned RA and incorporate them into the existing PRD to
realign a preliminary road. No other changes to ZMA-80-03 are pro-
posed.
As justification, the applicant has stated 'The highest elevations of
Ashcroft were designed to be served by a road coming up the southeast
face of the mountain through an area of steep slopes and rock outcrop-
pings. The addition of the 25.333 acre parcel will enable a much more
accessible road built on better soil composition and less rock.' The
Engineering Department has reviewed the preliminary layout and has
stated 'The road as originally approved would require construction of
approximately 600 feet on 25 percent or greater slopes. The new
alignment requires approximately 100 feet in areas of 25 percent or
greater slopes. It is logical and sound engineering practice to use
the realignment.'
Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the purposes and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and provides a
more environmentally sensitive roadway without increase in the number
of dwelling units. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-90-22 with the
following agreements:
Compliance with ZMA-80-03;
Staff approval of subdivision plat showing 25.333 acre subdivi-
sion;
No subdivision approval shall be given until the revised applica-
tion plan for the entire approval contained herein has been
submitted to the Department of Planning. Such plans shall be
submitted within sixty (60) days of the Board approval of this
petition."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 30,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of the ZMA-90-22 subject to the agree-
ments recommended by the staff.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Wilson Cropp, owner of the 25 acres,
addressed the Board. Mr. Beyer has an option to purchase the property. Mr.
Cropp said he knows that Mr. Beyer does not intend to increase the number of
lots. The original road is steeper than the road proposed at this time. He
has an agreement with Mr. Beyer that the density in Ashcroft will not be
increased.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
ZMA-90-22 subject to the following agreements as recommended by the Planning
Commission:
1. Compliance with ZMA-80-03;
Staff approval of subdivision plat showing 25.333 acre subdivi-
sion;
No subdivision approval shall be given until the revised applica-
tion plan for the entire approval contained herein has been
submitted to the Department of Planning. Such plans shall be
submitted within sixty (60) days of the Board approval of this
petition.
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 55
(Page 8)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-90-84. L.F., Jr. & Patricia E. Wood (owner),
Sovran Bank (applicant). To allow five drive-through windows (24.2.2.13) on a
one-acre portion of 35.52 acres zoned Highway Commercial. Property located
adjacent to Bonanza on north side of Rt 631 approx four-tenths of mile east of
Rt 29 North. Tax Map 61, Parcel 124E (part). Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 23 and October 30, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The site is presently developed with the
Putt-Putt parking lot and the Hanover Custom Building Sales lot. The
remainder of this 35 acre parcel is undeveloped. Adjacent uses
include the Bonanza restaurant to the west and a church and the Centel
offices on the south side of Rio Road.
Staff Comment: The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a
drive-through facility consisting of four windows and one automatic
teller machine. The site plan proposes the following (staff requests
administrative approval of all of these actions):
Construction of a 2915 square foot bank to be served by 30
parking spaces.
Construction of a public road to serve the site and provide
access to the undeveloped portion of the property.
Relocation of the Bonanza entrance on Rio Road to the proposed
access road.
Extension of the raised median and left turn lane on Rio Road
from its present terminus at the Bonanza entrance to be realigned
with proposed access road.
Relocation of the existing Putt-Putt parking lot to a temporary
location directly north of the bank site.
Construction of a sidewalk on the east side of the proposed
access road.
Delineation of a proposed property line to create a one acre site
for the bank. Staff requests administrative approval of this
plat upon approval of the special use permit.
Due to concerns regarding access and circulation patterns combined
with high traffic volumes, uses involving a drive-through facility are
permitted by special use permit only. Staff is of the opinion that
the site plan has been revised to address these concerns and incor-
porate the recommendations of the Site Review Committee.
The ITE Trip Generation Handbook estimates this use could generate
1590 vehicle trips per weekday. Rio Road is listed as non-tolerable,
however, the road improvements currently under construction will
return it to a tolerable status. The %fOOT has stated they support the
closing of several entrances on Rio Road and the use of a single
access road.
The only issue identified by staff which must be specifically ad-
dressed by the Planning Commission is the one-way travel aisle pro-
posed at the rear of the site.
Section 4.12.6.2, INTERNAL CIRCULATION, states: 'One-way circulation
aisles shall not be permitted, except that the commission may approve
one-way circulation in such case where the same is necessitated by the
peculiar character of the site or of the proposed use such as but not
limited to uses involving drive-in windows and automobile laundries.'
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
The internal design of the site has been revised to provide a safe and
convenient circulation pattern and staff recommends approval of the
preliminary site plan with the incorporation of the one-way travel
aisle.
Recommended Conditions of Approval: Staff has reviewed the special
use permit in accordance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
and determined that a bank with a drive-through window would be in
character with other uses in the area. Staff recommends approval of
SP-90-84 with the following conditions:
Approval is for four drive-through windows and one drive-through
automatic teller machine only. Any additional drive-through
facilities require a separate special use permit petition.
The site plan shall be in accordance with the Sovran Bank Prelim-
inary Site Plan dated October 23, 1990, and initialled RET."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 23,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-84 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that condition #2 be
amended to read: "The development shall be in general accordance with the
Sovran Bank ..."
Mrs. Humphris asked why the existing Putt-Putt parking lot is being
relocated to a temporary location. Mr. Cilimberg said to provide for addi-
tional development.
Mr. Bowie asked if anyone was present to speak in opposition to the
request. There was no response. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Lloyd
Wood, the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Wood said the site plan has
been prepared. There presently are three entrances into the property. He has
attempted to converge these into one entrance. He explained the location of
the new entrance. The bank building will set back into the property and the
drive-through facilities will be located to the eastern end of the building to
allow the traffic to have a circular movement. The bank will be located in
the existing Putt-Putt parking lot. Putt-Putt will move into the space
currently occupied by Hanover Homes. Hanover Homes will be moved further into
the property.
Mr. Wood said the original request was proffered for two existing zones,
HC and C-1. The property originally was all C-1. For HC, they proffered out
all undesirable uses, except for the resale of homes, which allowed Hanover
Homes use of the property. This basically resulted in C-1 zoning. The plan
shows an entrance into the new Putt-Putt parking lot to allow circular move-
ment. An entrance will also be added to the back of the Bonanza lot to allow
a complete inter-flow of traffic in the area, completely off of Rio Road.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Brent Nelson, of Roudabush, Gale & Assoc.,
who prepared the site plan, said Sovran Bank presently has two branches in the
area, one in Fashion Square Mall and one on Route 29 next to Brown Olds.
Sovan Bank intends to consolidate the two branches into one bank. Based on
use of the present banking facilities, Sovran estimates 760 transactions per
day. A landscape plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. It is
Sovran Bank's intent to provide more landscaping than required by the Zoning
Ordinance.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bain asked about the traffic situation and if the median on Rio Road
will be extended. Mr. Cilimberg explained the flow of traffic and said it is
his understanding that the median will be extended just to the west of the en-
trance into the Bonanza and Sovran Bank sites.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve
SP-90-84 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and
the amendment of condition #2 as follows:
Approval is for four drive-through windows and one drive-through
automatic teller machine only. Any additional drive-through
facilities require a separate special use permit petition;
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
The development shall be in general accordance with the Sovran
Bank Preliminary Site Plan dated October 23, 1990, and initialled
RET.
Mrs. Humphris commented that she owns some Sovran Bank stock, but neither
the annual income or percentage of ownership disqualifies her from participa-
tion in the vote on this petition.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs~ Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-90-13. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance in Sections 10.3 and 10.5 of the Rural Areas section to bring them
into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to agricultural and
rural uses and to resolve ambiguities in those sections. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on October 23 and October 30, 1990.)
Mr. Bowie reiterated his earlier comments that additional information has
been received and it is the intent of the Board to refer the proposed amend-
ment back to the Planning Commission. Another public hearing will be sched-
uled after review by the Commission. If persons are present to make comments,
they will be allowed to do so at this time.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend
Sections 10.3 and 10.5 of the Rural Areas to bring them into compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to agricultural and rural uses and to
resolve ambiguities in those sections. In working on the amendments, the
staff realized that although it might be able to resolve ambiguities, it could
be faced with some problems in the administrative aspects of the amendments,
if the amendments were to refer all determination for development rights to
the official tax map of Albemarle County as of December 31, 1980. For that
reason, the amendment discussed by the Planning Commission, at two public
hearings, more clearly defines and delineates the current process and relies
on the tax map of Albemarle County as the basic reference with some excep-
tions. Those exceptions are as they currently exist in the administration of
this section of the ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff and Commission struggled with the amendment
because they did not know if what they were proposing met the intent of the
Board. The staff felt the proposed amendment was the "safest" approach in
dealing with the determination of development rights for parcels in existence
as of December 10, 1980. The language before the Board focuses on Section
10.3.a.1 which reads: "a. Any land depicted on the Tax Map bearing one (1)
parcel identification number shall be deemed to be one (1) parcel except as
follows: 1) The parcel consisted of multiple lawful lots of record at 5:15
p.m., the tenth day of December, 1980, the effective date of this ordinance."
That is essentially the current language, but it is more clearly spelled out
along with other exceptions and determining sections. There are concerns
administratively that there are parcels recorded in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court which are not represented on the tax map.
Mr. Cilimberg said in review of the proposed amendment, staff basically
looked at two options: 1) amend Section 10.3.a.1, or 2) delete Section
10.3.a.1. A third option (hand out) has been recommended by the Piedmont
Environmental Council. He received this proposal yesterday afternoon. He has
not had an opportunity to talk with PEC concerning the recommendation. The
proposal is an attempt to deal with both the reality of the tax maps and the
intent of the Board in trying to assure that development rights are exercised
in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan in the rural areas. The staff has
not had an opportunity to absorb all of the information nor discuss the
implications of the proposal. Because of that, the staff recommends that the
Board refer the proposed text amendment back to the Commission for consid-
eration of the new information.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, representing
Piedmont Environmental Council, said Mr. Cilimberg handed to the Board a
version of PEC's proposal that has since been changed to make it clearer. He
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
58
apologized in being late with the proposal. Mr. Lindstrom then handed out a
revised version (copy on file) of PEC's proposal which included some examples
to illustrate how all of the proposals would work. Mr. Lindstrom said this is
an attempt to deal with an administrative problem, but also to improve the
clarity of the language in the ordinance. He then made the following correc-
tion to the last paragraph on the second page: "Any legal parcel, as of
December 10, 1980, of less than twenty-one ... shall be allowed one dwelling
unit."
Mr. Dave Bass, a resident of Red Hill, said he is concerned about the
proposed amendment. His first concern is that the Board needs to establish a
policy for development and protection of the rural areas in the County. He
feels that the interpretation of this 1980 Ordinance has been confused in the
County and he feels abused by people who are less concerned than he in protec-
ting the rural areas. It is his understanding that the County Attorney's
office, Planning staff and recently the Zoning Administrator's staff have made
somewhat conflicting determinations as to development rights. Since 1980,
development rights have had an economic quantity which has become more impor-
tant. He thinks that he Board in 1980 did its best to establish an ordinance
to protect the rural areas, but no one could anticipate the growth in the
County, the growth pressures and perhaps the ability of people to see loops in
the ordinance when their desire was to obtain the maximum number of salable,
developable lots in a subdivision. It concerns him that the proposed amend-
ment could open "Pandora's box" by allowing development rights to be deter-
mined by some past plat that had more lawful parcels than shown on the tax
map. He hopes that the Board makes a distinction between what is good for
administration and what is good policy. The Board should first consider what
it wants to happen in the rural areas and then work its way through the
administrative side. In a recent decision by the Zoning Administrator, 62
by-right lots exploded into 107 lots in the rural areas because someone was
able to convince the Zoning Administrator that in 1961 there ware nine lawful
lots instead of the one shown on the tax map. That is the issue before the
Board and it has a tremendous impact on rural development. He asked that this
be the focus of the Board.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Jack Marshall, representing Citizens for
Albemarle, presented a statement (on file) and a visual demonstration using a
small area of the County to describe what current policy regarding development
rights could mean for residential units. Citizens for Albemarle feels the
most compelling reason to clarify wording in Sections 10.3 and 10.5 is to
avoid an interpretation that would result in substantially greater development
in the rural areas of the county. It is their feeling that these two sections
are keystones in the county's growth management program.
The public hearing was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to
refer ZTA-90-13 back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the new
material submitted. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Review of Conditions on SP-90-24 (Michael Shifflett)
for a bridge over the Doyles River.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated November 2, 1990:
"SP-90-24 was approved on September 19, 1990 with four conditions:
a. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit.
b. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design.
c. Department of Engineering approval of hydrogeologic and hydraulic
calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
d. Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of an entrance
permit.
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Recommendation: Staff recommends that condition (b) be revised as
follows: "b. Applicant will post a sign on the bridge indicating it
is private, not public, prohibiting trespassing, and stating the
weight limit."
Background: This special permit was triggered by the Zoning Ordinance
requiring permits for structures in a flood plain. The application
was for a bridge for access to Mr. Shifflett's house to be built on a
lot served only by a ford crossing of the Doyle's River on a neigh-
bor's property. Staff recommended the bridge replace the ford,
thereby providing access to other properties via the bridge. The
applicant did not agree with staff's recommendations, intending to
continue use of the ford.
The Board discussed the staff recommendation, the concept of making
the bridge a public facility by use of the power of eminent domain,
the willingness of Mr. Shifflett to allow his neighbors to use the
bridge if they helped pay for it. The discussion concluded with a
statement that the Board should not require actions on the part of
landowners with which they cannot legally comply. The permit was,
therefore, approved for Mr. Shifflett to construct a bridge only for
access to his property.
Conclusions: Conditions 'a' and 'c' fulfill the flood plain and soil
erosion matters of construction in the flood plain. Condition "d"
serves the public safety responsibility of entrance onto a public
highway. Condition 'b' serves no public purpose, and in fact, in-
volves the County Engineer's subjective judgement since there are not
written objective standards for a private bridge serving a residential
use. Mr. Shifflett has a design which suits his needs, which has been
reviewed by a private engineer, and which Mr. Shifflett, from his own
knowledge and experience, is willing to build and use. There is no
need for a stamp of approval by the County Engineer."
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to amend
condition (b) of SP-90-24 as follows:
b. Applicant will post a sign on the bridge indicating it is private,
not public, prohibiting trespassing, and stating weight limit.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: September 5, October 3 (A) and
October 10, 1990.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of October 3(A), Ail, and October 10,
1990, Pages 8 (Item #9) 18 (Item #19) and found both sets to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of October 10, 1990, Pages 1
#9) and found them to be in order.
8 (Item
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Rumphris, to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board
Members.
Mr. Bowie commented that the Clerk has received letters from several
cities and counties in opposition to the proposed pledge bonds.
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
6O
Mrs. Humphris said she received a telephone call from a resident on 01d
Forge Road concerning leaf burning. She asked the staff to provide a report
on the feasibility of establishing service districts for leaf collection.
Mrs. Humphris handed out a document entitled "Memo to Members of the
Commonwealth Transportation Board" concerning improvements to the Route 29
North corridor. The document was produced by a group of County citizens in
response to the position paper presented by VDoT on October 24 at Natural
Bridge. The purpose of the document is to indicate to the members of the
Transportation Board that the taxpayers spent $3.0 million for a study and the
results of the study were not made known and clear to members of the Transpor-
tation Board. The document is prepared in a question and answer format to
point out the true conclusions of the Sverdrup study and what the obvious road
solution should be. The document consists of nine pages of text with support-
ing data. The Transportation Board is holding a work session on this subject
on Wednesday, November 14, in Manassas. This item will be discussed further
and a possible decision made on November 15. Mrs. Humphris said the Secretary
of Transportation has been receptive and open to information, and has been
provided with a detailed history of the legal efforts to protect that area.
Mr. Bowie said if the Transportation Board decides to take public com-
ments, the Clerk's office will be notified and he will plan to attend the
meeting.
Mr. Bowie commented that the Transportation Board was not aware that this
Board could not reserve land and that much of the land may be in permanent
open space easement. If VDoT wants the land they will have to purchase it.
Mrs. Humphris said the Transportation Board has been notified of the
University of Virginia's true position concerning a western bypass.
Not Docketed: At 9:05 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by
Mr. Way, to adjourn into executive session under Virginia Code Section
2.1-344.A.7 to discuss legal matters (the Inglecress Limited Partnership
case). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
At 9:20 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered
by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following certification of
executive session:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
November 7, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
VOTE:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT DURING VOTE:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
None.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn to November 8, 1990, Room 11, at 10:00 A.M.
for EXecutive Session.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adjourn to
November 8, 10:00 A.M., Meeting Room #11. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
CHAIRMAN