1990-05-16May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 172
(Page ~)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 16, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, Co~u~Lv
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS 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.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, 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
7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way and
seconded by Mr. Bain to approve Items 4.1 through 4.4a and to accept the
remaining items as information.
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.
Item 4.1. Revised Highway Revenue Sharing Resolution for the 1990-91
Fiscal Year was adopted by the vote shown above and set out as follows.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 33.1-75.1, the
Virginia Department of Transportation can provide state funds to match
county funds for the construction, maintenance or improvement of
primary and secondary highways in the county; and
WHEREAS, a shortfall in the County Primary and Secondary Fund
Revenue Sharing Program has resulted in Albemarle County adjusting its
original request from $500,000 to $424,000;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Department of Transportation
participate in matching Revenue Sharing Funds for FY 1990-91 for the
following projects:
Route 631,
widening of Rio Road East, #0631-002-128,C503,
$250,000
Route 601, Bridge improvement over Buck Mountain
Creek, #0601-002-225,B653,
$ 50,000
Route 743, intersection improvement at Route 606,
#0743-002-235,C501
$124,000
Item 4.2. Memo dated May 10, 1990 from the County Executive, stating
that the Police Department has prepared two highway safety grants from the
Department of Motor Vehicles for Driver Death Rate Reduction Program and
Accident Reduction Program Grants~ Authorization to apply for these grants
was given by the vote shown above.
Item 4.3. Street Sign Request in Mill Creek Subdivision (Mill Creek
Drive, Gray Stone Court, Boulder Spring Court) was approved by the vote shown
above and set out in the following resolution:
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 173
(Page 2)
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads:
Mill Creek Drive (State Route 1150 and
Gray Stone Court (State Route 1154) at its intersection.
Gray Stone Court (State Route 1154) and
Boulder Spring Court (State Route 1155) at its intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain
the above mentioned street signs.
Item 4.4. Street Sign Request in Terrell Subdivision (Georgetown Road,
Terrell Road East, Terrell Road West, and Terrell Court) was approved by the
vote shown above and set out in the following resolution:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads:
Georgetown Road (State Route 656) and
Terrell Road East (State Route 1320) at its intersection.
Terrell Road East (State Route 1320) and
Terrell Road West (State Route 1321) at its intersection.
Terrell Road West (State Route 1321) and
Terrell Court (State Route 1322) at its intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the
above mentioned street signs.
Item 4.4a. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sher-
iff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of April, 1990,
were approved by the vote shown above.
Item 4.5. Planning Commission Minutes for April 24 and May 1, 1990,
received as information,
Item 4.6. Letter dated May 7, 1990, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Virginia
Department of Transportation, stating that VDoT intends to repair the existing
superstructure on Route 680 over Lickinghole Creek during the period May 21,
1990, through May 25, 1990, was received as information.
Item 4.7. Letter dated May 9, 1990, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commission-
er, Virginia Department of Transportation, enclosing a copy of the Estimated
1990-91 Fiscal Year Secondary System Construction Allocations was received as
information.
Item 4.8. Memorandum dated May 10, 1990, from the County Executive,
entitled, "Fiscal Year 89-90 Budget Projections", received as information as
follows:
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
174
"Staff has completed budget projections for the balance of this year
from third quarter financial reports, and has determined that revenues
may be short by approximately one percent, but that expenditures will
be less than appropriations in amounts that should offset the revenue
shortfall. The result on June 30 should be a positive balance of less
than one percent when comparing expected General Fund revenues to
estimated General Fund expenditures.
Department and Agency heads have been notified that a positive ending
balance will be accomplished if they continue to scrutinize their
operational expenditure for the remainder of the fiscal year as they
have done throughout the year.
Agenda Item No. 5.. SP-90-23. J. S. & Frances D. Barnett. Public
Hearing on a petition to permit a Body Shop with a Wrecker Service on 1.7
acres (Section 27.2.2.11), Property located on west side of Route 742 adja-
Cent to Astec in-,the Scottsville District. Property is described as Tax Map
77, Parcel 8A and is zoned LI, Light Industrial. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 1 and May 8, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has requested deferral to June 20, 1990.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Perkins to
defer SP-90-23 to June 20, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Mowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-89-15. First Virginia Bank - Central. Public
hearing on a petition to allow for a bank with drive-in window to be located
on 1.4365 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map
32A, Parcel 02-1, is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Rt. 29N and Rt. 649 (Proffit Road). This property lies within a designated
growth area. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on May 1 and May 8, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Character of Area: The property is located directly south of the
Reliant Truck Company and shares a common access off of Proffit Road.
Properties on the remaining three quadrants of the intersection of
Route 29 and Proffit Road are zoned Highway Commercial and consist of
the Airport Motel and Mercer Carpet dealership on the southeast
quadrant, Central Fidelity Bank and Maupin's Grocery to the southwest,
and Airport Plaza on the northwest quadrant of the intersection.
Summary and Recommendation: The Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors will be hearing four requests with this proposal:
Petition for a special use permit for a drive through window;
Preliminary site plan for the bank;
Amendment to the subdivision plat for this property; and
Waiver request for the site plan,
Due to concerns regarding access and circulation patterns combined
with high traffic volumes, uses involving a drive-through window are
permitted by special use permit only. Staff has reviewed the proposed
site plan with strong consideration of these concerns and the proposed
exit-only onto Proffit Road has been identified as the main access
issue.
Since this petition was originally heard by the Planning ComMission on
January 16, 1990 (and recommended for denial to the Board of Super-
visors), the applicant has revised the site plan to alleviate most of
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
175
the staff's concerns regarding access. As a result of these revisions
and a statement from the Virginia Department of Transportation regard-
ing the benefits of the proposed third lane to the Route 29/Route 649
intersection, staff will recommend approval with conditions.
Staff Comment: The ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates that a
walk-in bank with a drive-through generates an average of 318 vehicle
trips per weekday for each window. In this proposal, 954 vehicle
trips per weekday could be generated at this site. It should be noted
that utilizing transaction data from similar First Virginia Bank
branches, the applicant has estimated 713 vehicle trips per weekday.
This figure would fall within the range of rates (621-1398) for the
five case studies upon which the ITE estimate was based. A walk-in
bank of this size without a drive-through would generate 570 vehicle
trips per day. The review of this proposed site plan and special use
permit has been focused on issues of site access and internal traffic
circulation.
In 1978, the Planning Commission approved a subdivision plat which
included this property. The Commission restricted the site from
additional access on Route 29 and provided for a 50-foot joint access
easement onto Proffit Road. In the past, the Virginia Department of
Transportation and the Planning Staff have consistently recommended to
potential applicants that no alteration to access would be supported.
The applicant has proposed a right turn, exit-only lane (herein after
referred as "exit") on Proffit Road approximately 250 feet east of
Route 29. While the exit has been physically designed to channel
vehicles in a westbound direction on Proffit Road, staff opinion is
that exit-only configurations have a tendency to not function properly
and can present a safety problem since left turns, both into and out
of the site, are physically possible. Therefore, staff has not
supported such proposals in the past. One of the purposes of the
parking requirements outlined in Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance
is to reduce traffic hazards and conflict. It is intended that this
be accomplished through physical design measures as opposed to direc-
tional or policing measures such as signage, one-way circulation, and
other such devices which rely on vehicle operator compliance for
effectiveness.
The Virginia Department of Transportation would support the exit in
conjunction with full frontage improvements which would allow for a
third lane onto Route 29. These improvements, which the applicant has
agreed to, would allow an exclusive left turn lane for Route 29
transitioning across the frontage of the bank site to provide for a
left turn into the site. In addition, the Virginia Department of
Transportation has stated that 'the negative influence of a right-
turn, exit-only from this site would be offset by the addition of a
much needed right-turn lane at the intersection of Route 29/Route
649'. Staff opinion remains that exit-only configurations in general
are not desirable. However, based on the Virginia Department of
Transportation's statement regarding the potential improvement to the
Route 29/Route 649 intersection, staff recommends approval of this
proposal.
Restriction of Usage: Attempting to alleviate concerns regarding
potential traffic generation occasioned by the development of the
vacant lot, the applicant has proposed a condition limiting the
permitted uses on the site. As proposed by the applicant, the vacant
portion would be limited to the following by-right uses in the Highway
Commercial district.
1) Financial institutions.
2) Furniture stores.
3) Administrative, business and professional offices.
4) Office and business machines sales and services.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
176
5) Eating establishments (not including fast food restaurants.).
In addition, the applicant has proposed that all uses requiring a
special use permit, including additional drive-through windows, will
not be allowed.
Waiver Request: The approval of this site plan requires a waiver of
Section 4.12.6.3.6 which states:
Intersections of vehicular access aisles and public streets shall
have an approach grade not exceeding four percent for a distance
of not less than forty feet measured from the edge of the travel-
way of the public road being intersected.
The applicant has stated the southern entrance ("Entrance A" on
Attachment A) 'maintains a four percent grade for the first twenty
feet, then changes to a five percent grade. Even though this is not
in strict compliance with this section, we feel that a waiver is
merited due to the fact that only a small amount of traffic will be
using the entrance'. The Engineering Department has recommended
approval of this preliminary siteplan.
Recommendation: It should be noted that approval of an egress on
Proffit Road requires an amendment to the subdivision plat for this
property. Staff requests administrative approval of that plat which
has been submitted.
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. Based on Virginia Department of Transportation comments as to
overall benefits of roadway improvements, staff recommends approval of
SP-89-15 subject to the following conditions:
Landscaping in excess of the minimum Zoning Ordinance require-
ments to include a double staggered row of azaleas or boxwoods 18
to 30 inches in height when planted across the frontage of the
site.
The permitted uses for the adjacent undeveloped portion of the
property shall be limited to:
a) Financial Institutions;
b) Furniture Stores;
c) Administrative, business and professional offices;
Office and business machines sales and service;
e) Eating establishment (not including fast food
restaurants);
f) No special use permit uses.
3. Administrative approval of the final site plan to include:
a)
Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b)
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
c)
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvements to include the construction of a
third land on Route 649 across the frontage of the site; and
issuance of a commercial entrance permit;
d)
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans;
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
e) Staff approval of landscaping plan.
4. Administrative approval of the amended subdivision plat."
177
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Con~nission, at its meeting on May 1,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
Landscaping in excess of minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements to
include a double staggered row of azaleas or boxwoods 18 to 30
inches in height when planted across the frontage of the site.
The permitted uses for the adjacent undeveloped portion of the
property shall be limited to:
fo
Financial Institutions;
Furniture Stores;
Administrative, business and professional offices;
Office and business machines sales and service;
Eating establishment (not including fast food
restaurants);
No special use permit uses.
Final site plan is to be in accordance with the plan initialled
RET and dated May 1, 1990.
In addition, the Planning Commission authorized Planning staff to
administratively approve the plat and the site plan if the Board of
Supervisors approves the special use permit. The conditions of the
site plan will include:
Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage
plans and calculations;
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-
of-way improvements to include the construction of a third
lane on Route 649 across the frontage of the site and
issuance of a commercial entrance permit;
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans;
Staff approval of landscaping plan.
Mr. Bain noted that there is no mention in the conditions of the site
plan of the left turn lane described in the staff report as a requirement by
VDoT. Mr. Cilimberg said implicit in the condition is the provision of a left
turn lane. He said the left turn lane has been part of the discussion with
the applicant from the beginning of this plan.
Mr. Bain asked if the traffic generation figure takes into account the
three drive-in windows. Mr. Cilimberg said the Trip Generation Handbook
traffic count figures include walk-in traffic as well as vehicular traffic at
the drive-in windows.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
Mr. Ronald Wiley from Smith, Taggart, Gibson and Albro came forward to
speak as a representative for the applicant. He said that Mr. Edward Yates,
President of First Virginia Bank, is present to answer any questions Board
members may have. Mr. Wiley said he hopes the Board will issue this special
use permit to allow for three drive-through lanes at the branch bank on
Proffit Road. The drive-through lanes will not have a detrimental affect on
any adjacent properties since they are all commercial uses. Mr. Wiley said a
bank is beneficial in this area of the County because there is only one bank
on Route 29 North between Rio Road and Ruckersville. He said this special use
permit will not detract from the character of the zoning district because
Highway Commercial is designed for highway vehicular uses. A bank is,
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) ~_78
(Page 7)
therefore, in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and satisfacto-
rily addresses public health, safety and generalwelfare concerns.
Mr. Wiley said the applicant has worked with staff and the Planning
Commission to address site plan issues satisfactorily. The additional lane
referred to by Mr. Bain will definitely include a left turn lane for eastbound
traffic coming into the entrance. He urged the Board to issue the special use
permit to allow drive-through windows.
There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to
approve SP-89-15 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission
and set out below.
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.
Landscaping in excess of minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements to
include a double staggered row of azaleas or boxwoods 18 to 30
inches in height when planted across the frontage of the site.
The permitted uses for the adjacent undeveloped portion of the
property shall be limited to:
Financial institutions;
Furniture stores;
Administrative, business and professional offices;
Office and business machines sales and service;
Eating establishment (not including fast food restaurants);
No special use permit uses.
Final site plan is to be in accordance with the plan initialled
RET and dated May 1, 1990.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-90-12. Chiles & Suzanne B. Larsen. Public
hearing on a petition for a Home Occupation-Class B to allow for a consulting
business in an accessory structure (5.2). The property consists of 10.8 acres
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located four-tenths of a mile south of its
intersection with Routes 786 and 637 in Spring Hill Subdivision. This proper-
ty is not within a designated growth area. Samuel Miller District. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on May 1 and 8, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The property is listed on the Virginia
Landmarks Register and National Register of Historic Places. The
property is developed with a residence and outbuildings.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to operate a public
relations consulting firm in an accessory structure. No employees are
proposed and no sales on site. Ail business is conducted by phone and
correspondence.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan states that one of four
major elements to be considered in all decisions in the rural areas is
'conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources' (1988-2010
Comprehensive Plan, page 299). The proposed use will allow for the
use of a recognized historic structure without major alterations to
the site.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff has received one letter of objec-
tion to this petition. That letter states that a court injunction is
in place which would prohibit this use. Staff has not attempted to
determine if the proposed use violates the court injunction as it
involves interpretation of a private agreement. Should this permit be
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
179
approved, the applicant proceeds at the risk of violating the court
injunction. However, violation of this injunction can be determined
only by the courts.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has recommended improvements
to the access to the site. Staff will recommend a condition requiring
those improvements contained in Attachment B.
The applicant has stated that no exterior renovations are proposed,
there will be no employees and there will be no on-site sales. Staff
opinion is that this use will not change the character of the district
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP-90-12, Chiles and Suzanne
Larsen, subject to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. No employees;
2. No on-site sales;
No change in the exterior appearance of the building or premises;
and
Use shall be limited to the summer kitchen as shown on Attachment
C~t!
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 17,
1990, recommended approval of the above-noted petition subject to conditions
1, 3 and 4 as recommended by staff and No. 2 reworded to state: "No on-site
sales; no clients or customers on premises; business shall be restricted to
phone and correspondence only".
Mr. Bowie asked if this request is for a Class B permit because it is in
an accessory structure. Mr. Cilimberg said that is his understanding.
The public hearing was opened, and the applicant, Mr. Chiles Larsen, came
forward to speak.
Mr. Larsen asked for clarification regarding the recommended condition
that no clients could be on the premises. He said some of his clients are
also his friends, and he would like to have them over to his house on social
occasions. He feels that the requirement that business be restricted to phone
and correspondence only should be sufficient, and he does not intend to have
people come to his home to conduct business.
Mr. Bowie said he feels the condition is not intended to address dinner
guests. He personally would not favor changing the condition. Mr. Way said
he does not read the condition as a reference to social gatherings in Mr.
Larsen's home.
Mr. Ethan Miller, trustee of Spring Hill Land Trust, said he opposes this
application on the grounds that this is a business use in a residential
subdivision. He said he continues to object even though the Planning Commis-
sion has recommended conditions restricting clients from the premises. He
said Mr. Larsen wants to make sure that the Board knows that his clients, who
are his friends, will be coming to his house. Mr. Miller asked how anyone
could enforce the conditions recommended. He said it strains his credibility
to believe that no business will be discussed on the premises. He said he
asked the Zoning Administrator how this condition could be enforced. The
answer was that there is no way to enforce the condition. He wondered why a
condition should be included that is not enforceable. Mr. Miller said the
issue of concern is traffic in a residential subdivision. If the Board
approves this request, he feels that the restriction prohibiting clients from
coming to the house be withdrawn and a requirement be made that the entrance
be improved. He said that will alleviate the potential problem of traffic.
There were no other members of the public present to speak, and the
public hearing was closed.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 2L80
(Page 9)
Mr. Bain asked Mr. St. John about the enforceability issue raised by Mr.
Miller. Mr. St. John said he agrees with the Zoning Administrator that this
condition is impossible for the Zoning Administrator to enforce. Mr. Bain
said if it is not enforceable, there is no need to include it as a condition.
Mr. St. John said there are many similar conditions placed on special use
permits. The Board is relying on the word of the applicant that he will meet
the conditions.
Mr. Bowie said the neighbors are aware of the amount of traffic 'that is
normal for the neighborhood. If that changes, it is obvious that business is
being conducted on site. He asked if there is any recourse for neighbors when
a violation is suspected. Mr. St. John said the condition is enforceable
under those circumstances. Mr. Cilimberg said there have been conditions
imposed in the past to which the Zoning Administrator responds only in the
case of a complaint. The people in the neighborhood are in a better position
in many cases to be aware of violations.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman
to approve SP-90-12 with the four conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission and set out below:
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.
1. No employees;
No on-site sales; no clients or customers on premises;
business shall be restricted to phone and correspondence
only;
No change in the exterior appearance of the building
premises; and
Use shall be limited to the summer kitchen as shown
on Attachment C.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-90-20. Bruce and Pamela VanderLinde. Public
hearing on a petition to permit fill in the flood plain for road construction
(Section 30.3.5.2.1.2). Property, known as Landfall, consists of 262 acres
and is located on the south side of Route 641 in the Landfall Subdivision in
the Rivanna District. Property is described as Tax Map 34, Parcel 5D, and is
zoned RA, Rural Areas.' This property is not within a designated growth area.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 1 and 8, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"STAFF COMMENT: The applicant is proposing the construction of a
private road through approximately 200 linear feet of the flood plain
of Preddy's Creek. The road is proposed to serve nine lots of the 294
acre Landfall rural preservation development (SUB-90-008). The
property is not located in the water supply watershed.
The applicant has stated that the construction is 'at a tributary
stream crossing within the fringe of the flood plain and will not
affect the one hundred year flood water surface elevation to an
adverse or significant degree.' The applicant's analysis is included
as Attachment B.
The Engineering Department has stated:
The applicant has provided us with a narrative and calculations
to support their request for a special use permit to allow fill
in the flood plain. We support the applicant's conclusion that
since the flood plain elevation at this location is controlled by
backwater effects from the Southern Railroad bridge, the proposed
fill will not result in increased flood levels due to the one
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
hundred year storm level.
SP-90-20.
181
We, therefore, recommend approval of
Based on the Engineering Department's technical review of this
request, staff recommends approval of SP-90-20 with the following
condition:
Approval of the Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Marine
Resources Commission, if applicable."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 8,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition, subject to
the condition in the staff's report. The preliminary plat was also approved
with conditions.
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing at this time.
Ms. Susan Riddle, a civil engineer representing the applicant, said the
road crossing of the one hundred year flood plain is essentially a crossing of
a tributary finger of the flood plain and not of Preddy Creek itself. She
said she has performed extensive drainage analysis of the drainage basin
upstream of this crossing and of the Southern Railroad crossing. Ms. Riddle
said this area is an approximated flood plain as determined by the Army Corps
of Engineers. That means that exhaustive hydraulic studies were not performed
by the Corps of Engineers to finely define the one hundred year flood plain.
She said an analysis of the estimated one hundred year flow through preddy
Creek indicates that water would have to be 22.5 feet deep in order to inun-
date the 400-foot contour of the flood plain at the proposed crossing. Ms.
Riddle said there may be some backwater at the Southern Railroad bridge due to
restriction at that site. In her opinion, the one hundred year flood plain
will never reach an elevation of 400 feet. However, if it ever gets to that
elevation, it would only be due to the backwater condition at the Southern
Railroad bridge. The effect of the backwater is not so much due to the stream
flow as to how fast the water can pass under the bridge. Therefore, building
a road across a finger of the flood plain would not affect the flood level.
Ms. Riddle said an adjacent property owner in support of this request
could not be present but sent a letter for members of the Board. Ms. Riddle
distributed copies of a letter dated May 16, 1990, from Mr. William G. Thomas,
III.
Mr. Perkins asked what is meant by the statement in Ms. Riddle's letter
dated April 20, 1990, that the applicant will balance cut and fill in the
flood plain if required by the Board. Ms. Riddle said because this is an
approximated flood plain, the Zoning Ordinance requirements are not as clear
as for a flood plain which is clearly defined. She said if any cut and fill
is done in the actual floodway, then the Zoning Ordinance requires balance cut
and fill or an intensive hydraulic study with the Army Corps of Engineers to
show that the flood level has not been increased by more than one foot. She
said, in her opinion, the proposed road crossing is not in the floodway. It
is in the floodway fringe, and the balance cut and fill is not required. She
said the statement is included to ensure approval of the special use permit,
but she feels that balance cut and fill would be redundant.
Mr. James Robinson came forward to speak representing himself and his
elderly friend in the audience, Mrs. Margaret Andrews. Mr. Robinson said he
is concerned about the type of material used for the fill. Mr. Robinson said
last week this area flooded, and the bridge was covered so that traffic could
not go through. He is concerned that filling in this location could cause the
Creek to gradually rise on the opposite side. Mr. Robinson also expressed
concern about the effect on the environment if the drainage from this fill
happens to be polluted and goes into Preddy Creek. He pointed out that the
road is curvy, and he is concerned about traffic conditions for future devel-
opment.
There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public
hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) Z[82
(Page 11)
Mr. Bowie asked what safeguards there are as to materials used for fill.
Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, said the fill material must be in accor-
dance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards which call for
clean fill dirt to be used. He said the County will have an inspector on the
job periodically.
Mr. Bain asked if the floodway fringe is deemed to be a part of the flood
plain. Mr. Cilimberg said it is.
Mr. Bowie asked if balance cut and fill should be a condition of approv-
al. Mr. Moring said balance cut and fill in this case is more than redundant;
it is probably environmentally destructive. He said the dirt coming from the
flood plain for use in the fill may not be suitable organically and it would
likely be counterproductive to balance cut and fill. Mr. Perkins asked if
balance cut and fill should be done on the roadway itself. Mr. Moring said
that is always good engineering practice, but it represents an expense to the
applicant and is not an area of concern for the County.
Mr. Way then offered a motion for approval of SP-90-20 with the condition
recommended by the Planning Commission as set out below. Mrs. Humphris
seconded the motion. 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.
Approval of the Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Marine
Resources Commission, if applicable.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-21. Jefferson National Bank. Public hearing
on a petition to allow for a bank with three drive-thru windows on 1.38 acres.
Property on Route 250 West is adjacent to Ivy Motor Lodge and Duner's Restau-
rant on relocated Route 678 in the Samuel Miller District. Property is
described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 84A (part of) and is zoned C-l, Commercial.
This property is not within a designated growth area. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on May 1 and May 8, 1990.)
Mrs. Humphris said, although it is not required under the Conflict of
Interest Act, she would like it to be known that she has ownership in Jeffer-
son National Bankshares. Neither the percentage of shares nor her annual
income from the shares requires that she abstain from participation in this
discussion. Mrs. Humphris said she will participate and feels that she can do
so in a fair manner.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Character of the Area: Duner's Restaurant and Ivy Commons (formerly
Ivy Motor Court) are located directly adjacent to the east and zoned
C-I, Commercial. Properties to the north and south are zoned
Village Residential, and the property to the west is zoned RA, Rural
Areas.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Jefferson National Bank is proposing a branch
bank with three drive-through windows and a drive-througb automatic
teller machine. The site is proposed to access Route 2§0 West through
the Ivy Commons site until the realignment of Route 678 is completed.
At that time, the bank will construct its main entrance with a 100-
foot turn lane and adequate taper lane onto new Route 678.
The applicant has requested the following Zoning Ordinance waivers
necessary for approval of the site development plan:
Section 4.2.2.1(b) for area regulations for building sites to
allow construction within the 100-foot stream setback.
Section 30.5.6.2.1 for reduction of the 150-foot scenic highway
setback to 95 feet for the building.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 183
(Page 12)
Section 21.7.3 for reduction of the 20-foot buffer zone adjacent
to residential districts.
STAFF COMMENT:
Building Site: The applicant has proposed a travelway, a stormwater
detention pipe and grading within the 100-foot setback from a stream
to the building site. Section 4.2.2.1(b) states: '(the) building site
shall have adequate area to accommodate all buildings and structures,
septic drain fields as approved by the Virginia Department of Health
in accordance with Section 4.1 of this ordinance, parking and loading
areas, storage yards and other improvements together with any earth-
disturbing activity necessary to accommodate such improvements. Those
provisions shall not apply to access ways, public utility lines and
appurtenances, stormwater management facilities and the like necessary
to provide reasonable usage of the property where no reasonable
alternative location exists.'
The waiver of Section 4.2.2.1(b) is necessary to grant approval of the
preliminary site plan and should also be considered in the review of
the special use permit for the drive-through facility. Staff opinion
is that the drive-through facility occasions the need for the
encroachment in the 100-foot building site setback. It appears that
the bank could be redesigned to meet the setback if the drive-through
windows were deleted and this, in staff opinion, still provides a
reasonable usage of the property. However, the applicant has revised
the plan in accordance with the recommendations from staff, the
Engineering Department, and the Watershed Management Official for
protective and restorative measures to ensure the development will be
consistent with the intent of the building site provisions. Staff
recommends approval of the waiver of Section 4.2.2.1(b) for the
following reasons:
The proposed run-off control measures, including curbing and a
combination of a level spreader and tall fescue and rye grass,
will filter the flow of storm water before it enters the deten-
tion pipe.
The construction for the realignment of Route 678 will disturb
and possibly re-channel the stream in approximately the same
location.
Subsurface detention will minimize runoff coming from the imper-
vious area and therefore lessen the flow directly into the stream
and decrease the erosion potential adjacent to the stream.
The Health Department has determined the most suitable area for
the septic field is away from the stream, moving the building
location toward Route 250. (The Health Department has given
approval of the soil percolation tests for the site.)
Scenic Highway Setback: Section 30.5.6.2.1 states that there is a
150-foot building setback from Route 250 West right-of-way. The bank
is proposed 95 feet from the right-of-way and on April 10, 1990, the
Board of Zoning Appeals granted relief from this setback requirement.
In accordance with Section 30.5.6.3, the Planning Commission may
reduce this setback provided that:
Ail parking facilities shall be located on the rear side of
the structure or building for which such exception is sought
and that such parking facilities will be screened from view
of such scenic highway;
The structures or buildings for which such exception is
sought would be visually compatible to such scenic highway
by reason of appearance and/or visual screening; and
Co
Proposals by the applicant are adequate to assure continued
protection of the scenic quality.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
While six of the 14 parking spaces are located on the side of the bank
rather than the rear (as viewed from Route 250 West), staff is of the
opinion that the substantial amount of landscaping and the fact that
the parking areas are proposed approximately ten feet above the
elevation of the highway provides adequate justification for the
reduction of the scenic highway setback.
Buffer Zone Adjacent to Residential Uses: The site plan shows grading
proposed ten feet from an adjacent property zoned YR, Village Residen-
tial. The applicant has requested a waiver of Section 21.7.3 which
states: ~No construction activity including grading or clearing of
vegetation shall occur closer than 20 feet to any residential or rural
areas district.'
The commission may waive this requirement provided that the minimum
screening requirements are met and existing landscaping is substan-
tially restored. Staff opinion is the landscape plan adequately
addresses the screening issue and recommends approval of this waiver.
Public Water Service: This property is located within the Albemarle
County Service Authority service area for water only and a twelve-inch
water line is located approximately 2340 feet distance. The Albemarle
County Service Authority has recommended that this 'expansion of
commercial development in Ivy be served by public water.' Section
32.7.5.1 states, Within the services areas of the Albemarle County
Service Authority and where the commission determines public water
and/or sewer to be reasonably available, such services shall be
extended by the developer.'
The Planning Commission should make this determination in accordance
with Section 32.7.1 regarding the provision of public services in an
orderly manner within the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Ivy is no
longer designated as a village in the Comprehensive Plan.
The developer has installed a central well adequate to serve both the
Ivy Commons site and the proposed bank. Staff opinion is that the
bank will be a relatively low water user and recommends that the
Planning Commission determine water is not reasonably available to
this property in consideration of the proposed use, the distance to
the existing line, and the fact that Ivy is not a designated growth
area in the Comprehensive Plan.
Trip Generation: The ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates that a
bank with a drive-through generates an average of 318 vehicle trips
per weekday per window. In this proposal, 1272 vehicle trips per
weekday could be generated at this site. A walk-in bank of this size
without drive-through windows would generate 378 vehicle trips per
day. The 1988 primary road traffic counts indicated 8710 average
daily trips for this section of Route 250 West.
Due to concerns regarding access and circulation patterns combined
with high traffic volumes, uses involving a drive-through window are
permitted by special use permit only. Staff has reviewed the proposed
site plan considering this and is of the opinion that the design
adequately addresses these concerns.
Recox~endation: Staff opinion is that the applicant has provided
adequate justifications for the Zoning Ordinance waiver requests and,
therefore, recommends approval of the preliminary site plan. 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-90-21 subject to the following
conditions:
Construction of an entrance on the realigned Route 678 within one
year Of the completion of the Route 678 construction.
Final site plan is to be in accordance with the plan initialled
RET and dated May 8, 1990.:
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
185
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 8,
1990, recommended approval of SP-90-21 subject to the two conditions recom-
mended by staff.
Mr. Bain asked what affect the relocation of Route 678 will have on the
stream. Mr. Cilimberg said there will be an extension of a culvert re-
channeling the stream. He said the road plans themselves will dictate changes
to the stream, and that fact played a part in the Planning Commission's
decision to grant a waiver.
Mr. Bain asked about a condition discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting that would require a 100-foot turn and taper lane at the entrance on
Route 250. Mr. Cilimberg said that requirement will be addressed at the time
of final site plan approval. He said the Ivy Commons final site plan also
addressed the entrance and was approved recently.
Mr. Bain asked the height of the screening along the front of the build-
ing. Mr. Cilimberg said the shrubbery would be from 12 to 18 inches in
height. The white pines and crepe myrtle trees will be about five feet tall.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
Ms. Marilyn Gale from Roudabush and Gale came forward to represent the
applicant. She displayed a drawing of the site as it would appear from
driving along Route 250. She said the site is elevated about ten feet from
Route 250. The line of vision from a car would be along the landscaping
rather than the building itself. The structure will be brick and the height
will be less than 35 feet, which is the ruling of the Zoning Administrator.
She said the design is compatible with the surrounding area. Ms. Gale said
banks are rarely built anymore without drive-through windows.
Mr. Bain asked the height of the screening along the front when it is
planted. Ms. Gate said the shrubs are between 12 and 24 inches. The trees
will vary from six to ten feet. She said the screening should provide nearly
a solid line of landscaping because the trees will begin at the height that
the shrubs leave off. Ms. Gale said the bank building is one-story high.
Mr. Bain asked why the applicant feels a need for three drive-through
windows. Mr. Jim Garwood from Jefferson National Bank said a drive-through
facility is an integral part of banking. It is required to provide the
service and convenience the public wants from a banking institution. The
necessity for three windows is based on economics. He said Jefferson National
Bank has learned from experience that it is more economical to build the
windows when the structure is built than to add a window later. Ail three
windows may not be active when the bank is opened, but the third one will
allow for future growth.
Mr. Bain said he is concerned about the height of the building, realizing
that it is situated up on a hill. Mr. Garwood said the actual building is
well under the 35-foot maximum set by the Zoning Administrator. He said he
has no objection to the Board lowering that maximum because the building will
be only 23 feet in height.
Mr. Bain asked if the fourth window, which is a walk up window, is the
same width as the other three lanes. Mr. Garwood said it is. Mr. Bain asked
if the building could be moved further back on the site if the total number of
windows is reduced to two. Mr. Garwood said he understands that this is the
best location for the design of the building. He said before this plan was
submitted a variety of schemes was considered, and this one came out to be the
best plan.
Ms. Gale said the number of drive-through windows does not affect the
orientation of the building on the site. Mr. Bain feels the building could be
turned on the site if two windows were eliminated. Ms. Gale said the main
reason for this particular orientation is the proposed entrance from the new
Route 678. She said if the building is turned so that it faces neither Route
250 nor Route 678, there will be an awkward entrance and exit when Route 678
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 186
(Page 15)
is completed. It would be difficult for people to know which way the traffic
is supposed to flow.
Mr. Bowie asked what height the building is on the drawing Ms. Gale
displayed. Ms. Gale said the building is 23 feet.
Mr. Perkins asked the location of the septic fields and the difference in
elevation from the pump to the septic field. Mr. John Green, engineer for the
applicant, pointed out the drain fields and the septic tanks and pump on the
site plan. He said there is about 60 feet of elevation from the bottom of the
pump station to the upper side of the drain field. Mr. Perkins asked if there
is a back-up system required for the pump and how the applicant will know if
the pump fails. Mr. Green said there is a high water alarm and enough storage
for approximately one day's flow above the high water level. He said the
Health Department requires only one pump for this size system.
Mr. Tim Michel spoke on behalf of the applicant. He said a one-story
brick bank is a benign use in Ivy and one that is desirable for that area. It
is the only property in Ivy with a restricted access onto Route 250. He said
there is extensive landscaping, and the building is at least two times further
back from Route 250 than any other commercial property in Ivy. At the time
this area was rezoned in 1988, the Board was concerned about the type of
commercial use that would be appropriate for Ivy, and a bank was specifically
mentioned as appropriate. Mr. Michel said the setback from the scenic highway
has been addressed as well as the setback from the stream.
Mr. Bain asked the distance from the right-of~way on Route 250 to the
actual travelway in front of the building. Mr. Michel said it is approxi-
mately 30 feet. He noted that the Health Department is pleased to have the
septic lines located high on the site because the soils are better and because
of the distance from the stream. If the building is moved back on the site,
significant grading would have to be down further up the hillside for the
septic fields.
Mr. Randy Hock, resident of Locust Hill, which is adjacent to the pro-
posed bank, said he and his neighbors see the merits of a bank in Ivy.
However, there are major concerns about this proposal. He said the applicants
would have the Board believe that the bank has been designed to fit the
building site when, in fact, this bank design has been used for banks built in
other locations. The plans have merely been pulled off the shelf and placed
on this building site. Mr. Hock said the question is whether the plans fit
the site, the neighborhood and the County's plan for development. He does not
think that a bank with three drive-in windows and one automatic teller fits in
with the character of Ivy. He and his neighbors would prefer a bank with a
personal touch. He said the building plans for this bank only fit the site if
two waivers are granted. The most important waiver is related to constructing
within 150 feet of a scenic highway, which is allowed only if all of the
parking at the rear of the building. He said the rear of the building is
being defined in a new way to allow for drive-through windows on the side of
the building. Six of the 14 parking spaces are not behind the building. Mr.
Hock said only by ignoring the requirements of the ordinance can the building
design be positioned on this site. He said the value of a scenic highway is
immeasurable. He wondered what precedent the Board would be establishing by
allowing such an encroachment on a scenic highway. He urged the Board to
reject the applicant's proposal and require a simple village bank that would
fit the building site.
There being no other members of the public present to speak to this
application, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris said it would be helpful to define the front, back and
sides of the building from the point of view of the requirements of the scenic
highway ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said the portion of the building facing
Route 250 is the front of the building in relation to the setback require-
ments.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it is possible that the six parking spaces, with
the exception of two handicapped spaces, can be moved to the north end or
opposite the front of the building. Mr. Cilimberg said the ordinance rec
ments would be met without the additional spaces shown fronting on Route 678
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) ]_87
(Page 16)
He said additional spaces necessitate parking on a curve and additional cut to
allow for parking. Mrs. Humphris asked if drivers would have to back out of
the parHing spaces into the line of traffic coming through the drive-in
windows. Mr. Cilimberg said it appears that is the case, although parking in
that area meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance. Mrs. Humphris said
if there is a problem defining the rear of the structure, the ordinance may
need some work. Mr. Cilimberg said previous Zoning Administrators have said
the rear of the building refers to everything behind the front building line.
Mrs. Humphris said that interpretation seems to subvert the intent of the
ordinance because parking can be spread out on each side of the building if
there is sufficient land. The intent is to screen parking from a scenic
highway.
Mr. Bain asked if the building could be turned on the site, deleting two
drive through windows and changing the traffic pattern. Mr. Cilimberg said
changing the location of the building on the site would require moving the
septic fields further back into the site. He said the Health Department's
recommendation for the septic fields limits the flexibility of the site. Mr.
Cilimberg said the Health Department has not commented on an alternative drain
field site. Mrs. Humphris said it seems that everything is being determined
by the location of the drain fields. Mr. Cilimberg said the drain fields and
the drive-through facility requirements are the major impacts of this site.
Ms. Gale said one issue requiring this particular orientation of the
building is the access between Ivy Commons and the bank. Since that is to be
the access until Route 678 is built, moving the bank further back will mean a
steeper access road. Currently, the incline is about eight percent. Planning
staff has recommended that it not be greater than ten percent. She said
another reason for the location of the building is to keep the residential
properties uphill from this site and to keep them as far as possible from the
commercial property.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant if this building design is used in other
locations. Mr. Garwood said this design has been used for branches in resi-
dential communities elsewhere in the State. He said every branch is modified
to have the exterior~blend with the community it will serve. The interior of
the building will be similar to branches in three other locations. Mr.
Garwood said Jefferson National Bank does not customize every building because
of the architectural expense. However, they do modify existing plans to suit
various locations.
Mr. Bain said he thinks a bank is appropriate in Ivy, yet he feels that
it is not necessary to have four drive-through windows. He recognizes that
much study has gone into this project. Without changing the grade at the back
of the property, he feels that the building could be better situated on the
site by limiting the drive-through windows to two. This would allow a further
distance from the roadway and a lesser impact on the scenic highway. He
suggested that this item be deferred so the applicant can reconfigure the
possibilities.
Mr. Cilimberg said a deferral for redesign or reconfiguration means the
application would go'back to the Planning Commission as a new preliminary site
plan. Mr. Bain said he understands that this request is before the Board
because the drive-through windows require a special use permit. He asked Mr.
St. John to comment on the legality of deferring this request. Mr. St. John
said the applicant would have to agree to reconsidering the design. If the
application is deferred and the special use permit is then approved by the
Board because of the relocation of the building on the site, the matter would
have to go back to the Planning Commission because of changes in the site
plan.
Mr. Garwood said he has been before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the
Planning Commission, and now the Board of Supervisors. He said he has tried
to meet the requirements as explained to them by staff each step of the way.
If a deferral means going back to the beginning and starting over, then he
would not agree to a deferral. He said there has already been much work and
time spent on this plan.
May 16, lg90 (Regular Night Meeting) 188
(Page 17)
Mr. Bain asked if Jefferson National Bank would continue plans to locate
here if the Board reduced the drive-through windows to two. Mr. Garwood said
the President of the Bank would have to make that decision.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the engineering firm and the architects have
done a good job with the building footprint they were given. However, there
is a requirement in the Ordinance relevant to this site for a 150-foot setback
from the existing~right-of-way. Mr. Bowerman said he is not convinced that
all consideration has been given to accommodating this site with its limita-
tions to a different design. Therefore, he does not support the scenic
highway setback waivers.
Mrs. Humphris agreed and noted that the Jefferson National Bank at
Barracks Road Shopping Center was designed to emulate "Rouse House" and was
built to fit into a restricted site. Obviously, a lot of money was spent on
the design of that bank. She feels this location is important enough to merit
that same attention. The building should suit the site so that waivers would
not be required.
Mr. Bain then offered a motion to defer SP-90-21 to June 20, 1990. Mrs.
Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Way.
The Board recessed at 9:45 P.M. and reconvened into open session at 10:00
P.M.
Not Docketed: Mr. Bain immediately offered a motion to change the
deferral date for SP-90-21 from June 20 to June 6, 1990. Mrs. Humphris
seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Perkins (saying he will not be present for that meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-90-22. James R. & Nadine Hazel Shifflett.
Public hearing on a request for two single wide mobile homes on 25.1 acres
zoned RA, Rural Areas. The applicant is also seeking relief from a condition
restricting the lot to one dwelling. Property, described as Tax Map 101,
Parcel 7F, is located on the west side of Rt. 631 south of and adjacent to the
North Fork of the Hardware River north of Rt. 708 in the Samuel Miller Magis-
terial District. This property is not within a designated growth area.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 1 and 8, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The property is currently vacant and mostly
wooded. The proposed mobile home location is in an existing cleared
area. Two mobile homes and two single-family dwellings are visible
from the site. A total of twelve mobile homes are located within one
mile of this site.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to locate two
single- wide mobile homes for use by the applicant's daughters.
Approval of more than one unit on this parcel requires modification of
a condition on the plat stating 'Only one dwelling per lot'
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: Plat creating parcel under review
approved as a family division March 10, 1986. Several plats creating
adjacent lots were approved administratively since 1980.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property is located in Rural Area 4 of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states in part as a goal
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 189
(Page 18)
in rural development, 'Discourage rural residential development other
!
than dwellings related to a bona fide agricultural/forestal use.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The applicant is requesting relief from a
condition on the plat which created the parcel currently under review.
That condition limits the lot to one dwelling. Section 18-36(a) of
the SubdiVision Ordinance states in part, 'In order to ensure adequate
capacity of such road and equitable maintenance costs to property
owners, except as the Commission may provide in a particular case, not
more than one dwelling unit shall be located on any parcel served by
such road.' Currently only two properties have access to this road.
The applicant's property has two development rights which may allow it
to be divided into two lots of less than 21 acres and retain a 21-acre
residue.
Staff recommends that the existing private road be upgraded to include
a commercial entrance and a 14-foot wide travelway with a six-inch #25
or #26 stone base. With these improvements, the private road will
comply with the private road standards in Table 1 of Section 18-36 of
the Subdivision Ordinance. A maintenance agreement exists for the
existing access road. Staff will recommend that the maintenance
agreement be amended to redistribute the cost of maintenance equitably
between the users.
Staff recommends that this permit be issued for use by the applicant's
family only. This property may be divided by right and retain a
private road by utilizing a family division. Any other division may
require the installation and dedication of a public road.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions of
approval:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within 30 days of the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the
local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening
to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die;
Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a commercial
entrance permit;
Ye
County Engineer approval of road improvements in accordance with
Table 1 of Section 18-36 of the Subdivision Ordinance;
Staff approval of revised road maintenance agreement to provide
for equitable distribution of maintenance cost; and
Mobile homes shall be for the use of the applicant's family
only."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 1,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition subject to
the conditions recommended by staff.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 2L90
(Page 19)
Mr. Bain asked how many homes are using the private road. Mr. Cilimberg
said there is one dwelling already on this road. With the approval of this
special use permit, there will be two mobile homes using the road, for a total
of three units.
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing at this time.
Mr. James Shifflett, owner of the property, said there is a distance of
about 1000 feet from the main highway to the property line of his 25 acres.
He is asking to have two mobile homes allowed for his daughters to live in.
He said he cannot afford a commercial driveway as recommended by the staff.
There were no other members of the public present to speak regarding this
request. The Chairman then closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowie said in the past, the Board has often deleted the requirement
for a commercial entrance when it was for a family subdivision. Mr. Cilimberg
said this is not actually a family division, but the Board may want to consid-
er it as a similar situation. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommended a commer-
cial entrace based on a public safety standpoint for future activity on this
road. He noted that the last four conditions are contingent upon use by the
applicant's family only. Mr. Bowie said if the two daughters were moving into
the same house, there would be no need for a special use permit, and the
traffic would be the same on this road. Mr. Cilimberg said the difference
here is that another dwelling unit is being introduced even though an addi-
tional lot is not being created.
Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with the request, but he feels that
conditions six and seven are too strong when the applicant could subdivide his
property and place a mobile home there without requesting a special use
permit.
Mr. Bain said approval of this request for family use only implies that
any change would require another application. He then offered a motion for
approval of SP-90-22 with conditions one through five as recommended by the
Planning Commission, deleting conditions six and seven, and changing eight and
nine to a new six and seven, for a total of seven conditions as set out below.
Mr. Way seconded the motion.
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.
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for
district in which it it located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile
home to be completed within 30 days of the issuance of a certifi
cate of occupancy;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local
office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under
current regulations;
5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to
be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Required screenings shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die;
6. Staff approval of revised road maintenance agreement to provide for
equitable distribution of maintenance cost; and,
7. Mobile homes shall be for the use of the applicant's family only.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
191
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-89-21. Mechum River Land Trust. Public hearing
on a request to rezone 117 acres zoned R-4, Residential (proffered), and 56.77
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, to PRD, Planned Residential Development (prof-
fered). Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 29, is located on the south
side of Rt. 240 approximately 2000 feet west of its intersection with Rt. 250
in the White Hall Magisterial District. This property is not within a desig-
nated growth area. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 1 and May 8,
1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The area south of this site, across the C & 0
Railroad, is the proposed site of the Lickinghole Creek Regional
Sedimentation Basin. North of the site across Route 240 are the
Beaver Hill mobile home park and several small lots.
This site is open pasture towards the west and heavily wooded towards
the east. The site is described by three north-south ridges with
steep slopes occurring along the ridge valleys adjacent to streams.
Public sewer is available at the Crozet Interceptor south of the C & 0
Railroad. Public water can be extended from the storage reservoir at
the Crozet water treatment plant.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: ZMA-89-06, a rezoning petition for the Tax Map
57, Parcels 29 and 29D, was presented to the Planning Commission on
July 25, 1989. The proposal, to rezone 192.41 acres from RA, Rural
Areas, to R-4, Residential, was recommended for denial by a vote of
4-3. On August 9, 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved 117 acres
of Parcel 29 to be rezoned to R-4, Residential, with a maximum of 350
dwelling units by a vote of 5-1.
The applicant is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to rezone the
remaining 56.77 acres of Parcel 29 from RA, Rural Areas, to R-Z,
Residential (proffer), to limit development to a maximum of 52 lots.
In addition, the applicant is proposing to amend ZMA-89-06 to reduce
the maximum number of dwelling units from 350 units to 223 units. The
223 units will consist of 148 single-family lots and 75 townhouses on
the 117 acres.
The applicant has stated the justification for this rezoning request
as: Provide environmentally sensitive housing to Crozet; Provide
affordable housing; Improve the quality of runoff going into the
Mechum River.
Summary and Recommendation: This proposal is for property outside of
the Crozet growth area as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors not
make a zoning decision at this time, so as to allow for final engi-
neering design of the Lickinghole Creek Basin and/or allow the appli-
cant to pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors desire to make
a zoning decision without consideration of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, staff recommends denial of the rezoning petition for the
following reasons:
The proposal is not consistent with the boundaries of the Crozet
growth area as designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
o
The proposal is for an urban density zoning which is inappro-
priate for land designated as rural areas.
The proposal conflicts with the recently adopted provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance which does not allow additional development
rights for property zoned Rural Areas in the watershed.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
192
STAFF COMMENT:
Crozet Growth Area Boundary: Staff opinion remains that this proposal
to rezone 56.77 acres of land zoned Rural Areas is inconsistent with
the Crozet growth area boundary as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
This position was originally stated in the staff report for ZMA-89-06
which is included herein as Attachment B (on file). As to growth area
boundaries, staff opinion is that there has been no change of circum-
stances to warrant reconsideration since the approval of a portion of
this parcel in ZMA-89-06.
The Comprehensive Plan states:
'The eastern boundary of Cr0zet between 240 and 250 shall be
adjusted to include all areas which naturally drain into the
Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin. Determination of
the boundary shall be based on the final engineering design of
the basin. Any extension of the existing boundary shall be
designated low density residential.'
The Board of Supervisors made a policy decision not to allow the
expansion of the Crozet growth area to include areas which do not
naturally drain to the Lickinghole Creek Basin when this 56.77 acre
portion of the property was not included in the approval of ZMA-89-06.
Notwithstanding water supply protection concerns, staff opinion is
that the current policies of the Comprehensive Plan do not support
on-site runoff control measures to justify expansion of the growth
area and that such a proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: The applicant is proposing an urban
density zoning, R-2 Residential, in an area designated by the Compre-
hensive Plan to be Rural Areas. Staff opinion is that this rezoning
petition is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, in the past,
staff has consistently not supported rezonings to urban density in the
rural areas anywhere in the County. As is the case with any rezoning
proposed outside a designated growth area, staff recommends the
proposal be addressed by a Comprehensive Plan amendment rather than a
rezoning.
Current Zoning Regulations Governing Development in the Water-
shed Outside of the Growth Area: Staff is concerned with the poten-
tial conflict involved if this rezoning is approved for property in
the watershed after the Board of Supervisors has adopted Zoning
Ordinance provisions which do not allow additional development rights
by special use permit for land zoned rural areas in the watershed.
Section 10.5.2.1 was amended November 8, 1989, and states:
'The board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special
use permit for:
More lots than the total number permitted under section
10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no such permit
shall be issued for property within the boundaries for the
watershed of any public drinking water supply impoundment.'
Staff opinion is that it would be difficult to sustain this provision
of the Zoning Ordinance if an urban density rezoning is approved for
property in the water supply watershed, zoned Rural Areas, and desig-
nated as Rural Areas by the Comprehensive Plan.
Prior Zoning Decisions: Requests for Urban Densities in Rural Areas:
This section of the staff report discusses the disposition of residen-
tial rezoning petitions similar to the MechumRiver Land Trust's
circumstances. More specifically, discussion is limited to cases of:
Properties within reservoir watershed, and/or
outside of designated growth areas, in which
the rezoning was from a rural to urban residential designation,
reviewed since the adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance and map.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 193
(Page 22)
Since 1980, 13 rezoning petitions meeting the preceding description
were reviewed. Of these 13 petitions, five were approved. Further
analysis is offered:
As in the case with this rezoning, four petitions were for
property outside of a growth area and in the reservoir watershed.
Three of these were withdrawn and the fourth, ZMA-85-22, Peacock
Hill, was approved to rezone 2.5 acres from RA to PUD and amend
62 acres of the existing PUD to delete the commercial uses and
reduce the number of cluster units.
The other four petitions approved which were in the watershed
were also in the designated growth area of Crozet. They are as
follows:
1. ZMA-81-24, Knopp Enterprises - 16 acres from R-1 to R-6.
2. ZMA-84-29, Grayrock PRD - 294 townhouses on 74 acres.
ZMA-85-05, Jordan Development Corporation - to amend
existing PRD.
ZMA-89-06, Mechum River Land Trust 117 acres of RA to R-4.
In a continuing effort to provide reservoir protection and to maintain
the integrity of the comprehensive planning program, the County has
been conservative in g~anting rezoning approvals. Adjacency of a
property to a designated growth area has not been a major factor in
zoning deliberations. Staff opinion of this petition is consistent
with the review of pas~t rezonings with similar circumstances.
On-site Runoff Control Proposal: The Lickinghole Creek Regional
Sedimentation Basin will serve as an erosion, sedimentation and runoff
control device for development in Crozet. The applicant is proposing
-an on-site runoff control basin which he states 'could further reduce
the total phosphorus ~s much as 65 percent and total suspended solids
over 90 percent. The!proposed Lickinghole Creek Basin project is
expected to reduce to~al phosphorus by 45 percent and total suspended
solids by 71 percent'..
The applicant has provided calculations which demonstrate that the
proposed development would reduce the pollutant level without a runoff
control basin. The Engineering Department has prepared comparative
calculations utilizing the revised Runoff Control Guidelines prepared
by F. X. Browne Associates, Incorporated in 1982. Their calculations
indicate a significantly higher quantity of both phosphorous and
sediment loadings.
Additionally, in response to the applicant's calculations, for runoff
control, the Watershed Management Official has stated a concern for
the precedent the approval of this proposal would set, leaving little
basis for zoning decisions throughout the watershed.
To reiterate staff's opinion, the rezoning is inconsistent with the
eastern boundary of the Crozet growth area which is defined in the
Comprehensive Plan as the area which drains naturally to the Licking-
hole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin. The basin is intended to
work with the requirements of the Runoff Control Ordinance, not
replace them. The issue before the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors is not the ability of an on-site runoff control facility
potentially providing for better water as compared to the regional
basin, rather, it is an issue of consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Recommendation for ZMA-89-21: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission and Board 6f Supervisors not make a zoning decision at this
time, so as to allow for final engineering design of the Lickinghole
Creek Basin and/or allow the applicant to pursue a Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 194
(Page 23)
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors desire to make
a zoning decision without consideration of a Comprehensive Plan
amendment, staff recommends denial of ZMA-89-21 for Mechum River Land
Trust for the following reasons:
The proposal is not consistent with the boUndary of the Crozet
growth area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is for an urban density zoning which is appropriate
for land designated and zoned as Rural Areas.
The proposal conflicts with the recently adopted provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance which do not allow additional development
rights for property zoned Rural Areas in the watershed.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this rezoning petition, staff recommends acceptance of the
proffer as stated by the applicant:
'To limit to 52 units and amend 117 acres of R-4 Residential to
R-4 Residential with proffer to limit to 223 units on 117 acres.
Additional Comment: Route 240 Realignment: Schematic plans for
improving Route 240 East have recently been received by the Planning
Department. The proposed improvement is to construct a two-lane road
to Virginia Department of Transportation standards and improve verti-
cal and horizontal curvature. These are not final road design plans
and further engineering will be necessary in the future.
However, the plans indicate that a realignment of Route 240 may occur
along the frontage of this property to improve horizontal curvature.
The applicant should, consider the potential impact of this realignment
on the project. Staff recommends that appropriate reservation and/or
right of way dedication be made to accommodate these improvements at
the time of preliminary plat review. At a minimum, staff will recom-
mend the affected area to be designated as common open space.
Additional comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation on
both ZMA-89-06 and ZMA-89-21 are included herein as Attachment M (on
file).
Ammndment to the Albmmarle County Service Authority Service Area: As
stated earlier, public sewer is available at the Crozet Interceptor
south of the C & 0 Railroad. Public water can be extended from the
storage reservoir at the Crozet water treatment plant. Should the
Board of Supervisors choose to approve this rezoning proposal, a
resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
area for water and sewer service to this property should be made at
this time."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 1,
1990, recommended denial of this petition.
Mr. Bowie said he does not understand the reference to "urban density
zoning" because one unit per acre is not Rural Areas zoning, but is certainly
within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said one
dwelling Unit per acre is the lowest end of the urban category of densities
for residential use. It is considered to be a growth area density and not a
rural area density.
The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Daley Craig came forward to speak.
He handed out documents as back-up to his address to the Board. Mr. Craig
said he came tonight without much expectation, since he feels two Board
members have already made up their minds against this petition. He said one
of the Board's options is to delay action. In view of the time and expense
already incurred in trying to get this issue before the Board in a proper
manner, he feels that delay is not a viable option. Mr. Craig said the
neighborhoods built by his company and the contented people living in them
stand as permanent testimony to the good work he does. He realizes that he is
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
195
opposed by the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), whose paid lobbyist is a
former member of this Board.
Mr. Craig then cited statements reflecting the position of the Piedmont
Environmental Council and addressed each one. He said the Piedmont Environ-
mental Council states it supports growth away from rural areas. However, Mr.
Craig said the effect of the past Comprehensive Plans has been to direct the
majority of the growth into the rural areas, which the County wants to pro-
tect. The present Comprehensive Plan, which the Piedmont Environmental
coUncil supports and promotes, is almost identical to the one that he feels
failed in its goals for the County.
The PEC says that land west of Georgetown Road and Hydraulic Road was
removed from the growth area because of residential runoff. But now, the PEC
claims that runoff control measures should be used to determine where growth
can occur in the watershed and solve that problem. That puts the land west of
Georgetown and Hydraulic Roads back into jeopardy.
The Piedmont Environmental Council says that on-site runoff control
devices, which are acknowledged to be better than regional ones, require "a
major program of maintenance by the County", which means tax dollars. Mr.
Craig feels that tax dollars are required to maintain the regional runoff
control devices, not the on-site ones. The on-site basins can and should be
maintained by the people immediately served, and at their expense and not at
the expense of the taxpayer.
The Piedmont Environmental Council says maintenance of private, on-site
sedimentation basins is "uncertain". Mr. Craig feels it is non-existent. He
said Mr. Lindstrom, lobbyist for PEC, had the opportunity as a member of this
Board to require that on-site basins be maintained, but he did not do so.
Mr. Craig said the County has not demonstrated good maintenance ability,
and cannot even maintain the County dump. For example, there was no mainte-
nance at Camellia Gardens, because the County did not require it. The County,
upon the recommendation of the County Engineer, adopted the runoff control
ordinance, which failed to include any provision for maintenance. Subse-
quently, the Buck Mountain agreement provided that the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority is responsible for maintenance of all runoff devices, including
regional ones.
Mr. Craig quoted the Piedmont Environmental Council as saying "approval
of one private basin would set a precedent which would lead to others, and as
the Office of Watershed Management has noted, would jeopardize the long-stand-
ing policy upon which zoning decisions in the watershed have been made". Mr.
Craig said that statement is factually incorrect. The fact is, the County has
approved, and even required, over 55 private basins according to County
records. He feels that to deny an on-site basin would actually run counter to
the existing precedent.
The Piedmont Environmental Council has advocated, through its paid
lobbyist Timothy Lindstrom, that Albemarle County adopt the exclusive
"Goochland policy". The exclusive Goochland policy is so-named because
Goochland County thought of it first and the other rich counties in Virginia
are rushing to copy it. Mr. Craig explained that this policy welcomes commer-
cial development into the county and forces the employees who work in the
commercial establishments to live in adjoining jurisdictions, where their
children will be educated with the tax dollars of others. Since 60 percent or
more of local budgets goes to education, the exclusive Goochland policy is
designed to save enormous amounts of money on the expense side of the budget,
while realizing additional dollars on the revenue side. Mr. Craig said this
is a clever device, but also a short-sighted one. He said the idea is to have
the State take over the local tax collection and then distribute it to the
counties on the basis of population, particularly school-aged population. Mr.
Craig feels this policy will erode local government's self-determination,
increase local taxes and reduce available funds for schools and other govern-
ment operations. Mr. Craig feels that the self-interest of the PEC is so
exclusive that it is contrary to the interests of the majority of Albemarle
County taxpayers.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) ]_96
(Page 25)
Mr. Craig feels the issue tonight is which development plan is the best
of two alternatives. However, many people seem to think that the issue before
the Board is whether there are going to be houses on this land. Mr. Craig
said he is appalled at that perception because the Board has already approved
building 350 units on 117 acres. Mr. Craig said he is proposing to build 275
units on 173 acres, thereby reducing the density by reducing the number of
units by 75. But most importantly, Mr. Craig said there will be a mix of
housing types and prices ranging from $75,000 to $250,000 and from 200
detached houses to 75 multi-family houses. The zoning already approVed will
not provide for any single-family, detached houses, but provides for 350
multi-family units.
Mr. Craig said he thinks the Planning staff wants to put as many houses
for low and moderate income people in Crozet as possible to keep that type of
housing away from the rest of the County. Mr. Craig said he has no objection
to people of moderate means living in Crozet, or wherever else they want to
live. That is their right guaranteed by the Constitution. However, he feels
that low and moderate housing should not be limited to a project, but instead
these people should have the opportunity to live in neighborhoods with up-
scale housing. He asked why school teachers, for example, should be forced to
live in a low-income project when they would prefer to raise their families in
a mixed price neighborhood. Mr. Craig feels that a number of County profes-
sional employees cannot afford to live in Albemarle County.
Mr. Craig read from the staff report, "Notwithstanding water supply
protection concerns, staff opinion is that the current policies of the Compre-
hensive Plan do not support on-site runoff control measures to justify expan-
sion of the growth area and that such a proposal would require Comprehensive
Plan amendment." Mr. Craig interpreted that to mean, "Notwithstanding water
supply protection concerns, staff opinion is that runoff control measures have
not, do not, and should not, determine growth areas". He feels the ~two
statements say the same thing. He does not think it is in the County's best
interests to have runoff control measures determine growth areas. Custom and
precedent in Albemarle County has been to establish growth area lines around
major roads, unless there is some compelling reason not to. At Crozet on
Route 250 across from the proposed shopping center, a 40-acre area drains away
from the proposed regional siltation basin, but is included in the growth area
because it is on the north side of Route 250. As recently as April 10, Mr.
Craig said the Board rejected a proposal on the east side of Route 20 South,
affirming the principle of major roads being the growth dividing lines. Even
ten years ago, the Board revised the growth lines in the Georgetown Road and
Hydraulic Road areas. Mr. Craig said the courts generally uphold local
government's selecting major roads as growth area dividing lines.
Mr. Craig said the Piedmont Environmental Council wants the Board to
compromise a time-tested and proven principle of using roads as growth divid-
ing lines. The PEC wants the Board to create runoff control measures to be
used to determine growth areas. They say that the area which drains into the
proposed Lickinghole Creek sedimentation basin should be in the growth area,
but that areas not draining into the sedimentation basin should remain in
agricultural use. Mr. Craig feels that, along with the precedent already set
in Albemarle County, the facts show that on-site runoff controls are more
effective and better for the environment than regional ones. He also stated
that if the 5§-acre parcel proposed for rezoning is left in agricultural use,
figures show that it will produce up to ten times as much runoff as does
residential. He noted that agricultural use does not require any runoff
control measures whatsoever, but residential use does. Mr. Craig said if the
Board wants to protect the reservoir, it should put the land into residential
use, not agricultural use.
Mr. Craig went on to say that the Piedmont Environmental Council believes
that on-site runoff control measures cannot be maintained. Mr. Craig feels
they can be maintained at no expense to the taxpayers of Albemarle County. On
the other hand, the regional basins cannot be maintained except at awesome
expense to the taxpayers. Mr. Craig said if runoff control measures are used
to determine growth areas as advocated by the PEC, then a new precedent will
be established which will work against the County.
The Piedmont Environmental Council would counter by saying that they
favor using only regional runoff control measures to determine growth areas.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) ~L97
(Page 26)
He said there are two problems with that. One is that individual runoff
control measures are probably more effective than regional ones. Secondly,
the County has adopted long-range plans for several regional sedimentation
basins, and Lickinghole Creek is not rated high in order of priority or
effectiveness. If runoff controls are to be used to determine growth areas,
then there are potentially several more growth areas.
Mr. Craig concluded by saying that in trying to defend an unworkable
policy, the Board is about to adopt new policies to try to justify the inde-
fensible one, and will have to defend the new policy as well because it makes
no sense. He said that is where the Piedmont Environmental Council has been
leading the Board. He feels the Board will be saying that runoff control
measures should determine where growth areas are by voting against this
petition. He feels that Crozet and the taxpayers of Albemarle County will be
better off if the Board rejects the Piedmont Environmental Council's position
before another detrimental step against preservation of rural areas is taken.
Mr. Paul Burke, resident of Crozet, said he is opposed to this petition
to expand development outside of the Crozet growth area. Mr. Burke said the
Comprehensive Plan calls for development plans along Route 240 to be sensitive
to growth. He said the petition is actually asking for an increase in the
amount of developable land from 117 acres to 174 acres. He reminded the Board
that Route 240 is the main entry corridor used by Conagra as well as the resi-
dents of Crozet to get to and from work. He feels that extra development
along this corridor will be detrimental to those residents who travel the
road.
Ms. Kelly Bain, resident of Crozet, said she was horrified that the 350
townhouses were approved originally. However, she is in support of decreasing
the number of houses and favors houses being built over the socio-economic
range that is being proposed. She said the residents are concerned over the
large number of houses being developed at one time. She, therefore, supports
this request because additional land will decrease the density of this devel-
opment.
Ms. Sally Thomas, representing the League of Women Voters, spoke in
support of the staff recox~endation that this application for rezoning be
denied. In recent months, she said, the League has spoken in favor of some
development plans. However, protection of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is
a relevant basis for decisions on development. She said the Board has already
weighed the pros and cons of regional versus on-site sedimentation basins and
concluded that the arguments in favor of a regional basin outweigh those in
support of on-site basins. She said the League believes those reasons are
still valid. She distributed to Board members the comments that the League
made during discussions about the Lickinghole Creek Sedimentation Basin. She
said an Albemarle County study indicates that the cost of development and
maintenance of a regional sedimentation basin is less than the development and
maintenance of multiple on-site basins. She pointed out that the maintenance
of on-site basins is difficult as indicated by the problems which Fairfax and
Prince William Counties have had with failed homeowners agreements, lack of
enforcement personnel and authority, and difficulty in identifying responsible
parties. She said Mr. George Williams of the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority has said that the enforcement of maintenance of multiple on-site
basins would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for his office to
carry out. She said these factors and those in the December statement dis-
tributed to the Board point to continued support for the regional impoundment
method instead of the on-site basin approach. She further pointed out that a
regional sedimentation basinlwill collect not only the sedimentation and
phosphorous for the applicant's development and other future developments in
Crozet, but also the sediment from existing developments and agricultural and
forested land in the Crozet area. On-site basins would not help with the last
three runoff sources. She said the League feels it is prudent to limit
development to areas which naturally drain into the regional basin. Allowing
a violation of the natural boundaries of the watershed would set a precedent
that may have far-reaching eiffects on the County's ability to control non-
point sources of pollution f~r residential development and the ability to
protect the Rivanna Reservoilr, which the Board and others have spent many
years trying to protect. S~e urged the Board to deny the request.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
198
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, said that the
Board should hold to the recommendation in the staff report that this applica-
tion should be accompanied by or preceded by an application to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. Based on a procedural problem, the Citizens for Albemarle
believe the application should be denied.
Mr. Dennis Yutchishen, resident of Crozet, said Mr. Craig presents a
difficult situation for him because he holds out a "carrot" of lower density
housing, even though the development will lead to runoff which does not flow
into the regional sedimentation basin. Mr. Yutchishen said he chooses to
protect the reservoir instead and is against the proposal. Mr. Yutchishen
feels that the density on the original 117 acres should be lowered, without
requesting additional development outside the regional sedimentation basin.
He supports lower density housing because the development will change the
vital character of Crozet to the detriment of the community.
Mr. Richard Cogan spoke as an impartial observer familiar with the Crozet
community. He said the Comprehensive Plan is a guide which is written in
broad terms and offers some flexibility. Nevertheless, it is the foundation
upon which the ordinances are created for the County. Mr. Cogan said the line
designating the community of Crozet is close to that of the watershed, even
though there are sections that fall within or without the Lickinghole Creek
Basin. Overall, the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to put growth where
it is best served by utilities, roads, and protection of the watershed. The
Comprehensive Plan designates Crozet as a growth area, but until now the
community has not done much growing compared to Hollymead or Earlysville. It
is important to designate growth areas, but if the private sector does not
follow those designations, sometimes the growth does not occur. Mr. Cogan
feels this applicant is trying to follow the growth area designation. He
feels the runoff situation is one among several important considerations. Mr.
Cogan said a new school is being built in Crozet outside of the growth area.
The school is adjacent to Parrot Branch which runs directly into the Beaver
Creek Reservoir, the water supply for Crozet. He said he knows the County
would not build that school in that location unless it could be done properly
and still protect the Reservoir. He said this proves that such development
can be done. Mr. Cogan said runoff can be controlled on this property through
engineering standards with a guarantee of maintenance, or through the design
of the Lickinghole Creek Basin to take the additional runoff. Mr. Cogan said
another issue regarding this petition is the density of 350 units on 117 acres
compared to 275 units on 173 acres. He said higher density results in more
taxes, more services required, and more traffic. He said 350 townhouses will
not pay their way from a tax perspective because the houses will have to be
assessed at over $120,000 in order for the County to break even in taxes. Mr.
Cogan then suggested that the petition be reduced from 75 down to 26 town-
houses. The conditions of approval could require that the water runoff and a
maintenance plan would have to be satisfactory to the County Engineer. Or, he
suggested that an on-site basin could be designed so that it will run into the
Lickinghole Creek Basin.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council,
said PEC's position has already been made clear sentence by sentence. The PEC
supports the Comprehensive Plan's fundamental premise that growth should go
into the growth areas and be directed away from the rural areas. That is a
long-standing policy supported by PEC through many versions of the Comphre-
hensive Plan. She said the eastern boundary of the Crozet growth area is to
be finally determined by the engineering study of the Lickinghole Creek Basin.
She stated that PEC supports any portion of the applicant's petition that is
determined to lie within the natural drainage of the Lickinghole Creek Basin.
However, PEC does not support urban density in what is now a rural area. She
said this 57 acres may not have a large impact, but these requests come in
parcel by parcel, and it is important to defend the policy on the same basis.
Ms. Buttrick said since 1979, the Board of Supervisors has made an effort to
protect its watershed by use of rural area density zoning, among other means.
She said the PEC strongly supports the protection of the watershed.
Ms. Mary Kelly, an educator in Albemarle County, said she is representing
educators from Crozet Elementary School, Brownsville Elementary, Henley Middle
School, and Western Albemarle High, who will be impacted by the high-density
urban development. Ms. Kelly pointed out that by the time Meriwether Lewis
School was finished, there was not enough space. She said that will be a
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
199
problem in Crozet if urban density is allowed. She said the quality of
education in this County will be impacted if the Comprehensive Plan is not
flexible in the pace of this development. She believes the expectation of
success, which is the motto of the Albemarle County Schools, will not be kept
if the development gets out of hand in Crozet. She would like to see services
continue for children and the quality of education be maintained in Albemarle
County. To do that, she asks that the Board deny this proposal and consider
the fact that 350 townhouses are too much for Crozet to handle at this time.
There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie co~nented that several people have spoken concerning the 350
townhouses in Crozet. He clarified that that application has already been
approved and is not before the Board tonight.
Mr. Perkins said since he has been on the Board, the main concern of the
County, of the Board of Supervisors, and of the Planning Commission is the
growth taking place in rural areas. As a result, consideration has been given
to ways to prevent growth in rural areas and direct it into the proposed
designated growth areas. One way to encourage people to live in growth areas
is to provide attractive housing. He said this County is depending on private
developers to provide the housing.
Mr. Perkins said that if he and the Board made a mistake a year ago by
approving 350 units in Crozet, there is now the opportunity to reduce the
density from three units per acre to .6 units per acre. Regarding water
quality, Mr. Perkins said he is confused because there are several formulas
that can be used for determining water quality, depending on what answer is
desired. Mr. Perkins said he is convinced that runoff can be controlled and
water quality can be protected. He concluded by saying he feels the proposal
before the Board tonight is best for the Crozet community. The only way Mr.
Perkins knows to prevent growth is to put a chain link fence around the County
and close off Route 29 and Route 250, and possibly blow up the University of
Virginia. Otherwise, there will be growth in the rural areas or in the growth
areas. He feels the biggest concern that this Board faces is getting people
to move into the growth areas, when it is so easy to build in the rural areas.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels that the real issue is changing a rural area
into a growth area. She said the area under consideration is outside the
growth area. She feels the main point to consider is that Albemarle County
has made efforts to protect the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
for the past 15 years or more. For a number of years the Comprehensive Plan
has included a regional sedimentation basin to serve the Crozet area. She
feels strongly that to change the crux of past actions by the Board strikes at
the heart of reservoir protection. Experts in engineering have said that the
individual basins do not work and other areas have tried and failed in using
individual basins. Mrs. Humphris feels that it is extremely critical for this
Board to maintain the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan and the protection
of the reservoir by letting the zoning designation stand as a rural area and
not a growth area.
Mr. Way asked where the applicant plans to drain the 56 acres. Mr. Craig
said the drainage would eventually go into Lickinghole Creek after it passed
through the runoff control devices proposed on-site. Mr. Craig said the
runoff would enter Lickinghole Creek below the proposed basin, but the runoff
control devices would be built in accordance with existing County ordinances.
He said the Ordinance requires that the runoff after development must be at
least as good as the runoff prior to development. There would not be any
additional degradation of the environment.
Mr. Bain asked if the approval for 350 dwelling units on 117 acres was
primarily for single-family units. Mr. Cilimberg said most of the area was
for single-family detached units, although he could not recall the exact
number. Mr. Bain said the subject of the regional sedimentation basin was
discussed by the Board during the Capital Improvements Program as well as
during the previous application made by Mechum River Land Trust. He said the
Board was told by the Watershed Management Official of problems that other
jurisdictions are having with individual sedimentation ponds. Mr. Bain said
at one time, none of this area was included in the Crozet growth area. The
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 200
(Page 29)
applicant requested that the Board extend the growth area, and Mr. Bain said
he does not disagree with the action the Board took to do that. However, the
Board is now being asked to extend the growth area again. He thinks it would
be a mistake to approve rezoning for an area that is not within the Comprehen-
sive Plan guidelines and does not drain into the proposed regional basin.
Mr. Bowerman said if he felt that approving Mr. Craig's proposal would be
of long-term benefit to the County and the community of Crozet, and in accor-
dance with the Comprehensive Plan, he would support it. He said he can
understand the rationale for the regional detention basin for the community of
Crozet. He can understand the rationale for extending the sewer lines to that
area to deal with an existing pollution problem. He can distinguish those two
criteria from other areas in the watershed. However, once he deviates from
the standard in the Comprehensive Plan for a regional detention basin to serve
the area of Crozet, he cannot distinguish this 56 acres from any other rural
area in the County that could have an on-site detention basin which could
result in the same benefit as is proposed. He said such action would under-
mine the Comprehensive Plan, and he does not feel that the Board can take such
action without first amending the Comprehensive Plan. If the Plan is to be
changed, there must be a clearly defined rationale that would apply to other
parts of the County as well. Failing to provide that rationale, it is a
mistake to approve a petition based only on the issue of density. For that
reason, Mr. Bowerman said he could not support the proposal.
Mr. Perkins said one difference between this land and other properties in
the rural areas is that this property has public sewer and water available,
and that makes a big difference to him. He said the reason Crozet is a
designated growth area is primarily because millions of dollars were spent to
extend the sewer line to prevent raw sewage from going into Lickinghole Creek.
Mr. Bowerman said miles of that same sewer line run between Charlottesville
and Crozet within the watershed. He cannot distinguish a request for develop-
ment of a parcel along Route 250 from this request in Crozet, without moving
away from the concepts in the Comprehensive Plan. He said deviation from the
Comprehensive Plan guidelines will have profound negative effects on develop-
ment in the watershed.
Mr. Perkins asked if the applicant is willing to consider diverting as
much as possible of the drainage from the 56 acres to the regional sedimenta-
tion pond and allowing the County the right to inspect the runoff control
devices. Mr. Craig said he is not interested in making those proffers because
that is not the issue. He said the County has already taken a position
against artificially draining lands into the basin. He feels a better job can
be done with on-site basins which can be maintained more efficiently. He
would rather the Board go ahead and take a vote because the whole discussion
has gotten ridiculous.
Mr. Perkins offered a motion to approve ZMA-89-21 with the proffers
listed in the staff report for 52 units on 56 acres and limiting dwellings to
223 units on 117 acres. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mrs. Humphris immediately offered a motion to deny ZMA-89-21. Mr.
Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-90-03. Barclay Development Corporation. Public
hearing on a petition to rezone 19.54 acres from R-l, Residential, to R-6,
Residential. Property located on north side of Jarman's Gap Road (Route 691)
approximately 3/4 miles east of Route 684 in the White Hall District. Prop-
erty is described as Tax Map 55, Parcels 66 and 66A, and is currently zoned
R-i, Residential. This property lies within a designated growth area.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 1 and May 8, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg began by distributing to the Board a letter dated May 9,
1990, from Mr. Fred Payne, clarifying the two proffers with this application
as follows:
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
201
"(1) There shall be no disturbance of live vegetation within 100 feet
Of the streambed running along the back (northerly boundary) of the
proposed development, except to the extent that such disturbance may
be necessary for the installation and/or maintenance of stormwater
and/or wastewater lines. The substance of this condition will be
reflected in deed restrictions binding the affected lots.
(2) Development of the site will be substantially as shown on a
schematic site plan by Dewberry & Davis, dated 2/19/90, revised
3/27/90, previously filed with the Department of Planning and Communi-
ty Development; subject to the approval of appropriate agencies of
Albemarle County for compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance at the
time of subdivision review."
Mr. Cilimberg then gave the staff report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The property is wooded with mature deciduous
trees.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone 19.54
acres to allow for 51 lots (2.61 du/acre) to be served by proposed
internal roads. The applicant has submitted the following proffers.
I do agree not to disturb live vegetation lying within 100 feet
of the streambed running along the bank of our proposed develop-
ment except as necessary to construct wastewater lines.
AS each of the phases of this project nears completion, we will
provide hard surfaced road with curbs and gutters.
When fully developed we will endeavor to adhere as closely as
possible to schematic site plan revised March 30, 1990, as
submitted.
The type of housing to be offered is provided for information only and
is not intended as a proffer.
Development Proposal: The applicant has submitted a plan which has
been proffered. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and has offered
comment which the applicant has sought to address. In order to honor
the 100-foot setback from the stream at the rear of the site, the
applicant has enlarged those lots adjacent to the stream. The sub-
mitted plan does not indicate any clearing of vegetation adjacent to
the stream. The preservation of vegetation is proffered. The site is
entirely wooded with deciduous trees.
The Comprehensive Plan states, 'Because of the relative lack of exist-
ing vegetation throughout the community, place emphasis on preserving
wooded areas. This includes vegetation along existing stream valleys
and drainage ways as well as preservation of vegetation at the exist-
ing edges of wooded areas.' The applicant's proffers address the
concerns of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has notified the applicant of a limited building site on lot 13
and other lots. At the time of final plat review, staff will recom-
mend deletion of any lot which does not possess an adequate building
site. Several lots adjacent to the stream have severely limited
building site and, in staff opinion, will need to be eliminated or
greatly enlarged. In addition, staff will determine if additional
landscaping is required for the double frontage lots adjacent to
Jarman's Gap Road.
Transportation: This portion of Route 691 carries approximately 1908
vehicle trips per day. This proposal may result in 510 additional
vehicle trips per day. The Virginia Department of Transportation has
stated that 'this section of Route 691 is currently non-tolerable'
Staff would note that many roads in the designated growth areas are
listed as non-tolerable. Jarman's Gap Road is in the County's Six
Year Secondary Road Plan for improvement. This portion of Jarman's
Gap Road is relatively flat and straight providing for good sight
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 202
(Page 31)
distance. The Virginia Department of Transportation notes that this
request may result in an increase in traffic when compared to existing
zoning. However, the request is consistent with the Comprehensive
~lan. Both the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Engi-
neering Department have recommended curb and gutter for the roads to
serve this development. The applicant has proffered an urban road
design. Staff does not recommend acceptance of this proffer as the
type of construction will be determined during review of the final
plat.
Utilities: The required fire flow to this site will be a minimum of
750 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch. Available fire
flow is less than the minimum required flow. The applicant has
contacted the Albemarle County Service Authority in order to determine
if adequate fire flow can be obtained. The Service Authority has
stated that adequate fire flow can be achieved with the installation
of a new water line. The cost of installation shall be the responsi-
bility of the developer. The Service Authority may require the line
to be oversized in order to increase water availability in this area
of Crozet. The site will utilize public sewer at the rear of the
site.
School Enrollment: This development may result in 25 additional
students at Crozet Elementary, 16 additional students at Henley Middle
School and 12 additional students at Western Albemarle High School.
Summary: Staff notes that Jarman's Gap Road is non-tolerable and
scheduled for improvements. The adjacent property (Grayrock) was
successfully rezoned in 1985 to allow 70 townhouse units on 21 acres
and allowing for 37 dwellings on 53 acres. The initial request was
for a total of 294 units which was amended to include only the 70
units north of the lake. The remaining units were approved by a
previous rezoning in 1979. The applicant will dedicate 25 feet from
the centerline of Jarman's Gap Road. Staff opinion is that the
applicant has adequately addressed staff concern and that this request
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and purpose and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff reCommends approval with the
acceptance of the following applicant proffers No. 1 and No. 3:
When fully developed we will endeavor to adhere as closely as
possible to schematic site plan revised March 30, 1990, as sub-
mitted.
I do agree not to disturb live vegetation lying with feet of the
streambed running along the back of our proposed development
except as necessary to construct wastewater lines."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 24,
1990, unanimously recommended denial of this petition.
Mr. Bowie asked why one of the proffers was not included in the staff
recommendations. Mr. Cilimberg said that proffer can be handled more suitably
during the development process.
Mr. Fred Payne, legal representative for the applicant, apologized for
the ambiguity regarding the proffers, but he thought they were clearly under-
stood when he spoke to staff earlier. Mr. Payne made it clear that the two
proffers set forth in his letter dated May 9, supersede any other proffers.
He said it was his understanding that staff did not agree with the second of
the original proffers, and he agrees that it is a subdivision issue and can be
dealt with at a later time. Mr. Payne said this application largely depends
on the schematic plan displayed on the wall tonight. He said the overall
density is approximately 2.6 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is
requesting R-6 zoning because there are a few small lots in the subdivision.
He said it is likely when the final plat is made that one or more lots may be
combined. With the exception of a few of the small lots, the lots exceed the
square footage of R-4 density. Mr. Payne noted that a few lots are small
because of the 100-foot setback requirement at the back of the property near
the stream. He said the applicant engaged an engineering firm to design a
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 203
(Page 32)
plan that would accommodate the density and that is what is shown on the wall
today.
Mr. Payne said it is important for the Board to realize that this plan is
as close to complying in every respect to the Comprehensive Plan as any plan
he has ever seen. He has counted six different aspects of the Comprehensive
Plan which this plan meets, and there are no provisions which it does not
meet. Mr. Payne pointed out that medium density for single-family development
described in the Comprehensive Plan is actually 2.5 to 10 dwelling units per
acre. Therefore, this proposal for 2.6 dwelling units per acre is almost
exactly at the bottom of the range for single-family development as recom-
mended in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Payne said this area drains into the Lickinghole Creek Basin, and the
applicant is aware that there will be an assessment to the developer for use
of the basin. Mr. Payne said staff reviewed in considerable detail the issue
addressed in the applicant's first proffer relating to the protection of
stream banks and water quality. The Comprehensive Plan recox~ends the preser-
vation of an area along the stream banks of natural vegetation, and the
applicant proffered that. Mr. Payne said reference has been made to the cost
of extending the sewer line to Crozet. The Comprehensive Plan favors public
sewer service, and this application calls for public sewer. The Comprehensive
Plan notes that the water line in Jarman!s Gap Road is inadequate in size with
regard to flow and volume for the development that is anticipated in~ that
area. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that this public utility be improved
to accommodate such growth. Mr. Payne said the applicant has discussed with
the Albemarle County Service Authority replacement of this water line at the
time of development by a larger line to serve the needs of this portion of the
Crozet growth area and not just the needs of this development. If this plan
is approved, that water line will be replaced primarily at the developer's
expense. Mr. Payne said the Planning Commission was concerned about Jarman's
Gap Road being non-tolerable. According to the Comprehensive Plan, every
significant secondary road in the Crozet growth area is also non-tolerable.
If the Board is not going to allow development on a non-tolerable road, Crozet
might as well be removed from the growth area maps. He said the problem with
Jarman's Gap Road is the width of the pavement and the shoulders. In the
immediate area of this development the road will be improved by turn lanes and
frontage improvements. Jarman's Gap Road is the only secondary road in Crozet
which is proposed for improvement in the Comprehensive Plan. He said this
road is described in the Comprehensive Plan as a major collector and of
regional significance to the entire Crozet growth area. Mr. Payne said
Jarman's Gap Road is included in the Six-Year Plan, and possibly should move
up on the priority list. In terms of land use, density, environmental protec-
tion, sewer and water, and roads, this development plan complies with the
Comprehensive Plan. Encouraging growth in the growth areas is a long-standing
goal of the County according to the Comprehensive Plan. Growth should not be
allowed to develop at an excessively low level because that encourages growth
back in the rural areas contrary to the goal of the Comprehensive Plan. It is
obvious that this proposal is precisely the kind of plan that the Comprehen-
sive Plan calls for regarding development in Crozet. He concluded by asking
for the Board's favorable consideration of this petition.
Mr. Bowie referred to the staff report's statement that the water line
installation cost would be the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Payne
said the present line is not adequate in size to serve this development. One
alternative is to install a bigger water line. The applicant is proposing to
install a still bigger line to serve the entire area, and the applicant would
pay his share of the cost based on use.
Mr. Paul Burke, resident of Crozet, said he hopes the Board does not lose
sight of the fact that the Comprehensive Plan is first and foremost for the
citizens of this County. He feels that it is inappropriate for the Planning
Commission's staff to present a petition to the Board in a favorable light
that has been unanimously denied by the Planning Commission. Mr. Burke feels
that staff makes more of a case for the petitioner than for the Planning
Commission to which it is responsible and that the Planning Commission should
have more representation in this hearing. Mr. Burke said he lives in Orchard
Acres which is located next to the proposed development. He said the zoning
is R-2 in Orchard Acres, and the houses are probably on one-half acre lots.
This proposed development could be potentially three times more crowded than
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 204
(Page 33)
Orchard Acres. He said the purpose of having growth areas is to meet local
demand, not to create demand. He personally has a hard time believing that
these houses will sell for $130,000 to $160,000 on one-quarter acre lots, when
other houses in Crozet on one-half acre lots are not selling at $80,000. He
spoke with a representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation about
Jarman's Gap Road and was told that VDoT will not begin any work on this road
for six years at the earliest. Mr. Burke said he does not want to leave the
impression that he does not want reasonable groWth in the Crozet area. He
said he sincerely believes that reasonable growth is not inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. He feels that if Crozet is too crowded and the traffic is
excessive, growth will continue to take place in the rural areas because
Crozet will not be attractive as a growth area. He said Crozet's future
health, safety and welfare are at stake in the Board's decision. He asked the
Board to reaffirm the Planning Commission's unanimous decision against this
petition.
Mr. Ken Diepold, resident of Crozet on Jarman's Gap Road, said many
residents of Crozet speak negatively about this subdivision from emotional
standpoints. He said there are five subdivisions in Crozet with houses of a
lesser value than are intended for this development. Many of those people
would like to move into something nicer, but there is no housing in the
mid-range in Crozet. He said the build out for this development will be in
the four-year range if one house is built and sold per month. The infrastruc-
ture is being improved in Crozet, such as the extension of the sewer lines,
the new Crozet Elementary School, and improvements taking place on Route 240.
He feels the issue is the pragmatic use of a good, responsible development in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Alfreda Hainer, representing a property owner in the Orchard Acres
area, said she thinks this is a human issue rather than an emotional one. She
said Jarman's Gap Road is barely two lanes wide. There are bicyclists,
elderly people, and mothers with children in strollers using that road, and
drivers must watch for those people. She said as this area is developed,
heavy equipment will be travelling on a road that is not built to stand that
type of traffic. Another area of concern is the size of the lots in the
development. She has difficulty envisioning one-quarter acre lots with up to
2,000 square-foot homes on them at the quality and price range that is being
discussed. She is concerned that the development could compromise the homes
already in the Orchard Acres area.
Mr. David Haberly, resident of Crozet on Jarman's Gap Road next door to
the proposed development, said he was distressed that one speaker did not make
clear that he is a builder who has negotiated with the applicant to build the
houses on this property. He said a positive picture of the development and
its impact upon Crozet is based upon the speaker's own financial interests in
the project. He said the road is a serious problem. It is very narrow with a
sharply curved surface and ditches on either side. He feels that even when
the road is improved, it will not be able to handle the population density
proposed for this area. Mr. Haberly said while it is true that this is a
growth area, the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage the movement
of population into urban areas as opposed to rural areas. This does not mean
that wild ideas about rapid urban development should be forced down the
throats of citizens in Albemarle County who do not wish this kind of growth
and who are not prepared by the infrastructure of their community to absorb
the growth. He said the main problem with infrastructure in Crozet is jobs.
Acme Visible is laying off people and may actually close. The natural growth
of the population in Crozet is not coming from employment within Crozet. The
point of the proposed growth is to turn Crozet from a socially diverse local
population center into a "bedroom suburb" of Charlottesville to accommodate
people who are no longer willing to live on the north side of Charlottesville
because of the ravishes wrought by overly urbanized development in that area.
Mr. Haberly said the applicant may think that there is a need for this type of
development in Crozet, but he personally cannot envision who is going to pay
$130,000 to $160,000 for a house on one-quarter of an acre in Crozet. Maybe
there is a need for this type of development in California or New Jersey, but
there is not in Albemarle County.
Mrs. Susan Haberly, resident of Crozet, said she is going to speak about
what was referred to earlier as emotional information. She said the orchard
which borders the proposed property on the western side has 40 acres of trees.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
205
They are sprayed approximately every week with 3500 gallons of material for
seven months of the year. She said a broad spectrum of pesticides, insecti-
cides and fungicides are being sprayed. Mrs. Haberly said she grows roses in
her backyard and sprays 10 gallons of material on 400 roses each week. To do
that, she wears goggles and a respirator. She wants prospective residents to
know that 3500 gallons of material is being sprayed each week, and this is not
a safe place to live. As long as the orchard is there, it will have to be
sprayed to bring the crop forth. It is the duty of the County to warn pro-
spective residents in this subdivision of the danger of the spray which
settles on the grass and comes in through the air conditioner.
Mr. Dennis Yutchishen, a resident of Crozet, asked the Board not to allow
this petition to "hamstring" the community of Crozet. He said he knows there
are plans for what Crozet is to become, but he and his neighbors are already
there. He does not want 500 more cars per day coming down Jarman's Gap Road
when a walker has to jump off the road now for oncoming cars. He said Crozet
is already a functioning, charming community, and it does not need R-6 devel-
opment. He feels that denying this petition would help Crozet by not overbur-
dening the roads and endangering the residents. He asked the Board to repre-
sent the residents of Crozet properly in this decision.
Mr. Lindy Bain, a resident of Crozet, said that concerns have been
brought up about the number of dwelling units allowed for the Mechum River
Land Trust Development. Mr. Bain said that many citizens of Crozet neglected
their duty last year when they did not come before the Board and speak against
that development. He feels that the roads need to be improved before that
density is allowed. He feels that Crozet is a nice place to live, and he
would like it to stay that way. He said people move to Crozet because they do
not want to live in places like Route 29 North, Washington, D.C. or New York
City. He does not want to see the new Crozet Elementary School overcrowded as
soon as it opens, as was the case with Meriwether Lewis.
Ms. Mary Kelly said she is a pedestrian on Jarman's Gap Road every day.
She urged the Board to deny this petition on the basis of the road being
non-tolerable. She said she has jumped off the road into a poison ivy-filled
ditch to avoid being hit as a pedestrian.
Mr. Mitchell Neuman, resident of Orchard Acres in Crozet, said his
primary concern is the rainwater runoff. His house is the first one in
Orchard Acres and borders on the creek that drains this whole area. He said
adding roads, roofs, driveways and landscaped areas will probably mean that
rainwater will go into this creek. He said the current drainage system may
not be able to handle the volume of water produced by this development and
others in the future. He said if runoff goes into sewers, his point is moot;
if it runs into the creek, there~will be a problem at his property. He said
he is not advocating acceptance or denial, but the runoff is an item of
concern to him.
Ms. Kelly Bain, resident of Crozet, said at the risk of appearing contra-
dictory in her support for the MechumRiver request, which was based on the
proffer to limit the number of dwelling units originally approved, she is
opposed to this application. She asked the Board to consider the fact that
the residents of Crozet are there because they like the lifestyle. She feels
the land should be used as it is zoned to maintain the integrity of the
Comprehensive Plan and the community.
Ms. Meg West, resident of Crozet about one mile west of the proposed
development, said this proposal was recommended for denial by the Planning
Co~nission because of the roads. Residents should not have to wait six years
before the road is improved to meet the demands of the development. She said
it is true that the road directly in front of the development will be widened
and improved, but the rest of the road will not be upgraded for six years.
She pointed out that Route 684 is a supporting road for this community, but it
is even more dangerous than Jarman's Gap Road. She said none of these roads
are sufficient for the residents of the community to get in and out of Crozet
with this added development.
Mr. Ken Diepold came forward again to say that he has no contract with
the applicant to build houses. He said he has the same agreement with this
applicant as he does with any other developer. Builders buy lots that are
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
206
developed and build houses on them. Mr. Diepold said there have been no
personal injury accidents on Jarman's Gap Road between Route 240 and Route 684
in the 14 years he has lived in Crozet.
Ms. Cynthia Armstrong, resident of Mint Springs Road in Crozet, said she
owns property on Route 684 and travels down Jarman's Gap Road. She asked the
Board to come out to Crozet and drive down Jarman's Gap Road, try to park at
the Post Office, and drive under the railroad bridge during rush hour traffic
to see what the conditions are really like. She feels the proposed zoning
will be too dense for Crozet.
The public hearing was closed at this time.
Mr. Bain said he wanted to clarify that the R-6 zoning is requested to
allow 8,000 square foot lots, and does not refer to the density. He said the
density is 2.6 dwelling units per acre which is at the low end of the scale
for the district. Mr. Bowie said the density is not proffered to be 2.6
dwelling units. Mr. Bain said it is proffered to be according to the plan
submitted and displayed on the wall tonight and containing no more than 51
lots, which equals 2.6 dwelling units.
Mrs. Humphris asked what would happen if R-6 zoning is granted and the
developer does not go through with the development. Mr. Bain said the devel-
opment plan is proffered and goes with the land if it is sold. Mrs. Humphris
said she feels that Mr. Payne made a marvelous defense of the Comprehensive
Plan. However, she is concerned about the density of this development. Even
though the County would like to guide development into the growth areas, there
is such a thing as "too much, too fast". She said it is exasperating that the
County does not have in place a system for proffers which would allow the
County to receive compensation for the cost of this development to the tax-
payers. If this development is allowed, the schools will be stressed, and the
taxpayers are paying for these schools. She said it is only fair that devel-
opers who are creating this need for services should offset the cost. She
feels the health considerations are serious with regard to the problems of
spraying pesticides. She does not know how the County can deal with the
problem, but she agrees that citizens need to realize that this type of
spraying is being done. She concluded that the impact on schools and roads is
too much too soon, even though she respects the Comprehensive Plan with regard
to the growth areas.
Mr. Perkins concurred with Mrs. Humphris' remarks. He asked if the
developer has any responsibility for damages caused to neighboring property
because of runoff from the development, or if the developer could be required
to replace or enlarge the pipes for runoff. Mr. St. John said the developer
is not liable to anyone downstream unless he disturbs the bed of the stream
itself. Mr. Perkins said perhaps this request should be deferred to allow the
applicant to reconsider his request. Mr. Perkins said he would support a
request for a 40-unit development, but he could not support 51 lots.
Mr. Bowie said the Comprehensive Plan is a twenty-year plan. That does
not mean that everything described in it has to be built next year. He said
the Plan calls for development in Crozet, but he agrees with the speaker who
suggested that the development should come after the road is improved.
Mr. Bain said he does not think this development is too intense for this
community. He is very familiar with Jarman's Gap Road, although he does not
live there now. Mr. Bain pointed out that the new legislation regarding
proffers does not give the Board much leeway in requiring off-site road
improvements. He said the utilities are already in place, and the schools are
not covered by the legislation as well. Therefore, he is in favor of this
plan with the proffers given.
Mr. Perkins said he does not know of any development in Crozet that is
built to this density. Mr. Bain said the lots in Orchard Acres are very
small. Mr. Perkins said some of those are one-third of an acre. If this
development is limited to 40, these would be less than one-half acre lots.
Mr. Perkins then offered a motion to defer the petition. Mr. Bowerman
said he feels the request should be dealt with tonight and added that he
agrees with Mr. Bain. Mr. Perkins' motion died for lack of a second.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
207
Mrs. Humphris then offered a motion: to deny ZMA-90-03. Mr. Perkins
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following
recorded tie vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Way.
Mr. Bain then offered a motion to approve ZMA-90-03 with the two proffers
stated in Mr. Fred Payne's letter of May 9, 1990. Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the petition was denied by the following recorded
tie vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Bowerman, and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 13. Funding for Route 20/Avon Street Collector Road
Design.
Mr. Tucker said the Board removed all local funding from the Capital
Improvement Program for the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway and
shifted funds for the Route 20/Avon Street Collector Road to the 1992-93
Fiscal Year. He asked for guidance relating to funds which were previously
appropriated for the final engineering and design work of these roadways. He
asked if the Board intended that no local funds be used for final design work
on these roads.
Mr. Kenneth Smith from the University of Virginia came forward to speak.
He said the University is interested in the Route 20/Avon Street Collector
Road because of work they are doing with the Department of Forestry. He said
the first step in the process toward design is a traffic count study which is
vital to determine the requirements of the design. He hopes that the Board
will authorize an initial study to have this basic information in hand, if not
the total design of the roadway.
Mr. Bowie said'when he voted to delete these two projects from the
Capital Improvement Program, he did not intend that any design study be done
by the County. He feels that a developer should pay for the road design
himself. However, the traffic count project makes sense.
Mr. Tucker said some of the preliminary design work has been done. He
asked Mr. Moring to comment on the preliminary design with regard to traffic
vehicle count. Mr. Moring said in the preliminary design for the Avon Street
Collector Road, the basic vehicle count for a four-lane divided road was
assumed. There was no actual traffic study such as a detailed design would
require. He said a traffic study would consider the land, the land uses, and
the projected vehicle trips. Mr. Moring said the first step in the final
design is to perform a traffic study. Mr. Bowie asked the cost of a traffic
analysis study. Mr. Moring said he could not estimate the cost. Mr. Tucker
said $77,000 has been appropriated but not spent for traffic analysis and
final engineering design.
Mr. Bowie said he would support a traffic count study because nothing can
be done until that information is available. Mr. Tucker said the traffic
study will be concerned with the ultimate traffic as a result of land uses
between Route 20 and Avon Street. It is not strictly a count of current
traffic.
Mr. Perkins, with a reservation that he does not think the County should
get in the road building business, offered a motion that the Board authorize
the expenditure of funds to make a traffic study for the Route 20/Avon Street
Collector Road. Mr. Way seconded the motion.
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.
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
208
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval: Alcohol/Drug Free Workplace Policy. Mr.
Tucker said this item is deleted from the agenda tonight because the School
Board made some changes to the policy. There was no objection by Board
members.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments.
Mr. Bain nominated Mr. J. Randolph Parker to the Albemarle County Service
Authority representing the Samuel Miller District, term to expire April 16,
1994. Mr. Way seconded the motion. 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. 16. Approval of Minutes: March 28(A), 1990. No minutes
had been read.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board. There were no other matters brought up at this time.
Not Docketed: Mr. Bowie said there is a need for an Executive Session.
At 1:09 A. M., Mrs. Humphris offered a motion and Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing specif-
ic appointments and the performance of specific personnel in accordance with
State Code Section 2.1-344.A.1.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins andMr. Way.
NAYS: None.
At 2:00 A.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered
by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris certifying the Executive Session as
set out below.
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, Bowie, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
Perkins and Mr. way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None
May 16, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
209
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mrs.
Humphris to appoint Mrs. Virginia K. Lee to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging
in replacement of Dr. Daniel Harrington, whose term expires on March 31, 1991.
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. 18. Adjourn. At 2:02 A.M., with no further business to
come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr.
Perkins to adjourn to Tuesday, May 22, 1990, at 2:30 P.M. for a joint meeting
with the School Board.
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