1988-05-04May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
197
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 4, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H.
Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Way.
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. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to accept the items on the consent agenda as infor-
mation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Letter dated April 12, 1988, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, concerning public hearing on Noise Abatement
Policy was receoved. In his letter, Mr. Roosevelt states that the Board may
speak at a public hearing on this policy, or ~address its comments to the Chief
Highway Engineer. Mr. Way asked if the Board:!should make a response. Mr.
Agnor replied that there will be a discussion~ of this item scheduled on next
week's agenda. ~
Item 4.2. Copies of Planning Commission~"minutes for April 12 and
April 19, 1988, were received as information.
Item 4.3. Request dated April 20, 1988, from Mr. Jeffrey C. Wray, Wray
Brothers, Inc., for a central water supply system. Mr. Bowie asked if approv-
al of this request is automatic. Mr. Agnor said it is unless the Board takes
action to the contrary. Mr. Horne said this dentral well is to serve one
parcel in Hunter's Hall Subdivision. The Wra~ Brothers Construction Company
will occupy one part of a structure, and may wish to lease other parts, and
County law requires that if there are three or more people using the well
system, a central well permit is required. Mt. Bowie said he wanted to be
sure the Board did not approve anything that ~ould preclude having this
hooked to public water should it become available. Mr. Bowie asked
structure
if the system will be built to County Service~Authority standards. Mr. Horne
replied "yes."
Item 4.4. Letter dated April 21, 1988, from Mr. Walter J. Kucharski,
State Auditor of Public Accounts, was receive~ indicating receipt of copies of
the audited financial statements of the Count~ of Albemarle, Virginia, for the
year ended June 30, 1987. In his letter, Mr.~iKucharski states that the report
of the County was reviewed and found to be prepared in accordance with the
specifications of the Auditor of Public Accounts, and the report has been
accepted by his office, i
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: Sal~ of well lot in Colthurst Farms
Subdivision. (Advertised in the Daily ProgreSs on April 18 and April 25,
1988.)
198
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Agnor briefly explained the reason this matter is on the agenda (see
minutes of April 13, 1988). The public hearing was opened. With no one
coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to
adopt the following resolution:
AN ORDINANCE
TO AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF 0.375 ACRE OF COUNTY PROPERTY
IDENTIFIED ON COUNTY REAL ESTATE TAX MAP 60-C AS PARCEL 14A
TO ALFRED C. AND KATHRYNA. MORLEY FOR $4,500.00
AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE
WHEREAS, the County owns a 20 foot wide strip of land for which
it has no use identified on County Tax Map 60-C as Parcel 14A and more
particularly described on the attached plat; and
WHEREAS, said parcel of county land adjoins Lot 14, Block F,
Colthurst Farm Subdivision which is owned by Alfred C. and Kathryn A.
Morley; and
WHEREAS, Alfred C. and Kathryn A. Morley have asked to purchase
said 20 foot strip of land from Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the 1987 county tax assessment for TaX Map 60-C, Parcel
14A is $500.00; and
WHEREAS, county staff has determined that the fair market value
for the acreage of this parcel is $4,500.00; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the intended conveyance has been given;
NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle that the sale, as is, of that unimproved l~t designated as
Parcel 14A on county real estate Tax Map 60-C to Alfred C. and Kathryn
A. Morley for the sum of $4,500.00 is hereby authorized, and the
Chairman of the Board is authorized to execute a special warranty deed
to make the conveyance which shall contain the covenant that the lot
conveyed shall not be used as a building lot.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-88-6. North 29 Commercial L~nd Trust. To rezone
approximately 4.9253 acres from HC to R-6. Property located on the west side
of Rt. 29, at its intersection with Woodbrook Drive. The~ortions of these
parcels to be rezoned are on the west side of the propose~ Berkmar Drive
Extended. Tax Map 45, Parcel 93A, 108 and 109. Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 18 and April 2~, 1988.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows: ~
Petition: This rezoning petition is submitted pursuant to agreements
in ZMA-87-07 JEFFERSON SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER and review of alignment
of Berkmar Drive Extension. North 29 Commercial Lan~ Trust proposes
rezoning of 4.9253 acres from HC, Highway Commercial ~o R-6, Resi-
dential. Properties, located in the Charlottesville Magisterial
District, are residue lots created by shopping center tract and
dedications of right-of-way for Berkmar Drive Extended:
Tax Map 45, Parcel 93A (part) 1.5785 acres
Tax Map 45, Parcel 108 (part) 1.0650 acres
Tax Map 45, Parcel 109/109A (part) 2.2818 acres
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
199
Staff Comment: The Jefferson Square Shopping Center rezoning occa-
sioned realignment of the proposed Berkmar Drive Extended roadway
toward the west. This resulted in creation of 4 relatively small
commercial lots on the west side of Berlonar Drive Extended. Staff
recommended that Berkmar Drive Extended be viewed as a firm boundary
between commercial and residential zoning. The applicant agreed to
rezone these outlets from HC, Highway commercial to R-6, Residential.
Staff suggested that to offset the zoning change, additional traffic
be allocated to the shopping center or other properties:
Adding 1080 vehicle trips per day from parcel 93A and 108 would
increase total shopping center capacity to 18~060 vehicle trips
per day which would provide more flexibility to development of
shopping center reserved lots.
Parcels 109/109A are subject to a proffer restricting maximum
traffic generation to 4430 vehicle trips per day. Approval of
this petition would result in a trip limit of 4334 vehicle trips
per day on the commercial residue.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-88-06 North 29 Commercial Land Trust.
Staff will place notes in appropriate zoning files regarding traffic
generation.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 19, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-88-06~
The public hearing was opened. With no one coming forward to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Cooke said she certainly concurs wi~h the request. It was the
intention that Berkmar Drive Extended be the boundary line between residential
and commercial development. She then moved a~proval of the rezoning as
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MeSsrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-88-12. Clifford H. Fox. To allow a private
school for one year post college graduate study to be located in the former
White Hall school building. Property located'!on the south side of St. Rt.
614, approximately 1800 feet east of its intersection with Rt. 810 at White
Hall. Tax Map 31, Parcel 29. White Hall Disgrict. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 18 and April 25, 1988.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
Petition: Clifford Fox petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a
special use permit for a PRIVATE SCHOOL (!Section 10.2.2.5) on 2.71
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 41,
Parcel 29, is located on the south side 0~ Route 614 approximately
1800 feet east of Route 810 at White Halt in the White Hall Magisteri-
al District.
Character of the Area: This building is ~the former White Hall School.
Other properties in the area are in farm land rural residential usage.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's w~itten submittal proposes a:
Private school of instruction for t~e training of cytotechnicians
(the study of cells). The program will consist of three to four
students for one year post-college g~raduate study. There will be
one to two full-time instructors and a maximum of eight to 12
persons on the premises at any one time.
200
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
There are no private schools of instruction for cytotechnicians
in the State of Virginia. The property is ideally situated to be
restored to its original use as a school.
(In subsequent discussion with staff the applicant stated that the use
would likely involve one to two trainees and seven to eight employees
(including secretary).)
The operation would involve microscopic analysis of prepared slide
samples including: PAP test samples, urine, bronchial washings, and
the like. Such analysis would be performed for hospitals and other
medical uses. Analysis would involve dying with water based dye as
well as usage of limited quantities of isopropyl alcohol and xylene
(i.e. - one gallon or less). The xylene would be cleansed and recy-
cled for further usage. Aberrant specimens would be stored for
several years while normal results would be kept for a shorter period.
Staff Recommendation: This site was formerly a public school and
staff can determine no particular reason that the site cannot be
devoted to private school usage under proper health and safety
safeguards. Staff recommends approval subject to the following
conditions:
County Engineer approval of certified engineer'is report in
accordance with Section 4.14 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS of the Zoning
Ordinance. Due to location of this property in the South Fork
Rivanna River reservoir watershed, the County Engineer shall
consult with the Water Management Official in his review;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval i0f a commercial
entrance;
3. Planning staff approval of parking area;
Virginia Department of Health review and approval of septic
system including discharge to such system;
5. Fire Officer approval;
This special use permit is issued for a private school with
active participant student enrollment at all times. Failure to
comply with this condition shall be deemed a change of use and
this petition shall be referred to the Board ofiSupervisors for
disposition.
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 19, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval of this special use permit, with the condi-
tions set out in the staff's report.
Mr. Bain asked if the facility were used for training other than cyto-
technicians, or if different samples, dyes, etc. were used, would that neces-
sitate the applicant coming back to the Board for further~approvals. Mr.
Home said he believes that if the training were for otheM than cytotech-
nicians, it would require coming back to the Board, but a~ to a change in
procedures, he does not think that would necessarily require a change in the
special use permit. Mr. Bain asked if a condition should:i'be added limiting
the number of employees, or if the proposal as submitted is sufficient. Mr.
Home said the proposal does not incorporate a firm number on employees or
students, so if the Board feels there should be a limit, it would be best to
set that at this hearing. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said the permit is for the parcel, and ~not the structure,
so without a stated limitation, there would be nothing to !prevent the owner
from demolishing the building and building a different st .~r~cture to house more
people. Mr. Home said he feels that would be a change inl use. He said this
representation is for the use of the existing structure, but if that is
important to the Board, it might be best to put that in tl~e conditions. Mr.
Lindstrom said as he reads the conditions, he sees nothing~ that limits the
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
201
number of people that can use the facility, limits the use to a school for
training cytotechnicians, or limits an additional structure, or a larger
structure being built on the property.
Mr. Way said that in reading the Planning Commission minutes, this same
issue was discussed, but they did not feel that in this location a larger
number of people would have that much impact. Mr. Horne said there was a
brief discussion of that issue, and the gist was that this number of people
was so much lower than when the building was used for a school, that unless
there was a dramatic change, they did not feel it to be a significant issue.
There is not a limit on the number of people in the current proposal, and if
that is important to the Board, that should be included as a condition.
Mrs. Cooke said the proposal states that they will do an analysis of
ready, prepared slides. She asked how the operation would change if they were
to prepare the slides. Mr. Home said he believes that would change the
operation significantly. There would need to be different materials and
procedures. Mrs. Cooke asked if that change would require a greater amount of
sewage disposal. Mr. Home said that would be the staff's main concern,
discharge into a septic system of biological matter that is not normally put
into a septic system. That is the reason fo= the condition requiring Health
Department approval.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Dr. Fox was out of town,
but there was aegentlemen present to represent him. He said he does not know
the exact nature of what is to take place on,the site, so does not know the
techniques and cannot answer Mrs. Cooke's question, but will be happy to
answer other questions.
Next to speak was Mr. A1 Francis, who said he lives within one mile of
the property. His concern is that this facility might become a research lab
and the facility will be using a septic drai~field. He asked if the Health
Department will monitor this facility to see ~hat is actually going into the
septic system. Also, what will the ventilation system be putting into the
air? He is concerned about what this facility might do to the area.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Horne if he could answer any of Mr. Francis' questions.
Mr. Home said he does not believe there willi be any regular program of
monitoring by the Health Department. Mr. Franc~s said that if wells are
contaminated, it will be too late to monitor.~i He does not think a lab that
might have any toxic materials should be allowed to use a septic field.
Mr. Richard Ergler said he has property 9ear Dan Maupin on the north side
of the road from the school property. His reaction to the proposal is that it
does not make economic sense with only two to'four students in the school. He
feels there must be some work on the property,!that is commercial. Mr. Ergler
said he bought his land in 1980 because it was zoned agricultural and was in a
rural area. He never would have expected this type of operation as a neigh-
bor. He also questions whether the facility Will be monitored. How would the
County or others know there were any students i~in the school? He has talked
with Dr. Fox who admitted there would be difficulty in getting students. Mr.
Ergler said he is concerned about health hazards. The school is on a hill,
and on the north side of the hill is a stream that runs into his property.
Any kind of accident might effect his property. If this use is approved, will
it just be a "foot in the door" for other use~ in this same area?
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Ergler if he spokeat the Planning Commission
meeting. Mr. Ergler said "no", he is not an adjoining property owner so was
not notified of the meeting, and he did not see a sign posted on the building.
Mrs. A1 Francis said when this structure mas used as a school in the
past, there were not the number of subdivisions in the area that there are
now. There is a tremendous amount of traffic iDn Garth Road. If the facility
were to change in character, that would be a concern to her. If Dr. Fox
decided this were not a workable situation fo~ him, he might sell the school
to someone else, and a different kind of research could be established there.
What would be the way to supervise that and make sure that toxic materials
were not on the site?
202
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed
at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom said there had been questions asked tonight which he felt
should be answered. He feels this might be a lab that is masquerading as a
school. The staff report says the operation will involve microscopic analysis
of prepared slide samples, and he has no problem with that as long as it is
ancillary to a true educational operation. Mr. Bowie said he had no doubt as
to where those slide samples are coming from. He does not believe one student
can support a school and twelve staff members. It would appear that there
will be some testing done.
Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. He would prefer not to vote on this
permit until hearing directly from Dr. Fox.
Mrs. Cooke said she is uncomfortable about approving this as any kind of
a school, and would like to have more information and an explanation from Dr.
Fox as to his intent, and what the operations will consist of.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to defer
action on this request until May 18 in order to obtain answers from the staff
on the many questions asked at this hearing, and hopefull~ Dr. Fox will be
present at that time to answer questions.
Mr. Perkins asked how much outside work a school could bring in without
the school becoming a commercial lab. Mrs. Cooke said that is a real concern.
Mr. Home said the staff had asked Dr. Fox that particula~ question a number
of times and Dr. Fox repeatedly assured the staff that thins is just a school.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not believe a school can be operated on the tuition
from one or two students. Most of the revenue would havei~o come from some
other source. He thinks the Board needs more than just vague, verbal assur-
ances and some specific information about how this will operate. Mr.
Lindstrom said the staff might think about some additional~ conditions to tie
down this operation; one would be to require that the school be operated in
the existing structure, iii
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and~the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-88-14. Central Virginia Educational Television.
To allow for the installation of a microwave tower on a vacant parcel zoned
RA. Property located on the east side of Rt. 20, approximately one-half mile
north of the intersection with Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742). Tax Map 91,
Parcel 18. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
April 18 and April 25, 1988.)
Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows:
Petition: Central Virginia Educational Television (WQVE TV) petitions
the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permi~ for construc-
tion of a radio frequency transmission tower and rela~ed facilities
and appurtenances (10.2.2.6) on 7.827 acres zoned RA, i!iRural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 18 (part of~ is located on
the east side of Rt. 20 South approximately one-half mile north of its
intersection with Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742) in t~e Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Introduction: Staff met with representatives of CVET
locational issues and other matters related to broadc
CVET was provided copies of past staff reports which
public concern. The applicant has responded to all i
cerns as well as providing comprehensive information
Attachment A is the applicant's submittal entitled "S5
to discuss
st facilities.
utlined areas of
entified con-
or review.
MMARY OF INFOR-
MATION" which is presented in the form of a planning S~taff report and
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
203
analysis. Staff is in basic agreement with opinions stated by the
applicant and recommends that the proposal satisfies criteria for
issuance of a special use permit as set forth in 31.2.4.1.
The following summary comments are offered:
Location: CVET sought location of a broadcast antenna on the
existing WVIR tower to avoid additional tower construction,
however, the tower manufacturer advised that the tower would be
structurally overloaded by the additional broadcast antenna.
Then CVET successfully pursued a new tower site location within
500 feet of the existing WVIR tower and in proximity to the
several towers on Carter's Mountain (overall height above mean
sea level would be 50 feet less than the WVIR tower). Location
adjacent to existing towers and remote from dwellings (~2,500
feet) is consistent with County efforts.
me
Capability: In addition to the television antenna and microwave
relay receiver, the tower would be engineered to accommodate
nine, ten-foot microwave dishes and two FM antennae (with pos-
sible combinations to include land mobile and common carrier uses
such as paging, two-way radio and Cellular telephone uses). This
'shared use' approach will provide capacity for third party
users, reducing future needs for additional tower structures.
This approach is consistent with County efforts.
To further enhance shared usage of the tower, staff would recommend
that no separate special use permits bec. required for future users,
provided that certain conditions are satisfied. Staff recommends
approval of SP-88-14, Central Virginia Educational Television, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Tower height not to exceed 273 fee~. Tower to be located as
described by applicant;
2. Administrative approval of site plan to include:
a.Staff approval of equipment building siting and,
if appropriate, screening measures;
b.Virginia Department of TranspOrtation approval of
commercial entrance; ~
3. As to future tower users, staff ma~ administratively approve
additional antennae installation u~der the following circum-
stances:
a. Continued compliance with §5.~.12 of the Zoning
Ordinance including safety measures related to
cumulative RF radiation such ~s fencing of areas
where ANSi standards would be exceeded (see
attachment B); I
b. If such installation is an element or segment of a
network or system which requi~es Board approval,
such installation shall not b~ authorized until
Board approval has been obtained for the entire
project. ~
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission,iat its meeting on April 19, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval of the request with the conditions recom-
mended by the staff, but changed No. 2.a. tolread as follows: "Staff approval
of two equipment building sites, and, if appropriate, screening materials."
Mr. Horne said the applicant now says that t~e tower height in Condition No. 1
should be 293 instead of 273 feet.
Mr. Horne said the staff has been contacted by Centel concerning their
location of antennae facilities on this general site. They asked about
installation of a temporary mobile tower on the site while their permanent
204
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
tower is under construction. The staff said it would have no problem with the
temporary tower if permission for the permanent tower is first received from
the Board of Supervisors, and the temporary tower would be removed when the
broadcast facilities for what is expected to be a cellular telphone system is
placed on the tower structure.
Mr. Horne referred to a letter dated April 28, 1988, signed by Mr. M. E.
(Dick) Gibson, Jr., attorney for the applicant, in which he questions the
wording of Condition No. 3.~b. with respect to Centel's cellular phone system.
This condition was recommended because a cellular phone system requires
multiple towers, and the staff did not want the Board to feel they had been
placed in the position of approving a tower which would require a substantial
investment, that would then be used as pressure to approve other tower sites
as part of the overall system.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dick Gibson was present
to represent the applicant. He said this tower is in close proximity to the
towers already in place. It does not create another penetration on the
horizon. This is a multi-user facility, and will take care of broadcast needs
in the Carter's Mountain area for many years into the future.
After Centel found that CVET was installing a tower,~they requested use
of the tower. Their proposal is to install one stand-alone facility
initially. It would provide a fair range of capability fdr the new cellular
telephone system. Beyond that, Centel has no definite plans. Installation of
any other facility would depend on the public's response to the cellular
telephone system in this area. If there is a weak respons~e, a single tower
would be sufficient to handle all of the needs. Second is location of an
alternative site. Centel has explored a couple of alternatives and worked
with the staff to eliminate certain possibilities. Cente~ knows it must find
another site which is acceptable to the staff, Board of Supervisors, and their
own engineers. Mr. Gibson said that in approving this special permit tonight,
Centel's proposal is not a "system" as contemplated by Co~'dition No. 3.b.
Centel representatives are here tonight to reaffirm that ~hey do not rely on
this approval for any future use, but that the approval w~uld be limited
strictly to this use standing by itself, i
Mr. Gibson concluded by requesting approval of the tdWer. He said that
Mr. Dick Hall from CVET in Richmond is present to answer ~echnical questions.
He.asked that the Board indicate it is not concerned that ~iCentel will use this
as a springboard to other towers, but will be limited to Chis tower facility.
He hopes the Board will give approval of the tower, approval of the temporary
"crank-up" facilities for Centel, and then the ability of ~entel to attach to
the permanent tower once that tower is erected.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public Nearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands what the staff and ~pplicant have
suggested, and he suggested that No. 3.b. be changed to read: "No administra-
tive approval shall constitute or imply support for, or approval of, the
location of additional towers, antennaes, etc., even though they may be part
of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved
hereunder." The virtue of this application is that this i~ the location where
the County is trying to encourage the location of towers s6 this area does not
look like other cities in the State. He approves of this location. Mr.
Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-88-14 as recommended by the Planning
Con~nission, but changing "273" to "293" in Condition No. 1~ and changing
Condition No. 3.b. to read: "No administrative approval shall constitute or
imply support for, or approval of, the location of additional towers,
antennaes, etc., even though they may be part of the same 9etwork or system as
any antennae administratively approved hereunder." ~
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Ther~ was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion~ carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrem, Perkins and Way.
None. :
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
205
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Tower height not to exceed 293 feet. Tower to be located as
described by applicant.
2. Administrative approval of site plan to include:
Staff approval of equipment building sites and, if appro-
priate, screening materials;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commercial
entrance;
As to future tower users, staff may administratively approve
additional antennae installation under the following circum-
stances:
Continued compliance with §5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance
including safety measures related to cumulative RF radiation
such as fencing of areas wher~ ANS1 standards would be
exceeded (see attachment B);
No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support
for, or approval of, the location of additional towers,
antennaes, etc., even though they may be part of the same
network or system as any antennae administratively approved
hereunder.
(The following two petitions were presented simultaneously.)
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-88-3. United Land Corporation. To rezone a 34.3
acres parcel from RA as follows: 6.2 acres [o C-1 (proffer) and 28.1 acres to
LI. Property located on the north side of R[~ 649, approximately one-half
mile west of Rt. 29. Tax Map 32, Parcel 17. Rivanna District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on April 18 and April 25, 1988.)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-88-20. United Land Corporation. To permit
vehicle rental on a 6.2 acre parcel proposed ~to be zoned C-1. Property on
north side of St. Rt. 649, approximately one-~half mile west of Rt. 29. Tax
Map 32, Parcel 17. Rivanna District. (Adver~tised in the Daily Progress on
April 18 and April 25, 1988.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as fol~lows:
Petitions: United Land Corporation unde~ ZMA-ag-03 petitions the
Board of Supervisors to rezone 34.3 acres from AA, Rural Areas as
follows: 6.2 acres to C-1 Commercial (PROFFER) and 28.1 acres to LI,
Light Industrial. SP-88-20 proposes location of two motor vehicle
rental businesses on the 6.2 proposed to: rezoned to C-1 (Section
22.2.2.8). Property, described as Tax M~p 32, Parcel 17 is located on
the north side of Route 649 about 1/2 mile west of U. S. Route 29
North in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: This site has a length-to-width ratio of about
3:1 and would be a--~opriately developed!!with an internal road system.
Property to the east is developed with a!~single-family dwelling, zoned
RA but recommended for industrial usage. !: Other properties adjacent to
this site are zoned LI, Light Industrial~ A church is located across
Route 649.
Staff Comment: The requested LI, Light ~ndustrial is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. The requested C~i, Commercial is not con-
sistent with the Comprehensive Plan. staff offers the following
comments:
1. Staff anticipates most commercial land between the City limits
and South Fork Rivanna River to be developed within three years.
This will result in pressure for additional commercial zoning in
Hollymead (beyond recommendation of{the Comprehensive Plan);
206
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Though few requests have been disapproved and substantial acreag-
es have been rezoned, the County has been criticized as to
availability of industrial land. Staff does not support sub-
stitution of commercial uses into areas recommended for industri-
al development;
Given concerns outlined above, any commercial rezoning in a
recommended industrial area should receive particular justi-
fication so as not to set precedent.
In this particular case, staff offers the following comments for the
proposed C-1 zoning:
Auto rental uses are directly related to and supportive of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Automobile rentals are a
direct service to airport patrons and, in fact, the agencies have
in the past operated at the airport itself.
The staff however, anticipates the need for the type of acreage
to be quite limited and would distinguish between these direct
services and their indirectly related commercial enterprises.
(The Planning Commission in Comprehensive Plan deliberations may
wish to consider designation of an area for airport related
commercial uses);
The applicant has specifically limited use of the c-1 area to
auto rental agencies only.
This rezoning should be approved only if the County is prepared to
entertain other requests for airport-related uses. Such areas should
be delineated in the Comprehensive Plan land use mapS.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-88-03 and acceptance of the appli-
cant's proffer to distinguish the action from endorsement of general
commercialization of recommended industrial areas, i
Staff recommends approval of SP-88-20 subject to the~ following condi-
tions:
Tax Map 32, Parcel 17 consisting of 34.3 acres to be developed
employing internal road system, with all access~irestricted to
internal road;
The Planning Commission shall require substantial screening of
auto storage areas from Route 649 at time of site plan approval.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 5, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-88-3 subject to the proffer dated
March 11, 1988, and approval of SP-88-20 subject to the two conditions in the
staff's report. He mentioned a letter dated April 27, 19~8, from Mr. Mike
Boggs, Director of Aviation, Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, in which he
expresses concerns of the Airport Authority concerning thi~ request.
Mr. Horne said this request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map. There is no commercial designation shown on this road. Also,
the current Comprehensive Plan does not even recognize the%Airport on the Land
Use Map as an integral part of the growth area. The Planning Commission feels
that this use is directly related to servicing the Airport!s patrons, and that
coupled with the proffer, is enough to distinguish this use from a commercial
designation not directly related to servicing those patro~s. There was dis-
cussion as to the need to avoid general commercialization of the areas near
the Airport. Mr. Home said the part of the property that~'~is zoned RA is
shown in the existing Comprehensive Plan for industrial usage.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about Highway Department commentsliin which they
stated: "Several years ago, the Department had preliminar~ plans for an
airport access project that has not been built." Mr. Horn~ said it was
discussed a number of years ago, and the project was to utilize "Airport
Access Funds" as part of the funding, with the remainder cgming from Secondary
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
207
Road Funds. The proposal was to upgrade Route 649 to a four-lane, divided
facility, with a relocation of Route 649 to move away from its intersection
with Route 606.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned about the H~ghway Department's
recommendation as to reservation or dedication of right-of-way along the
frontage of this property. Mr. Horne said
right-of-way on Route 649 to build the prop
if the applicant would reserve that right-o
during site plan approval unless it is occa
property in question.
Mr. Bain asked if representatives of t
Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Horne sai
address the commercial relationship between
car rental agencies. In terms of general c
Route 649, the staff and Planning Commissio
~here is not currently adequate
)sed roadway. It would be helpful
[-way, since it cannot be obtained
sioned by the development of the
ne Airport Authority were at the
~ "yes". The staff is not able to
~he Airport Authority and various
~mmercialization or stripping along
feel that the application is
sufficiently restricted so as to distinguish .it effectively from other general
commercialization.
Mr. Bain asked what rights the Airport has with their zoning to have the
operation on their property? Mr. Home said the Airport is~currently zoned RA
which does not anticipate commercial enterprises. Mr. Bain said the Airport
Authority must get some percentage of the business from the car rental
agencies.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not believe Mr. Horne's answer was in response
to Mr. Bain's question, but he was intrigued by the answer. He does not
believe the Airport Authority has thought abou% the RA zoning with all the
activities that take place on this property. Mr. Agnor said the operations of
the Airport have included commercial franchises, etc. ever since it opened.
The Airport Authority operates through contracts with the users of the
facilities. There are three automobile rental agencies on the site at this
time In fact, the facility was designed for that number of agencies based on
the number of people emplaning and deplaning.~ Traffic circulation, parking
regulations', etc. are geared to the operations of the rental car users. The
expanded terminal complex, presently under design, has facilities in it for
additional automobile rental agencies. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Boggs is here
tonight to answer questions. The Airport Authority was not notified of this
request because it is not an adjoining prope~y owner, so the letter presented
to the Board was written after the County staff report had been written and
presented to the Planning Commission. .~
Mr. Lindstrom said the staff and AirportlAuthority should work to be sure
all of this is not taking place on RA zoned 1And. Mr. Bain asked if the
Airport Authority should not generate funds even if this rental car business
were located off of Airport property, if they[are to use the facility. Mr.
Agnor said there have been a number of court cases in the country regarding
Airport operations generating revenues from off-site related services. He
does not know how these decisions effect VirgSnia law. The Airport Authority
is particularly concerned with providing services for passengers through an
operation that is either contracted or franchised with adequate insurance
liabilities, etc. that go with the picking up!and discharging of passengers on
publicly-owned land.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is now a profit relationship between the
Airport and the three agencies. Mr. Agnor said they pay a percentage of their
gross receipts to the Airport. Mr. Lindstrom!said the Board is getting into
an area that is fraught with legal problems. IHe is concerned about the issue
raised in the staff report, which is that this is industrially designated land
in the Comprehensive Plan.
At this time, Mr. Way declared the public hearing opened, and requested
the applicant to speak. Mr. Wendell Wood was~present. (For the Board's
information, he noted that he was recently present requesting permission to
install a sewer pipe across the Rivanna River,~ and that installation took
place with about 10 days to spare.) Mr. Wood'said this request is before the
Board tonight because he was approached by people from both Hertz Rent-A-Car
and Budget Rent-A-Car, who currently operate booths in the Airport. He talked
with Mr. Horne and Mr. Keeler to discuss the zoning. The zoning ordinance
208
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
requires HC for a car rental agency and they did not feel!that would be
compatible with the area, and that is how it was decided to apply for C-1 with
a proffer limiting the use to nothing but a car rental agency. Both agencies
would need from one to three acres for complete facilities. Mr. Wood said he
knows nothing of their arrangements with the Airport, they merely stated that
they did not presently have enough space, or they could not economically
arrange for their needs at the Airport. Both now store cars off site. One is
storing cars on Route 29 North at the Northside Industrial Park, and the other
is storing cars in downtown Charlottesville.
Mr. Wood said in his travels around the United States, car rental agen-
cies are located on the approach road to an airport, and it seems to be a
logical place. County Staff felt it to be logical, as did the Planning
Commission. No one had expressed opposition to this proposal until about two
days ago when he received a copy of the letter addressed to Mr. Way. Mr. Wood
said he would like to have a monopoly, but this is a free enterprise system.
Mr. Wood said he can understand Mr. Lindstrom's concerns about the area, but
the letter that Mr. Wood received was very clear, and it appears that the
Airport Authority changed its opinion today. Mr. Wood said this is for two
national concerns, so there is no need to worry that someone will put junk
cars on the property. Mr. Wood said he feels he met the concerns of the
staff, and the proffer limits the special permit to just this one use.
Next to speak was Mr. Mike Boggs, Director of Aviation. He said the
letter he wrote was not to place the Airport in any kind d~f competitive
position with off airport rental property. It was to make the Board of
Supervisors aware of the problems that exist. The staff's report did not
address the many problems that exist around the country with on or off airport
rental car operators. The Airport Authority generates revenue from the on
airport operators, but that is not the issue. Whether or ~not it is an off
airport operator, or someone who has a related interest ih the airport, does
not, necessarily mean that the airport has the facilities t~o accommodate them.
Mr.~ Boggs said the Airport Authority has not been contacted by Mr. Wood to
find if the airport has the curb side or waiting area, or ~he other things
needed there to support his operation. That was the intent of the letter.
The other thing that the Airport Authority is concerned about is that Route
649 between Route 29 North and the Airport, is the front d~or to this com-
munity for many people using the Airport. Current zoning ~%n the Comprehensive
Plan for that area is compatible with the development at the Airport. The
Airport Authority is spending time and money to develop th!~ Airport in a
quality fashion. The new terminal, the landscaping, the roadways, are
designed to give the customer a good first impression of t~{s community. The
Airport Authority Board believes that the industrial zonin~ in the area is
compatible with that sort of image. The 6.2 acres requested for commercial
zoning are not necessarily the same type of environment they wish to see
continued along Route 649.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr.-Bowie said he had one view when he first read the staf~ report last
week,
but now has another view. He did not quite understand the~~letter the Board
received. He does not believe that economics has anything!to do with the
question. He agrees that at almost all airports, the roadA leading to the
airport are lined with car rental agencies, and that is what bothers him.
Most airports around the country are the same in that respect, but when you
find the one that isn't, you remember that one. It is only. a short distance
from the Airport to Route 29, and he does not think there ~hould be a monopoly
there; there should be commercial areas off site, maybe on!'Route 606 and not
on Route 649. That has been his problem with this application. He feels
there should be some commercial land in the area that will i!support this use
and airport-related businesses. Even with heavy screeningS:, he is concerned
about what will happen if the road is lined with airport-r~:lated activity. He
would like to see screening to help keep the short distance, from Route 649
back to the vicinity of Albemarle. Square Shopping retain i~s rural character.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would'to see a more organized w~y of dealing with
commercial needs. He read the staff report about three ti~es, and still can't
figure out why approval of this petition would not be a precedent. If the
Board approves this request, he does not think the Board w~ll be able to
control the zoning. He understands what the staff has said~ about the pressure
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
209
for more commercial. He assumes that the Planning Commission will look at
that in light of this application. There needs to be a decent commercial
opportunity at the Airport. He agrees with Mr. Bowie that it Should not be
just stripped along Route 649. This is prime industrial land, and the Compre-
hensive Plan shows this land for such zoning. Mr. Lindstrom said he can
support the rezoning of the industrial portion of the request, but cannot
support the request for commercial.
Mr. Way said the comment in the staff report that he marked was the
statement that "rezoning should be approved only if the County is prepared to
entertain other requests for airport-relateduses." He agrees that there
should be some better planning for that area.
Mr. Bain said he will support the portion of the request for the indus-
trial use, and if the other six acres were requested for industrial, he would
support that request also. His problem is with the commercialization, and
putting it in a spot area.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Wood if he would like for the Board to approve just
the portion of the request related to the LI, Light Industrial, zoning. Mr.
Wood said yes. Mr. Bowie asked if there was some way to identify just that
portion of the property. Mr. Horne said "yes", the staff had a sketch on file
showing the actual dimensions.
Motion was then offered Mr. Mr. Bowie tO approve ZMA-88-3 to rezone 28.1
acres from RA, Rural Areas, to LI, Light IndUstrial, the acreage outlined on a
map attached to the Staff's report of May 4, i!988, presented to the Board of
Supervisors at this meeting. The motion was .seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Perkins said he has no problem with i{he request. He is confused
about trying to preserve Route 649 as the entrance to Charlottesville. He
does not see that much difference between LI !and commercial areas. Mr. Bowie
said if the commercial is necessary in this a~ea, he does not want to "back
into it" two acres at a time. There was no ~rther discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the followi~ recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie to deny SP-88-20.
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. There was no further discussion.
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
The motion was
Roll was called
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to havelsome recommendation from the
Planning Commission as part of the proposed revisions to the Comprehensive
Plan for an airport commercial area, to the extent it can be done legally,
that would incorporate the concept of internal roads, setbacks, vegetation,
etc. so the roads are not stripped with commercial uses. Mr. Home said the
Planning Commission has discussed that concept at least once in the near past.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes~ March 12 and March 17 (A),
1986; April 15 (N) and October 21 (N), 1987.
Mrs. Cooke had read March 12, 1986, pages 21 to the end and found them to
be in order. She had also ~ead October 21 (Night), 1987, page 9 to the end
and found them in order.
Mr. Bowie had read March 12, 1986, pages~!l through 10 and asked for the
following correction. On page 3, in the firs~ full paragraph, the words "the
air" should be changed to "elevation."
Mr. Lindstrom had read March 17, 1986, and found them to be in order. He
also had read April 15 (Night), 1987, pages lI to the end and asked for the
following correction: On page 23, in the lasfi= paragraph, the word "unimpor-
tant'' should be changed to "unenforceable." :
210
May 4, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Way had read March 12, 1986, pages 11 through 20, and found them to
be in order.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes liste~ on
this agenda, with the corrections noted. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bowie. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain (voting on October 21, 1987, only) and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke,
Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had received a copy of a letter from a citizen
which was addressed to Dr. Charles Tolbert, Chairman of the School Board, and
he recom]nends that the Board read the letter. It points out a matter of
importance to the Capital Improvements budget. The letter has to do with the
use of Murray School, etc. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes the suggestions are
a reasonable way of addressing capital improvements dollars. The County will
have two empty buildings in the near future, and he is concerned about commit-
ting those structures to uses that are low density when the County has such
high density needs. -~
Mr. Way said he had received a copy of a letter from~ia citizen concerning
wrecker service use by the County Police Department. He recently had the
misfortune of being involved in some of this, and he would like to be kept
informed of any staff response. Mr. Agnor said he would forward a copy of
that response to the Board. Mr. Bain asked if the response would include
County Policy. He asked if this type of service is put out to bid. Mr. Agnor
said it is not put out to bid, but there is a written policy which he will
include with the letter, i~
Mr. Way said a letter had been received from Mayor F~ancis Buck concern-
ing the Board's feeling about the closing of Sunset Avenue. Mr. Way said he
spoke with Mr. Horne concerning this matter, and he feels ithat the Board's
position on this matter is that until the JPA-Fontaine Avenue Study is com-
pleted, theyhope that City Council will not take any acti!on to close Sunset
Avenue. Mr. Way said he will communicate this to the Mayor again. He does
not feel it is necessary for any Board member to attend the hearing.
Mr. Bain asked when the study will be completed. Mr. Agnor said it is to
be finished during May, but it will be June or July before! it gets to the
Board and City Council. Mr. Bain said he would have no p~0blem with a staff
person going to the hearing.
At 9:25 p.m., Mr. Lindstrom asked for a short execut~e session on
personnel. He then offered motion to adjourn into executive session for this
purpose. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was balled and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstr6m, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
The Board reconvened into open session at 9:30 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
'--"Ct{ai~an