1987-10-07October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 7, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Rooms 5/6,
Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. J. T.
Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom 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. Home.
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 Mrs. Cooke. to approve 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and to accept the
remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Request having been on file since March 20, 1984, from Mr.
Ronald D. Carter to take Pippin Lane in Langford Subdivision into the
Secondary System of Highways, and the County Engineer now certifying that the
road has been substantially completed in accordance with the approved plans,
the following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following road iA Langford Subdivision:
Pippin Lane:
Beginning at station 10+10 a point common with the
edge of pavement of Langford Place (Route 1630) and
the centerline of Pippin Lane, thence in a southerly
direction 471.80 feet to station 14+81.80, the end
of the cul-de-sac. ~
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as
recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 648, page 925, and Deed Book 863, page
163. ~
Item 4.2. Rivanna Park Virginia Power~iEasement Relocations. The
following memorandum dated October 1, 1987, requesting that the County
Executive be authorized to execute the easements, was approved by the vote
shown above:
"You may recall during the initial review of the Rivanna Park, staff
noted that some of the existing power lines through the property
would have to be relocated and/or placed~underground. Since the cost
of placing all of the existing electrical utilities underground is
prohibitive, we will be relocating the lfnes in order to eliminate
any conflict between the electrical line and playing fields. One
line will be relocated and placed underground, and one will be
relocated but left above ground.
257
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
I am attaching a copy of the two plats showing the proposed relocat-
ions, and requesting that you authorize the County Executive to sign
the right-of-way easement documents. Copies of the documents are
available in my office if you would be interested in reviewing them
(noted as Plat No. 81870232 for an easement of right-of-way of forty
feet, and Plat No. 81870228 for an easement of right-of-way of
fifteen feet)."
Item 4.3. Agreement: Advanced Allocation to Scottsville Volunteer Fire
Company. A memorandum from Guy B. Agnor, Jr. dated September 29, 1987,
requesting that the County Executive be allowed to execute the following
agreement, was received and approved by the vote shown above:
"The Finance Committee of the Jefferson Country Firefighters' Associ-
ation has requested in a letter dated September 10, 1987, an advance
of $100,000 from the unallocated reserve of the Volunteer Fireman's
Capital Improvement Reserve Fund for the purchase of a pumper. This
advance will increase their advanced allocation to $140,000 to be
paid back over the next seven years at $20,000 a year. The Finance
Director has confirmed the availability of funds and-the County
Attorney has prepared an agreement for the County Executive's signa-
ture. Your approval for the County Executive to execute the agree-
ment is requested by staff."
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 7th day of October, 1987, by
and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the
SCOTTS¥ILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. ("Scottsville");
W ITNES SETH;
WHEREAS, the County previously has entered intola service
agreement with Scottsville, dated August 1, 1984, providing for the
withholding of certain sums each year by the County from the County's
annual grant to Scottsville, as set forth in said agreement, a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and ~
WHEREAS, as a result of said agreement, the outstanding indebt-
edness now totals Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00); and
WHEREAS, Scottsville now desires to receive from the County One
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) to be used for~ the purchase of
a new pump truck; and
WHEREAS, Scottsville now desires to enter into an agreement con-
solidating its annual withholding of payments by the ~County;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by
Scottsville of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and
protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire and the
purchase of a new pump truck during the term of this !agreement, the
County shall pay to Scottsville One Hundred Thousand iDollars
($100,000.00), which payment shall be made from the li987-88 advance
allocation to be drawn as soon as this agreement has been approved
and executed by both parties. Thereafter, the sum of! Twenty Thousand
Dollars ($20,000.00) per year shall be withheld each year from the
County's annual grant to Scottsville for a period of seven (7) years,
beginning with fiscal year 1988-89 and extending through July 1995.
Thus, at the end of the seventh year, which is the term of this
service agreement, a total of One Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars
($140,000.00) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates
the balance of all prior advancements as a result of the prior
service agreement with Scottsville, dated August 1, 1984.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, Scottsville is
no longer in the business of providing firefighting services, or the
pump truck is no longer used for firefighting purposes, or the fire
service tanker purchased per the August 1, 1984 agreement is no
longer used for firefighting purposes, Scottsville covenants and
agrees that it will convey its interest in the pump truck and the
fire service tanker to the County at no cost to the County so long as
258
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
the County or its assigns will use the property for firefighting
purposes. All covenants set forth in the agreement dated August 1,
1984 remain in full force and effect.
re:
Item 4.4. Memorandum dated September 22, 1987, from Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,
Solid Waste Resource Recovery, was received as information:
"You may recall that sometime ago a committee of Board and staff
worked to develop an alternative to landfill operations by investi-
gating the advantages of resource recovery. In an effort to continue
that initiative, the City of Charlottesville, as operators of the Ivy
Landfill, applied for an assistance grant under Virginia's Local
Government Energy Program to study this matter further. We have
recently been notified by the State Diwision of Energy that this grant
has been approved for up to $20,000. The study is intended to deter-
mine, among other items, the estimated capacity left at the Ivy
Landfill and the feasibility of a resource recovery operation for
Albemarle and Charlottesville. Staff is working with City and Univer-
sity staff in developing an RFP, which is scheduled for distribution
in October. Matching funds are to be shared equally by the City and
County (approximately $15,000) and are already funded in the Ivy
Landfill budget.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free
to contact me. We anticipate the findings of this study to be com-
,!
pleted in the spring or summer of next year.
Item 4.5. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for the Month of
August, 1987, was received as information.
Item 4.6. A letter dated September 11, 1987, from Oscar K. Mabry,
Deputy Commissioner, Highway Department re: Earlysville Forest roads being
taken into the Secondary System of Highways, was received as follows:
"September 11, 1987
As requested in your resolution dated July 8, 1987, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective September 11, 1987.
ADDITIONS
EARLEYS¥ILLE FOREST
Route 660 (Earleysville Forest Drive) - From Route
743 to Route 1587
LENGTH
1.32 Mi.
Route 1580 (Pine Grove) From Route 660 to
Northeast cul-de-sac
Route 1581 (Windy Cove) - From Route 660 to North
cul-de-sac
0.15 Mi.
0.12 Mi.
Route 1582 (Paddock Circle) - From Route 660 to
North cul-de-sac
0.06 Mi.
Route 1583 (Fox Ridge Drive) From Route 660 to
Southease cul-de-sac
Route 1584 (Rowan Court) - From Route 660 to Northwest
cul-de-sac
0.44 Mi.
0.07 Mi.
Route 1585 (Trillium Road) - From Route 660 to East
cul-de-sac
Route 1586 (Hunters Ridge Road West) From Route 660
to West cul-de-sac
0.13 Mi.
0.06 Mi.
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Route 1586 (Hunters Ridge Road East - From Route
660 to East cul-de-sac
0.37 Mi.
Route 1587 (Saddle Court)
Northeast cul-de-sac
From Route 660 to
0.06 Mi."
Item 4.7. Letter dated September 14, 1987, from Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy
Commissioner, Highway Department re: roads in Raintree Phases 1 and 2, being
taken into the Secondary System of Highways, was received as follows:
"September 14, 1987
As requested in your resolution dated July 1, 1987, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective September 14, 1987.
ADDITIONS
RAINTREE - PHASES Ir 2
Route 1035 (Shadow Oaks Place)
to South cul-de-sac
From Route 652
LENGTH
0.15 Mi.
Route 1036 (Liberty Oaks Court) - From Route 1035
to Northwest cul-de-sac
0.05 Mi.
Route 1037 (Wildmere Place) - From Route 652 to
Northwest cul-de-sac
0.09 Mi."
Item 4.8. Letter dated September 16, 1987, from Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy
Commissioner, Highway Department re: Addition of road in Loftland Woods to
the Secondary System of Highways was received as follows:
"September 16, 1987
As requested in your resolution dated January 21, 1987, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle Countyis hereby
approved, effective September 16, 1987.
ADDITION
LOFTLANDWOODS
Route 1557 (Lake Park Road) - From Route 1555 to
Southeast cul-de-sac
LENGTH
0.14 Mi."
Item 4.9. Letter dated September 23, 1987, from Peter T. Way, in
response to the following letter dated September 16, 1987, from Ray D.
Pethtel, Highway Commissioner re: Proposed Designation of Routes 20 and
22/231 as Virginia Byways. Mr. Way indicated that the Board of Supervisors
had conducted a public hearing in October, lg86, on this question and found
strong support for such designation from area citizens. The Board had
unanimously endorsed this designation, therefore, anotherpublic hearing by
the Transportation Department is unnecessary.
"September 16, 1987
Proposed Designation Of
Routes 20 And 22/231
Albemarle And Orange Counties
Mr. Peter T. Way, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Way:
The Department of Conservation and Historic Resources on August 28,
1987, voted to recommend that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
designate Routes 20, and 22/231 Virginia Byways. Specifically, the
designations should include Route 20 from its intersection with Route
26O
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
250 in Albemarle County to the intersection with Route 15 in the Town
of Orange in Orange County. Routes 22/231 designation should begin
at the intersection with Route 250 in Albemarle County and should
extend to the intersection with Route 33 in the Town of Gordonsville
in Orange County.
The local governing bodies and the local planning commissions of
Albemarle and Orange Counties are advised that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board is willing to hold a public hearing concerning
the proposed Virginia Byways.
In accordance with Section 33.1-62, a county or municipality wherein
such proposed Virginia Byway is located may request that a public
hearing be held by sending a written request to Mr. R. L. Hundley,
Environmental Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, 1401
East Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219, within thirty days from
the date of this letter. In the event such a request is received, a
hearing will be held in the county or municipality where the proposed
Byway is located and the local governing body of the respective
county or municipality will be so notified as to the time and place."
Item 4.10. Letter dated September 21, 1987, from H. Benson Dendy, III,
Special Assistant to the Governor re: Albemarle County's request for assis-
tance due to severe drought and flood conditions, was received as informa-
tion:
"September 21, 1987
Mrs. Ella W. Carey, Deputy Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mrs. Carey:
Governor Baliles has asked me to thank you for your letter of
September 17 and the copy of a resolution adopted by the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors seeking assistance because of severe
drought and flood conditions.
You may be assured that every effort will be made to ensure that
all sources of aid are actively pursued..
Sincerely,
(Signed) H. Benson Dendy, III
Special Assistant"
Item 4.11. Copy of letter dated September 23, 1987, from Mr. William L.
Bower, District Highway Engineer, addressed to Mr. William C. Preston re:
request for safety improvements on Route 250 at its intersection with Route
809, was received as information. Also attached was copy of a letter dated
September 21, 1987, from Mr. William C. Preston addressed to Mr. Bower,
entitled "Intersection of State Route 809 (Canterbury Road, Bellair Subdivi-
sion) and Route 250 West, Albemarle County, Virginia."
Item 4.12. Copy of letter dated September 11, 1987, from Mr. D. S.
Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, along with copy of letter dated Septem-
ber 2, 1987 from Mr. John M. Lindner, concerning Route 682, was received as
information.
Item 4.13. Copies of the Planning CommiSsion's Minutes for
September 10, September 15 and September 22, 1987, were received as
information.
261
ontober 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-87-67. Clyde and Doris French. To allow for the
operation of an automobile garage in an existing single-family dwelling.
Property located on northeast side of Rt. 53, approx, three-quarter miles
west of intersection with Rt. 729. Tax Map 93, Parcel 26. Scottsville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and Septem-
ber 29, 1987.)
(Note: This petition had been dismissed by the Planning Commission
after the Zoning Administrator issued a zoning clearance for an agricultural
service occupation. The special use permit was not necessary, so no action
was required by the Board.)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-87-71. Betty K. Haigh-Lawson. To allow for
video rental business and office use. Property located on west side of Rt.
631 (Rio Road) in middle of Squire Hill Apartments. Tax Map 61, Parcel 129A.
Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22
and September 29, 1987.)
Letter dated September 19, 1987, from Mr. Jon W. Burr addressed to Mr.
John Horne requesting that the petition be withdrawn was received. Motion
was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Cooke, to allow the petition to be
withdrawn without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-87-11. Republic Capital Corporation. To rezone
approx. 25.6 acres from R-1 to HI to allow for warehousing facilities.
Property located on the west side of Rt. 29N between Airport Acres Sub-
division and Northside Industrial Park. Tax Map 32, Parcel 22. Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September~22 and Septem-
ber 29, 1987.) ~
Letter dated September 29, 1987, from Mr. Blake Hurt~ President of
Republic Capital Corporation was received requesting that!this petition be
deferred until November 18, 1987. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr.
Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-87-08. University Village (Deferred from
September 16, 1987).
Mr. Way stated this item was deferred from the meeting of September 16,
1987. He asked Mr. Home to give an update.
Mr. Horne said an amendment to the amended proffer has been submitted,
along with an additional drawing to accompany the proffer. The primary
change is to increase the building height to a maximum of 65 feet, the
maximum allowed under R-10 zoning. Before reading the amended proffer, Mr.
Horne explained in detail the new drawing, entitled "No. 8527, University
Village - Proffer Schematic, October 7, 1987," which was Submitted. He said
the new drawing attempts to show in more detail the exact use of various
sections of the proposed site. Mr. Horne pointed out that part of Section 3
of the proffer, is a combination of wording from the original proffer, dated
October 20, 1982, and concerns raised at the meeting of September 16, 1987.
He said the final change is in Section 6 of the proffer, allowing for surface
parking for guests and employees. Mr. Home said he has compared the old and
new drawings and he found no substantial changes that moves the structures or
the areas that were enclosed; some of the parking areas are included in the
outlying areas on the new drawing.
At this time, the public hearing was reopened.
262
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Fred Landess, speaking on behalf of the applicant, said what has
been done is in response to the concerns expressed at the September 16, 1987,
meeting. Mr. Landess pointed out that within the developed areas shown on
the new drawing, there will still be a great deal of landscaped area as
opposed to actual buildings. Concerning the areaadjoining the McGavock
property, Mr. Landess said this particular area has additional buffers and
landscaping; discussion is continuing between the applicant and Dr.
McGavock's representatives regarding the road, which is not relevant to the
issue before the Board tonight.
Mr. John Zunka, representing the McGavock interests, said that from a
legal standpoint, there has been no agreement between the developer and Mrs.
McGavock for a use of the lower road, which is not addressed in the amended,
amended proffer. He said Mrs. McGavock is not agreeable to any change in the
lower portion of the road running from Old Ivy Road to the Marketing Center.
Mr. Zunka pointed out that the amended, amended proffer shows no roads; if
the Board approves the proffer, it not be viewed as an indication that any
development work can be done regarding the road. Mr. Zunka introduced Mr.
Max Evans, a landscape architect.
Mr. Max Evans said concerns relate to the impact the development will
have on the McGavock property. He said the site plan accompanying the previ-
ous amended proffer is close to the alignment that satisfied the McGavock's
concerns. The new amended proffer does not show any roads, and although it
appears to follow the previous road pattern, the McGavock's are not sure this
is the intent. Other concerns relate to how .the lower-rise buildings will be
distributed on the land, the kind and quality of landscaping, the road
alignment particularly on the land adjoining and close by the McGavock
property, and how access to the McGavock property will be tied into the new
entrance road. Mr. Evans said if the Board approves the site plan, it does
not mean that anything can be done with the ~oads.
Mr. Loud, Mrs. McGavock's son-in-law, went to the map, pointed to an
area, and said he does not know what it means, has never been consulted on
it, and neither have the representatives of the McGavock's. He then read a
letter, addressed to Mr. David Benish, of the Planning Commission, and said
he wanted it to become part of the record. The letter stated objections to
the proposed plans at University Village, based on a Power of Attorney given
to Mrs. Loud by Mrs. Rosalie McGavock. The objections were: 1) Crestwood
Drive and its gatehouse will be located across from Mrs. McGavock's front
door; 2) the ultimate density of University Village; 3) loss of privacy and
property value; 4) reduced safety. The letter concluded by saying the plans
for University Village and Crestwood Drive should be radically altered if not
reversed. Mr. Loud said the letter is part of the Planning Commission's
records.
With no one else coming forward to speak~ the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he looked at the proffer, and he does not think there
is any way the Board can determine the issue between the McGavock's and Mr.
Heischman of University Village. He said he does not think the zoning action
the Board can take can affect the use of the right-of-way; he does not feel
that issue can be addressed. Mr. Lindstrom said the new schematic drawing
does show the driveway in the same general ar~a as on the original drawing,
and the details can appropriately be dealt with now; it gives the Board
direction as to what the applicant intends. Mr. Lindstrom said he is favor-
ably inclined towards the proffer as it has been amended.
Mr. Bowie said the concerns he had about existing green spaces are ad-
dressed in the amended proffer. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Home if the additional
parking spaces for guests and employees, set Out in Section 6, will be in the
area designated for development. Mr. Home replied yes. Mr. Bowie said he
agrees the problem with the roadway must be rgsolved between the parties
involved. Mr. Bowie said he is prepared to support the proposed site plan.
Mrs. Cooke said she is prepared to support the proposed zoning map
amendment. All the concerns voiced at the meeting of September 16, 1987,
have been thoughtfully addressed in the amended proffer.
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZMA-87-08 with the
proffer entitled "Amended proffer for University Village RE Tax Map 60,
Parcel 53, Former ZMA-82-11", copy in Board of Supervisors' records marked
"Received October 1, 1987 - Board of Supervisors" being signed by S. W.
Heischman, General Partner, University Village Limited Partnership, and
attached thereto "No. 8527, University Village - Proffer Schematic Octo-
ber 7, 1987." (Note: The original copy of the proffer was initialed by John
Horne at this meeting and is on file in the Planning Department.) The
proffer reads as follows:
"AMENDED PROFFER FOR UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
RE TAX MAP 60, PARCEL 53
FORMER ZMA-82-11
Background: On October 20, 1982, the Board of Supervisors
rezoned the above described property from R-1 to R-10 with a proffer
made by the then owner. The current owner, University Village
Limited Partnership, wishes to amend the proffer to allow a more
orderly development of the property, to provide for better preser-
vation of the landscape and lessen impact on the surrounding proper-
ties.
The entire proffer adopted on October 20, 1982, is hereby
deleted, and the following substituted therefor.
Applicant hereby proffers:
1. The property will be developed for residential use as set
out in paragraph 2 below, designed primarily for retired or older
persons, with eligibility for residents to be limited, to persons 62
years of age or older, except a spouse, other relative or not more
than one unrelated person living with a qualified resident may be
less than 62 years of age and may continue to be a resident even
though such qualified person shall no longer be a resident.
2. The development of the property will be limited to a maximum
of 260 residential units, plus service facilities which may include
dining and recreational facilities, administrative offices, banking
and other services for the residents.
3. The buildings will not exceed the height limits established
in paragraph 17.8 of the residential R-10 zoning district. Building,
road and parking areas will be confined and residential units and
service facilities will be built essentially in accordance with the
attached preliminary site development plan titled "University
Village - Proffer Schematic," dated October 7, 1987 (Exhibit A), and
the balance of the site will be developed so as to provide sub-
stantial natural or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site
shown as areas 1, 2 and 3 on Exhibit A. Site development will
include extensive landscaping, a network of walking paths and trails,
gardens, outdoor activity areas and a main entrance d~ive from Old
Ivy Road. ~
4. The applicant is currently pursuing obtaining a Certificate
of Need for a nursing care facility from the State Health Department,
and if successful, may construct a nursing care facil{ty on the
property, or whether successful or not may construct j personal care
facility for the aged. ~
5. In an effort to minimize traffic, a shuttle ~us will be
provided for the benefit of residents to give access ~o cultural and
social events, required retail and personal services.
6. Parking requirements for the residential liv£ng units will
be determined based on those requirements for multi-family dwellings
for the elderly, with a minimum of one parking place per dwelling
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) ~
(Page 9)
unit to be in the basement area of the buildings, in covered parking
enclosures or in individual garages. Additional surface parking for
guests and employees will also be provided.
UNIVERSITY VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
(Signed)
S. W. Heischman, General Partner"
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-87-37. Sprigg Lane Investment. To allow for
construction of a parking deck, approx. 14 feet high, over an existing
parking area at the rear of the site, zoned CO. Property located on the
north side of Rt. 250, approx. 0.5 miles east of Rt. 250/29 Bypass. Tax Map
60, Parcels 25 and 25C. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on September 22 and September 29, 1987.)
Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows:
"Petition: Sprigg Lane Investment Corporation petitions the Board of
Supervisors to issue a special use permit in accordance with Section
23.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, to all6w the construction of
parking deck. The property is located on the north side of Route
250W, just west of the Route 29/250 bypass and adjacent to Piedmont
Tractor Sales. Tax Map 60, Parcels 25 and 25C. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. Zoned CO, Commercial Office.
Character of the Area: The +5.5 acre paCcel fronts on Route 250W
which is designated by the County as a scenic highway. There is an
existing 13,700 square foot three-story office building located on
the site. The building is approximately~230 feet from Route 250 and
is presently served by 120 parking spaces. The site is bordered to
the east and west by retail and office uses respectively, the north-
ern boundary abuts the C & 0 Railroad.
STAFF COMMENT: The Parking deck would accommodate 51 parking spaces.
This additional parking is necessitated by a proposed expansion of
the existing office building. The 9477 square foot, three-story
addition would provide approximately 12,000 square feet of additional
office space. A site plan for the expansion has been submitted and
is under review by staff.
The deck would be 14 feet high at its highest point from ground
level. The deck is to be built into the existing grade (hillside) of
the site and, therefore, will give less 6f visible impression of
being a free-standing structure. The structure will consist of
concreted columns with concrete railings° The railings (or barriers)
will be of adequate height (42 inches) tO block headlight beams, and
will also serve to partially screen parked vehicles.
The deck would not be visible from Route 250 and is not visible from
any residential development. The structure will be visible along
some portions of Route 601, including the University property on the
north side of Route 601. Route 601 has recently been designated as a
State Scenic Byway. Proposed landscaping and existing vegetation
along the railroad right-of-way will serve to help obscure the
visibility of the structure. Particular~attention will be given to
providing adequate screening and landscaping of the structure from
Route 601 during the review and approval,of the site plan.
Staff opinion is that this proposal is consistent with the intent of
the Scenic Highway Overlay District to encourage parking behind
structures and in areas not visible from a scenic road. The remain-
ing portion of the site available for ground level parking would be
visible from Route 250 and would likely require the clearing of
265
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
mature hardwood trees along the front and/or side of the site. The
vertical expansion of the parking area in this particular case will
not be a detriment to the surrounding properties or the character of
the area.
The applicant is requesting that the Co~mission and Board grant
administrative approval of the site plan. The plan has been sub-
mitted and reviewed by the Site Review Committee. There do not
appear to be any major problems or complications. Staff recommends
approval of this request subject to the following:
Parking deck size and location shall be as shown on site plan
for Sprigg Lane Building Addition and Parking Deck, by
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, dated May 26, 1987;
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Mr. Home said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on Septem-
ber 22, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of this petition with the
staff's conditions, but changed the date in Condition #1 to July 14, 1987, to
reflect a new plan.
The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Lisa Peters from the office of
Roudabush, Gale and Associates was present to answer questions. Board
members had no questions. No one from the public rose to.speak concerning
this petition, so the public hearing was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie,
to approve SP-87-37, with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions read as follows:
Parking deck size and location shall be as shown on site
plan for Sprigg Lane Building Addition and Parking Deck,
by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, dated July 14, 1987;
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-87-74. Northside Baptist Church. For a DAY
CARE CENTER (14.2.2.7) on 3.33 acres, zoned R-2. Property located on east
side of Rio Road, just north of Wakefield Road and adjacent to Northfields
Subdivision. Tax Map 62Al-Section F, Parcel 18. Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and September 29, 1987.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Petition: Northside Baptist Church petitions the BOard of Super-
visors to issue a special use permit for a DAY CARE GENTER (14.2.2.7)
on 3.33 acres zoned R-2, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map
62Al-Section F, Parcel 18, is located on the east side of Rio Road,
just north of Wakefield Road and adjacent to Northfi~lds Subdivision.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Background: The Northside Baptist Church Site Plan was originally
approved by the Planning Commission on August 30, 197~7. Since that
date, several amendments have been approved for buildiing and parking
additions.
Character of the Area: A vacant property zoned R-2 abuts this
property to the north, on which the Commission has indefinitely
deferred a subdivision proposal to create three lots. Northfields
Subdivision consists of 205 lots with an average lot size of 0.8
acres. Two fire hydrants are located on the site.
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The day care center would enroll a maximun of
sixty children two and a half years (preschool) to seven years of age
(second grade). The facility would be operated Monday through
Friday, from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. each day. Hot lunches would be
provided. The facility would be licensed by the Virginia Department
of Welfare.
STAFF COMMENT: This site is within Urban Neighborhood Two. Located
directly on Rio Road on a sizable lot, staff opinion is that a day
care use would not be an intrusion into the residential character of
the area. An existing staggered double row of six-foot white pines
is located along the southern side and the rear, with a single row of
pines to the north. The playground is proposed in the area designat-
ed as "play area" on the approved site plan. It is located next to
the building and the parking area.
The Fire Prevention Officer has inspected the property and recom-
mended certain fire safety improvements, some of which have currently
been completed. Traffic generation at full enrollment would be 240
vehicle trips per day. This section of Rio Road, which is non-
tolerable, has been a concern in the review of recent subdivisions
and site plans. Based on the proposed improvements with the Six Year
Plan, staff can recommend approval of this petition. The Virginia
Department of Transportation has commented that a 20-foot grading
easement on this property is necessary for the improvements to Rio
Road in the current Six Year Plan. Public water and sewer presently
serve the site.
Staff recommends approval of this petition, subject to the following
conditions (amended from the original staff report):
1. Enrollment to be determined by the Virginia Department of
Welfare; however, in no case shall enrollment exceed sixty
children;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is
non-transferable;
4. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of grading
easement;
5. Fire Official and Building Official approvals;
6. Compliance with Conditions 1 through 5 within 30 days of Board
of Supervisors approval of this petition."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 15,
1987, unanimously recommended approval of the petition with the six condi-
tions in the staff's report adding No. 7 reading: "Enrollment shall be
limited to pre-school 2 and 3, junior kindergarten, kindergarten, first and
second grades."
Mrs. Cooke asked if a new structure was being built on this property for
the day care center. Mr. Horne said no, they are using the existing build-
ing.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. BillTempleton was present in
support of the petition, along with numerous people from the Church. No one
else from the public rose to speak, so the public hearing was closed~
Mrs. Cooke asked if any changes are contemplated at the entrance due to
this use. Mr. Home said there will be changes made next year when Rio Road
is improved, but that has nothing to do with this use.
Mrs. Cooke said she is aware of the problems with day care in this area
and thinks this will go a long way toward addressing those needs. She then
offered motion to approve SP-87-74 with the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was secondedlby Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley (Mr. Henley prefaced his vote
by saying he saw no particular reason to limit the children to
grades 2 and 3, since he feels there are probably children in
grades 4 and 5 who can't go home by themselves after school),
Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are as follows:
me
Ye
Enrollment to be determined by the Virginia Department of Welfare;
however, in no case shall enrollment exceed sixty children;
Compliance' with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance;
This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is
non-transferable;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of grading easement;
Fire Official and Building Official approvals;
Compliance with Conditions 1 through 5 within 30 days of Board of
Supervisors approval of this petition.
Enrollment shall be limited to pre-school 2 and 3, junior
kindergarten, kindergarten, first and second grades.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-87-73. Ben Boyajian. To allow for construction
of drive-in window to a proposed bank. Property is located on south side of
Rt. 250W just west of Colonnade Drive. Tax Map 60, Parcel 38. Jack Jouett
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 22 and Septem-
ber 29, 1987.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Petition: Benjamin K. Boyajian petitions the Board of Supervisors
to issue a special use permit for a DRIVE-IN BRANCH BANK (24.2.2.13)
on 1.42 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as
Tax Map 60, Parcel 38, is located in front of University Heights
apartments, on the south side of U. S. Route 250 West in the Jack
Jouett Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: This property (including parcel 39) is
presently built with three buildings containing ThatCher's
Restaurant, Unusual Interiors, The Lime Tree, and other retail and
some limited office uses. Teague-Hawkins FUneral Home and the
Children's Rehabilitation Center are located to the west, a vacant
commercial lot is adjacent to the east, and University Heights and
several low-density residential lots are adjacent to the south.
Applicant's Proposal: The drive-up window service is proposed as an
attachment to a proposed bank building as shown on a preliminary site
plan submitted for site review. The applicant states..as justifi-
cation for this request 'Bank service in this area of Albemarle
County is scarce and suitable property is rare. The West Ivy Shops
location is already properly zoned and the configuration of the
property readily lends itself to a drive-up window service, without
which a banking service would be second rate.'
Staff Comment: In 1984, staff recommended that uses involving
drive-in windows (i.e. - banks, fast food restaurants, etc.) be
permitted by special use permit only due to transportation concerns.
Primary concerns are access and circulation patterns combined with
high traffic volumes.
Regarding circulation, staff does not support the introduction of
drive-thru traffic to traffic presently utilizing theisite. In this
regard the Virginia Department of Transportation stated, '...a
drive-in bank generates an average of 192 vehicle trips per day for
each 1000 square feet of commercial zoning. This is one of the
higher traffic generators among businesses in commercial zoning.'
Staff concerns of circulation and access are as follows:
Although modifications are proposed and will improve it, the
resulting traffic circulation patterns are confusing. The
Z68
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
number of different uses and the configuration of parking and
buildings, does not result in safe and convenient vehicular
circulation.
Sufficient stacking room is not available without creating
conflicts. Using the standard rule-of-thumb of 100 feet of
vehicular stacking behind the drive-in window, some vehicles in
the frontage parking spaces will be obstructed from exiting the
spaces. This may result in stackihg at the eastern entrance and
onto Route 250.
Neither existing entrance has the minimum sight distance re-
quired for a commercial entrance. The bank across this property
frontage must be graded to obtain the required 450 feet of sight
distance to the east for the western entrance. There is only
360 feet of sight distance to the west for the eastern entrance
due to the vertical alignment of Rt. 250. To obtain the re-
quired 450 feet of sight distance in this direction, Rt. 250
would need to be lowered. Staff does not support any intensi-
fication of use whatsoever, utilizing entrances which do not
meet the minimum sight-distance standards.
The applicant proposes measures to obtain sight distance at the
western entrance and improve it but not meet the full requirement at
the eastern entrance. The eastern entrance, which is centrally
located and, the first entrance to the site coming from the City,
carries the higher volume of traffic. ~
The Virginia Department of Transportatidn, the County Engineer, and
Planning staffs recommend denial of thi~ petition. Due to access and
circulation issues, this use on this particular site is not, in
staff's opinion, in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance or the public health, safety ~nd general welfare."
"August 5, 1987, J. A. Echols, Ass't. Resident Engineer, comments for
Site Plan Review Committee Meeting: We~t Ivy. Shops Preliminary Site
Plan, Route 250 West - The bank across ~he frontage of this site
needs to be graded to obtain the necessary 450 feet of sight distance
to the east for the western entrance. ~here is only 360 feet of
sight distance to the west for the eastern entrance and the minimum
required is 450 feet. The sight distance problem to the west is due
to the vertical alignment of Route 250 and to obtain the necessary
450 feet in this direction would requir~ lowering Route 250. The
Department also recommends a 12 foot wide right turn lane to serve
the eastern entrance. This turn lane should start at the western
entrance and continue to the eastern entrance. As shown on the plan
sheet, the existing skewed western entrance should be eliminated. No
trees shouldbe planted so they interfere with the sight distance at
any entrances."
"August 7, 1987, the following comments are made on SP-87-73, Ben
Boyajian~ Route 250 West: The CATS shows an ultimate right-of-way
width of 90 feet along this section of Route 250, and currently 80
feet exists. The Department recommends that the additional five feet
of right-of-way across the frontage of this property be dedicated or
at least reserved. As was commented in SP-86-90 for Colonnade
Associates in a letter dated December 23; 1986, a drive-in bank
generates an average of 192 vpd for each~1000 square feet of build-
ing. This is one of the higher traffic generators among businesses
in commercial zoning. Since this section of Route 250 is currently
well traveled and fairly congested and this special permit is for a
use that is a higher traffic generator than most in the commercial
zoning, the Department recommends against this request. Comments for
the site plan were addressed in a letter dated August 5, 1987."
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 15,
1987, unanimously recommended denial of this Petition.
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Lindstrom asked if without the drive-in window there will be an
operation at the easternmost entrance. If there is a bank at that location,
or some other use, is there anyway to control the use of that entrance
regardless of whether the drive-in window is there or not. Mr. Horne replied
if there is any additional use to the property that requires a site plan, at
that point whatever can be done to upgrade any existing entrances to current
standards would be required during site plan approval. Mr. Lindstrom said
this is not establishing something new, it is increasing the use. Mr. Home
replied yes. He said in staff's opinion, the reason for the special permit
for drive-in banks is that they are a very high traffic generator. In these
cases, staff is particularly concerned that access to a drive-in facility
meet minimum requirements and that circulation patterns are adequate. In
this case, staff feels this is not a suitable site for a ~ery high traffic
generator. There are a number of by-right commercial useS that could be
placed at this location that may generate less traffic and staff would have
no special permit powers over those.
Mr. Lindstrom said his point is that the issue is not correcting a
problem, but avoiding that problem becoming worse. Mr. Home replied yes.
Mr. Lindstrom said there will be other uses that will stimulate more traffic,
but there may be no special use permit controls on those.~ Mr. Home replied
yes, in terms of a bank, which is a permitted use.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Benjamin K. Boyajian, owner of the property, said the project has
been going on for about three years and he has seen a great deal of opposi-
tion to it. Due to his own fault, the Planning Commissioh and Planning staff
have no idea what is happening on the project. Mr. Boyaj~an asked Board
members to keep an open mind as he makes his presentation~ Before making the
presentatiOn, Mr. Boyajian gave a brief history of his background, and why
and.how he came to live in Charlottesville. Mr. Boyajianithen directed the
Board's attention to a booklet given to Board members containing a schematic
drawing, photographs and descriptions of traffic safety p~oblems in the
vicinity surrounding the proposed project. He described the schematic
drawing of the proposed site, relating it to the photographs, gave a brief
history of the area, and the improvements he has made since he acquired the
property in 1979. Mr. Boyajian said in 1981 the building~land value ratio of
the property was 49 percent; in 1987 the percentage rose do 53 percent. He
said in 1983 a decision had to be made whether during the inext ten years
everything would be torn down, or whether additions to th~ land or the
buildings would be made to bring the building/land value ~atio to between 70
and 80 percent, and to correct the errors made by previou~ builders; the
latter course was taken and improvements were made. A study was conducted
and information was presented to the Zoning Department concerning construc-
tion and improvements to the site. A second site plan was developed and Mr.
Boyajian said he was told the only plans he had to submit were for the
proposed bank building since the other buildings were already in place. When
the site plan for the bank building was submitted to the Planning Commission,
Mr. Boyajian said he was told "no." At this time, he is submitting three
choices for approval: 1) approval of the petition as submitted; 2) approval
contingent upon the bank being operational no later than 1990; 3) approval
contingent upon a visit to the site by Board members. Mr. Boyajian said he
has a decision to make and he must know which direction to take. Mr.
Boyajian then drew Board members' attention to a letter sent to them on
September 24, 1987, concerning sight distance problems. The letter pointed
out various sight distance problems, and listed improvements that will be
made, thereby correcting all the problems except the left Turn entering the
property from the City direction.
Mr. Way said he understands the problem to be that RoUte 250 is elevated
at this point. Mr. Home answered that is the way it appears in the field,
and he asked the Department of Highways to reevaluate this location to make
sure it was the road for the left turn out of the proposed~site. Mr. Horne
said that although Mr. Boyajian feels this will be corrected with the
improvements, the current position of the Department of Highways is that the
problem will remain, in addition to the problem of the left hand turn into
the site. Mr. Horne stated he has confirmed that the Department of Highways
has reviewed this revised plan.
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Indicating photographs handed to Board members, Mr. Boyajian said the
photographs were a profile of the entrance, that the existing entrance will
be elevated. Mr. Boyajian said the real issue concerns the left turn, and
based on probabilities, calculations of distance and speed of entry, there is
enough time for a safe entrance into the property. Concluding, Mr. Boyajian
said he will address questions about any specific details regarding sight
distance problems.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne to read the uses permitted by-right in
this particular zoning category. Mr. Home did so. Mr. Lindstrom said all
of those uses are by-right so the Board would not have this request before it
if the applicant wanted any of those uses. Mr. Horne replied yes. Mr. Bowie
asked if the list included a "car wash." Mr~ Horne replied yes. Mrs. Cooke
asked if a car wash would generate the same type of traffic as a drive-in
bank. Mr. Home said that is possible; he is not sure what the total traffic
generation would be. Mrs. Cooke asked what the hours of operation would be.
Mr. Home replied that there are no restrictions; a car wash can be operated
24 hours a day.
Mr. Henley said when he uses his bank, cars are lined up six or eight
deep, and they move like snails. He does not think there will be any trouble
in running over one of these cars. He said he has sat in line for an hour.
Mr. Lindstrom said the proposed site is~in his district; he has not
visited it, but he has visited the restaurant next to the site. He has had
experience in making a decision to move out df one of the entrances on the
site. He said when looking west, he is aware of the sight problem. The
proposed project will generate more traffic and he is concerned about this.
Mr. Lindstrom said he must trust the Highway~Department and staff who do
sight distance calculations. On the other hand, the list of by-right uses
contains uses which will permit similar traffic generators.
Mr. Bowie said the permit is for a drive-in bank; a drive-in bank does
not permit conversion to anything else on th~ list by-right. Mr. Home said
knowing the site, parking requirements and circulation, it would be very
difficult to add additional uses; conversions would be possible, but adding
buildings on the site would be difficult. "
Mrs. Cooke asked if the permit were gra~ted, if the applicant could put
something else on the site. Mr. Horne replied he could put a use by-right on
the site, but no other drive-in use, such as ia drive-in restaurant.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John whethe~ it is possible to condition a
special permit in such a way that any conversion to another use would require
approval of the Board, even though the use w6re permitted by-right. Mr. St.
John asked if Mr. Lindstrom meant the conversion of any of the buildings on
the site, or the bank building in particular. Mr. Lindstrom said the bank
building. Mr. St. John replied the bank is permitted by-right; the special
use permit is for the drive-in window. Mr. Lindstrom said he meant the
structure. Mr. St. John said that is a legitimate condition; any conversion
to a use other than the bank would require approval; the owner could be
prevented from using the drive-in window for a business other than a bank;
the owner could not convert a drive-in bank tO a drive-in restaurant. Mr.
St. John said he does not think the Board can~legally require, in return for
the special use permit, that the owner agree to seek approval for conversion
to a use that is already permitted by-right.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is still concerned about the sight distance prob-
lem; that the other uses permitted by-right are a problem and those uses
could be more intensive than the drive-in bank. Mr. Lindstrom said if there
was a guarantee that by having the drive-in bank, a restriction could be
enforced on other, more intensive uses, it might be a legitimate basis to
grant the special permit, despite the sight distance problem.
Mr. Boyajian said he appreciates Mr. Lindstrom's concern; he does not
know what he would do if he were in Mr. Lindstrom's place. Mr. Boyajian said
he can assure Board members that only a bank will be placed on the site, and
he will be glad to put it down on paper.
271
October 7, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Lindstrom said it sounds to him as if Mr. Boyajian is looking at the
two parcels in question as a comprehensive whole; there are alternative uses
that would be better for the public interest; it would allow Mr. Boyajian to
do what he wants, and might answer some of the concerns raised. Mr. Boyajian
said small shops owners are being pressured by shopping centers which are
soliciting tenants. Five banks have looked at the site and are interested in
the site, and there is interest on the part of residents i~ that part of the
County.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to go and look at the site, and he
asked that the Board defer this item until November 4, 1987. Motion was
offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to defer any action on this
petition until November 4, 1987, to allow Board members time to visit the
site. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom amd Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Appointment: Agricultural/Forestal District
Advisory Con~nittee. Mr. Henley nominated Mrs. Marcia Joseph from Earlsyville
for this vacancy. No other nominations were made. Mrs. Gooke seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the foilowing recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 1985; February 11
March 18 (Night), July 1 and August 5, 1987. '
Mr. Bowie had read pages 1 through 11 of February 11, 1987, and found
two typographical errors corrected as follows on page 7: At the end of the
third paragraph change "some time" to "some point in time". Delete the words
following, which were: "the Board wanted him to do so." At the beginning of
the first line in paragraph four add the word "he".
Mr. Bowie had read pages 1 through 14 (ending at Item #6) of August 5
1987, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Way had read page 26 (beginning with Item #10) to the end of
March 18, 1987 (Night) and found them to be in order.
Motion to approve those minutes which had been read was offered by Mr.
Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. At 9:35 P. M., with no further business
to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
-' ~¢.hiir~an