1987-05-20470
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
May 20, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, 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 Director of Planning & Community Development, John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to approve Item 4.1 and
to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. Mr. Way seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. ~4.1. Statement of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Common-
wealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of April, 1987. These statements were
approved as presented.
Item No. 4.2. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for the Month of April, 1987
was received as information.
Item No. 4.3.
as information.
Copy of Minutes of the Planning Commission for May 5, 1987 was receive(
Item No. 4.4. Notice from State Corporation Commission on application of Nancy
Brockman, Inc., t/a Brockman Tour and Travel, for a license to broker the transportation
passengers by motor vehicle was received as information.
Item No. 4.5. Notice from McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe dated May 11, 1987 of an
application of Lynchburg Gas Company to revise its tariffs .filed with the State Corporation
Commission was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-87-06. James B. Murray. Allow reallocation of development
rights for a 24-1ot subdivision (deferred from April 15, 1987).
Mr. Horne presented the following memorandum dated May 7, 1987:
"Enclosed you will find a revised submittal from Mr. Murray (see letter
dated April 23, 1987 which follows) which entails suggested conditions for
approval of the above noted special permit request. The suggested condi-
tions are attempting to incorporate all the environmental and physical
controls that were previously offered by the applicant in a variety of
forms. This Department, the County Attorney, and the Watershed Management
Official have reviewed this submission. The County Attorney has verbally
confirmed that he finds these suggested conditions legally sound. This
Department and the Watershed Management Official have reviewed the technical
aspects of the suggested conditions and find them to contain all the envi-
ronmental and physical limitations recommended by staff in the original
staff report. There is one aspect of this submission which is slightly
different than the recommendations contained in Mr. Norris' memorandum of
March 20, 1987. Page 3 of that memorandum contains the following statement:
'II.
Should the residue properties ever be considered for development,
the following might be appropriate for evaluation of the applica-
tion:
ae
The established Conservation Easement areas along the reservoir
frontage should remain and be maintained.
Only large lot development (21 acres or greater) should occur
along the reservoir frontage area.
No structure or structural improvements either temporary or
permanent should be allowed within the easement area.'
While the staff continues to feel that these issues may be appropriate to be
considered for future development, we understand Mr. Murray's hesitation to
list these items as strict limitations in that they pertain to possible
future development that is not requested at this time. This Department does
not consider this a serious flaw in the new submission.
)n
471
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(_P_a.ge 2 )
Mr. Murray has requested that this be placed on the Board of Supervisors
agenda at their earliest possible meeting. Staff will be available to
discuss this application with the Board of Supervisors at that time. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me."
"April 23, 1987
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Re: SP-87-06
Mr. Fisher, Members of the Board:
This letter is written on behalf of the applicants in the above application,
James B. Murray, Sr., Steven M. Murray and Panorama Farms, Inc.
We propose that the issues raised by members of the Board at the meeting of
April 15, 1987 be resolved by imposition of conditions listed in the
attached proposal (proposed condition #1). These conditions would be a
legally enforceable part of the requested permit and we will accept them as
drafted. All of the previous references to or use of contracts, easements
and restrictions have been eliminated.
Condition 91(c) relates to the implementation of certain 'Best Management
Practices' ('BMPs') on the residual property. After consultation with the
County Attorney, the Watershed Management Official and the Director of
Planning, we have determined and agree that the institution of BMPs on this
residue is directly related to the proposed development and properly the
subject of such a condition for the following reason.
The primary issue presented by this application is Reservoir water quality.
Although the applicants have submitted a plan and engineering reports which
demonstrate that the development itself should improve water quality there
remains a strong public interest in assuring that this is so. The key point
of public interest is water quality where water is withdrawn from the
Reservoir. This can be affected by variations in water quality entering the
Reservoir at multiple points. Because water quality at one point of entry
(downstream of development) is questioned, improvement of quality at other
points is being assured using BMPs. Condition 91(c) helps control water
quality at multiple points of entry which are inextricably related to each
other because of their combined effect on overall quality at the point of
withdrawal. This condition assures improvement of net overall water quality
and thus is properly related to the applicant parcels, even if some of the
benefit is accomplished through improvements on other, non-applicant lands.
We believe that this analysis properly describes a legal nexus between
proposed condition 91(c) and the application which makes that condition
legally enforceable.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED) James B. Murray, Jr."
PROPOSED CONDITION
SP-87-06
"PANORAMA ESTATES"
~1. Approval of this permit and signing of a final plat are subject to
the following conditions (as defined in Section 15.1-495(f) of the Code of
Virginia and Section 31.2.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance):
(a) The final plat shall delineate and define a 100 foot permanent
conservation buffer zone on each side of perennial and/or intermittent
streams on Parcel IV in locations essentially a shown on the Applicant's
plan. In addition to the existing ordinance's restriction on septic drain
fields, also restricted in this conservation zone shall be all construction,
earth-disturbing activities, improvements and other land uses as defined in
the attached Land Use Matrix for Watershed Management Areas.
(b) Applicant Parcel V (Land Use Alternative 1, McKee & Assoc. Plan,
Feb. '85) shall not be further subdivided. Applicant Parcel VI (Feb. '85
Plan and Description in D. B. 321, page 322) shall not be further divided
into any more than seven parcels none of which shall be smaller than 21
acres in size.
(c) The Applicants shall, within a period of five years from this
approval, or prior to any further division of the "Residue" property,
whichever first occurs, institute certain Agricultural Best Management
Practices ("BMPs") on the residue property. The Residue Property is all of
the Applicant's adjacent land delineated as Parcels III, I6, I-5, I-4, I-3,
I-2, and I-1 (McKee Feb. '85 Plan). The BMPs to be instituted are those
outlined on the attached memorandum dated April 23, 1987.
472
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe3)
Mr. Fisher commented that even though this proposal is being made to protect the South
Fork Rivanna River Reservoir, there are no deed restrictions or easements to prevent a future
owner from requesting division rights under a special permit. Mr.'Horne replied that is
correct, but any special permit would have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Lindstrom said at the April 15 meeting, Mr. St. John expressed some concerns about
the legality of the proffers with respect to the residue parcel. He asked if those concerns
have been addressed by the new correspondence. Mr. St. John said, from a legal standpoint,
he was concerned about the procedure being used. There were easements involved which did not
run to anybody empowered to accept those easements; easements are documents which are proper-
ly recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. He felt that if the substance
is legal, this should be done by conditions so that all of the restrictions and obligations
that are part of this rezoning could be kept in the Zoning Administrator's Office as part of
the zoning map. Mr. St. John said that a proffer is a legitimate zoning mechanism, but there
was a tract of land involved that was not part of the application. A connection between what
happens on the land which is part of the application, and the measures being taken to protect
the environment off-site has now been established. The need for these Best Management
Practices is in part generated by what is proposed on the three tracts which are subject to
this application. He feels that his concerns have been addressed.
The public hearing was reopened.
Representing the applicants, Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., addressed the Board. First to
correct a typographical error in the proposed condition 91, Paragraph lB, third sentence
reads: "Applicant Parcel VI .... " There is no Parcel VI. The language should read:
"Applicant Parcel I-4 .... " The legal procedural issues previously raised have been re-
solved. The applicants have gone to a great deal of effort to make this application work and
attempted to resolve everyone's concerns. In addressing some comments about environmental
benefits made at the April 15 meeting, he agrees that environment is the issue and has been
the focus of all of the applicants' planning for the past two years. He was greatly con-
cerned about some implied doubt as to the applicants' concern about the environment. To make
the Board aware, he would like to highlight the following points for the record: The Plan-
ning staff, Watershed Management Official, County Engineer, and County Attorney all recom-
mended approval of this application. There has been no opposition expressed to the applica-
tion. In the materials provided to the Board, there was an independent engineer's report
that specifically addreSsed the environmental concerns. The engineer's report states that
phosphorus loading would be reduced 23 percent over current conditions and could be reduced
27 percent over by-right development. Suspended solids would be reduced 44 percent over
existing conditions and 52 percent over by-right development. When this petition came before
the Planning Commission, Steve Cresswell, Assistant County Engineer, informed the Planning
Commission that the figures were correct and, in fact, the environmental benefits would
exceed those amounts. Mr. Murray said he feels that the environmental concerns can be con-
trolled with good planning and that success or failure can be measured to some degree.
Again, he thinks this is a good plan and that it should be approved.
Mr. Ken Yowell next addressed the Board. He is the owner of approximately 325 acres
adjoining the Murray's property. He was not present when the proposal first came up a year
or so ago. At first he was not very happy with it because he felt there were too many lots
and the area would be too dense. However, this time he has no objection. He is in a similar
situation as the Murrays' in that owning a farm is a costly affair and it is hard to make a
profit. He may need to do something similar in the future himself. He has no objection to
this application.
There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said he did not intend that his comments at the April 15 meeting be taken
personally by the applicants. There is nothing to prevent a future owner, or even the
present owner, from requesting additional development rights even when all development rights
on a parcel are relinquished. He wanted some long term assurance that another application
would not be presented requesting rights that were given up through either deed restrictions
or conservation easements. Restrictions prove that the owners have a permanent intention to
use the land as proposed even if the property is resold. He thinks that other property
owners are looking at this application as a test case as stated by Mr. Yowell. Although
great efforts have been made to improve the environment with this application, he does not
see it as a permanent arrangement which will show a public benefit.
Mrs. Cooke said this land lies in her district and she feels that the applicant has made
every effort to answer the concerns expressed at the previous meeting. She then offered
motion to approve SP-87-06 as submitted with the new conditions, specifically substituting
proposed condition 91. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he cannot support the motion. He disagrees with Mrs. Cooke. He does
not think the applicant has done everything that can be done to reasonably meet the concerns
expressed at the previous meeting. Despite the statement that this proposal will make a
significant improvement in the environment, that is true over what is permitted by right at
this point, but the density on the transferee parcel significantly increases beyond what the
Comprehensive Plan recommends or the Zoning Map shows. Admittedly, the density on some
parcels has been reduced significantly, but there are no restrictions on the parcels to make
this an environmentally advantageous proposal. He thinks that any increase in overall
density in the area will result in degradation of the environment. Given current pressures
for development, he thinks there will be a request for a change in not too many years, and
that is the reason he is not willing to set this precedent.
Mr. Henley said he agrees with Mr. Fisher. He thinks that when development rights are
being transferred from one parcel to another, thus increasing the density on that second
parcel, the applicant should give up something on the parcel the rights are being taken from.
He interprets proposal 91, paragraph "B" as doing that. He had asked Mr. St. John if that
was correct and he said it was true, but the passage cited does not limit some future Board
from changing this condition.
473
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. St. John said he would explain. There is no legal mechanism the Board can use to
ties the hands of a board of supervisors one hundred years from now; moreover, such action
would violate the Virginia Constitution. There is no way the present Board can dictate what
will be done to land in Albemarle County years from now. Some future owner could apply to
the board for a change. Another board might take a different point of view concerning this
property and its development. Even common law says that "dead hand" cannot control what
happens to a piece of property. To the extend that the law allows this kind of assurance,
these conditions provide that assurance. If the Board tries to go beyond these conditions,
then it is overstepping the limits of zoning law, the Constitution and common law.
Mr. Fisher said looking at this application as a discretionary zoning case, he thinks
the Board has a right to look at the owner's determination of what will happen on the pro-
perty in the future. Mr. Fisher said he is looking at the assurance that the owners them-
selves intend not to further develop properties from which they have removed development
rights. He is looking at the precedent, which is that there are many other property owners
who might try to lower develOpment rights near the reservoir in order to get additional
development rights on other properties, and then in the future ask for development rights
near the reservoir. Mr. Fisher said if there is a solid intent on the part of the owners
that there never be more development near the reservoir, they should have mechanisms such as
deed restrictions, and easements, that can guarantee that sort of thing.
Mr. St. John said he does not think there is anything that can be guaranteed in perpetu-
ity. The governing body a hundred years from now might not wish to enforce deed reStrictions
or easements. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. St. John were saying these things would have no more
permanence than a zoning action. Mr. St. John said it is more difficult to erase them from
the books. If an easement is held by a state agency, then the "red tape" is more tangled.
He does not think there is any more assurance.
Mr. Lindstrom said historically when a board of supervisors in Virginia has told a
property owner that he has no development rights, and the owner then says he can find no use
for the property, the courts are reluctant to let boards of supervisors deny those applica-
tions. An easement is different because it does not deny a right to do something.
Mr. St. John said the applicant tried to put easements on this property - do what they
say they are going to do with easements. The elimination of the development rights was done
through a proffer.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not rely on the courts to allow this board to follow through
on the plan which has been presented if another person comes to own that property, and
alleges that they do not have any reasonable use of their land because they cannot subdivide.
That is not the same as saying "I don't trust a future board of supervisors." He does not
trust the judiciary to perceive what the Board is trying to do in this case 2n the context of
zoning. To him, the issue is whether the increase in density is justified by the benefits
that will flow, and whether the County has the ability to follow through on those benefits.
Mr. Lindstrom said easements have been recognized for years as a standard legal tool for
controlling the way property may be used in the future.
Mr. St. John said that is true, but he does not know of any easement which has been
upheld by any court under common law as a restraint on alienation. Mr. Lindstrom said there
are thousands of acres which have been held in this country for many years, and he has not
seen any court strike down those easements. Mr. St. John said in most of those cases, there
has been some consideration given for the land. Mr. St. John said if that is what the Board.
wants the applicant to do in return for approval of this zoning, that is contract zoning, and
it is illegal.
Mr. Fisher said the Board can vote "yes" or "no" on the application before it, and that
is not contract zoning. Mr. St. John said that is true, it is not contract zoning in the
posture in which it is now before the Board. Mr. Henley had asked him if there was any
assurance that these conditions would be adhered to. Mr. St. John said he told him there is
as much assurance as the law allows the Board to have in this situation.
Mr. Fisher asked how the public can be assured that an applicant proposing to give up
development rights will abide by the approval and not try to change the rules at some time,
or sell the property to someone else who would try to do that. Mr. St. John said he does not
believe the public can be granted such an assurance because this is a zoning question and the
citizenry, through, its future supervisors has the right to change the zoning from year to
year, and this Board does not have the right or the power to control that in future years.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is an important issue, and he suspects it will be a bigger issue
after the vote tonight. He understands what Mr. St. John said, but is aware that there are a
number of communities in the country, although maybe none in Virginia, that are doing things
similar to what the chairman is proposing. He thinks easements are probably the only way to
allow the kind of flexibility that has been suggested.
Mr. Bowie said if there were procedures set out to make the giving up of development
rights permanent, he might vote differently, but the County Attorney said this is as enforce-
able as the Board can make it. There is no increase in rights although this gives the County
many things that the applicants did not have to do. It seems to him to be a reasonable plan
with as much assurance as the law allows, and he will support the application.
Mr. Henley said he has to go on the good faith of the applicant. From what he can
gather, everything has been done to make the application as good as it can be,so he will
support the request. He will not vote to support increasing the density on just any special
permit request.
Mr. Way said he agrees with what Mr. Henley just said. It seems to him that the assur-
ance is that if there is to be any future development it must come back before the Board for
approval. As far as he is concerned, the Board can deal with the issue again at that time.
He supports this application.
474
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said he has no problem with the intentions of the applicant. He thinks that
a lot of property owners will be looking at this decision, but the issue is the principle and
whether someone is willing to commit the land to give the public the best benefit under the
law. He continues to oppose the request, and he thinks the Board had best be prepared to set
a standard for such future requests.
Mr. Lindstrom said the thing that has been "touted here" is watershed protection. There
is a 22 percent density reduction on the three parcels involved, and a 60 to 70 percent
density increase on the transferee parcel. In terms of protection of the reservoir, he is
certain that, in the long run, the Board is going to see an application for development that
will hard to resist legally. Protection of the watershed would probably be more insured by
keeping the by-right development instead of leaving the door open to higher density on the
other parcels.
Mr. Horne asked that the motion be clarified. He said there is a difference between the
Planning Commission's recommendation and the staff's recommendation and he is not sure which
set of conditions were meant to apply. The staff recommended road improvements to Route 661
and a condition ~5 was added by the Planning Commission that "the applicant shall withdraw
SP-85-16 within 30 days of approval of this application."
Mrs. Cooke said she made the motion thinking that all of the issues had been addressed,
and would recommend that the condition for upgrading Route 661 be left in. Mr. Agnor said at
the previous meeting several property owners spoke on that issue and indicated that they did
not see the need for upgrading the roadway. Mrs. Cooke said she stands corrected; she
intended that the Planning Commission's conditions be accepted with the change in 91 offered
by the applicant. Mr. Bowie agreed with the motion.
There being no further discussion, Mrs. Cooke then restated her motion to approve
SP-87-06 subject to the following conditions:
Approval of this permit and signing of a final plat are subject to the
following conditions as defined in Section 15.1-495(f) of the Code of
Virginia and Section 31.2.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance:
The final plat shall delineate and define a 100 foot permanent
conservation buffer zone on each side of perennial and/or inter-
mittent streams on Parcel IV in locations essentially as shown on
the Applicant's plan (plan on file in the Department of Planning &
Community Development). In addition to the existing ordinance's
restriction on septic drain fields, also restricted in this
conservation zone shall be all construction, earth-disturbing
activities, improvements and other land uses as defined in the
Land Use Matrix for Watershed Management Areas (a copy of which is
attached as Exhibit A);
be
Applicant Parcel V (Land Use Alternative 1, McKee & Assoc. Plan,
Feb. '85) shall not be further subdivided. Applicant Parcel I-4
(Feb. '85 Plan and Description in D. B. 321, page 322) shall not
be further divided into any more than seven parcels none of which
shall be smaller than 21 acres in size;
Ce
The Applicants shall, within a period of five years from this
approval, or prior to any further division of the "Residue"
Property, whichever first occurs, institute certain Agricultural
Best Management Practices ("BMPs") on the residue property. The
Residue Property is all of the Applicant's adjacent land delin-
eated as Parcels III, I-6, I-5, I-4, I-3, I-2, and I-1 (McKee Feb.
'85 Plan). The BMPs to be instituted are those outlined in a
memorandum dated April 23, 1987, a copy of which is attached as
Exhibit B;
Watershed Management Official and County Engineer approval of the
establishment of runoff control measures and Agricultural Best Manage-
ment Practices as outlined in March 20, 1987 memo to Amelia Patterson
Planner, from William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official (a copy
of which is attached as Exhibit C);
Future subdivision proposal shall generally comply with the Panorama
Estates Subdivision site development plan dated January, 1987, by
Robert B. McKee & Associates. Stream locations are subject to approval
by the County Engineer;
·
If the applicant chooses to install a central well system, the follow-
ing is required:
County Engineer approval of central well system to be designed in
accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority standards;
The central well system shall be comprised of two or more ~ells,
each of which is independently capable of supplying water for all
24 lots;
Ce
The well shall be located on property subject to the present
application;
de
Well tests are to be witnessed' and approved by the County
Engineer;
e
Applicant shall withdraw SP-85-16 within thirty days of approval of
SP-87-06.
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
475
Exhibit A
Land Use Matrix
Conservation Easements
Local Waters Supply Watershed Areas
X - Not-Permitted
P - Permitted
L - Limited (1)
Land Use
Agricultural Practices (2)
Row Crops
Pasture
Hayland
Livestock Access
Feed Lots
Use of Pesticides, Fertilizers
and other Chemicals
Forestry Activities (3)
Permanent Structural Improvements
Temporary Structural Improvements
New Septic Fields/Systems
Access
Wells
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREAS
Stream Reservoir
Easement Easement
No Till
No Cultivation
Easement
X X X
L X L
L L L
L X L
X X X
L L L
L L L
X X L
X X L
X X L
L L L
P P P
(i)
(2)
(3)
Limited Use of Sound Engineering Practices and Designs to preserve and
Promote Area Water Quality and Quantity.
Agricultural Best Management Practices being advocated by the ASCS and
the SCS are required.
Ail Forestry activities shall utilize approved Forestry Best Management
Practices. Activities shall be limited to selective cutting designed
to promote the welfare of the remaining trees.
Exhibit B
"To:
From:
Date:
Re:
William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official
James B. Murray, Jr.
April 23, 1987
SP-87-06, 'Panorama Estates'
Agricultural Best Management Practices
Agricultural Best Management Practices shall be implemented on the
residue property to protect water quality and quantity. The Watershed
Management Official with the assistance of the County Engineer's Office
shall review the practices biennially and shall make recommendations
for any necessary revisions to these practices. All recommended and
required practices or activities shall be completed within five (5)
years of final approval and/or prior to any division or development of
the residue property.
II. The practices to be established by the Applicants include:
(a)
The establishment and maintenance of watering troughs and watering
faCilities to remove the livestock from the streams and reservoir.
Troughs shall, over the construction period, be installed in all
pastures not isolated from the Reservoir by separate impoundments.
(b)
The Reservoir frontage shall be fenced to keep livestock out of
the Reservoir. This fence shall be located at a minimum distance
of 100 horizontal feet from the normal pool elevation of the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir. (Elevation 382, plus four feet for addi-
tion of Flashboard - Elevation 386). This area should remain in
grass or other natural vegetation. The actual location of this
fence shall be determined at the time of construction by the
Watershed Management Official and the owner. The Applicants shall
maintain this 100 foot buffer area for as long as they own the
property.
(c)
The establishment of a No-Till/No Cultivation area along the
shoreline of the Reservoir. This area is to be 300 feet wide
measured from the normal pool elevation (386 feet) of the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Streambank erosion prevention and repair techniques to correct
existing erosion areas shall be implemented. These areas cur-
rently correspond to existing stream crossings and livestock
watering access points.
Proper maintenance and fertilization programs to maintain the
residue property in a vegetative cover will be required. Approved
Soil Conservation Service guidelines shall be followed.
Vegetative filter areas shall be maintained along tributary
streams and reservoir frontage areas.
Exhibit C
"To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Amelia Patterson, Planner
William K.' Norris, Watershed Management Official
March 20, 1987
Panorama Estates/SP-87-06
Following a review of the latest Site Development Plan for the Panorama
Estates Subdivision, dated February 27, 1987 and a meeting with the Planning
and Engineering Staffs and Bob McKee on Wednesday, March 11, 1987, I believe
that the issue of the locations of intermittent and perennial streams on the
property can be satisfactorily resolved. The extent of these streams should
be indicated on a revised plan for verification.
I have reviewed the original City of Charlottesville land acquisition maps
of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir property and have discovered some
discrepancies with the property lines shown on the residue property adjacent
to the Reservoir on the Murray's original submittals. Any future proposals
involving the residue property should reflect the accurate location of this
property line. (Relocation of the property line will affect approximately
24 acres).
During on-going conversations with the Murray's, Bob McKee and county staff
members, several approval conditions for SP-87-6 have been suggested. The
proposed conditions are as follows:
Agricultural Best Management Practices shall be incorporated on the
residue property to protect water quality and quantity. The Watershed
Management Official with the assistance of the County Engineer's Office
shall review the practices biennially and shall make recommendations
for any necessary revisions to these practices. All recommended and
required practices or activities shall be completed within five (5)
years of final approval and/or prior to any division or development of
the residue property.
The practices to be established by the owner include:
(a)
The establishment and maintenance of watering troughs and
watering facilities to remove the livestock from the streams and
reservoir.
(b)
The Reservoir frontage shall be fenced to keep the livestock
out of the Reservoir. This fence shall be located at a
minimum distance of 100 horizontal feet from the normal pool
elevation of t.he South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. (Elevation
382, plus four feet for addition of Flashboard - Elevation
386) (Establishment and maintenance of a minimum 100 foot
buffer is recommended in the standards for water supply
watershed in the Comprehensive Plan). This area should
remain in natural vegetation and be set aside as a Conserva-
tion Easement area. (See sample land use matrix form attached).
The actual location of this fence shall be determined at the time
of construction by the Watershed Management Official and the
owner. (Approximately 24 acres would be involved in the 100 foot
Conservation Easement fenced area).
(c)
The establishment of a No-Till/No Cultivation easement area
along the shoreline of the reservoir. This area is to be 300 feet
wide measured from the normal pool elevation (386 feet) of the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. (A 300 foot buffer has been estab-
lished on the Buck Mountain reservoir project as the necessary
protective buffer area for protection of that future water supply
impoundment - for the Buck Mountain project this was a fee simple
acquisition area.) (This No-Till/No Cultivation Easement would
involve an additional 44+ acres over and above the reservoir
frontage conservation easement area).
(d)
Streambank erosion prevention and repair techniques to correct
existing erosion areas on the property shall be implemented.
These areas currently correspond to existing stream crossings and
livestock watering access points.
(e)
Proper maintenance and fertilization programs to maintain the
residue property in a vegetative cover will be required. Approved
Soil Conservation Service guidelines shall be followed.
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
£Pa_ge 8)
(f)
Vegetative filter areas shall be maintained along tributary
streams and reservoir frontage areas.
II.
Should the residue properties ever be considered for development, the
following might 'be appropriate for evaluation of the application:
(a)
The established Conservation Easement areas along the reservoir
frontage should remain and be maintained.
(b)
Only large lot development (21 acres or greater) should occur
along the reservoir frontage area.
(c)
No structure or structural improvements either temporary or
permanent should be allowed within the easement area.
After numerous conversations with Mr. Steve Murray and county staff members,
I believe that the best interests of watershed management and water supply
protection will be served by following the above referred recommendations
and guidelines."
Mr. Bowie seconded the foregoing motion.
the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried with
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-87-1. Larry B. Hall. Allow motorcycle sales and services on
property zoned HI. Located on west side of Route 29 in Northside Industrial Park approxi-
mately three-fourths mile north of Route 649. Tax Map 32, Parcel 67. Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress May 5 and May 12, 1987.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The subject property is within HI Heavy Industrial,
Northside Industrial Park. Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park, R-4, Residential,
is adjacent to the north; the undeveloped Airport Industrial Park is PD-IP
adjacent to the west; and undeveloped R-l, Residential property is adjacent
to the south. Hall's Body Shop is adjacent to the southeast, and a portion
of the existing building for Hall's Virginia Classic Restoration Shop will
be utilized for the proposed use.
History: On April 9, 1986, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of
Intent to amend Section 28.0 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to
permit 'by right' motorcycle and off-road recreational vehicle sales and
service. On October 7, 1986, the Planning Commission recommended denial of
ZTA-86-05. The Commission felt this usage was not consistent with the HI
District. On October 16, 1986, the Board of Supervisors adopted ZTA-86-05
to permit, by Special Use Permit, '28.2.2(15) Motorcycle and off-road
recreation vehicles sale and service.'
Staff Comment
The applicant proposes to rent 4,000 square feet of the Virginia Classics
Restoration Shop to Jarman Motorcycle. This business is now in operation at
this site pursuant to authorization from the Board of Supervisors on
April 9, 1986.
Residences visible from the property are several mobile homes located in
adjacent Cedar Hill Park. There are no service bays on this (northern) side
of the building. The existing test/training track is located on an undevel-
oped parcel of Northside Industrial Park also owned by the applicant, and
adjacent to the east. The dirt track is separated from Cedar Hill by an
undeveloped heavy industrial zoned parcel. There is a moderate grade
difference and existing trees between the track and the Mobile Home Park.
The closest residence is approximately 165 feet from the track.
The staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with Section 31.2.4.1
of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the motorcycle and off-road
recreation vehicles sales and service would not be a substantial detriment
to other properties in the area. A certified engineer's report is recom-
mended to address noise disturbance.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve
this request, staff recommends the following conditions:
Planning staff approval of additional screening from Cedar Hill Mobile
Home Park, if deemed necessary;
Any relocation or expansion of the test/training track will require
amendment of this special use permit;
County Engineer approval of a certified engineer's report addressing
noise (Section 4.14)."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 5, 1987, unanimously
recommended approval of this petition with Condition Numbers 1 and 3 of the staff, but
478
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
changed Number 2 to read: "2. Any testing of vehicles outside the building is restricted to
the hours of 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M."
Mr. Fisher asked if a motorcycle is turned on and the engine revved, if that constitutes
testing. Mr. Horne replied yes. Mr. Fisher commented that if that is done, people will hear
the noise for one-half mile. Mr. Horne said that issue is to be addressed with the certified
engineer's report.
The public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Margie Ankrom, representing Mr. Hall and Mr. Jarman, addressed the Board. This
business has been in operation for one year and there have been no complaints of noise from
anyone in the surrounding area. She does not think the noise factor is as important issue.
There may be one motorcycle tested at a time and only for a few minutes. With regard to
screening, there are tall pine trees which screen Hall's Body Shop from the mobile home park.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks it should be defined in the permit how the tract is to be
used. Mrs. Ankrom said presently the intent is only for testing. The property is owned by
Larry Hall and will be developed at some time in the future. This is not to be a permanent
testing site.
The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher asked if the other tract on this parcel is subject to this application.
Horne replied no; it is actually on an adjacent parcel.
Mr.
Mr. Bowie said this issue was discussed at length last year. He thinks that a special
use permit is better than having the use by-right. If there have been no previous com-
plaints, he does not anticipate any future ones. He then offered motion to approve SP-87-1
subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission with a change in condi-
tion 92 to read as follows: "2. Any testing of vehicles outside the building is restricted
to the hours of 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Outdoor tract to be used for testing only."
Mr. St. John said the outdoor tract is not a part of this application, therefore,
legally no condition of approval for use of the tract can be placed by the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve SP-87-01 subject
to the following conditions are recommended by the Planning Commission:
Planning staff approval of additional screening from Cedar Hill Mobile
Home Park, if deemed necessary;
Any testing of vehicles outside the building is restricted to the hours
of 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M;
County Engineer approval of a certified engineer's report addressing
noise (Section 4.14).
Mr. Fisher said he supports the motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom (He prefaced his vote by saying he thinks there is an unresolved issue
here and the Board is just asking for trouble. He, therefore, does not support the motion.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-87-23. Young Companies. Allow warehouse facility on vacant
5.72818 acre parcel, zoned LI. Located on south side of Broadway Street, east of City limits
near Old Woolen Mills. Tax Map 77, Parcel 40D. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on May 5 and May 12, 1987.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The parcel is currently divided into four (4) lots
with an area detention pond. The lot which is the subject of this proposal
is currently undeveloped. The lot to the east (Lot 8) is also undeveloped.
The lot to the west (Lot 7) is currently being developed by Brunk Mechanical
(plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, etc.). An area detention pond which
serves the entire parcel is located immediately south of the proposed site.
The entire parcel is screened from the properties located immediately south
of the site. All surrounding properties are industrially zoned.
Staff Comment
The applicant proposes to locate a warehouse facility totalling 10,000
square feet. The applicant proposes to locate the warehouse on a 1.133 acre
(49,350 square foot) lot to be subdivided from the parent parcel at a future
date.
The 10,000 square foot building includes an office and warehouse. The
character and nature of the business performed in the building is primarily
a satellite operation for the permanent storage of household goods, business
records and electronic equipment (computers). The applicant will also
provide service for 'storage-in-transit' for individuals needing temporary
storage while waiting on closings-on residences (Section 4.14 Performance
Standards of the Zoning Ordinance applies to the nature and method of
material storage in warehouse facilities).
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
fPa__ag9_10)
479
Outside storage will consist of 'over seas shipping containers.' These
containers are large wood boxes which stand approximately seven (7) feet
tall. Although the outside storage will be limited, proper screening will
be required.
A preliminary site layout of the building, parking and driveway locates the
warehouse perpendicularly to Broadway Street along the western portion of
the lot. Though th'is is a light industrial area, Broadway Street is a
public road, therefore, screening of the complex from the public road will
be required.
Employment will consist of nine (9) persons, of which three (3) are office
personnel, three (3) are drivers, and three (3) are helpers. Truck traffic
will consist of two (2) straight trucks, one (1) tractor trailer and two (2)
small vans. The frequency of pick-up and delivery is irregular. Traffic is
generally expected to be heavy during the months of June through August.
General times for pick-up and delivery are 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has commented that:
This request should not generate any more traffic, however, the
size and weights of the vehicles will probably be increased.
Access to this property would be through roads within the City
of Charlottesville.
Staff opinion is that warehousing of this nature would not be objectionable
to the area and is consistent with the current Zoning and Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff recommends approval of this special use permit for warehousing,
subject to the following conditions:
Building area limited to 10,000 square feet on the proposed 1.133 acre
lot which is to be subdivided from the parent parcel (Tax Map 77,
Parcel 40D).
2. Outside storage shall be limited to overseas shipping containers.
3. Site Plan to be administratively approved by the Planning Staff."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 5, 1987, unanimously
recommended approval with Conditions 1 and 3 of the staff and changed Condition Number 2 to
read: "2. Outside storage shall be limited to overseas shipping containers and there shall
be no more than fifteen (15) containers stored outside the building at any one time."
Mr. Bowie commented that the staff report addresses screening, yet there is no mention
of it in the conditions. Mr. Horne said there will be site plan review and screening is
required under the normal site plan procedures do does not have to be a part of the condi-
tions.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Lorenzo Davis, representing Young Moving & Storage, addressed the Board. The
proposed site will be used to house household goods. Young Companies is presently an agent
of Allied Van Lines. There are to be nine employees on the site and the storage is to be
temporary and some small military in transit storage.
There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Way offered motion to approve SP-87-23 subject to the following conditions:
Building area limited to 10,000 square feet on the proposed 1.133 acre
lot which is to be subdivided from the parent parcel (Tax Map 22,
Parcel 40D);
Outside storage shall be limited to overseas shipping containers and
there shall be no more than fifteen (15) containers stored outside the
building at any one time;
3. Site Plan to be administratively approved by the Planning staff.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.
the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-87-26. Ray C. Beard. Allow mini-storage warehouse on property
zoned LI. Located on west side of Route 29 North, near Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park. Tax map
32, Parcel 22I. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 5 and May 12,
1987.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The area zoned Light Industrial (4.85 acres) within
the 26 acre parcel is currently undeveloped. The remaining 21.13 acres
immediately west of the site is zoned R-4, Residential. This residential
district is the location of the Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park. Property
480
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
. iPagLe_lJ~
located to the north of the site is developed and zoned commercially.
Properties located south of the site are industrially zoned. Route 29
constitutes the eastern boundary of the site.
Staff Comment
The applicant proposes the location of two (2) mini-storage warehouse
buildings totaling 12,800 square feet. These buildings will be leasable
primarily for storage purposes which will accommodate the needs of indi-
vidual households. The average size of the individual cubicles within the
warehouses is 10 feet by 20 feet.
The buildings will be 40 feet by 160 feet and oriented parallel to Route 29.
Though this is a light industrial area, Route 29 carries substantial through
traffic, therefore, screening of the complex from the public road will be
required. Proper screening will also be required to screen the site from
the residential area located west of the proposed warehouses.
The facility will be operated, from the existing office which serves the
mobile home park. No additional employees will serve the use.
The applicant will construct a 200 foot turn and 200 foot taper lane along
the southbound lane at the request of the Virginia Department of Transporta-
tion. In addition, the applicant has also agreed to upgrade and lengthen
the existing left turn lane along the northbound lane to a 200 foot turn and
200 foot taper lane.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has commented that "...traffic
volumes should not increase and the change in the size and weight of the
vehicles using this facility should not adversely affect Route 29."
Staff opinion is that this use would not be objectionable to the area and is
consistent with the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends
approval, subject to the following conditions:
Building area limited to 12,800 square feet in the 4.85 acre portion of
the parcel zoned light industrial;
2. Ail storage shall be enclosed. No outside storage shall be permitted;
3. Site Plan to be administratively approved by the Planning Staff."
The following letter dated April 9, 1987, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer,
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, addressed to Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief
of Planning, Department of Planning and Community Development, was received:
"The following are our comments:
3. SP-87-26 Ray C. Beard, Route 29 North - The Route 29 North Corridor
Study shows this existing crossover (~34) to remain open. The Department
recommends that the existing left turn lane in the median be upgraded and
lengthened to be 200 feet long and 12 feet wide with a 200 foot taper lane.
The existing left turn lane is approximately 100 feet in full width with a
100 foot taper lane. The 200 foot long right turn lane and 200 foot long
taper lane as shown on the plans is adequate along the southbound lane.
Additional right of way may need to be dedicated along the southbound lane
of Route 29 across the frontage of this property to allow for the construc-
tion and continual maintenance of this turn lane. A cross pipe will have to
be extended and guardrail adjusted for this turn lane. The Department also
recommends that the existing entrance be upgraded to current standards and
that a minimum 25 foot radius be constructed on the southern end of the
entrance. Once the southern end of the entrance is reconstructed then it
might also be necessary to tie into and widen the taper lane already exist-
ing for the property to the south."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 5, 1987, unanimously
recommended approval of this petition with only Conditions 1 and 2 recommended by the staff.
Mr+. Fisher asked if it was the intent of the Planning Commission that the facility use
the existing entrance to the mobile home park. Mr. Horne said yes, the plan proposes use of
the entrance, but there is no condition that the applicant must use that entrance. His
opinion is that no commercial entrance permit would be granted at any other place along the
frontage.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Mark Osborne, an engineer with Gloeckner, Lincoln
and Osborne, representing Mr. Beard, addressed the Board. The applicant is in agreement with
the staff report and conditions. He does not believe the applicant has any problem limiting
himself to this entrance, inasmuch as most of the improvements are already made for the
location and any further improvement of the trailer park would require upgrading. Addition-
ally, the property does not have existing public sewer and that greatly limits the appli-
cant's ability to utilize this part of the property and the remainder of the mobile home park
section. This type of use is appropriate for the LI zone, particularly considering that no
additional public sewer will be required.
Mr. Bowie asked if there is room for expansion of the mobile home park on land behind
this site. Mr. Osborne said yes, although there can be no further development of the park
without public sewer. Mrs. Cooke asked if the storage facility is for the use of the mobile
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
~Page 12)
home park occupants or if the applicant intends this use to generate more traffic to the
site. Mr. Osborne said this facility will be open to the public, but the obvious people to
use it will be the mobile home park residents. It is not anticipated to generate any signif-
icant increase in traffic. Mrs. Cooke asked the number of units in the mobile home park.
Mr. Osborne replied there are 71. Mr. Fisher asked if the warehouse facility will displace
any mobile homes. Mr. Osborne replied no.
There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve SP-87-26 with the two conditions of the Planning
Commission, and a thirdJcondition reading: "3. Entrance to the property shall be from the
existing entrance to Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park."
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
ing recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried with the follow-
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions as approved are set out below:)
Building area limited to 12,800 square feet in the 4.85 acre portion of the parcel
zoned light industrial;
2. Ail storage shall be enclosed. No outside storage shall be permitted;
Entrance to the property shall be from the existing entrance to Cedar Hill Mobile
Home Park.
Not Docketed: At 9:10 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:18 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-87-5. Ednam Associates. To amend an existing PRD to allow
condominiums in an area previously approved for single-family attached units. Located within
the Ednam PRD on south side of Route 250 adjacent to Birdwood. Tax Map 59D(2)-6-01. Samuel
Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 5 and May 12, 1987.)
(Note: Mrs. Cooke announced that an immediate family member is associated with Caleb
Stowe and she would abstain from discussion. She left the room at 9:19 P.M.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"History:
Ednam PRD (RPN/R-1) was originally approved by the Board of Supervisors on
June 2, 1976 (132 dwellings). In 1979, the property was rezoned to RPN/R-2
to permit a retirement village consisting of 255 dwellings and a 100 bed
hospital with ancillary uses. In 1980, the property was rezoned with
additional acreage to RPN/R-1 and 1.73 acres to R-3 (proffered).
Character of the Area:
This section within Ednam is across Worthington Drive from the multi-story
condominiums presently under construction, and the attached/semi-attached
residences on Wiley Drive and Kellogg Drive. Real Estate III is adjacent to
the north, and Ednam Village residences (primarily duplex) and the Boar's
Head Inn complex are on the west and southwest.
Existing Zoning in the Area:
Real Estate III - CO, Commercial Office
Ednam Village - R-4, Residential
Boar's Head Inn - HC, Highway Commercial
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium density residential (5-10 dwelling
units per acre) in this area.
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant proposes a change in dwelling unit type from attached and
semi-attached to multi-family, with no increase in density. The accompany-
ing site plan proposes a total of 30 dwelling units in eight buildings.
Seven buildings will be comprised of four dwelling units (quadraplexes) and
one building will be comprised of two dwelling units (duplex). Proposed
parking will be underground except for that which is directly adjacent to
the Boar's Head Inn complex. The structures will be two stories high viewed
from Worthington Drive,and three stories viewed from Ednam Village.
Summary and Recommendations:
Staff opinion is that the Application Plan, in general is an improvement
over development of this area under the existing dwelling unit type. This
is based on the following:
The clustering provides additional open space for landscaping, and
additional setback from Ednam Village.
4'82
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
2. The clustering permits underground parking.
The preliminary elevations show buildings which appear as large single
family detached or attached dwellings. The applicant has expressed a
willingness to work with adjacent Ednam Village residents to provide suit-
able landscaping. Much of the common boundary is presently screened with
mature white pines. The closest building is proposed +65 feet from the
Ednam Village property line.
A detailed site plan has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee and
revised per their comments. Pending Board of Supervisors approval of
ZMA-87-05, the applicant requests administrative approval of the site plan.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of this change of dwelling unit type. A mix of
dwelling unit types is appropriate in large developments. The present
proposal is more compatible with adjacent Ednam Village. Staff recommends
the following conditions:
Approval is for a maximum of 30 multi-family dwelling units. Develop-
ment shall be in general compliance with the Ednam Section B Applica-
tion Plan dated March 23, 1987 by Robert B. McKee and Associates;
2. Amend the overall PRD Land Use Summary to reflect this change;
Site plan review shall include landscaping which shall buffer from
Ednam Village."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 5, 1987, unanimously
recommended approval of ZMA-87-05 subject to the conditions as recommended by the staff, but
amended Condition ~3 by adding the words "and Worthington Drive" at the end of that sentence.
The Planning Commission discussed the submission of a site plan and specifically requested
that elevations be presented at the time of site plan approval.
Mr. Fisher asked if all of the units will require the same height limitation. Mr. Horne
responded that the height limitation is the same as approved for the PRD, but the primary
difference in this application is the footprints of the building. Although the site plan
presented is not a part of the conditions, the application plan does show underground park-
ing. Mr. Fisher asked if any member of the staff had looked at the units already committed
and whether those units are developed to the maximum. Mr. Horne said to his knowledge none
of the units have been developed beyond tke maximum. He personally has not made a count.
Mr. Fisher said he does not want the applicant to think that there will be a change in the
density of the overall PRD if this application is approved. Mr. Horne said before the
Planning Commission will approve a site plan for a given number of units, it would will
verify that no more than the maximum number of units are being developed. Mr. Fisher sug-
gested that the Planning Commission's condition #1 state "Approval for 20 to 30 units consis-
tent with the original rezoning" or some similar language.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Caleb Stowe addressed the Board. Mr. Robert McKee,
the land planner and engineer, is present, as are Mr. Andrew Beneditti and Ms. Betty
Driskell, to address any questions the Board members may have. When the applicants first
came before the Board in 1980, there were seven sections in the PRD with high and low density
areas in each section. There was no way to predict what the market would be like. This has
been a difficult project. Of the seven sections approved, only four sections have been
completed. The applicants are before the Board requesting an option so that instead of
putting four quadraplexes side by side, they can put two in one location and two at some
distance away. The height limitation is the same as originally approved. He, therefore,
requests that the Board endorse this plan.
Mr. Robert McKee next addressed the Board. This is a PRD which is similar to a PUD but
is strictly r~sidential. Critical to the PRD zoning is that it allows the developer some
flexibility over a period of time to meet market changes. Some benefits of the plan are:
elimination of surface parking for residents, less roadway and driveway, and increased open
space in some areas toward Ednam Village which are completely undisturbed. The units are not
massive and are well within the height limitations and requirements of the County. The
widest building is 66 feet. The two lower buildings screen some of the property at the back
of Ednam Hall. Mr. Fisher asked what happens to the height if ground coverage is reduced 20
percent. Mr. McKee said the height will increase compared to some of the other units simply
because parking proposed is on the back sideS of the building. The front of the units are
two stories with a roof, but no less than 35 feet. Mr. Lindstrom asked if from the Ednam
Village side these units will appear to be three stories tall. Mr. McKee replied that is
correct.
Mr. Ronald Banister, a resident of 507 Wiley Drive which is directly across from
Worthington Drive, addressed the Board. When he and his wife purchased this property in 1983
they were assured that the property in front of them, when it was developed, would be
single-family. Their ~iew is very good and he thinks it will be ruined by this development.
He also feels that the development will reduce the value of his property. Ednam Village will
not be affected by this proposed development. He, therefore, requests that the Board deny
this application.
Mrs. Frances Burger, a resident of 510 Wiley Drive, next addressed the Board. Mrs.
Burger presented a letter (on file) dated May 20, 1987 also requesting that the application
be denied. She was informed by Mr. Stowe that the community would be single-family homes.
She and her husband object to allowing condominiums in such a small area and want the devel-
opment kept with the original concept.
483
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 14)
Mr. Charles Almy, a resident of Kellogg Drive, next addressed the Board. He wishes to
reiterate the statements made by the two previous speakers opposing the application. He
feels that the first property owners bought in this location because of the view and now a
couple of years later, the same view is being sold to other property owners. The new units
will resemble office buildings. The buildings are massive with not much distance between.
He asks that the request be denied.
Mr. Stowe again addressed the Board. He said units were sold with the understanding
that the developer has a right to make architectural decisions and design decisions. That is
stated in the contract of each resident who lives in Ednam. Condominiums are a form of
ownership that has nothing to do with the size or shape of the building. This request is not
for a change in height requirements. In addition, each building has a hip roof which takes
away the volume of obstruction view and space.
There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher asked where the base is measured from if the building is on a slope. Mr.
Horne said, although he is not sure how it would be applied in this case, the definition of
building height in the Ordinance is as follows: "The vertical distance measured from the
level of the curb or the established curb grade opposite the middle of the front of the
structure to the highest point in the roof if a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard
roof; or the mean height level between the eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof.
For buildings set back from the street line, the height shall be measured from the average
elevation of the ground surface along the front of the building."
Mr. Fisher said he does not see this proposal as being such a major public significance
that the Board should deny the request. He does want the conditions worded so there is no
more or no less density than when the plan was originally approved by the Board. Mr. Horne
suggested the following change to the recommended condition 91: "Approval is for 20 to 30
multi-family dwelling units. Development shall be in general compliance with the Ednam
Section B Application Plan dated March 23, 1987, by Robert B. McKee & Associates, and shall
be consistent with all of the existing requirements of the Ednam RPN." This language should
clarify the Board's intent and the application plan specifies the dwelling type.
Mr. Fisher said he does not think this plan will have a greater effect on the community
than the existing rights and he concur swith the applicant that the plan may be less and
possibly a better development. He intends to support the application.
Mr. Bowie said he will support the application because he sees nothing that the Board
can change. In addition, this plan was originally approved in 1980. Mr. Bowie then offered
motion to approve ZMA-87-5 subject Conditions 2 and 3 of the Planning Commission, but chang-
ing No. 1 to read: "1. Approval is for 20 to 30 multi-family dwelling units. Development
shall be in general compliance with the Ednam Section B Application Plan dated March 23, 1987
by Robert B. McKee and Associates;" Mr. Way seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher said a misunderstanding between the residents and the developer is not a
matter for consideration by this Board. The developer has legal rights on the property as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1980. He thinks the revision is a good one and he
thinks it is the right thing to do. There being no further discussion, roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out following:)
Approval is for 20 to 30 multi-family dwelling units. Development shall
be in general compliance with the Ednam Section B Application Plan dated
March 23, 1987 by Robert B. McKee and Associates;"
2. Amend the overall PRD land use summary to reflect this change.
e
Site Plan review shall include landscap
Village and Worthington Drive.
(Mrs. Cooke returned to the meeting at 10:10
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-87-32. Uniroyal Tir~
measures for existing plant facility on 64 acres
on Bird Street Extended near Scottsville. Tax Ma
8lA. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the D
Lng which shall buffer from Ednam
P.M.)
Company. Establish flood protection
Ln flood plain of the James River . Located
) 130, Parcel 43 and Tax Map 131, Parcel
~ily Progress on May 5 and May 12, 1987.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: This property is directly adjacent to the Hatton
Agricultural/Forestal District, to residential property and to the Town of
Scottsville. Therefore, this is an area of mixed uses including rural,
residential commercial and industrial land uses.
The plant is a textile manufacturing and finishing facility that produces
from ninety to one hundred thousand pounds of tire cord per day.
History: The Plant was constructed by the Defense Plant Corporation in
1944. There have been two major expansions, with no substantial change in
manufacturing procedures. There is a 1968 site plan file containing build-
ing plans for an expansion. The plant floor elevation of 285 M.S.L. is
approximately one foot higher than the 50 year flood elevation of 284.0
48-4
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
M.$.L. and 1.5 feet lower than the 100 year flood elevation of 286.5 M.S.L.
Since 1972, the plant has experienced two floods which have exceeded the one
hundred year water mark. In 1972, the water level reached 289 M.S.L. and
rose to four feet above the plant floor. The resulting damage necessitated
a plant 'downtime' of about three weeks. In 1985, the level reached 287.2
M.S.L. and resulted in significant damages. The flood of 1969, although not
as severe, rose to within one inch of the plant floor level and shut down
plant operations for three days.
Flood control protection for the Uniroyal Plant was not included within the
Town of Scottsville flood control levee approved March 3, 1982. In 1986, at
the request of Scottsville's Mayor Thacker, the Corps of Engineers completed
a flood control appraisal study for the Uniroyal Plant, which concluded that
no federal funds should be allocated.
Overall Flood Control Program:
Three alternatives were offered by the Corps of Engineers as viable options
should the plant decide to provide flood protection at its own expense. The
various alternatives consist of extending the town levee around the plant in
various configurations with estimated costs from 1.6 to 2.0 million dollars.
Project Description:
A floodwall and levee system will be constructed around the building and a
portion of the surrounding property. A holding pond will be constructed to
divert water from a stream that flows under the plant at the south side. A
new road will be constructed on higher ground to provide truck and employee
access to the plant.
Flood protection from the James River would be provided by the following:
The entire east wall of the factory and office building would be protected
by a six inch thick concrete wall extending from two feet below the existing
grade to a height of 288.0 M.S.L. A stone coping would match the existing
window sill all around. The road to the elevated warehouse would be widened
and extended, and a partial retaining wall would surround the river side to
an elevation of 288.0 M.S.L. A truck access gate would be provided between
the southeast factory building corner and the existing pump house. Aluminum
'stop-logs' would be inserted when a flood is imminent. From the east wall
of the elevated warehouse, an earthen dike would extend to the embankment
just west of the railroad tracks. At the north end a concrete retaining
wall five to ten feet in height, extending from the northeast building
corner and around the refrigerator building would complete the flood
barrier.
As flood waters rise, many employees, fearful of losing their vehicles or of
getting out of the plant, simply leave. One of the important factors in
minimizing losses is to relocate finished goods and mobile equipment, etc.
to higher ground. This will be accomplished by the construction of approxi-
mately 1,200 feet of road from the plant entrance road to the northwest
corner of the building.
Review under this application is to insure that the requirements of the
Flood Hazard Overlay are satisfied. The County Engineer has stated that the
proposed project takes a minimal amount of the flood storage area, and is
located in the floodplain and not floodway. The County Engineer recommends
approval.
Such a petition is typically not presented for public hearing until all
engineering items have been addressed. The County Engineering Department is
assisting the Uniroyal engineering staff to provide all necessary engineer-
ing details. Although all information is not complete at this point, it is
in the~public interest to expedite this permit.
The Director of Planning & Community Development has given permission to
begin staff review of the proposed road relocation.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
2. Appropriate permits for borrow area;
3. Applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal approvals;
Compliance with procedural and substantive requirements of Section
30.3.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to include:
County Engineering Department approval of the
berm and retaining wall design;
County Engineering Department approval of the
stream diversion;
County Inspections Department approval of the
facade improvements to the structure.
5. Administrative approval of site plan."
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Pa_ge 16_)
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 19, 1987, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-87-32 subject to the same conditions as those recommended by the
staff.
Mr. Michael Armm, County Engineer, was present and further elaborated on the project.
The Army Corps of Engineers indicated that it has no problem with this proposal and has
offered assistance in the design of the project. The County Engineering staff is working
closely with the Engineering Department of Uniroyal to assist in the design of the berm.
also wanted to point out that the railroad siding is privately owned by Uniroyal.
He
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Steve Nichols, Plant Engineer for Uniroyal,
addressed the Board. Uniroyal is in agreement with the Planning Commission's recommendations
and asks that the Board approve this request.
Mayor Raymon Thacker of Scottsville, next addressed the Board. He is anxious that the
Board approve this project. Since 1972 he has been working diligently on a flood protection
project in Scottsville. Scottsville has come close to losing Uniroyal because of floods and
he feels it is essential to the welfare of the community that Uniroyal stay in Scottsville.
It is also economically essential that Uniroyal remain.
Mr. Fisher asked the status of the second phase of the Scottsville levee. Mayor Thacker
said the deadline for completion of the present phase of the levee is November, 1987. There
were some problems with the Army Corps of Engineers and contractor which have been ironed out
and work has proceeded diligently. This phase will finish the entire project. The next
project is building of the levee itself which should move very quickly.
Mr. Duane Carr, owner of True Value Hardware in Scottsville, next addressed the Board.
He would like to reiterate the comments made by Mayor Thacker. Scottsville is dependent on
the plant and it is imperative that this be passed so work can proceed as quickly as
possible.
Mr. James Mawyer, a worker at Uniroyal, addressed the Board.
request that the Board approve this project.
He is present to also
There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. WaY said he is in favor of the floodway being built for all the reasons stated. It
would be devastating to the community of Scottsville should the Uniroyal plant leave and it
appears that this will make it possible for the plant to remain. It is also encouraging to
him that Uniroyal is willing to expend this money. Mr. Way then offered motion to approve
SP-87-32 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher said he had the opportunity to fly over Scottsville in June 1972 during the
flood do has some idea~of how far the water spreads. It was incredible for him to see how
many buildings and homes were affected. His "hat is off" to Mayor Thacker and the other
people who have done the work they have done to proceed with the levee and he strongly
supports this application. He is uneasy about the County Engineer helping to design the
plan, and then also be involved in the approval of it which could change the County's liabil-
ity in the process. Mr. Armm said the County's Engineering Department staff is providing
technical assistance but is not designing the project. The design drawings have come out of
Uniroyal's Engineering Department.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None
(Note: The conditions of approval are as follows:)
1. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
2. Appropriate permits for borrow area;
3. Applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal approvals;
Compliance with procedural and substantive requirements of Section
30.3.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to include:
County Engineering Department approval of the
berm and retaining wall design;
County Engineering Department approval of the
stream diversion;
County Inspections Department approval of the
facade improvements to the structure.
5. Administrative approval of site plan.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Heyward/Hedgerow Properties - Open Space Easements.
Mr. Horne summarized the following memorandum dated May 13, 1987:
"Enclosed is a package of materials that explains the desire of Mr. & Mrs.
Heyward and the Hedgerow Corporation to donate open space easements to the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation on various properties that they own in
Albemarle County. On May 12, 1987 the Planning Commission discussed these
items. The Commission expressed no objections to this proposal and felt
486
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
that these donations would not be a severe detriment to the growth manage-
ment policies of the County, even though the properties were located within
the urban growth area. The Commission also voiced their appreciation to the
Heyward family for this generous offer to the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Finally, the Commission felt that in the long term it would be farsighted
for the County to have available some tracts of open space within the urban
area.
It is my understanding that the Virginia Outdoors Foundation would be
interested in receiving any comments from the County of Albemarle that the
Board of Supervisors feels is appropriate. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me."
The following memorandum from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development to
the County Planning Commission; dated May 12, 1987, was presented:
"The County has recently been made aware of properties owned by Mr. & Mrs.
Heyward/Hedgerow Corporation which have been proposed by the owners for
donation as open space easements to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF).
The proposal was initially presented to the County at an April 9, 1987
meeting attended by the Heywards, Tyson Van Auken of VOF, Gerry Fisher, Tim
Lindstrom, Richard Cogan and Bob Tucker. County officials attending the
meeting indicated general support for the proposal. Because some of the
property lies in the Urban Area and would be removed from development
potential if accepted as a open space easement, VOF has requested input from
the County stating its position regarding this part of the proposal. Mr.
Cogan has requested that the Planning Commission review the proposal and
take such action as it deems appropriate. Any recommendations or comments
by the Commission will be forwarded to the County Executive.
The enclosed provides an analysis of the various parcels within the existing
Urban Area that might potentially be included as open space easements. As
you will note, Areas B and C in the analysis have been recommended by staff
during the current Plan review for removal from the Urban Areas. Area A,
however, contains much of the Balmoral Heights subdivision and other parcels
staff has considered to be potentially developable. The Commission's
consideration of this matter seems to center around the merits of Area A as
a potentially developable part of the Urban Area vs. Area A as a conserva-
tion area and part of what may ultimately be a much larger group of open
space easements in the Rural Area. Other issues for consideration are if
lack.of County support for the easements in Area A will discourage others in
the County from seeking such easements and whether support of such an
easement in part of an existing growth area is contrary to the County's
growth management policies. The Commission should be aware that the Land
Use Subcommittee to this point has agreed that all acreage lost to residen-
tial use in the Urban Area due to changes in land use should be accommodated
in newly designated urban expansion areas."
Analysis of Heyward Property
This property comprises three distinct regions:
ao
The area south of Bellair, west of Buckingham Subdivision and north of
Route 702. This area contains an estimated 230 acres of various zoning
designations. The undeveloped Balmoral Heights Subdivision lies within
this area. Of the total acreage, 18 acres were identified within the
designated one hundred year floodplain and 12 acres were found with
slopes in excess of 25 percent. The resulting acreage with development
potential equals 200 acres. Based on current Comprehensive Plan
densities, this acreage could yield between 200 and 800 units (based on
one to four dwelling units per acre). This area is also within the
Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional areas, and has access
to existing water and sewer lines.
Be
The area west of Route 702 (TM 75-58). This area consists of approxi-
mately 55 acres. Of that total, 11 acres were identified within the
designated one hundred year floodplain and 36 acres greater than 600
foot elevation or with 25 percent slopes. The resulting acreage with
development potential equals eight acres. However, this 'usable
acreage' is not contiguous and may be very difficult to develop. While
within the jurisdictional area, this property is some distance from
available water and sewer lines. Accessibility would also have to be
improved. The entire 55 acres has been recommended by staff in Compre-
hensive Plan Work sessions to be removed from the growth area due to
restrictive topography and floodplains.
Ce
The area south of I'64 and north of Route 29. This region consists of
228 acres. While no floodplain areas were found on the property, 131
acres were found with elevations higher than 600 feet or with slopes in
excess of 25 percent. The entire 228 acres has been recommended by
staff in Comprehensive Plan Work sessions to be removed from the growth
area due to restrictive topography and the high cost of utility exten-
sion to the region."
Mr. Fisher said he and Mr. Lindstrom were invited to a meeting by Mrs. Heyward. The
Heyward family wanted to control some of the development in the area therefore it proposed
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
donating these open space easements to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
object to this because he feels that if the Heyward family wants to do it
not attempt to stop the donation.
He does not really
the Board should
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the Board indicate to the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation that it has no objection to the proposed granting of the open space easements.
Mr. Henley asked if any of this property includes property of Camp Holiday Trails. Mr. Horne
replied no.
Mr. St. John said mention has been made that the Board has an obligation to expand the
urban area by a commensurate amount of land to offset this action, if the donation is ap-
proved. He questions that obligation because he sees this piece of open space in the urban
area as an amenity to that urban area. This is not taking anything from the urban area. The
Board should possibly endorse this action instead of stating it has no objection. This is
positive for the County as a whole. He, therefore, does not think this amounts to a depar-
ture from the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with Mr. St. John and would be glad to incorporate that
into his motion. Mr. Lindstrom then restated his motion that the Board feels that this
proposal is consistent with urban area amenities and that the Board has no objection to Mr.
and Mrs. Heyward and the Hedgerow Corporation donating open space easements to the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation on the following properties they own in Albemarle County:
The area south of Bellair, west of Buckingham Subdivision and north of
Route 702. This area contains an estimated 230 acres of various zoning
designations.
The area west of Route 702 (Tax Map 75, Parcel 58).
of approximately 55 acres.
This area consists
The area south of 1-64 and north of Route 29.
228 acres.
This region consists of
Mr. Way seconded the motion.
recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. St. John asked about the Comprehensive Plan being changed to show this action. Mr.
Horne said that will be taken care of when the Comprehensive Plan is amended later this year.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: June 12, 1985; February 12, February 19,
March 5 (Night), December 3 (Afternoon), December 10, and December 17, 1986; March 4 and
March 9, 1987.
Mr. Way had read the minutes for February 12, 1986, pages 9 through 18, and December 17,
1986, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the minutes as read. Mr. Bowie seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mrs. Cooke presented the following letter she received from a citizen concerning profes-
sional business licenses:
"Just a few years ago the filing of businesses and professional licenses
were extended to April 30 to give business people and their accountants time
to collect the necessary information for filing of license renewals. This
move was appropriate. My concern is that the original due date for license
fee is still June 1. The County mailed license bills on May 13 this year.
Mine arrived on May 15. This gives businesses and professional license
holders only ten working days to pay their license bills before they incur
penalties.
I recommend that since the filing date has been extended 30 days that the
due date for payment of bills also be extended for 30 days. Applications
would be filed by April 30. Bills would be mailed by May 25. Payment would
be due by June 30. I would appreciate you bringing this matter before the
Board."
Mrs. Cooke said this seems to be a logical and legitimate request to her and she passed
the letter to Mr. Agnor. Mr. Agnor said it would require an amendment of the ordinance. Mr.
Fisher asked that the staff look at the procedures for next year and make a recommendation to
the Board as to how the policy might be changed.
Mr. Lindstrom referenced a letter dated May 19, 1987, copied to the Board, from
Charlottesville Mayor Francis L. Buck to Mr. Ray Pethtel, Highway Commissioner, concerning
City Planning Commission action on the Route 29 North expressway idea. He suggested that the
Board members may want to read the letter.
488
May 20, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Agnor said the postal authorities have required the Airport Authority to name the
newly constructed loop road. The Joint Airport Commission has recommended that the road be
named Boeing Loop. Board members commented they had no objection to the name.
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. At 10:56 P.M., Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn this
meeting until June 3, 1987 at 2:00 P.M. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and
the motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
~CHAi RM~
/