1986-08-20August 20, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
August 20, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 37, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., and C. Timothy Lindstrom.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Peter T. Way.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the
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 4.1 and accept
the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Way.
Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses - State Compensation Board - for the Department of
Finance, Sheriff, Cor~monwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of July, 1986, were
approved as presented.
Item 4.2. Monthly Bond Program Report on Arbor Crest Apartments - July 1986, received
as information.
Item 4.3. Letter from Highway Department dated August 12, 1986, giving notice of
meeting on August 29, 1986, at Germanna Community College at 9:00 A.M. to review the finding
of the Commission on Transportation in the Twenty-First Century, received as information.
Item 4.4. A copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for August 12, 1986, were
received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Introduction of Delegate from Japan to 4-H Program in the United
States. Mr. Nat Perkins, Mrs. Joanne Perkins' son, introduced the delegate from Japan to
the 4-H Program in the United States. He also briefly talked about the delegate's back-
ground.
Mr. Fisher welcomed the Japanese delegate to the community, and said that he hoped his
experience in the United States would be good for him and good for the U.S. Mr. Fisher gave
him a small present to help him remember Albemarle County.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-86-02. Joseph Wright. To rezone 6.65 acres from RA to CO and
48.13 acres from RA to LI. Property located in vicinity of the southwestern quadrant of the
Route 29 North/Route 649 (Airport Road) intersection. Tax Map 32, Parcels 41D and 41E.
Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress August 5 and August 12, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave an updated staff report as follows:
"This rezoning petition originally appeared before the Planning Commission
as a conventional rezoning on June 24, 1986 (staff report dated June 17,
1986). Staff stated that while the request was consistent with the Land Use
Map, certain Comprehensive Plan standards were not reflected in the proposal
and staff recommended denial. The Planning Commission accepted the staff's
recommendation, commenting that the applicant could address these matters of
public concern prior to Board of Supervisors' public hearing. The Board,
after review of the applicant's subsequent proffer, determined that the
petition was a substantial change from that reviewed by the Planning Commis-
sion and referred the petition back to the Commission for additional recom-
mendation.
Staff recommended denial of the original petition because it did not in
staff opinion adequately address certain Comprehensive Plan standards and
other matters of public concern. More specifically:
Buffering or transitional uses: The applicant has changed his
rezoning request from LI, Light Industrial, to CO, Commercial
Office, for the smaller tract located between Deerwood Subdivision
and the Laurel Hill Baptist Church. The Comprehensive Plan
recommends commercial offices as a transitional use. Offices are
August 20, 1986 (Regular NiqhtMeeting)
i Paqe 2 )
2O5
permitted by right in the LI zone, therefore, CO zoning is an
appropriate substitute.
Phasing of utility extensions: Public water is available at the
site. Development of the property employing septic disposal would
be limited. The Planning Commission could require extension of
public sewer at any time it is determined to be reasonably avail-
able.
Access control: The applicant has proffered to limit access to
ROute 29 North to one point at a proposed new crossover (pre-
viously proffered in ZMA-85-20, Tri-Ton/Hollymead Land Trust).
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation had previously
recommended that access be limited to Route 649, however, an
entrance aligned to a new crossover and internal road system to
the Hollymead residential/commercial areas could prove beneficial
by reducing cross traffic load on the Route 29 North/Proffit Road
intersection and portion of Route 29 North.
The applicant's proffer adequately addresses earlier concerns expressed by
staff. Therefore, staff recommends acceptance of the applicant's proffer of
July 2, 1986 and approval of ZMA-86-02.
Additional Comment: A concern expressed during review by the Board was the
propriety of rezoning this property in view of the Board's stated intent to
reassess land uses in this area during Comprehensive Plan review. Staff
offers the following comments:
Due to the physical location of this site and existing urban uses in
the area, this property would not be as susceptible to removal from the
growth area as 'fringe' area properties, should Hollymead be reduced in
scale;
Due to proximity to the Airport, a change of Comprehensive Plan use to
residential may not be appropriate. Commercial zoning would generate
substantially more traffic;
In terms of setting precedent for future requests, the safest action
would be to disapprove this petition. However, other rezonings have
been approved since the Board's August 1985 resolution. Staff would
recommend each petition be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Section 15.1-491(g) of the Code of Virginia authorizes the Commission
and Board a combined review period consisting of 'such reasonable time
as may be necessary which shall not exceed twelve months' (except by
request/consent of the applicant to a longer period) to act upon a
rezoning petition. Legitimate use of this review period may prove
viable later in the Comprehensive Plan review when the review schedule
is better defined.'
Following is a letter to Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning, Department of Planning
and Community Development from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, dated August 11, 1986:
"Attached are additional comments from the Department in regards to the
proffer submitted by Mr. Wright in a letter dated July 2, 1986. As part of
this rezoning request, the applicant wants to amend the original ZMA by
changing the zoning on part of the request to CO. This 6.65 acre parcel B,
would generate more traffic under the CO zoning than the LI zoning and this
request is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Department's primary concern is to maintain the integrity of Route 29
North as an arterial roadway. Therefore, the Department recommends that
all access be on Route 649 as was addressed in our previous letter dated
May i4, 1986. However, this proffer would insure that any entrance on
Route 29 would be on a crossover and this would reduce U-turn movements on
Route 29 for this development. From a very preliminary review of this
request, it would appear that no traffic signal would be solely warranted
at this new crossover on Route 29 due to this proposed rezoning request."
Mr. Fisher explained that ZMA-86-02 had been deferred from July 2, 1986, for reconsider-
ation by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Horne stated that in lieu of going through the original staff report again, he would
discuss the addendum to that staff report (set out above). Mr. Horne also went over the
applicant's proffer and said that, in the staff's opinion, the proffer adequately addresses
earlier concerns expressed by the staff. The Staff recommended approval to the Commission
with the applicant's proffer of July 2, 1986. Mr. Horne said that at the meeting on August
12, 1986, the Planning Commission, after discussing this matter and a memorandum from Mr.
Horne's staff plus future actions in the Hollymead area in light of the upcoming review of
the Comprehensive Plan and the Board's statements to the Metropolitan Planning Organization,
recommended unanimously for denial of the petition. One concern was the increased traffic
load on Route 29 North. Another Was the timing of this proposal, since there is a review of
the Comprehensive Plan being undertaken at this time, and the general premature nature of the
petition, and lastly the outright opposition by at least one member of the Planning Commis-
sion to access to Route 29 independent of these larger issues of the Comprehensive Plan and
208
August 20, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 3)
the increased traffic volume on Route 29 North. There are two parcels concerned in the
rezoning, Parcel A, a 48.13 acre parcel, and Parcel B, approximately 6.65 acres is requested
for CO. He went on to describe how the proffer would affect the rezoning petition and
Route 29.
Mr. Bowie asked about the phasing of utilities. Mr. Horne answered that water lines ar.
on the property so the water needs no phasing. Sewers are now located at the lake at Holly-
mead which is somewhat distant to this property. The proffer says that anytime that the
Planning Commission deems that the sewer is reasonably accessible, they can require extensiol
of that sewer to this property.
At this point, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to make
his statements.
Mr. Bill Roudabush said he is appearing on behalf of Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright asked Mr.
Roudabush to express to the Board that his absence was not due to lack of interest in this
petition, but his father died last night. Mr. Roudabush said the Board has most of the
factual information that was presented in the two prior Planning Commission hearings, and the
last presentation before the Board of Supervisors. The facts have been presented as they
exist, but there are some comments that he would like to repeat. First, the professional
planners on the County staff supported this application with the proffers in the last hearing
before the Planning Commission and the Board. Editorial support of this application was made
in the local newspaper, and he thinks the local business community is also in support of the
rezoning. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the Commission members made statements to
the effect that the highest and best use of this property is industrial, that the property is
unsuited for residential development, and that the eventual zoning of the property will be
industrial. Most of the members made statements to the effect that they would support the
application except for the question of access to the property and the timing of the applica-
tion. He reminded the Board that there is no intended use of the property at this time. All:
of the many people who have expressed interest in the property indicated that they would only
expend money for planning purposes and site planning, etc., when the zoning was in place, T¢
have the property recommended for industrial zoning in the Comprehensive Plan but have the
actual zoning as RUral Areas is a handicap to the owner of the property.
Mr. Roudabush said there is no request before the Planning Commission or the Board for
access at any point on the property at this time. The applicant has only agreed to limit
access to the property to one point on Route 29. That does not mean that the applicant woul¢
have access to Route 29, because no plan has been developed for the property. It is conceiv-
able that when a user has determined that the property has the proper zoning, that possibly
access to Route 29 will not be important, but this has not been determined. The applicant is
not asking for access to Route 29, but is agreeing in the proffer to limit access, if access
is requested, to only one point. Delaying action on this application will be at the expense
of the owner. The applicant is aware that the County is in the process of reviewing the
Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant would like to be in the same posture. Mr. Roudabush
said that if the applicant were in a posture where he had to make an effort to use this
property, the only use he could make under current zoning would be for residential use. If
he came forth with an application for that use, he would probably be told that it does not
conform with the Comprehensive Plan because the land is recommended for industrial use. The
traffic figures that the Highway Department has suggested are maximum figures and are only
guesses based on nationwide standards for various types of uses, and he is unsure which one
will apply to this property. In all likelihood, the traffic generated by this site will be
less than the Highway Department has suggested. It is apparent to the applicant and many
others that this property will be retained in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial develop-
ment because of the proximity to the Airport, the constraints of development and limitations
because of flight paths, etc. He believes that most people are aware that in the past
Comprehensive Plan discussions, it has been mentioned that the residential development in
that area was misplaced some years ago. The applicant would like to get on with some
planning that he can be assured will stay in place, and he can, with confidence, advise
prospective users of the property as to what their rights would be under that zoning.
Since there was no one else present who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said the Planning Commission recommended denial, but he found from reading
their minutes that comments were made that the issues causing the recommendation could be
addressed before the petition reached this Board. Those specific issues were addressed in
the proffer of July 2 and the Board returned the petition to the Planning Commission.
Although the Planning Commission recommends denial again, the staff recommends approval. He
said that the Commission feels that Light Industry is the best use of this land, but the
timing is not right, and that rezoning is inevitable at some future date. He agrees that
this is inevitable, and it is the proper zoning. He was concerned with placing Light Indus-
try next to Deerwood Subdivision, but according to the proffer, there will be Commercial
Office zoning buffering the LI. He can see no reason not to approve the request.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Commission addressed this issue twice, and each time it came to
negative vote. Even though it may be inevitable that this property will be zoned industrial,
and he is not sure that he accepts that proposition, he thinks it is important to remember
that the Comprehensive Plan is not a plan which has to be implemented in the first year of
the first five years. It is a long-range plan. Obviously, the owner would like to use his
property as intensively and with as much economic benefit to himself as possible. If this
is a suitable use because of the proximity of the land to the Airport, and if there is
congestion on Route 29, it seems to him that the sentiments of the Planning Commission to
limit the access to Route 649 are appropriate. He agrees with the Planning Commission's
comments, generally.
Mr. Bowie commented that he thinks any development in the Airport area will use Route
29, but the question is how the people get onto Route 29. He is not sure how this will be
done. Mr. Lindstrom said one of his biggest concerns about Route 29 is the amount of side
friction which has been created by a number of curb cuts. It seems to him in this case that
if intensive use of this parcel is going to be considered, it is appropriate to limit the
August 20, 1986 (RegularNi~tMeeting)
207
access until improvements on Route 29 are, in fact, done that address the existing problems.
He stated that this access should be limited to Route 649 where there is an existing cross-
over that is a control point with a signal light, and he thinks there is merit in that
suggestion by the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Horne if he knew what the distance is from the crossover to the
control light. Mr. Horne answered that the crossover is approximately 1300 to 1400 feet from
the control light.
Mr. Fisher said that a comment was made in the report that rezoning for industrial
designations for sites of 50 acres or more should be accomplished under a planned development
zoning designation accompanied by a transportation analysis plan. This is not the only piece
of land that is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Light Industrial. If this starts to
develop as individual developments on large pieces of land, it seems to him that the Board
will have to deal with the same kinds of issues that it has had to deal with in shopping
centers such as Pantops and others, trying not to have them develop piecemeal but in an
overall plan. If this zoning goes through, Mr. Fisher feels that all opportunity would be
lost to require such an overall plan. On this parcel, there could be ten or twenty different
uses, all of which are permitted under Light Industrial, but not necessarily planned. He is
concerned about that kind of development on Route 29, next to the Airport in this critical
area. Mr. Horne said Mr. Fisher may be correct. He thinks any prudent owner of this much
industrial land would think long and hard about the way he lays out individual lots. He does
agree with Mr. Fisher, however, that it would be much easier to do and certainly would be
more binding if it could be done under a planned industrial park concept. He thinks this
would be preferable to straight LI zoning or individual smaller acreage rezonings. He thinks
that in terms of long term industrial development, it is very difficult for someone who owns
acreage in which he thinks there will be multiple uses to come in with much confidence in
some sort of a binding plan that speaks about uses. It is difficult to project what the
market will bring to a particular piece of land. If you bind yourself to uses, inevitably
those uses have to be amended or some acceptable industrial uses have to be eliminated. In
terms of the site layout, he agrees that it would be much better to do this type of zoning
under a planned concept. The Commission made this point also. The Commission felt it would
be ideal if Mr. Wright could at some point in the future get agreements with adjoining
property owners and/or additional acreage and could bring it under one proposal.
Mr. Fisher commented that Mr. Wright may not be able to control that. But, on a parcel
of land that is within 1.8 acres~ he is wondering if the Board should consider whether a
planned concept would be a better designation. This is what the Comprehensive Plan recom-
mends for planned development for light industrial. Mr. Horne said that Mr. Fisher has a
good point. It may be a better designation, but it is hard to know if there will be multipl(
uses. The Comprehensive Plan concept assumes multiple uses on the property. He said that
one large operation on 48 acres could use the great majority of the property. However, he
thinks on Route 29 North, in the future, there will be smaller uses. He agrees that 48 acres
could accommodate a number of different uses which would be better accomplished under a
planned proposal.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about something that is not really relevant to this
application except that it relates to the Light Industrial zone, and that is that there are
many uses shown in Light Industrial that really are not industrial. Sometimes when a parcel
is rezoned for industrial there are a lot of uses that are not job productive, or they are
very low intensity types of uses of the land, and it wastes the industrial zone. Mr. Horne
said the Commission felt that no matter what is done to Route 29 North, it will never be a
particularly good access to an interstate system for a heavy trucking type use. He thinks
that there will be smaller uses that don't have the same needs of the traditional large-scal(
manufacturing located close to Route 29 North. He believes that what is being said about
planned development is very appropriate.
Mr. Fisher asked what specific designation in the Zoning Ordinance, if applied to this
property, would encourage long-range planning for its development. Mr. Horne replied that
Planned Development-Industrial Park would probably be the best designation. He pointed out
large acreage across the road from the property that is being discussed, and said that that
piece of property is in that designation.
Mr. Horne commented that he believes the Commission would be supportive of that general
notion in this entire area as much as possible, recognizing that each property is not ideall~
suited to that approach.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about rezoning this parcel of land at this time. He
thinks that Board members have to remember the position that the Board took a year or so ago
in response to the Highway Department. In looking at the problems on Route 29 North the
Highway Department said that the Board had an impossible situation facing it in the long run.
The Highway Department reported that the only way short of major structural improvements or
bypasses that would help the Route 29 North situation would be smaller projects, which
everybody has been advocating, and a review and reduction of intensity of land use proposed
for the portion of Route 29 North where zoning has not taken place, but is shown in the
Comprehensive Plan. He thinks the reason the Board took the action that it did was out of
recognition that there really is no big project that the Board sees coming along in the
forseeable future that will alleviate future problems on Route 29, and a recognition that th.
Highway Department's recommendation really had some veracity to it. The Highway Department
is looking at projections based upon current land use planning for that area. If the Board
sticks to that land use planning, then according to the Highway Department's figures, the
Board has bought itself a long-range problem that will get much worse than it is now. He
urged the Board to remember the reason that the resolution was adopted regarding a review of
the land use patterns on Route 29 North. He said that the Board has to remember that every
time there is consideration of a change in the plan, developers want a lot of zoning left in
that they now have, so that it does not get changed when the planning changes. That is
reasonable for a private property owner, but by the same token, he thinks it is unreasonable
for the County, anticipating the review that is about ready to begin, to allow developers
without specific proposals on major tracts that are central to that area, to lock in zoning
August 20, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
which they don't now have. He thinks what needs to be remembered is that the Board should
not commit itself until it has had a chance to allow the review of the Comprehensive Plan
that is now scheduled. That is the position that the Board has taken before, and he thinks
there is a good reason for it. The overall problem will not go away if the Board starts
making commitments to property owners by rezoning major tracts that the Board knows will
generate substantial additional traffic. He does not think that rezoning this property at
this time is a comprehensive decision but a piecemeal decision.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne if there would be anything that would create a problem, if
the Board considered placing the PD-IP designation on this parcel. Mr. Horne answered that
he did not know of anything, but the general procedure is that a plan would be presented to
the Board as part of the rezoning. This has not been done, but looking at the general,
physical attributes of the parcel and its location, he believes that the parcel of land woul¢
lend itself very well to that concept. There are a number of options in terms of internal
configurations for access, and there are options to be considered in terms of uses. He is
thinking more about the large parcel, because the small parcel is separate in terms of its
suitability for something like that.
Mr. Fisher then asked if there needs to be a plan in order for the property to be
rezoned as PD-IP, if the Board decides that this is the way to go. Mr. Horne answered,
"yes," that is how to rezone into that category. The plan has to be adopted, and there is nc
plan yet.
Mr. Fisher said this is a large parcel in a prominent location in relation to the
Airport, the highway and the Hollymead community. It seems to him that this designation
would be a superior way of doing that. It seems to him that the road access, the issue of
the sewer and other matters could be dealt with, if there were an effort made to plan the use
of this property prior to the County making a commitment to rezone it. He could support this
rezoning under such a proposal because he thinks this might be best. He does no~ agree with
holding up the rezoning action for the Comprehensive Plan review. He thinks that by law
these things have to be considered as they come along. Mr. Lindstrom disagreed with Mr.
Fisher.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the different discussions make sense, however, the Board has al
application in front of it. He MOVED that ZMA-86-02 be approved with the proffer of July 2,
1986. He believes it is in line with the Comprehensive Plan, and this is a request to do
what the Comprehensive Plan indicates should be done.
Mr. Henley asked if it was proper to ask the applicant his feelings or for the applican~
to make any comments on what Mr. Fisher has suggested. Mr. Fisher said it is proper, except
that the applicant has not had much time to think about it. However, if he wants to answer,
it will be fine.
Mr. Roudabush answered that with respect to the multi-use of this property, he could no'
give the Board any definite answers, because he is not the applicant. He is only his repre-
sentative at this meeting. From what he can understand there have only been single users
looking at the property in the past. Their concern has always been that the money would not
be spent for planning and developing preliminary site plans until the zoning is in place.
The users know the history of procedures in Albemarle County to accomplish site plans, and
people are not going to risk the time and effort until they are sure of the zoning.
Mr. Henley asked Mr. Roudabush if he meant that the user would use the whole tract, and
Mr. Roudabush said so far as he is aware this is correct. Mr. Roudabush went on to say that
some other people may have looked at it for a little bit of acreage, but he thinks the real
interest has been expressed by people who would be interested in the majority of the tract.
Mr. Fisher said he feels strongly that this property should not develop piecemeal, and
Mr. Roudabush's assurances are good, but he cannot control what may happen. He wondered if
conditional approval was given for PD-IP based on having a plan in hand by a reasonable time
would this give the users more assurance about what is going to happen?
Mr. Roudabush said he thinks it would open options for the owner to develop some conver.
sation with the people who have shown interest whether or not they are single or multi-users
It is hard when there is only speculation involved. Mr. Fisher said, by the same token,
rezoning on this parcel that Mr. Roudabush is representing, will be as speculative as any-
thing else. Mr. Roudabush said it is a parcel of land that would be zoned Light Industrial,
with a list of users by right. If there is a plan, the Board would have to guess who the
users are going to be to come up with the traffic analysis and what water and sewer require-
ments are, etc., and that is more speculative than conventional zoning. Mr. Fisher agreed
that it does make the owner think about these things. He asked if a designation could be
done without a plan. Mr. Payne stated that there should be a plan. He said that the zoning
district isn't meaningful in the absence of a plan.
Mr. Fisher said he was thinking about conditioning it upon providing a plan which would
be approved by the Board. Mr. Payne said the difficulty of that is that the plan is integra2
to the action itself. To approve the concept subject to the approval of the plan at a later
date could be a problem. It may be that any plan that would be acceptable to the developer
would be unacceptable to the Board. Mr. Fisher then asked, providing this is what the Board
wants to accomplish, if the Board's only action would be to defer or deny this petition. Mr
Payne answered, "yes."
Mrs. Cooke asked if it would be appropriate, in the absence of the applicant and his not
being privileged to this conversation, to defer this and let the applicant make a decision as
to whether he wants to change his application. She feels uncomfortable trying to make a
decision on this with the applicant not being here and not having the opportunity to look at
this application, in light of Mr. Fisher's proposal. The proposal could very well be some-
thing attractive to the applicant.
August 20, 1986 '(Regular NightMeeting)
Mr. Henley commented that he could see a problem of doing something with a small site.
If a person has a bigger acreage of land, he could plan at least part of it where he knew he
would get those uses, but it could still be a problem.
Mr. Fisher said there are several hundred more acres of land adjacent to this, and as
the area becomes more congested, the Board will have more and more pressure as to why this
was not controlled and better planned. He feels that if industrial zoning is started south
of Airport Road, the Board will probably be sorry.
Mr. Henley does not feel that the applicant should be held up on his rezoning just
because some more applications will be coming. He is sure the staff and Planning Commission
will scrutinize the site plan whenever it is submitted. He can support the rezoning. Mr.
Fisher's concern with the rezoning is that it tells the next person that he can do the same
thing. Mr. Henley disagreed. He said if someone came in with one hundred acres, he could
support making that person come in with a different plan. Mr. Lindstrom added that this is
test case. He said it would be difficult to distinguish 60 acres from 100 acres when the
Board gets down to denying someone Light Industrial rezoning, if a comprehensive approach is
desired. Mr. Henley pointed out that this parcel of land is a fraction smaller than what is
recommended as minimum acreage.
Mr. Lindstrom said that in view of lack of a second to the motion, he would MOVE to
defer this action to give the representative time to consult with the applicant and let the
Board know if he is willing to consider a PD-IP approach or wants to stick with his original
proposal.
Mr. Henley said he would second Mr. Bowie's motion. Mr. Bowie said he thought his
motion was dead and asked Mr. Fisher for a ruling from the Chair. Mr. Fisher responded that
usually when there is not a second, the motion dies.
Mr. Lindstrom said his position is as he stated it, but he can see that there is not
very much support for that. He feels that if rezoning is going to be done, it is too big a
piece of land to leave open, in the sense that it would be with just a straight rezoning.
thinks there is a lot of benefit to be gained in requiring the comprehensive approach. He
understands the problems, but the Board has demonstrated in the past a great willingness to
be flexible about the amendment of plans when that has been necessary. He thinks the Board
needs to have a little more input on this major piece of property that is a key part of this
section of the highway than it would have on a straight rezoning. That is why he would like
to give the applicant time to address this approach. Mr. Lindstrom then made a motion to
defer the action until the first meeting in September to give the applicant time to respond
to tonight's comments. Mrs. Cooke seconded this motion. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Way
Mr. Horne stated, that from the staff's point of view, they would prefer having the
action deferred until September 10. Mr. Roudabush agreed. Mr. Lindstrom said he would
amend his motion to defer action until September 10. Mrs. Cooke agreed. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-86-03. G. Thomas or Brenda Forloines. To rezone 3.71 acres
from C-1 to HC. Property on east of Route 29 North about 400 feet north of intersection
Westfield Road (deferred from July 2, 1986).
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Petition: G. Thomas Forloines petitions the Board of Supervisors to rezone
3.71 acres from C-I, Commercial, to HC, Highway Commercial. Property,
described as Tax Map 61Z, Parcel 03-2, is located on the east side of Route
29 North, south and west of Branchlands PUD in the Charlottesville Magis-
terial District.
Background: This property, zoned commercially since 1968, was initially
developed with a 5000 square foot restaurant. Over the years two additional
warehouse-type buildings were constructed toward the rear of the property.
Current building area is about 17,500 square feet, housing several (+6)
commercial uses. The property has been subject of four special use permit
petitions. Three petitions were approved (Isotemp was withdrawn).
Character of the Area: In addition to the three buildings, the site is
developed with 168 parking spaces. A tree buffer has been maintained along
the north and east of the site. All properties in the immediate area are
zoned commercial. The Westfield commercial subdivision to the south and
Mary Patricia Brown commercial subdivision across Route 29 North are zoned
C-1 Commercial. Property to the north and east in Branchlands PUD is
designated for development with C-1 Commercial and CO Commercial Office
USES.
Comprehensive Plan: The 1983 Comprehensive Plan recognized existing devel-
opment patterns and recommends continuation of commercial development along
Route 29 North. Except for Comdial and Sperry, all property frontages along
both sides of Route 29 North from Hydraulic Road to the South Fork Rivanna
August 20, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
River are zoned commercial. The vast majority of this zoning is HC, Highway
Commercial and PD-SC, Planned Development-Shopping Center. The Comprehen-
sive Plan does not distinguish between this area and other commercial areas
along Route 29 North. This area is, however, established as a re-
tail/service commercial area as opposed to highway-oriented commercial area
on the 1980 zoning map.
Statements of Intent: Commercial Zoning Districts: The HC, Highway Commer-
cial, District is intended 'to permit development of commercial estab-
lishments other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway loca-
tions rather than central business concentrations. It is intended that HC
districts be established on major highways within the urban area and commu-
nities in the comprehensive plan.' Regulations are also intended to provide
for 'controlled access to public streets,' and Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation has made specific recommendations in that
regard.
The C-1 Commercial District is intended 'to permit selected retail sales,
service and public use establishments which are primarily oriented to
central business concentrations.'
Staff Comment: As stated earlier, this area has been designated as the
major area of C-1 zoning on Route 29 North (Westfield east and west; Mary
Patricia Brown property, Branchlands PUD). This site is central within this
concentration. Of concern is the extent to which approval of this rezoning
petition would change the character of the area and set precedent for
similar requests:
Highway Commercial zoning has been established along Greenbrier Drive
on the west side of Route 29 North. In both of these rezonings, uses
were severely limited through proffers.
In both cases, effort was made to tailor these rezonings to limit
traffic generation and to be compatible to surrounding development (for
example, prohibition on outdoor storage of building materials and
storage of large vehicles).
Under HC zoning the Forloines property would enjoy 40 by-right uses.
Of these, the following would be uses that are not permitted at all or
not permitted by right, in the C-1 zone.
a. automobile laundries
b. building materials sales
c. feed and seed stores
d. hotels, motels and inns (by special permit in C-l)
e. light warehousing
f. machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
g. mobile home and trailer sales and service
h. motor vehicle sales, service and rental (sales and rental by
special permit in C-i)
i. newspaper publishing
j. sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles
k. wayside stands
1. wholesale distribution
m. heating oil sales and distribution
n. education, technical and trade schools
o. factory outlet sales - fabric and clothing
p. fire extinguisher and security products - sales and service
q. home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning,
exterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance
services
r. modular building sales
s. office and business machine - sales and service
t. fast food restaurant (by special permit in C-l; drive-in
window requires special permit in HC).
'Wholesale distribution' and 'motor vehicle rental' have already been estab-
lished on the Forloines property through special use permit approvals.
Limited 'processing', a use not permitted in either the C-1 or HC zones, has
also been established by special use permit. A factory clothing outlet
exists on the site as a nonconforming use. Therefore, under current zoning,
the Forloines property enjoys a wider selection of uses than other C-1
properties in the area.
The C-1 and HC zones are intended for different purposes and thereby result
in commercial areas different in character. While certain HC uses would be
consistent to the retail/service character of the C-1 zone, other HC uses
would alter the character of a C-1 area.
Summary and Recommendation: Staff opinion is that:
1)
Existing zoning provides reasonable use of the property. In fact, this
property enjoys more uses than permitted in the C-1 zone;
2)
This site is within the major concentration of C-1 zoning established
along Route 29 North on the 1980 zoning map. While other HC rezonings
have been approved in the area, the applicants proposed specific uses
and tailored these rezoning petitions to result in commercial develop-
ment not inconsistent with the character of the area.
Based on these comments, staff recommends denial of this rezoning request."
211
August 20, 1986 (Regular NightMeeting)
(Page 8)
"This petition was originally scheduled for Planning Commission hearing on
June 17, 1986. The staff report recommended denial of unrestricted HC,
Highway Commercial, zoning on the property. The applicant requested defer-
ral and has subsequently submitted a proffer limiting usage of the property.
Applicant's Proffer: The C-1 zone has 39 explicit 'by right' uses and the
HC zone has 40 explicit 'by right' uses. The applicant's proffer would
limit the property to 24 'by right' uses. The applicant's proffer also
prohibits certain uses by special use permit. Since such uses require
specific approval, no discussion is offered in this report.
Of the 24 uses: ten uses are permitted by right in the C-1 zone; four uses
are permitted by special use permit in the C-1 zone; three uses have been
established on the property (wholesale distribution, motor vehicle rental,
factory outlet sales). The 11 uses to be gained by rezoning are:
a. Educational, technical, and trade schools
b. Fire extinguisher and security products - sales/service.
c. Home and business service
d. Hotels, motels, inns (special use permit in C-l)
e. Light warehousing
f. Machinery and equipment - sales, service, rental (previously
permitted in C-1 zone with approval of Daley's Rent-All)
g. Motor vehicle sales (special use permit in C-l)
h. New automotive parts
i. Office and business machines - sales and service
j. Fast food restaurant (special use permit in C-l)
k. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles.
Staff Comment: The staff's comment will focus on the 11 uses to be gained
by rezoning. Some of these are relatively small scale uses which could be
accommodated in existing buildings. Certain uses involve outdoor storage/-
display and have historically been difficult to control.
Staff opinion is that with the proffer on limitation of usage, and consider-
ing other existing uses in the immediate area, the character of the area
would not be substantially changed by approval of this rezoning. Staff
recommends approval.
Additional Comment: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
recommended modification of access to this site. Staff did not recommend
such modification previously due to detrimental on-site effects including
loss of parking and circulation problems. Any intensification of usage
would require site plan approval at which time access would be addressed."
"July 2, 1986
Albemarle County Office Building
Department of Planning and Community Development
Att: Ron Keeler
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Ron:
I hereby proffer to delete the following uses in Highway Commercial Zone in
conjunction with ZMA-86-03:
1. Automobile laundries.
2. Automobile, truck repair shops.
3. Automobile service stations.
4. Building materials sales.
5. Churches, cemeteries.
6. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic.
10. Feed and seed stores.
13. Fire and rescue squad stations.
14. Funeral homes
23. Mobile home and trailer sales and service.
25. Modular building sales.
27. Newspaper publishing.
31. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
33. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce.
35. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding
multi-legged tower structures and including poles, lines, trans-
formers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of
local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water
distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water
supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter
10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law.
36. Public uses and buildings such as schools, offices, parks, play-
grounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or
federal agencies; public water and sewer transmission, main or
trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like,
owned/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
39. Heating oil sales and distribution.
August 20, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
24.2.2
2.
3.
5.
6.
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Septic tank sales and related service.
LivestOck sales.
Drive-in theaters.
Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related
towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and
radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and
appurtenances.
Sincerely,
(Signed) G. Thomas Forloines"
Mr. Horne stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 22, recommended
denial by a vote of five to one of this petition. He thinks that the Commission generally
felt that there were sufficient opportunities to use this property under existing zoning.
There were a number of uses in addition to the normal uses under C-1 zoning, and they were
available to the site. These were reasonable uses to be expected on this site. He pointed
out the location of the site to the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that he has a client who is a tenant in one of these buildings.
He is not sure if this is technically a conflict, but he wouldn't want anyone to construe his
action to be any action to protect his client. He will abstain from participation.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne to explain what was meant in the staff report about some of
the uses under HC being particularly hard to control. Mr. Horne responded that in this
particular area there are a number of uses that have outdoor storage such as motor vehicle
sales or machinery sales and rental. It has been difficult to control the location, extent
and nature of the outdoor storage. They are highway-oriented businesses and, therefore, are
interested in having their products viewed from the highway.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Forloines stated that one of the things that Mr. Horne had read to the Board was
that "it is intended that Highway Commercial districts be established on major highways
within the urban area and communities in the Comprehensive Plan." He pointed out on the map
the commercial area where his property is located, and said that it is on a major highway.
Through the proffers he tried to take out what he would not want to see in that area. He
said that he would be happy to offer, as another proffer, that he would take ou~ the
drive-through restaurant. He told the Board that if the members had any problem with fast
food restaurants, he would like to have a chance to discuss it. He said he would not want t¢
proffer that he would not have a fast food restaurant, but he would be willing to consider
it. He felt that the Planning Commission did not want to do anything contrary to the Highwa~
Department. Another thing that seemed to bother the Planning Commission was not being
assured what would be put in that area. He pointed out that the Commission knows that 39
things can go in there now, and that 24 can go at a later time. He tried to knock out every
one that he thought could cause problems. It was not his intention to leave in mobile homes,
and he is willing to proffer to take them out, if the Board so wishes. He stated that he is
trying to do what he thinks the Board wants done, and he does not feel as though he is in
conflict with the zoning map.
Mr. Fisher asked if Board members had questions for Mr. Forloines, and there were none.
He then asked if there were other persons who wished to speak. Since no one wished to speak,
Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing at 8:53 p.m.
Mrs. Cooke said that this property is in her district, and she doesn't have any problems
with what Mr. Forloines is asking. However, she asked Mr. Forloines if he had more land in
that area to develop. Mr. Forloines answered, "no." He said that he only has 3.7 acres, and
there is not very much more that could be built on that spot because of the amount of land
and parking spaces required. He has been told by either Planning or Zoning that something
else could be built, but when it is built, there would be hard scrutinizing done as to what
is taking place in regard to the site plan and how the highway would be affected. He said
that there are no plans at this time for any more building to take place.
Mr. Fisher asked what it is that Mr. Forloines wants to do that he cannot do under the
C-1 zoning. Mr. Forloines replied that he is losing tenants because of the zoning. He said
that he lost a small construction company that would have stored everything inside except fo~
three trucks. He had another person who wanted the right to park three used cars on the
front and four or five on the back where they couldn't be seen from the road, and he could
not rent to him. He feels that someday someone is going to come by with one of the other
uses and will want to purchase the whole property, and he thinks it will be worth more at
that time. He knows he could have filled his place if he had had this zoning in the begin-
ning. He said he really didn't want service stations, but there are some within 100 feet of
his property.
Mr. Fisher said that the proffer is very difficult. He mentioned that there are three
buildings, and the first two have to be passed before the third one can be reached. He is
familiar with the area and has done business with some of the tenants over the years. He
said that Mr. Forloines has tied this down by restricting it, but it does create spot zoning~
because it would be the only Highway Commercial on that whole frontage. It gives him some
concern. He said that if other people saw this on the map, the zoning could be extended the
whole length of Route 29. He asked where Highway Commercial is recommended in the Comprehen-
sive Plan. Mr. Horne said it does not have locational criteria, outside of the ones that arc
listed in the staff reports, along major highways. In a practical sense, it is located alone
Route 29, but the side streets are either C-1 or C-0. He said that Highway Commercial is
basically on Route 29 North where, in practice, the major highway criteria has been applied.
August 20, 1986 (Regular NightMeeting)
~ 10) ~
?....!3
Mr. Henley agreed with Mr. Fisher, and said that there would surely be another request
coming in if this one is approved. Mr. Bowie asked if something was zoned HC now, with a
proffer, and another request came in without a proffer, would it have some precedent? Mr.
Payne answered that he thought it would have some significance. He thinks that the fact that
it is limited by the proffer would have a limiting effect on the precedent, but when a
decision is made to change the color on the map, that will have some precedential effect on
the next request.
Mrs. Cooke said that Mr. Forloines' willingness to limit this in the manner in which he
has is appealing to her. She made a motion that the Board grant Mr. Forloines' request by
approving ZMA-86-03 for his parcel of land on Route 29 North, with the proffer. Mr. Henley
said the problem he has with this land is that it is currently being used as C-l, and is
practically fully developed. He said if it was a raw piece of land, it would be different.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was a second to the motion, and there was none. The Chair ruled
that the motion was dead. Mr. Fisher asked for another motion.
Mr. Henley offered motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the
motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher and Henley.
NAYS: Mrs. Cooke
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-86-41. Kenneth L. Browning. To locate a single-wide mobile home
on two acres zoned RA. Property located on west side of Route 717, about three-tenths of a
mile southwest of its intersection with Route 630. Tax Map 119, Parcel 5lA. Scottsville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress August 5 and August 12, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area:
This property is heavily wooded with mature and young trees, most of which
are deciduous. Within a one-half mile radius, there are no mobile homes.
A description of land uses along Route 717 from the intersection with Route
630 for a distance two miles south follows:
Most of this road segment is heavily wooded.
Approximately six dwellings are visible from the west side of Route
717, directly north and south of the subject property.
South of this area is undeveloped with the exception of fourteen lots
located 1.5 mile distant.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to locate the mobile home about
115 feet from the Route 717 right-of-wa~ (front property line), about 300
feet from the rear property line, and a minimum of about 25 feet from either
side.
Objection to this petition comes from the owners of the undeveloped property
across Route 717 from this site, who ar~ concerned with an influx of tran-
sient housing.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff
recommends the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Maintenance of a buffer to reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator along Route 717 to screen mobile home from the public
road."
. at
Mr Horne said the Planning Commission, its meeting on August 12, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-86-41 with the conditions set out in the staff's report.
Since Board members did not have questions for Mr. Horne, Mr. Fisher opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Browning handed out pictures to the Board of the mobile home from different angles.
Mr. Fisher asked if the mobile home is on the site already, and Mr. Browning answered, "no."
Mr. Fisher asked if his son would occupy the mobile home, and Mr. Browning answered, "yes."
A neighbor of Mr. Browning's said she own~ the land next to Mr. Browning on Route 717
and Route 630 behind him, and she has known th~ Brownings for several years. When Mr.
Browning bought this land it was burnt over, sO he had to pull up stumps and cut down trees.
He has now built a house and planted shrubbery and trees and sowed grass. He has done a lot
with the property. She has no fears that he will damage the property in any way. It is fin~
with her if he puts a trailer on it.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak.
to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Since no one else
August 20, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting) IPa e 11
Mr. Henley offered motion to approve SP-86-41 subject to the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way
(Note: The Conditions of approval are as follows: )
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Maintenance of a buffer to reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Admini-
strator along Route 717 to screen mobile home from the public road.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-86-42. Saponi Corporation. To convert cafeteria/lodge structure
into a church on 13.459 acres zoned RA. Located east of Route 29 North, near the Greene
County line. Tax Map 21, Parcel 32B· Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on August 5 and August 12, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Petition: The Saponi Corporation petitions the Board of Supervisors to
issue special use permit for a church (10.2.2.35) on 13.459 acres (in
Albemarle County) zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map 21,
Parcel 32B, is located on Route 1120 near the Greene County line in the
Rivanna Magiserial District.
Staff Comment: Camp Saponi consists of about 27 acres located in both
Albemarle and Greene Counties. The camp consists of 16 residential units, a
cafeteria/lodge and developed recreation areas. The Jehovah's Witnesses
propose to convert the cafeteria/lodge building to church use. Use of the
building would be limited to three worship services per week. Tuesday and
Thursday evening services are attended by about 70 people and Sunday morning
service is attended by about 100 people. Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation commented that 'the Department has no problems with this
request and the existing entrance on Route 1120 is adequate for this usage.'
Staff opinion is that a church in this location would not be obtrusive or
otherwise detrimental to the area and satisfies the criteria for special use
permit. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Seating capacity limited to 100 people;
Health Department verification that septic facilities are adequate
for proposed church use;
3. Staff approval of parking expansion."
Mr. Horne said the Commission, at its meeting on August 5, 1986, recommended approval
unanimously with the three conditions listed in the staff report. He pointed out the loca-
tion of the property on the map.
Mr. Henley asked why the seating capacity is limited to 100 people. Mr. Horne responded
that the seating capacity is limited because of the size of the building and the adequacy of
the site facilities there. Theoretically, conditions could be added such as improvements to
the site and also to the health system. The parking area is also limited. Mr. Henley stated
that it didn't seem as though there would be a problem parking with 27 acres. Mr. Horne said
it would not seem to be a problem on the face of it, but just past this property the land
gets very steep. It would physically be very difficult.~. However, a little more parking
could be put around the existing developed area.
Since there were no other questions for Mr. Horne, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing.
Mr. J. F. Bishop, the owner of the property, was present, and he agreed with the Plan-
ning Commission that this use of the land sounds very good and very possible.
Mr. Fisher asked if the camping activities have been discontinued, and Mr. Bishop said
that camping had continued throughout the summer, but a new camp has been planned on another
site. Mr. Fisher wanted to make sure the camp would not be in the way of people having
church services there, and Mr. Bishop said it would be on a separate piece of land.
Since Board members did not have questions, and no one else wished to speak, Mr. Fisher
closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve SP-86-42 with the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way
(Note:
1.
2.
The conditions of approval are as follows: Seating capacity limited to 100 people;
Health Department verification that septic facilities are
adequate for proposed church use;
Staff approval of parking expansion.
August 20, 1986 (RegularNight Meeting)
(paq~ 1~)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-86-44. Jan Spink/Irving Jones. To allow commercial stables on
50.9 acres zoned RA. Located on south side of Route 676, about one-half mile west of Route
660. Tax Map 44, Parcel 4F. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
August 5 and August 12, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The applicant is currently constructing a dwelling
and has constructed a substantial driveway into the property. Other parcels
in the area are generally comparable in size to this site.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to provide riding lessons and possi-
bly some boarding of horses in the future. Ms. Spink has substantial
education and experience in rehabilitation of neurologically impaired
persons and has incorporated horseback riding as a therapeutic measure. Ms.
Spink is hopeful of continuing this effort in Albemarle County where the
benefits of such a program could be made available to handicapped patients
and residents of the various hospitals, group homes, and agencies in the
area. Riding lessons would also be available to the general public. Ms.
Spink proposes to provide riding lessons to about 10 people per day on three
or four days of the week.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented that:
'This section of Route 676 is currently non-tolerable and the Department
does not support a request that would increase the traffic on a non-
tolerable road. Should this request be approved, as a minimum, a commercial
entrance with adequate sight distance can be obtained for the existing
private entrance. The Department recommends a site plan for this develop-
ment, should this request be approved, so that the access to the property
can be further reviewed.'
In 1984, this section of Route 676 carried 1067 vehicle trips per day while
the section east of Route 660 carried 2079 vehicle trips per day. A similar
condition exists to the west of the property where Route 676 between Route
614 and Route 601 carried 2879 vehicle trips per day. Traffic near this
site is comparable to traffic levels on Route 732 where a riding stable was
recently approved (SP-86-36 Francisco and Caroline Davila). Staff opinion
is that a reasonable limit on membership could adequately address concerns
about traffic on Route 676.
Staff opinion is that agriculturally-related uses of this character are
consistent with the Rural Areas zone and should be encouraged. Also, a
rehabilitative program as described by the applicant would be of particular
benefit to the County. With appropriate conditions to address concern over
Route 676, staff opinion is that the proposal will satisfy the criteria for
issuance of a special use permit. Staff recommends approval subject to:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Enrollment limited to fifty-five (55) persons;
Not more than one (1) horse show or other such event per
year open to the general public;
Compliance with 5.1.3 of the Zoning Ordinance:
5.1.3 Commercial Stable
a. Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be
covered and maintained with a material such as pine
bark to minimize dust and erosion;
b. Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall
be maintained at all times.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of a private street commercial entrance;
Staff approval of off-street parking;
Any grading plan to be reviewed by Watershed Management
Official in addition to review by County Engineer."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, on August 5, 1986, unanimously recommended
approval of the request, with Conditions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the staff's report, but
Condition ~1 to read: "Usage limited to not more than ten (10) clients per day." That is
adequate, in the staff's opinion, to address the same concern that the staff was attempting
to address, which is the traffic generation on Route 676.
The applicant was not present, so Mr. Fisher recommended that this matter be held until
the end of the meeting in anticipation that the applicant might arrive. Mr. Horne said he
knew the applicant was notified of this date.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-86-47. Encore Investors Limited Partnership. To amend SP-78-22
to extend all its uses to Tax Map 60A(1), Parcel 30, consisting of 0.627 acre zoned R-15 on
east side of Georgetown Road north of Georgetown Court Subdivision. Charlottesville Dis-
trict. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 5 and August 12, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Background: In 1978, Great Eastern Management controlled 21.6 acres zoned
R-3. The R-3 zone permitted twenty dwelling units by right with higher
densities allowed by special use permit. Great Eastern sought special use
permit in order to develop at lower densities adjacent to existing subdivi-
sions while retaining ability to develop at higher densities adjacent to
existing apartment development. A meeting was held among area residents,
August 20, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Great Eastern Management, and Planning staff at which development proposals
were further refined. (Areas adjacent to existing subdivisions have subse-
quently been developed). On June 14, 1978 the Board of Supervisors approved
SP-78-22 subject to four conditions.
Later, SP-78-22 was amended to authorize a day-care center and delete
certain recreation uses. Under that second petition (SP-79-08) additional
conditions were added.
Staff Comment: The property originally subject to SP-78-22 will be referred
to as the Mowinckel tract and property proposed to be added under this
petition will be referred to as the Ross tract.
The Mowinckel tract was approved for 475 dwelling units and 8000 square feet
of offices. Under current zoning, the Ross tract could theoretically be
developed with nine dwelling units. The Ross tract is proposed to be
incorporated with the Mowinckel tract to provide greater flexibility in site
design. No more intensive development than authorized under SP-78-22 is
sought; the applicant seeks to make the Ross tract subject to all uses
permitted under SP-78-22. Virginia Department of Highways and Transport-
ation has recommended and the applicant has agreed to limit access to the
Ross tract to the approved entrance for the Commons at Georgetown with no
direct access from the Ross tract to Route 656. Staff recommends approval
of this petition subject to the ten current conditions together with the
addition of conditions 11 and 12:
11.
Access to the Ross tract limited to access as approved under SDP-84-062
(The Commons at Georgetown). No direct access from the Ross tract to
Route 656;
12.
Should the Ross tract be devoted to office usage, all requirements of
the CO district shall apply in relation to Georgetown Court (i.e.,
setback, screening, etc.)."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 5, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval subject to the 12 conditions set out in the staff report but adding ~13
to read: "County Engineer shall ensure that stormwater drainage from the Ross tract be
diverted to the Bennington channel."
Mr. Horne said at that Commission meeting, there was considerable discussion as to the
disposition of stormwater from this site. He pointed out the site on the map and described
other facilities in the area. Mr. Horne said that there was concern expressed by the resi-
dent across Georgetown Road as to the disposition of stormwater. The concern is that there
is already some drainage flowing off this property across Georgetown Road onto that piece of
property. The concern was that if this property is further developed, additional water will
be flowing toward that property. Under the site development plans approved for properties
adjacent to this, it was the original design and intention, and continues to be the intentiol
of the County Engineer, that when he approves the drainage plans for those proposals, a great
majority of that water will be diverted into the Bennington channel. There was discussion
about what level of water naturally flows into the watershed of the reservoir, and the cost
to the County not to divert water out of that watershed. He said Mr. Armm was at the meetin¢
and is more qualified to talk about how the water will be handled.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Armm if he thinks Condition No. 13 can be done. Mr. Michael Armm,
County Engineer, replied that from the plans that have been submitted, it is evident that th.
water would flow that way due to the way that Georgetown Road is presently laid out and
graded. Georgetown Road has become an artificial barrier for the water. Georgetown Road non
cuts off some of the flow that by nature would go to the watershed and be diverted to the
Bennington channel. This project, being on an uphill side, would also be diverted because of
the roadway.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Don Wagner, representing the applicant, mentioned the following letter which had
been forwarded to the Board:
"August 13, 1986
At your meeting on August 20, you will consider our request to bring a 0.627
acre parcel we have purchased under the provisions of SP-78-22. The new
parcel, referred to in the Planning Department's staff report as the Ross
Property, is on Georgetown Road and is adjacent to and north of Georgetown
Court. Originally, SP-78-22 covered the 23 acre Mowinckel estate. It was
later expanded to include the Lemuel Ross Estate, which we purchased to gain
additional access to Georgetown Road. Under this permit we agreed to and
have developed Bennington Woods and Georgetown Court at relatively low
densities along the two borders of the property adjacent to existing single
family areas (Solomon Road and Bennington Court). In return, we have
approval to build apartments or townhouses at greater densities, plus up to
8000 sq. ft. of office space, on the remainder of the property. The total
development is considerably less than we would have been allowed by right
under the zoning in effect when we purchased the property. We propose to
add .627 acre parcel, currently zoned R-15, with no increase in our already
approved development rights.
217
August 20, 1986 (Regular.Night Meeting)
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of our request subject to
three recommendations, two of which pose no problem for us. The third is a
recommendation that any office use on the property be set back 50' from the
boundary between the property and Georgetown Court. The purpose of this
letter is to request that you not accept this recommendation. Under current
zoning, the required setback from the property line is either 15 or 20 feet,
depending upon whether it is considered a side or a rear line. We are
willing to provide a 20 foot building setback, with extra screening as
detailed below.
During development of Georgetown Court, we graded in such a manner as to
provide a screening berm along the side of the Georgetown Court property
adjacent to the Ross property. Except for a taper to original grade at
Georgetown Road, this berm is three to five feet high. Further screening
was provided by white pines and other planting, some on the Georgetown Court
property and some on the Ross property.
If we decide to build any of the already approved office space on the Ross
property, we are willing to extend this berm at its present height to a
distance five feet on our side of the property line, and to provide white
pines or other acceptable plantings as screening on the top of the berm.
Also, we are willing to limit the amount of office space to a net of 6000
sq. ft. previously approved, and, as stated above, to honor a 20 foot
building setback line from Georgetown Court. Finally, we offer to make the
architectural design of the building residential in nature.
We submit that inasmuch as the entire motive for our special use permit in
1978 was to provide a relatively low density buffer for the existing neigh-
borhoods, we should not be penalized by a requirement for buffering in
excess of that required by ordinance in an area that has always been intend-
ed to be the high density portion of the project.
Also, we should not in effect be penalized for what we consider was appro-
priate and considerate action toward Mrs. Bessie Ross, previous owner of the
property. When we acquired the adjacent land from the Lemuel Ross estate,
we learned that the house Mrs. Ross owned and lived in was divided by the
property line, and mostly on our property. We arranged a land swap whereby
she was able to stay, and have spent the last three years trying to find
another house satisfactory to Mrs. Ross. Had we evicted her and included
development of her property as a part of the overall development of the
Mowinckel site, setback would not have become an issue.
We would appreciate it if any of you who have an opportunity would take the
time to ride by the property prior to the Board meeting. You will see that
the present trees and bushes, some of which are overgrown and in need of
attention, provide a great deal of screening between the properties.
Whether we ultimately develop the property as office space or residential
space, it will be properly maintained and will be an asset to the neighbor-
hood. We thank you for your consideration, and will be glad to answer any
questions you may have, either before or at the Board meeting on August 20.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Donald J. Wagner
Great Eastern Management Company, Inc."
Mr. Wagner said that Mr. Horne had already told the Board where the Ross property is,
but he has always described it as the yellow house with the junk cars in the driveway. Mrs.
Ross had a stepson who drove a wrecker and he would bring in inoperative cars and work on
them. It has been unsightly for a while. He mentioned that one or two uses are probable foI
this property. One would be an extension of The Commons at Georgetown, which is a townhouse
for sale project that he expects to be starting this fall. They have held up on starting The
Commons for about two years while his company has been trying to buy the Ross property
because they felt it was detrimental to put nice houses behind it. The other option would be
to put an office there for his company's use. The existing Special Use Permit for the
Mowinckel tract allows up to 8000 square feet of office space. In the letter to the Board,
his company proffered no more that 6000 square feet of office space with a residential
appearance to the building and screening between this property and Georgetown Court. He
pointed out that when Georgetown Court was originally built some screening was provided on
the Georgetown Court side of the property line. The screening would continue onto the Ross
property 'which they now own. He believes that the staff's recommendation for a 50 foot
setback comes from the section of the Ordinance that has to do with CO areas next to resi-
dential areas. Under CO zoning, offices, financial institutions, churches, libraries,
museums, and schools are allowed by right. These things can have ancillary uses such as
snack bars, etc. He submits that the office that his company is proposing and proffered for
this property is not nearly as objectionable as some of the uses that could be done in CO.
He also feels that an office such as they are proposing wouldn't be any more objectionable tc
neighbors than townhouses on the property. Mr. Wagner said that his company feels that the
setback requirement that applies under the R-15 zone is the appropriate setback requirement,
and he would like to stick with that.
Mr. Fisher asked what the setback requirement is in the R-15 zone. Mr. Wagner replied
that the setback requirement is either 15 feet or 20 feet. He is not sure which it is, but
they have proffered 20 feet. He said that his company wrote a letter to all of the
neighbors, and it was delivered to all of the people in Georgetown Court. He spoke to Mrs.
Blair, who lives across the street, because he knows she is always concerned about whatever
is being done there. Her main concern is the drainage. He said his company would have to
put in a pump to make the water go the way she would like for it to go, and they don't plan
August 20, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
to do that. He said he mentioned in his letter that this is an area which is high density
residential. His company bought the property next door where the current entrance is to
Georgetown Court from Mrs. Ross' father-in-law's estate. Most of Mrs. Ross' house was on the
property line, so they swapped with her so she could stay in the house. He said they have
been looking for a place for Mrs. Ross to live since then. Mr. Wagner believes that if his
company had come in with a plan at that time utilizing this property, that the question of
setback requirements would have never come up. One other thing that he would like to
emphasize is that his company plans to build approximately 50 very nice townhouses for sale
behind this property, and they certainly do not plan to do anything detrimental to the
neighborhood. He hopes that the Board will approve his request with the one change of a 20
foot setback instead of a 50 foot setback.
Mr. Fisher said that if this property fronts on Georgetown Road, and Mr. Wagner is
planning to put commercial office facilities there, the access is limited. There will not be
access to this property from Georgetown.
Mr. Wagner responded that the current road going in to Old Dominion Day Care is in the
location where the paved road will be to serve The Commons of Georgetown, Old Dominion Day
Care, some apartments that have been approved, and also serve the Ross property. The
location on that road for future access into this property is shown on the approved highway
plan, even though they did not own the property at that time. To reach the property, you
must turn off of Georgetown Road into a wide road with a median and go 140 feet from
Georgetown Road to the entrance where either the townhouses or offices will be. Mr. Horne
explained that there is a service road into the rear of the larger property. He pointed out
this road to Board members. Mr. Fisher asked if there is room for a road there, and Mr.
Wagner answered that the road already exists. Mr. Wagner said that some of his company's
entities own all of the other parcels there.
Mr. John Little, representing Mrs. Gay Johnson Blair, spoke next. He said that Mrs.
Blair owns property right across Georgetown Road. Her property is located in the watershed
for the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The Mowinckel tract or the Westgate V Project and the
Ross tract are both on the edge of the watershed. From time to time water does drain onto
Mrs. Blair's property from these two properties. She has been concerned with the stormwater
and drainage consequences since this property was initially developed. The Westgate V
project and the Ross tract set on a ridge, and the land slopes down to Mrs. Blair's house.
There is a pond there, and two wells that are on her property. There are two natural drain-
age swales that.run down beside her house, and these have branches which flow into that pond
and ultimately feed into springs which flow into the Reservoir. Runoff is now a problem for
Mrs. Blair even with limited development of Westgate apartments. Her lake is already siltin¢
and water pours across the road in a storm. Sediment and silt come across the road and are
deposited on her property. Contamination of her well water did occur in December of 1984.
If this planned high density development occurs, there will be additional factors which will
affect runoff. Georgetown Road will be widened. There will be asphalt parking lots, loss o~
vegetation and there will be construction erosion. Large amounts of water, sediment and
pollutants will necessarily run off of this property and down onto hers, and the runoff
problem will be exacerbated. It is not just the view that is Mrs. Blair's concern, but there
is a real concern that she has for her property, and also for the Reservoir, the community
and the water supply. At present, the runoff from the Ross tract flows in two different
directions. It goes toward the Blair property and toward the Bennington channel and Meadow
Creek. When the developer obtained the original Special Use Permit for the Mowinckel tract,
concern was expressed by the Planning Commission over the runoff problem. He mentioned a
newspaper account of that meeting where Mr. Wagner said that his firm was studying the
possibility of diverting runoff from the property into the Bennington channel with an eye
toward improving that drainage channel. He continued quoting from the newspaper article
saying that County Engineer Maynard Elrod had warned Mr. Wagner and his firm that they were
asking for trouble. According to Mr. Little, Mr. Wagner added, in the news article, that nov
he thinks that Mr. Elrod was right because the paved ditch that runs by Bennington Terrace on
route to the channel is already filled to capacity during storms. Mr. Little said that at
the Planning Commission hearing on August 5, 1986, there was a condition that was attached
that the drainage had to go down the Bennington channel. At this same hearing, the County
Engineer stated that the plans that were proposed for Westgate V had gotten lost over the
last few years with no finalization, so now there is still a review for the Westgate V
drainage and runoff control. In short, Mr. Wagner said that the developers failed to submit
today a solution to the drainage problems which the Mowinckel tract would cause. He is
curious as to what these solutions are before the Board amends the existing Special Use
Permit. He and his client requested that the Board of Supervisors require that the amendment
of the Special Use Permit be conditioned on the approval of a runoff control plan for the
entire Westgate V project. He feels that it would be myopic to look at the Ross tract and
not look at the whole situation. Mrs. Blair is genuinely concerned about her land and water
quality of the Reservoir and wanted to call the Board's attention to these matters. In
regard to the 50 foot setback, Mrs. Blair's position is that, because of the rural character
right across the street from this property, it should apply rather than having buildings
jammed up on Georgetown Road.
Mr. Wagner said he assumes Mr. Little is an associate of the attorney who came down and
represented Mrs. Blair at the last meeting. He said that he had written this attorney a
letter after that meeting and told him that he had said a number of things to the Planning
Commission that were not entirely accurate. He also had asked to meet with the attorney
before the Board Meeting so they could discuss the situation. Mr. Wagner said that yester-
day, when he returned to his office, he had a message that the attorney had called. He
returned the call this morning, but was told that he was out of town and no one could tell
Mr. Wagner if anyone else from the firm planned to be at this meeting. He said that Mr.
Little is woefully misinformed. He said that there are mistakes/~at he has told the Board.
He mentioned that he had said in the letter that he did not think that it was appropriate to
use this meeting as a forum to debate these things.
Mr. Little commented that he did think it is a very appropriate time for debate, and
that is the purpose of a public hearing.
August 20, 1986 (Regular~qhtMeeting)
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Armm to address the comments made by both of the people who
spoken on this issue. Mr. Armm said the history of the projeCt that he received from his
staff is that The Commons at Georgetown, as planned, has an approved drainage plan with a
condition set by his predecessor that any off-site contribution would be made for
improvements to the Bennington channel. The Westgate V section does not have finalized
drainage plans or water runoff control plans.
Mr. Fisher commented that nothing would be built until those plans exist, and Mr. Armm
agreed. Mr. Armm said that the Ross tract, which is under question, has no site plan and no
detention plans. The Ross tract would be under detention control requirements, and the
Westgate V area would be under both runoff control and detention control because it is in
watershed. He said that actually the site itself would probably be split. The road plans
that were submitted have been approved by VDH&T. Mr. Armm said that as far as the comments
he made before the Planning Commission, it seems that over the years plans for Westgate V
have changed quite a bit and nothing was ever finalized. Submissions were made to the
Engineering Department but there were never any permits granted for the detention or the
runoff control. So now there is one area of the tract of this whole large development
approval for drainage, and there is no approval for the other portions. He thinks that the
Planning Commission believes that this whole thing should be tied together. He said that
the Ross tract to be developed, and since it is only six-tenths of an acre, more than likely
it will not be able to contain its own stormwater and detention basin. What may have to
happen is that water will have to be retained upstream from it on the Westgate V area. He
thinks it is a good suggestion that the plans be finalized for all sections of this develop-
ment as far as water runoff control and detention prior to construction of any of these
sections.
Mr. Lindstrom inquired as to how the road that will be constructed will slope. Mr.
answered that the road will slope toward Georgetown Road and an improved drainage scheme has
been placed at that intersection. There are approximately four drainage inlets planned, if
approved by the VDH&T. The water that is intercepted at the intersection will flow toward
the bank of the channel. Mr. Lindstrom asked if what Mr. Armm is suggesting is that there
already a requirement, either as part of the approval of Westgate or under the Runoff
and Stormwater Detention ordinances, independent of any other approval, that will require
development of a comprehensive plan for that area. Mr. Armm answered, "yes." Mr. Lindstrom
went on to say that the Ross tract is a separate tract. If this Board does not take action
to tie these two things together, is there any way that Mr. Armm would feel assured that the
review and the development of the plans would be tied together or is there no guarantee of
that? Mr. Armm responded that he feels the best way to do this is to have a comprehensive
plan for all of the drainage. He thinks of it as three sites, Westgate Apartments, The
Commons at Georgetown and the Ross tract. He thinks that these three places have to be tied
together. He thinks the applicant will find that out when he tries to deal with the Ross
tract individually. Since it is so small, he will probably have to do some compensation for
it on this other parcel.
Mr. Horne mentioned that what the staff is trying to do is tie this tract to the con-
ditions of SP-78-22 which covers the entire tract. The second condition of that is" County
Engineering department approval of adequate on-site and off-site drainage facilities." He
interprets that as once it is subject to all those conditions, it is certainly subject to No.
2, and it is all treated as one. Mr. Fisher wondered if the word !'drainage" is broad enough
to cover all of the staff's concerns. Mr. Armm replied that if the concern is worded as a
condition, he would like to include stormwater detention and water runoff control. He said
that complete stormwater control would probably take in all of the appurtenances besides the
detention itself. Mr. Horne clarified Mr. Armm's suggestion by saying that the condition
should say, "County Engineering approval of complete stormwater control plans and facili-
ties.'' Mr. Armm said that water runoff control also should be included, because the County
has two distinct ordinances, written in two separate sections of the County Code.
Mr. Lindstrom said that the Board needs to be absolutely clear that it is talking about
what the staff is talking about. His feeling is that both Mr. Wagner and Mr. Little should
have a chance to speak further if they wish, but his perception is that Great Eastern has in
the past and he presumes it will in the future be responsible about the way it does its
development. He also recognizes that Mrs. Blair is in a very vulnerable position on the
other side of that road. There might not be a problem from this one little piece, but he
does think that it does need to be tied together. He thinks this situation is particularly
pointing at her because her property is sitting across the watershed line from major develop-
ment that is of an urban character and because of the fact that it is in the watershed, she
has to maintain essentially low density rural Characteristic for her land. Because of this,
he thinks the Board needs to be particularly sensitive to the consequences of how this urban
type of development will affect her, because she does have the last remaining substantial
undeveloped tract on that side of the road.
Mr. Horne suggested again a condition that stated "County Engineering department
approval of adequate on-site and off-site stormwater control and stormwater detention plans
and facilities." Mr. Armm .asked Mr. Horne to change the condition to state, "stormwater
runoff control and stormwater detention." Mr. Horne said that if the Board chooses to amend
Condition two, his and Mr. Armm's statement would be appropriate.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this language that is proposed as an amendment to No..two will
then relate to the whole tract and will bind the previous approval. Mr. Horne replied,
"yes". He said it applies to all lands under SP-78-22, which is everything that has been
discussed, including the Ross tract, should the Board choose to approve its being brought
under this plan. Mr. Payne said this amendment should be applied to Condition No. 2 because
that condition, on its face, applies to the entire property.
Mr. Wagner said that Mr. Little had quoted him, and he would like to expand on that. He
said that when his firm came before the Planning Commission with Westgate V, his firm spent
quite a bit of time and quite a bit of money working with the County Engineer and others to
try to improve the channel behind the Bennington Court neighbors with the idea of rather than
spending money for stormwater detention at Westgate V, they would spend the money to improve
220
August 20, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 17)
the channel down there. After spending a lot of time on this, about two days before the
Planning Commission meeting, he caught the fact that the channels through the subdivision
next to Georgetown Court were not adequate to carry the extra water that his property would
put through there. Therefore, his firm came before the Planning Commission two days later
and Mr. Elrod verified the effort that Mr. Wagner's firm had put forth. At the last minute
they found that this would not work. As a result of Mr. Wagner's firm's efforts, the Plan-
ning Commission approved the plan subject to adding detention at Westgate V. That is when
Mr. Wagner said that his firm should have listened to Mr. Elrod in the first place. He
mentioned again that all Mr. Little had to go by was the sentence from the newspaper. Mr.
Wagner said that if his calls had been returned and his letter had been answered, the Board
would not have had to hear him say this.
Mr. Little said that what this means is that detention is probably going to be required
and because this is a high density development, that is why he is curious to know where this
detention facility will be put. That is the issue that he and his client are raising. They
want to be sure that everything is done in the proper manner, and that it does not end up
with a lot of nice plans on paper,~but with water flowing into the watershed. Mr. Fisher
said the Board is not prepared tonight to answer where everything will happen. The Board is
trying to make sure that somebody will figure out what is needed before construction. Mr.
Little replied that this also is his client's concern. Mr. Fisher said that if Mr. Little
thinks the Board is on the right track, maybe it can get on with a solution. Mr. Fisher ther
asked Mr. Wagner if he had any problems with the suggested amendment, and Mr. Wagner replied
that he did not. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Armm if all of his concerns had been covered, and Mr.
Armm answered, "yes."
At this point, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher stated that now the.Board is left with the questions that were raised about
the CO area. The applicant does not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation
No. 12. Mr. Fisher said that the applicant has offered a proffer to reduce the number of
square feet to be developed provided that the setbacks are reduced to 20 feet. He is not
sure what status a letter of proffer has with a separate special permit application, but it
occurs to him that if the Board wants to incorporate some of these conditions, it probably
should do it at one of the numbered conditions of the special permit.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne to show the Board where the berm is proposed to be
located. Mr. Horne showed the Board the Ross tract, the existing Georgetown Court develop-
ment, and then pointed out the berm area in relation to these areas. He said there is a berm
there now that is partially on the Georgetown Court property. His staff has looked at this a
couple of times, and he thinks the staff, after reviewing this, is in agreement that if the
applicant were to construct this three to five feet high berm, with white pine screening,
plus the residential nature of the building, this would provide substantial protection to
these people. The people are in a slightly lower elevation in that direction.
Mr. Fisher asked if there would be protection even from a two story building. Mr. Horne
responded that the people would still be protected, because they are in a lower elevation.
While it would not totally screen it, there would be substantial protection. He pointed out
that this area is zoned R-15 already, so if dwelling units were put there, they would most
likely be two story in nature. He does not know how to address the residential nature
question. He does not know what it means specifically. He knows what the applicant is
attempting to do, and he thinks an arrangement could be worked out under the conditions of
the letter that the berm and the architectural control of the structure would be adequate
protection for the residents of Georgetown Court.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the people across the street would be protected. Mr. Horne
said that the berm does not exist in the front and that he does not believe that the proffer
(letter) is addressing a berm there. A berm could be placed in that area depending on the
setbacks. He is not sure how practical that is.
Mr. Lindstrom asked where the request for the reduction of the setbacks would apply.
Mr. Horne answered that if the building is faced toward the road, the setbacks would be in
the rear. He said that the depth of the property is not a problem in terms of placing
structures, but the width of the property is the problem. If the setback, under CO is
applied, it would have a severe effect on this particular parcel. The staff is comfortable
with the general nature of what the applicant is doing. In terms of the adequacy of the
letter as a condition, however, it is a little vague at some points.
Mrs. Cooke said that Mr. Wagner stated that water would have to be pumped away from the
Blair property. This property seems to be the one where there is the most concern. She does
not understand the differences in opinion. Mr. Horne said that maybe Mr. Armm should address
this, but the existing drainage patterns can be altered somewhat if there are facilities
placed along the new roadway. Some of the drainage problems are there because there are no
improvements to catch any of the drainage. In terms of the pumping, he is not sure exactly
what was meant by that. Mrs. Cooke said it seems to her that the improvement of this site
will further protect the property across the street. Mr. Horne replied that the reason there
are no drainage improvements now is because there is no development there. It is just
natural drainage down a gravel driveway across Georgetown Road which has inadequate ditches.
If development takes place, the drainage plans will require improvements along Georgetown
Road and improvements in terms of the site.
Mr. Fisher said that Mrs. Blair is concerned that the property will be under roof, paved
with parking lots, and all of that water will be coming down a paved driveway onto Georgetown
Road and on across to her property. Clearly, if a person lives downhill from that develop-
ment, it would be a concern. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks that those concerns have been
addressed. Mr. Fisher said that they have been addressed if the channel is big enough so the
water will run off and not just overflow the road. Mr. Horne pointed out that, as the
condition is written now, one way or another the water has got to go to the Bennington
August 20, 1986 (RegularNight Meeting)
221
Channel. Mr. Fisher asked what happens if the Bennington Channel is full. Mr. Horne replied
that detention measures may have to be taken but whatever measures are needed will have to be
taken to get the water to the Bennington Channel.
Mrs. Cooke said she feels that the concerns that have been raised by the opposition to
this application have been answered by the County staff as well as the applicant. These are
things that will have to be done. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to approve this petition
with Conditions 1 through 13 as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lindstrom reminded Mrs. Cooke to put in her motion the amendment to Condition No. 2.
Mr. Fisher suggested, also, that the top paragraph on the second page of Mr. Wagner's letter
be included in the motion and rewritten as Condition No. 12. Mrs. Cooke agreed to include
both the suggestion by Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Fisher in her motion. Mr. Fisher said that
Condition No. 12 should include the 20 foot setback, the 6000 square feet in lieu of 8000
square feet, the berm, etc., and the residential architecture. Mr. Bowie seconded the
motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way
(Note:
1.
2.
Be
e
Be
10.
11.
The conditions of approval read as follows:)
Amend the approved site plan of August 29, 1978;
County Engineering Department approval of stormwater runoff control and
stormwater detention plans and facilities;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access
facilities and adequate dedication for a 60-foot right-of-way along
Route 656 frontage, including increasing the pavement depth of the
existing Bennington Road to satisfy Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation specifications from Inglewood Drive to the end of the
existing temporary turnaround;
This site is approved for a total of 375 dwelling units; provided that
if any units are to have access from Bennington Road, they shall be 34
in number, with lots 1-12 developed as single-family detached dwelling
units; the remaining lots developed as single-family detached and
two-family dwelling units with a maximum of seven two-family dwellings,
whose location shall be approved by the County Planning staff. In the
alternative, the area proposed for subdivision (as shown on plat dated
5/30/78 and initialled "RWT") may be developed in townhouses provided
access is only through Georgetown Road;
At such time as access is established to Georgetown Road, permanent
access for the day care center to Georgetown Road shall be provided;
Se
The staff shall approve temporary access, parking and play area
for the day care center (the following standards shall be used for
the temporary plan: parking - 1 space/2 employees; 1 space/10
children enrolled; 2 spaces for the dwelling; play area - 75
square feet/child enrolled);
be
In the event of sale of property on which the day care facility is
located, the County Attorney shall review written agreements
insuring site plan cooperation;
The day care center shall be served by both public water and sewer to
be approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority;
Approval of the day care center by appropriate state and local agen-
cies. Conditions stated are supplementary and nothing contained herein
shall be deemed to preclude applicant of requirements and regulations
by the Virginia Department of Welfare of any other agency;
Licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center.
In the event of license expiration, suspension or revocation, the
Zoning Administrator shall refer this petition to the Board of Super-
visors for public hearing after notice pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of
the Code of Virginia, as amended. It shall be the responsibility of
the applicant to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the
original license and all renewals thereafter. Failure to do so shall
be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions of this special
use permit;
Conditions 1, 6a, 7, 8 and 9 shall be met prior to the opening of the
day care center;
Access to the Ross tract limited to access as approved under SDP-84-062
(The Commons at Georgetown). No direct access from the Ross tract to
Route 656;
222
August 20, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
12.
13.
Should the Ross tract be devoted to office usage, the following shall
apply:
Se
Approval to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Plan-
ning and Community Development of screening of Ross property from
property to the south, including continuation of existing earthen
berm and installation of appropriate vegetation;
Approval by the Director of Planning and Community Development of
design of building on Ross property to ensure architectural
compatibility with adjacent residential;
c. Total of all office uses limited to 6,000 square feet;
de
A 20 foot building setback line from Georgetown Court will be
acceptable;
County Engineer shall ensure that stormwater drainage from the Ross
tract be diverted to the Bennington Channel.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-86-54. Robert Wilson. To allow installation of a temporary
classroom trailer on property located on south side of Route 731 south of intersection with
Route 22 zoned RA. Tax Map 80, Parcel 110. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on August 5 and August 12, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Petition: Robert Wilson petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue
special use permit for 'the temporary installation of a 12 foot by 50 foot
classroom trailer for 12 to 18 months until the permanent addition is
completed.' The Little Keswick School is located on the east side of Route
731 at Keswick.
Character of the Area: Currently, six buildings are used for school purpos-
es. Keswick Country Club is to the south. To the northeast are the East
Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department and a country store. Other properties in
the area are in residential/agricultural usage.
Staff Comment: In 1984, a special use permit was approved for use of
property across Route 731 in conjunction with Little Keswick School, how-
ever, the main school remains nonconforming to zoning requirements. The
applicant proposes location of a temporary mobile classroom to house comput-
er equipment with the intent of building an addition to an existing struc-
ture in the future.
While no specific provision exists in the Zoning Ordinance for this purpose,
mobile classrooms are permitted at public schools as accessory uses. Staff
can determine no public purpose to be served by treating a private school
differently from a public school. Staff recommends approval subject to the
following conditions:
1)
This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall
expire on May 1, 1988;
2)
The mobile classroom shall be removed from the site within
fourteen (14) days of expiration of this special use permit;
3)
Building official approval including installation of restroom
facilities if required by the Building Officials Code Admini-
strators Uniform Statewide Building Code; and,
4) Fire Official approval.
Additional Comment: Past zoning amendments have permitted new construction/
renovation of structures which has resulted in physical expansion of the
school (the school is licensed by the state for a maximum of 27 students and
enrollment has not increased in several years). Neither the current zoning
amendment nor Planning staff have been able to identify any zoning provision
to permit such expansion. Currently the Zoning Ordinance has stated that no
additional building permits for school expansion will be issued unless spec-
ial use permit approval has been obtained, bringing the entire school into
zoning conformance.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented that sight
distance is inadequate for a commercial entrance. Staff would be unable to
recommend favorably on any future special use permit unless an adequate
commercial entrance can be installed.
While no increase in enrollment is proposed, traffic on Route 731 will
likely increase with development at the Keswick Country Club. Should the
applicant choose to pursue building expansion, the issue of commercial
entrance should be resolved. Access through the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire
Department property would have adequate sight distance."
August 20, 1986 (Regula~Nigl~tMeeting)
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission has unanimously recommended approval with the
same four conditions recommended by staff.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Wilson said he thinks it has all been said. He said
they are not expanding the school ~U~ improving the quality of education. His school was
given a very generous gift of a large number of computers, and they would like to house them
in a secure and controlled environmental situation.
Mr. Fisher said that the expiration of the permit is geared to Mr. Wilson's statement of
one to two school years, and then there will be a permanent building for these computers. He
asked Mr. Wilson if his classes are over on May 1.
Mr. Wilson replied, "no." He said that when he appeared before the Board before, his
school had just done an addition to a dormitory. At that time, he also received approval for
an addition to that building. The footings have already been poured, the walls have been
built, and the concrete floor has been poured. It is a question now of raising enough money
to complete it. He feels confident this project will be finished. He assumes that if he
does have difficulty completing the project, he could come back and ask for six months more.
Since no one else wished to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that this matter was done hurriedly, and despite some of the typos
in the staff report it was excellent that it all got processed and done. It is a matter of
education for some children who are not the easiest to educate. Mr. Bowie offered motion to
approve the request with the conditions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded
the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried
with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way
(Note: The conditions of approval read as follows:)
1)
This special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall
expire on May 1, 1988;
2)
The mobile classroom shall be removed from the site within
fourteen (14) days of expiration of this special use permit;
3)
Building official approval including installation of rest room
facilities if required by the Building Officials and Code
Administrators Uniform Statewide Building Code;
4) Fire Official approval.
Return to Agenda Item No. 10. SP-86-44. Jan Spink/irving Jones. Mr. Fisher said that
the applicant is still not present, so he asked the Board to defer action on this until
September 3, 1986. Mr. Bowie offered motion to defer action to September 3, 1986, because
the applicant was not present. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way
Agenda Item No. 13. Request to set a public hearing to extend Albemarle County Service
Authority service area to include Tax map 60, Parcel 4D2, for water only.
Mr. Agnor explained that this is an emergency situation. He said that the Board had a
letter that was distributed today from Mary and Bill Dewey on Old Garth Road. The Deweys
have experienced a number of well problems on their lot. The Deweys describe in their lette~
all of their efforts to cure those problems, and their conclusion is that there is no cure
for it except for a connection to the public water system. Mr. Agnor pointed out on the map
where the Dewey's lot is located. He said that the two lots adjacent to the Deweys are in
the water service area, and then it skips over them, but the water service area also runs
behind them. The two lots adjacent to them were picked up because they were already
connected to the water system when the last boundary change was made. The Deweys are asking
that the line be extended from the two lots that are in the water service area now to
incorporate their lot. Mr. Agnor stated that the Board needs to set a public hearing for
that, and he recommended that it be set for September 10, 1986.
Mr. Henley offered motion to set the public hearing for September 10, 1986. Mr. Bowie
seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was
carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way
Agenda Item No. 14.
all.
Affirm Purchase Option - Southern Regional Park.
Not discussed at
22 4
August 20, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes:
(Night) and November 13, 1985.
March 13, June 26, October 16, November 6
Mr. Henley had read the minutes for June 26, 1985, and approved of them.
Mr. Lindstrom read the minutes for March 13, page 1 to the bottom of page 10, and found
them satisfactory.
ry.
Mr. Bowie read the minutes for March 13, page 20 to the end, and found them satisfacto-
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve the minutes as read. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
None.
Mr. Way
Agenda Item No. 16.
Public.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and the
Mr. Bowie said that he wants to go to Germanna Community College for a Highway Depart-
ment meeting and asked the County Executive's Office to let him know if anyone else wants to
go. (Mr. Agnor explained that this is the meeting where all the highway plans and statistics
will be discussed.)
Mr. Horne mentioned that today and tomorrow the staff is doing a field review of the
plans for Route 29 North. He said it seems to be the final run through where everyone in the
Highway Department fights out their differences about what actually will be done on Route 29
North. After that the staff will be prepared to go through those plans with the Board and
describe in detail what the actual construction plans will entail. He hopes this is the last
run-through. The public hearing is scheduled for October 30, 1986, so the Highway Department
is proceeding very quickly through this planning process. He suggested that the Board be
briefed before the public hearing as to precisely what is being proposed. Mr. Fisher asked
if there is a need for the Board to meet a month in advance of the public hearing, or would
an October meeting be acceptable. Mr. Horne thinks a meeting in October would be fine. He
will talk with the Highway Department, because he would hate to see them get too far in
drawing up the detailed plans if the Board has some severe problems with major components of
the plan. He believes that within a week or so he will have a set of plans that should be
understandable. Mr. Fisher said he thinks the Board should pay some attention to what Mr.
Horne is saying. He suggested meeting on the afternoon of September 3 at 4:00 p.m. to go
over those plans. Mr. Horne replied that he will inform the County Executive's Staff as soon
as he has the plans.
Agenda Item No. 17. At 10:30 P.M., Mrs. Cooke moved that the meeting be adjourned to
September 3 at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.·
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way
~ dHAii~MAt