1985-10-16October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
n October 16, 1985, at 7:30 P.M, Meeting Room 97, County Office Building, 401 McIntire
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
isher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
lounty Attorney; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr; Deputy County Executive; and Mr. John T. P.
[orne, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
.r. Way, to approve items 4.1 and 4.la on the consent agenda and to accept the remaining
tems as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board for the Director
.f Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of September,
985 were approved as presented.
Item No. 4.la. Request to take roads in Terrell Subdivision into the State Secondary
~¥stem. A request was received from R. E. Lee, Jr., to accept the roads in Terrell Subdi-
vision into the State system. The following resolution was adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following roads in Terrell Subdivision:
Terrell Road East:
Beginning at station 0+12, a point common with the centerline of
Terrell Road East and the edge of pavement of Route 656 (Georgetown
Road), thence in a northerly direction 1667.28 feet to station
16+79.28, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Terrell Road West:
Beginning at station 0+10, a point common with the centerline of
Terrell Road West and the edge of pavement of Terrell Road East,
thence in a westerly direction 2010.92 feet to station 20+20.92,
the end of the cul-de-sac.
Terrell Court:
Beginning at station 0+10, a point common with the centerline of
Terrell Court and the edge of pavement of Terrell Road West,
thence in a southwesterly direction 445 feet to station 4+55, the
end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easements along these requested additions as
recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 744, page 598, and Deed Book 852, page
100.
Item No. 4.2. The County Executive's Financial Report for the period of July 1, 1985
August 31, 1985 was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-605.
Item No. 4.3. A copy of the notice of public hearing on proposed Industrial Development
evenue Bond financing by the Virginia Small Business Finance Authority to be held on an
pplication from MC Partnership (Student Services). The public hearing will be held on
ctober 18, 1985, at 10:00 A.M, in Abingdon, Virginia.
Item No. 4.4. Letter dated October 3, 1985 from John W, Warner, acknowledging receipt
f resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors concerning the Fair Labor Standards Act,
s follows:
"Thank you for sending me a copy of the resolution passed by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors concerning proposed legislation
to exclude state and local governments from the maximum hours provision
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
As you know, the Supreme Court decision of February 19, 1985, on Garcia
vs. San Antonio has had a tremendous impact on local governments.
However, the Labor Department has informed me that the major implemen-
tation of the new F.L.S.A. regulations will not begin until October,
1985. It is hoped that a legislative remedy may be provided before
that time.
S.1570, introduced by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK),. and S.1434, introduced
by Senator Pete Wilson (R-CA), would both provide the F.L.S.A. exemption
for state and local governments. The measures are now pending before
the Senate Labor Subcommittee where Senator Nickles, Subcommittee
Chairman, held initial hearings on July 25 and September 10.
I strongly support this initiative and am pleased ~o be a cosponsor of
S.1570. You may be assured of my efforts to resolve this matter as
expeditiously as possible."
Item No. 4.5. Letter dated October 1, 1985 from Paul Trible, acknowledging receipt of
resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors concerning the'~Fair Labor Standards Act, as
follows:
"Thank you for sending me a copy of the resolution adopted by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. I was pleased to receive your
comments on the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Like you, I was dismayed by Garcia. I do not believe it is the will of
Congress that the federal government interfere with the traditional
functions of state and local jurisdictions.
You will be pleased to know that I have cosponsored S. 1434, legisla-
tion to exempt state and local governments from the maximum hours
provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The major practical effect
of this bill will be to allow jurisdictions to continue offering 'comp
time' in lieu of overtime pay.
The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee has begun hearings on S.
1434, and I will continue my efforts to see that it is enacted.
Also, the U.S. Department of Labor has established a toll-free telephone
line to provide technical assistance to localities as they attempt to
comply with Garcia. You may call 800-233-FLSA if you need assistance."
Item No. 4.6. Letter dated October 1, 1985 from Paul Trible informing the Board that
on September 26 the Senate passed a five-year reauthorization of the Superfund Hazardous
Waste Cleanup Program. The House still has to approve Superfund~reauthorization legisla-
tion, as follows:
"Knowing of your interest in Superfund, I wanted you to know that on
September 26 the Senate passed a five-year reauthorization of the
Superfund hazardous waste cleanup program.
Authority to collect taxes from petroleum and chemical companies for
Superfund was first authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. This authority
expired September 30.
The Senate Finance and Environment Committees reported a measure to the
full Senate to reauthorize Superfund at $7.5 billion over five years
with a $30 million victims' compensation proposal. This bill raises
funds through a broad corporate tax on all companies with annual
profits over $5 million. The measure was considered by the full Senate
and passed without substantial amendment except for delegation of the
victims' compensation proposal.
I was pleased to support this bill as I feel that Superfund's cleanup
activities should continue without delay. The House still has to
approve Superfund reauthorization legislation.
The Superfund program has been effective in identifying and cleaning up
our nation's hazardous waste, and you can be sure I will continue to
support this important effort."
Item No. 4.7. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes for its meeting of October 1,
1985 was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5.
October 2, 1985).
ZMA-85-20.
Hollymead Land Trust and Tri-Ton, Inc. (Deferred from
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-85-07. Tri-Ton, Inc. (Deferred from October 2, 1985).
Mr. Tucker said the applicants are again requesting deferral of these two items to
allow more time to work on the proffer. A deferral is requested until November 6, 1985.
Mr. Fisher asked if any interested parties were notified by mail of the potential deferral.
Mr. Tucker replied that he thinks so. This request for deferral was received on Friday and
there was time to notify interested persons.
8¸8
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
No one ~rom th
Mr. Bowie asked the reason for the continued deferral. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Robert
Smith, representing the applicants, is discussing with the two applicants a possible
amendment to the proffer based on comments received at the Board meeting of October 2. One
of the applicants is in Atlanta and additional time is needed to contact him. Mr. Bowie
then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer ZMA-85-20 and ZMA-85-07 until
November 6, 1985. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-85-70. David R. Slonim. To locate a permanent single-wide
mobile home attached to existing cabin on 21 acres zoned RA. Property located on northeast
side of Rt. 747, northeast of its intersection with Rt. 600. Tax Map 33, Parcel 41 (part
of). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Observer on October 3
and October 10, 1985.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The mobile home has been located on the
property adjacent to an existing cabin under a temporary mobile home
permit (MPH-84-10). The applicant proposes conversion to a permanent
addition. The cabin and mobile home are located near a lake on the
property which also has a substantial stand of pines.
Six single family dwellings and no mobile homes are w[sible along Rt.
747 between Rts. 600 and 640.
STAFF COMMENT: Objection comes from a property owner across Rt. 747.
The mobile home is located at an elevation lower than the road. Also
the applicant is installing stockade fencing along the entire frontage
of the property. 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;
2. Maintenance of stockade fencing along frontage with Rt. 747.
The following letter attached to the application was received from Leslie A. Morse,
agent to David Slonim:
"David Slonim - Owner of property wishes to make the following changes
to structures on his private property located on Route ~747 in Albemarle
County.
1) Replace and repair wood siding around existing cabin.
2) Build an independent and free standing facade of brick and wood
siding around existing mobile home (permit ~84-1538) which would
make mobile home look like a permanent addition to the existing
cabin but would allow mobile home to be removed if necessary. This
step complies with a request by The Zoning Commission made when I
inquired as to the procedure to be followed in order to make the
mobile home a permanent addition to the property.
3) Build a wooden roof deck on top of the mobile home to cover the
existing roof. This would remain independent of the roof over the
existing cabin - also at the request of the Zoning Commission.
4) Build wooden stairway from ground to new roof deck between cabin
and mobile home at Northwest end of structures.
5) Build brick steps and landing on Southeast front of mobile home
for better access.
Note: Nearest point of structure to property line is approx. 200
feet."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 15, 1985, by a vote
of 4-1, recommended approval of SP-85-70 subject to the conditions recommended by the staff
and the following two additional conditions:
3. The permit will have a time limit of two years from the date
of approval by the Board of Supervisors.
4. Upon expiration of this special permit, the mobile home must
be removed from the premises.
Mr. Horne said the location of the mobile home is farther away from the road than it
appears in the drawing presented to the Board. Mr. Fisher said the letter received from
Leslie Morse indicated building an independent and free standing facade of brick and wood
siding around the mobile home and a wooden roof deck on top of the mobile home, etc.; and
asked if that is a requirement for two-year occupancy. Mr. Horne said those are not
requirements of either this permit or the temporary permit that was received. There was
discussion of this at the Planning Commission meeting. It is a choice the applicant made
in an attempt to enclose the mobile home. There is no "Zoning Commission" and as he
understands it, this is the applicant's choice of how he would like to construct this
temporary residence. Mr. Bowie asked if the letter can be considered a proffer. Mr. Horne
said no, although he thinks action is being taken on the basis of the letter. Mr. Fisher
asked if the Planning Commission intended its' recommendation for approval to bind the
owner to this work for a two-year permit. Mr. Horne replied no, that is not the intent of
the Planning Commission. The letter was submitted with the application.
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Bowie said the staff report mentions a substantial stand of pines and asked where
the pines are located. Mr. Horne said the pines are on the property near the lake. The
pines will not affect the visibility of this particular request as much as the elevation
and obviously the stockade fencing will have a dramatic affect.
The public hearing was opened and Mr. Leslie Morse, representing the applicant,
addressed the Board. Mr. Morse said they want to make the mobile home a permanent part of
the cabin. The mobile home was installed because previously there was no plumbing or heat
in the cabin. The cabin is small, only three rooms. The mobile home was put there after
installing the well and septic system for an instant kitchen and bathroom. The applicant
plans to build a second house further up the hill, but he may or may not do that. The
applicant wanted to keep this mobile home permanently so he would have a choice about
whether or not to build a second place.
Mr. Bowie said the Planning Commission recommended a limit of two years on the permit.
He asked what affect that has on the intent to brick, build a deck and everything else.
Mr. Morse said he is sure the applicant would skip the brick and probably use facade Ti-ll
plywood paneling. Mr. Bowie said this facade, roof and everything is something that may or
may not be done. Mr. Morse said they may skip it all together now.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Morse his relationship to the applicant. Mr. Morse replied he is
his assistant in Washington, D.C. and this area. The applicant purchased this property
after he found it. Mr. Morse said he spends most of his time here. Mr. Slonim operates a
construction company. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Slonim plans to operate this mobile home on
a permanent, full-time basis. Mr. Morse said not a full-time basis. Mr. Fisher asked what
Mr. Morse thinks the usage of the mobile home will be. Mr. Morse said probably every
weekend. Mr. Morse said he would personally be living in the mobile home permanently.
Mr. Fisher said this raises a lot of questions because usually the people that ask for
mobile homes have no other place to live. The mobile home is their full-time permanent
residence. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Morse is telling the Board that the applicant is not really
going to live in the mobile home, just some weekends, but Mr. Morse will be occupying the
mobile home. Mr. Morse said that is correct. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Morse if he has any
other residence. Mr. Morse replied no.
Mr. Bowie asked if the mobile home and cabin are connected. Mr. Morse replied not at
this time. To connect them an opening would have to be cut on the side of the mobile home
and the cabin to make a passageway. Mr. Bowie asked if this is planned for a weekend
retreat for the owner and Mr. Morse will be a full time resident. Mr. Morse replied yes.
With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne if anyone was at the Planning Commission to object.
Horne said the person who filed the objection was not at the meeting.
Mr.
Mrs. Cooke said she really has a problem with this application. It is customary that
when the Board approves a mobile home permit, the permit is for a permanent residence for
the owner. She thinks it would be a bit difficult for her to deviate from that as a normal
requirement. She sees no real need for this application, other than for a weekend retreat.
The person that will be occupying the mobile home on a permanent basis is not the owner of
the property. She feels that puts her, and the other Board members, in a difficult position
for accepting or denying any other mobile home request that might come after this one
should it deviate from procedure. Mrs. Cooke said she does not think that she can support
this application.
Mr. Bowie said that after inspecting the property, he was prepared to support the
application. From the home of the person who objected, but who is not present, there is a
heavy stand of pines in front of the home. He does not see how the site can be seen. In
addition, the stockade fence is up. The only way to see the mobile home is from the
driveway which is only about ten feet wide. He has a lot of problems with approving a
mobile home which is to be simply a weekend retreat for an absentee owner. He thinks that
throws the Board's whole policy in jeopardy. He has no problem supporting this application
with the conditions placed upon it by the Planning Commission while the owner makes up his
mind whether to move the mobile home or build something permanent, since the mobile home is
already there. Mr. Bowie said he can support this application with the four conditions of
the Planning Commission and a fifth condition that the mobile home may not be rented.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Tucker how this mobile home was placed in this location in the
first place. Is the mobile home there under a permit? Mr. Tucker said the applicant got a
temporary mobile home permit and approVed administratively. The time is running out and
the applicant decided to request a permanent mobile home through the special use permit
process and when that was done the adjoining property owner objected. Mr. Fisher asked why
the mobile home was authorized as a temporary mobile home. What was the emergency? Mr.
Tucker said there was no emergency. Anyone can apply for a temporary mobile home as long
as he sings a statement of intent that it is for interim housing while they are constructing
or intend to construct a permanent dwelling. The person has up to five years and it can be
renewed by the Zoning Department. Mr. Fisher said even if this permit is denied, the
mobile home can stay a few more years. Mr. Tucker said he is not sure how long the mobile
home has been there. Mr. Tucker said the applicant would have to show some progress on a
permanent dwelling.
Mr. Henley said he can understand someone who lives out of the area and plan to
build a permanent residence having a temporary mobile home. He said he can support this
permit for two years and then the mobile home be removed. Mr. Tucker said the Planning
Commission understood the applicant intended to build a permanent dwelling, so the
Commission felt this was a way of encouraging that, and that is why it was recommended for
two years. Mr. Bowie noted that the garage shown on the sketch is actually a cinderblock
garage. The roof is not on, but it is being constructed, which litigates against building
70
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
somewhere else on the property, because that is already approved. He thinks that within
two years, the applicant can either finish the cabin permanently or not. Mr. Fisher said
if the applicant is building a permanent garage it sounds like he is going to make this
permanent. Mr. Bowie said that is what the request is. When he thought this was owner-
occupied he was prepared to support the mobile home, but it is not owner-occupied.
Mr. Fisher said he believes the statement signed for the temporary permit that the
applicant plans to build a house should probably be left, and the Board not approve a
permanent mobile home or something else for a two year period. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker
if he had the conditions for a temporary mobile home permit. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the
ordinance states a person can have a temporary mobile home for up to three years, and the
permit can be renewed on an annual basis for two more years if progress is being made on a
dwelling. Mr. Fisher said the mobile home is not then intended to be a permanent residence,
and it is intended that it be removed when a permanent dwelling is installed. Mr. Tucker
replied yes. Mr. Bowie commented that since the temporary permit was issued in 1984, the
applicant has two more years on that permit. Mr. Bowie then offered motion, seconded by
Mrs. Cooke, that SP-85-70 be denied. Roll was called and SP-85-70 was denied by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-85-72. William F. Parrott (contract purchaser), D. J. Veliky
(owner). To locate a single-wide mobile home on three acres zoned RA. Property on west
side of Rt. 795, south of its intersection with Rt. 620. .Tax Map 103, Parcel 23C (part
of). Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Observer on
October 3 and October 10, 1985.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: This property is heavily wooded as are other
properties in the area. The closest dwelling visible from Rt. 795 is
about 1/4 mile away. About 50 single family dwellings and five mobile
homes are visible from Rt. 795 between Rts. 727 and Rt. 620.
Staff Comment: This property was previously reviewed for a mobile home
subdivision (SP-84-29 Daniel Veliky: withdrawn). In that report, staff
recommended a 75 foot tree buffer from Rt. 795 and a limitation of
clearing on each lot.
Objection to this current petition comes from the property owner on the
north. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition,
staff recommends the following conditions:
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Maintenance of a 75 foot tree buffer along north property line and
along Rt. 795."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on OctOber 15, 1985 unanimously
recommended approval of SP-85-72 subject to condition %1 recommended by the staff and
condition %2 amended as follows: "Maintenance of a 75 foot tree buffer and setback along
north property line, and 125 foot buffer and setback along Rt. 795". Mr. Horne said the
property is very heavily wooded at this time. The Planning Commission felt that with those
tree buffers, it would be very difficult to see the mobile home under normal conditions. A
letter of opposition was received from Mr. Larry S. Dudley, owner of Lot C, Rt. 795.
The public hearing was opened and Mr. William F. Parrott, the applicant, addressed the
Board. Mr. Parrott said he has lived in a mobile home park for approximately 13 years. He
has been looking for a piece of property on which to put the mobile home. He plans to make
the mobile home a permanent dwelling. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Parrott about the conditions of
the Planning Commission for buffers. Mr. Parrott said he sees no problem with that condi-
tion. Mr. Fisher asked if he had plenty of space to meet that condition. Mr. Parrott
replied yes. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Parrott if there is anything on the property at this
time. Mr. Parrott said no.
Mr. Daniel Veliky, owner of the land, addressed the Board.
this request. Mr. Parrott has a purchase contract on the land.
Mr. Veliky said he supports
With no one else from the public to speak for or against this petition, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve SP-85-72 subject to
the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission:
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Maintenance of a 75 foot tree buffer and setback along north property
line, and 125 foot buffer and setback along Rt. 795.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-85-71. C. T. Properties. To allow for a warehouse and moving
business on a 3.0 acre parcel zoned LI. Located on east side of Rt. 606, about one mile
north of Airport Road (Rt. 649). Tax Map 32, Parcel 19-Al. Rivanna District. (Advertised
in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Observer on October 3 and October 10, 1985.)
(Mrs. Cooke abstained from voting on this petition because of personal interests.)
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: Properties on the east side of Rt. 606 in this
area are industrially zoned. Single family dwellings are across Rt.
606. An industrial building (formerly Milodon) is located between this
property and Rt. 606.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes location of two warehouse
buildings totalling 28,000 square feet. These buildings would be
leasable primarily for storage purposes, which could accommodate larger
needs than most of the 'mini-storage' uses in the area which are
directed primarily toward individual households.
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has commented that:
'The Department sees no problems with this special use permit
request. The Department will address comments regarding access to
the property when the site plan is submitted.'
Staff opinion is that this use would not be objectionable to the area
and is consistent with current zoning, Comprehensive Plan and Airport
Master Plan. Staff recommends approval."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 1, 1985 unanimously
recommended approval of SP-85-71. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any conditions or limita-
tions on the number of units. Mr. Tucker replied that there were none. The use is strictly
as a warehouse.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Cooke, representing C. T. Properties,
addressed the Board. He and Ms. Lisa Sessoms of Roudabush, Greene & Gale are present to
answer any questions the Board may have. Mr. Cooke said the permit is just for the ware-
house and moving business. Mr. Bowie commented that the building in front has considerable
screening the road, and asked if that will be left there and the buildings put back further
on the property. Mr. Cooke replied yes.
With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve SP-85-71 as recommended
by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-85-24. Steve McLean. To rezone a 1.57 acre parcel from CO
to C-1 to allow restaurant operation. Located on south side of Old Ivy Road, adjacent to
and on west side of Rt. 29/250 Bypass. Tax Map 60, Parcel 49. Samuel Miller District.
(Advertised in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Observer on October 3 and October 10, 1985.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
Character of the Area: The C & 0 Railroad is located between this
property and s-~ni~. 250W (setback variances have bee~ obtained from
the Board of Zoning Appeals). The Rte. 250/29 Bypass is to the east
and Rte. 601 (Old Ivy Road) is on the north. Rte. 855 intersects Rte.
601 directly across from this site. Madison Park office complex is
located across Rte. 601.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial
office uses in this area. The property is currently zoned CO, Commer-
cial Office, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: The applicant requests C-1 zoning in order to develop a
120 seat restaurant on the property in addition to 6,000 square feet of
office uses.
Staff recommends denial for the following reasons:
1. The request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
2. Condition of Old Ivy Road has been a concern in repeated rezoning
reviews.
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has commented that:
'This section of Route 601 is currently non-tolerable and the
Department cannot support a rezoning request that would generate
more traffic on a non-tolerable road. Over 100 more vehicle trips
a day will be generated from this site which will have a 3,600
square foot restaurant and 6,000 square feet of office space than
in comparison to a site with 9,600 square footage of all office
space. Depending on the type of restaurant on this site, the
difference ~n traffic volumes could be greater.'
Rezoning to C-I, Commercial could be deemed as arbitrary and
capricious when compared to past actions;
Approval would set precedent for similar requests inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and public welfare."
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 1, 1985, unanimously
recommended denial of ZMA-85-24. No one was present to represent the applicant, so Mr.
Fisher said it seems to be appropriate to defer this petition until later in the meeting
and take it up when applicant arrives.
Agenda Item No. 11. CPA-85-3. South 29 Land Trust and Sariandale Corporation. To
amend the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to about 25 acres adjacent
to the south side of Fontaine Avenue. Request to change from medium density to commercial
for planned commercial shopping center. Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B. Samuel Miller District.
(Advertised in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Observer on October 3 and October 10, 1985.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: To amend the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map as it relates to property on Fontaine Avenue. A plan
amendment is sought in order to support a rezoning of 25 acres from
Multi-Family Residential (R-10) to Planned Development-Shopping Center
(PD-SC); Tax Map 76, parcel 17B and 17B(1) (parts of both). Samuel
Miller Magisterial District.
After applicant/staff conferences and the Site Review Meeting of August 29,
1985 when ZMA-85-1 was discussed, a revised plan was submitted. According
to the applicant, the rezoning of 25 acres to commercial is sought for the
following uses:
Hotel
Grocery store
Service station
Commercial area
200 rooms
19,500 square feet
2,400 square feet
47,300 square feet
However, during the September 24, 1985 Planning Commission review of
CPA-85-3, the applicants indicated that full development of the site
might include commercial office space and other uses in addition to
those specified on the preliminary rezoning plan. Therefore, due to
th~se variations, staff is relying on the information packages submit-
ted by the applicant, which include a traffic analysis estimate of
14,300 vehicle trips per day which would be generated by the site at
full development.
HISTORY
Zoninq:
ZMA-79-43 South 29 Land Trust - The Board of Supervisors approved this
request in December of 1979, to rezone the entire + 54 acre parcel from
A-1 Agriculture, to R-3 Residential, with a proffe~ to maintain a net
density of 10 dwelling units/acre. The request originally included
approximately 16 acres to be zoned to B-1 Business along 600 feet of
the frontage of Route 29/Bypass with the remaining 29 acres to be
rezoned to R-3 Residential. Staff concern at that time regarded the
conservation of critical slopes and the minimization of tree removal.
The request for business zoning was not approved.
On December 10, ~1980 a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and map change
was adopted by Albemarle County. Presently, the parcel is zoned R-10
Residential, which category best matched its 1979 proffered rezoning.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendations:
1970-2000 Plan: The first adopted County Comprehensive Plan recommended
an institutional land use for this parcel, in recognition of the owner-
ship of the parcel by the State Forestry Division and the steep topography
of much of this site.
1977-1995 Plan: The land use map also recOmmended this area be utilized
with an institutional land use.
1980 Land Use Amendments: County growth area land use plans described
this area as located within Neighborhood Six. The land use map (1980)
recommended medium residential density (5-10 dwelling units per acre)
to be located on the portion of the parcel with frontage along Fontaine
Avenue - the steeper rear portions of the parcel were recommended for
conservation, due to topographic constraints.
1982-2000 Plan: The present plan continues to identify this area as a
multi-family (5-10 dwelling units per acre) residential area within
Neighborhood Six. The land use map also identifies the portion of
Fontaine Avenue as an area where road improvements are recommended.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Policy:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on April 17, 1985 adopted
five criteria to be used to evaluate whether the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002 should be amended.
Present Request to Amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan:
April 16, 1985: The Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed a
preliminary staff report and information submitted by the applicant
regarding the applicant's request for a resolution of intent to amend
the Comprehensive Land Use Map. The Planning Commission deferred
action on the applicant's request pending the submittal of additional
information regarding:
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
2.
3.
4.
Theimpact of the proposal on traffic in the Fontaine area and the
possible impact on Rt. 29 North traffic.
Neighborhood study of ~the area, in particular with regard to
housing needs in this area.
Impact of this proposal on areas already recommended for commercial
use. Demonstration of need for a community shopping center.
Relationship of this proposal with University of Virginia's plans
for this general area.
July 16, 1985: After examination of additional information submitted
by the applicant and a second staff report, the Planning Commission
adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map as requested. The Planning Commission found that the applicant's
request for a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan did
meet the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors' Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Policy under criteria E(2). In this instance, information on
the Route 29 traffic situation was held as the condition which supported
consideration and evaluation of the applicant's request.
July 23, 1985: The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a discus-
sion of the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment Policy and clarified
the motion of July 16, 1985 regarding a resolution of intent to amend
the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the Fontaine Avenue property.
With regard to CPA-85-3, the issue was raised as to whether a Comprehen-
sive Plan Amendment was required at all. In staff's opinion, based on
previous actions, an amendment is required although staff is aware that
a need exists for guidelines for when Comprehensive Plan Amendment's
should be considered. It was questioned as to why this property is not
covered by the interstate, interchange development section of the
Comprehensive Plan. The staff does not consider the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment as falling under this section and the Planning Commission
generally agreed based on the following reasons:
This section of the Comprehensive Plan addresses interchanges
on 1-64. This property is not visible (without the use of
signs) from 1-64 and is served instead by a 250 Bypass
interchange. It is also not specifically listed as are other
interchange properties.
It is staff's understanding that commercial development along the
250 Bypass was to be minimized to retain the bypass quality of
this corridor.
Interstate interchange development is supposed to be directed
to regional uses on highway service businesses. Locally,
oriented uses are not suitable for such areas. To staff, the
exact focus of the applicant's proposal (neighborhood,
community or regional) remains unclear.
September 24, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission, after
several alternative motions, voted to forward CPA-85-3 to the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors with no recommendation. The companion
rezoning request, ZMA-85-1, was indefinitely deferred.
PRESENT STAFF REPORT
The remainder of this present staff report, while summarizing some
information from the previous staff reports to the Planning Commission,
focuses on the two issues raised by the Planning Commission at their
July 16 meeting when the Commission adopted a resolution of intent to
amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. At that time the
Planning Commission directed staff, in further evaluation of this
proposal:
To analyze the relationship of commercial development along
Fontaine Avenue as one method of reducing Rt. 29N traffic
congestion.
To review the relative need for commercial areas in the southern
neighborhoods.
I. Traffic Impact
The Relationship of Commercial Development on Fontaine Avenue
to Traffic Congestion on Route 29 North
The applicant stated, in material submitted for staff review, their
assumption that a portion of the site-generated traffic on Fontaine
Avenue would be 'drawn away' from Route 29 North. In response to this
analysis, the County Engineer has noted:
'The applicant's assertion that this development would help draw
traffic away from the 29 North corridor is not a valid argument.
If that were true it would also be true for the commercial property
shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The most likely effect on Route
29 would be an increase in the traffic on-the Fontaine Avenue/29
interchange. The report did not study that issue.'
Additionally, the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation had
the following comment regarding possible traffic impacts of the proposed
development on the Route 29 North corridor:
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
'There is no data to support the statement that a shopping area on
this tract would reduce to a significant degree shopping traffic
now congesting Route 29 North. If developed as a community
shopping center some existing shopping traffic (i.e., to a grocery
store, drug store, discount store, convenience store, etc.) would
most likely shift to this tract. However, trips to the specialty
retail shops that are located along Route 29 North would continue
to be made. In summary, there is insufficient information to
support this premise and therefore, it should not be considered as
one of the major selling points of this tract.'
The County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
comments are included, in full, in the appendix to this report (on
file).
In summary, perhaps a fraction of vehicle trips may indeed be diverted
from Route 29 North to Fontaine Avenue. However, the proposed develop-
ment would not, in staff's opinion, significantly alter traffic patterns
on Route 29 North.
B. Traffic Impacts on Fontaine Avenue
The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation estimates that in
1984 Fontaine Avenue carried approximately 9,340 vehicle trips per day.
Presently, Fontaine Avenue is a two-lane rural section roadway.
The applicant's traffic analysis plan estimates 14,300 vehicle trips
per day would be generated by the site at full development (1990).
Included in the applicant's scenario is the construction of full left
and right exclusive turn lanes; an entrance with two approach lanes;
and no signalization at the proposed intersection. However, the
traffic study did not address the adequacy of Fontaine Avenue as a
two-lane roadway to handle the additional traffic.
The Comprehensive Plan and the CATS Study recommend that Fontaine
Avenue be improved to a four-lane urban section roadway. However, this
improvement to Fontaine (Business 29 South) is not scheduled in the six
year secondary road plan nor in the state-level primary funding for
urban roads.
Without significant improvement to Fontaine Avenue, the roadway is not
presently adequate to accommodate the full proposed development.
II.
Assessment of Need for Additional Commercial Designated Property
in Southern Urban Area.
ae
Relationship of Proposed Commercial Area to Other Commercial
Sites.
The applicant submitted an evaluation of the other sites designated for
commercial development within Neighborhood Six and concluded that this
site is the only 'economically feasible' site for commercial development.
Further, the applicant noted that the nearest County commercial property
is 'miles away.' Due to the proximity of the Fontaine Avenue site to
the University this site would, accordingly to the applicant, serve
students, tourists and residents.
In the applicant's analysis of other sites designated for commercial
development in Neighborhood Six, the applicant discounted the minor
commercial site on Fontaine Avenue west of the 29/bypass but did not
offer justification for the statement that 'this site is clearly not
suitable for commercial development.' The applicant also submitted a
cost estimate for extension of water and sewer lines to the commercial
area southwest of 1-64/29 South interchange. Due to the high cost of
utility expansion (estimated at approximately $400,000) the applicant
concludes that the 1-64 site is presently economically infeasible for
commercial development.
Staff comments that the Land Use Map is envisioned as a long-range (20
year) plan. Both of these proposed commercial areas (Fontaine Avenue
west and 1-64/29) appear to be viable, although other property may
presently be more readily developable. In addition, the commercial
area southwest of 1-64/29 South interchange has unique properties due
to its direct access to those major roadways and visibility to regional
traffic.
B. Commercial Land Study
To further evaluate the balance of land uses throughout the urban area,
staff grouped the seven Comprehensive Plan Neighborhoods into three
general areas. These areas related to access and physical orientation
and are:
North (Rt. 29N area: Neighborhoods 1, 2, and 7 [part of])
East (Rt. 250E area: Neighborhood 3)
Southwest area: Neighborhoods 4, 5, 6, and 7 (part of).
After making a Commercial Land Study, the staff's analysis indicates a
need for additional commercial areas in the southern and western
neighborhoods. The analysis does not address the pending parcel-
specific request for commercial designation. Instead, it established a
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
general need for development of commercial centers within a broad area.
Given the present large ratio of residential to commercial acreages,
the greatest need in the southern urban area is for local services to
neighborhoods.
Unlike the 'northern' (Route 29 North) and the 'eastern' (Route 250
East) study areas, the 'southwestern' study area is not unified by a
central roadway corridor. Instead it is bisected by Interstate 64 and
accessed by a series of unrelated roadways. Therefore, based on
access, the southwestern study area is actually composed of a network
of neighborhood units which relate to individual roadways.
Due to the locational qualities of the southwestern study area and the
apparent need for commercial development throughout the study area, it
is recommended that additional commercial development be dispersed in
the study area, relative to neighborhood development. Presently, there
are several other major developments approved or pending within this
study area (for example, Willow Lake - 120 dwelling units; Hillcrest -
700 dwelling units; Sherwood Commons - 360 dwelling units). Some of
these pending development proposals may be planning or requesting some
commercial development as well as residential. These areas may have
the advantage of a variety of localized accesses.
In summary, consideration in locating future commercial centers should
be given to areas accessible to concentrations of residential populations
in specific regions of the southern urban area.
III.
Summary of Compliance of Proposal With the Comprehensive Plan and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Guidelines.
Included in the appendix (on file) of this report is a review of the
goals, objectives and standards specified in the Comprehensive Plan
which are pertinent to the pending proposal. Staff comment on each
item is also noted. The appendix offers staff comments regarding the
five Board of Supervisor's policy/criteria for the review of a Compre-
hensive Plan amendment. These staff comments, detailed in appendixes B
and C, are summarized below.
Generally, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of small-
scale commercial areas which are accessible to residential neighborhoods.
Such centers reduce dependency on automobile travel and dependency on
large centers. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan discourages develop-
ment in locations where roads and utilities are not adequate to accommodate
the full proposed development.
Regarding shopping center development, the Comprehensive Plan specifies
development standards by service-scale: neighborhood, community or
regional scales. Table 3 from the Comprehensive Plan displays these
standards. The applicant presently proposes development of a 'community-
based' shopping center, however, some uses such as the hotel, may be
more regional in focus. Based on staff's commercial analysis and the
locational considerations of the Fontaine site, staff interprets the
Comprehensive Plan as presently supporting, at a maximum, a neighborhood-
based commercial center in this location.
IV. Adjacent Property Considerations.
Written comments regarding the proposed development were received from
University of Virginia officials, the City of Charlottesville, and the
Virginia Division of Forestry. (These letters are on file in the
Clerk's office.)
V. Staff Recommendation.
Based on the analysis of commercial land discussed in this report,
staff recommends additional commercial areas be designated in the
southwestern urban area. Commercial areas should be encouraged in
conjunction with the development of residential neighborhoods in this
region in order to both serve such new residential areas and to mini-
mize traffic trips on the area's nontolerable roads.
With regard to the Fontaine property, staff recommends designation of a
commercial center approximately three to five acres in size, with a
leasable floor area of approximately 30,000 - 50,000 square feet. This
commercial area should be developed as a neighborhood shopping center
in order to provide local services to the surrounding residential areas
(existing and proposed). Recommended uses could include a grocery
store, service station and general commercial uses. Regional uses,
such as a hotel are not recommended at this location due to limitations
of the existing roadway and the relationship of this property to
surrounding land uses.
In the upcoming overall review of the Comprehensive Plan, consideration
should be given to identifying other locations in the southern urban
area for additional neighborhood commercial centers. These centers
should relate to existing and proposed population considerations in the
urban area and to the road system."
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Horne said the northern and eastern neighborhoods have a relatively high percentage
of residential to commercial acreage whereas in southern neighborhoods a very small percen-
tage of land area currently zoned or developed for commercial development. The gross
density is also low at this point, but the staff has received a number of large proposals
for high density residential growth in the southern neighborhoods which should be coming
before the Planning Commission for site approval soon. The staff knows that there will be
an increase in the density, the total population and the relative small amounts of commer-
cial acreage. The basic conclusion of the report Submitted to the Planning Commission is
that there is a need for some additional commercial acreage in the southern neighborhoods.
As compared to the northern neighborhood which has a central corridor which dominates the
neighborhood in terms of the provisions of large scale commercial enterprises, there is
really not a large scale corridor in the southern neighborhood. The southern neighborhood
is divided by relatively unrelated roadway patterns and into somewhat smaller neighborhood
patterns for residential areas. The staff felt that the type of commercial centers that
would be suitable for that area should be relatively small, neighborhood-based and based in
areas that would serve either existing or future residential neighborhoods as opposed to
some of the regional based or large scale commercial development.
Mr. Fisher asked what size parcel is being requested for this Comprehensive Plan amend-
ment. Mr. Horne said the applicants propose to develop a 25 acre portion of the site. The
Comprehensive Plan amendment is really in support of the zoning map amendment which has
also been filed, and that application is for 25 acres. Mr. Fisher asked how just three to
five acres would be designated on the map, if the staff's recommendation were to be approved.
Mr. Horne said the Land Use Map is not supposed to be site specific; it is meant to be only
a general diagram of proposed uses. He said this is a unique situation so he would suggest
that an area could be shown in the same sort of general bubble pattern as presently shown,
and a note made that a request was submitted for this particular area, and the intent of
the designation on the map is to implement recommendations contained in CPA-85-3 for a
three to five-acre area for a neighborhood-based shopping center. It would be very difficult
to show that on this Land Use Map, but it could be done through a series of notes. Mr.
Horne said the staff could then refer to the general size of the area envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan, and work with the applicant on the actual size of the submittal for
rezoning to make sure the request was consistent with the general size recommended in the
Plan.
Mr. Way asked for an example of this size shopping center; three to five acres. Mr.
Tucker said Woodbrook is an example of a neighborhood-type shopping center. Mr. Way asked
about some other commercial areas shown on the Map. Mr. Horne said only about half of the
designated area on the Comprehensive Plan Map has actually been zoned for commercial use.
Mr. Fisher asked how much acreage is involved. Mr. Tucker said it is only about ten acres.
Mr. Bowie noted that at this time there is no public water or sewer service at the site.
Mr. Horne said that is correct; there are presently no public utilities available. Mr.
Bowie said it was noted that the service would have to go under 1-64 to get to the site and
would be very costly. Mr. Horne said that is correct, and there are no real defined plans
at this time.
At this point, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Donn Bent, representing the appli-
cant, addressed the Board. Mr. Bent said he has been associated with Dr. Hurt and Virginia
Land Company for a number of years. He has been involved in this particular proceeding
through innumerable hearings, conferences, memos, briefing, letters, petitions, etc., since
January 23. The most recent chapter was the Planning Commission hearing held on September
24 which ended with a series of five or six motions some of which did not receive a second
and none of which passed. Whatever happens to this piece of land, it will not happen all
at once, but over an extended period of time subject to economic and physical conditions
and so forth. There is a certain implication in some of the letters and staff comments,
that this land is presently agricultural and should continue in its virgin state if this
proposal is not approved. The land is presently zoned R-10, Residential, ten dwelling
units per acre. It is a 54 acre parcel which means that at the present time over 500
dwelling units could be built on the property. That certainly would be a change from its
present state. It is very important that the full 25 acre tract proposed be approved,
since the entire project is based on that approval. It is not as though the Board were
dealing with some "fly-by-night", "out-of-state" promoter, or some ignorant, inexperienced
or underfinanced promoter. He thinks that a person could go all over Virginia and have
trouble finding two more knowledgeable people (Dr. Charles Hurt and Mr. David Carr) or two
people having more interest in the County and the City being pleasant places to live. He
then read the following from the applicants submission dated May 29, 1985:
"In summary we believe our proposed amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan, together with the rezoning and development which it would
sanction, would be of clear benefit for the County.
Conceding a natural bias on our part, we are unable to discern
that any person or interest would be adversely affected by our
proposal.
The proposal would be of substantial benefit to the County and its
residents in many ways:
In both the construction and operating phases, it would create
a substantial number of jobs for County residents.
The planned inn and shopping center would add materially to
the County's tax base, and would require little or not additional
expenditure by the County as public roads, sewer and water
facilities are already in place.
The proposal would provide for attractive, convenient and
balanced residential, commercial and lodging facilities in an
area of the County which is now little developed, and which
appears due for future growth.
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
77
The planned development would be of special convenience and
interest to the residents and visitors from the south and
west, and would accordingly tend to relieve congestion on
Route 29 North, the County's major traffic problem.
The proposal would actively support the goals and objectives
of the County, as set forth in its Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Bent said also to speak will be Mr. Leonard Dykes, co-owner and co-applicant in
his petition. Mr. Dykes has done substantial research and has also done similar projects
or the government for many years. Following Mr. Dykes will be Dr. Hurt, a developer of
sll types of projects including the Riverbend Shopping Center. Following Dr. Hurt will be
~r. David Carr, presently manager of Barracks Road Shopping Center.
Mr. Leonard Dykes handed out a set of graphics to be used in his presentation. Mr.
E ykes said the question of whether there should be commercial development in the County's
outhwest urban perimeter is not an issue. The Comprehensive Plan specifically recognizes
the 1-64/Route 29 South interchange as an area recommended for development. The Land Use
5ap already shows 26 acres in this area. The size of the parcel in question is slightly
ver 26 acres. The staff now recognizes that this southwest area is deficient in neighbor-
ood commercial areas. The State Division of Forestry has just recently disclosed plans
ior a major office complex on the tract of land it owns on Fontaine Avenue and plans to
ove its headquarters to that tract. The difference between the applicants proposal and
~he staff recommendation is a difference in opinion as to the size of the area to be
~erved. While the staff's view is to service only the local neighborhoods with a three to
lve acre site, the applicants see a reg%onal and even statewide area to be served because
f the unique junction of the interstate highway and Fontaine Avenue connecting the entire
tate to the University of Virginia and the University Hospital. Hence, the applicants see
he proposal conforming to and meeting tile requirements of the interstate/interchange
rovision of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Dykes then reviewed the maps he
tems as the location of the site in rel~
nd the counties along or on highways th~
ospital patient statistics and data on ~
· to this area. Mr. Dykes mentionet
niversity in which it is suggested that
aculty, students and the public greatly
lgure does not include the teachers and
ided by the programs of the School of E~
s to promote the recognition of public .
~ant mission of the University of Virgin
Mr. Dykes said these travellers mus
are being directed to facilities on
nitude of traffic coming by way of I-
.smissal of the interstate/interchange .
~uoted: "It was not visible from 1-64 w
~oal to minimize commercial development
~hat visibility is a very subjective jud
~ithout signs? Under current commercial
~uch c~mmitment to added traffic on the
niversity of Virginia and the Hospital.
~ts location at the ingress and egress r
~pproximately 1600 feet from the 1-64 no
~inimum 1000 feet required by the Compre
~djacent to an interchange, but should h
~egment of adequate capacity nonlocal fu
~he interchange length between 1-64 and
~ocated at the west end of Fontaine Aven
~o residential areas on three of its fou
~ubdivision separated by a deep, well-wo
'~ubstation. The residential area is sma
y Stadium Road to the north. The Unive
his is one of the research areas of the
ngineering labs, the accelerator and th
he Urban Land Institute Report as "a po
Mr. Dykes said the combination of d
roximity to the University and the urba
his blending of locational and physical
ffice building and housing in an integr
ctivity away from other congested areas
niversity that is suitable for this typ
oward Hospital outpatient care would be
ble for long-term, out-of-town patients
niversity,but from congestion, to
away
~ppealing to business and private resear
~esearch faculty and departmental resour
.as been acknowledged by the City. If t
.e is no stranger to development, nor is
n the University. He will do the job w
Mr. Dykes said the development will
.dmitted by the Highway Department. How
ubjective opinion. The Highway Departm
ould burden Fontaine Avenue with 14,000
~ssumed that some good percentage of thc
~nown that there is no simple solution t
handed out previously to the Board discussing such
~tion to 1-64, Route 29 South, and Fontaine Avenue,
~t feed traffic to 1-64. He then gave summaries of
~ndergraduate students, and the number of travelers
a still unpublished report commissioned by the
the present number of beneficiaries including the
exceeds one million persons per year and that
other students across the Commonwealth who are
ucation. The first recommendation in that report
ervice and lifelong learning service as an impor-
ia.
have food and lodging, and at the present time,
Emmett Street and Route 29 North. With this
54 and Fontaine, he was astonished by the staff's
~rovision as inapplicable on two counts. He
~thout the use of signs." and "It is the Commission's
~long the 250 bypass." Mr. Dykes said he feels
Fement. Can anyone imagine an interstate highway
use, the southwest side of 1-64 already represents
50 bypass. Fontaine Avenue is the gateway to the
The applicants tract lies at that very gate.
~mps is particularly advantageous. The ingress is
~thbound ramp which is just 600 feet more than the
~ensive Plan. The Plan states: "It need not be
~ve direct access to an interchange over a road
~ction". To him this is a perfect description of
the location of the Fontaine tract. The tract is
~e, away from any residential streets. There are
r sides. On one side there is the Murray Hill
oded ravine, by Route 782, and by the large Vepco
11 and is limited by the railroad to the south and
rsity has open land directly north of the tract.
University containing two observatories, the
s reactor. Mr. Dykes said this area is shown in
tential design for developing incubator space".
irect, easy access from the interchange system, the
n rural setting can provide an appealing center.
qualities combined with a well-designed motel,
al development would provide a focal point of
· There is no other comparable land near the
e of group development. The increasing trend
well served by a motel. Housing would be avail-
A conference center in a motel near the
~ether with an office building,~ would be especially
ch organizations attracted to the University
ces. The usefulness of a motel in this location
his development is allowed it will be Mr. Carr's.
his reputation, his integrity or his deep interest
ell.
reduce traffic from 29 North and that has been
much is the only doubt and he thinks that is a
ent estimates that a 54 acre commercial development
vehicle trips per day. If that is so, it can be
se 14,000 would not go to 29 North. It is well
o the 29 North problem, nor will there be a single
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
solution. There is simply too much commercial square footage on Route 29 North, with
265,000 additional square feet coming at Seminole Square. He feels that commercial develop-
ment on the urban periphery is a measure that might help. Even though the measure may be
small, the benefit is incremental with all of the others. The County staff, Highway
Department, and City all cite the CATS Study statement that the capacity of the two-laned
Fontaine Avenue is inadequate to handle any added community shopping traffic, and that the
four-laning is in the fourth phase and is not even in the present six-year highway plan.
Mr. Dykes said he decided to look into the traffic history on this particular road. The
~CATS projections used 1979 as the base year, and a beginning daily traffic count of 5450.
Projected out to the year 2000, the projection was 10,700. By 1984, the actual count was
at 10,940, already over the projection in just five years. He thinks the CATS Study was
based only on the socio-economic data of the City and the County as if they were an island
in the Commonwealth. He could find nothing in the Study that showed any attempt to look at
the University and Hospital as state-wide traffic generators. The problem is not whether a
community shopping center will crowd a "two-lane, gravel road" as the staff has described
it. The problem is already here and without any development. Should this petition be held
hostage because of a badly flawed projection? He would like to suggest that whatever
happens, the County and City begin immediately to start the process required to get the
widening underway and not wait until the year 2000.
Mr. Dykes said the area requested comprises 26.7 acres, ranging in size from less than
one acre to 10.8 acres. The present commercial zoning is actually the remainder from a
73-acre area previously zoned B-l, some of that zoning occurred prior to construction of
1-64. In the general 1980 revision of the zoning map, some of the owners rejected the B-1
zoning and 46 acres are now zoned R-1 and RA. The 1980 revision was a change from B-1 to
Commercial without any review of its merits or problems for commercial development. A
closer examination of the area disclosed some serious prOblems. The first problem is that
there is no water or sewer. The installation of both will be high cost and require compli-
cated negotiations involving State, Federal and railroad authorities relating to the
crossing of 1-64, Route 29 South and the railroad line. The Virginia Highway Department
recommends against any construction at or near ramps or interchanges of any road. If
development were to be undertaken, access to the area is at one point only and that is at a
point where the control of high speed on the 250 bypass and 1-64 traffic joins the uncon-
trolled 29 South. The crossover traffic in and out of the shopping center is a serious
hazard. He asked if the Board could imagine a traffic signal at this point. He then asked
that the Board compare this with the safety and ease of ingress and egress from Fontaine
Avenue where traffic is controlled at 25 miles per hour. There has been very little
interest for sale of land in this area.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Dykes what his interest is in this property. Mr. Dykes said he
is the president of Sariandale Corporation and has a one-third interest in the 54 acres.
Dr. Charles Hurt, one of the applicants addressed the Board. He said he owns 35 acres
and Mr. Dykes own 15 acres. They are not joint owners, but they want the Board to review
this as one project. Contrary to the staff's report, the property is visible from 1-64.
As 1-64 crosses Route 29 it is a straight shot into Hilltop. Any sizable building or sign
would be visible from 1-64. He handed out a letter dated October 16, 1985 from Henry
Browne who co-owns land next to the Chinese Restaurant that is zoned commercial. Mr.
Browne does not think that his property is suitable for commercial development and he plans
to submit a site plan showing the property developed as residential use. Mr. Browne also
indicates that he believes the property owned by the applicants is more suitable for
commercial development, and he is in favor of the proposed application. Dr. Hurt said he
also owns part of the other property shown in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use.
The applicants have been totally unsuccessful for the last ten years trying to get people
interested in the property. He mentioned that there should be a letter from Mr. Gus
Heilman, a resident of Buckingham Circle, on file stating that he is also in favor of the
proposed development of this site. The objections that Dr. Hurt has heard from other
neighbors are, he thinks, based on false assumptions, because he feels the development will
bring an end to the problems of the narrow street and the threat to pedestrian traffic.
This development will bring about a widening of the road. Additional land will certainly
be dedicated. The applicants will also be doing work on Rt. 29 and providing a pedestrian
walkway. He wants the Board to.look at this as a regional site and not as a small neighbor-
hood shopping area. The applicants would not be able to justify spending money to make the
improvements to Route 29 if this were a neighborhood site.
Mr. Fisher commented that the request is to show 25 acres, yet Dr. Hurt and Mr. Dykes
own a larger piece of.land than that amount. Dr. Hurt replied yes. They own 55 acres
which is essentially all of the developable land between the City and the east side of the
Interstate. The land runs from Fontaine Avenue to the railroad. This request would take
the front half of the property and leave the back half near the railroad for residential.
He would not be adverse to zoning it all, but he thinks 25 acres is an amount they could
use over the next 20 years. To give an idea of the size of 25 acres, the Riverbend
Shopping Center is 25 acres. There are approximately 300 acres of commercial area around
Charlottesville and obviously ten percent additional is not going to take all of the
traffic away from other places. The relief that it will give to other areas is small, but
to place commercial development where people are going to use it and not have to travel
great distances will relieve some congestion in the long run.
Mr. David Carr next addressed the Board. Mr. Carr said his interest in this property
is that he is one of those persons who has an option to acquire the 55 acre tract. Mr.
Carr said he realizes this is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and not a rezoning,
but he finds it difficult to distinguish between the two as they coincide with each other.
If those persons present tonight were given an assignment to go out in Albemarle County and
find a piece of land for commercial purposes that is undeveloped, they would be hard
pressed to find 55 acres that met all of the qualifications in the Comprehensive Plan and
met the desires for Albemarle County to achieve balanced growth, that met as many tests as
this piece of property. This property lies in growth area. Fontaine Avenue has been
mentioned as being inadequate to handle the traffic, and it probably is, but it is going to
be improved. Improvements to highways follow other needs. He has never seen a highway
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
built, unless built by the private sector, that was built to serve needs before the needs
existed. Time is vital to both the County and the developer. If the developers are to
achieve a reasonable use of this property, they need time to plan. The applicants are not
talking about building anything on the property tomorrow, but hopefully they will be able
to do that in the next 15 years. Mr. Carr said the use of this property has not been
presented as he would have presented it. The studies made by the applicants indicate that
there will be a need for a community shopping center of from 100,000 to 135,000 square feet
of space. A neighborhood shopping center is not just a grocery store and service station,
but service units that would serve students and others who live in that general direction.
Some of this land needs to be used for a community shopping center of between seven and
nine acres. There are hotel organizations still looking for a site in this community.
This is a beautiful site. A four-story motel on the site would allow a person to look
south to 1-64 and it would be a beautiful sight in that direction. This would be a great
aid to what is not now a very attractive entrance to the City. This is now probably the
least attractive entrance. There are two organizations, University of Virginia related,
which want to build sizable office buildings for their own use. These organizations are
really promoting the use of this site. An office complex, a motel, and a community
shopping center would consume 25 acres of land. This land is the best served by the
highway that he knows of. No one can tell the Board how the property will finally be
utilized, but the potential for its use is great. He thinks that no one would be able to
find a piece of property to compare with this property for the uses discussed which would
meet all of the tests required.
Mr. Donal Day, a resident of 151 Buckingham Circle since 1979, addressed the Board.
He feels that there are plenty of existing services available to those people who live
south of town. He can go to Barracks Road Shopping Center or Fry's Spring to buy the
things he needs. There are quite a few large grocery stores within a five minute drive
from his house. He wants to draw attention to the pedestrian traffic that exists on
Fontaine Avenue. For many years the Charlottesville Track Club used part of Fontaine
Avenue and the road out to Ragged Mountain Reservoir for the ten-miler race. Because of
poor accessibility for the public to observe the race and because of problems with traffic
on the road, they stopped using this course. That has not changed runners habits and there
are dozens of runners who daily travel Fontaine Avenue. He does not deny that there may be
a need for more development south of town. However, he thinks the response to development
should occur hand-in-hand with the development and should not precede it. The Planning
Commission was not able to make a recommendation because there was no real driving force.
There is no overriding sentiment that this application should be approved. He disagrees
with the staff report on the ratios of residential and commercial acreage south of town.
The numbers are impressive, but they are model-dependent. The model that the staff used
does not reflect a free flow of services and those people that buy those services across
city boundaries. The numbers would change drastically if the staff had drawn the boundaries
to define the area south of town a little differently. He continues to notice the endless
line of city garbage trucks on their way to the landfill. Mr. Day said the applicants
presented details on how they plan to spend their money. The real question tonight is
whether the public interest and the public need should come before private interests and
the private need. His recommendation is that the County go slow in regard to changing the
Comprehensive Plan anywhere and especially for the area south of town. Fontaine Avenue
needs to be improved now. If it is not improved and development occurs south of town as
some people have anticipated, a go slow attitude will give the County the possibility of
preserving the quality of life that all want.
Mr. Frederic R. Schwab, a resident of Buckingham Circle, next addressed the Board. He
said he would like to second Mr. Day's comments. He is also interested in preserving his
own quality of life. He then proceeded to summarize a memorandum (on file) to the Board
dated October 15, 1986. In his statement to the Planning Commission during its hearing on
September 24, Mr. Bent observed that Fontaine Avenue is the "gateway" to the University and
to the University of Virginia Hospital. It is obvious that the University would like to
see other sorts of development along this "gateway". Mr. Werner Sensbach, Director of
Facilities Planning and Administration for the University, noted in a letter in reference
to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment that the University "cannot support any
rezoning action which is not compatible with the long range plans of the University...",
"retail commercial use on adjacent property could not be considered as a compatible func-
tion, compatible with their (the University's) envisioned uses for land near to and
adjacent to the Fontaine property", and further that "it would appear that the development
of part of its (the University's) adjacent land areas for retail commercial use is not in
the best interests of the Charlottesville community". There are large areas in downtown
Charlottesville for entrepreneurs who wish to tap the University market. He does not feel
that County officials should be so concerned about loss of tax revenue from commercial
development. The statistics appearing in the staff report do not imply a need for commer-
cial development, or, more specifically, a need for additional neighborhood-based
commercial services in the southwestern area. He agrees with Mr. Day that ample shopping
facilities already exist in Fontaine Avenue area. The current problems of traffic conges-
tion along Fontaine Avenue are minor, but the volume of traffic is increasing. Fontaine
Avenue cannot be much improved without destroying the character of adjacent residential
property.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Daniel Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, for any comments he
would like to make on traffic generation. Mr. Fisher said he understands that there are no
plans for any improvement to Fontaine Avenue in the present six-year plan. Mr. Roosevelt
replied that is correct. Mr. Fisher asked when the improvements are contemplated in the
CATS Plan. Mr. Roosevelt said the plans are in the fourth block of four blocks. Where the
improvement resides in the CATS Plan could be changed since that plan is a joint plan of
the City and the County, if both governing bodies saw fit to change the priority. That is
just a plan and it does not mean much until the project actually gets into the State's
six-year improvement plan for the primary system and starts to receive funding. Mr. Fisher
noted that improvement would be funded from primary funds. Mr. Roosevelt said true, the
project would be competing against Route 29 North, Route 250 East, and "Free Bridge", all
problems that have plagued the area for many years. Mr. Fisher asked if Fontaine Avenue is
now tolerable or nontolerable according to Highway Department standards. Mr. Roosevelt
80
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
replied that the Highway Department does not have a tolerable/nontolerable rating for the
primary system. To the best of his knowledge, the traffic count was correctly quoted
earlier as being 10,940 cars a day in 1984. With that traffic count, if this were a new
highway being built by someone else, the Highway Department would consider it for a four-
lane highway. The road should have right and left turn lanes at major intersections. Mr.
Fisher asked if the traffic growth figures are correct that traffic has essentially doubled
in five years. Mr. Roosevelt said he cannot confirm the 5300, but the traffic was in about
that range in 1978-79.
Mr. Lindstrom said no comparison of traffic generation figures for the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the existing R-10 zoning was in the staff report. He
asked if such a comparison had been done. Mr. Roosevelt said he did look in the CATS Plan
traffic generation studies and determined that the CATS Committee had looked at the
property shown in the previous Comprehensive Plan. The Plan showed this area as generating
traffic from 30 employers and no other development in this area. It was basically assumed
that this area was rural with very few traffic generators. The CATS Plan was not
"overhauled" during revision of the Comprehensive Plan. There was a comparison made to see
if there were many major changes in the Comprehensive Plan that should be reflected in the
CATS Plan. Overall it was determined that there were not that many changes in the Plan to
require changes in the CATS road plan. The Comprehensive Plan now shows this area as
medium density, five to ten dwelling units per acre. If the maximum of ten dwelling units
is used times the 54 acres that gives 540 units and multiply that by seven trips per day
and that comes to 3780 vehicles trips per day. The maximum this would generate if developed
as housing units as currently shown in the Comprehensive Plan, would be about 3800 vehicle
trips per day. The 14,000 was an early figure. The proposal for this land has changed
enough times to say it would generate a maximum of 14,000 presently. So it would be
comparing the maximum from the residential of 3800 versus the maximum from a shopping
center of 14,000. Both of those figures could be reduced. Mr. Lindstrom noted that the
14,000 is still leaving 25 acres for residential development. Mr. Tucker said that is
correct.
Mr. Henley asked if there is any possibility of the Forestry Department dedicating
land for additional right-of-way if they intend to construct an office complex? Mr.
Roosevelt said they fall into the same classification as the University of Virginia or
Highway Department, and as a State agency, they are not subject to the County's require-
ments for dedication. The mention of the development of the Forestry Department property
is the first he has personally heard of this. He has no idea of their plans, the extent to
which they plan to develop, or what value they would see of dedication for or road improve-
ments in this area.
Dr. Hurt again addressed the Board. Dr. Hurt said he believes the 14,000 was for 55
acres of commercial development, he thinks. Therefore, the vehicle trips would be half
that figure. Mr. Fisher noted that it would also contain about one-half of Mr. Roosevelt's
residential figure. Dr. Hurt said that is correct. Also the Forestry Department's frontage
on Fontaine Avenue is only about 100 feet. The applicants have almost all of the frontage
that is there. Exxon wants to move its' station out of the little commercial complex area
in the City to get closer to 1-64.
Mr. Lindstrom noted a letter dated April 15, 1985, from Wilbur Smith Associates to Dr.
Charles Hurt states: "The proposed land uses on this 24-acre site include retail, hotel
and multi-family." "At full development, it is projected that 14,327 vehicles per day will
be generated by the site. Full development is anticipated in the year 1990." He interprets
the letter to mean the 14,000 vehicles per day is in regard to the 24-acre site, not the 52
acre site. Dr. Hurt said he was relying on information from his consultant, Mr. Dykes.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is relying on the letter. He then asked if if it is correct or if
there is something here that does not meet the eye? Mr. Dykes said his understanding is
that the traffic was not on the 54 acres. Mr. Lindstrom said the letter seems to say the
24 acres specifically proposed for this development will generate the 14,000 vehicles
trips. Dr. Hurt said he thinks he is incorrect and the letter is correct. He apologized.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Carr the acreage of Barracks Road Shopping Center. Mr. Carr said
the Shopping Center is approximately 40 acres which inclUdeS the north wing. The north
wing is 6.2 acres, so the main portion of Barracks Road is approximately 33 acres. Mr.
Fisher said he just wanted to get an idea of how large a developed 25 acre site would be.
Mr. Carr said he does not foresee the use of all the Fontaine Avenue property being used
for a shopping center. The applicants also need the commercial zoning for the motel
complex. The applicants Want it to blend with the residential because the residential will
sit behind the commercial. If this plan happens in the way they are proposing, a person
would have to go through the commercial to get to what he hopes will be a high-quality
residential development. The commercial will have to look pretty attractive to fill up
these residences.
With no one else to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Roosevelt said he would like to clear up one point. The 14,327 vehicles per day
that was generated by the developer's consultant includes 250 dwelling units which would
generate 1,525 vehicles. The 14,000 figure includes the section for the shopping center,
as well as the apartments in the back. So, the 14,327 vehicles coming off the property
would be for the whole 54 acres.
At 9:43 P.M., the Chairman called for a recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 P.M.
Mr. Fisher said this is the only Comprehensive Plan amendment that has come before the
Board this year. If approved, the zoning is a separate action involving the specific
details of utilities, roads and other items that would normally be considered in a zoning.
This is a question of overall planning for the County and whether or not to amend the Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom said as he listened to the presentation and read the information gener-
ated with this application, it seems that there is tension between the staff's perception
that the commercial needed in the southern part of the County should be oriented specifically
toward residential developments which the County knows are being planned. The idea is that
October-16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting')
(Page 16)
81
a small, essentially neighborhood-oriented commercial area will provide an amenity to the
residential growth anticipated in that part of the County. If that were done in a neighbor-
hood fashion it would eliminate some of the additional traffic because the neighborhoods in
this area will be fragmented rather than linear or substantially sized as on the north side
of town. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that is an accurate reading of the report. Mr. Horne said
that is correct. Mr. Lindstrom said he gathers that the applicant is clearly saying that
the University Hospital and its' expansion is generating a whole new public, and that
public is best served by the kind of substantial commercial development that he is proposing.
That makes this proposal attractive because it is on that corridor which presumably will
become more significant to the University in the future. Given that, is there a need in
the County's current plan for the kind of commercial area that the applicant indicates this
site could provide? In other.words, a commercial area that would be oriented to providing
service to University visitors and the kind of businesses that might be related to the
University and the University Hospital. Is that something that should be addressed in this
application, or is it really not something that there is a significant need for at this
time? Mr. Horne said regarding the assumption by the applicant as to the amount of traffic
that would be going to the University Hospital or University grounds using this corridor,
in some of the assumptions the applicants show counties such as Fluvanna and Louisa, and he
would think that on the first visit people might drive in that way, but as soon as they
understand where the hospital is located, a great number of these people would actually not
use that entrance. He knows for a fact that people in the counties in the Northern
Shenandoah Valley do not come down 1-81 and 1-64. Those routes almost double the length of
the trip. These people come by way of Route 522 and then down Route 29 North. With
construction of the new hospital facility there is the proposal for an additional entrance/-
exit to the new hospital from Fifth Street, which would again drain off some of the supposed
traffic that would use Fontaine Avenue. Mr. Horne said if there is a need for that type of
community-based or regional-based shopping center, he thinks it can be satisfied in other
parts of the City without necessitating people traveling to the most congested areas of
Route 29. He does not believe there is a need at this time. During the review for the
next update of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission and the staff are going to
look at the entire southern area again. He cannot say that there is now a need for the
type of facilities being proposed by the applicant.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that Mr. Werner Sensbach, Director of Facilities Planning and
Administration, University of Virginia, as in the audience, and that he had written a
letter dated July 11, 1985, in which he stated that this request is not compatible with the
long range plans of the University. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the University sees an existing
or a foreseeable need for this kind of development to serve the University population,
particularly that population that may be using the University Hospital. If the University
does see a need, is this an appropriate general location? Mr. Sensbach said the replacement
hospital will actually have fewer hospital beds than there are now at the hospital itself,
so the effect will be considerably less than anticipated. At this moment, there is an
increase in activities because of the construction, but that will die down. This facility
may generate other activities and related functions which group themselves around hospitals,
but seem to look for a much closer, more intimate relationship, not that far removed. He
was astounded by the projection of traffic. He finds it a rather skillful manipulation of
data which he could not subscribe to unless he had more inside into the facts. That
particular site does not appear to the University as the site which will make it possible
to expand on related facilities as a related response to the hospital. There might be
other reasons why the University may want to expand. They have presently stopped building
housing in that general area and he is not sure if the University will continue to build
housing. More housing would have to first prove its economic base.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County is in short supply of commercially developable land.
Mr. Horne said in the County as a whole no. Mr. Way asked if there is a short supply in
the southern portion. Mr. Horne said the conclusion of the report is that the southern
neighborhoods are. Mr. Fisher said that people from the proposed developments that he has
heard about could not get to this location without travelling onto 1-64, or coming through
a major part of Charlottesville. Mr. Horne said that is correct. The staff feels that in
some of the areas proposed for development in the near future, there will be small neighbor-
hood commercial areas developed to serve those specific developments. This particular
proposal may be a neighborhood commercial for the existing Fontaine area and some other
small additional amounts of housing. This tract happens to be designated for residential,
if it is not rezoned. The staff does not necessarily feel that for this property to be a
neighborhood commercial center there would need to be interconnection to other large
neighborhoods, because the staff feels that will be other small commercial areas to serve
those needs. Mr. Fisher commented that the three to five acres recommended by the staff
would serve existing and future residential development in the Fontaine area itself. Mr.
Horne said yes. That would not be of a size designed to serve some of the other areas in
the neighborhood.
Mr. Way said he travels to Route 29 North for shopping because there is no where else
to go. From his perspective he sees some development in this area as being extremely
logical. He cannot help but think it will pull some traffic off of Route 29 North. This
is a very logical piece of property for commercial development since it is located right at
an interchange and there are no public utilities on the other side of the interchange. It
is a beautiful piece of property and he tends to support the idea of rezoning the property
for proposed commercial use.
Mr. Bowie said the County is going to continue to grow. It is obvious that the
northern and eastern sections are becoming overdeveloped and the area left is the south-
west. The County's own study shows there is a shortage of commercial development in that
area. It seems to him that this area is closest to Waynesboro, Scottsville and most
convenient to Keswick, without driving to Route 29 North. Additionally if there were a
hotel a person could get to UVA, Monticello, Castle Hill, Ash Lawn and Michie'Tavern
without going anywhere near Route 29 North. As the presentation shows if a person is
travelling on 1-64 and wants a place to-stay for the night, that person is directed to
Route 29 North. The highway sings do not even indicate that if you go to the next exit,
there is a motel at the Shadwell interchange. The County is going to grow toward the
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
south. He foresees the need for a regional center in the south. He feels this parcel is
ideally located. He thinks that many of those 14,000 vehicle trips will be trips that will
be on the road anyway, and will now be stopping there instead of driving to Route 29 North.
The area is also better served with this type of zoning rather than 540 more houses. He
tends to support this application.
Mrs. Cooke said she would like to echo what has been said about the southern end of
the County and the need for a shopping center there. She is in as good position as anyone
to know where the shoppers come from in Charlottesville. She is constantly amazed by the
number of shoppers that come into the Barracks Road Shopping Center from the Waynesboro
area, Afton, Stuarts Draft, and that whole area out there. These people view Charlottes-
ville and Albemarle County as a major shopping center. She certainly sees this particular
area as being a very convenient one for those persons who come in from that area. Not only
that, there are a tremendous amount of people who come in from the Nelson County area. She
views this not so much as being an area shopping center, but being of great service and
value to the people from southern Albemarle, but also from the southern part of the State.
She is prepared to support this application as recommended by the staff.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not see any approach to the heart of the community that is
not commercialized, except perhaps for this road and Fifth Street, which is being commercial-
ized in a relatively controlled fashion. He thinks there needs to be some avenue of access
to the University area that is not commercial and he does not see any other avenue of
access that is not. The staff unanimously indicated that this will represent a significant
incentive for a shift of traffic from Route 29 North, but there is no substantiation for
that. This community has invested so heavily in that area that he cannot imagine that the
Board will abandon that investment. If the Board were to cause an abandonment of the
existing commercial, there would not be a lessening of traffic, but a lessening of the
quality of the commercial that is there now. He does not see a significant shift because
of this. He does see a need to provide housing in the southern part of the County, and he
can understand there will be a lot of petitioning for that soon. That housing is going to
need to have some commercial. If the County does not want to generate a lot of traffic on
the south side of town, the neighborhood shopping areas must be provided and that is what
he understands the staff recommendation to be. There is not a tremendous amount of land in
this particular area that is indicated for residential development, certainly not in a
fashion that will justify a 24-acre commercial area. Increasing the potential traffic by
approximately three times must be done in an orderly fashion. He does not think the way to
do that is to start with a large commercial shopping center and then in-fill with hopscotch
residential develOpment. That is not the kind of development indicated by staff to be
appropriate and does not conform to the kind of development patterns that will take place
in the southern part of the urban area. The commercial proposed is a totally different
kind of commercial than that which will be needed. This commercial would not be as easily
accessible as the Fifth Street commercial which is already developed. He, therefore, is
not inclined to support this application. It is simply a case of a property owner who has
a piece of property that he would like to market. That does not necessarily mean the
Comprehensive Plan or the public is served. He is very concerned about planning for one
more major regional shopping area on the last remaining avenue into the community. He
feels that is a mistake.
Mr. Henley said he will support the Comprehensive Plan change. He knows there would
be a lot of pressure not to put this shopping center on Route 20 because of Monticello and
Piedmont Virginia Community College. He does not think there will ever be anything like
this on Route 250 West. He does not see anything wrong with allowing the developer to go
ahead and make some long-range plans for this property, He does not think anything will
happen over night. He, therefore, will support the proposed change.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has before it three options tonight: 1) to leave the area
shown in the Comprehensive Plan as presently shown; 2) to amend the Comprehensive Plan as
requested by the applicant; and 3) to amend the Comprehensive Plan as the staff recommended
for a smaller neighborhood facility.
Mr. Bowie said he does not think a small neighborhood change would solve the problem.
There is a need for the beginning of planning for a regional facility. He intends to
support CPA-85-3 as requested by the applicant. Mrs. Cooke said she would like to clarify
her previous statement. She meant to say that she supports the applicants request.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to amend Map 9, Urban Area Land Use Plan, on Page 167 in
the 1982-2002 Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to change approximately 25 acres of land
adjacent to the south side of Fontaine Avenue from medium density residential to PC,
Planned Commercial, for a Planned Commercial-Shopping Center. Mrs. Cooke seconded the
motion.- She said that is the motion she supports. She misstated what she said previously
about the staff's recommendation.
Mr. Fisher said he has struggled with this petition ever since it was filed. He had
serious reservations about supporting any part of it; it is far out of sequence with the
normal planning process. He has decided that he could support the staff's recommendation
for a neighborhood shopping center in that area. There may be enough need for that to
support it and he would like to have the opportunity to do so. He cannot support the 25
acres. That would put something that is three-quarters as large as Barracks Road Shopping
Center on that stretch of road. That would be a complete abrogation of the County's
responsibilities to maintain traffic within the capabilities of the roads that we have and
to plan for the use of land wisely. He cannot support this motion.
With no further discussion, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES.:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
83
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-85-24. Steve McLean (continued from earlier on the agenda).
Mr. Fisher noted that the applicant had not appeared. Mr. Henley said he would hate
to strike it down because the Board does not know what has happened to the applicant. Mr.
Lindstrom offeredmotion to defer ZMA-85-24 to November 6, 1986. Mr. Bowie seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation: 800 Telephone Service.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated October 15, 1985, from his office
to the Board:
"Telephone service for an 800 toll-free line into the County Office
Building for a one-year trial period was approved at the Board meeting
of October 9, 1985. Accordingly, an appropriation in the amount of
$1,330.00 for installation and monthly charges is submitted for your
approval."
Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $1,330.00 be, and the same hereby is, transferred from
Code 1-1000-11010-999999, Board of Supervisors' Contingency Fund to
Code 1-1000-12010-520300 entitled County Executive's Telephone Service
for implementation of an 800 telephone number for use by County citizens
who live in the area of the County serviced by the 703 area code.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: April 3 and August 21, 1985.
None of the minutes had been read, therefore, they were forwarded to the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated October 15, 1985 from his office:
"The University's Board of Visitors appointed an ad hoc committee of
their board to explore the creation of a Real Estate Foundation as
recommended in the Urban Land Institute (U.L.I.) report. This commit-
tee is desirous of meeting with representatives of the County and City
for discussion of any issues which cannot be resolved through the
University administration.
It is recommended that a committee of the Board of Supervisors be
appointed to meet with City and University officials on this matter.
It is my understanding that the City Manager will make a similar
recommendation to the City Council."
Mr.~Fisher asked how many members are needed. Mr. Agnor said there was no specific
amount requested, but he recommends two. Mr. Bowie nominated Mr. Lindstrom to the commit-
tee. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be willing to serve. Mr. Way said it seems that since
the Chairman meets regularly with officials from the University, that he would be the other
logical choice. Mr. Fisher said he was agreeable. Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by
Mr. Henley, that Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Fisher be appointed to the ad hoc committee concern-
ing the Real Estate Foundation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, LindstrOm and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley said he has been promising the Jail Board that the Board of Supervisors
will make a decision on an appointee soon. He has talked to the City Sheriff, County
Sheriff and the Jail Administrator, and all three have recommended that Ms. Pat Smith be
appointed as the joint appointee. Ms. Smith is Executive Director of the Offender Aid &
Restoration. Mr. Henley offered motion to appoint Ms. Patricia L. Smith as the joint
City/County representative on the Regional Jail Board for a term that will expire on April
30, 1986, replacing a member who has resigned. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mrs.
Cooke said she has no problem with the appointment, but would like to know if there were
any other applicants. Mr. Henley said he thinks one came in this past week; the person is
on probation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Board and Public.
Mr. Agnor said the first Annual Report of Albemarle County is nearing the printing
stage. He has the final draft of the written portion, but it will not photocopy. If the
October 16, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Board is interested in seeing it before it is printed, he will be happy to have it circu-
lated. There are no pictures in this copy. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see it and
suggested that Mr. Bowie look at the copy and then pass it on to the next Board member.
Mr. Bowie said that last Friday he testified before one of the VACo Legislative
Committees in Richmond on amendments to Section 46.1-252.1, 254, and 254.1 to permit County
Police to use vehicle parking tickets in lieu of the Uniform Traffic Summons, which require
the officer to identify the vehicle operate and have the summons signed; and a request for
legislative change that would allow the proceeds of drug seizures to be used for local drug
enforcement activities. The Committee concurred with the counties request on both issues.
However as he got ready to give his presentation, staff handed him a draft asking for a
constitutional amendment. He asked the County Attorney to check the request out and he
will present the request at the annual meeting.
Mr. Fisher commented that Mrs. Cooke made a presentation to the Planning Committee of
VACo on Sunday afternoon. The County's recommendation was adopted by the Committee. The
question of impact fees for development is one item that some counties have been pushing
for ten or more years. The Committee said it may not go anywhere, but the County should
maintain its position.
Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: Land Acquisition.
At 10:40 P.M., Mr. Agnor requested an executive session for discussion of land
acquisition. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to this effect, which was seconded by Mr. Bowie.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 10:59 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. At 11:00 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded
by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn to November 6, 1985 at 3:00 P.M. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.