1986-03-19March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Pa e 1) ~
44.1
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
March 19, 1986 at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; Mr. John T. P. Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; and Deputy County Executive, Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who stated that Mr. Agnor is absence tonight due to serious illness in
his family. He said that Mr. Tucker will be representing the County Executive's Office at
this meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to approve Items 4.1 and
4.2 on the Consent Agenda and to accept the ~emaining items as information. Mr. Way seconded
the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
Item 4.1. Request for a Resolution to take a Section of Greenbrier Drive into the State
Secondary System. The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and
is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
following portion of Greenbrier Drive:
Beginning at Station 0+00, end of previous dedication, thence
in a southeasterly direction 894.29 feet to station 8+94.29,
the end of the temporary cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 60 foot unobstructed right of
way along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 779, page 403 and
Deed Book 867, page 30.
Item 4.2. Statements of Expenses (State Compensation Board) for the Department of
Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for Month of February, 1986, were
approved as presented.
Item 4.3. News Release from the National Park Service Concerning Gypsy Moth Management
Proposal, was received as information:
"Gypsy moth populations in Shenandoah National Park have reached the level
that management actions are needed to control these exotic pests in some of
the Park's visitor use areas. Acting Park Superintendent Gerald Tays states
that, 'the National Park Service finds it necessary to exercise the full
range of control techniques this year in order to protect these areas from
severe impacts. Extremely high gypsy moth larva populations are expected
this spring in Mathews Arm Campground, the Dickey Ridge Developed Area, and
the Elkwallow Picnic Area. These areas must be treated in order to keep
them open for public use and to protect area resources from high levels of
tree mortality.'
The Park's first Gypsy Moth Integrated Pest' Management (IPM) Plan was
approved in 1984. In 1985, several IPM strategies were used to deal with
the presence of this pest. This year, according to Acting Superintendent
Tays, the application of both biological and chemical pesticides is proposed
to be included in the control program.
The Park's proposed gypsy moth annual management activity program contains
the following actions.
(1) Protection of Foliage and Related Resources.
(2) Reduction of Artificial Spread.
(3) Population Monitoring.
(4) Habitat Management.
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
_l Paqe 21___
The Park staff has also developed long-term research projects to gain a
better understanding of this forest pest. In addition to research, infor-
mation and educational materials will be provided to Park visitors and local
residents. Park interpreters will also include pertinent information about
gypsy moths and their impacts on the Park in evening campfire programs and
other appropriate Park activities."
Item 4.4. A copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for March 4, 1986, was received
as information.
Item 4.5. The County Executive's Financial Report for February, 1986, was received in
accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-605.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: October 10, 1984, and September 18, 1985.
Fisher said that approval of the minutes would not be considered at this time, but would
instead be moved to the end of the agenda.
Mr.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-85-98. John Kluge. (Deferred from March 5, 1986.)
Mr. Horne noted that this matter had been deferred on March 5 so that the Board members
might be able to visit the location of the proposed radio tower. Three members of the Board
did so. The applicant has submitted a schematic diagram describing a tower of 120 feet with
an antenna above for a total height of 140 feet. The trees in the vicinity are 40 to 50 feet
high. There are no other towers within the immediate area. No adjacent property owner has
expressed a concern about this proposal.
At this time, the public hearing was reopened. With no one present to speak for or
against the application, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he visited the site, has no problem with the proposal, and will support
approval of this special use permit.
Mr. Way said he agrees with Mr. Bowie.
harmful to anyone.
He does not feel the tower will be obtrusive or
Mr. Fisher said the applicant provided transportation to the top of the mountain and he
visited the site. He has been "torn" about the application because it would be on a large
parcel of land and would not affect many people. It is not clear how visible the tower will
be from Route 20. The issue, for him, comes down to approving towers in scattered locations
for commercial purposes whenever the Board receives an application. He feels that if the
Board votes for this one, it will have to vote for others of a similar nature, and he is
concerned as to how many radio towers there may be on ranges around the County. The towers
on Carter's Mountain provide coverage for this area. This application is for the convenience
of the applicant only, and it has less public benefit than a radio station. Mr. Fisher said
he has a problem with scattering towers all over the County.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not visit the site, but his objection is based on the prolif-
eration of towers, and the precedent for approval this application would set.
Mr. Henley said he has no real problem with this application.
vote for every such application.
He would not necessarily
Mr. Fisher said he is concerned about this application, but could support approval if
the use were limited to this applicant.
At this time, Mr. Way offered motion to approve SP-85-98 subject to the conditions of
the Planning Commission. Mr. Henley said he thought there should be a condition that would
require the applicant to come back to the County for further approval if there is ever to be
a higher tower or greater output on the tower. Mr. Way said he would have no objection to
such a condition.
Mrs. Cooke said she might support the application if there were a Condition that the
tower is for Mr. Kluge's use only, and if the property is ever sold, the tower would have to
come down.
Mr. Fisher asked the applicant's representative if the base power is approximately 110
watts, and the total antenna height 140 feet. The reply was in the affirmative.
Mr. Way then amended his motion to include as Condition No. 5 that the tower is not to
exceed 140 feet in height or 110 watts in terms of power, and the tower can exist only as
long as it is owned by Albemarle Farms.
Mr. Henley said as long as it is used for the farm operation, he would have no problem
with the tower staying in place if the property were sold to someone else for the same
purpose. Mr. Bowie said he could support a condition for farm use only. Mr. Fisher said he
preferred that the approval be limited to this applicant. Mr. Henley said he had asked Mr.
St. John if such a condition could be placed, and Mr. St. John had indicated that it could
be, but he thinks it should be put on the farm operation. Mr. Fisher said he finds it to be
a very unusual farm operation, and thinks it will be hard to say how that can be extended in
the future.
Mr. Fisher restated the motion saying a Condition No. 5 would be added to control the
height and power of the tower. Mr. Way suggested a No. 6 that the tower be limited to farm
operation use. At this point, Mr. Bowie gave second to the motion. Both Mr. Fisher and Mrs.
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
____~ge 3 )
443
Cooke indicated that they would not support this motion.
denied by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Roll was called and the motion was
Mr. Bowie then moved that the application be approved as previously stated but changing
Condition No. 6 to read: "limited to present applicant, Mr. Kluge". The motion was seconded
by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
Mr. Lindstrom.
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Fisher stated that the application is approved with the six conditions, and he put
the sketch of the tower that he had received in the file as part of the minutes for the
meeting.
(Note: Following are the conditions of approval:
1. Staff approval of sketch plan showing tower location and means of access, and
limits of clearing;
2. Building Official approval;
3. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
4. Submit copies of FCC, FAA, and other approvals;
5. Tower and antenna not exceed 140 feet in height and 110 watts;
6. Special Use Permit is limited to applicant, John Kluge.)
Agenda Item No. 7.
from March 5, 1986.)
ZMA-85-33.
Earlysville Forest PUD, Tract B, Amendment.
(Deferred
Mr. Fisher said this item was deferred from March 5 because there was a submission of
information the afternoon of the hearing, and the staff wanted a chance to review that
information and make its recommendations accordingly.
Mr. Horne then described the revised design and application. He said the revised plan
includes 56 total lots. Open space has been increased to 16.3 percent of the site. The
residential acreage is at 75.7 percent of the site. The dwelling units are one for every 1.8
acres instead of 1.6 acres. The request is for 36 additional units over what is currently
approved. The road design is the same, but there are fewer lots due to limitations of soil
and slopes. This request is for 191 lots in Earlysville Forest PUD instead of the original
request for 202, or 36 additional lots instead of the 47 requested at the last meeting. Also
included in the redesign is a buffer area.
Mr. Fisher asked if the plan presented tonight is different from the one seen at the
last meeting. Mr. Horne said yes. This plan shows a different number of lots, and shows the
buffer requested by the Board. The overall design of the site and the layout are essentially
the same. Certain lots have been combined or incorporated into the open space. As the plan
was drawn, there were 57 lots. It was then found that certain property would have to be put
into open space because there was not a buildable site. The staff has reviewed the soils and
slope data, and feels that 56 is an accurate number of lots.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that he thought the original application was for 69 lots and
that it was later revised for the hearing.
Mr. Horne diSagreed with Mr. Lindstrom and said that the application remained the same
for the hearing based on information that was available to the staff. It appeared to the
staff that only 63 lots could be built, but now it has been limited to 56. Mr. Horne said
the soils and slopes data has been reviewed, and the staff feels that 56 lots is an accurate
number and can be done under this design.
Mr. Fisher asked if this design could be done without destroying the land, etc., and Mr.
Horne answered, "yes." Mr. Horne said that there has been no change in the design. He said
that the staff recommendation took into account things such as the impact on the land, and
that has not changed from the way it was last presented to the Board. The changes have only
been in recombining lots, changes in lot lines and in open space configuration.
Mr. Fisher asked if Board members had any questions about the report, and there were
none. He next asked if the applicant or anyone else had anything further to say? Since
there were no other comments, Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Horne if it is clear now how many
total dwelling units are included in this plan, so that in the future it will be easy to
determine what has taken place with this design.
Mr. Horne answered that based on the current plan, there are 191 total units and 36
additional units over the present zoning regulations. The particular section that the Board
is considering amending has 56 lots with building sites. He mentioned that this is just an
amendment to a Planned Unit Development, and that subdivision plats will still have to be
prepared and approved. He said that if anything changes, the number of lots would probably
decrease. In his opinion they would never increase because he does not see any way the plan
could be redesigned to allow for this increase. He said, however, the applicant may wish to
address the idea of lot increases and whether or not this could be done.
.444
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked if the questions concerning water, etc., have been resolved to every-
one's satisfaction. Mrs. Cooke stated that she thought that all that was necessary for this
meeting was to have the staff review the new information.
Mr. Bowie said this plan answers the questions that he has had, including screening.
These houses are being planned for an area where the Comprehensive Plan notes they should go,
and the density is less than that shown in the Plan. He supports the application, and in
order to move things along, he offered motion to approve ZMA-85-33 as presented tonight with
the conditions just heard, 56 lots, which is an increase of 36 lots.
Mr. Fisher asked how to identify the map presented tonight for the record. Mr. Bowie
suggested that is to be initialled and dated. Mr. Horne wrote "received by the Planning
I!
Division on March 12, 1986, and initialed JTPH on March 19, 1986, on the map presented to
the Board at this meeting tonight.
At this time, Mrs. Cooke offered second to the motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: Following are the conditions of approval:
Agreement to proceed in accordance with conditions of approval of ZMA-81-11 to be
amended as follows:
A.2
Approval is for a maximum of 191 single-family lots subject to conditions
contained herein provided that lots in Section 9 shall comply with regulations
in effect at time of approval of ZMA-85-33. Location and acreages of various
land uses shall comply with the approved plan, provided that variations from
the approved plan for Section 9 may be authorized in accordance with Section
8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the final site plan and subdivision
process, open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots
approved. The Commission may permit dedication of a lesser acreage of open
space in a particular case due to remoteness of open space areas from that
section platted; provided that, in no event, shall open space consist of less
than 25 percent of the cumulative total of 146 acres shall be dedicated
concomitant with the approval of the final phase of residential development;
D.5
A building separation of 100 feet shall be maintained for dwellings in Sec-
tions 1 through 8. For Section 9, the following yard requirements shall be
observed:
Front - 30 feet
Side - 25 feet
Rear - 20 feet;
e
Agreement to proceed with final subdivision planning in accordance with "Staff
Comment" section of this report.
Development in accordance with revised plan received by the Planning Division on
March 12, 1986, initialled by "JTPH" on March 19, 1986, and presented to the Board
of Supervisors.)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-86-05. Luther Breeden Estate (owner), Alvin E. Breeden (appli-
cant). Locate a single-wide mobile home on 17.49 acres zoned RA. Property on west side of
Route 604, about one-half mile northwest of its intersection with Route 814. Tax Map 19,
part of parcel 44. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and
March 11, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's repor-t as follows:
"Character of the Area: The land use in this area consists primarily of
single-family residences with vacant woodland and agricultural uses also in
the immediate area. There are six (6) mobile homes within a one mile radius
of the site.
Currently there is one mobile home and an uninhabitable house on the prop-
erty. The property is partially wooded with some moderate to steep slopes
on the site.
Staff Comments: The applicant is one of the owners of the property and is
making this request on behalf of his daughter, who intends to reside in the
new mobile home.
One objection was filed against this petition by an adjacent owner. Their
concern was that the proposal was not 'in the best interest of the neighbor-
hood and would detract from the community.'
The trailer location will be partially screened from the adjacent owners by
a wooded area containing four mature evergreens which are located close to
the trailer site.
Should the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
~Page 5)
445
Placement and/or maintenance of screening materials to the satisfaction
of the Zoning Administrator."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 18, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval subject to the conditions in the staff report.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Alvin Breeden said this is his old home place which
his daughter is trying to buy. If she could move out in three to five years, they could
build a home, but they cannot do it unless they can get this trailer.
Mrs. Cooke asked if both trailers will be eliminated. Mr. Breeden said only one. Mr.
Fisher said it is important that Mr. Breeden's daughter lives in the mobile home. The Board
does not create mobile home sites in the County for rental purposes. Mr. Breeden said the
trailer will not be rented. Mrs. Cooke said there is usually a condition placed stating the
applicant's name and saying the trailer cannot be rented. She said that should be added as a
third condition. Mr. Bowie suggested the conditions could say this is limited to use by a
family member. Mrs. Cooke asked the name of Mr. Breeden's daughter. He replied that it is
Sandra Morris.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to approve SP-86-05 with the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission and adding No. 3 stating: "Sandra Morris and her immediate family
will be sole occupants of the mobile home and at such time as a permanent residence is built
on the property, the mobile home shall be removed from the premises." The motion was sec-
onded by Mr. Way, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
(Note: Following are the conditions of approval:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
e
Placement and/or maintenance of screening materials to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator;
Sandra Morris and her immediate family will be sole occupants of the mobile home
and at such time as a permanent residence is built on the property, the mobile home
shall be removed from the premises.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-85-61. Kenneth and Barbara Lape. To allow private airport on a
147.5 acre parcel zoned RA. Located on north side of Route 712, about one-half mile north of
its intersection with Route 719, near Alberene. Tax Map 111, parcel 5. Scottsville Dis-
trict. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and March 11, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The Lapes' farm is bordered by five (5) parcels
ranging in size from 24 to 515 acres. The closest dwelling to the proposed
landing strip is about 1500 feet distant. The runway would be located about
750 feet northeast of Route 712, which parallels the South Fork of the
Hardware River in this area and is located about 120-140 feet below the
runway elevation. The runway would be located on a plateau area, paral-
leling the ridge line of Ammonett Mountain. The area surrounding the runway
is heavily wooded.
Applicant's Proposal (See Attachment A): The applicant proposes construc-
tion of a 1700 foot by 200 foot private landing strip for usage by light
single engine and light twin engine airplanes. Usage would be primarily for
business purposes. No landing lights, hanger, or fuel storage facilities
are proposed at this time (note that staff has made provision for future
installation of these facilities in recommended conditions of approval).
Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed the proposed aircraft runway for consis-
tency with criteria for issuance of a special use permit as well as special
zoning provisions related to airports (Section 5.1.11). Staff offers the
following comments:
1)
The runway would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property.
The runway would not change the character of the area: Due to physical
separation from dwellings in the area by distance and elevation and
relatively large parcel sizes in the area, staff opinion is that the
runway location would not be objectionable to the area. Reasonable
limitation on frequency of usage should be imposed so as to maintain
the rural character of the area.
2)
The runway would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance, with special zoning provisions related to the use,
and with the public health safety and welfare: Section 5.1.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance requires that during special use permit review 'the
Board of Supervisors shall be mindful of the substantial public invest-
ment in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and shall only approve
such petition upon a finding that:
Equivalent or better service is not available at the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport;
44.6
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
o
Operation of the proposed airport will in no fashion interfere or
compete with the physical operations of the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport.'
The main purpose for the proposed runway is for 'commuting' to airports in
Washington, D. C. and New York. Road distance to the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport from the Lape farm is about 25 miles which substantially
increases travel time. The runway would be about 17 air miles from the
airport and would not interfere or compete with airport operations.
Staff opinion is that the proposed runway, with reasonable limitation on
usage and other conditions, would satisfy the criteria for issuance of a
special use permit. Staff recommends approval subject to the following
conditions:
This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-
transferrable;
e
Usage limited to not more than five (5) flights (i.e. - takeoff and
landings) per week. Aircraft limited to light aircraft as defined by
the Zoning Ordinance. Not more than two (2) light aircraft to be
parked on the premises at any time (excluding guest aircraft);
3. County Engineer approval of grading permit;
Approval/registration with Federal Aviation Agency and Virginia Depart-
ment of Aviation. The applicant shall coordinate with the City/County
Emergency Services Coordinator for usage of the landing strip for
emergency purposes;
Operations and improvements to be consistent with applicant's submit-
tal, Proposed Private Landing Strip: Kenneth and Barbara Lape,
Alberene, Virginia Special Permit 985-61, further identified as Attach-
ment A of this staff report. As to possible future improvements:
a)
b)
c)
Staff approval of hangar location;
Landing lights to be shielded from adjoining properties;
Fire Official approval of fuel storage in accordance with Section
5.1.20 of the Zoning Ordinance."
Attachment A:
Proposed Private Landinq Strip; Kenneth & Barbara Lape, Alberene, Virginia,
Special Permit 985-61.
Kenneth and Barbara Lape own some 408 acres on the north side of State Route
712 between Alberene and North Garden, Virginia. The Lape property is
operated as a private farm and for the cultivation of timber. Mr. Lape is
employed as a pilot for American Airlines and since moving to Albemarle
County has 'flown out of~ (that is used as his place of employment and
primary port of departure) Washington, D. C., New York and Chicago. Mr.
Lape is presently flying out of Washington, D. C. but will probably soon
transfer job assignments and be based out of New York City. Mr. Lape's
primary interest in having a landing strip on his farm is to provide himself
with the capability of flying from his home to the New York base three or
four times per month for work; and, secondarily, he may use it for some
occasional non-business purpose.
The air strip is designed to be used by a small single engine or small light
twin engine private plane. The only residence in close proximity to the
strip is Mr. Lape's own residence and outbuildings. This is to be a
strictly private landing strip not open to the general use of other air-
planes. It is intended for the individual use of a single airplane which
will be flown relatively infrequently.
The Lape's initial plans do not call for any structures to be erected. It
is possible that some day they may wish to construct a small shed-type
building to shelter an aircraft. Likewise, the strip would not initially be
equipped with any fuel storage although the Lapes might someday consider
placing a small 250 or 500 gallon underground tank near the air strip. If
they ever did so it would be similar to the small tractor fuel storage
systems with hand pumps that are maintained by many surrounding farmers,
including the Lapes.
The 'Tentative Plan' showing the large scale blowup of the topographic map
demonstrates that the proposed site for the strip is on a naturally occur-
ring long flat hilltop on the side of Ammonett Mountain. The nearest
(south) end of the strip is located over 750 feet from State Route 712 and
nearly 140 feet in elevation above the highway. Because of its high eleva-
tion on the side of this steep mountain the strip is naturally surrounded on
all sides by heavy forest and would remain so. The land lying between Route
712 and the proposed strip is also steep and heavily overgrown and it would
be very difficult for a trespasser or other unauthorized person to find the
strip or approach it. The closest approach by vehicle would be by way of
the 'access road' (shown on the 'Tentative Plan'). This road travels over
2,200 feet through the Lapes' property before coming to the edge of the air
strip and it is already secured at its entrance to State Route 712 by heavy
oak fences and a locked steel gate.
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
.(PaHe 7 )
447
Should it prove necessary for safety reasons, the Lapes might want to
install some lights to mark the runway at night. Should they ever choose to
do this, lights would not be visible to any other property. This is due to
the high elevation of the proposed strip, the fact that it is surrounded by
woods and the fact that the Lapes own so much land around it. The lights
would be limited to that required for safety and operated only in those
infrequent instances when actually needed. The Lapes would maintain a small
cloth wind sock on the edge of the strip. No other improvements are contem-
plated. No fuel would ever be dumped by any plane, either in the air or on
the ground.
In summary, the Lapes intend to take an existing open flat field which is
used alternately for grassy pasture or for crops and to plant it permanently
in grass and mow it more frequently. The existing open field would be
extended for some 300 feet, widened slightly on one side and graded moder-
ately at one end. The resulting pasture would be virtually indistinguish-
able from what exists today and there would be absolutely no visible commer-
cial type improvements.
The only activity which would ever be apparent to the general public would
be the occasional but infrequent sound of a small plane passing overhead
several times per week (or less) for perhaps thirty seconds. Even this
small eVidence of the strip would probably only be apparent to the Lapes
themselves or, in the event of a southern departure, to their neighbor, Mr.
deBarros, (who supports this special use permit application).
In fact, the only concern .that has been expressed by any neighbor (Mr.
Miller having sold his adjoining property to Mr. Jones who supports the
proposal) is an inquiry Mr. Hunter Graves made in his letter to the County
dated September 7, 1985. The questions posed by Mr. Graves in his letter
have all been answered in this summary. Mr. Graves' residence is located
over a mile from the nearest (northernmost) end of the air strip on a higher
elevation at the top of Ammonett Mountain. It will always be more than half
a mile or more away from the proposed approach and departure zone at the
north of the air strip because the approach and departure routes are
designed to stay over the lower land in the Hardware River valley and away
from the mountainside where Mr. Graves resides. It is unlikely that the
operator of any aircraft could ever come close enough to the Graves resi-
dence to create any intrusive noise because to do so would be far too
dangerous to the plane and pilot. Likewise, the other properties owned by
Mr. Graves and the Coleman estate to the north are most unlikely to ever be
developed in such a fashion as to make the air strip bothersome to resi-
dences on these properties. They are remote from the end of the air strip
and isolated by the Hardware River on the east and Ammonett Mountain on the
west, making all land near the northern approach and departure zone many
miles from the nearest access to a State road.
For this reason, Mr. Lape contemplates using this northern approach and
departure over uninhabited and isolated forest land whenever weather per-
mits. In fact, all land near both the approach and departure zones are
presently uninhabited except the deBarros property. Considering the topog-
raphy, size and use of the surrounding properties it is extremely unlikely
that anyone would ever construct a residence in or near the approach and
departure zones in the foreseeable future. There being no residences
effected now except those of the Lapes' and deBarros' and none likely to be
effected and there being no overt opposition from any neighbors the Lapes
urge the Commission to approve their request."
Mr. Horne said that at the February 25, 1986, meeting, the Planning Commission unani-
mously recommended approval with the conditions listed in the staff report, but changed the
word "light" in Condition No. 2 to "propeller-driven". He next showed the Board a map that
was prepared by the applicant. He said that the staff has reviewed the map and feels that it
does accurately represent the staff's understanding of the proposal. He does feel, however,
that landing patterns, etc., can best be addressed by the applicant. Mr. Horne also pointed
out areas where there are both landowners opposed and landowners in support of this proposal.
He mentioned that there was a lot of concern at the Planning Commission meeting as to the
impact on certain properties, and he pointed the properties out to the Board. He also said
that a map was presented at the Commission meeting that showed a takeoff and landing pattern
that extended out from the runway and crossed over adjacent properties. He understands that
this was proposed by the applicant as a worst case scenario that showed what could happen if
someone was not familiar with the runway. But, Mr. Horne added, the actual proposal for use
by the applicant is to have takeoff and landing patterns entirely over the applicant's own
property. He indicated that much of the discussion revolved around the various needs for
departures and takeoffs in certain locations, but Mr. Horne feels that the applicant should
give the Board details on this phase of the proposal.
Mr. Fisher asked about the terrain, and Mr. Horne explained the terrain by pointing out
on the map the plateau area, the wooded area around it, the ridge of Ammonette Mountain and
Route 712.
Mr. Bowie called attention to Condition No. 4 concerning coordination for use of the
landing strip for emergency purposes. He asked if any aircraft in trouble would be able to
use the landing strip. Mr. Horne answered that it was the staff's intent for any aircraft to
use the landing strip in an emergency situation, but it would also be available for anyone
needing to fly into the area to attend to some type of emergency.
Mr. Jim Murray stated that he would speak for Mr. and Mrs. Lape, but he indicated that
the Lapes were also at the meeting. He said he would not go over the outline of the airstrip
448
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
again, but he stressed the fact that this airstrip is intended for personal use only. He
said it is not intended as a public airport, and the last thing Mr. Lape would want would be
to expose himself to the liability of others flying into his property. Mr. Murray said there
were a couple of questions raised by the letters and by the map presented at the Planning
Meeting, and he wants to clarify these items.
Mr. Murray pointed out that the dotted lines on the map show approach and departure
zones. He said the approach and departure of an aircraft from any airport is determined by
which way the wind is blowing. Because of this, it will be necessary to fly both ways out of
this strip. He mentioned that the FAA has a requirement that no private aircraft can fly
over the countryside at an elevation below 500 feet. Above 500 feet, anything can fly over
anybody's property at any time. Based upon the aircraft that Mr. Lape would like to purchase
if this strip is approved, at one mile off the end of the strip his airplane would be at a
minimum elevation of 1000 feet, which is double the FAA requirement. At 2500 feet in the
air, Mr. Lape will be higher than the FAA requirement and also higher than a regular aircraft
flying around the countryside. This points out that Mr. Lape can stay over his own property
or his supporters' properties and get to an elevation of one-quarter mile up and a mile off
the end of the strip and be indistinguishable from any other aircraft before he is near
anyone else's property. Mr. Murray said that the map shows a dark dotted line which indi-
cates the top of the mountain ridge, and a blue line which is the Hardware River. This river
forms a valley between the Greene Mountain Ridge and the Ammonette Mountain Ridge. He stated
that an aircraft taking off or landing from the strip to the north is going to be safest with
the most air beneath it. Any pilot, whether or not he is familiar with the strip, will stay
over the Hardware River and away from the mountain ridge which is higher than the airstrip.
Mr. Murray mentioned Mr. Graves, who does not support this application, and indicated that if
an aircraft should get near Mr. Graves' property, it would run into the side of the mountain.
Mr. Murray next pointed out Mr. Graves' house on the map and said that it is higher than the
airstrip and over a half of a mile away from the closest point on the flight path. At that
point a plane would be three-quarters of a mile in the air and one-half mile vertically from
Mr. Graves' house. Mr. Murray understands that Mr. Graves has
approached neighbors on the Old Lynchburg Road asking them to sign a petition. He pointed
out that the Old Lynchburg Road is entirely on the other side of the mountain, and it is
conceivable that air traffic could be heard there, but it is unlikely. He mentioned the
letter that refers to the danger of fuel dumping. He said it is impossible to dump fuel from
a private aircraft. Mr. Murray said that Mr. Lape has already approached the University of
Virginia and the Pegasus officials and has pointed out the airstrip to them. He has even
volunteered to let Pegasus use it as an emergency landing strip. Mr. Lape has spoken with
the FAA and the State Department of Aviation. Both have no objection to the airstrip and
have encouraged his application. Mr. Murray said this is important, because as soon as it is
approved by the FAA, the airstrip will show on all aviation maps so that any pilot in dis-
tress would be able to land. Mr. Murray said this land is unusually situated: the mountain
is very steep and halfway up the mountain is a flat field that is the right size for an
airstrip. What Mr. Lape wants to do, in effect, is land in an existing cow pasture. This
flat strip is in the middle of the woods and is miles away from nearly every residence. The
fact that this strip is isolated on the side of a mountain makes it almost impossible to
intrude on the neighbors. He said the Planning Commission was unanimous in its approval but
recommended that the strip be limited to light aircraft. Mr. Murray indicated that all of
the staff's conditions and the Planning Commission's conditions are acceptable to the Lapes,
and he hopes the Board will agree with the Commission's approval.
The Board members did not have any questions for the applicant, so Mr. Fisher opened the
Public Hearing. Mr. John Zunka spoke first, saying he represented Mr. and Mrs. Hunter
Graves. He agrees with Mr. Murray as to the location of the Graves' home and also pointed it
out on the map. He noted that Mr. and Mrs. Graves oppose the presence of an airfield in
their community. He said the reason the staff report did not reflect any opposition is that
Mr. Graves did not know until right before the Planning Commission meeting that there is a
proposed takeoff area to the north which is in his direction. Mr. Zunka drove to the top of
Ammonette Mountain and discovered that, from Mr. Graves' home, there is a 360 degree winter
mountain view. He pointed out on the map the view from the Graves' patio, and said the
Graves' oppose the airstrip for a variety of reasons such as the noise factor and noise
pollution. Mr. Zunka then placed a topographical map on the board and continued to discuss
the situation as he showed Board members areas on the map. He said that on March 3, Mr.
Graves was standing on his back patio, and observed a light aircraft. The flight of the
light aircraft went down the valley in the logical approach to this airfield. Mr. Graves'
home is at an elevation of 850 feet. The valley is at an elevation of 600 feet, and as the
airplane went past his view, his attention was attracted by the noise. He said that the
Graves' view would be into the aircraft's window at a distance of approximately 500 feet.
Mr. Graves feels that he would be faced with this similar situation if the airstrip is
allowed. Mr. Zunka then discussed the noise carrying factor by saying that noise carries
across the valley and will be present at the Graves' home from the airstrip. Mr. Graves
bought the property and retired to Albemarle County to have peace and quiet on top of the
mountain and to be unobstructed by noise and sight pollution. Mr. Zunka next showed a
photograph of a roadway that was cut from the Graves' property. He said the roadway has been
improved and there is an installed culvert that goes to two old home sites. Mr. Graves' two
children plan to build homes at these sites. He added that the family members do not want to
build a home underneath an airplane flight path. He said that the map tonight is different
from the map shown to the Planning Commission because this map shows the planes making a
turn. He wonders how aircraft can be controlled when the logical approach is down the valley
as opposed to a banking maneuver that would be required on takeoff and landing. He added
that someone of expertise was present at the Planning Commission meeting and pointed out that
the risk was increased if a banking maneuver is used during takeoff and landing. Mr. Zunka
said the Board members had been furnished a real estate appraisal by two different realtors
who have said that there would be a reduction in property values based on the changing
conditions in the area. Petitions signed by 20 landowners to the north and other landowners
in the general area voicing their opposition were sent to the Board. He asked the people who
were at the meeting, and who opposed the airstrip, to stand. He said a letter was mailed to
the Board from Mr. Garland Day, a local architect, voicing his opposiiton. He said the Board
should weigh what the landowners expected when they bought property and moved into the
Ammonette Mountain area as opposed to Mr. Lape's personal request to commute to Washington
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 9)
and New York from this airstrip. He thinks the decision should lean heavily t6ward the
landowners who bought their land to have peace, quiet and tranquility. They do not want
airplanes taking off and landing there. He suggested that the Lapes consider buying property
closer to the airport that would serve their needs as opposed to changing the character of
this area in Albemarle County. He urged the Board to vote against this special use permit.
Mr. Bowie asked if the airplane that was observed by Mr. Graves had anything to do with
the airstrip. Mr. Zunka replied that Mr. Graves does not know whether or not the airplane
landed, but it was flying level with his eye view, heading in the general direction that
would have been consistent with the airfield.
Mr. Hunter Graves, Jr., spoke next and said he is Mr. Graves' older son. He is con-
cerned about his parents' well-being. Also as an heir to the property, he is concerned for
the property values since he has a potential home site there. Mr. Fisher asked-if he lives
in this area, and Mr. Graves replied that he lives in Sterling, Virginia.
Mr. Steve Melicher next spoke to the Board, and said that he lives in Manassas,
Virginia. He is Mr. Graves' son-in-law and has visited the mountain and enjoyed the peace
and tranquility there. He showed a private pilot a copy of the topographical map with the
perceived March 3 approach path. He asked the pilot if he had any comments on the flight
path, and the pilot said it appeared to be a very logical and normal pattern, as it is called
a "straight in" approach.
Next to speak was Mr. Jerry Coleman, who told the Board that the Colemans own 416 acres
of land northeast of the proposed airstrip. They are very much opposed to the airstrip, and
it is his understanding from the maps that he saw, that the flight path goes directly over
his land. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Coleman to point out his land on the map for Board members,
and he did. Mr. Coleman said that the land is now in realtors' hands for sale, and the
realtors say that the value will be reduced if this airstrip is put there. He does not
believe that there is justification for the airstrip when it is only for the convenience of
one landowner as opposed to the damage it will do to the area.
Ms. Mary Coleman said that she would like to add several comments to what Jerry Coleman,
her brother, had already said. Not only will the airstrip lower the value of their farm, she
feels it will take longer to sell the property. The Colemans also feel that plane landings,
takeoffs and overflights disturb many people, and there is always the fear that lives may be
lost when planes are visible and can be heard because there could be crashes. For these
reasons, the Coleman family opposes the planes flying over their property. She said they are
sorry to oppose this special permit, and hope that Mr. Lape can find another way to meet his
commuting needs.
Speaking next was Mr. Charles Morris, who said that he and his brother own a parcel of
land on the southern side of Mr. Lape's property. He said his main concern is the danger,
because most crashes occur with small planes when they are taking off and landing. He
mentioned that it is a wooded area, and though Mr. Lape haS access to the landfield itself,
there are no roads at the end of those properties. If a plane crashed there, it would be
there a long time before help could arrive because there are no roads. He added that most of
the property owners bought land there for the privacy. He realizes that Mr. Lape needs to
get to New York and Washington as quickly as he can, but there are a lot of people who
require more travel time to get to their places of employment. At the Planning Commission
meeting, nothing was said about emergency situations. However, if there is an emergency, the
airstrip will be used. His concern is that there will be no control as to how many times a
plane will fly in and out of the airstrip. He also mentioned the property owners that are
unopposed, and said that the northern route is the one that will be used for takeoffs and
landing when possible. The other one is an alternative, and will seldom affect these pro-
perty owners. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Morris to point out his property on the map, and he did
SO.
Mr. Robert Moon told the Board that he lived to the northeast of the runway and his main
concern is that since airplanes take off and land into the wind, the airplanes will be flying
over his house within two and one-half miles of the proposed airstrip and will make a circle
to land into the wind. He mentioned that there are times when low flying jets come over his
property at high speed. He is afraid this could be a dangerous situation, if the small
planes have no indication that there are low flying jets in the area.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lape to give the Board some idea of the prevailing wind directions
and the percentage of the time that the wind would come from certain directions. Mr. Lape
answered that the prevailing wind in the Fall and the Spring would be out of the northeast.
He mentioned that on this particular day, there is a south wind, but it is because of a
weather front that is moving in this direction. Usually the wind comes from the northeast or
the southwest. Mr. Fisher asked if the wind was coming from the northeast, would the air-
plane approach be from the southwest. Mr. Lape answered that Mr. Fisher is correct. Mr.
Fisher then asked Mr. Lape for the percentage of the time that the wind comes from each
direction, based on historical data. Mr. Lape replied that in the fall, winter and early
spring, the winds are mostly from the north. In the summer, there are calm winds on many
days.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Lape if he is a commercial pilot, and Mr. Lape responded, "yes." He
stated that he has 14,000 hours of flying time. He said he has every license related to
flying that can be obtained and flies as a captain for a major air carrier. He has flown 350
combat missions in Vietnam and believes he is a well qualified pilot. Mr. Lape said he will
be the one who will be doing most of the flying off the airstrip. He assured the Board that
it would be a safe operation, and that the neighbors will certainly be kept in mind if he
does get the opportunity to have this airstrip. He mentioned, also, that he owns two tracts
of land making a total of 410 acres.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lape if he is aware, considering the opposition of the neighbors,
that if the airstrip is approved, there will be people counting every time a plane takes off
or lands there. Mr. Lape responded that he is aware of this.
. 450
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
PaERag~_!~) __
Mr. Way asked how many times in a normal week, with Mr. Lapes' schedule, he plans to use
the airstrip. Mr. Lape answered that perhaps three times a week would be reasonable. He
pointed out that no one will hear the arrival because of the nature of the light airplane, no
power and the gliding approach. The only noise will be on departure, and after approximately
500 feet, the power is reduced considerably.
Mr. Bowie asked if the altitude of 500 feet can be achieved before the plane reaches Mr.
Lapes' own property line. Mr. Lape answered, "yes." He thinks that the altitude can be
figured at 1200 feet per minute rate of climb on departure and it is approximately a mile
from the end of the strip to the furthermost part of his property. He feels confident that
he can assure the Board that the plane will be at a minimum of 1000 feet above the ground
when it reaches anyone else's property.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.
a recess at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:57 p.m.
The Board took
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Lape if the dotted line on the map on the board is where he proposes
to takeoff and land. Mr. Lape answered, "yes." Mr. Fisher suggested that, if the applica-
tion is approved, the map be retained in the file as a basis for consideration of any future
controversy. He said that the issue here is whether one landowner can use his land the way
he wants, while other people use their land the way they want, without significant conflicts.
The conditions attached to this application would limit use of the airstrip to the applicant,
and he presumes that the applicant would realize that any investment in this strip would not
automatically transfer to any future owner and therefore would not necessarily improve the
value of the property. He is concerned about the discussions of hangars and landing lights.
He had not thought that a grass landing strip for occasional use would require that sort of
investment. He asked for someone to speak to that.
Mr. Lape explained to Mr. Fisher that the hangar would probably be nothing more than a
pole building that could house a tractor if necessary. He said that as far as an investment
in landing lights is concerned, it is a matter of safety. He has no intention of flying at
night in the mountains in a light aircraft, but if there were landing lights, perhaps Pegasus
could land at night. Also, lights make landing safer when there is reduced visibility. He
indicated that the landing lights would be visible only on the runway. Nor is it necessary
that he have landing lights. He mentioned that minimum, low wattage landing lights could be
installed that are not on all of the time, and can be triggered by a microphone on the
aircraft over the radio. The lights will appear, remain lit for approximately five minutes,
and then go off automatically. Mr. Fisher asked if these lights can be seen from a direc-
tional approach only. Mr. Lape answered that due to the topography and trees at this partic-
ular airstrip, the only way the lights would be visible would be head-on to the runway or at
a higher altitude. Mr. Fisher pointed out to Mr. Lape that his only concern about the lights
was Mr. Lape's investment in them, since the permit will not be transferrable. Mr. Lape
responded that he plans to stay at his home and use this airstrip for a long time.
Mr. Way mentioned that the proposed airstrip lies in his district and has caused consid-
erable controversy. He said that Mr. Graves had already supplied him with the information
that the other Board members received today. He appreciates Mr. Graves' and the other
neighbors' concerns for this landing strip. He did go to the property, and it is in an
extremely remote area. He thinks no one would be seriously bothered by this landing strip
which would be used only three or four times a week. He said that this is an age when there
is a lot of aircraft in the air, and he has aircraft flying over his house constantly. He
added that he had lived about a mile and a half from a landing strip, which is no longer in
operation, and he personally was never bothered by it. It has been his custom, since he has
been on this Board, to make his decisions on the basis of the fact that he would not want to
impose on someone else something that he could not live with next to his own property. He
does not feel that the airstrip will damage the area where it is going to be located. He
does believe, however, that a condition should be added that only light aircraft can be flown
to and from that airstrip.
Mr. Horne pointed out that the Planning Commission had changed the wording in Condition
Number Two, and he feels that this addresses Mr. Way's concern. The wording was changed to
read, "aircraft limited to propeller driven aircraft and those defined by the Zoning Ordi-
nance.'' Mr. Fisher said that he does not think the sentence is clear, and Mr. Horne replied
that the sentence could state, "defined as light aircraft by the Zoning Ordinance." Mr.
Fisher then asked what would, be excluded by this wording of Condition No. 2. Mr. Horne
answered that all aircraft would be excluded except for airplanes not exceeding 25,000 pounds
in gross weight. Mr. Bowie asked-what Mr. Lape's aircraft weighs, and Mr. Lape replied that
his aircraft would not exceed 2000 to 3500 pounds. Mr. Bowie stated his feeling is that this
application is limited to the current owner, and he is eminently qualified to fly an air-
plane. Mr. Bowie also commented that the owner states that he will be 1000 feet in the air
before he gets to his property line. Mr. Bowie added that he has airplanes flying over his
property all of the time, and he does not hear most of them. He said the larger airplanes
are flying at 500 feet and the lighter airplanes are flying at 150 feet. Mr. Fisher believes
that the language in the second sentence of Condition No. 2 should be changed to read,
"aircraft limited to propeller driven aircraft and those defined as light aircraft by the
Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Henley offered motion to approve SP-85-61 with the five conditions of the Planning
Commission with the addition of the words in Condition No, 2 "as light aircraft" between
"defined" and "by". Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he does not plan to support the motion. He believes that
there should be some place where people can move that is rural and where people can expect
their property to remain undisturbed from unusual uses of properties by their neighbors. He
believes that Mr. Lape's neighbors have a legitimate concern to maintain a rural area. Even
though the flights may take place only a few times a week, it is still a major change in
terms of times when the airstrip will be used. He thinks the neighbors are entitled to rely
upon their surroundings staying rural in character.
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(~e 11~
451
Roll was then called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
Mr. Lindstrom.
(Note: Following are the conditions of approval:
1. This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable;
Usage limited to not more than five (5) flights (i.e. - takeoff and landing) per
week. Aircraft limited to propeller-driven aircraft and those defined as light
aircraft by the Zoning Ordinance. Not more than two (2) light aircraft to be
parked on the premises at any time (excluding guest aircraft);
3. County Engineer approval of grading permit;
Approval/registration with Federal Aviation Agency and Virginia Department of
Aviation. The applicant shall coordinate with the City/County Emergency Services
Coordinator for usage of the landing strip for emergency purposes;
e
Operations and improvements to be consistent with applicant's submittal Proposal
Private Landing Strip: Kenneth and Barbara Lape, Alberene, Virginia Special Permit
~85-61, further identified as Attachment A. As to possible future improvements:
Staff approval of hangar location;
Landing lights to be shielded from adjoining properties;
Fire Official approval of fuel storage in accordance with Section 5.1.20 of
the Zoning Ordinance.)
After the motion was approved with the five conditions, Mr. Fisher requested the staff
to identify the map provided by the applicant indicating the proposed landing and takeoff
routes so that it will become an identified part of the record of this meeting.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-86-01. Warren H. Painter. To rezone 8.0844 acres of a 35.520
acre parcel from C-1 to HC. Property on east side of Route 631 (Rio Road) surrounding
existing Putt Putt Golf Course. Tax Map 61, part of Parcel 124E. Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress March 4 and March 11, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: A putt-putt golf course and parking area are
located on the front of this property. A housing complex for the elderly
was approved on the rear of the property (zoned R-15); however, it has not
been pursued. Properties to the east are zoned R-10 Residential and CO
Commercial Office and plans have been approved for residential and office
development. To the west is vacant C-1 land, a Bonanza restaurant, and the
Albemarle Square Shopping Center. Across Rio Road are the Squire Hill
Apartments (zoned R-15), a church and Centel offices (zoned CO) and Fashion
Square Mall (zoned PD-SC).
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial usage in
this area. The plan also recommends that commercial rezonings of three (3)
acres or more be accommodated under a planned approach. Due to proffered
limitation of usage and configuration of the property which will necessitate
development on an internal road system, staff opinion is that a planned
approach is unnecessary in this particular case (Mr. Painter would lease
about an acre of the property for sale of prefabricated garage and shed type
structures. No other immediate uses are proposed).
Staff Comment: Since the Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial uses in
this area, the Character of commercial zoning will be the primary focus of
this review. Staff will address matters of: intensity of uses; locational
requirements; and traffic generation.
Intensity of Uses: Current C-1 zoning specifically lists thirty-seven (37)
uses by right and eight (8) uses by special use permit. Under the appli-
cant's proffer twenty-six (26) uses would be permitted by right and for-
ty-seven (47) uses could be available by special use permit. Of this total
of thirty-three (33) uses, twenty-five (25) uses are permitted in like
fashion in the C-1 zone.
In regard to the eight (8) new uses, staff opinion is that as a group these
uses are not substantially different from general C-1 zoning in terms of
intensity of site development, visual character, and compatibility to the
area:
Educational, technical, and trade schools;
Factory outlet sales-fabric and clothing;
Fire extinguisher and security products - sales and service;
Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning, extermina-
tors, landscaping and other repair and maintenance services;
Modular building sales;
Office and business machine - sales and service;
Fast food restaurants (By special permit in C-l; drive-in window
requires special permit in HC).
452
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe
Uses deleted under this proffered petition as a group represent the more
intensive uses of the HC zone in terms of site requirements, visual charac-
ter, and compatibility:
Automobile laundries;
Building materials sales;
Feed and seed stores;
Hotels, motels, and inns;
Light warehousing;
Machinery and equipment sales, service, and rental;
Mobile home and trailer sales and service;
Motor vehicle sales, service, and rental;
Newspaper publishing;
Sale of major recreational equipment and vehiCles;
Wayside stands;
Wholesale distribution;
Heating oil sales and distribution.
In summary, under the applicants' proffer the character of the commercial
rezoning would remain primarily retail/service/office in nature. Warehous-
ing, wholesaling, and uses involving extensive outdoor display/storage have
generally been deleted.
Locational Requirements: The HC Highway Commercial zone is intended for
location along major highways in the urban area and communities. The C-1
Commercial is intended for central business location and in major growth
areas as well as villages. Generally, the HC zone requires heavier trucking
than the C-1 zone and has uses more oriented to the travelling public.
Staff opinion is that the applicant's proffer generally maintains the
locational requirements of the C-1 zone and avoids uses involving heavy
trucking (i.e. - warehouse/wholesale/bulk distribution). Uses are generally
of a local orientation (retail/service/office) as opposed to 'highway
exposure' uses (i.e. - motels, auto dealership).
Traffic Generation: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
stated concern that a fast food restaurant could be established by right
under the proposed zoning (Drive-in window would require special use per-
mit). Fast food restaurants generate about six (6) times the traffic volume
of a sit-down restaurant on a per acre basis (Figures do not distinguish
drive-in window service). Due to this particular use, Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation does not support this rezoning.
Staff Recommendation: Staff opinion is that the applicants' proffer results
in commercial zoning generally in keeping with the character of existing C-1
zoning in terms of intensity of uses and locational requirements. In regard
to traffic generation, 'fast food restaurant' as a use by right could
increase traffic contrary to Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion recommendation. Since 'fast food restaurant' is permitted by special
use in the existing C-1 zone, staff does not recommend deletion in entirety.
However, if 'fast food restaurant' were by special use permit under the
zoning request then review could be given to a specific proposal. Should
this issue be resolved, staff could recommend favorably on this rezoning
request.
NOTE: During review of this petition, the property owner noted that 'laun-
dries, dry cleaners' and 'laundromats' were specifically permitted in the
C-1 zone but not the HC zone. Staff would recommend that both uses be added
as uses by right to the HC zone."
"March 5 , 1986
Proffer of conditions
for rezoning ZMA-86-01
Albemarle County, Virginia
Warren H. Painter
WHEREAS, Warren H. Painter is the Contract Lessor of a portion of 8.0844
acres of land now owned by Lloyd F. Wood.
WHEREAS, the Contract Lessor desires to have the property rezoned from C-1
to H-C.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Contract Lessor and the owner voluntarily proffer the
following reasonable conditions which shall be in addition to the regula-
tions provided for in the zoning district H-C. These conditions are prof-
fered as part of the requested zoning, and we do proffer and agree to the
following limitations:
USES TO BE DELETED FROM H-C REQUEST:
1. Automobile laundries
4. Building materials sales
10. Feed and seed stores
20. Hotels , Motels and Inns
21. Light warehousing
22. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental
23. Mobile home and trailer sales and service
25. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
__hPaqe 13)
.453
27. Newspaper publishing
32. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles
33. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce
34. Wholesale distribution
39. Heating oil sales and distribution
SPECIAL USE
2. Septic tank sales and related service
3. Livestock sales
5. Drive-in theaters
8. Contractor's office and equipment storage yard
9. Auction houses
11. Commercial kennels - indoor only
We also proffer and agree to delete FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS as a use by right
in Highway Commercial but retain the use by special permit as in C-1
Commercial.
SIGNED
BY: Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
( Owner )
SIGNED
BY: Warren H. Painter
(Contract Lessor)"
"March 6, 1986
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
ZMA-86-01
Warren H. Painter/Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
On March 4, 1986, we appeared before the Planning Commission with a request
to rezone an 8.0844 acre parcel of land from C-1 Commercial to Highway
Commercial with proffers. This parcel is located on the east side of Route
631, adjacent to the Bonanza Restaurant.
In order to eliminate the concerns expressed during that meeting of possible
future uses of the property we would like to reduce the request to the
acreage that would be used at this time. We therefore, reduce the request
for 8.0844 acres to 3.0843 acres. We arrived at this acreage by extending a
line from the back corner of the Highway Commercial Bonanza property across
the back of the Putt-Putt property. We feel this is in line with the
Commission's feelings concerning our request.
Sincerely,
SIGNED:
LLoyd F. Wood, Jr. (Owner)
Warren H. Painter (Contract Lessor)"
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 11, 1986, by a vote of
3/1 recommended approval of this petition to the Board subject to the proffer dated March 5,
1986, set out above.
Mr. Horne pointed out that there have been some changes made in this application by the
applicant since the staff report was written. Mr. Fisher asked if these changes were made
before or after the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Horne replied that the Planning Commis-
sion heard the proposal, deferred it and heard it again after the changes were made. Mr.
Horne said that the Planning Commission approved the versions that he will be presenting to
the Board at this meeting. He then proceeded to discuss the staff report, and pointed out
the first change that indicates that the actual petition is to request the Board of Supervi-
sors to rezone 3.0843 acres instead of 8.0844 acres from C-1 Commercial to HC Highway Commer-
cial with a proffer as to limitation of usage. He said that the maps, etc. will be relative
to the new petition. Mr. Horne also mentioned that under "Intensity of Uses" in the staff
report, instead of saying 47 uses are available by special use permit, it should read eight
uses.
Another change involved the most recent proffer dealing with fast food restaurants. Mr.
Horne stated that when the staff report was written, the Highway Department was concerned
about the traffic generated by a fast food restaurant. The proffer now reads that a fast
food restaurant would be permitted only with a special use permit, which is identical to what
can be allowed under the existing C-1 zoning. Mr. Horne said the applicant originally
submitted a list of uses that would be deleted from the HC zoning as part of the proffer with
the intention of reducing the list down to a list that would be similar or identical in uses
to those already allowed in C-1. The applicant needs only a use which allows sale of prefab-
ricated or manufactured buildings, which is an HC zoning classification.
Mr. Fisher then asked about zoning categories in the area, and Mr. Horne pointed out the
different zonings. Mr. Fisher asked if Bonanza was the only existing HC zoning in that area.
Mr. Horne answered, "yes." He assumes the Bonanza is recognized as having HC zoning because
it existed before the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this
area is generally more consistent with C-1 zoning rather than CO. Mr. Horne said that
generally Mr. Lindstrom is correct. He said that C-1 and CO are interpreted as being lower
454.
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page t'~1
intensity commercial use than HC. In relation to the patterns in this area, HC is a higher
intensity zoning. The intent of the applicant is to proffer out all of the uses that are not
similar.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what status a fast food restaurant will have under the proffer. Mr.
Horne replied that the new proffer would allow a fast food restaurant only by a special use
permit. It would not be a permitted use by right.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne if there was a single proffer that outlines all of these
changes. Mr. Horne answered that the staff report contains 'the original proffer. Attached
to the staff report is the new proffer which is dated March 5. In the information sent to
the Board also is a list of uses and an additional March 6 letter that decreases the actual
acreage of the application, but it is not a proffer.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Painter, the applicant, was present and addressed the Board. He gave Board members
a handout which showed the types of buildings that he wishes to sell. He said he had worked
for quite some time with the planning staff to try to prepare a proposal that the Planning
Commission would approve. He asked Mr. Wood, owner of the property, to speak about the
proposal.
Mr. L. F. Wood said that the reason he is at the meeting is to try to help Mr. Painter
obtain a site to display the item that he wishes to sell. Mr. Painter has obtained a fran-
chise from the Hanover Building Company in Hanover County and needs HC zoning. He has worked
with Mr. Painter and the planning staff to try to get HC zoning without intensifying the
area. After many discussions with the planning staff, 13 uses have been profferred out by
right and 11 by special use permit. In doing that, the basic change would enable Mr. Painter
to display his product in a quality manner and not change the C-1 zoning. The Planning
Commission expressed concern about the eight acres, so Mr. Painter decided that he needed
approximately three or four acres to adequately display these buildings. Mr. Wood has no
intention of other HC uses in that zone at the present time. In relation to the fast food
restaurant issue, Mr. Wood said that he owns the Putt-Putt Golf Course and the Bonanza
Restaurant. He certainly would prefer not having a fast food restaurant near the Bonanza, so
as long as he owns the property, there will not be a request for a fast food restaurant
there. He said that the Board has before it a request to allow Mr. Painter to open a busi-
ness and display his product. Although it requires the HC category it basically is the same
use as the C-1 zoning, which is there now. This plan provides Mr. Painter with a solution to
his problem, and doesn't change the zoning that is already there. Mr. Wood does not belieVe
that it will put the Board in jeopardy in regard to future requests for Highway Commercial
use in that area.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Wood if a right-of-way would have to be obtained to gain entry to
the back of the property. Mr. Wood answered, "no." He said there will not be a roadway into
the back of the property. The buildings will be displayed in a semi-circle, and people will
park in the Putt-Putt lot.
Mr. Fisher explained that he was referring to the part of the property that is C-1 and
will not be rezoned. He asked how the back of the property could be reached, if the frontage
is sold. Mr. Wood replied that he has no intention of selling any of property. He said that
Mr. Painter will only have a lease. He envisions that, if the property is ever sold, it will
not be a small tract. It would probably be a sale of the entire eight to ten acres if only
the commercial part is sold, or the entire 35 acres if it were sold for a multi-use for the
R-15 zoning on the back of the property. He assured the Board that, if he should ever sell
the property, there would be adequate access to the back of it. He added that if Mr. Painter
is permitted to have his business, there will be no difference in usage than is already
there. He said the parking lot will remain the same with not more than six cars coming there
per day. Mr. Painter will be out in the community selling his product, and most of the
sales will be off of the property. The grassy area will remain the same, and Mr. Wood's
maintenance crew will keep it cut.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Putt-Putt course would remain, and Mr. Wood answered that it
will remain as long as he owns the property.
Mrs. Cooke asked if there would be any 'assembly of these buildings on this property.
Mr. Wood replied that this property will be used for display units only, and the buildings
will be assembled in Hanover County, brought here on a truck and placed on the location. He
added that the display unit will stay in its location. If Mr. Painter sells a building,
another one from Hanover will be shipped directly to the customer's home. He said that
models, however, could be changed from time to time.
There was no one else who wished to speak about the application, so Mr. Fisher closed
the Public Hearing.
Mrs. Cooke said this property is in her district, and she is satisfied with the use and
all of the stipulations made by the applicant. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to approve
ZMA-86-01 as proffered by letter of March 5, 1986, signed by Lloyd F. Wood, Jr., Owner, and
Warren H. Painter, Contract Lessor, and letter dated March 6, 1986, addressed to the
Albemarle County Planning Commission, signed by Lloyd F. Wood, Owner and Warren H. Painter,
Contract Lessor. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher stated, for purposes of the
record, that the main proffer is a letter dated March 5, 1986, and signed by Mr. Wood and Mr~
Painter. This letter was then modified by a letter of March 6, 1986, signed by the same two
gentlemen, reducing the scope of the application. Roll was then called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 15)
455
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-85-100. Bruce K. Tyler. To allow for construction of chapel
for religious service on property zoned RA. Located on south side of Route 250 West, near
West Leigh entrance. Tax Map 58, parcel 91E. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on March 4 and March 11, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: In 1982, the Greencroft property was subdivided
into 13 residential lots'and the country club tract. Currently, three
dwellings are located in the Greencroft Subdivision. The proposed four acre
church site is a portion of a 6.129 acre residential lot. The property is
served by public water. Topographically, the property slopes from the
southwest to northeast by 74 feet. About an acre of the site in in flood
plain.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes construction of a 120 seat chapel to
be used for worship and church business meetings only. Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation has recommended that access to Route 250 West
be directly across from the entrance to West Leigh and that additional
right-of-way be dedicated or reserved. Staff opinion is that the chapel
could be physically accommodated on the site and that a church in this
location would not detract from other properties in the area nor from scenic
Route 250 West. Staff recommends approval subject to:
2.
3.
4.
Site plan approval;
Access to align with West Leigh entrance;
Building setback of 170 feet;
County Engineer approval of construction activity in flood plain
in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of
the Zoning Ordinance; Watershed Management Official review of
grading permit to be guided by construction Best Management
Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, the
Comprehensive Plan and State Water Control Board."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 4, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval of the petition with the Planning Staff's recommended conditions, but
amended No. 3 by adding the words "and parking area setback of 150 feet" and adding a No. 5
stating: "No access to Rhodes Drive."
Mr. Horne discussed the staff report with the Board and said that Mr. Tyler is the
representative for the All Saints Anglican Church. The fifth condition added by the Planning
Commission would allow no access to Rhodes Drive, which is the drive into the Greencroft
Subdivision. Mr. Horne next discussed the plat which showed the location of the property and
a drawing showing the proposed configuration of the improvements on the site. The access
would be directly across from the West Leigh entrance and would angle through the site to the
proposed chapel and parking lot.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne if this entrance road would require a considerable amount of
fill in the flood plain in order to be usable. Mr. Horne replied that the entrance road
would require some fill in the flood plain, but he is not sure of the quantity.
Mr. Fisher said he had some photographs of that property taken during some heavy rain
conditions when the water was up to that flood plain limit, and it seems to him that it will
take quite a bit of fill. He asked if this situation is caused by the Highway Department's
recommendation that the location of the entrance be off of Route 250. Mr. Horne answered,
"yes." He said the original application was for an entrance somewhat further to the west,
and that was not acceptable to the Highway Department. The Highway Department then recom-
mended that the entrance be placed across from the West Leigh entrance.
Mr. Fisher asked if this plan creates a much smaller residential lot, and Mr. Horne
answered, "yes." He said on that particular lot the density will be increased in the
Greencroft Subdivision to a minor extent. Mr. Fisher wondered why the access was not Rhodes
Drive instead of having another entrance on Route 250. Mr. Horne replied that he believed
that the seller of the property would not allow an entrance on Rhodes Drive.
Mr. Lindstrom said the application states that it is for a 120 seat chapel for worship
and church business meetings only. He does not see any conditions on the approval that
relate to that. Mr. Horne responded that there are no direct conditions that limit the
chapel to that size. If the actual size is an issue, the Board would need to outline the
size in a specific condition. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he would feel more comfortable if
the size and specific use that is requested was stated as a special permit condition. Mr.
Horne suggested that the Board might want to discuss the future plans of the applicant. He
said that some minor expansions are proposed but are not really an issue. There should be
some flexibility in the wording so the application will not have to be approved again some
time in the future.
Mr. Fisher inquired if the part of the site that is out of the flood plain is large
enough for a substantially larger church? Mr. Horne replied that the site is not big enough
for a substantially larger church, but there appears to be some room for expansion. He said
it would be limited by the drainfield and topography. Mr. Fisher mentioned that there is
approximately a 50 foot elevation difference between the entrance and the site of the chapel,
and Mr. Horne agreed.
Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Bruce Tyler, Senior Warden of Ail Saints
Anglican Church, addressed a number of issues that have been brought out at this meeting.
said that the condition relating to limiting access through Rhodes Drive came as an after
thought from one member of the Planning Commission. The seller of the property did not
He
456
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 1_6)
preclude that. He said that the access is still in the negotiation stages, and that he would
prefer not coming through Rhodes Drive. He pointed out on the map where the original
entrance had been planned. He understands that the Highway Department objected to that
because it interfered with the left hand turn lane for cars heading east towards
Charlottesville. The church officials do not like where the access has been planned now
because it will be expensive to run an access drive up to the parking lot. In regard to the
flood plain area, Mr. Tyler mentioned that he feels sure there will have to be some fill in
the flood plain for the right-of-way area. Mr. Tyler said the original plan calls for a 45
foot by 80 foot chapel. He said the church only has a congregation of approximately 50
people. The major portion of the chapel would be a religious sanctuary for worship services
with other rooms used for Sunday school, etc. He said it is possible that there may be
future expansion on the property of a small parish hall which would require approval again by
the Board of Supervisors. He indicated that' it would be a long time in the future before
this occurred, and is not really in their plans at this time.
Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Tyler think about expansion very seriously. He said that
most of the time church groups need to expand. He pointed out that this site will limit
expansion severely, and it will be very difficult to put anything else on the property. Mr.
Tyler answered that maybe a plan could be worked out on the remaining two acres that was
originally in the lot. He said his group would leave later plans for future 'determination.
Mr. Fisher stated that he wanted Mr. Tyler to hear his warning about future expansions.
Mr. Tyler responded that there are engineers in his congregation who feel comfortable with
the site. He went on to say that the church will have usual Sunday morning worship services
and normal church business meetings during the week.
There were no questions for Mr. Tyler, so Mr. Fisher closed the Public Hearing. Mr.
Fisher commented that he has been aware of this proposal for some time, and he has known
about the site limitations. He said it is not unusual that the Board receives applications
from churches to use sites that are marginal because these groups are always on tight budg-
ets. It does lead to problems, and sometimes the problems can cost more than finding the
right piece of property. He said, however, with his warning and with Mr. Lindstrom's sugges-
tion about putting limitations on the size of the chapel, he has no problem with the applica-
tion.
Mr. Henley stated that he believes that the site itself would restrict other uses of the
property.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-85-100 with the conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission, and a No. 6 to read: "Approval is for a 130 seat maximum chapel
to be used for worship and church business only, with necessary parking." Mr. Way seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
(Note: Following are the conditions of approval:
2.
3.
4.
Site plan approval;
Access to align with West Leigh entrance;
Building setback of 170 feet; and parking area setback of 150 feet;
County Engineer approval of construction activity in flood plain in accor-
dance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance;
Watershed Management Official review of grading permit to be guided by con-
struction Best Management Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management
Plan; the Comprehensive Plan and State Water Control Board;
No access to Rhodes Drive;
Approval is for a 130 seat maximum chapel to be used for worship and church
business only, with necessary parking.)
(Note: Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting during discussions that involved SP-86-02,
SP-86-03 and SP-86-04 because his firm represents the company involved.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-86-02. Tom Curtis, Trustee. Amend SP-85-54 to permit six guest
rooms approved for two existing cottages to be located in Keswick Clubhouse addi-
tion/conference center and this addition to be connected to the main club house. Also permit
renovation of two existing cottages into a tennis pro shop and storage'building. Tax Map 80,
parcels 8, 8Z, and 9. Located on south side of Route 731 at Route 744, known as Keswick
Country Club property. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and
March 11, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Petition: Tom Curtis, as trustee of the Keswick Country Club Land Trust,
petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend Conditions 1 and 4 of SP-85-54,
a special use perm%t authorizing clubhouse expansion.
Staff Comment:
Relating to Condition 1, the applicant has stated that: 'The Board of
Supervisors allowed six guest rooms to go into two existing cottages. This
Special Permit is being filed to request an amendment to that Special Permit
condition by permitting the six guest rooms to be located in the Keswick
Clubhouse addition/conference center which would make a total of 28 guest
rooms in the main clubhouse and the addition to be connected to the main
clubhouse. In addition, this Special Permit application requests the Board
to permit the renovation, alteration, and modification of the two existing
cottages into a tennis pro shop and storage building.'
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paae 17) _
457
Currently Condition 1 reads as follows: 'Expansion limited to renovation of
six (6) existing suites in the clubhouse, six (6) guest rooms in two exist-
ing cottages, and establishment of thirty-six (36) additional suites;
location of thirty-six (36) additional suites will be no closer to existing
private dwellings than current clubhouse;'
Staff recommends Condition 1 be amended as follows: 'Expansion limited to a
total of twenty-eight (28) guest rooms in the main clubhouse building and
clubhouse addition together with conference rooms and twenty (20) guest
rooms in the proposed new lodge. Two existing cottages may be employed as a
tennis pro shop and storage/maintenance building. Location of buildings/
additions shall be in general accord with 'Preliminary site plan, Keswick
Country Club,' dated January 15, 1986 and marked 'Received February 10,
1986, Planning Division' and further identified as 'Presented to Planning
Commission on March 4, 1986' and initialled 'RSK'.
Relating to Condition 4, the applicant also requests that the Board of
Supervisors: 'Amend condition 4 of Special Permit 84-54 from "the bonding
and/or construction of the connector road from Route 731 to Route 616 and
the central well system shall be required prior to issuance of building
permit for the new guest room/suites" to permit, "bonding and/or construc-
tion of the connector road from Route 731 to Route 616 and the central well
system shall be required prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy
for the new guest rooms/suites. The applicant will complete the pump
testing of the wells to be finished in accordance with the necessary regula-
tory requirements for approval prior to issuance of building permits for new
guest rooms/suites." '
Staff recommends amendment in accordance with the applicant's request."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 4, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval of this petition amending Conditions 1 and 4 of SP-85-54 to read as
follows:
Expansion limited to a total of twenty-eight (28) guest rooms in the
main clubhouse building and clubhouse addition together with conference
rooms and twenty (20) guest rooms in the proposed new lodge. Two
existing cottages may be employed as tennis pro shop and storage/
maintenance building. Location of buildings/additions shall be in
general accord with "Preliminary Site Plan, Keswick County Club" dated
January 15, 1986, and marked "Received March 3, 1986, Planning
Division" and further identified as "Presented to the Board of
Supervisors on March 19, 1986," and initialled "RSK".
e
Bonding and/or construction of the connector road from Route 731 to
Route 616 and the central well system shall be required prior to
issuance of B~~-pe~m~ certificate of occupancy for the new guest
rooms/suites; provided that the six existing suites in the clubhouse
may be renovated without compliance with this condition. The applicant
shall complete the pump testing of the wells to be finished in accor-
dance with the necessary regulatory requirements for approval prior to
issuance of building permits for new guest rooms/suites.
Mr. Horne stated that, under the amended Condition No. 1, the dates need to be changed
to read, "Received March 3, 1986, Planning Division and further identified as Presented to
Board of Supervisors on March 19, 1986." The initials also need to be changed to "JTPH."
Mr. Fisher inquired if the Planning Commission had received a different plan. Mr. Horne
answered that this is the same plan that was presented to the Planning Commission, but there
was one item that was described to the Commission and was not drawn on the plan. He said it
is a minor item, but the Board will be informed. He stated that the staff recommends
approval in accordance with the applicant's request, and the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval also.
Mr. Fisher asked if the 28 guest rooms is an increase in the total rooms or a change in
where they will be located? Mr. Horne responded that it is a change in where the guest rooms
will be located. Mr. Fisher next asked Mr. Horne if the condition that changed the road
requirements would allow construction of the guest units before the road is finished, but not
allow them to be occupied. Mr. Horne answered that Mr. Fisher is correct.
The Board took a recess at 9:54 p.m. and reconvened at 9:59 p.m. At that time, Mr.
Horne showed the Board the site plan of the clubhouse. Mr. Fisher asked if this was an
expansion of the plan that has already been approved. Mr. Horne explained that if the rooms
had not been planned for guest rooms under the original plan, they would have probably been
used for storage. In terms of the number of guest rooms, however, they have not increased.
He mentioned that the distance between the closest point from the clubhouse addition to the
closest residence in Keswick is 460 feet. The closest building to a residence in Keswick is
a maintenance building that is 396 feet from the nearest residence. Mr. Horne stated that
the reason he wanted to reference and initial this plan tonight is because he wants to put
this to record as the official plan so that there will not be any confusion in the future as
to what was approved. Mr. Horne mentioned that the applicant also wants to enclose a patio,
and this was not in the original proposal. The staff's opinion is that this does not materi-
ally affect the approval.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr.'-Horne could figure out from the site plan how big the clubhouse
addition is, and Mr. Horne answered, "yes."
458
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Bain represented the applicant, Mr. Curtis, and
said that the reason for the change in Condition Number One is because in studying the plan
with the architects, it was decided that having cottages and uses where people would be
staying apart from the main addition would not work. That is the basic reason that the six
rooms were put into the addition, itself. Since the other facilities are there, it was
decided to convert them to storage and a tennis pro shop. As.far as distance from the
buildings is concerned, Mr. Bain hopes that having the planner scale the map down to show the
actual distance on the plan will alleviate that concern. The amendment to Condition Number
Four is to allow work to continue while the approval process is underway for both the roads
and the central well system. Those plans have been submitted to Mr. Elrod's office and to
the Highway Department, but it will take time for those road plans to be approved. He said
the wells will be tested and the criteria that is required will be met in terms of the
central well operation.
Mr. Curtis mentioned that when the road was changed from a private road to a state road,
the safety of people moving from the cottages became a question.
No one else wished to speak concerning the application, so Mr. Fisher closed the Public
Hearing.
-Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve SP-86-02 with the conditions of the Planning Commis-
sion and the change in identification of the map as mentioned by Mr. Horne. Mr. Way seconded
the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom.
(Note: Following are the conditions of approval:
Expansion limited to a total of twenty-eight guest rooms in the main
clubhouse building and clubhouse addition together with conference
rooms and twenty guest rooms in the proposed new lodge. Two existing
cottages may be employed as tennis pro shop and storage/maintenance
building. Location of buildings/additions shall be in general accord
with "Preliminary Site Plan, Keswick County Club" dated January 15,
1986, and marked "Received March 3, 1986, Planning Division" and
further identified as "Presented to the Board of Supervisors on March
19, 1986" and initialled "JTPH".
0
Bonding and/or construction of the connector road from Route 731 to
Route 616 and the central well system shall be required prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new guest rooms/suites;
provided that the six existing suites in the clubhouse may be renovated
without compliance with this condition. The applicant shall complete
the pump testing of the wells to be finished in accordance with the
necessary regulatory requirements for approval prior to issuance of
building permits for new guest rooms/suites.
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-86-03. Tom Curtis, Trustee. Allow for construction of golf
course and road in the flood plain. Located on current Keswick County Club grounds between
State Routes 731 and 616 and Interstate 64. Tax Map 80, parcels 8, 8Z,61, 60A, 62, 70, and
31. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and March 11, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Petition: Tom Curtis, as trustee for the Keswick Country Club Land Trust,
petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue special use permit in accordance
with provisions of 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District 'for the purpose of
doing various projects in the flood plain of the golf course property which
include constructing a portion of the state road from Route 731 to Route 616
as approved in Special Permit 85-53 in the flood plain; rebuilding the golf
course including irrigation piping; establishing erosion control measures;
building a new pond and filling up of an old pond; dredging an existing pond
and repairing the dam to the pond being dredged; building cart paths;
relocating roads and drainage ways.' Further, the applicant states that
'this application is general in nature to permit whatever work needs to be
done in the flood plain to complete renovation of the golf course.'
Staff Comment: In review of SP-85-53, a special use permit related to
subdivision of the property, staff included a condition related to construc-
tion activity in the flood plain:
2~ae
County Engineer approval of construction activity in the flood plain
of Carroll Creek in accordance with 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Such approval was to be obtained prior to subdivision plat review by the
Planning Commission and was intended to encompass improvements related to
the subdivision (i.e. - roads, water lines, etc). Staff opinion is that
review should be primarily technical since Carroll Creek is not canoeable or
otherwise of general public interest. Staff recommends approval of SP-86-03
subject to:
1)
County Engineer approval of construction activity in the flood plain of
Carroll Creek in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay
District of the Zoning Ordinance."
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
~e 19~_
Mr. Horne noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 4, 1986, unani-
mously recommended approval of this petition subject to the condition recommended by the
staff.
There were no questions from Board members for Mr. Horne, so Mr. Fisher opened the
Public Hearing.
Mr. Bain said he had nothing to add to the comments. He said the request was basically
approved for the subdivision earlier, but since work was being done on the golf course, also,
the permit needed to be adjusted.
Mr. Fisher asked whose idea it was to have three applications for the Keswick requests
instead of one. Mr. Horne said it was submitted in three separate requests by the applicant.
Mr. Bain added to Mr. Horne's reply that these requests needed to be separated because each
permit was dealing with different conditions. Mr. Horne commented that since there were
three separate conditions, the Board should take three separate actions.
Mr. Fisher closed the Public Hearing, since there was no one else who wished to speak
about the application.
Mr. Bowie asked for clarification of the request, and Mr. Horne explained that the
original permit condition anticipated improvements that were in conjunction with the subdivi-
sion activities such as building of the roads. This request is to allow other construction
activities in association with the golf course facility. He believes the applicant would be
more comfortable if he knows that there will be no other construction activity in the flood
plain except for road and utility construction.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve SP-86-03 with the condition recommended by the
Planning Commission and staff. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom.
(Note: Following is the condition for approval:
County Engineer approval of construction activity in the flood plain of
Carroll Creek in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District
of the Zoning Ordinance.)
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-86-04. Tom Curtis, Trustee. Allow for subdivision of clubhouse
tract into two parcels consisting of 15.200 acres and 5.000 acres. Tax Map 80, parcels 8,
8Z, and 9. Property on south of Route 731 at Route 744, known as Keswick Country Club
property. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and March 11,
1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Staff Comment: The applicant has requested that this property containing
24.395 acres as approved by the Board of Supervisors in Special Permit 85-54
to be divided into two tracts, one shown on the plat filed with the applica-
tion as Tract 'B' containing 15.200 acres, and the other identified on said
plat as Tract 'C' containing 5.00 acres (residual acreage added to adjoining
properties). Currently, this tract has no division rights with the parcel.
The applicant is proposing no change in the uses granted under Special
Permit 85-54 and is filing this application for financing purposes as
required by the lenders involved in the project.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following condition:
Final plat shall include notation that five acre tract shall not be
used for residential purposes but may be used for such subordinate or
accessory uses as may be established under SP-85-54.'~
Mr. Horne noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 4, 1986, had
unanimously recommended approval subject to the condition in the staff report.
Mr. Horne explained that the reason that the acreage in the original plat and the
acreage in this request do not add up is because there are some small parcels around the edge
of the entire project, and some of them are being added into the golf course tract. He
understands that it is a complex series of land swaps and creations of tracts purely for
financial purposes.
Mr. Fisher asked if the properties were divided and fell into separate ownership, will
the special permit conditions and the bonding be adequate to assure that the conditions of
the original special permit could be achieved. Mr. Horne answered that, in his opinion, the
conditions would remain the same. Mr. Fisher inquired as to why the same conditions were not
attached to the 15.2 acre tract so that the same permit would control this tract also. Mr.
Horne replied that, in his opinion, the conditions of the special permit apply to the 15.2
acres whether or not it is stated. He said it could be restated that the 15.2 acre tract is
subject to the conditions and uses established under SP-85-54. Mr. Fisher suggested it may
be a good idea, at this point, to include a statement such as Mr. Horne had just mentioned.
Mr. Bowie stated that clarification needs to be made also in the portion of the staff
report where it mentions that "this tract has no division rights." He assumes that it is
referring to the five acre tract. Mr. Horne answered that the five acre tract is the one
460
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
that is being referred to in the staff report. Mr. Bowie then asked if the 15 acre tract has
division rights. Mr. Horne does not believe that the 15 acre tract has division rights,
either, so Mr. Bowie said that the statement in the staff report apparently refers to Tracts
"B" and "C." Mr. Bowie suggested that this be clarified in the staff report.
Mr. Fisher commented that the language of the condition in the staff report is not very
clear, and he feels that the existing parcels and their acreages should be clarified. He
then opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Curtis told the Board that the area on the northern portion of the uppermost part of
the drawing of the plat where Parcel A-1 is identified by 5.748 acres, should have been
identified from the beginning as the golf course. He mentioned that there are two lenders --
one is a development lender and one is a construction lender. He said that Tract "B" is
identified as 15.2 acres, but there is only nine acres of ground there. He stated that
Parcel B-2 has 3.8 acres and Parcel B-3 has 2.2 acres. Before this property can be consid-
ered for championship or PG~ play, there has to be a minimum of 20 acres in the parcels.
Adding all of the parcels together will bring the total to 20.0 acres of land. He said that
Parcel B-3 is perceived to be a sewage treatment plant site, and that had to be identified.
Mr. Curtis went on to say that the five acre tract is an odd-shaped tract and really has no
use because there are no division rights. Mr. Curtis mentioned that the New York area
lenders have certain requirements, and his company has met those requirements. He said that
the Palmer representatives have also indicated their necessary requirements as far as the
clubhouse area, and those requirements have been met.
Mr. Fisher asked why one parcel is not used for the whole clubhouse. Mr. Curtis
answered that it is because all of the construction facilities have cash flow values, which
are called profit centers. This can only be found on Parcel B-i, which is the 9.057 tract.
That has a ratio of land to square footage of property for participant lenders to look at
from the rule of thumb. If there was more land, the lenders would ask how that type of loan
could be supported.
Mr. Bowie asked if anything else could occur on Tract "C" beyond which has already been
approved. Mr. Curtis answered, "No, not without the Board's approval."
Mr. Fisher closed the Public Hearing, since there was no one else who wished to comment
on the application. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne if he could amend the wording in the staff
report to make it clear that all of the land is still controlled by SP-85-54. In answer to
Mr. Fisher's concern relating to the condition in the staff report, Mr. Horne suggested that
a period be placed after the word, "purposes." Then a Number Two Condition would state that,
"All tracts shall be used only for those uses as established under SP-85-54."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve the request
subject to the following two conditions:
Final plat shall include notation that five acre tract shall not be used for
residential purposes;
2. Ail tracts shall be used only for those uses established under SP-85-54.
Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 15. ZMA-85-35. River Heights. To rezone 12.8 acres from R-15 to HC
and one acre to CO. Located on west side of Route 29 North, about 1,200 feet south of
Rivanna River. Tax map 45, part of parcel 68D1. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress in March 4 and March 11, 1986.)
Mr. Horne gave the Planning Staff's report as follows:
"Petition: River Heights Associates petitions the Board of Supervisors to
rezone 13.8 acres from R-15, Residential, to HC, Highway Commercial (12.8
acres) and CO, Commercial Office (1 acre). Property, described as Tax Map
45, parcel 68D1 (part) is located on the west side of U. S. Route 29 North,
south and adjacent to the entrance road (Hilton Heights Road) to the Hilton
Hotel in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This rezoning petition
is accompanied by proffers related to traffic generation and future road
access.
Background: While only about 14 acres is proposed for rezoning at this
time, this report will discuss the entire +75 acres north of Jim Price
Chevrolet currently or previously controlled by River Heights Associates.
Prior to 1980, the frontage of the property was zoned B-1 Business (+18
acres) and the remainder was zoned R-3 Residential (20 dwellings per acre;
+59 acres). On December 3, 1980, the Board of Supervisors approved rezoning
of an additional -11.5 acres from R-3 Residential to B-1 Business and CO
Commercial Office. One week later, the Board adopted the current zoning
ordinance and map. Currently this property is zoned R-15 Residential (+43
acres). HC, Highway Commercial (+21.5 acres) and CO, Commercial Office
(+7.5 acres). (Acreage discrepancy between current zoning and zoning prior
to 1980 is generally due to right-of-way acquisition for bridge improvement
on Route 29 North and right-of-way dedication for Hilton Heights Road.)
This property has 2,610 feet of frontage along U. S. Route 29 North which con-
stitutes about one-third of the frontage on the southbound lane from the South
Fork Rivanna River to Hydraulic Road. As a result of 1980 zoning proffers
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
[Raqe 21)
and subdivision restriction, access to the property is limited to three
locations:
Hilton Heights Road providing ingress/egress at an improved crossover
of Route 29 North;
e
An ingress/egress to be located at least 500 feet north of Hilton
Heights Road;
3. An egress only to be located south of Hilton Heights Road;
4. No access to Woodburn Road (Route 659).
Applicant's Proffer:
During review of the 1980 rezoning the applicant submitted a transpor-
tation analysis plan which calculated a traffic generation of 19,387
vehicle trips per day. River Heights Associates has proffered that
traffic generation under this rezoning petition would not exceed
traffic which could be generated under existing zoning:
Hotel
Office
Residential
HC & new CO
2,625 vehicle trips per day (same)
1,230 vehicle trips per day (same)
3,150 vehicle trips per day
(requested zoning at 15 dwelling units per acre)
12,382 vehicle trips per day *
*Highway Commercial and new Commercial Office zoning would be on three
separate tracts and generation figures should be allotted to each tract
at this time. At a future date figures could be reassigned among
vacant properties or as sites fully develop. Staff would recommend
that this be accomplished administratively.
On March 4, 1986, the County Engineer and Planning staff requested the
Planning Commission to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the
Comprehensive Plan to provide for a roadway to the west and parallel to
Route 29 North from the Rivanna River to Rio Road. (Prior to that date
staff had worked informally with developers to establish the roadway).
The applicant has made provision for this roadway or in the alterna-
tive, a connection to Woodburn Road, whichever may be appropriate.
This proffer is dependent on the County making a decision as to the
roadways prior to submission of a site plan which would affect such
roads.
Comprehensive Plan: Existing Highway Commercial zoning in Neighborhood One
appears more extensive than recommended by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map. In development of the 1980 zoning map, prior commercial zoning in the
area was generally recognized. Generally, this resulted in commercial
zonings of greater depth from Route 29 North than are depicted on the Land
Use Plan Map for Neighborhood One. This has resulted in more land zoned for
commercial development than is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan for
development by year 2002:
Commercial
Commercial Office
Vacant**
Comprehensive Plan
117 acres 65 acres
7 acres 25 acres
**Does not include properties developed since adoption
of 1983 Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, Neighborhood One is "overzoned" for general commercial develop-
ment and "underzoned" for commercial office usage.
Other appropriate Comprehensive Plan recommendations for Neighborhood One
and commercial use in general are ~as follows:
Current land use trends (commercial and industrial development along
Route 29 and residential development to the west) should continue with
primarily medium-density residential development along SPCA and Rio
Road in areas presently undeveloped.
0
Future highway-oriented commercial development should be located
exclusively in clusters with common access points on sites of a minimum
three acres in area. Highway-oriented commercial development not
located in such clusters should utilize service road or reverse front-
age access shared by two or more establishments to minimize the number
of intersections on the higher functional class road.
Rezonings to a commercial designation for sites of three acres or more
should be accomplished under a planned development zoning designation
accompanied by a transportation analysis plan.
Commercial office uses should be employed as transitional areas between
residential areas and heavier commercial or industrial areas.
Staff Comment: Staff offers the following comment regarding the character
of this rezoning petition:
....... 462
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
Traffic generation figures for the hotel, office and residential sites
would generally remain the same as existing zoning:
Use Acreage Development VTPD
Hotel 13.1 250 rooms 2,625
Office 7.6 100,000 sq.ft, offices 1,230
R-15 29.7 445 dwellings 3,150
The remaining +22.3 acres would be zoned commercially (21.3 acres HC;
one acre CO) and could be developed to an average of 554.5 vehicle
trips per day.
o
The Fontaine Shopping Center site consists of 54 acres proposed for
development with 125,000 square feet retail, 60,000 square feet office
uses, 150 room hotel, and 290 dwellings. Generally speaking, the River
Heights site is about 50 percent larger, can generate about 50 percent
more traffic, and has a higher ratio of commercial to residential
zoning. While the proposed zoning pattern'could result in a variety of
development schemes, this property could be developed in a land use mix
similar to and at a larger scale than that proposed for the Fontaine
tract.
Comments in 32 above should be deemed as an indication only of one
possible development scenario, intended solely to describe potential
scale of development. For example, a major auto dealership could
occupy a large portion of the commercial property (i.e. - +10 acres)
and generate comparatively less traffic. Staff would emphasize that
the scenario in 32 above would represent maximum intensity of develop-
ment under the traffic generation proffer.
Commercial zoning depth would be greater than that of properties
directly to the south and would set precedent for future requests.
Commercial Office zoning is proposed as a transition to R-15 zoning to
the south.
Staff offers the following comments regarding the applicant's proffers:
The proffer of 'status quo' traffic generation negates concern as to
additional traffic to Route 29 North: Under conventional rezoning, the
additional 12.8 acres of requested commercial could increase traffic by
over 12,000 vehicle trips per day. Under the applicant's proffer,
traffic generation would remain at 19,387 vehicle trips per day.
Traffic generation would be monitored during the site plan approval
process.
The proposed parallel road is viewed as an improvement over existin~
circumstances: As stated earlier, through a combination of prior
zoning proffers and subdivision restriction, access to Route 29 North
has been limited to two major and one minor access points. These
restrictions were in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation and staff recommendations and are viewed as consistent
with efforts to control access to Route 29 North for functional pur-
poses. In addition to these prior restrictions, River heights has made
provision through the current proffer for establishment of a parallel
road or access to Woodburn Road, whichever may be deemed more appropri-
ate by the County to further efforts related to traffic on Route 29
North. Staff opinion is that alternate access would, under certain
circumstances, serve the general public interest.
Staff Recommendation: The applicant's proffers maintain 'status quo'
traffic generation and provide for a parallel road to Route 29 North (depen-
dent on timing of County decision). The primary change from existing zoning
is in terms of land use mix. Overall staff opinion is that proposed zoning,
due to the potential parallel road, is an improvement over existing zoning.
Staff recommends approval.
'"February 26, 1986
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
Planning Commission
Departments of Planning & Zoning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
To Whom It May Concern:
We, River Heights Associates, hereby make the following proffers in connec-
tion with the rezoning of a portion of the property under ZMA-85-35:
1. A 50 foot right-of-way at one of the following locations:
a)
b)
Road A to be located as shown on the proposed zoning map
Road B to run North to South beginning at Hilton Heights Road
between the Hilton Hotel entrance and 150 feet west of the
Hilton Hotel entrance. Such road to meet the southern
boundary of this property at some point between the eastern
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
~aqe 23)
463
line of the proposed CO zoning and a corner in the southern
property line approximately 265 feet east of the CO zoning.
At the time of submission of any site plan that would affect the
location of such roads the county will:
a)
b)
Designate the exact location of the road or,
The proffer for this road will be null & void.
e
Total vehicle trips will not exceed 19,387 V.P.D.
breakdown would be as follows:
The tentative
Hotel 2,625
Office 1,230
Residential 3,150
HC - new CO 12,382
19,387
The proffer would allow for adjustment within the framework of these numbers
dependent upon final site plan approval. The numbers may also be adjusted
by lighter density use on the various areas.
Sincerely,
RIVER HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES
(SIGNED) by: Wendell W. Wood, General Partner"
March 18, 1986
County of Albemarle
Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
22901
Dear Members of the Board:
We, River Heights Associates, hereby make the following proffers in connec-
tion with the rezoning of a portion of the property under ZMA-85-35:
We will construct a road within a 50 foot right-of-way with appropriate
drainage easements at one of the following locations:
a)
b)
Road A to be located as shown on the proposed zoning map
Road B to run North to South beginning at Hilton Heights Road
between the Hilton Hotel entrance and at least 150 feet west of
the Hilton Hotel entrance as suggested by the County Engineer.
Such road to meet the southern boundary of this property at some
point between the eastern line of the proposed CO zoning and a
corner in the southern property line approximately 265 feet east
of the CO zoning,
At the time of submission of any site plan that would affect the location of
such roads, the county will:
a)
b)
Designate the exact location of the road or,
The proffer for this road will be null and void.
2. Total vehicle trips will not exceed 16,767 V.P.D.
The tentative breakdown would be as follows:
Office 1,230
Residential 3,150
HC - new CO 12,382
16,762
The proffer would allow for adjustment within the framework of these numbers
dependent upon final site plan approval. The numbers may also be adjusted
by lighter density use on the various areas.
Sincerely,
RIVER HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES
(SIGNED) Wendell W. Wood, General Partner"
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 11, 1986, unanimously
recommended denial of this petition based on the following concerns: opposition to commer-
cial zoning all the way to Woodburn Road; and the acreage proposed for rezoning is too large.
Mr. Horne said that in the third paragraph of the staff report, "Hydraulic Road" should
be taken out and replaced by "Rio Road." He mentioned that the Planning Commission members
brought out the fact that zoning to the south has been in greater depth than the Comprehen-
sive Plan had shown, and that the depth on this plan is somewhat similar to the southern
area. This would be the first zoning that would actually take commercial zoning all the way
to Woodburn Road. Mr. Horne then discussed the staff's recommendation concerning the
484
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
~Paqe 243_
applicant's proffer. Mr. Fisher asked for clarification of the proffer. Mr. Horne explained
that the applicant's proffer will not generate more traffic than what is there now, and it
will provide for a parallel road to Route 29 North in this location.
In taking the proffer and all the circumstances together, Mr. Horne stated that the
staff's recommendation is for approval because it is an improvement over the existing zoning.
He told the Board that a revised proffer, dated March 18, 1986, had been submitted. Mr.
Horne then illustrated some of things that were discussed in the staff report. He pointed
out an area on the map that was recently approved for rezoning for Dr. Charles Hurt to a
depth that was greater than the scale depth taken off of the Comprehensive Plan. He men-
tioned another area where rezoning was approved and the depth was somewhat greater, but not
as much as Dr. Hurt's rezoning. He pointed out the line that separated residential zoning
and commercial zoning. He said that commercial zoning is essentially all the way to the
River on the Route 29 frontage. He mentioned again that this zoning request would place
commercial zoning all the way back to Woodburn Road. He added, however, that under existing
zoning, there is a condition disallowing access to Woodburn Road, even though there is
frontage there. Access would have to come from Route 29 North. Mr. Horne showed the Board
members the colors on the map that attempt to illustrate various actions that have taken
place to try to limit the impacts on Route 29 North. Mr. Horne said that one reason why the
Berkman connector roadway was mentioned to the Board recently is that it will be an attempt
to provide some other access to the large scale commercial properties on Route 29 North in
order to limit turning movements. This applicant is proffering to make some provisions for
that roadway.
Mr. Horne then went through the proffer point by point. He said the staff suggested the
applicant proffer some provision for that roadway if the staff can tell the applicant where
the road will connect into the applicant's property. This connection could then be the
northern end of the connector road which would come out at the Hilton Heights Road. At this
time, the staff does not have a location to give the applicant for that roadway since it has
not been designed. The staff is attempting to put together some wording so the applicant can
proffer to make provisions for that roadway. He suggested that a rewording of the proffer
might indicate that the road is to meet the southern property line at some point near the HC
zoning of Jim Price Chevrolet. This is a division between the HC zoning and the residential
zoning and somewhere near the eastern boundary line of the CO zoning. He then suggested that
the final sentence of Proffer Number One (b), should the applicant choose to submit it this
way, should state that, "such road is to meet the southern boundary road of this property at
some point near the eastern line of the proposed CO zoning." The rest of the sentence would
be deleted.
Mr. Fisher inquired if this is the applicant's proffer. Mr. Horne responded, "yes." He
said, however, he is not changing the proffer for the applicant. This has already been
discussed with Mr. Wood, and Mr. Horne feels that this is the applicant's intent. Next, Mr.
Horne suggested that also under Proffer Number One (b), that the staff feels that this
proffer would be more effective if the word "submission" was changed to the word "approval."
Mr. Lindstrom inquired if there were any standards for the construction of this roadway.
Mr. Horne responded that the proffer does not state any standards. Mr. Lindstrom then asked
that if this application is approved, and the applicant submitted a site plan that would
affect the location of the road, and the County could not designate the exact location, what.
would happen to the proffer in respect to the road. Mr. Horne answered that the proffer
could become null and void. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he will not feel comfortable consider-
ing this application until there are some revisions made.
Mrs. Cooke mentioned that the Board has adopted a policy that states when information is
submitted to Board members without allowing them time to review it properly, the Board is not
obligated to act until a proper review has been done. She said this request falls into that
category because the Board just received the information tonight. The Planning Commission
has not seen the request, and she does not feel comfortable acting on it until the Planning
Commission has seen it. She said this is the position that the Board has held with other
applicants, and she does not see any reason to deviate from that position.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with Mrs. Cooke because he thinks there are some things
that were in the February 26 proffer that the Planning Commission did see, and the Commission
voted against the whole thing. At the least, he thinks Mr. Horne's suggestion about site
plan "approval," rather than the word, "submission," needs to be included. He mentioned that
the Board has only 60 days to act on a rezoning request. Mr. Horne stated that he believes
that within 30 days the staff will have a recommendation to the Board for an appropriate
location for the roadway. Mr. Lindstrom feels, also, that the proffer should state what
standards will be applicable. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board hold a brief hearing on
the plan, and that it then be referred back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. St. John said he is not certain what the sentence means that says, "The proffer for
this road will be null and void." Mr. Horne answered that he believes it is the applicant's
intent to say that if the County cannot designate the exact location of the roadway at some
point in time, then the Board will not have the ability to impose the proffer.
Mr. St. John asked if the statement is referring to either of the proffers, and Mr.
Horne replied that he believes the applicant is referring to the particular proffer concern-
ing the roadway. He said, however, that the statement does not really indicate which proffer
it relates to. Mr. St. John said he had no objection to this statement, but he thinks it
should be clarified.
The Board members had no further questions for Mr. Horne, so Mr. Fisher opened the
Public Hearing.
Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, said that he is trying to have a quality development
that has already been started with the building of the Hilton Hotel. He said that he wants
to continue to have the highest quality development on Route 29 and something that the
community can be proud of. Instead of doing a strip development on Route 29, he believes
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
, 65
that a quality development can be accomplished, and the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance can
be met with what is required of Highway Commercial by doing a cluster development with
access. He said that this particular piece of property has 2,600 feet of road frontage on
Route 29. He has proffered two entrances and exits off of Route 29 and one additional exit.
He noted that on a piece of land that was just approved, there is only 1200 feet of road
frontage, and it has three entrances off of the property from Route 29. He does not believe
that his request will set a precedent because basically he will be granted what his neighbors
already have. He said the property has all of the utilities, and his corporation has built a
road, widened Route 29, created an acceleration lane and two deceleration lanes and widened
the crossover for a major entrance. The road that goes into the hotel is 88 feet wide. His
corporation has spent $300,000 in off-site sewer costs that were donated to the Albemarle
County Service Authority to bring sewer to the property. He pointed out that there is no
sewer on the property to the north Of his land. He mentioned that he has no access to
Woodburn Road, he does not want any, and is willing to proffer that he will never ask for
access there if that is a concern of the Board. He added that rural zoning is on the west
side of the SPCA Road, and feels that he should not be penalized because this happens to be
the narrow point. His request is 50 percent less than what was granted to Dr. Hurt recently.
Mr. Wood said his people have had several meetings with the Planning staff trying to get
recommendations from the staff. After the resolution was adopted to do a parallel road, Mr.
Roudabush gave Mr. Wood this recommendation today of the location of the road. Mr. Wood
pointed out the location of the road on the map for Board members, and went over the zonings
in the area. Mr. Wood said he feels that he has met the staff's requirements, and feels that
he has met as many requirements as Dr. Hurt met for his property.
Mr. Fisher said that this roadway has not been approved by the Board, and all of this is
new information and an imaginary concept. He said the Board has not had a chance to decide
if this roadway ~ill be an advantage or a disadvantage, and it is clear that no action has
been taken on the proposal. Mr. Wood said he is aware of this. He went on to say that he
was not aware of the road until today. But, if this is what the Board wishes, his corpora-
tion is willing to build the road. It seems to him that it would solve some of the problems
on Route 29, and it seems to be a very desirable road to have.
There were no further questions for Mr. Wood from Board members, and no one from the
audience wished to speak about this proposal. Mr. Fisher recommended that the proposal be
referred back to the Planning Commission for a re-consideration.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that it seems that the only thing that has changed in this
proffer is the deletion of the hotel and a reduction in the vehicle trips per day from 19,387
to 16,762. The word, "at least," has been added and "as suggested by the County Engineer"
has been added. He has some significant problems with the proffer, but he does not think
that these are significant changes. He is more concerned that the Board learn what the
Planning Commission's intentions are with respect to the proposed roadway, and he prefers to
defer action here on this application until the Planning Commission has acted on Bill
Roudabush's recommendations in terms of a road proposal and has made a recommendation to the
Board on that. He also could not approve the rezoning as it stands with this kind of a
proffer regardless of what is learned about the roadways. He would feel more comfortable
deferring it on that basis, instead of sending it back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Horne does not believe that the Planning Commission's action is going to change with
the new proffer unless the whole application changes. He said the application has not
changed significantly from what the Commission has seen.
Mr. Lindstrom commented again that he agrees with Mrs. Cooke that the Board has not had
adequate time to review this proposal. Mr. Bowie said he does not believe that the applica-
tion should go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer action
to May 21, 1986, for the specific purpose of getting a recommendation from the Planning
Commission as to the road proposed to run parallel to Route 29 North, and in the hope that
the staff and applicant will get together and refine the language of the proffer. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion. There ~was no further discussion. 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. 16. Personnel Policy: Overtime and Compensatory. A memorandum dated
March 14, 1986, was received from the County Executive, stating that this policy has been
written to comply with the new Fair Labor Standards Act enacted by Congress and effective
April 1.
Mr. Tucker said that this is in response to the Fair Labor Standards Act that has been
amended. Mr. Fisher pointed out that Number Three of the Personnel Overtime/Compensatory
Time Policy encourages the employees not to take compensatory time.
Mr. Tucker stated that he thought Number Five would help this situation. It states that
department heads have the responsibility of assuring that compensatory time shall be used
within six months after it has been earned. He said there will be some instances when some
employees will not be able to to take this time within six months. He mentioned the Planning
Department as an example.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt the following
Overtime/Compensatory Time Policy to begin April 1, 1986:
"Compensatory time is defined as leave time granted in lieu of compensation
for time worked over and above the regular work schedule. It is understood
that such additional time is worked at the direction of the department head
or designee. The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes a means by which
overtime/compensatory time is administered. The County Executive will
approve a listing of positions that shall be considered exempt from the Fair
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)__
Labor Standards Act. This list will be housed in the Personnel Office and
will be updated as necessary. All other positions will be considered as
covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act and shall have overtime hours
administered as follows:
Compensatory time will accrue for all hours worked over the normal 40
hours per work week period (28 days for law enforcement). The County
Executive has established the official work week as extending from
Saturday at 12:01 a.m. to Friday at 12 midnight. Hours that are paid
but not worked (i.e. annual leave, sick leave, holidays, etc.) will not
count toward the base 40 hours requirement.
e
Compensatory time meeting the above criteria will accrue at time and
one half for each extra hour worked.
Compensatory time shall accrue up to a maximum of 240 hours for all
employees covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act other than law
enforcement; law enforcement officers shall accrue up to a maximum of
480 hours.
e
The maximum accrual outlined above must be reached before overtime
payments will be authorized.
Department heads have the responsibility of assuring that compensatory
time shall be used within six months after it has been earned.
Upon termination, employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act
shall be paid for unused compensatory time; likewise hours accumulated
over the established maximum will be compensated monetarily.
Employees who are declared exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act shall
not accrue compensatory time on an hourly basis nor will they be eligible
for payment for hours worked over the regular work week.
Child Protective Service
Child protective service workers serving on-call are entitled to compensa-
tion as approved by the County Board of Social Services; described as
follows:
For all workers covering on-call responsibilities, one hour of compen-
satory time will be given for each eight hour shift of stand-by-duty.
When a worker is actually called out to provide direct door-to-door
service for more than two hours in any eight hour shift, he or she will
be compensated at one and one-half hours for each hour spent in the
field.
No worker shall receive both stand-by and door-to-door compensation in
any one eight hour shift."
There was no further discussion.
ing recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Fisher said the Board would need to complete those matters pertaining to the budget
which had not been completed this afternoon.
Mr. Lindstrom immediately offered motion that the Board reconsider the last motion made
by Mr. Way this afternoon concerning the School Budget which was: to accept the County
Executive's recommendation regarding "Refurbishments", i.e., that this amount be taken from
the General Government's Carry Over balance, plus adding $235,000 to the recommended amount
for the School Budget in order to meet the state mandate for a ten percent increase in
teacher salaries, and to recommend that other employees receive only a 3.5 percent instead of
the five percent being considered by the School Board. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie commented that he had voted "no" on this motion this afternoon, and he would
have preferred a different motion. Mr. Fisher explained that this motion is only to recon-
sider the previous motion. At this point, roll was called and the motion to reconsider
failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher and Mr. Henley.
At this time, Mr. Way made a new motion that the Board accept the County Executive's
recommendation, but that the School Budget be increased by the amount of $200,000. Implicit
in this motion is the idea that this budget would include the 3.5 increase for non-teaching
positions with the $200,000 going toward making up the deficit between the 8.2 percent and 10
percent increase in teacher salaries. Also, the amount for Refurbishment will be paid out of
the General Government's Carry Over balance. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
467
Mr. Fisher still thinks that employee fringe benefits need to be converted to salary.
He does not believe that the Board can continue to add local funds for everything that is
needed and meet all of the state mandates.
Mr. Lindstrom indicated that he did not like the motion either, but he feels the Board
has a responsibility to develop a budget, and it did not appear this afternoon that that
would be accomplished this year. He is willing to support the motion, but does not see any
rationale behind the figure of $200,000 except as a compromise.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Fisher said he had hoped that someone would have made a motion to reduce the per-
sonal property tax rate. Mr. Bowie said that by his calculations it can be done, and he then
offered motion to reduce the property tax rate by ten cents.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the moti6n, but said his preference would be to use that money as
he had indicated in his first motion this afternoon. Since that cannot be done, he will
support this 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.
Mr. Fisher commented that a Public Hearing on the 1986-87 County Budget needs to be
ordered and the 1987 tax rates set for advertising. Mr. Lindstrom made a motion to set the
tax rates as follows: Personal Property taxes will be set at $4.40 per $100, and Real
Property tax rates will remain the same at 77 cents per $100.
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion.
recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were any further changes to be made to the Albemarle County
budget before the Public Hearing is ordered. There were no comments, so Mr. Fisher asked for
a motion to set a Public Hearing.
Mr. Lindstrom made the motion to set a Public Hearing for the Albemarle County budget on
April 2, 1986, at 7:30 p.m. in the County Office Building. Mrs. Cooke 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.
Mr. Fisher said that a revised draft of a resolution relating to the Route 29 North
improvements has been received from staff. He asked if there were any comments.
Mrs. Cooke said she has a concern about adopting a resolution concerning this matter
until such time as the Board has seen the drawings that were promised at the MPO meeting this
morning by the Highway Department.
Mr. Bowie does not think that a resolution is needed at this time, and he doesn't think
the Board can prepare one by tomorrow. He said that there are a lot of things to be con-
sidered and he will not endorse anything until he sees the plans. He feels that a resolution
is not necessary until the Pre-Allocation Meeting in Culpeper next month. Mr. Way agreed
that it is not necessary to have a resolution by tomorrow.
Mr. Fisher commented that the Board is to meet at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow, at the Highway
Research Council Building at the University, with the State Highway Commission officials.
There is also a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 26, 1986, at 3:00 p.m. in this build-
ing to meet with Mr. Cowart, a representative of the Highway Department's Transportation
Study Commission.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about meeting with Mr. Cowart without having an
opportunity prior to that meeting for discussion. If plans and sketckes of the proposed
project can be made available before next Wednesday, perhaps the meeting could be moved up an
hour so that the Board would have an opportunity to meet first. He does not want to get into
the meeting and be fractionalized in opinion. He noted that he cannot be at the meeting
tomorrow, but he will support whatever the Board decides.
Mrs. Cooke said that there is nothing to be said until there is something for the Board
to see. Mr. Lindstrom asked the staff to make an effort to get the sketches to the Board
before the meeting on Wednesday afternoon.
468
March 19, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
__ (Page_..28)
Agenda Item No. 18. At 11:23 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn this meeting
until March 20, 1986, at 1:30 P.M., in Room 332 of the Highway Research Council Building,
University of Virginia. Mr. Way 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.
-Ch