1984-05-16May 16, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regula~ meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on May 16, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottestille,
Virginia.
Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., and Peter T. Way.
Absent: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.
Officers: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John;
Deputy County Executive and Director of Planning, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agneda.
items was presented as follows:
A consent agenda containing several informational
Letter dated May 7, 1984 from the Clerk of the House of Delegates enclosing
copies of H.J.R. 3, Virginia Public Procurement Act (encouraging public
bodies to adopt policies and procedures to foster procurement from Virginia
based vendors and contractors), and H.J.R. 29, encouraging political subdivisions
to maximize the use of high pressure sodium vapor lamps to light public streets.
Memo dated May 4, 1984 from Brenda Barbour setting out the goals and objectives
of the Emergency Medical Services Council for FY 1984-85.
Memo dated May 8, 1984 from Judy Gough listing various tax and license refunds
made by the Director of Finance from March to May, 1984.
Memo dated May 8, 1984 from Judy Gough reporting Bingo, Lottery and Raffle
permits recently issued by the Director or Finance.
Copy of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for FY 1983 from the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (is on file in the Clerk's office).
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the consent
agenda as presented. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-84-9. First Federal Savings and Loan Association and American
Federal Savings and Loan Association and Four Seasons Condominium Site Plan. Request to amend
Planned Unit Development to locate 96 condominium units on 11.94 acres zoned PUD. Located
east of Four Seasons Drive in Four Seasons PUD. County Tax Map 61X(1), Parcels 4 and 4A,
County Tax Map 6tX(2), Parcels 4B, 4C, 4D. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on May 1 and May 8, 1984.)
Mr. Tucker noted that a letter dated May 7, 1984, was received form the applicant
requesting that this rezoning petition be withdrawn without prejudice. Motion to this
effect was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by 'the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-84-11. Woodbriar Associates. Request to amend ZMA-79-32,
condition #9, to provide relief from sidewalk construction on Austin and Briarwood Drives,
Heather and Whitney Courts and all future roads within Briarwood PRD. Located west side of
Rt. 29 North. County Tax Map 32G, inclusive of all lots and parcels. Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 1 and May 8, 1984.)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 1, 1984, voted unanimously
to defer this rezoning petition indefinitely in order for the staff and the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation to determine which road plans in Briarwood were approved prior
to the Highway Department's adoption of its current sidewalk policy on June 30, 1981. Other
issues raised by the Commissi-on included possibly requiring sidewalk construction as originally
approved, but having those sidewalks not qualified for Highway Department maintenance built
to standards determined by the County Engineer (such standards to be less than those required
by the Highway Department). Mr. Tucker said the Board might prefer to just drop this item
from its agenda, since there is no way of knowing exactly when the petition will be ready
for further action.
Motion to remove ZMA-84-11 from the Board's agenda until same is ready to be readvertised
was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
May 16, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-84-21. Ray D. Trainum. Request to locate a single-wide mobile
home on three acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Located off a private drive, 1/10 mile off of
Rt. 621. County Tax Map 63, Parcel 9. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on May 1 and May 8, 1984.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report as follows:
"Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Mobile Home
+ : acres
RA, Rural A~eas
Property, described as Tax Map 63, Parcel 9, is located on
an access easement east of Route ~2! about 600 feet southeast
of Route 20 North. [Turn left past the brick house owned by
the applicant and travel about 600 feet a±ong the access
road; property is on the left side of the road).
Character of the nrea
Thms smte ms wooded wmth mixed hardwoods and evergreens. A portion of the
property has been cleared for placement of the mobile home. The mobile home
may be partially visible from two dwellings in the area (Hall, Parcel 10;
Hirsch, Parcel 12).
Staff Comment
The Trainums are requesting this special use permit for their daughter, Paula
Sprouse. While Ms. Sprouse is hopeful oI' constructing a conventional dwelling
at some future date, no definite plans exist; and the applicants, acting in
good faith, did not seek a temporary mobile home permit. Staff opinion is
that the mobile home could be located and/or screened so as not to be visible
from adjoining residences..
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff
recommends the i'ol±owing conditions:
1. Compliance with 3ection 5.b.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Location and/or screening to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning
admmnistrator so as to minimize visibility from adjoining residences."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting of May ±5, ±984, voted unanimously
to recommend approval of this petition with the following conditions:
"1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Location and/or screening to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator so as to minimize visibility from adjoining
residences and said socation and/or screening to be maintained for
duration of special use permit."
Mr. Tucker noted that there were several letters received from adjoining property owners
in opposition to location of this mobile home. Mr Fisher asked if there is, at the present
time, any dwelling unit on this property. Mr. Tucker said there is not.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. The first to speak was the applicant,
Mrs. Patricia Trainum. She said they wish to locate their daughter's mobile home on this
three acres of land. The lot is wooded. To the left of where the mobile home will be
sited, it is 100 feet to the property line and about 400 feet to the nearest house, which is
not visible. Mrs. Trainum said she lives in the area and does not feel that this mobile
home will devalue her property in any way. She then showed to the Board photographs of the
site and the general vicinity where the mobile home will be located. Mr. Fisher aske. d if
there had been any consideration of applying for a temporary permit while awaiting construction
of a permanent dwelling. Mrs. Trainum said they certainly intend to build a permanent
dwelling some day, but the request is for a permanent permit since construction is not
economically feasible at this time.
Mr. Charles Hall said there are already five dwellings on this road which is only 15 feet
wide, and the Hall family is the only one who has ever kept the road up, no one else helps
keep the road maintained. Mr. Hall said Re was speaking for his mother who owns Parcel 10.
Mr. Fisher said if this request occasioned the need to subdivide a new parcel, the County
would be able to place conditions concerning maintenance of the road, however, that is not
the case, since it is an existing lot. Mr. Hall said he would have no objection if a house
were to be built on the property. Mr. Fisher said if the property is of record there is no
way to keep one dwelling from being built. Mr. Tucker noted that he had in the Planning
Department's records a copy of a plat showing this parcel to be 3.484 acres.
Mrs. Audrey Carpenter said she lives in the area where the mobile home is to be placed,
and she does not see anything wrong with having the trailer in the area. The location
cannot be seen from the road. She feels that the mobile home is a home for this family.
Mrs. Juanita Pace said she does not see anything wrong wit~ the trailer. She lives
across from the entrance to the property where the trailer will be located and she can see
the top of Mr. Hall's house from that location.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked
Mr. Tucker to comment on the road situation and whether or not the County has any authority in
this matter. Mr. Tucker pointed out the road on a map~, and said that as long as the parcel is
a lot of record, the County can not require any maintenance or upgrading of the road.
May 16, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Bowie said he knows there are other mobile homes in the general area. As long as
there is enough land and the applicant complies with the requirement to screen so the neighbors
cannot see the mobile home, he will support approval of the petition. Mr. Bowie then offered
motion to approve SP-84-2t with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and
set out above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recarded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 8.
April 18, 1984).
ZMA-83-7.
John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth (Deferred from
Agenda Item No. 9.
April 18, 1984).
SP-83-38.
John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth.
(Deferred from
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-83-39. John L. Wildermuth (Deferred from April 18, 1984).
Mr. Tucker noted that the following letter had been received earlier today:
"1830 Yorktown Drive
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
May 16, 1984
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: ZMA-83-7, ZMA-83-38 and SP-83-39
Mrs. Cooke and Gentlemen:
A year has passed since the above referenced applications were filed
for the rezoning and special use of a portion of a property in the
Greenwood area of Western Albemarle County known as Wavertree Hall Farm,
for use as a 14 room Country Inn and 50 seat restaurant. In their
meeting of July 21, 1983, the Albemarle County Planning Commission voted
to recommend approval of the above applications to the Board of Supervisors.
Since that date, we have devoted our full time to the development of
this project, neglecting our individual consulting practices, and in January
of this year, we moved our residence to Charlottesville so that we could
be nearer to the project and the local contacts which were so much a part
of it.
As rehabilitation and conversion of the Manor House at Wavertree~to use as
a Country Inn was the nucleus of the pro~ect, accurate costs of this work
have been essential to its development and to its financing. We had
made what we felt were reasonably accurate cost estimates last summer
and had initiated discussions with our investors at that trime. The costs
of the project, of course, affect its viability with respect to the possi-
bility of profit for prospective investors, and its ability in qualifying
for a bank mortgage. It is essential that these costs be accurate.
Unfortunately, however, as we got further into detailed analysis of the
project, we encountered addit±onal regulations which had to be satisfied,
and additional site conditions which needed to be taken into consideration,
both of which have resulted in appreciable increases in the cost of the
overall project.
During recent weeks, interest rates have increased which have made the cost
of borrowing money greater and the benefits to the prospective investor
less attractive.
Solving all of these problems has required an inordinete amount' cf time,
with the result that we now find ourselves "out of time" with regard to
that allowed by the County regulations for the completion of a zoning
application.
As we are not at a point where we can proceed financially with the project,
we also cannot proceed with the final step in the zoning process, as this
would leave Christian Retreats, Inc., the present owners, with a zoning
condition on the property which might be difficult to cope with, and which
would possibly impede the sale of the property to other buyers if that
became necessary.
We must, therefore, respectfully request that our applic~ations as
referenced above be withdrawn without prejudice, and that we be
permitted to reapply for the same zoning as soon as development work
can be completed and determination made of the project's viability.
We hope that it is evident that we are sincerely committed to the
development of this project. Obviously we expect to create a
profitable businesss in the Inn and restaurant, but we feel that the
sensitive renovation of the historic buildings on the grounds of
Wavertree Hall Farm and the ypgrading and maintenance of the property
as a working farm will also Be an asset to western Albemarle ~ounty.
The response from the nearby property owners and other members of the
community has been most gratifying. More than twenty of these fine
people came to speak on our behalf at the previous Planning Commission
meeting. Their encouragement-has added to our incentive to continue
in our efforts on this project.
May 16, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
We sincerely appreciate the Board's patience in allowing us to defer
this final step in the zoning process many times during this past nine
months. Now we ask for your support in permitting us to withdraw our
applications without prejudice and in allowing us to reapply as soon
as possible.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed)
John and Elizabeth Wi!dermuth"
Mr. Fisher asked if there were any member of the public present to discuss these petitior
There was no reply. Motion was then offere~ by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Way, to allow with-
drawal of ZMA-83-7, SP-83-38 and SP-83-39 without prejudice. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-84-24. Woodbriar Associates. Request to expand Camelot Sewage
Treatment Plant on 1.230 acres zoned LI, Light Industrial. Located on North Fork Rivanna
River and east on Rt. 29 North. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 5D. Rivanna District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on May 1 and May 8, 1984.)
Mr. Tucker gave the Planning Staff's report, as follows:
"Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Landfill permit in floodway fringe (30.3.5.2.2.3; 30.3.6)
1.23 acres
LI Light Industrial/FH Flood Hazard Overlay District
Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 5D, is located
to the east of Route 29 behind Badger-Powhatan and is the
site of the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant.
Background
On June 18, 1980, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-80-29 authorizing
expansion of the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant to a capacity of 0.365 MGD.
This special use permit was not pursued and expired. Subsequent to the 1980
approval, the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted which does not require special
use permit approval but does require review for Comprehensive Plan compliance.
The Planning Commission undertook this review in December, 1982, and found
the expansion consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
When plans for the plant expansion were submitted for review in the fall
of 1983, the County Engineer discovered an error had been made in flood
elevation delineation under the original plant design. Much of the plant
expansion would be located within the one hundred year flood plain and
possibly, due to the river cross section in this area, within the floodway.
The open tanks would have been flooded by about four feet in a one hundred
year storm and would have been flooded by storms of lesser severity.
On December 16, 1983, the Acting Zoning Administrator ruled that "the
construction of a new or expanded facility would be in conflict with the
intent and provisions of the Flood Hazard Overlay District, not excluding
the possibility-of conflict with Section 30.3.4, Prohibited Uses (~which
forbids) the storage of other such substances which could result in hazard
to life and/or water pollution in the event of flooding." On appeal,
this ruling was upheld by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Comprehensive Plan
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were adopted in January of 1983
following the Planning Commission's last review of this project. No
land use changes were proposed in the area which would in staff opinion
warrant additional review at this time. Therefore, staff recommends
that the prior approval and conditions remain in force (Note: See M.B. 19,
page 126-127, June 18, 1980, for wording of conditions).
Staff Comment
The applicant has attempted to arrange and redesign the plant to remove
it from the flood plain. However, due To £unctional considerations,
complete removal from the flood plain was not achieved. The revised plan
has been reviewed by the Zoning, Engineering and Planning staffs and
preliminary consensus is that the current proposal appears consistent
with the requirements of the Flood Hazard Overlay district, including
effect on flood levels and pollution considerations.
Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions:
I. Issuance of landfill permit by County Engineer in accordance with
requirements of 30.3.6;
Issuance of a development permit by the Zoning Administrator in
accordance with 30.3.3.2, 30.3.3.1 and all other applicable law;
May 16, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
3. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies;
4. Compliance with conditions of SP-80-29 as required by Planning
Commission on December 14, 1982, during review for compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held on May 1, 1984, voted
unanimously to recommend approval of SP-84-24, with the following conditions:
Issuance of landfill permit by County Engineer in accordance with
requirements of 30.3.6;
Issuance of a development permit by the Zoning Administrator in
accordance with 30.3.2, 30.3.1 and all other applicable law;
3. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies;
Compliance with conditions of SP-80-29 as required by the Planning
Commission on December 14, 1982, during review for compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan:
a. Expansion of the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant shall be for
additional package unit such that the total capacity of the plant should
not exceed 365,000 gallons per day. Recommendation for expansion of the
Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant has been made in view of accommodating
short-term demand. At this time, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
does not endorse any further expansion;
b. The capacity alloted the developer shall be the difference in
State-certified plant capacity after expansion as compared to State-certified
plant capacity prior to construction;
c. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority review and approval of plans
for construction of plant addition;
d. The developer shall be responsible for the costs of materials,
labor, permits and all other costs related to acquiring, placing and
integrating the package unit into the existing system, inclUding land
acquisition, if necessary;
e. Immediately following certification by the State Water Control
Board and approval of other appropriate State and local agencies, the
developer shall dedioate the plant addition and all appurtenances to
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Dedication shall be irrevocable
on the part of the developer and his successors in interest."
Mr. Fisher asked if this request is not for the same expansion the Board had previously
approved. Mr. Tucker said yes; the original special use permit expired. During that time,
the Zoning Ordinance was amended, and the necessity for obtaining a special use permit was
deleted, but the request did require review by the Planning Commission for compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher asked what all the recommended conditions mean, and
asked if the plant will be relocated out of the flood plain. Mr. Tucker said the plant will
still be partially within the flood fringe. Because of pumping, etc., the plant could not
be located totally out of the flood plain. Where the plant was originally located, it would
have been inundated during a one hundred year storm. That will no longer be the case, and
is one of the reasons a landfill permit is required; actually the plant itself is the fill
because it is located on the fringe of the floodway. Mr. Fisher asked if there will be a
berm or something around the plant to protect it from floodwaters. Mr. Tucker said the
plant will be built partially above ground. In its original location, during a one hundred
years storm, waters would be washing all a~ound the plant so there would be no real way of
anchoring the facility. In the location proposed, the plant will be in the backwaters of'
the Rivanna River so there will not be that force or velocity from the river to create that
problem. Mr. Fisher asked if the plant would still be overwashed in such a storm. Mr. Tucker
said it might be during an occurence such as a five hundred year storm.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the Planning Commission had talked about requiring the plant to be
raised to a higher elevation. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Richard Cogan had requested that the
County Engineer look into the possibility of raising the height of the proposed tank by a
foot or so. He felt this would add an extra precaution if it were feasible, however, if the
tank were moved higher it might require pumping, which should be avoided.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Wendell W¢od said it had taken three years to get approval of this plant expansion
from all the governmental agencies involved. In its original location, the plant was l'ocated
below the existing Camelot plant by about three and one-half feet. The top of that plant
was in the flood plain. The bottom of the plant has always been in the flood plain. This
was an error made by Hayes, Seay and Matthern about eighteen years ago when they installed
the original plant. It did not really make any difference because the existing plant is
sixteen or eighteen inches above the 'flood plain. When ~he engineer from General Electric
planned the next expansion of the plant, he did not catch the error and neither did Mr. Wood's
engineer. Mr. Maynard Etrod, the current County Engineer, realized there was an error which
basically put the top of the plant in the one hundred year flood plain. The plant was then
moved to the west side of the existing plant so it could be six inches higher than the
existing plant. Mr. Wood said the proposed plant cannot be raised any higher. In order to
accomplish this small increase in elevation, the sewer line all the way to Route 29 North
had to be removed, a naw line laid, and a lift station installed to pump effluent from
Badger Powhatan. Mr. Wood reiterated that the plant cannot bo located at a higher elevation.
May 16, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Jim Neblett was present to represent General Electric Company. Mr. Neblett said
General Electric had paid for the expansion of the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant a few
years ago in order to obtain an additional 25,000 gallons per day capacity. That capacity
takes General Electric to about the limits of its current population. At that time a condition
was placed that the Camelot Plant could not be expanded further. This meant that General
Electric, should it need additional capacity in the future, would not be able to obtain that
capacity. Mr. Neblett said General El'ectric is interested in this petition because Woodbriar
Associates will get them an additional 25,000 gallons per day, but this amount is part of
the 365,000 total capacity of the plant. Mr. Neblett said General Electric does have an
interest in Woodbriar obtaining approval of this petition.
Mr. Wood noted that the expansion of the plant will be accomplished at no cost to the
citizens of the County. The cost will be paid entirely by General Electric and himself and
the plant will be given to the Rivanna Authority upon completion.
With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was
closed. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve SP-84-24.
Mr. Fisher asked if it were the intention to incorporate the conditions.recommended by the
Planning Commission. Both Mrs. Cooke and Mr..Bowie indicated that to be the~intent of the
motion. Roll was called and the motion to approve the petition with the conditions recom-
mended by the Planning Commission passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-84-10, James and Virginia Hahn. Request to rezone 1.6 acres
from RA, Rural Acreas to CO, Commercial Office. Located south side of Rt. 649. County Tax
Map 32, Parcel 28. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 1 and May 8, 19~
Mr. Tucker gave the Planning Staff's report, as follows:
"Requested Zoning:
Acreage:
Existing Zoning:
Location:
CO Commercial Office
+1.6 acres
RA, Rural Areas
Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 48, is
located on the south side of Route 649 (Airport
Road) adjacent to Deerwood Subdivision.
Background
In March, 1984, the Board of Supervisors denied ZMA-83-22 James and
Virginia Hahn, which was a request for C-1 Commercial zoning with
proffers. Concern was expressed about initiating strip retail development
along Route 649, which is access to the County and the City from the
Airport.
Summary and Comment
The Comprehensive Plan recommends residential usage in this area; however,
consideration should be given to other factors in this particular case. A
revised site plan showing increased screening from Deerwood Subdivision
has now been submitted to the Planning Department.
Character of the Area
Properties to the north, east and west are undeveloped. To the south is
Deerwood Subdivision. A delapidated house and cemetery are located on
this property.
A site plan has been submitted for this property showing a building of
approximately 4,500 square feet as the initial phase of development. The
building is proposed to be served by public water and septic system. Health
Department approval has been received. Under zoning prior to 1980, the
frontage of Deerwood was zoned B-1 Business~
Staff Comment
Two factors warrant consideration regarding the appropriateness of Rural
Areas zoning and potential for residential use of this property:
1. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented
that improvements to Route 649 in this area would require a right~of-way
of forty feet from the centerline of Route 649. This acquisition would
reduce the site area to about one and one-quarter acres and reduce the
buildable area under Rural Areas zoning to a depth of thirty-three feet.
(Usable depth could be increased under other residential zoning classifications.)
2. The Master Planning Study for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
forecasts a year 1990 noise level in this area of 'significant exposure.~
Under HUD guidelines, this level is 'normally unacceptable.' (Noise
attentuation construction would be required under zoning regulations.)
The Land Use Guide of the airport plan does not recommend residential usage.
Given this background, staff opinion is that some alternative zoning of
the property may be warranted. Of the commercial districts, CO Commercial
Office would be most appropriate adjacent to a residential subdivision.
Staff recommends approval."
May 16, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting of May t, 19,84, voted unanimously
to recommend approval of this request.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. William Roudabush was present to represent the Hahns.
Mr. Roudabush said this is a completely different plan from that submitted previously for a
rezoning. The property will be used strictly for commercial office uses. Property owners in
the adjacent neighborhood have expressed no objection to this site plan, and they have reviewed
same. Intensive buffering will be done to the areas along the front of Deerwood Subdivision.
With no one else from the public to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing
was closed. Mrs. Cooke said when this petition was previously heard by the Board, her only
objection was the gift shop, the cormmercial aspects of same, and now that that has been deleted
from the plans, she has no objection to the request and will support approval of same.
Mr. Bowie said he supported the previous request of the Hahns for this property and is
pleased that the applicant has gone to such lengths to try and comply with the desires to
make the facility residential in character.
Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to approve ZMA-84-10 as recommended by the Planning
Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 13.
Ordinance.
Set public hearing date for amendment to Planning Commission
Mr. St. John said these amendments were proposed by his office. The ~irst amendment to
Section 2-4(a) of the County Cod~_is to correct what appears to have been an error in the
number of Planning CommissionAas sva~ea in this section. If the at-large, non-voting person
is counted as a member of the Commission, the membership totals eight members instead Of the
seven stated in the ordinance. The amendments to Sections 2-13(d)(3), (4), (5), and Section
2-23(d) are all proposed to bring the ordinance into compliance with State statutes. Mr. Fishe
suggested that these ordinance amendments might be set for public hearing on June 13. Motion
to this effect was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 14.
(Night), 1984.
Approval of Minutes:
December 21, 1983; February 8 and March 7
Mr. Henley had not read the minutes of December 21, 1983.
Mrs. Cooke had finished her portion of February 8 and found no errors.
Mr. Agnor then noted the following memorandum from the Clerk concerning the February 8
minutes.
At the Board meeting yesterday, Mr. Lindstrom questioned a sentence on
page 6 of the February 8, 1984 minutes. Mrs. Cooke asked "if it is
inappropriate for the Board members to make comments of any kind until
there is a final site plan (McDonald's) which has been reviewed by the
Commission." The minutes show Mr. St. John answering "that if one adheres
to proper procedure, this is definitely so." Listening back to the tape
Mr. St. John actually said "if one goes by the books, that is the way I
see it."
Mr. Fisher suggested that the words Mr. St. John actually said should be included.
Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to approve the minutes of February 8, 1984, with the above
noted correction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES-
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Way noted that he had not completed the reading of the minutes for March 7 (Night),
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowie noted that on May 29 and 30, there will be an economic conference held at the
University of Virginia, hosted by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development,
and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The conference will cover community
development block grants and how to stimulate private investment.
Mrs. Cooke said she had received a call from a Mrs. Nichols, 240.4 Commonwealth Drive,
who said that the jog in the street near her home causes a great deal of confusion for
rescue vehicles because when they enter Commonwealth Drive at this point they do not know
which direction is north and which direction is south. She asked if there could be proper
signs posted at this site. She indicated that she had talked with several people in the
County Building, and had been referred to Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Tucker said there is no repetitive
May 16, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
house numbering on Commonwealth Drive, it all being one street from Hydraulic Road over to
its dead-end in Berkeley Subdivision. But, he said there could be confusion because following
Commonwealth Drive from Hydraulic Road a driver goes as far as Peyton Drive, then goes to
Greenbrier Drive, and then back to Commonwealth Drive leading into Berkeley. Mr. Tucker
said he really did not understand the problem since all of rescue vehicles, and the fire
departments, have copies of tax maps with the house numbers noted on same. There should not
be a problem, however, he said he would have someone check the site to try and ascertain the
exact complaint.
Mr. Agnor announced that the Health Department has set up Rabies Clinics for two Saturdays
in the County. On May 26 at Henley and Hollymead Schools, and on June 2 at Walton School
and in the community of Keswick. There is also a clinic scheduled at the Health Department
on Rose Hill Drive.
Mr. St. John said he now has copies of several different ordinances requiring the
vaccination of cats against rabies. He also has a copy of the City's newly enacted ordinance.
Mr. Fisher suggested that a copy of these ordinances be sent to all of the Board members and
that this item be included on the June 13 agenda for discussion.
Agenda Item No. 16. At 8:35 P.M., motion, was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie
to adjourn this meeting until May 23, 1984, at 4:00 P.M. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher., Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
~HAIRMAN