2002-08-14August 14, 2002
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August
14, 2002, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter
F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Elizabeth Petofi said she found the Board’s minutes on the internet, and found that things she
said on June 5 and November 10, 1995, were not included. At the time, she was speaking about the
Preddy Creek subdivision, and the mudslides going into the ponds and water. (She handed to the Board
pictures of the problem.) She said the mudflow cut off the aquifer in her creek (she has three creeks and
some of them come up out of the ground). She had a beautiful beaver dam (she referred to a picture just
handed out). Her neighbors have cut four-wheel trails all over her land, put up gates, and then they tore
down her beaver dam. The other pictures show the mud flat which they left. Last summer, her beaver dam
made it through the drought, and she took courses on raising fish in ponds through the County Extension
Services, and stocked the pond. Her neighbors came in with four-wheelers and wenches, took her water
and her fish and the County’s water, and they now have a pond. The County owns this beautiful property
which was supposed to be a watershed property. She does not believe anyone every comes to measure
the water or see what the neighbors have done. In the meantime, she has had ten years of misery trying to
go back and forth to her land, and she would like something to happen not just for her, but for the Preddy
Creek property. She previously made a proposal about the road. The County had a 12-foot right-of-way on
the land sold to it by Charles Hurt. It was decided not to survey that road, and the four-wheelers have made
it 20 feet, and then the Riners came in with chainsaws, so now there is a 20-foot road. She asked if the
County would like to trade her that 20-foot road on which she has a right to go, for the 50-foot road on the
Colvin estate.
Ms. Petofi asked if the Board can buy the 68 acres on which she has a competing chain of title.
She said that land is on the creek and is before what the County already owns. (Time expired) Ms.
Thomas said those are interesting questions which the Board can discuss later. Ms. Petofi said she hopes
the Board members will at least drive on this new road which is on County property.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Rooker,
to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2 and to accept Item 5.3 for information Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item 5.1. Approval of Minutes: February 6, March 20(A), March 25(A) and April 3, 2002.
Mr. Rooker had read the minutes of March 20(A), 2002, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Dorrier had read the minutes of April 3, 2002 (Page 14 beginning at Item #14 to the end), and
found them to be in order.
By the recorded vote set out above, the minutes which had been read were approved.
__________
Item 5.2. FY 2002-03 through 2007-08 Secondary System Construction Program.
It was noted in the staff’s report that at the Board’s meeting on June 5, 2002, Mr. Jim Bryan,
Resident Engineer, presented a list of changes to the Six-Year Secondary Roads priority list. The changes
are related to budget issues at the State level. The changes in funding did not impact the priorities of the
projects approved by the Board on January 16, 2002, but the revisions did impact the total number of
projects in the VDOT Secondary System Construction Program and the estimated advertisement dates for
projects in VDOT's Plan. The Board is not required to hold another public hearing, but VDOT is requiring
the County to indicate its awareness that the allocations have been reduced and estimated advertisement
dates adjusted for the FY 2002-03 through FY 2007-08 Secondary System Construction Program. This is
to be done by approving the County's Six-Year Secondary Priority List and VDOT Secondary System
Construction Program with the most recent cost estimates and advertising dates. Staff recommends that
the Board approve the changes to the revised FY 2002-03 through FY 2007-08 Secondary System
Construction Program.
August 14, 2002
(Page 2)
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the changes to the revised FY
2002-03 through FY 2007-08 Secondary System Construction Program, all as set out on
attachments to the staff’s report, which are on file in the Clerk’s Office with the permanent records
of the Board, and also acknowledged that the FY 2002-03 allocations are the budget amounts for
that year.
__________
Item 5.3. Draft Copy of Planning Commission minutes of July 2, 2002, was received for
information.
_______________
(Note: The following two petitions were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2002-010. Riverbend Associates LLC (Signs #60 & 61). Public hearing on
a request to allow vehicle rental & maintenance facility. TM 78, P 17A, contains 20.602 acs (8.828 ac of
which are subject to this permit). Znd C-1 and w/in an EC. Loc on Newhouse Dr just off Rt 250 by the
Rivanna River. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on July 29 and
August 5, 2002.)
__________
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2002-011. Riverbend Associates LLC (Signs #62 & 63). Public hearing on
a request to allow outdoor storage & display of motor vehicles. TM 78, P 17A, contains 20.602 acs (8.828
ac of which are subject to this permit). Znd C-1 and w/in EC. Loc on Newhouse Dr just off Rt 250 by the
Rivanna River. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on July 29 and
August 5, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report, which is on file in the Clerk’s Office and made a part of
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the two special use permits would allow motor
vehicle sales and rental in the C-1 District and outdoor storage and display within the Entrance Corridor
District. This property is located on Newhouse Drive just off of Route 250 East by the Rivanna River,
adjacent to the Pantops Shopping Center. He said most of the area to the west of the site is wooded along
the Rivanna River, while the area directly to the east is at the rear of the Pantops Shopping Center. The
initial trail cut for the Rivanna Greenway in the County has been bush hogged below this site and above the
Rivanna River.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff noted both favorable and unfavorable factors for this request. Favorable
factors were that the ARB expressed no objections to the use and issued a Certificate of Appropriateness.
It is a form of in-fill development and would use an existing internal road. An unfavorable factor, and one
which the Planning Commission cited in recommending denial of this request, is that the Comprehensive
Plan recommends that river-oriented development be explored for this site. The proposed use does not
meet that expectation. Staff had recommended approval subject to four conditions, but the Planning
Commission recommended denial feeling it was not an appropriate use in this location. The Commission
also denied the site plan. If the Board chooses to approve the special permits, staff will ask the
Commission to take up the site plan again.
With no questions for staff at this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked the
applicant to speak first.
Mr. Clark Gathright, Daggett & Grigg Architects, was present to represent the applicant. (He
handed to the Board a set of photos of the site.) He said that they have received staff approval of the
preliminary site plan, and a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB. In developing the site plan, they
coordinated landscaping issues associated with the greenway with the Park’s Greenway Planner. It is a
permitted use and is consistent with other automotive uses in the Pantops area. He said one side of the site
faces the rear of the Stop-In Store on Route 250, and on another side are the dumpsters and loading docks
behind the shopping center. As for a river-oriented use, the property is very close to Route 250 East and its
highway noise. Also, the Greenway Planner would prefer that this site not be connected to the greenway
for pedestrian access at this time. The site is about 200 feet from the River and there is a 20 to 25 foot
slope difference down to the greenway which is fully vegetated. Beyond the greenway there is another 25
feet to the river that contains many native sycamores and other trees. As a result, the river is not accessible
from the site and the site is not visible from the river.
Mr. Jim Morris said they looked at the site for many other uses, including a restaurant. They did not
think a restaurant would work in that location, and this use seemed to be appropriate. This site is across the
river from Cosner Bros., the Brown Derby and Charlottesville Wrecker. From the City side of the River,
which is where most of the opposition came during the hearing, they are in keeping with what is in the area.
They have driven around and they do not believe the site is visible from the Woolen Mills area. They
request that the Board allow them to have this use on the east side of town because there is no such facility
on that side of town.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is any grading which has to take place on this site. Mr. Morris said the
site is perfectly flat now.
Mr. Dorrier said it is noted in the staff’s report that this use is not in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. He asked if the applicants have explored any river-oriented uses for the property.
Mr. Morris said they have not explored any specific river-oriented uses. The restaurant they considered was
to have had a deck for outdoor dining, but the noise was too great for any outdoor use. Also, the owner of
the greenway space below does not want any access from this property to his property.
August 14, 2002
(Page 3)
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any other river-oriented development in the area. Mr. Morris said there
is the possibility of a boat launch being built on the other side of the shopping center. Also, the owner of the
apartments, which were recently built in the area, will have access to the “sandbar” below these buildings.
Ms. Allison Ewing said she is President of the Woolen Mills Association. The Association is
unanimously opposed to this use at that site. The site is in an area which is very sensitive in terms of water
quality, and they are concerned that runoff from the site would further degrade the Rivanna River. She
feels that when Martha Jefferson Hospital goes onto Pantops in the future, it will change the face of
Pantops considerably. Pantops should not be thought of as strip development, but as a place where other
amenities usually located around hospitals can be placed. There will be opportunities for river-oriented
uses at that time. She asks the Board to have the vision to imagine a more urban character to Route 250.
This is not a use by right, and the Board does not have to approve this request. The Association asks that
the Board agree with the Commission that this is an inappropriate use on the site.
Ms. Patricia Shields said she is a member of the Woolen Mills Association Board. She said this is
not a use by-right, but is a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan clearly states that river-
oriented development is to be explored. The prior speaker did not state that river-oriented uses have been
explored. On that basis alone, the permit should be denied. The Planning Commission is authorized to
investigate these matters and it has determined that this is an inappropriate use for the site which actually
sits 200 feet from the Rivanna River. The County has gone to great lengths to extend the use of the
greenbelt along that side of the River for the citizens of Albemarle. For the people living in the apartment
buildings just a few hundred yards down the river, wouldn't it nice if in a year those folks could use the
greenway with foot access from the river to the site. She asked that this Board not act in contravention of
the recommendation made by the Commission.
Ms. Thomas asked if he Neighborhood Association made any comments to the City when that
facility was built. Ms. Ewing said she does not believe they were aware it was going to be built.
Mr. Lane Bonner said he is the broker for the property and has been trying to sell or lease this
property for the last three years. He tried to sell this property to numerous retail uses and no one was
interested because of where it is located behind a gas station. The land is “kind of trapped.” He thinks this
use fits in with the existing neighborhood. The Auto Zone facility was not built in the flood plain, but they
built up to the flood plain. This use is a by-right use and the property is zoned HC. The only reason this
request is before the Board is because it is located in the Entrance Corridor District. He said this developer
has followed the rules for HC zoning in an EC and done everything he was supposed to do.
With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Mr. Davis noted that there are two special permits under consideration, one for the use itself and
the other for outdoor storage in an entrance corridor. This is not a by-right use, but a use by special permit.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the property is zoned C-1, although there is some HC nearby.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the decision comes down to the emphasis the Board members might want
to put on the one unfavorable characteristic noted by staff. If the Board looks at the uses that are totally
surrounding this piece of property, this use is compatible with those uses. There is the back of a shopping
center and the back of a Shell Station, and it is across the River from Cosner’s and other uses. He does
not know exactly what to do in this case, but to him, this seems like a compatible use unless someone can
give him an argument in opposition.
Mr. Dorrier said the location of the site is only about 100 feet from Route 250 which is a six to eight-
lane road. He suspects there is a lot of noise from that 250 traffic. What type of use would put up with that
traffic?
Mr. Rooker asked if there is any place in the Comprehensive Plan where the term “river-oriented
development” is specifically set out. Mr. Cilimberg said nothing is really specified; it is based on what would
be practical. The restaurant was one kind of use. There could be active recreation, or office space. The
applicant did consider a restaurant use coupled with a health club.
Ms. Thomas said she remembers all of the work the Board and a consultant did on the “point” of
this land. There were two applications that came to the Board which were denied because it did not feel the
uses were appropriate. There was a request for an amphitheater and a golf driving range. The apartments
that were approved seemed to fit in nicely, and do face toward the river using it as an amenity. Personally,
to say this proposed use fits in with the back of a filling station and the back of a shopping center is a
depressing thing to say. The people in those apartments look at the back of the Rose’s Store, which is a
really big building, but they also have a good view of the river. She thinks this site could do the same. She
hates to give up on an amenity because the County does not have that many sites that focus on the river.
She would like for this to be part of a valuable piece of property because it is part of a renewed interest in
the river.
Mr. Bowerman said if this site were on a bluff and it had certain physical amenities which would be
enhanced by visibility of the river, that would be different. However, this site is 200 feet back from the river.
The applicant said if they had built a deck onto a restaurant, they would have needed to go up 20 feet just
to see the river. He does not see this as a particularly compelling piece of property. And, it is remote from
the river.
August 14, 2002
(Page 4)
Ms. Thomas said the river can be seen from the property, and one can walk to the river from this
property.
Mr. Bowerman said the Auto Zone site would have been a better place for this use because it has
an attractive view of the river. If the Board wants to dictate what it wants on land, he thinks it would need to
create a development authority such as that in the City, buy the land and then say what should be on the
land. Everything now is market-driven. This request went through “all of the hoops” and staff
recommended approval.
Mr. Rooker said he has mixed feelings about this request. He pointed out that the ARB rarely
recommends denial of a project. They recommend conditions to make the site have a better appearance.
Ms. Thomas said the ARB’s charge was only to look at the appearance of this site from the
entrance corridor, but not from the river.
Mr. Rooker said he questions whether the site is amendable to something that will feed off the river.
He has been down there a number of times. An office building might be a little more river-oriented. If there
were a restaurant there it would have to be an indoor facility because of traffic noise. He wonders if staff
feels there is some mechanism that could be put into the conditions that would make certain that from the
river perspective, this use does not ruin the view of the river for the people using the greenway. For those
concerned with water quality, he assumes there will be conditions imposed on this site.
Ms. Thomas said they are proposing a bio-filter and some other responsible things.
Mr. Rooker said the objection of the Woolen Mills neighborhood seemed to focus mainly on water
quality. He wonders if any problem associated with water quality from this use will be greater than that from
any use that might be river-oriented. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not believe so.
Mr. Dorrier said he does not think the runoff from this site would be that serious. The site is located
a good way from the river. He is having a hard time visualizing what other use would be good for the site.
He does not think a U-Haul facility would be that detrimental.
Mr. Bowerman said this use would lend itself to adaptive reuse since it is not structure oriented. He
thinks that if improvements in future years made this site attractive for a restaurant, it could be used for that
purpose.
Ms. Thomas said there are other uses which could go on the property, but it is not the responsibility
of the Board to come up with one. Since there seems to be a consensus for approval of this petition, she
suggested that the Board discuss the conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, in its letter of July 9, 2002, had suggested four
conditions in the event the Board approved the petition. No. 4 talks about screening, and he suggested that
it be changed to read “... the view from the road and the river”. The screening area they speak about is both
for the river and the road. The landscaper felt the planting might be better down near the greenway, rather
than all being on site.
Mr. Dorrier asked how steep the banks are along the river. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a rise in the
level of the greenway which is also the sewer line easement. There is a shelf where the greenway is
located.
Ms. Thomas suggested changing the language in No. 4 to read: “... from the road, river and
greenway.”
Mr. Bowerman asked if the shelf is in the floodway of the river. Mr. Cilimberg said it actually came
about because of the sewer line.
Mr. Rooker asked the genesis of the statement that there should not be access to the river from
this property. Ms. Thomas said there is a path going to the river that someone has mowed. Mr. Cilimberg
said there are plans for the greenway which will link the greenway to the sidewalk at Free Bridge. The
area has been bush-hogged. He does not know the genesis of the comment about not wanting access to
this particular site.
Mr. Martin said he appreciates the public comments made tonight, and through other methods.
Most of the Board members have made the point that this use fits with what is in the area now. Also, if at
some point in the future, there is a master plan developed for this area, the use could be easily changed to
something else. Mr. Martin said he would move to approve SP-2002-010 with the four conditions set out by
the Commission, but modifying No. 4 to read in the second sentence “... that upstream the view from the
road, the river, and the greenway....”
Mr. Rooker asked if there is to be any limit on the number of vehicles that can be stored on the site.
Mr. Cilimberg said the display area is covered by Condition No. 2. The display area will not be based on
number, but on the total area and visibility.
The motion was then seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
Ms. Thomas said she will vote against this permit request because she feels this is a missed
August 14, 2002
(Page 5)
opportunity to start a river renaissance by having developments which look to the river, rather than having
them screened from the river. She does not fear any greater pollution because she thinks the County’s
ordinances are sufficient. She also does not fear a visual blight. She just feels there could have been a
better use of the property.
With no further discussion of this request, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated;
2. Vehicles shall be stored/displayed only in the areas indicated on the approved site plan;
3. The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is approved by the
Architectural Review Board, including landscape and lighting site plans; and
4. Provide vegetative screening in the area north and west of the bio-filter, west of the
dumpster, and west of the parking area to help screen the view from the road, river and
greenway. An informal grouping of native screening trees and shrubs is appropriate.
__________
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve SP-2002-011 subject to the
four conditions, with No. 4 being modified.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated;
2. Vehicles shall be stored/displayed only in the areas indicated on the approved site plan;
3. The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is approved by the
Architectural Review Board, including landscape and lighting site plans; and
4. Provide vegetative screening in the area north and west of the bio-filter, west of the
dumpster, and west of the parking area to help screen the view from the road, river and
greenway. An informal grouping of native screening trees and shrubs is appropriate.
__________
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to request the Planning
Commission to reconsider the site plan. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: Ms. Thomas.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2002-026. Guaranty Bank ATM Lane (Signs #97 & 98). Public hearing on
a request to allow drive-thru ATM lane onto existing bank. TM 61, P 123F, contains 0.839 acs. Znd HC.
Loc at intersec of Rt 631 (Rio Rd) & Rt 29 (Seminole Trail). Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was
given in the Daily Progress on July 29 and August 5, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office and made a part of
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this is a proposal for expansion of an existing
drive-through facility to allow for a new ATM lane. It would be installed below an addition to the existing
canopy, as a replacement to a walk-up machine that is currently located inside the building. The applicant
proposes to change the travelway to a one-way circulation pattern. The bank has been at this site and has
had two drive-through lanes since 1994. The ARB reviewed the proposal for its impact on the Entrance
Corridor District and recommended approval.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff reviewed the petition and cited three factors which are favorable to the
request. 1) The proposed changes to the by-pass lanes and travel direction would improve the site’s
internal traffic configuration. 2) Approval of this special use permit would have the effect of bringing the
bank’s canopy structure and drive-through window into conformity with current zoning regulations. 3)
Because there is already an existing walk-up ATM machine on this site, staff did not anticipate a significant
increase in traffic as a result of approving this request. Staff recommended approval with five conditions.
The Commission, at its meeting on July 30, 2002, by a vote of 5:0, also recommended approval subject to
staff’s conditions.
With no questions for staff, the public hearing was opened, and the applicant asked to speak.
Mr. Rick Jones was present on behalf of Guaranty Bank. He said they met with Planning staff
numerous times, and incorporated all of their suggestions into the plan. Guaranty is a proud owner of the
property, and it goes to great lengths to make sure it looks as good as it does. This is an addition for the
convenience and security of their customers. They know that people are safer in their cars at an ATM
August 14, 2002
(Page 6)
machine. Today, people actually go into a doorway. They are most concerned about other people coming
in with them and being unable to get out. The Bank has looked at locking mechanisms, where someone
would go in and lock himself in. They are afraid of a power shortage which might keep someone from
getting out. This is a small addition to an existing canopy. The circulation will actually be improved for all
people coming in for a transaction. Planning staff recommended approval, and the Commission also
recommended approval. He asked that this Board approve the petition also. He noted that Mr. Rick Funk
from DBF Associates, the firm which did the architectural work, is also present to answer questions.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to disclose that he uses this bank. The current method of
getting to the cash machine is really not satisfactory. He thinks the one-way circulation pattern will be an
improvement. He then offered motion to approve SP-2002-026 with the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker.
Mr. Martin said he will disclose that he owns Guaranty stock, but it is not the amount needed in
order to require disclosure.
With no further discussion, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. The permittee shall continue to provide one-way circulation with an unobstructed
bypass lane that allows the safe passage of vehicles that do not enter the
drive-through lanes;
2. The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the
Architectural Review Board, including landscape and lighting plans;
3. One crape myrtle tree shall be added on the Rio Road side of the site to extend
the existing row westward;
4. Shrubs shall be added along the frontage of Rio Road to match the existing
plantings along Route 29; and
5. The portion of the existing vertical wall element that extends above the canopy
shall be eliminated.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2002-027. Kia Automobile Dealership (Sign #40). Public hearing on a
request to allow outdoor storage & display accessory to auto dealership. Incl 2,730 sq ft add'n to existing
5,549 sq ft bldg & expansion of parking lot. Portion of TM 78, P9, contains approx 1.7 acs. Znd HC & EC.
Loc on Rt 250 (Richmond Rd), approx 1/3 ml E of intersec w/Rt 20 (Stony Point Rd). Rivanna Dist. (Notice
of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on July 29 and August 5, 2002.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff’s report which is on file in the Clerk’s Office and made a part of
the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said approval of this permit would allow for outdoor
store and display in the Entrance Corridor District. It would be an accessory to an automobile dealership to
be established on this property. This is the former site of a restaurant. All of the adjacent properties are
developed with commercial uses. Free Bridge Auto Sales is located on the site to the east, and several
other automobile dealerships are located south and west of the site along Route 250. Two factors
favorable noted by staff are: 1) Motor vehicle sales is a by-right use in the Highway Commercial District;
and, 2) The Architectural Review Board has reviewed the request to allow outdoor storage and display and
recommended approval with conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said that initially staff recommended approval with four conditions. The Planning
Commission, in making its recommendation for approval on July 30, 2002, by a vote of 5:0, added two
conditions making a total of six.
Mr. Martin asked if the second favorable factor noted by staff might not have been better stated by
saying “The ARB reviewed the request to allow outdoor storage and display and presented acceptable
conditions.” Mr. Cilimberg said the ARB is actually charged with making a recommendation which includes
how the Board would act on the special use permit. The only reason SP-2002-027 is on the agenda for
approval as a special use is because of the ARB’s review. Mr. Davis said this situation is different from the
petition which preceded this one on the agenda tonight. This use is a by-right use, whereas, in the other
case the Board had the discretion to approve or not approve the use.
Mr. Martin said the ARB is really saying that they have found a way to make this acceptable in this
location.
Ms. Thomas said she had always pictured that as their job. She thinks it is interesting that Mr.
Martin thinks it is part of their job to tell the Board whether it should say “yes” or “no” to a particular petition.
She asked if that is only the case in a situation where the special use permit is based on the fact that it has
to go to the ARB. Mr. Cilimberg said at one time in the past the Board actually had a recommendation for
denial of a special use permit for outdoor storage for an automobile dealership where Home Depot wanted
to locate on Route 29 North. That is a definite role for the ARB. They have a role with staff to make
recommendations on other legislative decisions. Typically they have not made a lot of substantive
August 14, 2002
(Page 7)
comments.
Mr. Davis said if the ARB made a finding that no matter what conditions they attached to the permit
it would still have an inappropriate appearance in the Entrance Corridor, then they could recommend
denial.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board members should not think that applicants are particularly happy with
the ARB all the time, because the ARB makes them “go through quite a few hoops.”
Ms. Thomas said she thought it was the role of the ARB to determine how a use could be made
acceptable in the Entrance Corridor if the Board approved the petition. She should change her view
because the ARB could also say there is nothing that would make the use acceptable. Mr. Davis agreed.
Mr. Rooker said the ARB members do not generally view their role as recommending denial.
Ms. Thomas said staff can share with the ARB that the Board has had this discussion. Mr.
Cilimberg said the ARB has not looked at their role as being one intended to stop development. That was
an issue when they were created, and was a concern expressed in the community. He thinks that there
would be few cases where they would make that recommendation.
At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing.
Mr. Katurah Roelle, the applicant, said he was present to answer questions. This is an existing
piece of property with a good old building located on Pantops. They found some pictures of the building
when it was newly built, gave those to their architect, and had him create some drawings to restore it. It will
not be an exact replica at the top, but will be very similar. He has had several inquiries about the Town and
Country Motel property for automobile dealers. He figures that sooner or later one of those will hit and
come in for a permit. In the meantime, he is trying to master plan the rest of the land. He has met with
staff, and the City, and VDOT about different transportation plans for that whole network. There needs to
be a way to get across the river and to the east without having to use Route 250. In the long run he thinks
this will be a good use for existing space.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many cars will be stored on the site. Mr. Roelle said there are between 70
and 80 total spaces which includes parking for employees. He said there is a lower level to the building,
and they will use some of that space to auction off some of the things Dr. Hurt buys at auctions.
Ms. Thomas said she knows that Mr. Roelle and others are working on the transportation link in the
back, but she asked if this property will have access to a road network in the back of the property. Mr.
Roelle said he has provided a whole master plan for a link from Westminster Canterbury to Ashcroft and
other places.
Ms. Thomas said the MPO and others have had a real interest in this idea. She wants to
encourage Mr. Roelle in his efforts. Mr. Roelle said he would like to come up with his own master plan for
Pantops.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin to approve SP-2002-027 subject to the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated;
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in the areas indicated for display as
shown on the site plan;
3. The use shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board. This shall include
approval of landscaping and lighting plans;
4. In addition to the landscaping required by condition three, the applicant
shall provide trees along the interior drive forty feet (40') on center, two
and one-half inch (2 1/2") caliper, at the bottom of the slope. Provide a
mix of screening trees, screening shrubs, and ornamental trees
throughout the slopes to soften its appearance;
5. The open rip-rap channel shall be changed to a sub-surface pipe to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department; and
6. The storm water BMP facility will be designed as a recreational amenity
compatible with the adjacent residential development.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. Adoption of Resolution approving the filing of an application with the Virginia
Public School Authority.
August 14, 2002
(Page 8)
Mr. Tucker said funding for the FY 2002-03 Capital Improvement budget anticipated the issuance
of $8.7 million in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for various school projects.
Participation in the bond issue requires that both the School Board and the Board of Supervisors pass a
resolution authorizing application to VPSA. It is anticipated that the School Board will pass its resolution on
August 22, 2002, and the Board on August 14, 2002. The required documents will be submitted to the
Board as they are received by the Director of Finance from the County’s bond counsel.
Mr. Tucker said there will be a public hearing in the next few weeks and this amount is for bond
revenues of $8.7 million. About 80 percent of these funds will be used for the Brownsville addition and the
Jack Jouett renovation and addition. Staff requests approval of the necessary resolution authorizing the
County’s application to VPSA.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to adopt a Resolution Approving The Filing Of An Application
With The Virginia Public School Authority For A Loan In An Approximate Principal Amount Of $8,700,000.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE VIRGINIA
PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN AN APPROXIMATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF $8,700,000
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia
(the "County"), in collaboration with the Albemarle County School Board, has determined
that it is necessary and desirable for the County to undertake capital improvements for its
public school system;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approves the filing of an application with the Virginia Public
School Authority for a loan to the County in an approximate principal amount of
$8,700,000 to finance capital improvements for its public school system. The County
Executive, in collaboration with the other officers of the County and the Albemarle County
School Board, is hereby authorized and directed to complete an application and deliver it
to the Virginia Public School Authority.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Tucker asked about the Board’s regular meeting scheduled for September 11. There are
several events going on that evening, as well as during the day. It has been suggested that the meeting be
postponed to September 18.
Ms. Thomas said she is in favor of starting the meeting at 7:00 p.m. There are three events taking
place that night, one in the Lane Auditorium, one on the front lawn of the County Office Building, and one at
the Downtown Amphitheater.
Mr. Bowerman said he sent an E-mail to all Board members earlier today. He thinks there is a
principle involved, and he would not want to change the regular meeting date because of a terrorist act. He
is in favor of just changing the time to accommodate as many activities as possible.
Mr. Dorrier said he agrees with Mr. Bowerman to a certain point. One of the issues is that the
terrorist were trying to shut down the country and keep everyone from doing what they normally would do.
He thinks that while showing respect for what happened, there is something to be said for going forward.
Mr. Rooker was in favor of holding the meeting, but starting at 7:00 p.m.
__________
Ms. Thomas said she had received a letter from Mayor Maurice Cox asking that the County join City
Council on an educational trip to Burlington, Vermont, on Tuesday, October 15, 2002. She understands
that two Commissioners and one Planning staff person will attend. Ms. Thomas said she went with the City
when they went to Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Mr. Bowerman said there is a remarkable similarity between Burlington and this area.
Ms. Thomas said Burlington has been very interested in sustainability, urban design, the arts,
housing, and university community relations. Mr. Tucker said he needs to know if any Board member
wishes to go on this trip.
__________
August 14, 2002
(Page 9)
Ms. Thomas said there was a very successful program for the first four properties in the County
placed in the ACE Program. Secretary of Natural Resources, Tayloe Murphy, was present and said a lot of
nice things about Albemarle County.
__________
Ms. Thomas said a small group from the High Growth Coalition will be meeting with Secretary
Murphy, Secretary of Commerce, Michael Shull, and Secretary of Transportation, Whit Clement, to talk
about smart growth. Albemarle County has been asked to make a short presentation about what the
County is doing in this regard.
__________
Ms. Thomas mentioned the issue brought up by Ms. Elizabeth Petofi at the beginning of the
meeting. She knows that Mr. Pat Mullaney oversees the County’s property on Preddy Creek. What they do
in Greene and Orange counties, Albemarle has no control over. Mr. Perkins has pointed out that if the
State is looking for another park, this is an ideal location.
Mr. Tucker said staff has offered that suggestion to the State and is just waiting for a reply.
Mr. Davis said Ms. Petofi’s property and all the issues that she mentioned are all located in Orange
County. It is not an Albemarle County issue.
Mr. Martin said that back in 1995, a close look was given to a lot of things, and it just was not
feasible. Mr. Davis said there are some legitimate issues about how Albemarle is maintaining its property.
Parks and Recreation is looking at a number of things, and there may be some suggestions forthcoming.
Ms. Petofi’s position is somewhat self-serving.
Mr. Martin asked for an update on this question in the near future.
Mr. Tucker said the road that Ms. Petofi mentioned has been graveled and staff has looked into
that issue. The Riner’s have a legal right to use that road across the County’s land. They have graveled
the road, and it is a nice road now. He does not believe Ms. Petofi has any access to that road, and that is
part of the confusion, she would like to have access.
Mr. Rooker said Ms. Petofi sent him a package of materials a couple of months ago, and to him it
seemed like a private property issue.
__________
Mr. Martin said he met with several of the people in Gordonsville last Friday. He thinks that what
they are proposing is something the Board can support, i.e., the two bodies can support each other. The
next step is to talk with John Moore so his group can look at what Gordonsville is proposing.
Ms. Thomas asked if there was any further information about the forum proposed by the legislators.
Mr. Martin said Mr. Hubert Allen, Gordonsville Town Administrator, is supposed to make calls and notify
everyone.
__________
Mr. Perkins said in reference to a new park, Louisa County is proposing a new state park in
Trevillians. He thinks Louisa would need to acquire additional property.
Mr. Tucker said the $3.0 million which Mr. Perkins had seen written about is an annual State
appropriation has. Albemarle has actually used some of that money in the past when there was expansion
of County parks. That money is spread very thin. Nobody gets very much of the money in a given year.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 01/08/2003
Initials: EWC