2003-02-12 Night(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February
12, 2003, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire 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, Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Katurah Roell said about 40 people gathered at a local church Monday night to discuss the
possible closure of a metal bridge on Routes 743/641 (Advance Mills Road). They generally said they need
a safe, passable bridge. It was closed for about one month this past summer, and will be closed for about a
month again while VDOT tries to redeck and restructure some of the steel.
Mr. Bowerman said he recalls that a replacement bridge may be designed, and the old metal
bridge kept as a pedestrian path. Mr. Roell said he brought this up as a possibility because it is beautiful to
walk across that bridge, but the intersection there is very bad and there have been numerous wrecks at that
point.
Mr. Bowerman asked where this information came from. Mr. Roell said it is all based on rumors
from different people.
Mr. Tucker asked if any member of VDOT staff attended this meeting. Mr. Roell said "no." Mr.
Tucker said he thinks Mr. Jim Bryan should try to alleviate the concerns and explain exactly what VDOT will
be doing. Mr. Roell said that a group of five people was formed to work on this matter. He thinks they will
be contacting Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Perkins said VDOT can close the bridge if it chooses to, and the Board of Supervisors has no
say in the matter. He thinks a bridge is needed in that location. Mr. Roell said health and safety was
discussed. A person from the local rescue squad said their vehicles exceed the load limit on the bridge and
that is a safety factor. However, if they had to go around and use Airport Road, the Charlottesville rescue
squad could get there first. Mr. Perkins said the County just signed a mutual aid agreement with Greene
County, so they might be able to provide some services.
Mr. Dorrier said the bridge is not being taken down. Mr. Roell said he did stop and talk to some
people at the bridge last summer and was told that in the large scale members of the bridge are more than
50 percent deteriorated in rust. That is why all the bolts in cross-members and on the decking continually
work through the metal.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Roell might suggest that these people attend the Board's March day meeting
during discussion of highway matters.
Ms. Thomas said these people might want to encourage the General Assembly which is thinking
about a separate fund for bridge repairs because there is no such fund at this time.
Mr. Roell said a person at the meeting said they had spoken with someone at VDOT's Richmond
Office who indicated that they have several hundred million dollars for bridge repairs, and they could
certainly allocate funds if it was appropriately requested.
Mrs. Evelyn C. Manteris said she lives in the Charlottesville District. She had two questions about an
incident that occurred recently. She asked if it was the intent of the County Code, Sec. 9-101, Applicability
of chapter to roadways not subject to state highway system, to authorize the police to enter onto private
property without probable cause. Does the County Code violate the individual civil rights of the citizens
renting in an apartment complex? She mentioned that the police had issued several citations for expired
county decals on parked vehicles in the private parking areas of several apartment complexes. She may
not understand the Code (copy of her statement is on file in the Clerk's Office). She is a concerned citizen,
and her representative, Mr. Martin, gave her a very hard time on the telephone last night.
Mr. Larry Davis said this issue comes up year after year. The answer is simple, the police have a
right to be in a public parking lot or an apartment complex, and if they see an expired decal, they have the
right to write a ticket. If they are on a public street and they see a vehicle on private property within plain
sight, and it is in violation, they have a right to go on that property and to write a ticket.
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mrs. Manteris asked how they can go into an apartment complex and write tickets. Mr. Davis said
that by state law the apartment complex parking lots are subject to county regulations.
Mr. Martin said Mrs. Manteris told him last night that she wants the police to patrol the parking lots,
and if someone were breaking into a car she would want the police to stop them. Mrs. Manteris said that is
a different issue, they would have probable cause for a criminal action. Mr. Martin said when the police
officer sees an expired decal, how can he draw a line?
Mr. Rooker said the Board does not generally engage in debates with speakers.
Mr. Dorrier said the law allows the police to do this, and they use their discretion as to when they do
it and how they do it. The best defense in a case like this is to get a decal.
Mrs. Manteris said she is questioning the County Code.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board has a legal interpretation that the Code allows this.
Mr. Rooker said the Board does not engage in debate and he would prefer that the Board move
ahead with the agenda.
Ms. Manteris asked if she can have some kind of response so that she can understand the Code.
She finds the language vague.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board specifically asked four or five years ago to have the authority to do
this. He does not remember the Board having a policy to do sweeps.
Mr. Martin said there have been citizens who came before the Board during public hearings who
were mad because they were paying their taxes and they saw cars in apartment complexes, and around
student housing, where there was no county decal displayed. Those were law abiding taxpayers who asked
why these people paid no property taxes while they did.
Mr. Tucker said these taxpayers feel they are subsidizing those people who do not buy the decals.
Mr. Bowerman said he has no problem because the County has the right to do this, but he did not
know that they have a policy of doing sweeps. Mr. Tucker said he does not think there is a policy. They do
it randomly. They do it periodically and occasionally they will go through the complexes.
Mr. Perkins said they may be looking at county decals, but also for out-of-state licenses, because
within 30 days of moving to Virginia, the person should have purchased a Virginia driver's license and a
Virginia license plate.
Mr. Dorrier said this is a different age today with terrorism, etc. Having the police presence in the
County is not a bad idea. If they come onto private property and ticket someone for not having a decal, that
is the risk that people take when they don't buy a decal. The Board does not micro-manage the police.
That department is run by Chief Miller and Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Tucker said it is not uncommon for them to drive through a complex. Part of it is crime
prevention, so occasionally they will drive through a complex, they don't just stay on public streets.
Mrs. Manteris said she would like to have her questions answered in a very specific way.
Mr. Rooker said if a person wants to challenge the ordinance, there is a proper way to do that. The
person who gets a ticket can protest the ticket and go to court. The judge looks at the ordinance and
makes a determination as to whether or not it is unconstitutional, its vague, or it can be applied as it is being
applied. That is the proper way to challenge the ordinance if someone disagrees.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to approve Items 5.1
through 5.4 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept Item 5.5 for information. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Perkins. 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: August 7, October 2, October 9, November 6 and December 11,
2002.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of October 2, 2002, and found them to be in order as presented.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the minutes of October 2, 2002. (All
other minutes will go forward to another meeting for approval.)
Item 5.2. SP-2002-016. Old Trail Golf Club (formerly Bucks Elbow Golf Club) Amendment (Signs
#44, 76 & 93). To allow public golf course w/clubhouse in accord w/Secs 10.2.2.4, 13.2.2.4 & 16.2.2.4 of
the Zoning Ord. TM 55, Ps 84C, 84E, 102, 103, 103F, 83 & 71, contains 207 acs. Loc on Rockfish Gap
Turnpike (Rt 250) approx 0.5 mis E of intersec of Rt 250 & 1-64. Znd RA, R-l, R-6 & EC. White Hall Dist.
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
(Notice of public hearing published in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 2003.)
At the request of staff, this matter was removed from the agenda.
Item 5.3. Authorize Chairman to execute Mutual Aid Agreement between Albemarle County and
Greene County.
It was noted in the staff's report that Albemarle County proposes entering into written mutual aid
agreements for fire and rescue services with each of its neighboring counties. These agreements would
assure the terms under which such aid is delivered and would maximize the statutory immunity provided by
Virginia Code [] [] 27-2, 27-4 and 27-23.6. A standard agreement was prepared and forwarded to each
county for review and approval. Greene County is the seventh county to approve the proposed agreement.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Mutual Aid Agreement on behalf
of the County.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board authorized the Chairman to execute the
following Mutual Aid Agreement with Greene County on behalf of the County.
MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 21st day of June, 2001, by
and between Albemarle County, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
hereinafter referred to as "Albemarle", and Greene County, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as "Greene",
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to Albemarle and Greene to
enter into an agreement concerning mutual aid with regard to fire and rescue services;
and
WHEREAS, the parties desire that the terms and conditions of this Mutual Aid
Agreement be established pursuant to [] [] 27-2, 27-4 and 27-23.6 of the Code of
Virginia;
NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the mutual
benefits to be derived by Albemarle and Greene from this Agreement, Albemarle and
Greene hereby covenant and agree each with the other as follows:
1. That Albemarle and Greene will endeavor to provide fire suppression, fire
prevention, rescue, hazardous materials response, and other related governmental
services to the other county within the capabilities available at the time the request for
such support is made. Such response may be by county-paid employees or by county
volunteer company or department firefighters and rescuers.
2. That nothing contained in this Agreement should in any manner be construed
to compel either county to respond to a request for services in the other county when the
resources of the county to which the request is being made are needed, or are being
used, within the boundaries of its own county, nor shall any such request compel the
assisting county to continue to provide services in the other county when its personnel,
apparatus or equipment are needed within the boundaries of its own county.
3. That each county acknowledges that it is fully capable of providing fire
services, rescue services, hazardous material response services, and other related
governmental services to adequately serve its respective county.
4. That neither county shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage to
property or personal injury or death of personnel resulting from the performance of this
Agreement.
5. That each county shall indemnify and save harmless the assisting county
from all claims by third parties for property damage or personal injury which may arise
out of the activities of the assisting county resulting from the performance of this
Agreement.
6. The county requesting assistance shall not be required to reimburse the
assisting county for apparatus, equipment or personnel occasioned by a response for
assistance, or for damage to such apparatus or equipment, or injuries to personnel
incurred when responding in the other county; provided, however, the county requesting
assistance under the terms of this Agreement shall pay the responding entity from the
other county the actual cost of specialized extinguishing or hazardous material mitigation
agents used in rendering assistance pursuant to this Agreement.
7. That the county requesting assistance pursuant to this Agreement shall make
such request to the emergency communications center of the assisting county, which will
then contact the appropriate county officials to determine its response.
8. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
personnel making such response shall not become employees of the county requesting
assistance for the purposes of the Virginia Workers Compensation Act.
9. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance, the
personnel manning such responding units shall remain under the command of the senior
responding officer, and shall work as a unified company and shall not be split apart
during the emergency operations unless ordered by the senior responding officer.
10. That when a county elects to respond to a request for assistance and the
senior responding officer determines that the emergency operations are being conducted
in an unsafe manner, the assisting county may limit its assistance to a support service or
withdraw the assistance to ensure the safety of its
personnel.
11. This Agreement may be modified only by the mutual written consent of both
counties.
12. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either county giving thirty
(30) days written notice of termination to the other county.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, Albemarle's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and
Greene's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors execute this Agreement, they being
authorized to do so.
Item 5.3A. Resolution of Intent to amend Section 4.15, Signs of the Zoning Ordinance.
It was noted in the staff's report that recent enforcement of the sign regulations in the Zoning
Ordinance have raised issues regarding the reasonableness of regulations relating to flags, advertising
vehicles and window signs. Because these provisions, and other regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
relating to signs, have not been reviewed for a number of years, it is appropriate for staff and the Planning
Commission to review the sign regulations to determine if any changes are necessary or appropriate. A
Resolution of Intent would initiate a review by staff and the Commission of sign regulations and direct that
any recommendation for amendments be brought to the Board at the earliest possible date.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Intent:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Section 4.15, Signs, of the Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations
for signs; and
WHEREAS, the regulations in Section 4.15 exist to promote the general health,
safety and welfare, including the creation of an attractive and harmonious environment;
protect the public investment in the creation, maintenance, safety and appearance of its
streets, highways and other areas open to the public; improve pedestrian and vehicular
safety by avoiding saturation and confusion in the field of vision that could otherwise
result if signs were not regulated as provided in Section 4.15; and to protect and enhance
the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors as a source of economic
development; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to consider amendments to Section 4.15 pertaining to
flags, advertising vehicles, window signs, and other provisions of Section 4.15 if
determined to be necessary or appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 4.15 of the Zoning
Ordinance to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a
public hearing on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of
intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible
date.
Item 5.4. City of Charlottesville Fire Department Contract Report for FY 2002-03.
In a memorandum dated January 2, 2003, from Mr. Dan Eggleston to Mr. Tom Foley, Mr.
Eggleston says that the net responses (gross responses-credits) during the FY 01-02 period were 2200,
which are 200 below the 2400 threshold. According to the contract, if net calls are over 2400, the County is
required to make an overcharge payment for each call over 2400. If the net calls are below 2400, the City
will credit the County for each call below 2400. Therefore, the County will receive a credit (approximately
$53,000) in FY 02-03 for the 200 calls below 2400.
Starting in February, 2002 overall calls were reduced due to a change in response standards
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
through the Computer Automated Dispatch (CAD) program. It is probable that with the opening of
Monticello Station 11 and with the changes made in CAD, the total number of City responses will continue
to decrease in FY 02-03. Starting with July, 2003, the City will not respond outside of the Automatic
Response District (ARD) unless for a working structure fire. This will reduce the overall responses by the
City, but will further increase the responses made by County stations.
These changes described decrease overall City responses. However, a recent change to the City's
response to the eastern portion of the County may negate the decrease in gross call load. Due to the lack
of available daytime volunteers at East Rivanna Fire Company, a City engine company has been added to
all daytime responses in East Rivanna's area. It is estimated that this could increase City responses by
more than 300 calls annually. It is anticipated that the City's response in East Rivanna's area will continue
until East Rivanna is staffed with daytime career flrefighters. East Rivanna's Board is considering asking the
Board of Supervisors for daytime career firefighters, but no formal decision has been made to date.
Memorandum, which is on file in the Clerk's Office, was received as information.
Item 5.5. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes for January 14, 2003, was received for
information.
(The following two agenda items were heard concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-2002-08. South Pantops (Signs #83 & 84). Public hearing on a request
to rezone 24.07 acs from PD-MC to PD-MC & HC to amend a proffered plan to allow for an office use
instead of a hotel use & to allow for an expansion of Dennis Enterprises car dealership. TM 78, Ps 13 &
73A. Loc on Hanson Rd in the Giant Shopping Center at Pantops on Rt 250. (The Comprehensive Plan
designates these properties located in Pantops as Regional Service.) Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 2003.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2002-013. Dennis Enterprises Expansion - Outdoor Display (Sign #40).
Public hearing on a request to allow add'l vehicle display parking in accord w/Sec 30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning
Ord. TM 78, P 13, contains 3.748 acs. Loc on Richmond Rd (Rt 250) approx 1 mi from the intersec of
Richmond Rd & Stony Point Rd. Znd HC & EC. Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised
in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file the Clerk's Office with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said these two petitions are related and are covered by the same
report. The first applicant, the Virginia Land Company, is requesting a rezoning amendment to the Rivanna
River Ridge Shopping Center's PD-MC Application Plan to allow for office use instead of the previously
approved hotel use on Tax Map 78, Parcel 73. The property also includes an area that has been designed
a conservation area for the purpose of providing a screen to this development as it is seen from Route 250.
Almost all of the important trees are the upper part of the hill. The Virginia Land Company is also
requesting a reduction from 45,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet for the office space shown in the
northeast corner at the intersection of Hansen Road and Rolkin Road. The second applicant, Dennis
Enterprises, is requesting a rezoning from PD-MC to HC to allow for additional outdoor automobile display.
Proffers have been offered by the two applicants.
Mr. Cilimberg said these petitions were before the Planning Commission on two occasions. There
were some issues after the first review, so the requests were deferred so the applicants could work toward
resolving those issues which were addressed in a subsequent submittal. The office buildings were moved
toward Hansen Drive, a sidewalk proposed along Hansen Drive along with a bus stop, and the parking
relegated away from the road. Staff has now received information on traffic impacts and is satisfied that the
impacts from this change will be less than that associated with a hotel. He said a recommendation came to
the Planning Commission, and now to the Board, for approval of ZMA-2002-08 with two proffers on the
shopping center site and one proffer on the Dennis Enterprises' site. Also, SP-2002-013 for Dennis
Enterprises carried a recommendation for approval subject to eight conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said since the time when the Planning Commission recommended approval on
January 14, 2003, staff realized that if the petition were approved as recommended, it would not
accomplish what was requested in this rezoning. Staff has a change based on what was proffered because
the effect of the proffers would have been unintentional. This is not a substantive change. The second
proffer for the shopping center property would have removed everything that was shown on that parcel
under the original Application Plan. In fact, there would have been no office building, and no retail use as a
result of accepting that proffer. That was completely unintentional. Staff now has a recommendation as to
how to accomplish what is needed, but in a little different way than what was originally recommended by the
Commission. He said the proffers have changed, but the design of what's happening is not changing. The
way it was amended into the Application Plan would change by virtue of this set of recommendations.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the applicant has agreed to the staff's proposal. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes." The
County Attorney helped with wording, and there was a lot of back and forth to get the words right, and to get
the signed proffers which staff now has. They are all in order.
Mr. Cilimberg said that essentially, what the Board is being asked to do is covered in the
memorandum he passed out earlier (Titled - Recommended Action for Special Use Permit SP-02-13 and
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Recommended Action for Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-02-08, marked "Received 2-12-03, EWC."). He
said the recommendation for action on the special use permit has not changed. What did change was the
action the Board would take on the zoning map amendment which, in essence, through these steps would
amend the Application Plan by keeping the retail and reduce the office area as originally proposed in Area 2
(See Vicinity Map in packet, Area 2 shows as a yellow-hatched area at the intersection of Hansen Road and
Rolkin Road on Parcel 73A).
Ms. Thomas asked if it still allows for the ten-year option. Mr. Cilimberg said it still proffers the ten-
year reserve for a road should the County want to make the connection. Proffer 1 in each case stays the
same. Proffer 2 for the planned development-mixed commercial is dropped, and instead, staff has outlined
in the memorandum distributed today, the steps the Board would take to amend the Plan to show what is
being requested.
Mr. Cilimberg said one other thing has come up from an adjacent owner. The property owner to
the west of the South Pantops rezoning area (to the west of that conservation area), is concerned that if that
is designated conservation, they would have to come back when they develop their property and request an
amendment to their zoning so they could fill in some of that area to make the grading work correctly. That
is a Iow area. The substantive part of that conservation area that meets the intent of the ARB in screening
part of this development is up the hill. It is roughly 200 feet through that conservation area. That owner has
asked if the bottom 50 feet along the property line could be removed from the conservation area. The
applicant is agreeable, and staff does not think that has any substantive effect on the application. If the
Board decides to do that, he has another hand-out which shows the action that would be needed to
accomplish that.
Mr. Rooker asked if there needs to be a change in the proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said "no", it is a
change in the Application Plan. That conservation area would be referenced differently.
Ms. Thomas asked for an idea of how much 50 feet is. Mr. Bowerman said it is about 40 percent of
the site.
Mr. Rooker asked about the road connection which is being reserved. Mr. Cilimberg said staff
looked at possible road connections in the Pantops area. One of the areas would be a connection between
Rolkin Drive behind the Giant Food Store and the property to the west tieing into the road that goes to the
Albemarle County Service Authority building.
Ms. Thomas said that is an important road the County cannot require because it is not shown in the
Comprehensive Plan at this time. This just shows that the County is behind in planning for this area.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Katurah Roell, representing the applicant, said the Dennis Enterprises plan, Area 3 on the
central map, is a small triangle, so as it appears on his site plan there is a large parking lot being added to
the rear which is actually less than half of that being considered in this proposal. The front portion of that
triangle was previously approved by the Board about one and a-half years ago. Dennis then sought to
square off his lot, so bought some property to do that. Secondly, for the office building complex, they will
put in turn lanes to facilitate traffic at that intersection. He said in the original request, the square footage for
the front parcel was reduced because they desire to have a small branch bank with a drive-through window
on that parcel. He worked closely with the ARB on the landscaping, and what will be provided on this site is
one and one-half times the required coverage. There will be sufficient buffering.
Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing at this time.
Mr. Don Franco said he was present on behalf of Mr. Mike Spooner. His property is to the west of
this project, and is sandwiched between the bottom border of Dennis Enterprises. The property is a small
triangular piece of about one acre in size. It is a vacant lot, and that is their concern. They hope that when
action is taken on this request, they will have the ability to do some grading on the South Pantops project
that will not require a rezoning. They are the hole in the middle with land rising up to meet the developing
area of South Pantops. They would like to be able to make their grade transitions across the property line
and create a better aesthetic site so there is not a big swale between the two sites. They have no plan for
the site at this time, and that is the problem they are encountering. They did not want to just create a site
plan for the sake of having a site plan. But, they want to reserve the potential to create a uniform look.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the land is zoned for commercial use. Mr. Franco said it is zoned highway
commercial. They anticipate pursing an office use in the near future. Most of the development will
probably shield the area being discussed and buffer the slope created on South Pantops. The first 50 feet
of the grading they are asking for on the back of the property, does not have screening trees to shield the
buildings proposed. Their property line looks up vertically about 45 feet to where the parking lot and the
buildings begin on South Pantops. They ask for the ability to grade through that first 50 feet which would be
about 15 feet vertically to make the grades match. They are happy to leave that to the discretion of the
Director of Planning. They will be happy to come back during the site plan process and show their plan to
enhance landscaping on the property, or in the disturbed area. They are not trying to ruin the aesthetics,
but trying to make it so the grades work out and there would be a much better product between the two
sites.
Ms. Thomas said the plan the Board has of the property under consideration today shows a lot of
trees existing, not just in the conservation area, but in the area to the right of that area. She asked if he
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
would regard those as "fair game". Mr. Franco said it is all scrub growth. If there is an aesthetic concern,
they would be happy to landscape back in that direction. When he says scrub, he means second growth
pines. He thinks if they killed those six-foot pines and built the dirt up 15 feet so the grades match, and
revegetate that slope, they would end up with a better visual product from Route 250. The net benefit for
them is that they don't end up with a slope coming down to the property line from South Pantops, so they
would be able to grade across that area and then landscape across it.
Ms. Thomas asked if those are critical slopes. Mr. Franco said these are slopes which were
created by the construction that has taken place. If they are critical slopes, he would be happy to pursue a
waiver. They want to avoid a complete rezoning of the adjacent parcel in order to create this better product.
Mr. Rooker said what Mr. Franco is asking for does not approve his plan, it simply enables his plan
to be approved later without having to go through a rezoning for the parcel again.
Mr. Davis said it would also be subject to ARB approval because the property is visible from Route
250. That would give the County the ability to capture a landscaping plan, and that would be appropriate.
Mr. Rooker said his office is on Spotnap Road. There is a tremendous grade between these
properties. The last 50 feet of the property Mr. Franco is talking about would serve no screening benefit to
any other property. Mr. Rooker said he is in the area frequently and is interested in preserving the
aesthetics, and he does not think that what they are requesting would harm the aesthetics of the project. It
actually could improve the aesthetics because there would not be a need for a retaining wall.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks when it is all finished, it will tie together very well. At this time it is very
jumbled visually.
Mr. Franco said most of the trees along the front are on Mr. Spooner's property. As fill takes place,
that will be replaced with a building and parking lot.
Mr. Rooker said this is not a matter before the Board today, but there is a lot of wash-out between
the Carriage Gate Apartments property and this property. There is Rolkin Road and a path that runs
through there and the road is starting to "bubble up" in some of those areas. He thinks the Engineering
Department should look at the situation.
Mr. Roell said the contractor who put in the storm sewer in that area did not compact the area
correctly, so it collapsed. It has been dug up and will be repaired.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg handed to the Board a different set of recommended actions (Marked by the Clerk
"Received 2-12-03, 6&7, EWC, Hand-out #2").
Mr. Martin said he thinks all the Board members have looked at this request in depth. He thinks the
Planning Commission and staff did a good job of reviewing it. The question for him is not whether or
not to make a motion to approve it, but whether he can make the motion at all because it has become so
complicated.
Ms. Thomas asked if this set of recommendations is different from those handed to the Board
earlier in the meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes", these conditions allow for the 50-feet to be disturbed.
Mr. Martin said he would move that SP-2002-013, Dennis Enterprises, be approved subject to the
eight conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, as presented to the Board in its packet of
materials for tonight's meeting. 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.)
2.
3.
4.
Vehicles shall not be elevated;
Vehicles shall be displayed only in the areas indicated for display shown on the
plan;
The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by
the ARB, including landscape and lighting plans;
Provide screening trees to the east, south and west of the proposed parking area
to reduce the impact of the loss of trees and to soften the appearance of the
expanse of proposed pavement. Provide a mixture of screening trees,
ornamental trees, and shrubs throughout the slope of the grading easement to
the east of the site. A landscape easement will be required for off-site planting;
Provide the planting bed with the seven (7) Eastern Red Cedars in the central
portion of the parking area as shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP-
02-34) dated March 8, 2002, revised November 4, 2002;
Rather than alternate the screening trees along the eastern property line, cluster
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
the same species in groups and alternate groups of screening trees to create a
more informal and naturalistic landscape;
Submit a landscape easement for off-site planting; and
Provide screening trees that will grow to a height that will sufficiently screen the
proposed parking area. This will require a wider planting area, which will
necessitate the removal of most, if not all, of the eleven (11) display parking
spaces in the first row.
Mr. Martin then offered motion to approve ZMA-2002-008 with the recommended proffers and
Application Plan which includes A through F, and then the tax map rezoning from PD-MC to HC which
includes proffers A and B. 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.
PROFFER FORM
(For South Pantops Office)
Date: 02/12/2003
ZMA # 2002-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number: 78-73A
6.96+ Acres to be rezoned from PDMC to PDMC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County. Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
request.
The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the
common property line with Carriage Gate (TMP 78-20NN) for the purposes of
the possibility of extending a road through that portion of the property for a period
of TEN years. After such time this proffer will expire.
Signature of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners
(Signed)
Charles W. Hurt, Pres. Charles W. Hurt 2-12-03
Hurt Investment Co.
Date
Tax Map 78-73A: Modification of the ZMA-98-20 Application Plan and Proffers:
The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA-98-20 (Attachment B), outlined in
red, located generally west of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area
designated as "Hotel #7 - 100 Rooms" on the attached copy of the ZMA-98-20
Application Plan, is amended to allow "Office Space" instead of a hotel. The
development of this Office Space area shall be in general accord with the
"Preliminary Site Development Plans for Office at South Pantops", prepared by
Rivanna Engineering, dated January 3, 2002, and revised January 7, 2003
(Attachment A).
The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA-98-20 (Attachment B) outlined in
blue, located generally east of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area
designated as "Office Space #5 - 45,000 SQ FT", is amended to reduce the
permitted square footage of office space use from forty-five thousand (45,000)
square feet to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet.
The tree conservation area depicted by dotted lines on the "Preliminary Site
Development Plans for Office at South Pantops", prepared by Rivanna
Engineering, dated January 3, 2002, and revised January 7, 2003 (Attachment
A), may be reduced in size so that its western boundary is moved in from the
common property line with Tax Map 78, parcel 13A, by up to fifty (50) feet.
The three modifications listed in A, B and C above are in addition to those
previously approved, and in all other respects the previously approved
Application Plan and the modifications and requirements reflected in the October
28, 1998, letter (Attachment C) apply.
The applicant shall provide the County with a modified Application Plan showing
the changes authorized by the modifications, listed in A, B and C above, per
section 8.5.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. However, the modified
Application Plan can be limited to the area covered by this zoning request.
Accept the proffer pertaining to the 120-foot "no build zone" (Attachment D).
PROFFER FORM
(For Dennis Enterprises)
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Date: 02/12/2003
ZMA # 2002-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number: 78-13
1+ Acres to be rezoned from PDMC to HC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County. Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its
duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall
be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the
requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
request.
The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the
common property line with Carriage Gate (TMP 78-20NN) for the purposes of
the possibility of extending a road through that portion of the property for a period
of TEN years. After such time this proffer will expire.
Signature of Ail Owners Printed Names of Ail Owners Date
(Signed)
Dennis Minetos Dennis Minetos 2-12-03
Tax Map 78-13: Rezonin,q from PDMC to HC:
The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA-98-20 (Attachment B), outlined in
green, which was added to Tax Map 78, parcel 13, is rezoned to HC (Highway
Commercial) from PD-MC (Planned Development-Mixed Commercial).
Accept the proffer pertaining to the 120-foot "no build zone" (Attachment D).
(Note: All attachments mentioned above will be found filed with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors in the Clerk's Office.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Draft Statement for VDOT's Primary Road Plan Pre-allocation Hearing.
Mr. Tucker said staff will reword the statement the Board proposed when it was discussed earlier
today. That draft will be forwarded to the Board by e-mail one more time. Staffwill also draft some "talking
points" for the Chairman to use when speaking to the State Highway Commission on March 5. He said the
Pre-allocation Hearing this year is being held in the County Office Building in the Auditorium at 10:00 a.m.
The Clerk is preparing the agenda for that date to allow time so the Board members can attend that
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 9. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said there are few young people in the audience tonight, and she wonders what
brought them here. Someone in the audience said these are Girl Scouts trying to fulfill their citizenship
requirements.
Ms. Thomas said that in the Highway statement on page 17 there is a paragraph saying the road
concepts have no standing in the Comprehensive Plan, therefore the County cannot ask for the roads in
any way, the applicant cannot be required to reserve the right-of-way, and certainly cannot ask for any
contribution toward these roads. She thinks this is just under planning, and asked that this happen as little
as possible.
Mr. Martin said he thinks Route 29 North will be done with the next master plan. Ms. Thomas said
that was the plan, but with the discussions about budget which are to occur soon, it looks like that is one of
the things which is proposed to be cut.
Mr. Tucker said the developer will probably end up building those roads.
Mr. Tucker said the Board discussed on February 5, the invitation to meet with PVCC. They have
invited the Albemarle School Board, the Supervisors, and their own Piedmont College Board members to
meet. The Board has a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the Rural Areas at 3:30 p.m.
on March 5. He has suggested that the Board meet with the PVCC people for dinner at 5:00 p.m.
Ms. Thomas said they will probably want to discuss the letter asking for the County's participation in
their capital improvements program. Mr. Tucker said that is possible. He asked the Board members to let
staff know if they can attend that dinner.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she will miss the first meeting in July. She thinks it would help the
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Clerk with planning if the Board members gave her their vacation schedules.
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 04/02/2003
Initials: EWC