1978-11-15NNo~ember 1~ 1'.~8_ Re-ul~a_r[~Night Mee~ing~)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
No~ember 15, 1978 at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Board Members Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,~ J. T. Henley,
Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner.
Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M., and
requested a brief moment of silence.
Agenda Item No. 2.
SP-78-55~
Walter H. Johnson.
(Deferred from October 18, 1978).
Mr. Fisher noted that the applicant was not present, nor was any representative.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Johnson had been notified in writing that he was to be present at tonight'
meeting. Mr. Fisher said this item was postponed once because the applicant was not present.
He said the Planning Commission and staff both recommended denial of the request.
No one from the public was present who wished to speak either for or against this petitio~
and the public hearing was declared closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by
Dr. Iachetta, to accept~the ~commendation of the Planning Commission, and deny the request.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachett~ Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. Z5~-78718. Walter H. Withers, Jr. To rezone 17.4 acres from A-1 to
RS-1. Property on the north side of Route 691 adjacent to Orchard Acres. County Tax Map 55,
Parcel 65 and 65B. (Advertised an the Daily Progress on November 1 and November 8, 1978.)
Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Withers was a client of his firm, and he wished to abstain from
discussion and vote on this petition.
Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report:
Character of the Area
The portion of this property under consideration is currently an apple orchard. Orchard
Acres subdivision (2 units/acre; zoned R-2) is to the northeast. Jarman Gap Estates
(RPN~RS-1; 0.74 units/acre) is to the west. Some large parcels in pasture also exist in
-~the area.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends low-density residential (2.5 units/acre) in this area.
Staff Comments
Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
1. The request complies with the Comprehensive Plan;
Public water is available in the area;
3. Similar development exists in the area.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, on November 14, 1978, recommended by unani.
mous vote to approve this request. Mr. Tucker also read the following letter into the record:
"November 3, 1978
Z~A-78-18
Albemarle County
County of Albemarle
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Attention: Mr. Ron Keeler
The proposed rezoning of 17.4 acres of A-1 to RS-1 off of Route 691, I assume
could allow the creation for 17 additional lots which would generate approximately
120 additional vehicles per day. Our main concern at this time is one of safe access.
We have examined parts of the property proposed for rezoning and there are locations
which have adequate s~gh~ distance. A commercial p~rmi~ would be required for the
street entrances. This would include the turn l~ne also.
If you should have any questions, please advise.
Very truly yours,
~igned) W. B. Coburn, Jr.
Asst. Resident Engineer"
Mr. Withers was present and stated that he has been working with the Highway Department.
Regarding soil ~rosion, he ~oted that at present most of the land is in orchard and the rest
is in corn. Pending development, he said any runoff would go directly into a lake which would
act as a sediment pond.
.052
November_~5~ 1978 (~ular Night Meetin_D_g]~ _ _.._~
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Dorrier said this was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and offered motion for
approval as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Roll
was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None
~ST~/N:~.M~.Roudabush
Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-78-15. North Rivanna lS~'~ 2nd and 3rd Land Trust. To rezone
250.9 acres from A-1 to Planned Industrial District. Property on east side of Route 606 about
3/4 mile northeast of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport. County Tax Map 32, Parcels 19
(part thereof), 6 (~art thereof) and 17, Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Dali
Progress on November 1 and November 8, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report:
Requested Zoning: Planned Industrial District
A6reage: 250.9 acres
Existing Zoning: A-1 Agriculture
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 19 (part thereof),' 6'~(part thereof), and
17 is located on the east side of Route 606 approximately 3/4 mile northeast of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
Character of the Araa
This undeveloped property is both wooded and open and slopes to the streams which traverse it.
(These streams are impounded in two locations on the site.) Industrial and residential uses
and a mobile home park are to the east. Residential and commercial uses are to the south. To
the west are residential and industrial uses with the airport and property to the north being
d~e~eloped.
E~isting Zoning in the Area
Agricultural, residential, commercial, and heavy industrial zoning exist to the east. Agricul~
tural and light ~ndustrial zoning is to the south. Agricultural zoning is to the ~est and nortl
Comprehensive Plan
A portion of this property is within the designated Ho!lymead Community, and is~recommended for
industrial usage. (At this time, the land use plan for this area is very general. Some areas
such as Deerfield and Airport Acres are not recognized; both of these areas are recommended
in the plan map for industrial usage). In respect to industrial uses in the Hollymead Communit;
the Comprehensive Plan recommends the following:
--The community, although related to the Urban Area by proximity and
transportation linkages, is designed to ~e a community of its own
with balanced employment, service and recreation opportunities.
--Industrial plans envision taking advantage of the disadvantages of the
airport environment for other uses and recommendations of the County, s
Airport Plan should be carefully considered.
--Ail of the land in the Hollymead Community area west of RouSe 29 is pro-
posed as industrial. This area is proposed to be a major employment area
for the future. This also allows all community functions (residential,
commercial, educational, and recreational) on the east side to be easily
interrupted without entering or crossing Route 29.
)iffe~ences from the 1971 Comprehensive Plan are~
--~~ ~ ~ having Route 29 North split the residential community.
--Definition of employment areas on the west side of Route 29 as related
to the community.
- the five year perspective:
--A fine tuning of the service area ~nd distribution system for water and
sewer should be accomplished to re~lect the eventUal expansion of the
Hollymead PUD and the industrial development anticipated in conjunction
with the airport.
--Road improvement plans for the area should be designed and built as
development occurs as a prerequisite to same.
--Industrial park lots should be developed and made available to users.
--Crossings of Route 29 should be limited to three points: Route 643 an
the south, Route 649 on the north, and the Hoilymead development primary
~ entranc e.
--Industrial and residential growth will eventually necessitate a grade
separation interchange at one of these points.
Analysis: Industrial Zoning
~A. R~uested acreage vs. Comprehensive Plan reco~nendations. The Comprehensive Plan recommend~
!1~45 ac~e~ of industrial lan~ be ~eve±ope~ in the ~o±±ymea~ ~'ommunity. However, the Plan recomm~
lds
November 15_~1978 (Re.gular Nij~ht Meeting~)
053
that additional land be provided for the following reasons:
In the planning for future industrial growth, it is customary to apply
multiplier factors to minimum land demand quantities anticipated. In
order to provide a wide degree of choice in site locations, characteristics
and price, it is prudent to provide at least twice the amount of land that
is anticipated to be developed (this margin also allo~ for under,estimate
of demand in a projection). Further, since thea~[Zy of potentially prime
industrial sites is very limited in comparison to potentially suitable sites
for other types of land use, it is foresighted to insure that land is avail-
able for development beyond the 20-year planning period. The multiplier for
post-plan land supply recommended is two.
Applying these factors to the Hollymead Community indicates that 580 acres of industrial land
should be provided by 1995. Therefore, this request represents about 40% of the recommended
industrial ~oning. While rezoning a large area under single ownership does not ~provide a
wide degree of choice site locations, characteristics and price", (the basis of application
of one multiplier), staff opinion is that enough potential acreage remains to meet these
concerns. The staff feels that with proper conditions of approval budgeting the development
of this site, this request complies with acreage proposals of the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Evaluation under Comprehensive Plan industrial land use criteria. The following area
criteria for selecting land for industrial development as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has commented on this site following each criterion:
(1)
Within one-half mile of major highway, airport, or rail f~ci!ities: This site
is within one, half mile of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and Route 29
North. Access is proposed directly to both facilities.
(2)
Level to gently rolling land less than 10% slope: 33.1 acres of swale and severe
slope is proposed as open space on the preliminary plan. About one-half of the
remainder is in slopes of less than 10%. With conditioning afforded by the PID
provisions, steeper slopes can be adequately protected.
(3)
Availability of public sewerage system connection: As stated in SP-78-50 (Albemarle
Service Authority request to increase treatment capacity of Camelot Sewage Treatmenl
Plant), the projected sewage demand for this property is 68,750 gallons per day.
The applicant_will have 58,000 gpd available to him after the expansion permitted
under SP-78-50. Since this property is within an existing jurisdictional area, the
Albemarle CoUnty Service Authority is obligated to provide connection upon demand.
Additional capacity would be available from Meadow Creek Sewa~ Treatment Plant.
This would require extensive pumping and in staff opinion is not an efficient
solution. The approvad capacity appears adequate in light of the staff's proposed
phasing of development. However, should additional capacity be necessary due to
the location of water-intensive uses, staff would recommend the Camelot Sewage Treal
ment Plant be expanded accordingly.
Availability of public water system connection: The Albemarle County Service Authori
has state~ that water ms avai±a~±e to t~is si~e from both Route $49 and Route 606
near Camelot. The water line size and pressure is more than adequate to handle this
site.
(5)
(6)
Preferably open as opposed to forest land: This site is about half open and half
wooded. Open a~eas exist near Route 649 and in the v&cinity of the streams and
impoundments.
Within reasonably close proximity to communities or the urban area for worker
O~t~ting purposes: A portion of this site is clearly within the Hollymead' Communit
as currently proposed.
Under ZMA-78-03 request for rezoning by the same applicant which was denied, staff had ranked
this property as priO~y~ for industrial development. With re-evaluation in consideration
of proposed conditions ef approval, staff gives this property priority I for potential
industrial development.
C. Recommendations of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan. This ~a~n...~0mp!eted
~n February, 1974 recommends that:
"land usage surrounding the airport be zoned to assure compatibility with
airport operations, noise sensitivity and safety of aircraft operations. Some
suggested land uses would be agricultural, open space, light commercial and/or
industry. (Heavy smoke producing industry should be avoided wherever possible)."
The plan also maps noise sensitivity areas around the airport. A portion of this property
lies within NSC-2 and NSC-3 in which residential uses, institutional uses, hotels, motels,
office buildings, restaurants, theaters and retail commerce should be avoided or prohibited.
While this requested ~ezoning complies substantially with the Airport Master Plan, staff would
recommend that no heavy smoke producing industries be permitted ~nd that uses within NSC-2
be restricted in accordance with the recommendations of the Airport Master Plan.
D. Traffic Generation.
Existing and projected conditions under existing zoning: Recent traffic counts show that
Route ~49 west of Route 29 North has an average daily traffic count (ADT) of around 3400 vehic
trips per day. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan forecasts that by 1980 their
site-specific ADT will increase by 300 vehicles per day. The staff forecasts that, without
any major developments which would increase traffic levels, by 1980 Route ~49 will be handling
approximately 4500+ trips per day.
O54
November 15, 1978 (Re ular Ni ht Me·tin
Existing Zoning vs. Requested Zoning: Development under existing zoning would generate about
900 vtpd compared to 8,510 vtp~.~'Si~, vtpd excluding sites A, B, and M) projected in the
pgrtati6n-~Analysis Plan as submitted by the applicant.
Transpor,ation Analysis Plan: Access to the property is proposed from Routes 29, 649, and 606
In the applicant's phasin~ proposal, the Route 29-606 connector would be constructed initia!l
6 . The Highway
with the connection to Route ~,49 occuring in the second phase of development
Department has recommended that internal roads be constructed to Category V pavement stren
with no industrial development restrictions or that development be limited on internal roads
of lesser pavement standards.
E. Applicant's PropoSal. The applicant is requesting a Planned Industrial District designa-
tion on 250.9 acres. Parcels A & B, though shown on the plan, are already zoned M-1
Limited and are not a part of this request. The remaining 11 parcels have an average area in
excess of 21 acres (Parcel M would consist of six subparcels). Though the applicant does not
desire to be restricted to such acreage, he has identified about 125 of the 250.9 acres as
being more suitable for actual development. (Based on characteristics of existing industrial
development and other factors, staff has estimated that about 47 acres would be in parking an¢
building coverage.)
As to the phasing of development, the applicant proposes the following:
Phase I: Development of road connecting State Route 606 and U. S. Route 29; development
of road servicing Parcel M of State Route 649; provision of water and sewer along these
roads; development of Parcels A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I and M.
Phase II: Development of north/south road connecting Route 649 and internal east/west
industrial road; provision of water and sewer along north/south connector road; develop-
ment of Parcels H,~J, K and L.
Staff Comment.
The Planned Industrial District designation is designed: to provide protection for the area
in which the development is located; to permit flexibility in and simultaneoum~provide
assurances to both the developer and .County toward future industrial development; and to pro-
vide a more suitable mechanism of achieving Comprehensive Plan goals and objections than is
afforded by traditional industrial designations.
Staff opinion is, that with appropriate conditions of approval, this petition favorably re-
flects the intent of the PID. More specifically, staff recommends that the petition (with
conditions):
Complies with the locational and acreage provision recommendations of the Comprehen-
sive Plan;
2. Meets the criteria for industrial land as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan;
3i
Complies with the land use recormmendations of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
Master Plan; and
4. Would be appropriate and compatible to the area.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Delete Parcel M;
Approval is for 216.~,Jacres and a maximum of 21 individual uses (exclusive of acces-
sory uses such as employee cafeterias and dining facilities);
3. Approval is for Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L with appurtenant open space
Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, K, and L are to be Gategory I; Parcels I and J are to be
Category II:
Approval of the preliminary plan does not constitute approval of the proposed taxi-
way on ParCels A, I, and J;
Setbacks from adjoining properties are to be established by the Planning CommissiOn
at the time of final plan approvals consistent with the intensity of specific uses;
No final plan approval shall be given until a master street-tree plan has been
approved by the staff;
Buffer areas on the perimeter of the DFoperty shall have a depth of not less than 50
feet and shall remain in natural woodland as indicated on the Synthesis of
Environmental Factors map. Where, in the opinion of the staff, existing woods do no~
provide adequate buffering, additional plantings shall be required by 2he staff.
Such plantings shall consist of 6 foot - 8 foot white pines 15 feet on-center; pro-
vided the applicant may propose an alternative scheme which in staff opinion is
equivalent or better;
10.
On any individual site, not more than 25% of the land area in slopes of 15% or
greater shall be graded. (This area is identified as "sensitive slope areas" on the
Synthesis of Environmental Factors map)~ public roads are not included in this
condition;
Ail uses are to be served by publid water and public sewer. In the event of condi-
tions beyond the control of the applicant which would preclude immediate provision
of public sewer, the Planning Commission may, upon recommendations of the Health
Department, permit a temporary alternative means of sewage disposal;
November 15, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting
11.
Fire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 800 feet and no hydrant shall ~e more than
400 feet from a ~ajor structure. No water line serving a fire hydrant shall be of
less than 8 inch diameter. A minimUm fire flow of 2000 ~pm at 20 psi shall be pro-
vided. Nothing stated herein shall preclude additional requirements by state or
local fire off±cials~;
12.
13.
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. Water and
sewer lines shall be d~dicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority;
County Engineer approval of storm drainage plans and paving specifications for park-
ing areas;
14. Grading permit approval;
15.
16.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances to existing
roads to include improved sight distance, full channelization for right turn decele-
ration lanes, and left turn storage lanes where necessary;
Virginia Department of Highways approval of road plans for internal roads; internal
roads are to be constructed to Category V pavement strength;
18.
Full frontage dedication along Route 606 to provide a 60 foot right-of-way and
improvement of the existing road to 24 feet of pavement width with'adequate shoulder:
Phasing of Development: Development shall not exceed the following budget derived
from the Comprehensive Plan;
Time Frame (Jan. 1)
Maximum Permitted Gross Floor Area
of Industrial Plants (Cumulative)
by 1980
by 1985
by 1980
by 1995
84,000 square feet
138,000 square feet
216,000 square feet
296,000 square feet
19.
Uses permitted shall be governed as to type, haight, and performance standards by
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master plan or Article .20 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive.
Mr. Tucker said the following discussion was prepared by the staff for the Planning
Commission to more fully explain the staff's reasoning behind recommended Condition #18 and
to outline the staff's approach toward provision of industrial land.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for "budgeting" the development of industrial land throughoul
the design period as follows:
Table 1: Minimum Industrial Land Demand (Developed)
CUMULATIVE AREA
Square Foot Industrial Plant
Acres Industrial Land
1975-80 1980-85 1985-90 1990-95
502,000 1,102,000 1,758,000
98 215 343 476
At the same time, the plan recommends that four times the amount of developed land be
provided in order to provide for site selection and to insure a supply of suitable
industrial land beyond the design period. Therefore, while 476 acres would be developed
by 1995, a total of 1,904 acres would be provided. A major problem, of course, is con-
trolling the amount of provided land which becomes developed land. Providing industrial
land through traditional zoning gives no guarantee that such land would not be developed
prematurely (ahead of the Comprehensive Plan budget). The Planned Industrial District,
however, does provide a mechanism for providing industrial land beyond the design period
and keeping developed land within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Condition
#18 schedules development of the industrial park in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
while approval of the petiti~!~would provide for future industrial development.beyond
the design period:
Method
The following is an outline of the method employed in determining the budget for industri
al plant floor area in Condition #18. Staff opinion is that this is a logical approach
and requests ratification of this approach b~ the Commission and Board for use in future
applications.
1'. Allocate land demand in Ta~e 1 among Crozet, Hollymead, 'and Urban Area: In the
period 1975-1980, Crozet received -0- developed acreage due to lack of utilities. There-
fore, Crozet was given a "credit" for 28 acres in the 1980-85 period.
Table 2: Acreage to be Developed by Location (new/cumulative)
BUDGET PERIOD CROZET HOLLYMEAD URBAN AREA TOTAL
19Z5-80 0/0 44/4~ 54/~4 98/~.~
19~0-85 53/53 28/72 35/~9 117/212
1985-~0 37/90 41/113 51/140 128/343
1990-95 3~128 42/1~5 53/193 133/476
2. Airport Industrial Park as a Percentage of the industrial land to be developed and
~6vided in Hollymead: The Comprehensive Plan calls for 145 acres to be developed in
Hollymead by 1995. Applying the industrial multipliers results in 580 acres to be proved
(a) Airport Industrial Park Acreage = 216.6 = 0.37
Acreage to be provided by 1995 5~0.0
?056
(b)
November 1 '1 8 Re ular N' ~_n __ _ _
Alternative Condition 18: Building coverage shall be;'~limited to only those areas
outside of the sensitive areas as outlined in the AirPort Industrial Park Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant has submitted a report as required by Section
20-2-3 (d) of the P.I.D. ordinance. Mr. Tucker said this report has not been received, but
did not feel it was required prior to Board action. Mr. St. John said whether or not such a
report should be required at this point, is a decision which must be made by the Board.
Mr. Fisher said he felt the application should be heard and considered tonight,~and if it
shows promise of approval, a specific condition could be added requiring such a report.
Mr. Fisher noted that a number of letters had been received on this application, most of
which were in favor of approval. He said they all have been seen by Board members and were
on permanent file in the office of the Clerk of the Board. He then declared the public hearin
opened. First to speak was Mr. Wendell Wood, property owner~ Mr. Wood firSt pointed out that
increased treatment capacity of the Camelot Sewage Treatment PlaY, will be paid for by him and
given over to the County for operation. He had no objections to any of the conditions
recommended by the staff, except condition 18, which the Planning Commission recommended be
deleted. He requested that the Board s~ppprt the Planning Commission and also delete this
condition.
Mr. Tom Forloines said he was here to speak in favor of this proposal. He requested
the Board's support of deleting condition #18. He noted that this would ease the tax rate
and burden on the public.
Mr. Joe Wright ~aid he serves on the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Commission
and would like to see Mr. Wood's property developed because Albemarle County is desparately
in need of first-class industrial property. He said citizens of the County deserve first-rate
industries, and first-class property like Mr. Wood's would attract them to the area.
Mr. Forest Marshall said he is the Executive Director of the State Retail Merchant,s
Association. He said Mr. Wood should be allowed to develop his property for industrial uses
to give business men in the area a chance they desparately need to expand.
Mr. Sherman White said in a survey he did, the average per capita income in Charlottesvil]
was far less than in cities such as Waynesboro, Harrisonburg or Winchester. He noted that
schools in the County occupy more acreage than industries.
Mr. Alfred McCauley said an industrial park as proposed would provide jobs for future
generations in the community and keep the population from moving to other areas ~o find work.
Mr. Ron Mahanes, a local merchant, asked the Board to support thi~ industrial park.
Mr. Frank Kessler, a county resident, said he supported the industrial park concept
instead of scattered sprawl. Ha said it ~hould be approved amd then recruit only the finest
industries for location there.
Mr. Sandy Lambert said he hoped the lack of rapport between the Board and Mr. Wood would
not affect the opportunity of the many citizens in the City and County who would benefit from
the ~itional job opportunities such an industrial park would provide.
Mr. Bill Clover said he fe&ls Mr. Wood is acting in good faith,aand that this would provi.
future citizens with many jobs.
Ms. Margaret Melcher, representing the League of Women Voters, read the following stateme~
~ated November 15~ 1978:
:: '~he League of Women Voters has studied the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to this
proposed industrial development and asks that the Board of Supervisors consider the
following questions.
If the' rezonir~:I~s approved, will it preclude the possibility that any other land
can be rezoned industrial before 19957 Such would seem to be the case, as this Planned
Industrial District will involve 250.9 acres and the Comprehensive Plan (on page 9)
recommends that the County should plan for the industrial development of only .100 to 200
acres over the sh~rt range and records agreement by the Board of Supervisors that the
actual rezoning of new land for industrial use should be spaced out over the total time
period.
What needs to be provided in terms of service and roads to take care of-the impact
of this PID? What will be the impact on Routes 649 and 606 and how will the roads be
improved to accomodate the industrial traffic they do not now~rry? In particular, how
Mr. Tucker said on October 17, 1978, by a vote of 4/2 (with three members absent), the
Planning Commission recommended approval of this petition with Conditions 1-17 and 19 as
recommended by the staff, deleting Condi~nn 18 and renumbering Condition 19 as 18. After the
Planning Commission's approval, the staff had further reviewed the industrial acreage and
square footage increments projected for Hollymead through 1995. They found it is apparent
that no Planned Industrial District could be developed when limited to the five year-square
footage'_increments proposed. Therefore, the staff suggests an alternative to the staff's
recommended condition 18. Since the Comprehensive Plan calls for approximately 145 acres to
be developed in the Hollymead Community by 1995, this amount could be prov.ided for by re~
quiring the development of this PID only in areas outside of the sensitive areas as outlined
on the Airport Industrial Park Plan, which totals approximately 109 acres. By addi~E._:the 42
acres of M-1 ~and previously approved, it would give a grand total of 151 acres. This will,
of course, deplete the recommended industrial acreage for development in Hollymead, as re-
commended by the Comprehensive Plan.
Applying the factor of 0.37 to the development acreage in the Hollymeadabudget
yields the developmental budget for the Airport Industrial Park. Since the
objective is to budget industrial employment, staff has translated the indus-
trial park budget from site acreage to floor area, which in staff opinion is
more accurate for controlling employment.
057
November 15, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting)
as required in the Comprehensive Plan (page 9).
If all of the anticipated industrial rezoning does go into one industrial park, what
will be asked of the developer in r~m~? The League believes that the cost of the improve.
ments this P!D will necessitate should not be passed on to the public at large but should
be borne directly by those who benefit from them.
Can improvements in roads and services be tied to the stages of development so that
they keep pace with the development and we are at no poi~nt left with a road more dangerous
than it is at present? The impact of industrial traffic on the roads will be particularly
severe. Route 649 which leads from Route 29 to the airport is one of the community's
lifelines and is already a dangerous road.
What will be the impact of this industrial park on population growth? Will it bring
new residents to the county and draw workers who live in surrounding counties and do not
pay taxes to Albemarle County? We would remind ~ou that one of the Comprehensive Plan
goals for industrial expansion is "to avoid stimulating rapid population growth" (Page 23).
Finally, has the cost-revenue criteria for screening new industrial developments cited
on page 26 ~ the Plan been applied to this proposed PID?"
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. He requested a five minute recess at 9:15 P.M.
Meeting re~mvened at 9:27 P.M.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker if any improvements are scheduled for Route 649. Mr. Tucker
said it is presently in the six-year highway plan for improvements, but it is not scheduled ~o
~e the primary access road to Mr. Wood's property. Mr. Lindstrom next asked if a condition
could be placed on the applicant limiting the amount of floor space for the building to 40%
of the total lot size. Mr. St. John said he was not sure such a condition could be enforced
~ecause no such statement is contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Roudabush felt if such a
~ondition were placed on the applicant, that it was another place where government is taking
~ver total control of all private enterprise and individual initiative to grow and create.
~r. Dorrier agreed with Mr. Roudabush, but did wish to see some restriction ~n use of environ-
mentally less suitable areas at the site. Mr. Roudabush also added that he was not in agree-
~ent with time restrictions placed on development of this lamd. He said it may cause the land
to be developed for less suitable uses.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Roudabush realized that this would use all the planned industrial
property called for in the Comprehensive Plan for the next twenty years, and would he be
~illing ~ot to rezone any other property to industrial for that amount of time. Mr. Roudabush
said he realized the amount of land involved, but also said he would consider rezoning other
land in the future if the use were proper.
It was Mr. Lindstrom's theory that industrial growth would mean population growth, because
only a small percentage of the present population would he hired into employment at new com-
panies. ~The rest would be brought in from outside the area, which would create additional
~ousing problems and overcrowded schools.
Dr. Iachetta a~ed if parcel A was to be completely separate from the rest of the planned
industrial park. H~ said he could not support if parcels A, I and J were all added to the park
nd the consolidation of industry to one site rather than acattered around the county.
Mr. Wood noted to Mr. Fisher that parcels "A & B" were already sold, and no longer under
~is personal ownership, and could not be considered in this application.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom both indicated that they were not in favor of approval. Both
~aid the acreage proposed was too great, and wou~d use one-fourth of the "budgeted allotment"
)f industrially rezoned land to the year 1995.
Mr. Henley said he would support, because he could not imagine the entire industrial park
~ev~loping within the next few years.
Following some dismussion as to how approval of this much acreage for industrial use would
~ffect the future of the ~ounty and t~e Comprehensive Plan, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush
;o approve ZMA-78-15 with conditions 1 through 17, condition 19 and alternate 18 as recommended
~y the planning staff. Mr. Fisher questioned if Mr. Roudabush's motion included condition
~umber 9, as it seemed to conflict with alternate condition number 18, unless number 9 is limit~
~o parcel "F" only. Mr. Roudabush replied that condition number 9 would apply specifically onl~
;o parcel "F". The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
D~. Iachetta questioned the sewage problem. Mr. Roudabush aaid a temporary disposal ~lant
~ould be used as in the case of General Electric. ~Dr. Iachetta asked if there would be a limit
)n its use. Mr. Roudabush amended h~s motion that condition nine read "all~uses are to be
~erved by public water and public sewer". Amendment was accepted by Mr. Dorrier, and carried
~y the following vote:
.~_YE S:
~AYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
(Conditions of approval are set out below:)
Delete Parcel M;
Approval is for 216.6 acres and a maximum of 21 individual uses (exclusive of accessor
uses such as employee cafeterias and dining facilities;
Approval is for Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L with appurtenant open space;
Parcels C, D, E, F, G, H, K, and L are to be Category I; Parcels I and J are to be
Category II;
Approval of the preliminary plan does not constitube approval of the proposed taxiway
on Parcels A, I, and J;
"'058
November 15, 1978 (Regular~ Ni ht Meetin )
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Setbacks from adjoining properties are to be established by the Pl'anning Commission
at the time of final plan approvals consistent with the intensity of specific uses;
No final plan approval shall be given until a master street-tree plan has been
approved by the Planning Commission;
Buffer areas on the perimeter of the property shall have a depth of not less than 50
feet and shall remain in natural woodland as indicated on the SyntheS~s of
Environmental Factors map. Where, in the opinion of the staff, existing woods do
not provide adequate buffering, additional plantings shall be required by the staff.
Such plantings shall consist of 6'~-8' white pines 15' on-center; provided the appli~
cant may propose an alternative scheme which in staff opinion is equivalent or
better;
On Parcel F, no more than 25% of the land area in slopes of 15% or greater shall be
graded (This area is identified as "sensitive slope areas" on the Synthesis of
Environmental Factors map); public roads are not included in this ~ondition;
Ail uses are to be served by public water and public sewer;
Fire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 800 feet and no hydrant shall be more than
400' from a major structure. No waterline serving a fire hydrant shall be of less
than 8" diameter. A minimum fire flow of 2000 gpm at 20 psi shall be provided.
Nothing stated herein shall preclude additional require~ments by state or local-fire
officials;
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. Water and
sewer lines shall be dedicated to the Albem~r!~,.~ County S~rvice Authority;
Y, Omunty Engineer approval of storm drainage plans and paving specifications for park-
ing areas;
Grading permit approval;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances to existing
roads to include ~mproved sight dist~mc~e;~ full channeli~zation for right turn decele.
ration lanes, and left turn storage lanes where necessary;
Virginia ~epartment of Highways approval of road plans for internal roads; internal
roads are to be constructed to Category V pavement strength;
Full frontage dedication along Route 606 to provide a 60' right-of-way and improve-
ment of the existing road to 24' of pavement width ~ith adequate shoulders;
Building coverage shall be limited to only those areas outside of the sensitive
areas as outlined in the Airport Industrial Park Plan, except for Parcel F;
Uses permitted shall be governed as to type, height, and performance standards by
the Charlottesville/Albemarle A~port Master Plan or Article 20 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive.
At 10:30 P.M., Mr. Fisher called a five minute recess.
P.M.
Meeting was reconvened at 10:35
Agenda Item No. 8. Clean Community Commission: Application for funding for 1979.
Mr. Chuck Lebo, representing the Charlottesville~Albemarle Clean Community Commission,
requested the Board of Supervisors to adopt the following resolution to achieve State of
Virginia grants in the amount of $4,079 for the City and $5,700 for the County:
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors recognizes the existence of a
litter problem within the boundaries of the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides, through the Department
of Conservation and Economic DeVelopment, Division of Litter Control, for the allocation
of public funds in ~he form of grants for the purpose of promotin~ enforcement of anti-
litter statutes and ordinances and for the purpose of enhancing local litter control
programs; and
WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered thaRegulations and the Application covering
administration and use of said funds
BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle COunty Board of Supervisors:
Hereby endorses and supports such a program for the County of Albemarle; and
Hereby expresses the intent to combine with the City of Charlottesville in a mutuall~
agreed upon and coordinated program, contingent on approval of ~he Application by
the D~p&~%ment of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Litter Control,
and contingent on rec~eipt of funds; and
Hereby authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission (CA~ to
plan and budget for a coordinated anti-litter program, which shall represent said
program for all localities named in this resolution; and
FURTHER, authorizes the Charlottesville Albemarle Clean Community Commission (CAC~)
to apply on behalf of all of the above named localities for a grant,~and to be responsible
for the administration, implementation, and completion of the program as it is described
in the attached ap.plication form LC-G-I; and
FURTHER, accepts responsibility jointly with the Charlottesville Albemarle C~an
Community Commission (CAC3) and the City of Charlottesville for all pha~es of the programl
and
FURTHER, accepts liability for its pro rata share of any funds not'properly used or
accounted for pursuant to the Regulations and the Application, and that said funds, when
received,'will be held by the County for disbursement upon proper certification by
appropriate offices at the Commission.
059
November 15, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting)
NOW THEREFORE BE iT RESOLVED.that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby requests the Department of Conservation and Economic Development,
Division of Litter Control, to consider and approve the application and program for cal-
endar year 1979, said program being in accord with Regulations governing use and expendi-
ture of said funds.
Mr. Agnor recommended adoption of the r~soiution as presented to the Board. Motion was
offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the resolution as presented. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Key West Drive, report on. Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum of
October 18, 1978, which is set out in the minutes of a meeting held on that date. He
recommended that the County engage a contractor to complete the small amount of work remaining
on the roads and get same into the State system before the onset of winter. Mr. Roudabush
said he regretted the action, but did concur w. ith Mr. Agnor's re~endation. Mr. Roudabush
then offered motion authorizing the County staff to take whatever action they deem necessary
to complete the roads to State standards with the funds available to them. Motion was se-
conded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Me~rSo Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. App~roval of Minutes: June 14 and June 21 (night), 1978.
Mr. Fisher said he read the minutes of June 14 and noted that only a few typographical
errors were found; a list of which he presented to the Clerk. Mr. Roudabush said he read the
minutes of June 21 and found no errors. Motion to approve the minutes as presented was offere
by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appointments:
A. Planning District Commission
B. Welfare Board.
No Board members had any nominations for either committee, and Mr. Fisher suggested
this item be carried over to the next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 9. Change public hearing date for proposed Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Agnor
requested the Board change the status of the meeting scheduled for November 30, 1978, from a
public hearing on the proposed revised Zoning Ordinance, to simply a "presentation". This
will not give the impression that action will be taken by the Board that same night.
Motion accepting Mr. Agnor's recommendation was offered by Dr. Iachetta, ~econded by
Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NA~S:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item NO. 10. Other matters which are not on the agenda.
A. Mr. Lindstrom said he received comments that none of the Board of Supervisors meeting
places are accessible by wheel chairs. He requested that Mr. Agnor look into having temporary
wooden ramps constructed for both the Courthouse and the County Office Building. Mr. Fisher
recommended that the City of Charlottesville Historical Committee be notified as they must
approve any ~uilding face changes.
B. Mr. Lindstrom said he received a request from the Piedmont Environmental Council for
support of House Bill 997 which will be called the Virginia Agricultural Land Preservation
Foundation and is to ensure that farming remains a viable industry in the State. Motion was
offered by Mr. Lindstrom that~the Board adopt a resolution in support of this legislation;
further supporting the concept of land use taxation with an increase of percentage charged on
roll back Baxes. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Fisher said this support could be
telephoned to the Piedmont Environmental Council in time for their meeting tomorrow night.
Roll was then called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NA~S:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
C. Dr. Ia~hetta reported that the Seminole Trail Fire Department has received the plans
for the new fire house and is commencing a fund drive to offset expenses.
D. Mr. Roudabush reported on the Zoning Ordinance Steering ~ommittee meeting held earli~
in the day. He said it was the consensus that the public has not been given enough time to
review the draft. It was suggested that summaries and comments be placed in the margins of th~
draft ord±nance to simplify meanings for the public. Most Board members agreed that even they
were not completely aware of the details of the document. Mr. Lindstrom said the public must
be made aware that the document being presented is the consultants proposal to the Board, not
the Board's proposal to the public.
November_ 1~5~_~1978 (Re ular Ni ht Meeting~ _
Agenda Item No. 11. At 11:20 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. ~ier, to adjourn th~s meeting to November 29, 197~, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of
the County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
Henley
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher,/Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
N6vember 29, 1978 (Adjourned from Nov. 15'
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on November 29, 1978, beginning at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from November 15, 1978.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta.
Officers present:
Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
County Executive, Guy G. Agnor, Jr. and County Planner, Robert W.
The meeting was called to order at 3:10 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Six-year Highway Plan.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
was present. He said ~his meeting was requested to discuss the Highway budget for the 1979-80
fiscal year and the Six-Year Highway Plan. Cost estimates prepared for the Hydraulic Road
(Route 743) public hearing indicated that he had underestimated the cost of this project.
Therefore, he had obtained more detailed estimates on projects which are planned for advertise.
ment in the near future and found that an additional $1,600,000 will be needed to finance
these projects. As of this date, it appears that approximately $1,000,000 in financed State
Force construction remains to be done. Based upon past experience, Mr. Roosevelt said
forces can only accomplish about $500,000 worth of work each year. He, therefore, requested
that no new State Force work be scheduled for the 1979-80 year.
Mr. Roosevelt said a recent review of the Secondary System for resurfa~ing needs indicate~
that there are approximately 13 miles of secondary roads in the County which should be resur-
faced using plant mix. The estimated cost for this work is approximately $435,000, which is
$360,000 more than had been set aside for the fiscal year 1979-80. He then mad~ the following
suggestions:
That the contract project schedule be revised to finance the current
contract projects.
That the State Force projects not already financed be deferred~to
later in the Six-Year Plan.
That the additional resurfacing needs (for the 13 miles of Secondary
roads) be financed in the Fiscal Year 1979-80.
Mr. Roosevelt then handed out a chart showing possible plant mix locations for the
Secondary System in priority order:
Number Route From To Length Traffic Count Cost
1. ~ ~ ~ ~1.10 2149 $ 45,300
2. 614 676 835 1.10 1324 36,600
3. 601 250 855 .80 2123 18,600
4. 780 631 Char .53 2354 12,000
5. 601 676W 829 1.70 1672 70,000
6. 656 743 654 .90 7000 202900
7. 810 240 789 1.00 2922 18,600
8. 663 743 664E 2.05 2443 84,400
9. 708 29 .8 mi E .80 947 18,600
10. 691 240 1204 .12 1708 2~500
11. 1204 691 1205 .08 1577 1,900
12. 614 678W 766 2.90 1081 106,200
13.0~ $435,600
8)