1977-10-05NOctober 5, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
399
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia,was held on
October 5, 1977, at 7:30 P. M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
.Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gera~d E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., and F. Anthony Iachetta.
Absent: Mr. 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. Call to Order:
Chairman, Gerald Fisher.
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 P. M. by the
Agenda Item No.. 2. ZMA-77-17. Charles Hurt. Public hearing to rezone 102+ acres ~from
A-1 to RPN/A-1. Property on southeast side of Route 729 at Shadwell with a portion on the
north side of Route 729. County Tax Map 79~ Parcel 23 and County Tax Map 79C; Parcel 1,
Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 21 and September 28, 1977).
Mr. Robert Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report, and noted the Planning
CommiSsion unanimously voted to approve the request with three additional conditions:
"Existing Zoning and General Character of the Surrounding Area
The property is to a great extent bounded by A-1 zoned property which is presently
residential in nature. To the west is Stone-Robinson School zoned A-1. To the
northeast is Shadwell Estates Subdivision part of which is zoned RS-I, the remainder
is A-1. The average size of the lots in Shadwell Estates Subdivision is 1 acre. To
the north on ~he opposite side of the existing lake is a 26+ acre property presently
rural in character but zoned R~3 Residential.
History
Special Use Permit 308 was applied for in 1973 calling for the development of a
Planned Community on this site. However, that application also called for the present
R-3 acreage to be used as part of the Planned Community. The plan called for 90
single-family lots, 120 townhouse condominium units, and approximately 1.5 acres of
small shops on 130+ acres.
On November 19, 1973, the Planning Commission approved the Special Permit. On
November 28, 1973, the.application was denied by the Board of Supervisors.
Applicant's Proposal
This proposal calls for the development of 51 residential lots on 102+ acres.
The proposed development has 3 parts. 33 of the proposed units will be served
through Shadwell Road ( Route 709 ). 14 lots will be served from the south side
of Route 729. And 4 lots will have access off the north side of Route 729. The
lots are all between 40,000 and 60,000 square feet in size and will be served by a
central water system. State roads will be constructed to serve the two main sections
of development. 29 of the lots will be served by private drives. The most number
of lots served by any one drive is seven (7).
The plan calls for the existing 17+ acre lake to remain and be used as a recreation
facility for boating and fishing.
ComprehensiVe Plan Conformance
The Comprehensive Plan for the area is for west of the lake to remain rural in
nature ( 0.5 du/acre ) and the area to the east to!::be developed in a low-density
residential fashion ( l ldu/acre ). The Plan also calls for State Route 729 to be
a part of the Scenic and Historic Parkway Loop.
'Comparative' Impact' 'St'ati'Stlics
Zoning
Gross Density
Net Density
Common Open Space
Total Dwelling Units
Population
School Enrollment
Vehicle Trips/day
Route 709
Route 72..9
Total
Under
Existing
A-1
0.5 du/acre
0.5 du/acre
0 acres (0 %)
138'+
20+
205+
11!+
316+
Applicant's Proposal
RPN/A-1
0.5 du/acre
0.8 du/acre
34.,6 acres ( 34% )
163+
34+
241+
131+
372+
School Enrollment
K-5
6-8
9-12
TOTAL
13.0
7.1
8.6
15.3
8.4
10.1
33.~-
Summary of Proposed Land Uses
Residential lots
Streets
Common Area
TOTAL
Acres
3.8
34.6
% of site
62%
3.7%
33.9%
z00ff
4OO
October 5, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Staff Comment
The applicant is proposing a 51 dwelling unit development on lots which average
in size between 40,000 and 60,000 square feet. The lots will be served by a
central water system. Tentatively, the water will come from two (2) wells. The
development will have open space amounting to 8% over the required minimum of
25%. Recreation facilities include fishing, boating, and pedestrian trails.
Favorable:
Considering the severe topography of the site, the lot l~yout does a good job
of preserving the steeper wooded slopes. The use of private drives reduces the
amount of land-d~sturbing activity. The smaller lot sizes allow that a greater
amount of virgin wood remain undisturbed. The co~on ownership of the lake and
dam will heip~insure that they remain amenities for the area. The plan allows
for emergency fire access to the lake for pumping purposes.
Unfavorable:
As noted by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, the additional
traffic from this development would more than double the existing traffic count on
Route 709 ( Shadwell Road ). This is an important point because the intersection
of Routes 709 and 250 East has inadequate sight distance and can be considered a
hazard. There was some public concern regarding the safety of the existing dam
which is found within the proposed development. Staff opinion is that the dam
should be checked for its safety. There was also public concern regarding the
effect the steep slopes will have on pollution from septic facilities. In re~'
sponse to this question, the County Engineer has noted that the effect due to
slope should be minimal. In addition, the applicants have noted that sePtic
fields will for the most part be kept in the front yards. There was also concern
regarding the possibility that undesirable motor boats would be used on the lake.
A portion of the lake falls outside the subject property. This has caused c~ncern
among some of the adjacent owners. However, stafff opinion is that"the usesi~:~P~r-
mitted on the lake will largely remain 2he same, and in effect;: there could be
more:control on permitted uses due to enforcement-by the Homeowners' Association.
Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions:
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance
facilities;
Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of all internal roads
and private drives;
4. Virgin'ia Department of Highways and Transportation~approval of internal roads;
5. No dwelling units nor septic fields to be ~uilt on slopes in excess of 25%~
No dwelling units nor septic fields to be built within 50 feet of the lake
water's edge at a mean level to be determined by the Virginia Department of
Health;
7. The applicant will have a certified engineer test the existing dam and certify
that it is safe to the satisfaction of the County Engineer;
8. A maintenance agreement for th~ maintenance of all common area, recreational
facilities, private drives, and the dam is to be approved by the County
Attorney's office and recorded;
9. Subdivision approval will be subject to County Engineer's approval of central
water systems;
10. A grading permit will be required prior to subdivision approval;
11. Ail lots are to be adjacent to common open space."
"Conditions added by the Planning COmmission were:
12. An approved secondary drainfield location must be provided for each lot;
13. That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation review the
intersection of Route 250 East and Shadwell Road in order to determine
whether signs or warning lights are necessary; if it is determined that
controls are warranted, the~ shall be installed at the developer's expense;
14. T~is rezoning is approved for RPN/A-1 designation and density."
Mr. Tucker then read a letter received from the State Health Department from Mr,
Matthews, a Soil ScientiSt~ as follows:
,,I have confirmed,fairly~well, the findings I had made back in July. These find-
ings were, that most of the soil above and away from the lake area is suitable
for drainfield use. On most of the land adjacent to the lake, particularly next
~o the dam end~ it appears that the soil conditions and slope is not suitable for
septic systems. As I have stated before, each lot will have to stand on its own
suitability before a septic tank permit will be issued."
Mr. Tucker then read the following letter from Mr. Mark Osborne, Assistan~ County
Engineer dated August 23, 1977:
"Soil on the surface of the dam has been identified by the S~il Conservation Service
as ~ANTEO type which is about 60% silt and ~0% gravel. This is a highly erodable
soil,-and is not particularly suited to earthen dams. The dam is located on so~d
rock. There is evidence of erosion on the'downstream face of the dam which has
modified the slope to nearly verticle at the top. This indicates that the structure
has been overtopped. The dam surface is nearly barren as a result of the overtopping,
which has a tendency to increase erosion due to normal storm occurrences. The drain-
age area above the impoundment is 1,75 square miles. The expected 100-year storm
October 5, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
runoff is 1,160 cubic feet per second at the dam site. The dam is
with two spillways which roughly have a combined capacity of approximately
650 cubic feet per second and 800 cubic feet per second. That amount is caused
by a 10-year storm runoff. Our recommendation is to increase the height section
of the existing dam. The height should be five feet higher and a section should
be added to the upstream face. The final slopes of both faces should be three
to one. To perform this work, the lake must be lowered and suitable material
offsite must be compacted to 95% of optimum."
Mr. Tucker said this is the reason for the condition requiring a certified engineer's
test of the dam and approval by the County Engineer. He then presented a petition from
residents in the area who are opposed to the rezoning of this site for an RPN deve!opment~
He also noted that several other letters were received by the Planning Commission from
p~rsons in opposition to this development.
Mrs. David noted that the staff report mentioned that access must be provided to the
lake for fire trucks, and asked if it should not have been a condition of approval. Mr.
Tucker said it should have been listed as condition number fifteen.
Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Roudabush, Supervisor for the Rivanna District,~was unable to
be present tonight. Because of this, he would hold the public hearing but ask the Board to
defer action until Mr. Roudabush is able to review the tapes and be present to join in the
vote.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Roy Parks,
representing the applicant. Mr. Parks reviewed maps showing slope, vegetation, roads, and
open space. He noted that condition number 11 (all lots are to be adjacent to common open
space) should be struck, as he felt it serves no public purpose. Mr. Parks also said that
in speaking with a representative of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
that a light at the intersection of Routes 250 and 729 would not be necessary, but ~hat a
study would be conducted.
Mr. Jack Taggart, representing some of the adjoining property owners, said they were
opposed to the.development for several reasons. One of the main reasons was the additional
traffic which would be created, and the substandard intersection leading onto Route 250. Ne
requested also that an independent engineering consulting firm be employed to inspect the
~dam. Mr. Taggart also noted the already overcrowded condition of~Stone Robinson School. He
criticized tha open space allowed in the project, and felt a better~system of providing
water should be found other than the well~ suggested in the application.
Mr. James C. Py!es, a~resident of the area, suggested that alternate access be used to
get to the property such as Route 729. He added that although it would be more costly, it
would be safer.
Ms. Edna Anderson, a resident of Shadwell Estates, said she was most concerned about
whether the septic fields would effect the well systems of those homes already in existence.
She also asked if alternate fields were being provided for in'~e landscape plan.
Mr. McCann, a neighbor of Ms. Anderson, said there seemed to be a conflict o~ opinion
on the acceptable number of residences the property can accommodate, and further requested
Mr. Roudabush's input into the hearing before a decision is made.
Mr. Robert Coles asked if an accurate percolation test can be made due ~to the long
drought. Mr. Tucker answered that a percolation test is not done, instead a so~i analysis
is performed.
Ms. Kate Hallock asked if the total area of the lake was being considered ~as open space
even'though part of it does not belong to the applicant. Mr. Tucker said only that portion
that belongs to the applicant is being considered.
Mr. Pyle and Mr. Parks each spoke again regarding the well proposed for this Project.
Next to speak was Mr. Clyde Hartman who asked if the additional housing would cause addition-
al po~ion or eutrophication of the lake.
Mr. Taggart noted that his client did offer to purchase a portion of the land contained
in this development in an effort to keep large numbers of people from crowding the area.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed, when no one else either for or against
the petit'ion wished to speak. He then suggested that the same regulations and standards
used fo~ the protection of the Rivanna River Reservoir be used in this instance to protect
the lake. He asked what the net density increase would be in this rezoning. Mr. Tucker
said they are asking for ~7 dwelling units and only 34 dwelling units could be placed here
without the rezoning. Board members expressed concerns about drainfields, open space, and
roads leading onto Route 250.
Motion ~as offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, to defer any action on this
application until November 2, 1977..Roll was called and motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
At 8:50 P. M., Mr. Fisher requested a five minute recess.
8:55 P. ~.
Meeting reconvened at
4O2
October 5, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 3. ZTA-77-07. Wendell W. Wood and Albemarle Bank & Trust Company.
Public hearing to amend the B-1 General Business District of the Zoning Ordinance to provide
for hell-pad (or helicopter landing facility) as a use by special permit. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on September 21 and September 28, 1977~)
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-77-52. Albemarle Bank & ~rust Company. Public hearing to locate
a heli-pad on 1.818 acres zoned B-I.? Property is located on east side of Route 29 North
across from entrance to Berkeley Subdivision.. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 134, Charlottesville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 21 and September 28, 1977.)
Mr. Robert Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report.
"ZTA-77-07
Albemarle Bank and T~ust Co. has petitioned the Board Of Supervisors to amend
the B-1 General Business District to provide for helicopter landing facilities
by special use permit.
Staff is~neither strongly in favor nor strongly opposed to this request. While
staff is not convinced that the he!icopt~r as a mode of transportation is necessary
in Albemarle County at this time, s~aff acknowledges that such use would be con-
venient and beneficial to private enterprise. ~Since this use is proposed by
special permit and since FAA and Virginia State Division of Aeronautics review
is required, staff opinion is that concerns of public safety will be adequately
addressed. ,
Staff recommends the following amendments:
Definitions
Section 16-40-2
HELICOPTER: A rotary wing aircraft which depends principally
upon the lift generated by one or more power-driven rotors
rotating on substantially vertical axes for its support and
motion in the air. This definition excludes such vertical
take-off and landing aircraft as may employ tilt wing or jet
propulsion for vertical propulsion.
Section 16-40-3
HELiSTOP:i[~ A facility for the take-off and landing of helicopters,
either at ground level or elevated on a structure, without such
auxiliary facilities as waiting room, hangar, parking, fueling,
or maintenance.
B-1 General Business by special use permit
Section 7-1-42 (13) Helistop"
"SP-77-52
Character of the Area
This is the site of the new Albemarle Bank and Tmust which is under construction.
Property to the east and south has been approved for Branchlands Planned Community.
Berkeley Subdivision is on the west side of Route 29 North. A single-family dwell-
ing and the Skibo Lodge are to the north.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for commercial use.. Air travel is
mentioned briefly in the Plan in regard to expansion of the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Airport.
Staff Comment
The helistop is proposed to be located on the roof of the building currently under
construction (structural plans and fire prevention plans for the helistop have been
approved by the County.) The bank is requesting this use for business purposes
though the helistop will be available to law enforcement agencies, fire'departments,
and the University for use, and to other appropriate agencies for disaster uses.
(The 7 passenger helicopter can be converted to a 4 stretcher air ambulance.)
The applicant expects an average of one take-off and landing per day. No fueling
or maintenance is proposed at the bank; the helicopter will be based at She airport.
From the south, approach will be over the median of Route 29 North curving eastward
to the helistop. From the north, approach would be over vacant property cur~ing
westward to the helistop. The staff has two concerns in respect to this proposal;
1. Distraction to motorists on Route 29 North;
2. Safety to surrounding properties as the area develops.
While the first of these concerns is immeasurable, staff believes the~second can
be controlled, through continual review.
Staff recommends approval of this petition with the following conditions:
1, Written approval of Federal Aviation Agency and Virginia State Division of
Aeronautics;
2. Engineering Department review to be guided kY FAA Heliport Design Guide;
3. Special permit is subject to repealer and/or amendment if such shall become
necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare in light of future
development;
~. Written approval from Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport;
5. Helicopter to be available to law enforcement agencies, fire departments,
UniVersity, and for disasters as required."
October 5, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
403
Mr. Tucker noted that at their meeting of September 13, 1977, the Planning Commissinn
recommended by a vote of 5/4 to'deny the Zoning Text Amendment, and also recommended by a
vote of 6/3 to deny the special permit request. Mr. Tucker also noted receipt of several
letters from persons in favor of the heli-pad: Mr. Robert W. Mitchell, President of the
Appalachian Helicopter Pilots Association; Mr. M. E. Kirkpatrick, pilot for the United Coal
Companies; and William P. Moore, Jr., of Thompson McKinnon Co. A letter in opposition to
the heti-pad was received from the Townhouse Association of Four Seasons dated September 13,
1977.
Mr. Fisher said he had also received many letters: Chopper One in Roanok~%~[Mr. Joseph
R~Y Gray; Mr. Edward D. Tayloe, II~ President, Young Men's Business Club; R. & T. Electric,
Inc. in Falls Mills, Virginia; Dr. W. M. Wallenborn, Charlottesvi!le~Albemarle Rescue Squad;
Mr. P. D. Bishop;and Mr. Alvin Clements of Fidelity National Bank, all in favor of the
project. Those opposed were from Ms. Lynn R. Short and Karen K.' B~rquist.
Dr. Iachetta noted ~eceipt of a letter dated October 5, 1977, from the Four Seasons
Townhouse Association withdrawing their objection.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was the applicant,
Mr. Wendell W. Wood. Mr. Wood requested permission to show a 12 minute, film on helicopters,
and was granted such by the Chairman.
Mr. Joseph R. Gray, President of Chopper One in Roanoke,.V±~rginia, stated his creden~-~
2ials to the Board regarding helicopters. He noted the steady growth o~the use of
helicopters in the State of Virginia, its uses, and the experience of most helicopter pilots
in relation to safety records.
Mr. Bryant Edwards of Bell Helicopters, an acoustics specialist, said simulated landings
were conducted to measure the sound levels which would be reached. In four of the five
tests, ground level noise exceeded the noise level of the helicopter. Mr. Wood then
summarized statements and requested a favorable decision by the Board.
Mr. Eric Lilly, owner of an adjoining property to Albemarle Bank and Trust Co., read
the following statement:
"We ara adjacent property owners to Albemarle Bank & Trust Co. When we received
notice from the Planning Commission that they had applied for a helicopter land-
ing pad on their building, we did not even bother to respond because we believed
it would be approved. When we began hearing about the opposition, we couldn't
believe it. We should look at this for what it is worth to our citizens. Heli-
copters are used every day by police, doctors, firemen, businessmen, i~the ~resi-
dent of the United States~ etc. There is no helicopter available in Albemarle
County. Why should we not take advantage of this asset!: rather than oppose it?
We live next door to the Bank and we were home during actual flight over the
bank. This flight did not disturb us in any way. We feel that we are in a good
position to judge the noise issue since we are next door and the approach pattern
is directly over our home.
The noise factor certainly will not be as great as the noise of the traffic on
29 North 24 hours a day."
Sheriff George Bailey said he had received assurances from Mr. Wood that the helicopter
wo~ld be available to his department in case of emergencies. He addend that although such
emergencies would be infrequent, it would save time rather than to have to bring a heli-
copter in from Richmond or Appomattox.
Mr. Robert Dunn, representing the CharlOttesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, said heli-
copter service would be invaluable to the squad.
Mr. M~nier Eways, resident of Woodbrook, said he felt a helicopter would be a great
asset to the community.
Mr.E.T. Roberts of Lake Forest Drive said he approved of the helicopter, and saw no
problem with noise leYeIs in hi'S~c'ommunity.
Mr.~ Van Monday, of' Berkeley said he was in favor of it, and could not understand why
one has not been allowe~ in the.County before this.
An unidentified woman said she was in favor, and felt it created a safe atmosphere when
used by police.
Mr. George Lloyd, a helicopter pilot, gave examples of its use for re-s.e-me and medical
purposes, and felt it was invaluable.
Mr. Richard Sturtevant, a commercial helicopter pilot, also related ~e~$~u~capabi!ities.
Mr. Paul Elsworth of Buchanan County presented photographs of a flood in which he
Participated in rescue operations with a helicopter.
Mr. Fisher noted that all those in favor of this application had Spoken, and offered
equal time to those opposed. First to speak in opposition was Mr. Dorm Bent of Berkeley who
felt the noise and traffic levels in the Route 29 North area were already far too con~ested.
Mr. Charles Goetz said he felt the helicopter would be an invasion of his rights to
enjoy his property in peace and quiet.
Mr. Jerry Tremblay, representing Montague Miller and the Incarnation Church, said he
was not opposed to the helicopter itself, but is opposed to the location on top of the bank
building on Route 29 North.
404
October 5, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
No one else in opposition wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher allowed an additional minute
to those in favor. Mr. Roger Mitchell, a professional pi~o%reiterated the safety aspects
of the machine.
Ms. ~Ann Haney, a resident of Four Seasons, said she was not opposed to the helicopter
pad, and could not ~'ee how it would effect her or her home in Four Seasons.
Mr. Goetz asked the board if there would be any restrictions set to limit the size of
the aircraft, and if flight paths would be controlled.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
At 10:55 P. M., Mr. Fisher requested a two minute recess. Meeting was reconvened at
10:58 P. M.
Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Gray's comments on the safety of helicopters while landing on
top of relatively small buildings. Mr. Gray said he felt helicopters were equally safe no
matter what the size or height of the building. .
Mr. Tucker reviewed the population and zoning of areas surroUnding the proposed
heli-pad location.
Mr. Henley said he could support the application only as a professional use. Mr. Fisher
said Mr. Wood's offer to allow the helicopter's use for emergencies was very noble, and that
he favored approval of the amendment. Dr. Iachetta said he witnessed the noise level test-
ing conducted by Mr. Wood and Mr. Edwards, and agreed with their findings. He then asked if
a trial period could be established before conditions are placed by the Board. Mr. St. John
answered that a trial period could be established, as long as it did not mislead the appli-
cant and cause him undue expense or hardship. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to amend and
re-enact the Zoning Ordinance by adopting Sectio~ 7-1-42 (13), 16-40-2 and 16-40-3, as set
out in the staff's ~eport. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley~and Iachetta.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
Regardin~ the Special Permit 77-52, Dr. Iachetta made motion to approve the ~permit with
the following conditions:
1. Written approval of'Federal Aviation Agency and Virginia State Division
of Aeronautics.
2. Engineering Department review to be guided by F.A.A. Heliport Design Guide.
3. This special permit is granted subject to a six-months trial period of
operations commencing~ on March 1, 1978.
Dr. Iachetta pointed out that conditions four and five originally recommended by the
Planning staff, could' not be required by the Board. Condition four was irrelevant because
the helicopter already makes take-offs and landings at the airport. Finally, he could not
see how the County could demand use of someone's private property for any emergency uses,
as stated in condition five. Dr. Iachetta then proposed as condition No. 4 "No fuel storage
at the bank site". Second to Dr. Iachetta's motion was made by Mr. Henley, and motimn
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-77-53, Andrew Gmeiner. Public hearing on a request for a Home
Occupation, Class B, to service Saws in an accessory structure on 214.43 acres zoned A-1.
Property on north and south sides of' Route"'6 at its intersection with Route 250 West near
Afton Mountain. County Tax Map 69, Parcels 50 and 50A, White Hall District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on September 21 and September 28, 1977.) ~
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report.
"Character of the Area
Farm buildings and three single-family dwellings exist on this property. The
Rockfish Country Store is to the north. Other properties are generally large
parcel farms.
Staff Comment
The applicant is relocating from New York where he operated a specialized
sawblade sharpening business. He desires to continue to serve 4 or 5 of his
es'tablished customers through his special sharpening and tempering process.
The applicant proposes no employees. '[~He expects one UPS delivery every
3-4 months. ~
Staff recommends approval subject to conditions setforth in Section 16-44-1
HOME' OCCUPATION: Class B of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval at their
meeting of September 13, 1977.
October 5, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
A representative of Mr. Gmeiner reiterated comments made in the planning staff's
report to the Board. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against
this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion to approve SP-77-53 as recommended by the Planning Commission, was offered by
Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYESi: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 6. ~S~gns-~Public hearing~on~a~.resotution:Oftint~n2.dt~cam~nfl S~a%ion
1SA to provide for signs in the CO Commercial Office District and the CVN Conservation
District of the Zoning Ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 21 and
September 28, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker read the planning staff's report.
"On August 23, 1977, the Planning Commission, upon request, adopted a resolution
of intent to amend Article 1SA Signs to provide for signs in the Conservation and
Commercial Office Districts. The Board of Supervisors has appointed a Sign
Committee which is reviewing the provisions of Article !SA. This committee has
requested that no sign amendments be adopted until their work is complete,however,
sta~f"Opip!~ is that these amendments are necessary due to pending development in
the CO zone.
The proposed amendments would provide for the same signing in the Conservation
zone as exists for the Agricultural Zone. ~igning for the Commercial Office zone
would be more restrictive than for the General Business zone. The proposed amend-
ments are as follows:
Conservation District ( CVN ) and A-1 Agriculture:
15A-1.
SIGNS PERMITTED.
15A-l-1.
BUSINESS SIGNS. (Free Standing or P~oj~cting..Signs)
Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving, flashing, blinking,
color-changing or exposed, bare or uncovered neon illumination
or lighting; (b) the aggregate area of such signs shall not ex-
ceed 100 square feet; (c) no portion of such sign shall be greater
than thirty (~0) feet from ground level or the eave line of the
roof of the main building located on the premises upon which such
sign is erected, whichever is greater; (d) no more than two (2) free
standing signs on any one lot or premises; (e) no more than three
(3) projecting signs.
15A-1~2.
BUSINESS SIGNS - WALL. Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving,
flashing, blinking, color changing, or exposed, bare or uncovered
neon illumination or lighting;(b) the aggregate area of all such
signs shall not exceed 100 square feet; (c) no portion of such
sign shall be greater than 30 feet from ground level or the eave
line of the roof of the main building located on the premises upon
which such sign is erected, whichever is greater.
15A-l-3.
HOME OCCUPATION SIGNS: If illuminated, no flashing, blinking,
color-changing or neon lighting.
15A-1-4.
LOCATION SIGNS: Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving, flash-
ing, blinking or color-changing or neon illumination or lighting;
(b) the area of the sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square
feet; (c) no portion of the sign shall be greater than thirty (30)
feet from ground level; (d) no more than six (6) such signs directing
attention'to any one (1) establishment is permitted; and (e) provided
further that no such sign shall be closer to .another such sign than
1500 feet on the same side of a right-of-way.
15A-1-5.
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS: Provided:
have on them the same name.
(a) no more than four (4) such signs
15.A-!-6.
15A-1-7.
15A-i-8.
i5A-1-9.
TEMPORARY DIRECTIONAL SIGNS.
IDENTIFICATION SIGNS: Provided: (a) not more than four (4) square
feet in area; ('b) not more than two (2) on any lot or premises.
TEMPORARY EVENT SIGNS: Provided: (a) not more than sixteen (16)
square feet in area; (b) not more than two (2) on any lot or premises.
SALE OR RENTAL SIGNS: Provided: (a) not more than sixteen (16~ square
feet in area unless the sign be more than ~00 feet from a public road,
in which event such sign may be as much as, but no greater than,sixty
(60) square feet in area; (b) not more than one (1) on any lot or pre-
mises unless the same be fifty (50) acres in area or more and have
frontage on two or more public roads, in which event, one (1) sign may
be erected for each road on which such lot or premises has frontage.
15A-l-i0.
AUCTION SIGNS: Provided: (a) not more than thirty-two (32) square
feet in area; (b) not more than one (1) on any lot or premises.
15A-l-il. PUBLIC SIGNS.
15A-1-12. SUBDIVISION SIGNS.
October 5, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
15A-1-13. HUNTING~ FISHING OR TRESPASSING SIGNS.
15A-1-14. POLITICAL SIGNS.
CO Commercial Office
15A-6.1
SIGNS PREMITTED.
15A-6.1-1
BUSINESS SIGNS. (~Free Standing or Projecting Signs)
Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving, flashing, blinking, color-
changing or exposed, bare or uncovered neon illumination or lighting;
(b) the aggregate area of such signs shall not exceed 50 square feet;
(c) no portion of such sign shall be greater than thirty (30) feet
from ground level or the eave line of the roof of the main building
located on the premises upon which such sign is erected, whichever is
greater; (c)no more than two (2) freestanding signs on any one lot or
premises; (e) no more than three (3) projecting signs.
15A-6.1-2
BUSINESS SIGNS: WALL: Provided; (a) if illuminated, no. moving flashing,
blinking, color changing~ or exposed, bare or uncovered neon illumination,
or lighting; (b) the aggregate area of all such signs shall not exceed
100 square feet; (c) no portion of such sign shall be greater than 30
feet from ground level or the eave line of the roof of the main building
located on the premises upon which such sign is erected, whichever is
greater.
15A-6.1-3
BUSINESS SIGNS: Roof: (a) Sign shall in no m~anner be illuminated; (b)
the aggregate area of all signs for any establishment shall not exceed
50 square feet; (c) sign shall be in vertical plane~ (d) project above
the roof peak, including mansard and fake mansard roofs. On a parapet
wall, sign shall not project above the parapet wall; (e) no more than
three signs, including roof signs, shall be permitted for any establish-
ment.
15A-6.1-4
SALE OR RENTAL SIGNS: Provided~ not more than two (2) signs with an
aggregat~carea of 64 square feet and limited to 16 feet in height.
15A-6.1-5
DIRECTIONAL SIGNS: Provided:
them the same name.
(a) no more than two (2) signs have on
15A-6.1-6
TEMPORARY EVENT SIGNS: Provided: (a) not more than sixteen (16) square
feet in area; (b) not more than two (2) on any lot or premises.
15A-6.1-7 PUBLIC~ NO TRESPASSING, HUNTING, FISHING, AND POLITICAL SIGNS.
15A-6.1-8
LOCATION SIGNS: Provided: (a) if illuminated, no moving, flashing,
blinking or color-changing or neon illumination or lighting; (b) the
area of the sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet; (c) no portion
of the sign shall be greater than thirty (30) feet from ground level~
(d) no more than six (6) such signs directing attention to any one (1)
establishment is permitted; and (e) provided further that no such sign
shall be closer to another such sign than 1500 feet on the same side of
a right-of-way.
15A-6.1-9 AUCTION SIGNS: Provided: (a) not more than thirty-two (32) square feet
in area~ (b) not more than one (1) on any lot or premises."
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission unanimously voted approval of these amend-
ments at their meeting of October 4, 1977.
No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to amend the Zoning Ordinance
!as recommended by the Planning ComMission. Roll was called, and motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley~and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-77-54. City of Charlottesville, Public hearing on a request to
locate an outdoor pistol range to be used by City and County police officers to comply with
state-mandated qualification requirements in accordance with Section 2-1-25 (10)~of the Zon-
ing Ordinance on 29.32 acres zoned A-1. Property on west ~ide of Route 742 (~von Street
Extended) just north of~-64. County Tax Map 77, Parcel 11, Rivanna District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on September 21 and September 28, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report.
"Character of the Area
This site is a reclaimed sanitary landfill. Interstate 64, the Joint Security
Complex, and the National Guard are to the south. Hamilton Paper Co. and Ridge
Electronics are to the east. Single-family dwellings a~d mobile homes are to
the north. Property to the west has been approved for the Willoughby Planned
Community (map to be presented). James River Supply is also to the West.
October 5, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
ComprehenSive Plan
Industrial, flood plain park, and high-density residential uses are proposed in
this area.
Staff Comment
Due to a change in state requirements for police qualifications, the City's
indoor pistol range has become obsolete. The propoeed sixty-yard' outdoor range
would be used by the City Police Department, the University Police Department and
the County Sheriff's Department. Approximately 160 police officers would use this
facility to meet the 3-4 qualifications per year.
Due to the pending development of Willoughby Planned Community, staff would recommend
this Pistol range as a temporary facility subject to the following comditions:
1. Annual review by the Board of Supervisors;
2. Site Plan approval;
3. County Engineer and Health Department review of grading."
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with the
conditions as stated~ plus a fourth condition: "Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation approval of the site plan." He also noted receipt of two letters, one in favor
from Mr. William Carter of Dan River Supply and one from Mr. W. M. Watson, Sr.~ an adjoiningZ
property owner, who is opposed to the proposed use.
Mr. John K. Bowen, Chief of the Charlottesville Police, represented t'he City. Mr.
Bowen noted that the present indoor pistol range is nowhere near regulation size. He said
the proposed range would be available for use by the City, County, and University police and
private security agency guards. He assured the Board that optimum safety measures would be
used.
Mr. Fisher commented that areas around this site are zoned for high-density residential,
and that possibly sometime in the future, the Board may have to revoke the permit (if approv-
ed) for the protection of the residents. Mr. Bowen said he understood this possibility, and
added that the City was not spending a great deal of money on this p~oject and would not
mind moving if necessary.
Mr. Stanley Joynes,representing the Willoughby Corporation, said he felt a pistol range
would not be a proper use when the planned community is finally completed. He noted that
the Planning Staff had recommended to the Planning Commission that this range be issued a
temporary permit, subject to cancellation when Willoughby is constructed. But, the Plann-
ing Commission did not apply this recommendation as a condition in their approval.
Mr. Roy Parks who designed the Willoughby development, said that a contract is being
completed to develop property next to Willoughby for 250 single-family homes. Mr. Parks
added that in researching, he found a 12-foot mound to be the safety standard, and not the
suggested eight feet.
Mr. R. D. Wade said he felt the proposed pistol range was incompatible with proposed
residential housing in the
Motion was offered by
request until October 12, 1
by the applicant. Roll was
AYES: Mrs. David and Messr
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 8. Ad
offered by Mrs. David to adc
BE IT RESOLVED th~
Connty does hereby app:
and Review of Runoff
1977, for the calc~'lat:
runoff flow and charac~
guidelines adopted by
September 29, 1977.
~rea.
Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David to defer action on this
~77, during which time other possible sites might be examined
called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
· Dottier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
pt Guidelines for Runoff Control Ordinance.
~pt the following resolution:
~t the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
~.ove the' 'Guidelines for the Preparation
mtrol Permit Applications, dated September,
.o~s of pre-development and post-development
~eristics, and for ~unoff control; said
~he Runoff Control O~ficial, effective
Motion was
Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messr~
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fis~
to request the City of Char]
and the Board of Supervisor~
for the Board to. take emerg~
· Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
.er said that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority intends
.ottesville (at it's meeting to be held on October 6, 1977)
to adopt some emergency measures for water use. In order
ncy water conservation measures, the Board must first have
powers delegated from the Governor to impose those controls.
October 5, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Mr. St. John stated the following resolution for the Board's considerstion:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Board does hereby unite with the City
of Charlottesville in submitting a petition to the Governor of
Virginia to declare that a local emergency exists in the City of
Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle due to a shortage of
water in said localities.
Motion to adopt the proposed resolution was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by
Dr. iachetta~ and carried by the following recorded vote:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley~and Iachetta.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
At 12:13 ~. M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned.
Chairman