1999-12-08December 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
December 8, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr.
Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
(NonAgenda) Mr. Martin said Mr. Marshall had notified him that he could not be present at this
meeting because of illness. This would have been Mr. Marshall's last meeting while serving as a member
of the Board of Supervisors.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Ms. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to accept for information Consent Agenda Items 5.1 through 5.3. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Item No. 5.1. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for November 9, November 16 and
November 23, 1999, was received for information.
Item No. 5.2. Copy of public notice, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0083291,
Crossroads Village Center STP, was received for information.
Item No. 5.3. September, 1999 Financial Report, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-99-34. Free Bridge Auto Sales, Inc. (Sign #$0) PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to allow auto sales & repair. Znd HC (pending approval of ZMA-99-08) & EC. TM78, P57B &
TM78E, PA, part thereof. Contains .9957 acs. Loc at 1400 Richmond Rd (Rt 250E), approx 3600' W of
State Farm Blvd. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29,
1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report for SP-99-34. He indicated that the applicant proposes
to amend SP-92-22 to increase the display parking area at the existing Free Bridge Auto Sales site on the
north side of Route 250 East. The applicant plans building and site renovations in conjunction with the
expanded display parking. It is anticipated that the expansion will have no negative impact on the
surrounding uses nor on the site itself. The ARB has expressed no objection to the use, with certain
conditions, based on the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The ARB will also have to approve a Certificate of
Appropriateness. The staff and Planning Commission recommends approval with three conditions.
The Chairman asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Katurah Roelle, representing the applicant,
stated that this is a follow-up to the site plan of the rezoning request made by the applicant recently. The
building will be improved, there will be a new facade and additional landscaping will be done. He indicated
that all of this would be an improvement to the existing structure. He would be happy to answer
questions.
Mr. Martin opened the public hearing, but no one came forward. Mr. Martin then closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Martin said this request falls within his district, and it has been approved by the ARB with
December 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meeti~i)
(Page 2)
conditions. The Planning Commission has approved the application unanimously. He pointed out,
though, that there was discussion in the Planning Commission minutes about improving the overall site
plan. He then suggested that someone from this Board make a motion to approve this application.
Ms. Humphris offered a motion to approve SP-99-34, Free Bridge Auto Sales, Inc., subject to the
three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. She hopes people are noticing how much
better things are looking on Pantops because of the actions by the ARB and the entrance corridor
requirements. The Brady Bushey Ford/Jeep/Eagle Company has done an outstanding job in its
landscaping. This special use permit with the three conditions is deserving of approval. Ms. Thomas
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Vehicles shall not be elevated;
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas indicated for display shown on the site plan entitled "Free Bridge
Auto Sales Preliminary Site Plan," dated 5/3/99, with revisions dated 5/17/99; and
3. Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB for the site plan,
including landscaping and lighting plans.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-99-$8. 250 West Craft Barn (Signs #51&52) PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow sales of handcrafted items. Znd RA. TM57, P81. Contains 2.963 acs. Loc on Rockfish
Gap Turnpike (Rt 250VV), at inter w/Gillums Ridge Rd. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report for SP-99-58 relating to the West Craft Barn which is located at
the corner of Route 250 West and Gillums Ridge Road. The building was previously used for the same
activity and was known as Crafters Gallery. He noted that a special use permit was approved for Crafters
Gallery in 1974, but the business ceased operating in 1994. The barn, where the activities will occur,
dates back to the late 1800s. He added that to the extent the existing barn has become a formal or
informal historic landmark along this scenic corridor, its continued occupancy may be expected to promote
its preservation. After meeting with representatives of the County and VDoT to discuss transportation
~mprovements, the applicants down scaled their original application and are now proposing limiting
operations to the Gallery to three to four days per season or for one planned event per season. If the
business is sufficiently strong, further operation of business would be limited to one weekend per month.
It is staff's opinion that the proposed use will provide a reasonable use of the existing building without
changing the character of the district. He remarked that under the applicants' down scale operating plan,
VDot representatives have indicated to staff that the anticipated traffic impacts are sufficiently minimal to
require no additional improvements to the site. Staff has recommended approval of the application with
five conditions, and the Planning Commission has added a sixth condition which would allow the business
to operate all year long if the improvements recommended by VDoT are installed. He stated that without
these improvements, the business will be limited to the operational periods mentioned in the staff report.
He noted that the Planning Commission has recommended SP-99-58 for approval with the six conditions
outlined in the November 19, 1999 letter to the applicant.
Ms. Thomas wondered how the operational periods for the business were set. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that VDoT did an evaluation of the three to four days per season plus one weekend per month
time frame which made a total of 24 days of operation. The applicant felt comfortable with this
arrangement since it would not necessitate any type of improvements to entrances, etc. He added that
above this operational level, VDoT representatives felt the improvements would be necessary. The
applicant decided on the time limitation, in conjunction with VDoT and staff, at the point in which the
additional infrastructure improvements would not have to be made. He would have to get someone from
VDoT to answer the question about the 36 days time limitation.
Mr. Martin said there was some discussion that if the applicant wanted to be open more than 24
days per year, the improvements would have to be installed. Ms. Thomas noted that installing the
~mprovements would be fairly expensive. Mr. Cilimberg concurred. The applicant would probably want to
go to full operation to justify the improvements, if they were made.
At this time, Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would like to speak.
Ms. Janice Arone thanked the Board for its consideration. She said she and her partner, Mary
Ann Burk, are looking forward to maintaining the building and keeping it going as a seasonal operational
business. They are both potters, and they will be showing their work there and using it as a format for
their shows rather than going outside of the area.
December 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Ms. Thomas asked again about the 24 day limitation. Ms. Atone answered that it is a limitation
that was decided upon arbitrarily to restrict the use so there would not be a traffic issue. Since she and
her partner only want to use the building seasonally, the time restriction complies with their intention. Ms.
Thomas suggested that this is a similar situation to a potter at home having an open house. Ms. Arone
agreed. However, in this situation it would be more accessible to the community and more broad based
than having a home show.
Mr. Martin next opened the public hearing. No one came forward to speak, so he closed the
public hearing.
At this time, Ms. Thomas moved approval of SP-99-58 with the six conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission. She is sorry the operation has to be constricted because this is one of her
favorite buildings. She is delighted the building is going to be used and not allowed to fall into ruin, and
she wished the applicants well.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The 250 West Craft Barn shall be operated in accordance with the Application for Special Use Permit
and Attachment signed by Robert L. Leiby August 15, 1999, received by Susan Thomas October 28,
1999 and initialed "SEThomas 10/28/99, herein included as Attachment B;
2. No subdivision of the property shall occur without amendment of this Special Use Permit;
3. No food preparation shall take place on site in association with the craft sales use;
4. At the time of special seasonal events or when traffic warrants it, the applicants shall be responsible
for posting a sign indicating that overflow parking is available on Ivy Rose Lane. No parking is
permitted on Gillum's Ridge Road;
5. Architectural Review Board approval of new signage; and
6. The Craft Barn may be open not more than 24 days per year, but the Craft Barn may be open every
day if the owner installs a commercial entrance satisfying VDOT's "Minimum Standards of Entrances
to State Highways."
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-99-60. Scottsville Rescue Squad (Signs #3'1&32). PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to allow fundraising events in existing Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad bldg. This is an
amendment of an existing special use permit (SP-96-50). Znd RA. TM130, P7B. Site is approx 9.738
acs. Loc on Rt 6 (Irish Rd) at inter of Rt 6 & Rt 737 (Mountain Vista Rd). Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the request related to SP-99-60 is to satisfy Condition Number Eight
from last year's special use permit approval which indicated that the permit would expire one year from its
approval date unless it was extended prior to expiration by the Board of Supervisors. The Supervisors
included this condition to address the concerns expressed at the public hearing about increased noise and
traffic. He indicated that the year has passed, and there is no indication of any of those issues being
Staff has recommended approval of this special use permit with the seven conditions approved
last year, but without the eighth condition regarding the one-year expiration. The Planning Commission
has recommended unanimously approval of this special use permit with its seven conditions.
Ms. Thomas said VDoT had indicated that parking should be on site, and she wondered if it is
being taken for granted that this will happen. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. He said parking on
site is a normal occurrence, but occasionally it will get off site, if there are more vehicles than can be
accommodated at the facility.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the Rescue Squad has some land that can be used for parking. Ms.
Thomas inquired if a parking requirement has to be added as a condition. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it is
not necessary to add the parking condition.
Mr. Martin asked if the applicant had any comments.
Mr. Kevin Quick, Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue:Squad,
stated that there have been a few events held at the Rescue Squad building. He indicated that a wedding
reception was held there, as well as a Ladies Auxiliary Bazaar, and there have not been any problems at
all. The rescue squad is still growing and supporting the community in any way possible. None of the
concerns voiced at last year's meeting have materialized. He would be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Martin then opened the public hearing for SP-99-60. No one came forward to speak, so he
closed the hearing.
December 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meetiri~)
(Page 4)
Mr. Bowerman remarked that this request is located in Mr. Marshall's district. Mr. Bowerman
recalled stating last year that he thought the Rescue Squad would be good stewards of the special use
permit and would be responsible neighbors. The Rescue Squad members have clearly exercised their
stewardship. He then recommended approval of SP-99-60 with the seven conditiOns as recommended
by the Planning Commission. This will make permanent the special permit to have these functions.
Ms. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Any fundraising activity shall be conducted in an enclosed building only;
2. Approval is limited to no more than one event per week either for fundraising purposes or rental for
events not associated with the rescue squad;
3. Any use of this building shall comply with any applicable requirements of Chapter 12, Article 2,
Division 1, of the County Code regarding dance halls;
4. Approval of expansion to the septic system to accommodate an event with 200 people for which food
and drinks can be served. No event will be held until the expansion is complete;
5. The applicant shall pave the parking area. No event will be held until the paving is complete.
6. No such activity shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., except Friday and Saturday,
for which no such activity shall be conducted between 12:00 midnight and 8:00 a.m.; and
7. Development shall be in general accord with the attached plan titled Scottsville Rescue Squad,
prepared by Robert Lum, revised 12/16/96 and initialed WDF 1/9/97.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-99-66. Monticello Hiqh School (Sign #25). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to allow temporary leasing for office usage. Znd R-15. TM91,P2. Monticello High School loc on
Mill Creek Dr (Rt 1150). Consists of 65.972 acs. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
November 22 and November 29, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg distributed a memo from Ron Keeler, Chief of Special Projects and Research for
Albemarle County, dated December 8, 1999 regarding SP-99-66, Monticello High SchOol/Association of
Investment Management and Research (AIMR) Leasing. The Planning Commission meeting was held
last night, so there are no minutes yet from that meeting, but Mr. Keeler's memo summarizes the final
action of the Commission. The Commission's action provided for some modifications of conditions to be
more specific about time frames, as well as who will be transported to site by bus as opposed to those
using automobiles.
This is a request for use of Monticello High School from mid-June through the beginning of
August, 2000, and the function of the AIMR is to grade tests which were administered worldwide for the
Certified Financial Analyst Certificate. He commented that investment professionals of all ages and
nationalities will participate in this process of grading. He noted that AIMR is expecting 60 to 80 staff
members to be involved to setup, prepare and remove materials, and there will also be a grading session
which is continuous throughout a three-week period. There will be approximately 1,100 graders and
support personnel during the first week, and during the following two weeks there will be approximately
600 to 700 graders and support personnel. He remarked that the staff considered any potential impacts
which would be different than a high school operation at this site, and determined there were none as
related to the typical summer school or high school operation at the school. He pointed out that the
closest residential area is Willow Lake, and through approvals that went with the high school's
development, there are buffers from the high school which were determined to be adequate to protect
Willow Lake from any activities at the school. It has also been noted that the traffic generation is
anticipated to be less than if summer school were in full operation, and graders will be transported to and
from the site by rented or leased buses. Support personnel and school staff will likely travel by passenger
vehicle. The staff felt the use will not be inconsistent with impacts which may be generated by normal
school operation and has recommended approval. The three conditions as recommended by the Planning
Commission are shown in Mr. Keeler's memo. He emphasized that the conditions have had some
changes which were made to provide easier enforcement by the Zoning Administrator, and these changes
are also noted in the memo.
Mr. Martin remarked that he realizes the School Board is in favor of this application.
Mr. Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, stated that Mr. Cilimberg has
described this project very clearly, and school officials see this as a good opportunity for a partnership with
a reputable organization. He thanked the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Cilimberg, as well as Ms. McCulley
and her staff, for helping expedite this application. There was not much time allowed for the school
system to come to a contractual agreement with AIMR on this matter, since AIMR representatives have to
make their plans for this project, which is scheduled for next summer.
December 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Martin asked how the school system will benefit from this project. Mr. Morgan explained that
the School Division will earn between $130,000 and $170,000 after expenses, and it is hoped this money
can go toward critical instructional areas at Monticello High School and in the southern feeder schools.
There are a number of ideas being considered. A separate contract will be negotiated for food services
which will help with some capital purchases, since this is a self-sustaining program, and does not receive
any subsidy from the School Board. He noted that freezers, etc., are needed, so this will be a big help.
The children in that area of the County will benefit greatly from the income, and Monticello High School is
absolutely behind the project.
Mr. Martin inquired if there were any vocational or learning experiences involved. Mr. Morgan
answered, "no." Although it is hoped that this partnership will grow over time. He stated that school
officials are going through this process slowly and reflectively.
Mr. Perkins asked if this will be an annual occurrence at Monticello High School. Mr. Morgan
responded that the school will be involved with it for a year, and then the program will be reassessed with
AIMR. Mr. Perkins inquired ifAIMR goes through this grading process every year. Mr. Morgan replied
affirmatively.
Mr. Bowerman asked where AIMR has been doing its grading in the past. Mr. Morgan answered
that it was being done at the University of Virginia and some other satellite locations. However, the
program has gotten large enough where AIMR representatives were hoping to have just one place
involved for organizational purposes. Mr. Bowerman stated that he is very familiar with the AIMR
Association and its work. Mr. Morgan referred to Mr. Cilimberg's comments that the impact would be
similar to a normal high school or summer school operation. Mr. Bowerman said grading tests should be
a quiet operation.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing on SP-99-66. No one came forward to speak,
so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Ms. Humphris noted that this application is located in Mr. Marshall's district. She then offered a
motion to approve SP-99-66 with the three conditions as described in Mr. Keeler's memo of December 8,
1999.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. She pointed out that County officials had agonized over the
g of Monticello High School and the buffer between Willow Lake, etc. She recently talked to
some people who live in Willow Lake, and she believes County officials succeeded in what they set out to
do. Monticello High School has had a minimum neighborhood impact and a lot of welcoming work done
by the Principal has made a nice relationship there.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Professional office use shall occur when school is not in session and shall not exceed one period of
sixty (60) consecutive days annually. This sixty (60) day period shall include the periods to set up the
professional office use and to restore the facilities to a school use;
2. Hours of operation for graders shall be from 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Athletic facilities may be used until
9:00 p.m.; and
3. Graders (except local employees) shall be transported to and from the site by bus.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-gg-0g. Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridqe ISi.qn #53),
PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend existing PRD (ZMA 97-03) to allow for add'l independent prof
office bldgs along frontage of Rt 250E. Site is on 7.65 ac portion of Westminster Canterbury znd PRD &
EC. TM78,Ps55A & 55A5. Loc on N side of Rt 250E, in front of Westminster Canterbury. (Loc in Urban
Area 3 of the Comprehensive Plan.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 22 and
November 29, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the applicant proposes to establish professional offices to serve both the
community and the residents of Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge (WCBR), rather than Only for
the residents of WCBR. The staff has provided the actual approved application plan showing the building
location for these offices under the original ZMA-97-03. The proposal, as it now exists, is also posted for
the Supervisors to see. He pointed out several favorable factors, and he called attention to the sixth
favorable factor relating to the building footprints. The basic concept has already been to the Architectural
Review Board (ARB), although each building will be subject to an ARB review under the individual site
He also mentioned the three unfavorable factors related to the request. Staff has recommended
approval, including the revised application plan, with conditions. The conditions are provided in the staff
report as well as the action letter. He then mentioned a correction in the second sentence of Condition
Number 2 (a). He indicated that the word "to" in this sentence should be changed to the word "from." The
December 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
sentence should state that, "The professional office use within each intended structure, shall be valid for a
period not to exceed five (5) years from commencement of construction of the office buildings." The
Planning Commission has also recommended approval.
Mr. Martin asked if the applicant had any comments.
Mr. Michael Matthews, Jr., with Matthews Development Company, stated that his company is
located in Albemarle County, and he is representing the applicant. He introduced Mr. Hank Hinnant,
President and CEO of Westminster-Canterbury, as well as Mr. Scott Hilles, the Chief Financial Officer
there. Mr. Matthews remarked that he has nothing to add to the staff report, except to say he appreciates
the staffs recommendation for approval and the unanimous support received at the Planning Commission
meeting. He recalled some of the comments from the Commissioners that seemed to view this plan as a
significant improvement over past plans, and he said he would be glad to answer any questions.
Ms. Thomas remarked that she appreciates the linkage and the shuttle service very much. She
then asked Mr. Matthews to discuss the relationship to Monticello, since the original building is so evident
from Monticello. Mr. Matthews responded that the same plan shown at this meeting, including some
elevations, were sent to Monticello when this process began. He spent all of one morning on Monticello
Mountain meeting with the Director of Restoration as well as the Director of Public Relations at Monticello
to show them the plans and to look down from the mountain, as they do. Monticello officials have taken
their comments into consideration, and they have had no real objections. He said landscaping was
discussed because it was their primary concern, and these plans will go before the ARB. The applicant
and the existing user there, Martha Jefferson Hospital, committed to take care of the concerns, and they
will be kept informed throughout the whole
Ms. Thomas next asked how much of the new project will be white. Mr. Matthews replied that
none of the buildings will be painted white, except perhaps some trim. The plan established for the first
building is basically being followed.
There were no further questions for Mr. Matthews, so Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for
ZMA-99-09. No one came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Martin said he agrees with the Planning Commission that overall this plan is an improvement,
and he thinks the applicant has worked hard to cooperate with the Planning staff and Planning
Commission to design an improvement. He believes the extra use will benefit the entire community and
not be a hindrance.
Ms. Humphris made a motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve ZMA-99-09 wiith the three
conditions shown in the staff report and action letter and with the correction made to the second sentence
of Condition Number 2 (a) as noted by Mr. Ciiimberg.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
28.
2b.
2C.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Special use permit approval for the retirement community (as distinguished from professional
offices) shall not expire but shall remain in effect so long as approval of ZMA 97-03 remains in
effect. The Application Plan shall be considered as conceptual only in terms of site layout of
features such as building footprint, building location, and road alignment. Approval shall be for
uses and limitations as specified in PROJECT DATA on the ZMA 97-03 Application plan.
Setbacks from internal roads and other vehicular areas shall maintain sight distances as
determined by the Department of Engineering and Public Works. Perimeter setbacks and yard
requirements from abutting residentially zoned properties shall not be less than required for such
abutting properties.
The structures intended to house the professional offices permitted under this special use permit
shall not exceed a total of 90,000 square feet, as further described below. The professional office
use within each intended structure, shall be valid for a period not to exceed five (5) years from
commencement of construction of the office buildings;
15,000 square feet of the 90,000 square feet of structures containing the professional office use(s)
shall be permitted to have uses unrelated to WCBR, provided that all such uses are contained
within the same physical structure;
Any of the remaining 75,000 square feet of structures may contain professional offices that are not
owned and/or operated by WCBR for the exclusive use of the residents in the PRD, if they consist
of uses that comply with the following: They shall be of a use type compatible with the services
and mission of WCBR as attached (Attachment J). These uses may be open to the general public
and community at large. Such uses shall include the provision of healthcare services and the
administrative and retail components appurtenant thereto, such as: (1) medical offices, outpatient
diagnostic and treatment centers (including outpatient imaging, same day surgery, oncology,
December 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
2d.
26.
2f.
interventional radiology and outpatient laser procedures); dental and ophthalmic care; physical
therapy, rehabilitation and fitness/wellness programs; community health; and (2) other
Professional Office Uses deemed to provide services to WCBR residents;
WCBR shall construct a physical linkage from its upper campus to the professional offices via a
paved golf cart path, at a width no smaller than the width of the existing WCBR cart paths, parallel
to and of similar slope to Pantops Mountain Road (or at another location on campus as approved
by Albemarle County Planning Staff) to provide connection between the WCBR campus and the
professional offices. The cart path must be approved with the first professional office building site
plan (after this permit is approved) and constructed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for
the first building shown on that plan;
WCBR shall operate a shuttle service, within the WCBR Planned Residential Development zoning
district, that is available to transport residents of the district to and from the professional offices on
an "On-call" basis during business hours of the professional offices; and
Professional office usage and structures referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) shall be
restricted to Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A as depicted in Attachment A of this report. Minimum
setbacks for building and parking from Route 250 and external residential areas shall comply with
Section 21.0 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The wooded area on the Application Plan shown for passive recreation usage shall be maintained
in a natural state except for trail and related improvements as depicted generally on the
Application Plan. This area shall not be subject to general building development.
Access easements shall be provided to Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A5 (residue) and Tax Map 78,
Parcel 55A1. WCBR will not be required to participate in construction of any such access. At time
of development of those properties, maintenance agreements as required by the private roads
regulations of the Subdivision Ordinance shall be negotiated by the owners of Parcels 55A5,
55A1, and WCBR (and the future heirs and assigns thereof).
Mr. Matthews commented that this was a long process, and he and WCBR officials spent a great
deal of time working with the staff. He has read some press recently regarding the staff, and he does not
think the people are given enough credit when they have done a great job. He wanted to express the
applicant's, and well as his own, opinion that the people they dealt with from the very beginning have been
fantastic. This was more complex than most applications, even though it may seem simple on the
surface. He mentioned staff members Jan Sprinkle, Bill Fritz and the Eric Morrisette who worked very
closely with them, and he wanted them to know that their efforts to better this section of the County were
appreciated.
Mr. Martin thanked Mr. Matthews for his comments about the staff.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-99-11. Clover Lawn Village {Sign #67). PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to rezone 2.65 acs from R-1 to R-6 to allOw medium density residential development. TM56,
P107. Loc on Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Rt 250W, across the street from Blue Ridge Building Supply at 5221
Rockfish Gap Turnpike. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density
Residential, recommended for 3-6 du/ac in the Village of Crozet.) White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1999.)
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the staff report the Board members received was revised after the
Planning Commission met to reflect the proffers that were discussed at the Commission meeting and the
subsequent proffers submitted by the applicant in response to the Planning Commission's concerns.
Since the report was completed and provided to this Board last week, revised wording in the second
)roffer has been received regarding the ARB's review of the consolidated site plan which had already
been referred to in the proffer. This revision in the second sentence indicates that the site plan will be
reviewed and approved by the ARB, and before it had just indicated that it would be reviewed by the ARB.
He went on to say a consolidated site plan of three parcels, which would be required to be submitted
under these proffers, will be subject to ARB review for all architectural elements that are part of this
development. He mentioned that the site subject to this rezoning is slightly over two and one-half acres
and the request would be to change the zoning from R-1 to R-6. He emphasized that there are five
which are part of this proposal.
The Planning Commission's discussion to the greatest extent centered on the adequacy of
information regarding the design layout of the development and its relationship to two other parcels that
were already commercially zoned, as well as a desire to see all three of these parcels under one
consolidated plan. Proffer Number Two is intended to address these concerns at the site plan stage.
Some of the Commissioners wanted to see this as part of the zoning action, but there is no plan of
development that is part of this zoning. The Supervisors have before them commitments under the
proffers for certain infrastructure improvements and provisions for this site plan that would cover not only
this parcel, but the adjacent parcels 56-107A and 107A1 which are commercial parcels. He then
discussed the favorable and unfavorable factors related to the request. There was not a recommendation
for approval of this rezoning based on the need for a proffered plan for design, lack of mixed use
component for the development and insufficient usable open space. He recalled that several
Commissioners said that a minimum proffer guaranteeing submittal of a unified site plan for the subject
and the two adjacent parcels was needed, and it has been provided in the proffers the Board
members have received.
December 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Martin asked the applicant for comments.
Ms. Jo Higgins, a spokesperson for the applicant, stated that she and the applicant started out
with a conservative concept so the basic features necessary to achieve proposed density could be done
on this parcel. She explained that the footprint of the units is approximately 825 square feet which is a first
floor type of scenario. The travel ways shown to access the units in the potential connection to the third
parcel is of a greater width than will actually be required, and the area shown for the parking spaces
exceeds the parking requirement. She reiterated that they were trying to make sure they could achieve
the density, but at the same time, not create a new entrance. She noted that the entrances are being
consolidated, and this is shown in the proffer with the entrance to the east. The turning radius has been
verified, and the entrance lines up with the existing Blue Ridge Homebuilders entrance which will also be
the secondary entrance to the Food Lion. However, it is not the main entrance to Food Lion. She went on
to say the interconnection to the east and west is achievable within the grades and the geometrics of the
travel ways. The staff has recommended approval, but she mentioned an item in the staff report about the
unfavorable consideration because there was no design plan to assess relationships surrounding this
parcel. It seems as though assessing relationships goes back to some terms as far as how the
community works together. The applicant felt as though this is a component of overall development, and it
could be addressed through the site plan process. It is a different approach, but at the same time when
she inquired about what was being left out, she could not find anything more important than access,
interconnections and visibility from the entrance corridor. She pointed out that it is a small parcel, slightly
over 2.5 acres, it is not complicated, and it is not very interesting. She explained that it is a very gently
rolling grassy area, with one tree in the middle of the parcel. It is basically square, with no interesting lays
to the land. She feels the important relationships are protected by the proffers, and she requested the
Board's approval to proceed. She would like to put the three parcels on the site plan and come through
the process that will enable her to show the architectural consistency to the ARB. She hopes to develop a
village type concept that will be very pleasing to the community.
At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing.
Mr. Richard Berman, a resident of Western Albemarle County and a Steering Committee member
of Scenic Route 250, said he has the same arguments against the rezoning that he mentioned to the
Planning Commission. There is no site plan, and there is no Food Lion yet across the street. The green
space that was proffered is 4,000 square feet, which is 50 X 80 feet, and that is less than half of the space
in a tennis court. He remarked that there are no recreational provisions except for the facilities at Western
Albemarle High School, Henley Middle School and Brownsville Elementary School, which is a mile and a
quarter away. He noted that a person would have to walk on Route 250 where there is a 55 mile an hour
speed limit and no available sidewalks. He referred to the applicant's report where it indicates there will
be three children out of 15 houses, and he said this does not sound reasonable. There is no reason for
high density urban zoning at this point when there is no site plan. He referred to the catch basin on the
plan, as well as two more in the area at Corey Farm. These are very unsightly, and the entrance aspects
of Route 250 West are being destroyed by overdeveloping on the highway.
Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, pointed out that there are two important facts in the report
before this Board that have significant bearing on how the Supervisors should proceed. First, he noted
that this property falls within the Crozet Growth Area. The second fact is that this proposal, by its very
nature with the other two highway commercial parcels, should come under the heading of mixed use. This
being the case, it should be required that the proposal be consistent with the recommendations found in
the Crozet Community Plan. Mr. Loach quoted from the Crozet Community Plan relating to how mixed
use should be implemented, and he said this proposal falls short of these goals in almost every category
because there clearly has been no coordination with the community. He stated that in truth the approach
taken by the developer is one that has been carefully orchestrated to bypass the community. This is an
important site, and the fact that the public is interested in this site can be seen in the results of the Crozet
cherette held by DISC. He noted that the Board members have two renderings completed by a group of
some 35 Crozet residents during the cherette which shows the residents envision this area for mixed use.
The problem is that the designs making up the foundation for mixed use found in both the Crozet
Community Plan and the Crozet cherette are completely different than what is being presented by the
applicant. He mentioned that the applicant has suggested that it be left up to the ARB to judge the plan
when it comes. He has a great deal of respect for the ARB, but the ARB has historically been an arbiter at
the end result of the design and not a collaborator in design development. He noted that the Crozet
Community Plan and the findings from the cherette show no indications that the community has passed on
either its interest or responsibility to the ARB as it relates to development in the entrance corridor. If the
Board is interested in a successful outcome, then he would refer to the recent Crozet gas station project
on Crozet Avenue. Although it was a small project in size, it shows how the community working with an
interested developer and a good design professional, can produce superior results. He said not only will
this approach prove successful, but it should be set as a precedent for the process for all design projects
along the entrance corridor including this one. He said it should be kept in mind that there is still additional
land yet to be developed on Route 250, as well as land to be redeveloped, and design standards for Route
250 should be set now. He reminded the Board about the recent Gray Rock rezoning where the Board
accepted proffers before seeing the final plan. The resulting plan was minus sidewalks and left the Board
in a "take it or leave it" situation.
Mr. Rick Middleton stated that he was representating Scenic Route 250 because Scott Peyton,
the President, could not be present. On behalf of the entire Scenic Route 250 organization, Mr. Middleton
December 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
urged the Board to deny the rezoning request. He said, though, he is asking for more than that. His
organization members feel the Board should deny this application pending submission of a meaningful
development plan that gives everyone an opportunity to see the exact proposal for this parcel. He
reminded the Board that the Planning Commission voted five to one to deny this rezoning for that reason,
and Commission members felt as though the parcel was too important to view simply as an automatic
blind rezoning. This is a particularly critical zone of Route 250, and when traffic is traveling west of
Charlottesville, it gets into the zone with some of the new development such as Corey Farm. He pointed
out that the property is right across the street from the proposed Food Lion Shopping Center, and there
are two commercial parcels owned by the same person that are being viewed now as part of this plan.
This is not a particularly small parcel, and although it may seem small with 2.6 acres, it is part of a much
larger cluster of parcels of mixed use with commercial and residential uses tying in with some other
development in the area. It is an area with a lot of potential for traffic clogging and choices of pedestrian
access versus vehicular access. He said looking at parcels such as this one and deciding what the future
path should be for the community is the heart of good planning. This situation is also viewed as an
opportunity, and although his organization members think the zoning request should be denied, they hope
it won't be the end of it. They would like to see a process, and he agreed with Mr. Loach that this is
contemplated in the Community Plan. He thinks this should be the first step in many positive steps toward
building a good planning process. He remarked that with some thoughtful participation by Scenic Route
250, the Planning staff and other interested members of the public, as well as the owner of the property, a
good meaningful plan can be developed to be presented to this Board for approval.
Mr. Max Cole, a close resident who lives close to the property, said a government study indicates
that urban sprawl is the country's biggest problem. This project is urban sprawl, and there are
approximately 700 other empty lots in Crozet that could be developed.
No one else came forward, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Mr. Perkins said his concern is different from the ones being expressed tonight. He referred to
Radford Lane, which is a road that will have to remain open because it serves certain houses there. He
was told that this road could be used for access because of the turning radius, and he asked if this is
correct. Ms. Higgins responded that the road is actually offset from the main Food Lion entrance.
Mr. Perkins inquired about the extent of the development of Food Lion plans. He wondered if the
entrance could be changed. Mr. Cilimberg answered that there is a final site plan approved with a five
year period of time. It could be amended, but it would have to be at the owner's request. Mr. Bowerman
asked how many years are left. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he can't recall exactly when the Food Lion plan
was approved, but he believes it was approximately two years ago. Mr. Tucker agreed that there are
three years left with the Food Lion site plan approval time limitation.
Mr. Perkins said it creates one more entrance that he does not think is necessary. He referred to
the map showing Radford Lane which is a road serving possibly six existing homes, as well as a new
entrance that is being created across from the entrance to Blue Ridge Building Supply. None of these
things are aligned except for the new entrance and the one to Blue Ridge Building Supply. He does not
think there will be as much traffic there as there will be to the main entrance to Food Lion. It seems as
though there should be some effort to align Radford Lane and the Food Lion entrance, so the traffic from
the 15 units could come out of Radford Lane. He stated that probably in the future, there will be a traffic
light there. He agreed with a lot of the comments made tonight, and said he would feel much more
comfortable if he knew what was going to be developed. He commented that people have to hope the
developer is going to create an attractive development, and that is what developers do most of the time.
There needs to be a lot more details with this plan as far as what type of plantings will be along Route 250.
He referred to concerns expressed about the sedimentation requirements and how long the pond will be
left there and whether or not it will be a permanent pond or a Iow area. He wondered if the pond will be
something that can be removed after the site is stabilized.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the previous Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) had a fairly clear
rendering of the plan, but the Board was really concerned about issues that dealt far beyond typical
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, in terms of ensuring that what is intended will actually happen. The
public has noted that a good way to ensure this is by examining the development plan, itself, and its
cohesiveness with the community. He then referred to Mr. Perkins' comments about the Radford Lane
connection. This aspect needs to be considered, as well as the willingness of the applicant to jointly
develop this plan. The Board is considering the current project in isolation without a clear idea of the
ultimate development, and a ZMA is the only way to ensure that certain things the Board expects to
happen will actually happen.
Ms. Humphris said the Supervisors have learned from the past that When anything gets rezoned it
is beyond this Board's control. The County is in the middle of the whole idea of infill development, and this
is a critical bit of infill development on Route 250 West. She mentioned that the location is certainly not
unobtrusive, and it was characterized in something the applicant wrote which indicated that it is a very
obvious location. She noted that since the applicant owns the adjoining property, she does not think it
should be done in any other way than a unified planning approach that needs to be seen by this Board
before any rezoning is allowed.
December 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Ms. Thomas said a good aspect of the project is that it is infill, but because of this, it becomes all
the more important to have a unified plan. This project can resemble the part of Crozet that everybody is
sorry to have there, or it can be the part of Crozet that fits together and creates the new center referred to
by the cherette. She said people will regret it if there are no sidewalks along one side of the road because
they will be walking from the proposed site to the Food Lion. There will be a lot of relationships that
cannot be judged with only one piece of the plan, and it is up to the applicant to convince the Supervisors
that this increase in density is to the public good. A way of doing that is to have a unified plan showing
how this whole area is going to fit together and be something the public will be glad to have on Route 250.
She emphasized that this Board needs to see a unified plan before the rezoning so a decision can be
made with the necessary facts at hand.
Ms. Higgins inquired if this application could be referred back to the Planning Commission. She
also asked if the Supervisors are requesting a plan including the highway commercial parcels that are
already zoned. If this is the case, it couldn't be done with just a design plan for this parcel, or it would
meet with the same problem.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that if this request should come back through the reZoning process to
include these two commercial properties, they would have to be part of the rezoning application along with
this parcel. He explained that three properties would be involved. He said two parcels would already
have commercial zoning, and there would also be the property in question which would be requesting R-6
zoning. He noted that some existing zoned properties have been treated as part of overall application
in the past. He referred to the Peter Jefferson property where a lot of the land was already zoned
CO, but it was actually incorporated into the application plan, which also included the PDMC property. In
terms of the application plan, only the CO land was addressed. He added that it was not addressed in
terms of trying to change the zoning for the commercial office use. The applicant could fear losing the
commercial use by submitting the two parcels as part of an overall rezoning plan. Ms. Higgins concurred
that this was a significant concern when the applicant was in the pre-application process. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that he thinks the applicant's expectation will be that the commercial zoning won't be lost, but it will
be part of the overall application plan, if he goes back through the process.
Ms. Thomas remarked that the application plan can include the adjacent property, and how it all
fits together. She does not see the problem. Mr. Cilimberg explained that everything can fit together aS
long as it is not decided in the process that the existing rezoning will be changed. Mr. Tucker stated that
the applicant's concern is that the Commission or this Board may decide to change the use that is
~ermitted. He noted, though, that the applicant could also request withdrawal, at that point. Mr. Perkins
said he does not think that is the intent of this Board. Mr. Cilimberg commented that he is not saying the
Board members will take such action. He added that this is the applicant's concern.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that there are a lot of mixed signals about commercial areas in Crozet.
There could be members of the public who would have a concern and want to change this use if all of the
property is before the Supervisors for rezoning. Ms. Humphris noted that this is a fair Board.
Mr. Cilimberg said if this application goes back to the Commission involving all three properties,
the staff will work with the applicant with the understanding that there are two commercial parcels and one
residential parcel involved. It would have to be clear that it is the residential parcel which is requesting a
higher density, and it is the three parcels together which are requesting a plan of development. The staff
would need to make sure the right zoning category was being used to cover this request and allow both
the commercial and residential uses.
Ms. Higgins stated that the applicant had ultimately planned to have all of this under one site plan,
anyway. She would appreciate it if the Board would allow the applicant to take the application back to the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Perkins again expressed his concern about the entrance to the Food Lion. He said he does
not know what the review process will be to try to get these entrances aligned.
Ms. Thomas commented that the Board is not just considering this piece of property, nor this
property and the two parcels next door to it. The property across the way is also being considered. She
mentioned that although this Board has no right to change the property across the way, ideally for the
community and the entranceway, as well as the people who are going to want to walk across the street to
the Food Lion, it all should fit together.
Ms. Higgins remarked that since early spring and throughout the summer, the applicant has met
with the VDoT staff with the plans for both sides of the road. The Food Lion representatives have been
through the process twice.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if representatives from the Food Lion developers have been present at
the VDoT meetings. Ms. Higgins answered that Food Lion representatives are indirectly aware of the
problem, but after going through the process twice, they found that it would involve more than just moving
a curb cut. It would require a total redesign of the parking lot, because it does not work to just shift the
entrance, since it affects all the internal workings of the Food Lion. It is an intense site with a retaining
wall in the back. The plan is aligned with the secondary entrance of the Food Lion even though it was
clear that there would be a conflict with the left turn lane into the Food Lion to get onto Radford Lane. The
December 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
only satisfactory conclusion was that it doesn't create a new entrance, since it is already existing. She
pointed out that the entrance allows access to a basket shop and gas station, and it is currently wide
open.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the staff can examine providing access to the west. He mentioned
that perhaps Radford Lane could be incorporated into the internal road system and would not have to
continue to exist as an intersection at Route 250. He pointed out that it is a private road, so he cannot say
this can actually be done. However, the staff could work on this possibility.
Mr. Davis suggested that the application be referred back to the Planning Commission because it
seems to be something the Planning Commission should consider, anyway. The Commission members
can examine the different issues and make a recommendation back to this Board.
Mr. Cilimberg requested that this referral be made with the understanding that the three parcels
are being examined together which means that the process can be handled as a zoning action.
Mr. Perkins made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to refer ZMA-99-11 back to the
Planning Commission to be examined as a unified plan with adjacent Parcels 56-107A and 107A1.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 12. Appointments.
Ms. Humphris offered a motion to reappoint Jared Loewenstein as the At Large Member of the
Albemarle County Planning Commission with the new term to expire December 31, 2001. Mr. Bowerman
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Next, Mr. Perkins made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to reappoint Mr. William Finley to
the Planning Commission with the new term to expire December 31, 2003.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Ms. Thomas inquired if Ms. Humphris had received an e-mail message regarding the resolution
proposed by the City for the City's and County's joint work at the Mpo on the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Ms. Humphris indicated she did not receive this information.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he thought he had received this information in the mail.
Ms. Thomas said she does not think the Supervisors should discuss it until members of the MPO
have had a chance to see it. She added that the thought is that the County would have better control over
the design of the Meadow Creek Parkway, if it joins with the City, since the City has veto power and the
County doesn't. The City also proposed a way for the City and County to join together follOwing a
discussion at the MPO meeting.
Referring to the request the Board just heard, Mr. Perkins commented that the County should
have a color copier because the maps the Board members get are not very good. They are either too big
or too small, and they would make a lot more sense if they were in color. Mr. Cilimberg reminded Board
members that most of the maps are submitted by the applicants. Ms. Humphris said she made her own
map with a red pen, scotch tape and a pair of scissors, but she does not think the Supervisors should
have to do this. Mr. Bowerman agreed. It is normal business practice to have material that is well
)resented.
Mr. Tucker said better maps can be requested, but the site plan, Subdivision Ordinance, or Zoning
Ordinance may have to be amended to require certain size plans in color. Ms. Humphris noted that the
Deceml~er 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Supervisors were not even given all the Tax Map parcel numbers involved. She said one number was not
there, and one was listed that was wrong.
Ms. Thomas mentioned a meeting with a gentleman whose proposal is that developments in the
rural area always show an area outside the boundary of the proposed application. In this way property is
not seen as islands. She wondered if it would be possible to require that plans show something beyond
the boundary of a proposed project.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the site plan and subdivision requirements are that additional land
beyond boundaries be shown. The Supervisors do not see theSe because they are dealing with rezonings
and special use permits, where there is no requirement for any type of standard submittal.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that if an applicant wants something done, he or she should submit
plans in the best light possible.
Ms. Humphris stated that Board members will keep sending this message.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that the staff can work to make things as good as they can be with the
requirements that are available. The staff can also suggest to applicants that they make the information
as readable and understandable as possible.
Mr. Tucker suggested that other localities be contacted to see how they have handled such
matters. He believes that it would almost have to be a requirement. He pointed out that the applicant runs
a risk when the documents are submitted to the Planning Commission or this Board if they don't provide
clear information. He does not think staff should start re-drawing the maps to meet the Supervisors'
needs, because it may not reflect what the applicant is requesting, it really is the responsibility of the
applicant, but the presentation of material needs to be defined in some way so it will meet the Supervisors'
needs and the applicant understands what the Board wants.
Ms. Thomas said she assumes the Planning staff has a checklist of all the advice given to
applicants at all different stages of the process. She suggested that additiOnal advice on presenting
clearer maps, etc., be included in this checklist. Mr. Cilimberg said the staffwill work on this problem.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the more information and detail County officials receive, the more
receptive they usually are to proposals.
Mr. Tucker said the staff members have tried to improve the maps that they prepare and that is
how they have tried to take into consideration the Board members' comments. He said, though, the
applicants are usually submitting this information on their own, or it is a requirement of the ordinance. He
stated that if the ordinance is not clear, then it needs to be amended.
Mr. DaviS mentioned that a rezoning application does not require any type of map or plat at all. It
simply requires identification of the parcels. Mr. Tucker agreed. He pointed out that site plans have such
requirements.
Ms. Humphris concurred with Mr. Bowerman's statement that applicants will quickly learn that
better information makes the difference as far as how proposals are received by County officials.
Mr. Ciiimberg remarked that when all of the County is digitized in the Tax Map, it will help with the
staff's preparation.
Ms. Thomas asked when contours are examined. Mr. Cilimberg answered that information on
contours is examined with the site plan. However, he explained that the County does not have digitized
topographic maps over the whole County.
Mr. Davis said the difficulty is trying to balance the amount of detail to require prior to the site plan
stage. A map can be required, but when specific details are being required for a sketch plan that currently
has no submittal requirements, it would be difficult to figure out what should be required.
Mr. Martin said the staff can do as much as possible from a mandate standpoint, as well as
making suggestions. The Board members will do the best they can do in supporting these things.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that in planned development zoning, the application plans have a standard
under which they have to be submitted because the plan is expected. He said a zoning application cannot
be accepted without the standards being met. He noted that the Clover Lawn proposal was not a planned
development, because there was not a large enough acreage involved.
Ms. Thomas recalled that staff members had asked what the Board members want in terms of
submittals. The Supervisors want the best unified plans as possible.
(P~
Bo;
. Approved by Bo~ rd
Date ,~, 0~, O0
December 8, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) 13)
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. At 8:24 p.m., there being no further buSiness to come before the
the meeting was immediately adjourned.
Chairman