1998-11-11November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
000095
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on November 11, 1998, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin.
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. Marshall.
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.
Mr. Paul Grady, a resident of Crozet, asked that the additional land at
Monticello High School be donated to the Albemarle County Fair Association for
a permanent home for the County Fair and that one or more buildings be built
on the property to accommodate the annual SPCA (Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals) rummage sale.
Mr. Marshall said it is true there is extra land at Monticello High
School, but there are plans for that land. There is the need for a fire
station, a library, a rescue sqUad building, and many other uses. He does not
believe the property is large enough to house the fair grounds.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2 on the Consent Agenda,
and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Mr. Martin.
Item 5.1. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of the Refinancing
of Industrial Development Authority (IDA) Bonds for the University of Virginia
Health Services Foundation.
It was noted in the staff's report that The University of Virginia
Health Services Foundation requested approval of up to $18.0 million in
revenue bonds of the Albemarle County IDA to finance the refunding of bonds
issued in 1992 which funds were used for projects at Nor~hridge Medical Center
and the University Research Park. The IDA held the required public hearing on
November 2, 1998, and adopted a resolution approving the proposed issuance of
bonds.
The Internal Revenue Code requires that the Board approve the financing
in order for the revenue bonds to be treated as tax-exempt private activity
bonds. No public hearing is required by the Board. County approval of the
proposed issuance of the bonds does not constitute an endorsement of the bonds
and does not create any liability for the County in regard to the issuance or
payment of the bonds.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution approving the
request. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolu-
tion:
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority"), has considered the application
November 11, 1998 (Regular Ni~i~{~ ~n~)~, ~.
(Page 2)
00009 ;
of The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation
(~Foundation") requesting the issuance of the Authority's
revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $18,000,000 ("Bonds"
to assist in the refunding of all or a portion of the
Authority's $20,440,000 Health Services Revenue Bonds (The
University of Virginia Health Services Foundation), Series 1992
issued on November 18, 1992, to finance (I) the acquisition of
an approximately 57,000 square foot building located at 2955 Ivy
Road in Albemarle County, Virginia, known as the Northridge
Medical Center; (ii) renovations to the Northridge Medical
Center; (iii) the acquisition, construction and equipping of the
Foundation's headquarters building, an approximately 60,000
square foot facility located on approximately 5 acres of land in
the University Research Park at 500 Ray C. Hunt Drive; (iv) the
acquisition and installation of new computer and other equipment
at both the Northridge Medical Center and at the headquarters
building described in (iii) above; and (v) certain reserve funds
and costs of issuance, and has held a public hearing on November
2, 1998;
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the "Code"), provides that the government unit
having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds
and over the area in which any facility financed with the
proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the
issuance of the bonds;
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia ("County"); the facilities being
refinanced with the Bonds are located in the County and the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
("Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of
the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board
approve the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving
the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed
upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a FisCal Impact
Statement have been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY T~E BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
Authority for the benefit of the Foundation, as required by
Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code,~).
2. The approval of the issuance of the BOnds does not
constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the
Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Foundation.
3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary
Income Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f)(1), this resolution
shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of
its adoption.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Item 5.2. Appropriation: Education, $960.00 (Form $98039) .
It was noted in the staff's report that at its meeting cn October 12,
1998, the School Board approved an appropriation for Stone Robinson Elementary
School and an appropriation for the V.L. Murray Elementary School Preschool
Program, as follows:
Dr. David Singer and Ms. Diana Venegas donated $300.00 to Stone
Robinson Elementary School for use in purchasing Fourth and Fifth
grade math materials.
November 11, I998 (Regular ~iight Meeting)
(Page 3)
000097
Martha Jefferson Health Services (MJHS) awarded a grant to fund
the Child Health Improvement Grant for the V.L. Murray Elementary
School Preschool Program. The funds will be used to coordinate a
project that includes learning about healthy food choices and
preparation, and growing and harvesting these foods. The parents,
students and teachers will work together to produce a cookbook of
tested recipes.
Staff recommended approval of the appropriations totaling $960.00 as
detailed on Appropriation Form #98039.
By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEA/~: 1998-99
N-UMBER: 98039
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATION FOR STONE ROBINSON AND
V L MURRAY PRESCHOOL GRAlqT
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGOR¥
1 2210 61101 601300
1 3104 60216 601300
DESCRIPTION
INST/REC SUPPLIES
INST/REC SUPPLIES
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$300.00
660.00
$960.00
REVENUE CODE
2 2000 18100 181109
2 3104 18000 181222
DESCRIPTION' AMOUNT
DONATION $300.00
MJH CHILD HEALTH GRANT 660.00
TOTAL $960.00
Item 5.3. Copy of Planning CommissiOn minutes for OctOber 13, 1998, was
received as information.
Item 5.4. Monthly update on the FY 1998-99 Project Schedule from the
Department of Engineering & Public Works as of October 23, 1998, was received
for information.
Item 5.5. Copy of letter dated September 24, 1998, to Cheryl Stockton,
Kirk Hughes & Associates, from Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, re:
Official Determination'of Number of Parcels - Section 10 3.1, Tax Map 89,
Parcel 65, was received as information.
Item 5 6. RepOrt for the First Quarter of FY 1999 for JAUNT services,
was recovered for information.
Item 5.7. Lett%r dated October 29, 1998, to Forrest R. Marshall,
Chairman, from Amy S. Griffith, 'President, Van-on-the-Go, providing notice
that they have applied for authorization by the Virginia Department of Motor
Vehicles to operate as a common carrier for the purpose of providing van
shuttle services in the Central Virginia area, was received as information.
Item 5.8. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority BOard
of Directors for September 28, 1998, was received for information.
(Note: The Board heard the next tWo agenda items concurrently. )
Agenda Item No. 6. SP 98-44. WQMZ Tower (Signs #69 & 74). Public
Hearing on a request to replace an existing 345' tower w/ an approx 520' tower
in accord w/ provisions of Sec 22.2.2(2) of the~Zoning ordinanCe'. TM6i, P192'
consists of 8.96 acs znd C-1. Located in NW corner of interseC of Rio Rd &
Melbourne Rd. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 26
and November 2, 1998.)
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night'Meeting) 00009~
(Page 4)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-98-55. WQMZ Tower (Signs #47 & 48). Public
Hearing on a request to replace an existing 345' tower w/ an approx 520'
tower. The existing tower, & the proposed tower, is located in the flood
plain. Location of tower in flood plain requires SUP in accord w/provisions
of Sec 30.3.5.2.2(4) of the Zoning Ordinance. TM61, P192, consists of 8.96
acres zoned C-1. Located in NW corner of intersec of Rio Rd & Melbourne Rd.
Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 26 and November 2,
1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the joint staff report on these two petitions
which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant proposes to remove
and replace an existing tower located at the intersection of Melbourne Road
and Rio Road. The existing tower is a guyed lattice tower approximately 345
feet tall. The proposed tower will be a guyed lattice tower approximately 520
feet tall. The purpose of the increased tower height is to improve the
coverage provided by WQMZ which is an FM radio station. The new tower may
also be used by personal wireless service providers. The existing tower is
lit, and the proposed tower will also be lit. The proposed tower does not
penetrate into the Airport Protection Overlay District. An increase in the
visibility of the tower does result in potential adverse impact. Staff
contacted City Planning staff who reviewed this project and received no
objections. The area is well within the Development Area of the County, and
all of the potential impacts are to the Development Area.
Mr. Cilimberg said it was staff's opinion that the visual impact is not
extreme and is not unusual in a developed environment. Therefore, it
recommended approval subject to conditions. The Planning Commission, at its
meeting on October 27, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the petition
subject to the conditions recommended by staff, but did make the following
changes:
Condition No. 3 which had stated: "Antennas may~be attached to the
tower only as follows:" was changed to say "All antennas located on the
existing tower may be relocated to the new tower. Additional antennas
may be attached to the tower only as follows:"
Condition No. 3e was added reading: "Ail antenna shall be located such
that no portion of the antenna is more than two (2) feet from the tower
structure."
Condition No. 8 was added reading: "The guy wires for the tower shall
be located in such manner as to not interfere with the proposed Meadow
Creek segment of the Rivanna Greenway Trails. This shall be verified by
Department of Planning and Community Development review of the building
permit."
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board members had questions of staff. There
were none. He then asked if the applicant would like to speak.
Mr. Dan Miller, Manager of Charlottesville Broadcasting Corporation
(CBC), spoke. He said this business is owned by Mr. Larry Richardson who
operates several radio stations in the area. It is a "mom and pop" operation
in the communications industry. They compete with the newspaper and the
television station for news consumers, they compete with the radio stations in
the market for listeners, and with all of these for advertisers. Nationwide,
radio stations have either downsized or eliminated their news departments.
Charlottesville, in the last decade, has seen a doubling of the number of
radio stations, and the only remaining news department is the one at
Charlottesville Broadcasting which focuses on the Charlottesville/Albemarle
region.
Mr. Miller said he has talked with a number of people about the
increased height of the tower on Melbourne Road, and the only comment has been
to ask if it will improve WINA's nighttime signal. Unfortunately, the answer
is "no". People say they like to listen to the 'election coverage, emergency
news, or the University of Virginia games. He reminds them that they should
listen to 95.1 on the FM dial which provides this same coverage. The tower
for 95.1 was moved to Melbourne Road in the early 1960s and it can be seen
from a distance. The proposed tower will look much like the existing tower
with its pulsating red light which is part of the urban skyline.
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
000009
Mr. Miller said the FCC's reclassification of C~ass CFM stations made
them realize it was in their best interest to increase the height of the tower
to the standard for Class A FM stations. He has met with numerous people
during the last year, been to Board meetings, and meetings of the
Telecommunications Task Force, and met with cellular and PCS telephone
providers when it became apparent their collocation on CBC's tower might serve
the CounEy. Recently, they agreed to allow the County Planning Commission to
postpone action on their request when it was found that the City Planning
Commission had not been informed of the request by City staff. Since he met
with the City Planning Commission, they now have no objections to the request.
Since, the County Planning Commission has recommended approval of the request,
he asked that the Board also give its approval.
Mr. Bowerman asked the threshold of a flashing red beacon and a strobe
type light device. He asked if the FAA requires a specific device or if it is
subjective on the part of the tower owner. Mr. Miller said he brought an
engineer to speak to that question.
Mr. Jerry Yacuzzi said the normal consideration by'the FAA for strobe
lights is 500 feet, but that is by use. It does not mean that once the' tower
reaches the 500 foot mark, the light would be a strobe light. The FAA looks
at the towers on what is called "determination of hazard navigation." If the
proposed construction does not propose any hazard to navigation, then the
tower can have a red beacon up to 1000 feet. The proposal by WQMZ and the
clearance they have already obtained from the FAA will allow a flashing red
beacon at the top and at the mid-section of the tower. There will be no
strobe lighting.
Ms. Thomas said she had a question about collocation. She asked what is
already on the tower. Mr. Yacuzzi said there is the FM transmission antenna
backup, STL receiver antennas that allow them to get the signal from their
location to the tower, and also ricochet out for WINA. They are called
"banana peels" because they are not wide, and they are made of lattice steel.
Ms. Thomas said in thinking about the new 200 feet on the tower, it is
the additional panels that will make that portion of the tower visible. For
the most part, the people who now see the tower will be more bothered by the
things that protrude, and during the day. The County has never had a request
for a tower of this height, and she wonders about requiring that any of the
additional collocations be done below the 345-foot level. She asked if
technologically anything would to be higher than 345 feet other than that of
WQMZ. Mr. Yacuzzi said he does not believe any of the cellular providers want
to be above that height. For a two-way wave, whip antennae, there is one
Charlottesville company that is interested in locating at the upper portion of
the tower. Than is a two-way radio provider. For those who do not find it
feasible to locate on Carter's Mountain, this offers an alternative for
location.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing.
Ms. Heidi Parker was present on behalf of Alltel Corporation. She
expressed support of the application. At this time, they are discussing
collocation with Charlottesville Broadcasting. They would coilocate under the
345-foot mark, in fact, it would probably be between 180 and 200 feet. They
would like to be able to collocate without coming to the Board with a special
permit application.
Mr. Paul Grady said he had recently attended several Charlottesville
City Council meetings and several people spoke against the Meadow Creek
Parkway. This worries him. At this time, City Council is split 3:2 in favor
of the Parkway, but he is afraid that a constant barrage of negative assaults
on the Parkway will wear down that support. He believes it behooves this
Board to take action to ally some of that criticism. Mayor Kaye Slaughter
asked if it would be possible for VDOT to purchase adjoining land to add to
McIntire Park to replaCe the land that would be used for the Parkway. The
parcel in question tonight under these petitions is the next adjoining parcel
to McIntire Park.
Mr. Grady asked that the Board deny this tower request, and use its
powers of eminent domain to purchase the property and then offer to sell it to
the City as an extension of the McIntire Park, or sell it to VDOT so they
could sell it to the City to replace the lost park land. He is afraid that if
' ..... O00:LO0
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) ' · -
(Page 6)
the Board does not act immediately, the 30 years of planning for the Meadow
Creek Parkway will "go down the tubes."
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Ms. Thomas said she did not bring up the question of having collocation
antennae under 345 feet, but if there is interest in that idea, the words ~and
shall be below three hundred forty-five (345) feet in height" should be added
to the end of Condition No. 3b. She appreciated the suggestion thaE this land
be added to the Park lands since that has been one of her suggestions for the
Meadow Creek Parkway. With Condition No. 8, the Rivanna Greenway trails will
not be interfered with, and that is probably a good protection for what some
people are worried about, the trails themselves.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to
approve SP-98-44 subject to the following conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission, and with the modification of Condition No. 3b as set out
above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Mr. Martin.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
Tower height shall be limited to five hundred twenty (520)
feet;
The tower shall be designed so that, in the event of
structural failure, the tower and all of its components
will remain within the property;
All antennas located on the existing tower may be
relocated to the new tower. Additional antennas may be
attached to the tower only as follows:
a. Omnidirectional or whip antennas shall not exceed
twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7) inches in
diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the
tower;
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed five
(5) feet in height or two (2) feet in width, shall
be of a color which matches the tower and shall be
below three hundred forty-five (345) feet in height;
c. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are
prohibited;
d. Antennas may be installed in addition to those
installed by the permittee when the tower is first
constructed without amending this special use
permit, provided that all necessary building permits
are obtained from the Building Official and the
antennas otherwise comply with these conditions; and
e. Ail antenna shall be located such that no portion of
the antenna is more than two (2) feet from the tower
structure.
The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used,
for the collocation of wireless telecommunications
providers, as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow wireless
telecommunzcations providers to locate antennas on
the tower and equipment on the site, subject to
these conditions:
(1) The permittee shall provide to the County,
upon request, verifiable evidence that it has
made a good faith effort ~0 allow such
location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith
effort includes, but is not limited to,
evidence that the permittee has offered to
allow other providers to locate on the tower
and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on
a tower and site owned or controlled by
another provider within Albemarle County.
Each outdoor luminary shall be fully shielded such that
all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding
part of the luminary. For purposes of this condition, a
luminary is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp
or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute
the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to
connect the lamps to the power supply. All lightin~ shall
be shielded from public roads. Outdoor lighting, other
than the tower lighting, shall only be on during periods
of maintenance;
The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the
Zoning Ordinance;
The permittee shall obtain En~xneering Department approval
of the tower design prior to receiving a building permit.
The Engineering Department shall review the tower design
to insure that the design is adequate due to its location
within the flood plain; and
The guy wires for the tower shall be located in such a
manner as to not interfere with the proposed Meadow Creek
segment of the Rivanna Greenway Trails. This shall be
verified by Department of Planning and Community
Development revxew of the Building Permit.
~otion was then offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
approve SP-98-55 subject 5o the following conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission, and with the modification of Condition No. 3b as set out
above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
4 o
Tower height shall be limited to five hundred twenty (520)
feet;
The tower shall be designed so that, in the event of
structural failure, the tower and all of its components
will remain within the property;
All antennas located on the existing tower may be
relocated to the new tower. Additional antennas may be
attached to the tower only as follows:
a. omnidirectional or whip~a~ennas sha!i not exceed
twenty (20) feet in height or seven (7) inches mn
diameter, and shall be of a color which matches the
tower;
b. Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed five
(5) feet in height or two (2) fee~ in width, shall
be of a color which matches the tower and shall be
below three hundred forty-five (345) feet in height;
c. Satellite and microwave dish anuennas are
prohibited;
d. Antennas may be installed in addition to those
installed by the permittee when the tower is first
constructed without amending this special use
permit, provided that all necessary building permits
are obtained from the Building official and the
antennas otherwise comply with these conditions; and
e. All antenna shall be located such that no portion of
the antenna ls more than two (2) feet from the tower
structure.
The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used,
for the collocation of wireless telecommunications
providers, as follows:
a. The permittee shall allow wireless
telecommunications providers to locate annennas on
the tower and equipment on the site, subject to
these conditions:
(1) The permittee shall provide to the County,
upon request, verifiable evidence that it has
made a good faith effort to allow such
location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith
effort includes, but is not limited to,
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
7o
000102
evidence that the permittee has offered to
allow other providers to locate on the tower
and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on
a tower and site owned or controlled by
another provider within Albemarle County.
Each outdoor luminary shall be fully shielded such that
all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane
running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding
part of the luminary. For purposes of this condition, a
luminary is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp
or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute
the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to
connect the lamps to the power supply. All lighting shall
be shielded from public roads. Outdoor lighting, other
than the tower lighting, shall only be on during periods
of maintenance;
The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the
Zoning Ordinance;
The permittee shall obtain Engineering Department approval
of the tower design prior to recemving a building permit.
The Engineering Department shall review the tower design
to mnsure that the design is adequate due to its location
within the flood plain; and
The guy wires for the tower shall be located in such a
manner as to not interfere with the proposed Meadow Creek
segment of the Rivanna Greenway Trails. This shall be
verified by Department of Planning and Community
Development review of the Building Permit.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-98-45. Boudreau's Inc. (Signs #82 & 83) . Public
Hearing on a request to establish dance hall w/ restaurant in accord w/
provisions of Sec 24.2.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance. TM61, P124F consists of
1.1 acs znd HC. Located in NW corner of intersec of Rio Rd & Putt Putt Place.
Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 26 and November 2,
1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said
the applicant is proposing to open a restaurant with an area available for
dancing in the location of the former Bonanza RestaUrant and Ninfa~s adjacent
to the Putt Putt on Rio Road East.
Staff limited review of this proposal to the public health, safety and
welfare impacts of the proposed use as it relates to land use impacts created
by the proposed location of the dance hall. Staff found the proposal for a
dance hall to be generally consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1
of the ordinance based on the land use impacts of the use. Staff did not
identify any unfavorable land use issues from the proposed use, and
recommended approval subject to one condition. The Board of Supervisors must
find this request to be consistent with the public's general welfare.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October
13, 1998, unanzmously recommended approval subject to four conditions:
The dance hall portion of the use will only be permitted
from 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.;
Dance area within restaurant area shall be limited to 280
square feet. Dance area at the rear of the restaurant (in
the 3700 square foot area) shall be limited to 1500 square
feet and shall be used only in conjunction with catered
events and private parties;
The applicant will provide two on-site uniformed security
personnel from 8:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. when more than 280
square feet Of dance area~is provided; and
The special use permit will be reviewed after one year.
Mr. Cilimberg said he had some new language to clarify the intent of
Condition No. 4. It would read: "The Zoning Administrator shall investigate
the permmttee's compliance with the terms and conditions of this special use
permit one year from the date of its issuance, and each five-year anniversary
therefrom. Upon concluding each investigation, the Zoning Administrator shall
report her findings to the Board of Supervisors."
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9) a
000103
Mr. Marshall said this applicant seems to want something more along the
line of the operation at the Aberdeen Barn. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the applicant answer that question. He believes
the restaurant is to be the primary activity on the site.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes it will be a place where dancing occurs
while one waits for the meal to be served. The Board has discussed the fact
that many restaurants have facilities for dancing and those facilities do not
have a dance hall permit. Mr. Cilimberg said if only 280 square feet in the
restaurant were proposed for dancing, the Zoning Administrator has indicated
that no special use permit would be required. Mr. Davis said the Zoning
Ordinance definition of Eating Establishment says: "provided that dancing by
patrons shall be considered as entertainment accessory to an eating
establishment provided the space made available for such dancing shall not be
more than one-eighth of that part of the floor area available for dining." In
that case, a dance floor is an accessory use which does not require a special
use permit. When it exceeds that area, it requires a special use permit such
as that before the Board tonight. He is advised that the floor area in
Katy's, which is the facility getting some attention, is less than the one-
eighth of the area for dining, and that is why they do not have a special use
permit.
Mr. Marshall invited the applicant to speak.
Mr. Lloyd Snook was present to represent Boudreau's, Inc. He mentioned
a letter he had sent to Mr. Bill Fritz dated November 4, 1998 (copy on file).
He said the analogy he would draw in terms of the kind of clientele they
expect would be to those at the Aberdeen Barn. Second, they have been told
that included within the 1500 square feet they requested was the space for the
band. If they treat the entire building (it is two buildings structurally) as
one use, they could, without a special use permit, have up to about 850 square
feet available for dancing. They were told they had to count the area for the
band, and because they wanted to make sure at the beginning there was not a
problem such as those encountered at other facilities, that is the reason they
applied for this special use permit, rather than trying to find a way to
describe the project that would not precipitate that. Out of the four
conditions recommended by the Commission, they do not object to the first
condition. They have no problems with the limitations on the area, but they
are concerned about the limitation on catered events and private parties.
Third, providing security personnel is no problem. Fourth, as to the
requirement for the special use permit to be reviewed after a year, etc., he
asked that the criteria on which this would be reviewed be made clear.
Mr. Snook said the Code of Virginia allows the Board to regulate dance
halls. He believes it might be better to do it under those provisions instead
of in land use regulations. The County ordinance, at this point, only
regulates compliance with the Fire Code, and whether min6'~s can be present or
not. As to the special permit, they believe the suggestions he has made, and
the principles with which they agree, would be sufficient to address the
question of general welfare. The facility is actually closer to a Police
substation then it is to any residential uses. Given the kinds of conditions
suggested, they will not become another Katy's.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Snook only objected to Condition No. 2. Mr.
Snook said only to a portion of No. 2. Mr. Marshall said he did not know how
No. 2 would be worded so no special permit is needed. He Was advised by the
County Attorney earlier that if the Board approves this permit the use passes
with the land to the next owner.
Mr. Bowerman asked how many people could be seated if the buildings were
considered as one building. If the back room which was built as a storage
unit were used for seating, it would be a very large restaurant. He asked if
the applicant had environed using that space for seating. Mr. Snook said as
he understands the plan, if the place were filled 'to capacity, 500 people
could be seated in that area. That is not the plan. At this point, he does
not know what land use related assurances he can give about that. As long as
it clear that the fronn part of the use, the restaurant part closest to Rio
Road, is going to be a restaurant, and the special use permit does not apply
to the entire space, then it should be clear that their focus is on the
restaurant with the back room as an accessory. If it was decided that they
wanted to become just another dance hall, that would effectively kill the
restaurant business. The amounn of money that will be put into this as a
restaurant will make that unlikely.
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
000104
Mr. Bowerman said he was trying to follow Mr. Marshall's analogy of the
Aberdeen Barn. There is some area for dancing. They clearly do not have a
large room attached to the faciliny as an accessory use which could be for
catered affairs. They have a dining room, a bar and an area for dancing.
That is typically the type of restaurant situation the Board sees. The front
part of the property could be used as a restaurant, as it has been in the
past, without any special permit being required. There could be a dance band,
a dance floor, and seated patrons eating dinner or dancing. What the
applicant is asking for is separate and distinct from the typical use of a
restaurant with an associated dancing facility.
Mr. Snook agreed. He has not been able to find a comparable use in the
County or City at this time. He understands that having a wedding reception
in that large back room with a band would require that this permit be issued.
The room is equivalent in size to the large room at Alumni Hall. They are
concerned that there are other legitimate uses that do not present a "parade
of horribles."
Mr. Bowerman said Greencroft Club has a dining facility, a dance floor,
and they have wedding receptions there. He asked staff to distinguish that
use from what is being presented to the Board tonight. Mr. Davis said the
size of their dance floor exempts them from the need for a permit for a dance
hall. If it is being operated for something other than a benevolent and
charitable purpose, etc., then it should, under the dance hall ordinance, be
required to have a dance hall permit.
Mr. Bowerman said there are wedding receptions and functions in existing
facilities in the Charlottesville/Albemarle community. He assumes those
functions are legal. Mr. Davis said that from a land use standpoint, he
believes they are.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it makes a difference if these are "membership
only" facilities. Mr. Davis said that makes a difference. If they are open
to the public, it would fall under the dance hall permit requirements. A
wedding reception, not open to the public, would not be a problem. If they
were to hold a dance that was open to the public, that would require a dance
hall permit under Chapter 12 of the County Code.
Mr. Bowerman asked if in this particular situation, with a restaurant in
the front, they could have a wedding reception in the back part of that
facility without a dance hall permit. Mr. Davis said the Zoning Administrator
would have to determine that holding a wedding reception is an accessory use
to a restaurant, and as long as the area was not open to the general public,
it would not requmre a permit under Chapter 12.
Mr. Bowerman said a New Year's Eve Party open to the public would
clearly fall under this classificanion and would require a dance hall permit.
Mr. Davis said this is correcn. Mr. Marshall said he did not understand that,
because he knows those types of parties have been held around the area for
years. Mr. Davis said when the Board discussed dance hall permits last
Spring, it was acknowledged that there are problems with the application of
that ordinance. Mr. Marshall said he bought tickets and attended many of
these functions, but he did not know he was breaking a law. Mr. Davms said in
situations where there is an occasional dance open to the public it is a
different issue than the request under this special use permit application
tonight. That ms an mssue the Board will have to address when it discusses
the dance hall ordinance in the near future.
Mr. Marshall said he is still confused about Condition No. 2. He does
not see that they would be in violation of any laws if they had a New Year's
Eve Party or a wedding. If there were a dance every night, there might be a
problem. He has been to special events (such as events held by the Republic
Party) held at places like the Hilton Hotel or the Mount Vernon Motel, and he
does not see the problem.
Mr. Bowerman said he knows these things take place, and he is trying to
separate them in his own mind. He is trying to understand what the request
before the Board really is. Mr. Davis has said that there is no dance hall
permit issued to anyone in the County at the present time, because Katy's does
non need one. Mr. Davis clarified by saying he was referring to a special use
permit, not a dance hall permit issued under the police powers of the Board
which is required of any place where dancing ms open to the public unless they
are exempt under a special classification.
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Bowerman asked if Katy's has what is being asked for in this case.
Mr. Davis said Katy's does not have a special use permit. The Zoning
Administrator told him today that their floor area for dancing is less than
one-eighth the floor area available for dining. Dancing is an accessory use
to the restaurann and does not require a special use permit.
Ms. Humphris asked if that is not the key to this issue, whether dancing
is "the use", or accessory to dining. Mr. Davis said that is correct. Under
the definition in the County ordinance, the one-eighth ratio is what
determines that need.
Ms. Thomas said the applicant asked if the one-eighth has to include the
space for the band. Mr. Davis said the ordinance says "space made available
for such dancing." The space made available for dancing would probably
include the band itself, although he would have to ask the Zoning
Administrator to be sure that interpretation is correct.
Mr. Snook said if in fact having dancing as an accessory use is the
state of affairs at Katy's, then whether there is a special use permit or
whether it is an accessory use is not the guarantor of the public welfare. In
fact, if something is an ~accessory" and not subject to these further
regulations, that is the kind of place where the problems are occurring. This
applicant is submitting, through the special use permit, to conditions that do
not govern any of the other places in the County. If the Board denies this
special use permit, apparently the applicant could go ahead and make it an
accessory use and have some dancing. That is not what they intend to do.
Another place in the County that he thinks is roughly a comparable size is the
large hall at the East Rivanna Fire Station. The area there for a dance floor
is certainly more than one-eighth of the entire area than is meant for use.
He is not sure of the applicability of these regulations. Maybe the variable
is ~'not open to the public." If that is the case, then the restriction being
urged on the applicant as a special use permit condition makes it unnecessary
for them to have a special use permit. The Board is forcing the applicant to
do that which drives them out of the necessity of a special use permit at all.
Mr. Marshall said that makes sense to him. He asked the County Attorney
to speak. Mr. Davis said if you assume that by not using the 1500 square feet
they are within the one-ezghth ratio, it would not require a special use
permit. He does not know if that is the case. The condition recommended by
the Planning Commission would limit the dance area to 280 square feet.
Mr. Bowerman said the restaurann portion of the facility (the front
portion), woUld be that part typically thought of as the Bonanza.'~ Mr. Davis
said the rest of the facility would simply be for special events only.
Mr. Bowerman said the applicant is arguing that with the conditions
applied it is really more restrictive than what is currently being allowed at
another establishment where the most problems are being experienced. Mr.
Snook said that suggests than the particular restrictions being requested have
no correlation to whether the area will be a problem area. If it has no
rational relationship to the objectives of the Board, then it is not a proper
condition. Furthermore, it would not be an efficacious condition, it would
simply make it more difficult for this business to make money.
Mr. Marshall said what Mr. Snook Said made sense to him. He said
someone needs to tell him he is wrong. Mr. Davis said the issue before the
Board is whether or not it wants a dance hall that is larger than one-eighth
of the dining space available to this restaurant. If the Board approves this
special use permit without resnriction, they could have a dance hall that was
90 percent of the restaurant use. The issue basically boils down to how much
of the restaurant the Board wants to have available as a dance floor.
Mrs. Humphris said it is either a restaurant with a dance hall, or it is
a dance hall with a restaurant, Mr. Cilimberg said this is an application
under "commercial recreation" for a dance hall, so it would not have to have a
restaurann at all. Mr. Tucker said if a restaurant is the sticking point, and
the one-eighth has confused the issue, the application is really before the
Board as a dance hall. Mr. Snook said that is what the applicant had to do
under the County's ordinance. He does not have the option of requesting a
restaurant with dance hall. The applicant has done everything possible to
make clear that that is what they are trying to do. There is an agreement
that the front part of the building will only be a restaurant, and that less
than one-half of the back building will be for dancing. The Board has to
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
decide if the current structure of the Zoning Ordinance allows them to go
forward in the public welfare.
Mr. Davis said he does not want the Board to think it is powerless in
regulating this area. Clearly, the Board has the authority under its land use
authority to deny the special use permit if it is found that the applicant has
a reasonable use of the property without a dance hall, and the other option is
to define the scale of the dance hall as a condition of the special use
permit. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission has said that the dance
hall should be allowed only in conjunction with catered events and private
parties, so it established the level of use of the dance hall. That is what
the applicant is asking the Board to reconsider. Mr. Snook said when the
issue was raised in front of the Commission, he did not grasp what was being
restricted, until after talking about the practical effect of those
restrictions with his clients. Actually, the language was taken from what he
drafted in the application.
Mr. Bowerman said under the Commission approval, there could be a
private New Year's Eve party, catered, but there could not be a public party.
Mr. Snook said that was correct.
Mr. Marshall said the Board undersnands the applicant's request, but the
Board needs to move on. He then opened the hearing to the public.
First to speak was Ms. Nancy Pugh of 973 Liberty Oaks Court in Raintree.
She said both at the Planning Commission meeting and tonight there has been a
lot of focus on the exacn nature of this proposal. It was her understanding
that the special use permit and the conditions would convey with the land, not
with this owner. Since she is a long-term adjacent resident, she feels
conditions should be addressed to insure that over a number of years this will
be a business which is acceptable to the residents. She does not feel the
issue of noise has been addressed. If the band is amplified and the music
lasts from 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., they could hear noise from that location at
their home, and probably at the apartments on Putt-Putt Drive. Mr. Bowerman
said the County now has a Noise Ordinance which is not based on decibels, but
on the evaluation of a police officer. Mr. Davis said it is a nuisance, noise
ordinance. Mrs. Pugh said she would like some type of written assurance. She
would rather prevent the problem before it starts. There have been verbal
assurances that there would be no disturbances off of the property. Mr. Davis
said there is a specific provision in the Noise Ordinance which addresses
places of public entertainment that would prohibit any amplified sound from
emanating from that place.
Mr. Douglas Moore said he lives at 976 Liberty Oaks Court. Like Dr.
Pugh he is also a long-term resident of Raintree Subdivision. One of the
first statements made mentioned the general welfare of the community, and he
questions whether a new type of business, one that has never existed in
Albemarle County, is the most appropriate use for that land in transition
between business and residential. Second, he urged the Board to consider the
concerns voiced by the Police Department in a memorandum to the Zoning
Administrator. Third, is the question of conveyance of the permit. The
residents would not object to a facility such as the Aberdeen Barn, but given
the rapidity at which restaurants in the community change, once a permit is
granted that conveys with the land to a new type of business, he does not
believe it is correct for this location. He asked that the permit be denied.
Mr. Rick Johnson said he lives at 977 Liberty Oaks Court and is also a
member of the Aldersgate Church directly across the road from this proposed
establishment. He will be very impacted if this does occur. He is in favor
of the restaurans, as opposed to what has been proposed tonight. The noise
from varied situations versus the noise from office buildings in an area on
the original plans as a buffer, has been discussed. There has been a hearing
on go-karts for this area, and on a strip mall and its noise versus quiet
offices. It seems that most of this has already come before this Board. It
would be nice to say there will be no nuisance, but it looks like there will
be a nuisance. It may not be from these people. If this passes, nothing can
be done to any future owner. He knows of one location where there have been
four differen5 restaurants in seven years. It would be nice to think these
people would be in the facility forever, and that is what he would like to
see. As a resident of Raintree, before the second light was put up on Rio
Road, there was always the promise that there would not be the traffic
problem. He would ask for a traffic light at the entrance to this facility.
(At this point, the Clerk noted that Mr. Johnson's time for speaking was up.)
November 11, '1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
000/.07
Mr. Gordon Yager was present to speak on behalf of Aldersgate United
Methodist Church which is directly across the street from this proposed
facility. The Church congregation has several concerns, one of those being
traffic along that section of Rio Road. It is very hard to turn left out of
either location. The other~issUe is security of their property and the church
parking area. They want to be sure something zs built into the special use
permit to prevent the kinds of problems that are happening at similar
facilities around the area. Also, after listening to the discussion tonight,
he asked the definition of "catered events and private parties". He said
these are the concerns of the church congregation.
Mr. Lloyd Wood said the issue of noise and the uses that were discussed
at the Planning Commission were in general and in no way were they meant to be
a condition. Only the use of private parties, etc. He built a building on
the front part, and he built a building on the back part, the new addition for
Ninfa's was meant to be a warehouse. That was built with no wmndows and it is
heavily insulated, heated and air-conditioned. There is only one door out of
the back to the dumpster area, and an entrance door on the side to bring in
supplies. For the new tenant, the loading dock area will be closed off.
There is nine inches of insulation in the ceiling, and six inches in the
walls, and there are mnside fire walls. There would be no way for noise to
travel as far as Raintree. All of the other property around it ms commercial,
so there is a proper buffer. The Putt-Putt is in between this building and
the neighbors, and there has been no problem with noise. He asked that the
Board approve the permit.
With no one else from the public rismng to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowerman said he clearly wants to see a use for the property that is
reasonable. He thinks it is fair that one be accommodated. When he first met
on the site with the applicant and a couple of members of the community, it
was not his understanding that the warehouse was going to be a special permit
for the use of the public as a dance hall. He asked them why a special permit
was needed to reopen a restaurant which had been in this location for years.
It was his understanding that in order to have the dance floor, they needed to
have the special permit. He envisioned than they were proposing a restaurant
that would appeal to a particular type of clientele mn a certain price range
for the meals, and there would be a certain ambience, and part of that
ambience would be dancmng associated with the dining expermence. Until he saw
the Planning Commission's action, he did not envision that it was a restaurant
with an associated dance floor for the patrons, as well as the first special
permit for a dance hall facility open to the public an unlimited amount of
time. This may or may not be a problem tomorrow or in the future, but it
could be a problem from day one because of the people who choose to attend a
public sponsored event. That dance hall permit runs with the land.
Mr. Bowerman said there is no way that this Board has anything other
than zoning control to regulate a use and revoke a permit based upon the
conditions applied to that use being violated. It is his experience that the
courts will not enforce violations that are not serious threats to health and
safety. So, a nuisance is something that is dealt with as a nuisance by the
County Police Department, on an on-going basis, and if a nuisance is created
as it is at some establishments, it is an on-going nuisance until that use is
actually abandoned. He does not want to see the fact that the warehouse is
there drive the need to have a dance hall in that location. The physical
facilities were constructed for a prior user, a~d that was an ancillary use
for what they expected to do as a business. It seems that, with respect to
that facility, the use of Bonanza as a restaurant for patrons and dancing
there is an appropriate use, and one he should support, but he does not want
to create the first dance hall in the County at this location. It is a use
that would go with the land and could only be controlled as a nuisance. The
Board has created attractive nuisances in the past, and has not been able to
"uncreate" them. He does not believe he can support a special permit for a
dance hall that is a separate and distinct use from a restaurant with dining
and dancing facilities.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman could support it with the conditions
laid out by the Commission. Mr. Bowerman said "no" because those conditions
would run with a user three years from now who wanted to do whatever was
popular at the time.
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
00010S
Mr. Marshall said Mr. Bowerman is not supporting what the Commission
recommended. Mr. Bowerman said what he supports is the use of a restaurant in
that location with an associated dance floor, and he wishes them the best of
success. The facility that is behind it does not have to be used for a
restaurant facility. An application could be made to use it for something
else. Just because it is there is not enough justification for Mr. Bowerman
to approve the first special permit for a dance hall in Albemarle County with
the conditions the Commission recommended, since they do not even require that
they be private parties, according to the County Attorney. There could be one
party a year or there could be 365. Mr. Davis said that under the language
proposed by the Commission, that is correct.
Ms. Humphris said she believes Mr. Bowerman has stated the situation
well. She disagreed with the part of the staff report that said using this
building for a restaurant with an area for dancing will not be inconsistent
with the past use of this site. To her, what has been proposed is very
inconsistent with the past use of the site. Based on the Board's experience
of being helpless after taking an action such as this in granting a special
use permit, and the fact that it has no way to deal with a problem when
something goes wrong, and the fact that the permit does run with the land, she
agrees with Mr. Bowerman. She said it needs to be a restaurant with dancing
as an accessory use and not a dance hall. She does not support this special
use application.
Mr. Marshall said he was looking at the particular piece of property,
and what type of use it would contain. What he is hearing from the Board is
that it is splitting that piece of property in two, because he does not
believe one tenant will rent the entire piece of property. Ms. Humphris said
that is not the Board's problem. The marketing of that piece of property has
nothing to do with this Board and its decision. It has to make the correct
land use decision for this and that neighborhood. What if everything did not
work out beautifully? What could the Board do?
Mr. Marshall said it is one piece of property the Board is trying to
make two pieces out of. Mr. Bowerman said that is based on past decisions
that were business decisions.
Mr. Wood said he is the property owner on all sides of this site except
toward the mall. He does not have a problem with the special use permit being
specifically for this particular use for the term of the lease or the extended
terms of the lease. The chances of a dance hall getting to the status that it
has been elevated to here tonight is not likely at all, and if these
applicants decide not to continue in business mn three to ten years, it is not
likely that there would be one to step in and follow it.
Mr. Marshall said he understands, but the public hearing has been
closed. He asked if any other Board member had a statement.
Ms. Thomas said she is not fearful of a dance hall, but is also not
convinced that this is the place for it in the community. She believes there
is a reasonable use of this property without turning it into a dance hall.
She does not have as big a problem with the petition as Mr. Bowerman does, but
she believes his reasoning is good. This is not a decision the Board has to
make.
Mr. Bowerman said the use can be expanded into that back area and allow
for a use which is consistent with what is proposed which meets the one-eighth
requirement. Parties can be held in that area without having a special permit
for something else. Mr. Davis said the denial of the special use permit would
not deny them the right to have a dance floor, it would just need to be one-
eighth of the area they use for a dining facility. That could include the
warehouse, as well as the front part of the building, if they chose to design
their facility that way.
Mr. Perkins said the conditions recommended are then more restrictive
except for the catered events. Mr. Tucker said there is no need for a special
permit or the conditions if the facility meets the ratio requirements.
Mr. Bowerman said if they are successful, they would be able to do these
things like any other restaurant with a dance floor with catered events. Mr.
Tucker said that is true, it would be a by-right use. Mr. Davis said as
proposed they could have 1500 square feet for dancing that would exceed the
one-eighth ratio for catered events open to the public and special parties.
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
000:1.09
For purposes of the special use permit, a dance hall makes no distinction as
to whether or not it is a private party or open to the public.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board approves the permit as recommended, they
could do what Mr. Davis ~ust said. If the Board denies the permit, and they
operate as a restaurant without a special use permit, they cannot do whan Mr.
Davis just described. Mr. Davis said that is correct. They would be limited
to a dance floor that is one-eighth of the area that would otherwise be used
for dining.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman to deny SP-98-45. The motion
was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
A~SENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item no. 9. SP-98-48. Thomas F. Starke Restaurant (Sign #71).
Public Hearing on a request to allow for the conversion of video store to
restaurant as commercial use in an industrial zone in accordance with Sec
27.2.2.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. TM56A3, PgB. Znd LI. Located near Rt 240
across the street from the main entrance to Con-Agra. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on October 26 and November 2, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarmzed the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said
the applicant proposes to convert an existing building located at 5384 Three
Notch'd Road (Route 240 across from Con-Agra) from a video store to a
restaurant to be called Crozet Snack Corner. The building has been operated
as a video store for the past 16+ stores. At one time, the building was also
used for a restaurant use. The Snack Corner is in another location in Crozet
and has outgrown its area, and the buildings in which it is presently located
is for sale. The proposed restaurant would have approximately 1300 square
feet of floor area, seat about 50 people, and have Con-Agra employees as its
delivery service area.
Mr. Cilimberg said when staff reviewed the request, it looked at all
factors relating to uses zoned for a different use than that recommended in
the Land Use Plan. Staff believes that when the Board left the zoning intact
in the 1980's, it anticipated redevelopment of the area. As a result, there
are uses that would likely not be removed to become Rural Area uses. In the
recent past, the Board has approved a veterinary clinic and the new Crozet
Elementary School in this area. In general, staff has generally discouraged
rezonings and special uses for substantial new development in this area. In
this instance, the conversion of a commercial building from one use to another
to support an existing industry is viewed to be advantageous to the community
of Crozet.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff recommended approval of this special use
permit in general accord with the undated sketch plan entitled, ~Sketch of
Thomas Starke Property", subject to conditions. He said that the Planning
Commission, at it meeting on October 6, 1998, unanimously recommended approval
subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Marshall asked if Board members had questions for staff.
Ms. Thomas said after looking at all of the concerns noted by staff,
there was one concerning tanks ("Fire and Rescue personnel ramsed concerns
with the presence of underground fuel storage tankS."). She asked if that
will be taken care of under another law so it does not have to be included as
a condition. Mr. Cilimberg suggested the applicant be allowed to reply to the
question.
Mr. Marshall invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Thomas Starke said he
owns the property. Texaco owns the underground tanks. He has given copies of
all the legal contracts concerning these tanks to County staff. The tanks
have been mn the ground for over 20 years. He was told by County staff that
the tanks will be removed by the first of the year.
At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. With no one from
the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed.
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
O001 O
Mr. Perkins said he assumes everybody has read the staff report and
realizes that the property was used as a restaurant in the past. He thinks it
is something that will fit well in the area. He then offered motion to
approve SP-98-48 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below.)
1. A modified sketch plan drawn to scale and field verified
Shall be submitted to show:
a. existing and proposed conditions of the site. Any
improvements that have been removed should also be
removed from the sketch plan;
b. parking which meets the requiremenus of the Zoning
Ordinance. Parking spaces located in the existing
entrances must be removed or the entrances may be
decreased and shifted to eliminate the conflict. If
the entrances are decreased, a minimum VDOT width
must be maintained;
c. lighting, if used, which meets the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance; and
d. a date, existing zoning, the use, and setbacks of
the district.
2. Approval by the Building Inspector and Albemarle County
Service Authority for compliance with State and local
requirements.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-98-21. William M. Patterson (Sign #49).
Public Hearing on a request to rezone 3.49 acs from RA to R-1. TM55, Pt04A.
Located on N sd of Rt 250 W approx 1/2 mi W of the westernmost Rt 240/250
intersec. The site is predominantly in the Crozet Development Area. White
Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 26 and November 2,
1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said
the applicant is requesting this amendment to accommodate their partially
disabled son who currently lives in a three-story home on an adjacent parcel.
The applicant would like to build a single-story home on their parcel.
Mr. Cilimberg said while the applicant is request that the property be
rezoned to R-1 allowing them to build two additional dwelling units, they have
stated their intent to build only one additional unit. While this is not as
dense as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, it is an increase in overall
density. The parcel is located on the edge of the Development Area and more
rural densities. It was staff's opznion that allowing this change would not
negatively impact the character of the area.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 6,
1998, unanimously recommended approval of rezoning 3.49 acres from Rural Areas
to R-l, Residential, for construction of an additional dwelling. The Planning
Commission asked if a proffer could be offered, and a written proffer has been
received, stating: "Not more than two dwelling units shall be constructed,
located or maintained on the property." The petition is recommended for
approval as proffered.
Mr. Marshall asked if there were questions of staff.
Ms. Thomas said the property is close to the line and some
recommendations would be that there be more dwelling units on the property,
while others might be for less. Mr. Cilimberg said staff did not see the need
for the proffer considering where the property is located, and with the
density proposed. The Plannmng Commission did wanu a proffer.
Ms. Humphris said the Commission's minutes showed concern over the
possibility of extending the development area more than one extra dwelling
O001ii
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17) i
without going into a complete study as to whether that development area should
be expanded or not.
Mr. Marshall invited the applicant to speak. Mrs. Theresa Patterson
said the house will be built for she and her husband. Over the last several
years, her husband has become disabled and cannon climb steps, so they want to
build a one-story structure. They have sold their existing house.
Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearing. With no one from the
public rzsing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Perkins said if there were no questions from Board members, he would
move approval of ZMA-98-21, for the rezoning of 3.49 acres from Rural Areas to
R-1 for construction of an additional dwelling, which allows for only one
additional h0mesite to be built on the property, as set out on the attached
Proffer Form, signed by William and Jean Patterson, and dated October 27,
1998. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-98-22. Wilton Country Homes (Signs ~51 & 53).
Public Hearing on a request to amend the existing proffers of ZMA-94-07 to
permit increase by one, the number of permitted lots between Wilton Farms
Drive & Rt 20. TM78B, Psl7A & 17B, consists of approx 0.466 acs znd R-10.
Located on the E sd of Rt 20 (Stony Point Road) at entrance to Wilton Farms.
Rivanna Dist. (This site is recommended for Urban Density Residential [6-34
du/ac] in Neighborhood 3.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 26
and November 2, 1998.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said
the existing proffers limit the number of permitted dwellings between Wilton
Farm Drive and Route 20 to four units. The applicant is requesting that one
additional unit be permitted. Ail of the units between Wilton Farm Drive and
Route 20 are single-family, detached units.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff was not able to identify any reason that the
prior proffer limited the number of units to four as opposed to the five
currently being requested, other than it appeared to be the applicant's
anticipated development and marketing strategy. No adverse impact ms
anticipated no be caused by one additional lot and the proffers originally
proposed for screening will be adequate for this additional lot. Staff
recommended approval with the proposed proffers which have been modified only
to increase the number of permitted lots by one and to clarify the required
landscaping.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 6,
1998, unanmmously recommended approval of amending the existing proffers of
ZMA-94-07 to permit increase by one the number of permitted lots in the Wilton
Country Homes Subdivision. Approval was subject to the applicant's proffers
being revised to include the most recenn approved landscape plan.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board members had any questions of staff.
Ms. Thomas asked how this facility is physically related to the day care
facility. Mr. Cilimberg said that is across the new Fontana entrance road to
the north. Ms. Thomas said when the day care request was before the Board,
they were required to build sidewalks along the road. She is again concerned
about sidewalks along the entrance, as well as general sidewalks along Route
20. She asked Mr. Cilimberg to speak concerning this issue. Mr. Cilimberg
said he does not remember if the sidewalks were to be constructed on one side,
or both sides of the new entrance. He believes that is a rural cross-section
of road, and on the two lots which are already in existence there are homes.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board could require sidewalks on the south side
of the Fontana entrance. Mr. Cilimberg said he is not sure what that would
accomplish in terms of the overall hazard. He said the sidewalk on the other
side of Fontana is a part of the system, and it would not lead to any other
sidewalk facility. He does not know if that accomplishes anything. It is
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
000112
also a section of road that this developer is no5 building, so he does not
have direct control over it.
Mr. Bowerman samd there is another aspect to that sidewalk. The Darden
Towe Park Committee met recently and discussed the connection of Wilton Farms
and Route 20 and the pathway system, and the Rivanna Greenbelt; that whole
concept of pedestrian access ms an mmportant aspect of the Park. Ms. Thomas
asked if there is anything the Board should do with this application to tie it
zn. Mr. Bowerman said the Board needs to require, whenever it can, as much
foresight as possible knowing that at some point there will probably be a
connection to the Rivanna Greenway in the City by footbridge across from
Darden Towe Park. Ms. Thomas said she just wanted to be sure the Board is
taking opportunities when they are presented to get sidewalks where they are
appropriate, particularly in that area where the County ms about to put a lot
of County-money into a sidewalk along Route 20. She does not know if that
sidewalk will extend out Route 20 to this property. She knows it is a
concern, and just wants to be sure this opportunity ms not lost, if it is
really an opportunity. What Mr. Cilimberg said is that it does not make much
sense to have a sidewalk on this side of the road, and it is not this
applicant and if it should have been there, it should have been done before.
She finds those to be fairly compelling reasons for not pursuing this. Mr.
Bowerman said he does not believe in this case it makes sense.
Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant would care to speak. Mr. Tom
McCrystal said he is present to represent Dr. Phillip Sansone. Fontana ms
installing that road so the applicant would have no control over sidewalks,
and the sidewalk would not go any where.
Mr. Bowerman asked that the applicant be mindful of the runoff from the
site because that runoff does go through Darden Towe Park. Mr. McCrystal said
he imagines the engineers have worked out those things. It is a bit above his
skill level.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the
public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed
before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris,
to approve ZMA-98-22, which amends the existing proffers of ZMA-94-07 to
permit an increase by one the number of permitted lots in the Wilton Country
Homes Subdiviszon, as se5 out on the attached Proffer Form (on file), signed
by Philip A. Sansone, and dated October 15, 1998.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
(Note: The proffers are set out in full below.)
PROFFER FORM
Date: Oct 15, 1998
ZFDA# 98-22
Tax Map Parcel(s) # 76-R Parcels 17A & 17B
0.466 Acres to be rezoned from R-10 to
R-10
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be
applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed
that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation
to the rezoning requested.
Development shall be mn general accord with the plat dated
July 20, 1998 showing five single family .lots between
State Route 20 and Wilton Farm Road.
A 25 foot landscaping buffer easement consisting of
plantings and berm as shown on the attached plan initialed
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
"WDF 10/14/98" shall be installed by July 1, 1999 and
shall be thereafter maintained.
Philip A. Sansone (Siqned)
98
Signatures of Ail Owners
Philip A. Sansone, M.D. 10-15-
Printed Names of Ail Owners Date
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: March 20(A), 1995; March
24(A), 1997; September 9, September 16 and October 14, 1998.
No minutes had been read.
Agenda Item No. 13. Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting of November
18, 1998.
Mr. Marshall said this meeting needs to be canceled since all hearings
scheduled have been requested by the applicant for deferral to February 10.
First, motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to
defer ZMA-98-13, ZMA-98-23 and SP-98-46, which had been scheduled to be heard
on November 18, 1998, until February 10, 1999. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Next, motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to
cancel the regular Board meeting of November 18, 1998, because there are no
items scheduled to be heard on that date. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins,
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Ms. Thomas,
Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Davis said a request has been received from the Scottsville
Volunteer Rescue Squad to authorize a service agreement so that they can
obtain an additional $50,000 from the Fire Fund for additional use for the
construction of the rescue squad building mn Scottsville. They previously
entered into an agreement for other funds in May, 1996. They need an
additional $50,000 to help complete the project. Staff recommends that they
be allowed to obtain that additional $50,000 under the same terms and
conditions that the money was obtained in May, 1996. He asked that the Board
authorize the County Executive to enter into a service agreement that would
enable that to occur.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
authorize the County Executive to enter into the following service agreement
with the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Mr. Martin.
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of November, 1998, by
and between the COUI~TY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political
subdivision (the "County") and the SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER RESCUE
SQUAD, INC., a Virginia Corporation, (the ~'Rescue Squad").
W~EREAS, the Rescue Squad agrees to continue to provide
valuable rescue squad services mn Albemarle County in its
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
000114
delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps
located at the Emergency Operations Center ("Service Area"); and
W~EREAS, the Rescue Squad desires the County to contribute
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to complete construction of a
rescue squad building in said Service Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above
stated premises the County and Rescue Squad agree, as follows:
1. The County shall contribute to the Rescue Squad Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to be used to complete construction
of a rescue squad building in Albemarle County. The funds shall
be allocated from the County's Fire Fund (~Fund") and shall be
made available upon demand after the execution of this
Agreement.
2. The Rescue Squad agrees that the County will withhold
Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars and Thirty-
Five Cents ($3,333.35) from the County's annual appropriation to
the Rescue Squad's operating budget beginning July 1, 1999, and
ending after a final withholding in the amount of Three Thousand
Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars and Ten Cents ($3,333.10) in
July, 2013. Thus at the end of fifteen (15) years, which is the
term of this Agreement, a total of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000) shall be withheld. This withholding may be used by
the County to replenish the Fund for so long as the County, at
its discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding shall be
in addition to the withholding pursuant to the preexisting
February 3, 1995 and May 15, 1996 Service Agreements.
3. The Rescue Squad agrees that the Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($50,000) contribution shall be used only for the
construction of a rescue squad building in the Service Area in
Albemarle County. The Rescue Squad further agrees that
improvements shall be owned and titled jointly with the County
and that both the Rescue Squad and the County shall be named
insured on any insurance for the property.
4. The Rescue Squad agrees that at such time as it no
longer provides volunteer rescue squad services in Albemarle
County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County,
that it shall convey all of its interest in the property
described in paragraph 3, including all appurtenances thereto
and improvements thereon, to the County at no additional cost to
the County upon the County's request.
5. The County and Rescue Squad. agree that the covenants
set forth in their prior agreements dated October 15, 1987, July
19, 1989, March 16, 1993, February 3, 1995, and May 15, 1996, to
the extent they are not mn conflict with this Agreement, shall
remain in full force and effect.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent
additional appropriations by the County to the Rescue Squad, at
the discretion of the County Board of Supervisors, to support,
enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Rescue
Squad.
Mr. Perkins said he had discussed with the County Attorney the fact that
he had received a telephone call from a disturbed patron about an advertising
poster at Fashion Square Mall. He has not seen it, but it is apparently a
larger-than-life-size poster, and the lady who called said she was offended by
it. She approached the store about taking it down, but they said they were
forced to put it up because it is national chain store. He does not know what
this Board could do about the complaint. Mr. Bowerman noted that there was a
memorandum on the table tonight from Tom and Jennie Carter, concerned
citizens, about this. At the bottom of the memo, there is a pencil notation
that the advertisement was taken down today, but they feel this zssue should
be addressed for future incidents. Mr. Davis said the First Amendment gives a
great deal of protection to speech and this would be considered speech under
the Constitution. It could be regulated by the State and under State Code
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Initials ~
November 11, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
sections only if it were deemed to be obscene. Based on the description (in
the memorandum), it appears to be unlikely that this would meet the obscenity
standard that would be applicable. This is a matter this Board has little
ability to deal with. If someone thinks obscenity is being displayed, the
remedy would be to go to the Commonwealth's Attorney and ask them to
investigate it.
Ms. Humphris said she just finished reading the entire memo. It seems
to her that the issue has been dealt with, and this Board obviously has no
right to restrict what businesses do in their advertising, and these people
did the right thing, and it was effective.
Ms. Thomas said she received a call from her appointee to the Social
Services Board who wanted to say how wonderfully she thought the Department
was doing in the face of their computer limitations. They have been working
on nights and weekends, whenever the State computers are available to them, to
get the work done. She thought they are doing a fine job, and the Board
should know about it.
Ms. Thomas presented a draft of a flyer concerning a meeting about the
Route 29 corridor south of Charlottesville. It is going to be studied in the
same way as the corridor north of Charlottesville was studied.
Mr. Bowerman said he will make an appointment to the Equalization Board
at the December 2, 1998, meeting.
Ms. Humphris said she would contact Mr. James Skove, her appointee on
the Industrial Development Authority, to check about reappointment.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Chairma4~