1995-11-15November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
000 90
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on November 15, 1995, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:00 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
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.
Present to speak about the new high school was Mr. John Carter saying
the idea of having cross ventilation in the classrooms (now known as studios)
has created the need for three separate buildings instead of one. Cross
ventilation in a room can only occur when there are windows on different
walls. In this case, it means that all rooms must be located in the corner of
a larger room, and to cross ventilate 24 rooms, separate buildings have to be
built. He wondered how much cross ventilation will cost for this school. It
can reasonably be expected that cross ventilation will be a lot of money, but
it will not count toward the $2.0 million the Supervisors have appropriated.
He next asked about the problems that cross ventilation is supposed to
resolve. Cross ventilation supposedly creates a reduction in congestion,
fatigue, headaches and blackouts caused by pollutants such as chemicals,
sprays, perfumes, soaps and carcinogenic agents. This is what the supporters
of cross ventilation claim, and he shudders to think what is going on in the
other school rooms and studios where there is no cross ventilation. He thinks
it is unfortunate the environmentalists removed this program from the Supervi-
sors' inspection and put it where it cannot be touched.
Mr. Jim Eddins from the County's Historic Preservation Committee was
present to request that the cost of a staff planner for historic preservation
be included in the next budget. The Committee has been working since June,
and the Board of Supervisors has asked them to examine preservation programs
both voluntary and mandatory. Other localities in Virginia have been exam-
ined, as far as what they are and have been doing. There has to be an
educational component, as well as an effective partnership between the County
government and private volunteer organizations. This means there needs to be
funding, for a position of staff planner for historic preservation. The
advantages of having such a person is there will be interfacing at the
national, state and local level with other localities, both on the governmen-
tal side and on the organizational side. There is also a need for interfacing
to be done with private property owners and developers with preservation-
related businesses, and with County officials, as well as members of the
County staff. The advantages of this position is a savings in time on matters
which can be worked out by this planner, as far as education and the contacts
the planner would have with the different organizations. The planner would
also have access to incentives and knowledge of grants, which otherwise would
have to drift in by osmosis. He suggested the Supervisors consider this
position when they are working on the budget.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs.
Humphris, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve item 5.1 and to accept the
remaining items on the consent agenda as information.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Item 5.1. Resolution of Intent to rezone properties adjacent to Berkmar
Drive.
It was noted in the staff's report that all plats for the Berkmar Drive
rightzof-way have now been put to record and the road is open making the
adjacent properties available for development. Previously, the Board wanted
00019:[
November 15, 1995 {Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
to have the road divide the zoning With commercial on the eastern side and
residential on the western side.
The plats that were put to record last year divided zoning districts and
left several parcels with strips of residential zoning beside the larger
portions of Highway Commercial on the eastern side of the road. If left that
way, the residential adjacent to the commercial would regulate certain
setbacks for both structures and parking in the commercial portions of these
properties. Staff has notified all property owners by letter that this
rezoning is proposed. There is no public purpose in leaving the zoning the
way it is now. It only hinders the owners when they attempt to develop.
Therefore, it is a benefit to both the property owners and the County to
undertake the rezoning in one procedure rather than the individual owners
dealing with it on a piecemeal basis.
By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of intent
was adopted:
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, does hereby
state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map to change
the zoning district designation for certain parcels of land adjacent
to and on the eastern side of Berkmar Drive between Woodbrook Drive
and Hilton Heights Road. These changes are necessary due to the
Berkmar Drive right-of-way acquisition which divided parcels by
zoning districts. The alignment of the road divided two residential
zoning districts, thereby creating "strips" of R-6 and R-15 zoning
that were added to parcels zoned HC, Highway Commercial. This
amendment will rezone those strips so that the effected parcels will
not be split by zoning districts.
Parts of Parcels 68, 68C, 68C1, l12B, and 109E on Tax Map 45
will be considered, as follows:
1. TMP45-68:
Parcel A of 7453.87 sq. ft. (shown on a Wiley and
Wilson plat recorded at Deed Book 1446, page 129)
zoned R-t5 was added to Parcel 68 on 12/16/94.
This area is proposed to be rezoned to HC.
(TMP45-68E to 68)
2. TMP45-68C:
An unidentified strip of R-15 zoning (estimated
to be 9400 sq. ft.) is now on the east side of
Berkmar Drive and is part of what is identified
as Residue A on a plat by Wiley and Wilson re-
corded in Deed Book 1439, page 196. This area is
proposed to be rezoned to HC. {TMP45-68C [divid-
ed into 68C and C2])
3. TMP45-68Cl:
Parcel A of 1636.34 sq. ft. (shown on a Wiley &
Wilson plat recorded at Deed Book 1447, page
668), zoned R-6 was added to Parcel 68Cl on
12/27/94. This area is proposed to be rezoned to
HC. (TMP45-80 to 68C1)
4. TMP45-112B:
A strip of R-6 zoning was split into three piec-
es. Two of these were added to parcels which are
zoned HC while the third piece was added to a
parcel also zoned R-6. Parcel Z of 2637.44 sq.
ft. was added to parcel 68C1 and parcel Y of
4691.21 sq. ft. was added to parcel l12B (both
shown on a plat by Thomas B. Lincoln recorded at
Deed Book 1380, page 493). These two pieces are
proposed to be rezoned to HC. (TMP45-81 to 68C1
& l12B)
5. TMP 109E:
A strip of approximately one acre of R-6 zoning
is now on the east side of Berkmar Drive and is
currently identified as parcel 109E. (The right-
of-way was shown on a Wiley and Wilson plat
recorded at Deed Book 1428, page 546, and was
taken from what was then parcel 109.) The other
3.18 acres of 109E is zoned HC. The estimated
one acre is proposed to be rezoned to HC.
(TMP45-109 to 109E)
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting
(Page 3)
O00 .gZ
Item 5.2. Status of efforts to address utilities during development of
sites, was received as information.
The staff report indicates that Mr. Bowerman had previously asked staff
to look into possible ways to better plan for utilities and utility structures
in development of new projects. This had been raised as a citizen concern
regarding the proliferation of utility boxes in residential areas. Staff has
discussed this both in terms of regulation and voluntary measures. Regulatory
measures, such as requirements for screening of structures or sharing of
underground corridors and easements, are not advisable. The County Attorney
advised against such based on his experience with such an effort in Stafford
County. There were legal questions raised as well as concerns about resulting
easement widths and their affect on building area and other landscaping.
Voluntary measures may hold more promise. For some time now the County staff
has been discussing with VDOT the possibility of relaxing utility restrictions
in VDOT right-of-way. In addition to the Albemarle County Service Authority,
Virginia Power and Sprint/Centel are interested in discussing utility place-
ment issues as they might relate to both VDOT and other development issues.
There is an opportunity in this venue to discuss overall consideration for
utilities that could result in better planning and coordination.
Staff recommends pursuing better overall planning for utilities through
an expansion of efforts already underway to address utilities in VDOT right-
of-way.
5.3. Notice dated November 2, 1995, of an application filed with the
State Corporation Commission by Hyperion Telecommunications of Virginia, Inc.,
for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide interexchange
telecommunications services and to have its rates determined competitively,
was received as information.
Item 5.4. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for October 31 and
November 7, 1995, was received as information.
Item 5.5. Copy of letter dated November 10, 1995, from Mr. David J.
Hirschman, Water Resources Manager to Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer,
Department of Transportation, re: report on Route 614 road improvements -
Sugar Hollow, was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Initiatives for 1996-97 Operating
Budget.
Mr. Perkins asked if Board members had any comments to make regarding
initiatives for the FY 1996-97 operating budget.
Since there were no remarks by the Supervisors, Mr. Perkins opened the
public hearing.
Mr. John Carter said the budget is a contract between the people and the
government where government officials promise to provide a certain amount of
service for a certain amount of dollars. Supposedly the County has $6.0
million in extra funds for next year, and he asked how much was left over last
year. Mr. Tucker replied that there was $1.2 million in extra funds last
year. Mr. Carter disagreed and said $3.2 million was put into the new school.
He next mentioned the County's property tax based on 72 cents per one hundred.
He suggested the County give a tax refund to the citizens when there are
excess funds left over at the end of the fiscal year. It would then be much
easier when more money is needed by the County for the officials to ask for it
back from the public. The property tax has been 72 cents per one hundred for
years, and there has been too much of an excess year after year. When there
is $5.0 million or $6.0 million in excess funds, it figures out to be close to
12 cents per one hundred. In his opinion, the County officials are basically
telling the public they can run the County at 60 cents per one hundred, but
they are going to keep the other 12 cents. He considers this action as raising
his taxes by 12 cents. He recognizes this is rather startling and few people
think of things this way. He remarked that there are always projects, but
somewhere along the line, he thinks the general public should reap some of the
benefits, instead of it all going into more government and higher salaries,
etc. After all, the citizens provided the money in the first place.
Ms. Betty Newell thanked the Supervisors for the opportunity to share
her feelings about priorities for the coming year. She serves as Executive
Director for the Charlottesville Free Clinic, and she is also a resident of
the Scottsville District. She feels the greatest unmet health needs in this
community are the availability of dental care and psychiatric drugs for iow
income adults, and medications for iow income seniors. She sees the need for a
less restrictive overnight shelter for homeless persons in this community.
She encouraged County officials to think carefully about the impact the
changes on the state and federal levels are going to have on local health and
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
000 .93
human services. She thinks welfare reform is a step in the right direction,
but she feels the underlying problem needs. She does not think that most of
the people on welfare are going to get jobs with good health benefits. She
would like to see this community focus on helping families, no matter how the
family unit is defined. She is concerned when she reads in the newspaper
about high corporate salaries being 135 times more than the lowest salary, and
there is a growing disparity between people in a corporation and people who
are actually doing the work. A lot of these corporations have benefitted
because businesses are hiring part-time people and temporary people. If only
a part-time or temporary person is needed, then that is one thing, but she
thinks this situation can be seen as a way to reduce overall payroll costs by
not paying benefits. She thanked the Board of Supervisors for its support
over the last three years. She appreciates this Board's support of a perma-
nent home for the Free Clinic, and looks forward to working with the Supervi-
sors in the future. She hopes the Free Clinic has met the Supervisors'
expectations and lived up to the tasks facing it, as far as County funding is
concerned.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Perkins closed the public
hearing.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-95-05. Commercial Stables. Public Hearing on a
proposal to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning
Ordinance, to permit commercial stables by right, and to include all necessary
supplementary regulations related thereto (deferred from October 11, 1995).
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 25 and October 2, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board held a public hearing on this item last
month. He noted that the County Attorney has prepared two alternative
ordinances for the Board to consider. Alternative "A" represents the language
recommended by the Planning Commission, and Alternative "B" reflects some
thoughts expressed by Board members at the public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg then
explained the differences in the two proposals.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks Alternative "B" embodies the type of
comments she made at the public hearing. She regards riding stables as an
agricultural pursuit, and it is the type of agricultural pursuit on which the
whole Comprehensive Plan is based. County officials try to encourage the
preservation of land for agricultural pursuits. Alternative "B" does this,
and it also is a positive benefit for many people in this community. Without
a numerical designation for the horses, this makes it a commercial stable
whenever there are horses or ponies and something is being done with them for
which there is compensation other than breeding. The person could be offering
instruction, lessons or trail rides for horses or ponies. The proposal picks
up the regulations that stables supposedly have been under all along, such as
having a riding surface in which they try to minimize dust and erosion and
having fencing maintained at all times. She noted that horses on roads can
cause deaths of people as well as animals, so she thinks fencing is a legiti-
mate regulation. She does not feel strongly about the dust regulation because
dust is part of any agricultural pursuit in a dry season, but the regulation
simply says that it will be minimized, and this seems a worthy goal. She has
no concerns about the supplementary regulations or the definition.
At this time, Mrs. Thomas made a motion to approve Alternative "B" to
adopt an ordinance relating to ZTA-95-05, Commercial Stables. Mrs. Humphris
seconded the motion.
Mr. Marshall said the term, "commercial stables" has not yet been
defined, and he does not see how the ordinance can be enforced. He agrees
that commercial stables should exist in the County, but his concern relates to
the impact they will have on neighbors, and particularly the neighbors who
came to the public hearing to complain about the private road situation. This
issue needs to be addressed, and this ordinance does not seem to do so. On
the other hand, he does not want to put restrictions on commercial stables to
the point where they have to go out of business. He does not know how to
describe the tax structure for such a business, but the way the businesses
will be taxed, will make it difficult for the owners to operate. He talked to
someone with a small operation, and if this person had to pay a tax, it would
force him, as well as other people, out of business. He asked how this
situation can be remedied. He does not see where either one of these alterna-
tives can handle his concerns. Now such situations are handled with a special
use permit, and he does not see why this cannot continue.
Mrs. Thomas said most agricultural pursuits are by-right, not under
special use permits. Mr. Marshall said agricultural use has to be defined,
and a commercial stable is not an agricultural use, per se. He added that
raising and breeding horses are agricultural uses. However, a commercial
operation, by the word itself, is not an agricultural use; it is a commercial
use.
Mr. Marshall remarked that neighbors' rights have to be protected when
they complain about a particular stable. This can be done by issuing special
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
000194
use permits. He referred to the people who live on Mechunk Acres Road who
indicated that horse trailers travel the road all the time, and that there
were other activities going on in this particular area which were not going on
before. Residents are being disturbed by all of these activities. He asked
what can be done to protect these people. He mentioned that one of his cows
got out and went into a neighbor's yard a couple of days ago. He had to go
get the cow and pay for any damages. In this particular case, Mr. Marshall
believes if a horse trailer is tearing up the road, then the responsible
individual should be made to repair it. He mentioned, too, that fences are
being torn down, and the owners need to be made to repair them.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she does not think because a group of people
went to the Board of Zoning Appeals and did not like the results that the
Zoning Ordinance should be rewritten. The principle indicating that agricul-
tural pursuits are of great value in this community is a principle which has
undergirded a lot of decisions made by this Board. She believes this way of
approaching riding stables is one way to simply carry on with the kind of
defense of agricultural activities which has been done in this County. Riding
stables exist all over the County in large and small sizes. Two of them have
caused problems, but people even in those communities are not united as to the
problem or the solution. This ordinance is as much as the Supervisors can do
to regulate something that is an endangered pursuit. Even though commercial
stables are not making money, they are important to this County and important
to a lot of people who live here. Mr. Marshall responded that he does not
disagree with Mrs. Thomas' comments, but he does not think this document
defines commercial stables or gives the County an ordinance which the Zoning
Administrator can enforce.
Mr. Davis commented that the Zoning Ordinance amendment is not a vehicle
to correct an existing problem which is currently a legally zoned use. At
best, if the zoning regulation is changed, the existing use becomes a noncon-
forming use, but it can continue as it has in its nonconforming status. There
will not be a zoning solution to a particular situation where there is now an
identified problem. He added that the Supervisors should be focusing on
whether or not, by changing the ordinance, future problems will be created
which are unacceptable.
Mr. Marshall said he is aware of the grandfather clause, but he does not
want to repeat the same problems which have been discussed at the previous
public hearing. If special use permits are required, it would require a
public hearing, and neighbors can come and voice their feelings. The Supervi-
sors can make a decision then as to whether there is an infraction upon the
neighbors' rights. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that the Supervisors are not allowed
to make such a decision for hog farms. Mr. Marshall replied that he thinks
this same decision should be made for hog farms. He had some problems with
such a farm, but it is considered an agricultural use.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the reproduction of a poster advertising a polo
operation, and it made her wonder why Item %f in Alternative "A" should not be
included in the ordinance. It seems to her the intent of a commercial stable
to have horses or ponies for hire or instruction in riding speaks for itself,
but when people start having events or shows to solicit the general public,
then it is going a bit far.
Mrs. Thomas said she would like to explain how horse showing works in
this County. She used the Farmington Hunt Club as an example. The club use
to have show grounds of its own, but now it does not. This club has a series
of shows in the summer, and this is about the only chance for beginners and
amateurs to participate in horse shows. Clubs go around to different stables
to hcld their shows, or two horse shows might be held in one place. Clubs
raise money such as the Stony Point Ruritan Club and the 4-H clubs. These 4-H
clubs do not have show grounds of their own, and so they hold shows or pony
club gatherings on different people's land. These shows solicit the general
public because most riders are members of the general public, and they are not
usually members of clubs. Any riding stable in the summer may have a horse
show, although it is not usual for a stable to have a lot of them. The young
ridiug instructors might decide to put on a horse show. The horse showing
business has gotten to be terribly expensive for people who participate, if
they have to go to Culpeper, for instance, for a show, so the small horse
shows are really the way children get to participate. She would argue
strenuously that if the Supervisors value the sport of riding whatsoever, they
should not limit people as far as horse shows are concerned.
Mr. Marshall stated that if the clubs move from one farm to another with
their shows, it does not impact one community all the time. Mrs. Thomas
responded that this is the usual way. She has not been very active in this
sport for the last couple of years, but this is the way it was done in the
past.
Mr. Marshall wondered at what point the activity stops being agricul-
tural, and becomes commercial. He also asked if it is a commercial activity,
at what point is it a profit making operation as opposed to an agricultural
one. He does not know where to go with this ordinance. He is trying to do
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
000i95
something satisfactory for all of the citizens in Albemarle County rather than
just a few, but he does not want to take any rights away from those few
people, either.
Mr. Perkins stated that he understands what Mr. Marshall is saying, but
he does not know if it will correct the present problems. Hopefully, there
would be other County regulations to mandate road agreements, etc., because
this seems to be where a lot of the problems are now. Existing County
regulations in other areas would mandate a road agreement, and this would
affect future stables.
Mr. Marshall wondered how this ordinance would affect a person who is
currently running a commercial operation, as far as taxes are concerned. He
asked if the stable owner would have to pay taxes such as he (Mr. Marshall)
pays on his business. He also asked if the person would need a business
license. Mr. Tucker replied that there would be no difference. If the person
currently has a business license, he or she would continue to do the same
thing under the proposed regulations. Mr. Marshall said this is an extremely
unfair situation. People can spend more money feeding horses than they will
get back from them.
Mr. Martin commented that he understands Mr. Marshall's thoughts on the
issue. He said one of the neighborhood problems is in his district, but
nothing that the Supervisors can do with this ordinance will change the
situation one way or the other. He suggested looking at the whole picture,
when there is something that cannot be changed, If the Supervisors support
maintaining the rural areas in Albemarle County, then they have to make some
decisions. The County has a strong agricultural industry in its horse farms,
and it should be protected.
Mrs. Humphris said that is why she supports the motion. She agreed that
there are some problems with the ordinance, but she thinks the rural areas
should be preserved.
Mr. Marshall said he does not disagree, but the issue concerns commer-
cial operations. He wondered if there will not be any more commercial stables
in the County, if this ordinance is passed, or if they will become agricul-
tural operations. Mrs. Humphris replied that a commercial stable is just a
name to describe the particular activity. She said the word, "commercial,"
could be put in front of any type of activity such as a hog farm, and that is
what it would be. Mr. Marshall responded that he does not have a commercial
cattle farm. He has an agricultural operation. Mrs. Humphris stated that
there could be commercial orchards or anything else.
Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Marshall ever sells any of his cattle. Mr.
Marshall replied affirmatively. Mr. Perkins said that selling the cattle
makes it a commercial operation. Mr. Marshall asked why, then, is not there a
definition for a commercial stable.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman called the question. Mr. Martin seconded the
motion. Mr. Perkins asked the Clerk to call the roll for the question. Roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Next, Mr. Perkins asked the Clerk to call the roll on the motion
relating to commercial stables. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 95-20 (5)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE I,
GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III,
DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article I,
General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III,
District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained by amending
Section 3.0, Definitions, Section 5.0, Supplementary Regulations,
and Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, as follows:
3.0 DEFINITIONS
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
000 .96
5.0
5.1.3
10.0
10.2.1
10.2.1.20
10.2.2
10.2.2.16
Stable, Commercial: A building, group of buildings, or
use of land, or any combination thereof, where, for
compensation, whether monetary or goods, provision is
made for horses or ponies for hire or instruction in
riding.
SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
COMMERCIAL STABLE
a. Riding rings and other riding surfaces shall be
covered and maintained with a material to mini-
mize dust and erosion;
b. Fencing and other means of animal confinement
shall be maintained at all times.
RURAL AREAS DISTRICT, RA
BY RIGHT
Commercial stable (reference 5.1.3).
BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
(Repealed 11-15-95)
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-95-17. Wendell Wood. Public Hearing on a
request to amend proffers of ZMA-93-06 to allow establishment of outdoor
storage and display of autos on 11.3 ac zoned HC & EC. Located on W sd of Rt
29 Near Timberwood Blvd; is location of Maupin Store. Site recommended for
Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. TM32,P's 43&43A. Rivanna
Dist. (Deferred from November 8, 1995.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 23 and October 30, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the
Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. The special use permit is
needed in order to use the site for the sale of autos. Staff opinion is that
the proposed amendment of the proffer is inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, as well as previous actions on this property; therefore, staff recom-
mends denial of ZMA-95-17. Should the Board choose to approve this request,
staff recommends acceptance of the applicant's revised proffer. Mr. Cilimberg
said staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) have reviewed SP-95-31
should the rezoning be approved. Based on the actions of the ARB, staff is
able to recommend approval of SP-95-31, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November
1995, by a vote of 4-3, recommended denial of both requests.
There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg from the Board, so Mr. Perkins
opened the public hearing.
Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, said the issue he wished to address,
related to comments made about tying this proposal to the mobile home park.
Mr. Lombardo, the auto dealer, is present to address other issues. Mr. Wood
recalled that when he first came before the Board two and one-half years ago,
it was his impression a sales lot was needed on Route 29 for exposure. It has
since been decided that the mobile home park would be developed similar to
subdivisions by using model homes; he gave Briarwood as an example. Instead
of having the sales lot on Route 29, he is proposing to have 12 or 15 mobile
homes located there. This situation might not be enough exposure, but he
believes it will be successful. Models will be put into the mobile home park.
They will be brought directly there from the factory. There will be landscap-
ing, and the homes will be sold as models exactly on the lot where they are
purchased. He believes this will make the project more affordable since there
is an approximate $2,000 cost differential from putting the sales lot on the
highway. The original plan was to have people look at the unit on the sales
lot, and then it would have to be relocated in the mobile home park. He
recalled a comment made implying he was misleading County officials as far as
zoning was concerned. The decision was made not to put the mobile home sales
lot on Route 29 before he knew Mr. Lombardo, and it is not a question of
someone trying to be deceitful. He explained that there is a gas station at
this location now which is approximately 65 years old, and it is not competi-
tive. He said the Amoco station has just opened, and it sells more gas in
one-half a day than his storage tanks in the ground can handle. He is trying
to make a better operation out of an existing business. The Piedmont Environ-
mental Council (PEC) supported the mobile home park because it provided
affordable housing, but he thinks this new idea is a better proposition. He
is requesting zoning for an existing operation which has a right to be there
as a gas station and as a small country store. This proposal involved a gas
station and country store with cars when he appeared before the ARB. The ARB
did not like the proposal, and suggested he take away the country store and
000 97
November 15, 1995 (Regular Might Meeting)
(Page 8)
the gas pumps. He has agreed to do this in order to upscale the project and
meet ARB requirements. He would be glad to answer any questions, particularly
if someone is concerned about this project being tied to the mobile home park.
He stated that they cannot be tied together, because the area is not being
used in the size granted for the mobile home sales. The car dealership is
proffered just to the immediate vicinity of the existing station, which is
approximately one acre.
Mr. Wood recalled a comment made by someone who said this area would not
be used as a mobile home park but, instead, it was going to be a used car lot.
This is certainly not true, because the mobile home park is under construc-
tion. He added that 5,000 feet of road, 2,000 feet of water and 1,500 feet of
sewer lines have already been installed for the mobile home park. He expects
to be selling homes in early spring with the cost running from $19,000 to
$38~000f which is below the housing cost previously mentioned in the beginning
of the mobile home park project.
Mr. Marshall said his understanding is that instead of selling mobile
homes on a mobile home sales lot and then taking them to a site, the mobile
home will be brought to the site and sold on an already landscaped lot. Mr.
Wood concurred. Mr. Marshall said this would save the cost of having to
transport the mobile home. Mr. Wood agreed that there would be an approximate
$2,000 difference between this situation and setting up a commercial operation
for a mobile home sales lot. He said this was the only way it had been done
before, and that is why it was his initial concept. He is uncertain if this
proposal will be successful, but he believes it will be, because it works in
regular housing in subdivisions. Advertising will be done, and the public
image will be good, because the buyer knows exactly how his home will look on
the finished lot. The sales office will be in the parking lot on Route 29.
He said there is a savings involved with this method of selling mobile homes,
and anytime there is a savings, the cost of the product is lowered.
Mr. Marshall wondered if Mr. Wood would be utilizing as much acreage on
Route 29 North with this proposal. Mr. Wood replied that less than 10,000
square feet of land will be disturbed for the car dealership, and with the
sales lot, seven acres are involved. He would be willing to proffer to this
effect so the car dealership could not expand. He referred to a remark
someone made that he was going to do something else with the land once he got
the approval, and he said the proffer proves this is not a true statement. He
was abandoning the sales approach anyway. He again mentioned that he has a
right to run the business as a gas station and country store. He added,
though, that he is giving up this right at the request of the ARB. He noted
that Mr. Lombardo will show this Board that no other car dealership on Route
29 North has the landscaping and modifications under which he will be operat-
ing.
Mr. Wood also recalled a comment made after the first public hearing was
closed that he was trying to take advantage of County officials. He wanted to
deal with this comment because for 30 years he has done nothing except what he
said he was going to do. He reiterated that he had abandoned the concept of a
mobile home sales lot on this land before he met Mr. Lombardo, because he felt
that selling out of the park would be a better approach. This left him with
the question of what he would do with the store. The store takes up one acre
of land. It is not competitive, and it is in a run-down condition, but he
believes it can be improved.
Mr. Perkins asked if there were questions for Mr. Wood, and there were
none.
Mr. Lombardo presented pictures showing how the property now looks. He
said the proposal before the Supervisors tonight has received unanimous
support from the ARB. He added that Marcia Joseph, the Design Planner,
indicated the staff favors this proposal because it represents significantly
less land usage than the previously approved mobile home sales center. This
proposal was approved allowing for the use of 7.9 acres of land. It also
allowed for construction of an access road to the rear of the property in
order to transport the mobile homes to the recently approved site. The
original plan was to transport them into the back part of the site. With this
new scenario, the road would no longer be needed. The ARB members felt this
proposal, which tripled the amount of vegetation currently on the site and
coupled with the much needed facelift of the existing structure, would be a
more acceptable use of this commercial property. It would not pose a signifi-
cant environmental impact to the adjacent area. He feels the auto sales
center would be quite unique and no other dealership is screened from Route 29
to this extent. He recalled a colored architectural drawing, indicating the
type of screening to which he is referring. He realizes the previous approval
for the outdoor storage and display was granted largely as a result of the
relationship between the mobile home park and the sales center. He feels
strongly this relationship, however, is not as relevant as the definite result
caused by the measure. This approval, if it had been carried beyond the
planning stage, would have allowed an individual to purchase a mobile home and
then transport it via Route 29 to any designation in the United States. There
could not be, nor should there be, any restriction in place allowing only
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
000 1.95
those individuals who plan to live in the park the opportunity to purchase
their homes from this sales center. Therefore, he feels the previous approval
would have created a scenario exactly as the request before the Board tonight.
Both are, in fact, retail establishments with the goal of selling big ticket
items competitively to the local consumer base. However, this request differs
in that it would pose significantly less of an environmental impact than would
be endured by the much larger mobile home sales center. If his proposal is
denied, Mr. Wood would then have the option of letting the property remain as
it is currently zoned for a gas station and convenience store. However, in
order to compete successfully, this site would have to undergo major renova-
tions and major improvements in light of the much larger Amoco center to the
north. Mr. Wood has already received offers, and he has taken them into
consideration, as a back-up plan to this request. This option would undoubt-
edly create far more environmental and traffic concerns than his proposal.
Such a business would require more lighting as a result of the larger size,
increased evening usage, and it would be visited by far more customers than
any specialized used car operation. He sat at the Amoco station a few weeks
ago for 20 minutes and watched about 15 people after 9:00 p.m. pull into the
station. This is the kind of traffic which will be coming to a gas station.
This type of business creates more waste and utilizes far more natural
resources than his proposal. From the perspective of the County's best
interest, this use would not represent the best choice to minimize the
environmental impact to the surrounding area.
He was quite perplexed by the Piedmont Environmental Council's position
with regard to this proposal, and he recalled the record indicating that they
did not publicly oppose the much larger mobile home sales center in 1993. He
then mentioned some of the reasons as to why he thought this request was
better. First, this proposal includes a heavily screened site including a
berm to the south of the property blocking a majority of the parking spaces.
There will be a lot of vegetation throughout the site. The ARB called for two
and one-half to three and one-half caliper trees to be used. He stated that
these are quite large and mature trees which would not only screen the
property sufficiently, but would greatly enhance the beauty of the parcel. He
pointed out that the request represents an environmentally sound plan. He
noted that it calls for the removal of all lighted signs which front the
property facing Route 29. He called attention to the pictures showing the
lighted signs, as well as a light between the gas pumps, which he said would
come down. The plan calls for the removal of the existing gas pumps which may
later pose a problem. The proposal calls for only limited night use of the
property thereby reducing the amount of light spillover on Route 29. He
recalled this was also a concern of the ARB members, and they were very
specific in making sure there would not be any spill over to Route 29 from any
light placed on the property. He has gone through extensive lengths to find
the type of lighting which could do this, and he has agreed to shorten the 20
foot pole to a ten foot pole, so the spill over would be minimized. These are
the same lights used by the new McDonald's across the street. These lights
are contained to the McDonald's area, and there is no spill over. Major
renovations are planned for a structure in dire need of beautification, and
this business would generate considerably less traffic than any of the likely
alternative uses. He also noted that no other public opposition has been
voiced and this is the sixth public hearing on the matter. He feels it is
important to mention that Mr. Tim Lindstrom, an ARB member, and a strong,
well-respected, competent voice of the PEC has supported the proposal. Mr.
Lindstrom voted favorably at the ARB meeting. Mr. Lombardo went on to say he
feels Mr. Lindstrom's position represents a complete understanding of the
merits of this proposal and a greater understanding of the likely alternative
uses of the property. He feels Mr. Lindstrom's actions demonstrate his desire
to support the best interests of the County.
Mr. Lombardo commented that he has carefully read most of the recently
updated Comprehensive Plan. He understands the purpose of preventing piece-
meal growth and agrees with it. In this request, however, the parcel, the
building and most of the paved area are already in place. He is not proposing
a brand new small site to be constructed on an undisturbed piece of land.
This is an important distinction, and it seems reasonable to him that this
type of exception could exist and still be in keeping with the Comprehensive
Plan amendment. In proposing a relatively small site, he felt his chances of
attaining approval would be greater. He would not have guessed that a larger
proposal would have been viewed as less piecemeal and more favorable by
anybody in this process.
Mr. Lombardo said this request represents good, sound, long term use of
an existing commercial site needing rejuvenation. He has a ten year lease,
and this business will fit in well with the other recently established
businesses in the area. He willingly agrees to all of the suggestions and
recommendations coming out of previous hearings. He specifically mentioned an
amended proffer coming out of these recommendations, protecting this parcel
from expansion for this use. He is convinced that if granted, his proposal
will yield a business of which the County will be proud. He plans several
innovations to make his business different from what could be expected of a
typically used car dealer. He views this proposal as a chance to make a
difference in a field desperately needing to improve its image. One his ideas
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
000 .99
is to keep the expenses down by borrowing no money for inventory. There will
be no processing fees at his dealership, and he has planned an automobile
research library, open to the public, full of the latest consumer information
in order to assist the customer in the decision making process. There will be
no sales pressure, and he will sell only high quality used vehicles at markups
of about one-half the national average. He will be trying to attract the
educated consumer who feels he or she must travel to Richmond or Washington,
D.C., to obtain fair treatment at a fair price. He called attention to a
positive article about himself published in last weeks' Observer, from which
he has received a lot of community support. He has gotten over 20 phone calls
from people who are supportive of the project and want to do business with
him. He thanked Board members for the time he had to speak, and he asked them
to consider his proposition.
Mrs. Humphris asked, in light of Mr. Lombardo's remarks, if Mr. Cilim-
berg would distinguish for everybody's benefit the difference between ARB
approval and the things with which this Board has to deal. There seems to be
a lack of understanding.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the ARB advises as to the special use
permit and, more particularly, must give approval for the site plan. This
presumes that the use is approved legislatively. The site plan goes through
an administrative process and there is an ARB Certificate of Appropriateness.
The ARB members were looking at this project from the standpoint of site
design, and they were advising as to whether or not the site could be ade-
quately accommodated in the entrance corridor for this use with a special use
permit. He recalled mentioning that staff and the Planning Commission, with
the proper zoning, recommended approval of the special use permit. The issue,
first of all, is zoning which is different from what the ARB was considering.
Mr. Perkins asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to
speak to this issue.
Mr. Dave Reynolds remarked that he and Mr. Lombardo have been friends
for approximately four years. He has dealt with Mr, Lombardo professionally,
as well as personally. He would be willing to put up a poster indicating he
would buy a used car from him. He feels as though the public does not think
too highly of people in this industry, and he admits he feels the same way.
He added that little by little Mr. Lombardo gained his trust, as well as that
of his wife and his friends. He recommends Mr. Lombardo to his friends and
family, because Mr. Lombardo is not out to sell them a $30,000 or $40,000
Cadillac for which they would have to mortgage their houses. Mr. Lombardo
wants to sell cars to everyday people. Mr. Lombardo has gone out of his way
to make the various boards happy. The use fits the property. He pass by this
property all the time, and it is an eyesore. He has always wished someone
would do something with the property. Even if it was made into a parking lot,
it would look better. When Mr. Lombardo told him what he was going to do, he
supported the proposal. He asked the Board members to consider the request.
He is sure if the Board members did business with Mr. Lombardo they would be
happy, because he and his friends are satisfied. He thanked the Supervisors
for their time.
Ms. Babette Thorpe read a statement prepared for the Planning Commission
and this Board on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council. PEC opposes
ZMA-95-17 for all the reasons stated by staff. (A copy of the statement
regarding ZMA-95-17 is on file in the Clerk's office.) She was glad to hear
that work has begun on the mobile home park. She remains concerned because
there is still no language in the proffers to carry out the promises made
during the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process that 100 mobile home sites be
established before the commercial use began. She said the word, "estab-
lished'', to her means building permits or Certificates of Occupancy issued.
Such a proffer might carry out the promises made during the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Until this sort of language exists, she urged the Supervisors to
accept the staff's recommendation regarding this amendment.
No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Perkins closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Martin asked if the zoning relating to the gas station and parking
lot is grandfathered. He also wondered about the amount of acreage involved
with this area. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the area around the existing store
and gas station is approximately one acre, and this is the area on which all
of the sales is proposed. This use is not grandfathered, and it is actually a
use by-right. It is part of the existing commercial zoning.
Mr. Martin remarked that he realizes and appreciates the staff members'
work on this issue, as well as their recommendation. He has only glanced at
the November 7 Commission minutes, since the Supervisors just got them today.
He has examined minutes from the other Commission meeting and considered the
issues discussed. He thinks the applicant is right on target with some of the
issues discussed by staff, as well as other issues the applicant has brought
up himself, including the larger parcel versus the one acre parcel which is
by-right. He suggested that if these things were examined with an open mind,
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
000200
a decision could be made either way, as can be seen with the Commission's four
to three vote. Looking at the practicality of the proposal, as well as the
fact that he lives in this area, this site is an eyesore. He said probably 80
percent of his friends in the County also pass by this store all the time.
When it was an open business, he did not see it as an eyesore, because it
offered a lot of little things he really appreciated. There were a lot of
country things inside this store which cannot be bought across the street at
Food Lion. This rezoning probably would not have been approved had it been
something not benefitting the mobile home park that was going to be built.
Even though the zoning can be changed for the larger parcel and in the future
other things can be denied which might be proposed possibly on the larger
parcel, the smaller parcel has by-right privileges. He said by-right on this
parcel can be a gas station which would create much more traffic right beyond
the Amoco station. It would not just be an inconvenient addition to traffic,
but it would be a dangerous addition to traffic. This proposal is a lot
better than what is already there. He probably would not support a gas
station at this location if it was not by-right, because it would create a lot
more traffic. He will support this proposal.
Mrs. Humphris commented that she has gone back through her whole file on
this matter, since the beginning, and she cannot begin to say how important
this decision was when it was made. It was said over and over again that the
only reason this commercial use was being allowed was as a support for the
mobile home sales. It most definitely had to be contingent on those 100 sites
being in place in the mobile home park before any other thing was to be
implemented, and it was particularly important to have a unified plan for the
entire site before anything new was done. It was also important, of course,
to limit the curb cuts on Route 29. She recalled staying at a public hearing
on this matter until 1:30 a.m. She said everything that was done hinged on
the understanding of why it was being done which was only in support of the
mobile home park and only contingent on the 100 sites being prepared and upon
a master plan for the entire 50 acres. She agreed that the building certainly
is an eyesore, but this does not mean that everything done should be upset.
She also mentioned the good faith which went into this final agreement to
allow everything to be as it is now. She does not think it would hurt for the
eyesore to remain or for Mr. Wood to use the property as a gas station or
convenience store until such time as there is a master plan for the area, and
it is known what can be expected, as well as what the area will look like.
She thinks it is disappointing to have this come back to the Supervisors in
such a manner when so much good faith went into all of this to arrive at the
agreement which is in place at this time.
Mr. Martin said he is not debating Mrs. Humphris, and he would agree
with everything she said, if a larger parcel was involved. He reiterated that
this parcel is only one acre in size, and it already has by-right uses. The
service station is a by-right use, and that is where he and Mrs. Humphris
differ on this matter.
Mr. Bowerman said he also agrees exactly with everything Mrs. Humphris
has said about the original intent, and any commercial rezoning would not have
been approved as part of this project, unless it was supportive of the mobile
home use. He recalled the Supervisors being concerned that this entire 50
acres being developed with a master plan, and they did not want to see it
developed piecemeal. As a practical matter, however, Mr. Bowerman went on to
say this proposal before the Supervisors does not preclude anything in terms
of the master plan for the area. He concurred with Mr. Martin's statement
that this proposal only deals with one acre which is a current use, and it
does not deal with the original larger parcel.
Mr. Marshall said he will support the proposal, and he agreed with both
Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Bowerman reiterated that, practically, the approval for this
proposal does not make any difference. He is fully supportive of Mrs.
Humphris' belief and opinion, but he thinks since there is only this one acre
involved, it is not a significant deviation from the original intent. He
would not be supportive of the proposal if it was for an inclusion of an
amount greater than the acreage which currently exists.
Mrs. Thomas remarked that she differs slightly because she thinks
approving this request is piecemeal, and it does preclude other planning. She
said the Comprehensive Plan carefully indicates that a plan has to be devel-
oped for the entire 50 acres. This particular plan is under one ownership
which is an unusual opportunity in this community. Often there are small
pieces of property which are not parts of larger parcels, and there is no way
the Comprehensive Plan could require a plan for the whole area. She said
someone has sent her pages from the Comprehensive Plan, and these pages
indicate that any development shall be pursuant to an overall plan of develop-
ment. She read from these pages that zoning action and development of this
area consistent with the Comprehensive Plan shall occur after the development
of the high density residential area, which relates to the mobile home sites.
She understands that all of this was carefully worked out at the time, and she
has absolutely no criticism of the plan. She concurred that Mr. Wood's
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
proposal would look better, and' it is a good use. It is obviously an estab-
lishment of the sort where more is needed, and she is also delighted that the
change in plans will result in lower cost housing for the mobile homes. Ail
of this makes it sound as though she is questioning how to vote, but she is
not. She is certain that this is exactly the kind of piecemeal decision
making done elsewhere on the same highway closer to town, and everybody has
been regretting it ever since. When there is the opportunity to deal with the
whole thing, as the Comprehensive Plan says it should be done, she thinks the
Supervisors should try to do so and not use the piecemeal method.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain the second proffer. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that Proffer %2 relates to when an overall plan of
development is submitted in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. He said
the entrances, at that time, will be closed or altered as a result of the
plan. He asked the Supervisors to keep in mind that overall there are to be
three points of access ultimately with commercial development on the site. He
explained that when the overall plan is approved, the site can be altered
based on this plan. Mr. Martin said all of this can then be included in the
overall plan. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it would be expected to be included.
Mr. Bowerman said, at this time, the access to Route 29 could be removed
and access could be made at one of the three access points. He reiterated
that he thinks, as a practical issue in this particular circumstance, it does
not make any difference.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that Proffers %2, %3 and %4 are essentially the
same as the proffers which were with the original zoning that came when the
mobile home sales were allowed. There is no change in language in these
proffers. He called attention, however, to Proffer %1 which focuses the
particular auto sales down to a 350 foot by 180 foot area.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall
to approve ZMA-95-17 subject to the following proffers:
PROFFER
Date: 11-2-95
ZMA % 95-17
Tax Map Parcels(s) % 32-43 & 43A
7.9 Acres to be rezoned from
HC to HC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the
owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the
conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if
rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested
rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the
need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable
relation to the rezoning requested.
(1)
(2)
(3)
The area outlined in yellow (350' x 180') on the attached plan
titled "Pine Grove" dated 8/29/95 (on file in the Planning Office),
may be used as a convenience/grocery store and gasoline sales. In
addition this area may be used for mobile home sales and/or
automobile sales subject to approval of the appropriate special use
permits. The remainder of the site may be used only for mobile home
sales subject to the approval of the appropriate special use
permits;
The entrances on this site will be closed or altered if required by
the future plan of development for the remaining adjacent areas
designated office and regional service in the Comprehensive Plan;
The frontage on Route 29 containing Tax Map 32, Parcels 43A, 43,
42E, 42D, 42B, 42A and Tax Map 46, Parcel 5 shall contain not more
than three combination entrance & exits. The County may require
closure of any existing entrances at the time of establishment of
any new entrances such that the total number of entrances does not
exceed three;
(4)
An access road between the mobile home sales area and mobile home
park shall be developed at the time of the establishment of any
mobile home sales use. This access read shall be used only for the
movement of mobile homes between the two uses and for emergency
access.
(Signed) for River Heights Associates by W. W. Wood, General
Partner, 11-2-95
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
NAYS: Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris.
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
O00ZO2
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-95-31. Wendell Wood. Public Hearing on a
request to establish outdoor storage & display of autos on property described
in ZMA-95-17 above. (Deferred from November 8, 1995.) /Advertised in the
Daily Progress on October 23 and October 30, 1995.)
Mr. Perkins stated that a public hearing would have to be held for
SP-95-31, since it was not announced that the two items would be heard
jointly.
Mr. Cilimberg indicated that he had covered the report on both items
together.
At this time, Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing for SP-95-31. He
asked if the applicant had anything to add. '
There were no comments from the applicant or anyone else from the
public, so Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve
SP-95-31, subject to the following conditions:
1. Remove existing signage from the site;
2. Construct a berm topped with screening trees between the entrance
corridor on the southernmost part of the parking area. The
parking in this area shall be screened from the entrance;
3. Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval of landscape location,
sizes and species type. Trees are to be large street trees (3
1/2" caliper);
4. No elevated vehicle display;
5. The lighting shall be directed down onto the site with the source
of the light shielded from view from the entrance corridor;
6. No attention-getting devices shall be attached to any vehicle or
structure on the site. This shall prohibit the use of balloons,
spinners, streamers and the like;
7. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required prior to
approval of the site plan;
8. Lighting of the site shall be limited to between the hours of
10:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M.;
9. Remove the gas pumps from the current location. Reestablishment
of the gas pumps shall be permitted subject to site plan approval
and approval by the ARB; and
10. Vehicle sales and display shall be limited to the parking area
shown on Attachment D (on file in the Planning Office).
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
NAYS: None.
(Note: At 8:35 the Board recessed, and reconvened at 8:45 p.m.)
(The next two agenda items were discussed jointly.)
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-95-13. University Real Estate Foundation.
Public Hearing on a request to rezone 5 ac from R-1 to R-10. Located on N sd
of Ivy Rd on access road to University Village. Site recommended for High
Density Residential (10.01 - 34 du/ac) . TM60,P45. Jack Jouett Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 30 and November 6, 1995.)
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-95-27. University Real Estate Foundation.
Public Hearing on a request to establish professional office on 5.0 ac zoned
R-10 subject to approval of ZMA-95-13 above. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on October 30 and November 6, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff reports which are on file in the
Clerks office and a permanent part of the record. Mr. Cilimberg said staff
review of this request has provided mixed findings. In the opinion of staff,
the intent of professional offices in residential districts is to provide
support services for nearby residential activities (i.e., doctors, dentist) or
to buffer residential areas from more intensive commercial areas. This
application is to provide office space for the University of Virginia Founda-
tion's main administrative offices. This use provides no direct support for
the nearby residential uses and represents an office use which would more
appropriately be located in a commercial district. Approval of this request
would be a departure from past actions. Therefore, staff recommends denial of
this request.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November
15, 1995, recommended approval of the rezoning, as proffered, and the special
000203
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14l
use permit with four conditions. He suggested the fourth condition be amended
as follows: "At such time as alternative access to the property is estab-
lished, the Crestwood Drive access shall be limited to emergency access only."
He explained that Crestwood Drive is the road serving the University Village,
and the residents are concerned that there will be great increases in traffic.
This would probably be true particularly if it became a connection to Univer-
sity property involving through traffic. The condition is intended to address
this concern and to indicate that when there is any access provided into the
University area, Crestwood Drive will no longer be the primary access to this
property.
There were no questions for Mr. Citimberg, so at this time, Mr. Perkins
opened the public hearings on ZMA-95-13 and SP-95-27.
Mr. Steve Blaine, representing the University Real Estate Foundation,
said he would be showing slides to go along with his presentation. He
explained that the Foundation wishes to move its administrative headquarters
to the residence on the former McGavock property. The plans are not to change
the exterior structure, but to convert the residential building into offices.
The approximate size of the building is about 3,500 square feet. He pointed
out, with use of slides, the Crestwood Drive access, Old Ivy Road and the
residences. He noted a variety of screening such as old boxwood bushes which
would be retained, as well as existing trees, to screen the use from adjoining
properties. He mentioned an exterior improvement relating to a parking lot to
the right of the structure, and he continued to show and explain the slides.
During this process representatives of the Foundation had an opportunity to
meet with the neighbors, and address their concerns. He feels the concern
relating to Crestwood Drive being used as a cut through road has been ad-
dressed with the proffers limiting the use, the condition mentioned by Mr.
Cilimberg and the private road maintenance agreement developed with the
neighbors. He believes the site and use is a protected use for offices, and
it keeps the location in harmony with the surrounding neighbors. He respect-
fully asked for the Supervisors' support of these two proposals.
Mr. Perkins asked if there were Other members of the public who would
like to speak to this matter.
Ms. Opal David, President of the University Village Homeowners Associa-
tion, said the residents were disturbed at the prospect of the additional
traffic over this private road. They wanted it understood that the Deed of
Easement states there is no intent by granting this easement that it would
create a public right-of-way over Crestwood Drive. The residents of Univer-
sity Village appeared before the Planning Commission in an effort to make this
clear and to get it on the record. Since the Commission's meeting, the
residents' lawyers have been talking, and a complete agreement has been
developed. The University Village residents are prepared to support both the
rezoning and the special permit.
No one else came forward to speak, so the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Davis noted that the proffer is dependent upon the property being
rezoned to R-10. The proffer is not dependent upon the special use permit
being granted. He recalled that the original proffer was based on the
rezoning and the approval of the special use permit. Legally that is not a
valid way to make a proffer so the language was taken out, and now it is in
proper form.
Mrs. Humphris said the staff report and Commission minutes presented
some interesting questions, but it seems they have been satisfactorily
resolved. The whole idea was to allow a creative use of a beautiful piece of
property by people who will be good stewards of it, but at the same time, to
protect the people who already live in University Village, as well as their
access and ease of ingress and egress.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve
ZMA-95-13 subject to the following proffers:
University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (the "Applicant"}, the fee
simple owner of that certain property described in rezoning application
#ZMA-95-13, and special use permit application %SP-95-27 (Tax Map
Reference 60-45) (the "Property") hereby voluntarily proffers that in the
event the Property is rezoned by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County to R-10 in substantial accordance with Applicant's application
dated July 26, 1995, Applicant's development of the Property shall be in
substantial conformance with the following proffers. The proffers are
made pursuant to Section 15.1-591 et seq of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, (the "Code") and applicable portions of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). Ail of these proffers are voluntarily
offered'pursuant to the Ordinance and relevant sections of the Code.
These proffers shall not be interpreted to authorize any person to vary
from state statutory, regulatory or code minimum standards.
000 04
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
1. Vehicular access to and .from State Route 601 (Old Ivy Road) shall be
restricted to existing shared access over Crestwood Drive.
Building improvements shall be timite~ to 3,500 square feet of gross
floor area of space until such time as either: I) State Route 601
(Old Ivy Road) is improved to accommodate additional vehicle trips
generated from increased development, as determined by the Virginia
Department of Transportation and the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County or ii) an alternative vehicular access to the
Property (other than via State Route 601) is provided.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to
approve SP-95-27 subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the requirements of Section 21.0 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
2. Office space limited to the existing residence and amendments to the
building not to result in a building larger than 3,500 square feet
gross floor area;
3. Use shall not commence until site plan approval has been obtained;
and
4. At such time as alternative access to the property is established,
the Crestwood Drive access shall be limited to emergency access
only.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-95-32. Tiger Fuel Company. Public Hearing on a
request to establish a drive-in window on 0.9 ac zoned HC & EC on property
located in NW corner of inters of Rts 250/20. TM78,P4. Rivanna Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 30 and November 6, 1995.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the
Clerks office and a permanent part of the record. Staff opinion is that the
site can accommodate the proposed use with appropriate conditions. Therefore,
staff recommends approval subject to four conditions. The Planning Commis-
sion, at its meeting on October 24, 1995, by a vote of 4:2, recommended
approval of SP-95-32 subject to staff conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the applicant had suggested the possibility of
establishing an entrance for entering only along Route 20 North into this site
in lieu of the connection through McDonald's. VDOT representatives have
verbally indicated they did not want to see this type of connection. The
concern of VDOT officials related to problems this type of entrance might
cause to Route 20 traffic. The staff has been unable to discuss with the
Planning Commission any actual proposal for this entrance. He understands the
applicant may have such a plan with him tonight, but it has not been reviewed
by staff, VDOT officials nor the Commission.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that she has never heard in any presentations
such as this the need for employee parking on the site. She asked if this is
calculated into the whole formula. Ms. Amelia McCulley, the Zoning Adminis-
trator, answered that this is an interesting arrangement of uses, although it
is not unusual to have gas sales and convenience sales together. The staff
makes sure there are spaces for the number of expected employees and then
there is a generation based on the square footage of the use. She remarked
that a restaurant needs 13 spaces per 1000 gross square feet. In a restaurant
situation, the employees spaces are separated from others. In an unspecified
use or unusual use which is not written into the ordinance, then the employees
would have to be separated out to determine how many employees there will be.
She mentioned convenience use which has typically gone under the food store
category, and she said it does not separate employees' parking but considers
employees to be covered once the calculation is done based on square footage.
She said it varies from use to use. Sometimes when a small retail space is
involved and the calculation shows such a small number of parking spaces
required, then it is felt it will not be adequate to accommodate the use.
There is provisions in the ordinance to make an interpretation for an unspeci-
fied use to be sure there are enough parking spaces for employees in addition
to the number of spaces calculated based on the square footage. This situa-
tion is different, and she recalled a letter handed to her by the applicant
earlier indicating that frequently people will park at the gas pumps to fill
up their car and then go in the convenience store and maybe even into the
November 15, 1995 {Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
OO0205
restaurant. Two or three business visits are being accomplished in one
parking space.
Mrs. Humphris inquired as to how many total parking spaces are available
with this proposal. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out all of the parking spaces, and
he noted that there is also additional staffing space for five vehicles, as
well as space at the gas pumps for gas service. Ms. McCulley mentioned that
the staff will get into the parking situation later with the site plan. Now
the concern relates to circulation and stacking for the drive-through lane, as
well as parking in front of the gas pumps. If enough parking is not avail-
able, then the size of one of the uses will have to be decreased.
Mrs. Humphris said this is something the Supervisors need to understand.
She said the intensity of the use is important when a special use permit is
involved. She then asked how many employees would be involved with these
businesses. Mr. Cilimberg said he would have to defer to the applicant for
this information. He recalled, though, a concern by the applicant that access
from McDonald's would take spaces along the northern edge of the property.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she was disappointed the staff report did
not include more about the discussion taking place when McDonald's was
approved, because the existence of the access was a key point in the approval
of McDonald's. She said there is a definite connection between that discus-
sion to this proposal. Mr. Cilimberg responded that it has been made clear to
the applicant throughout the review process that this was the anticipated
access.
Mrs. Thomas asked if anyone knows how this proposal compares to the
fairly new Shell station establishment on Ivy Road near the City limits, as
far as size is concerned. Mr. Tucker said the gas station across the road
from this proposed use is similar to the Shell station.
At this time, Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Sutton, President of Tiger Fuel Company, thanked the Board for
the opportunity to speak. His company currently operates several gasoline/
convenience stores and car wash operations throughout Charlottesville and the
County of Albemarle. He is proud of the operations and what they contribute
to the community. He mentioned Tiger Fuel's most recent project which is the
Bellair Exxon on Route 250 West which has been a welcome addition to the
community. This proposal represents a joint venture for a Wendy's and Texaco
located at the intersection of Route 250 and Route 20 North at the foot of
Pantops Mountain. He is pleased about the Commission's approval of this
proposal, but he is concerned about the first two conditions in the approval.
These conditions require the elimination of the access off of Route 20 North
and the requirement of access through the McDonald's lot.
He recalled three criticisms from VDOT about the entrance on Route 20
North, and he believes all three of these criticisms can be solved by putting
in a slip lane entrance only off of Route 20 North. He mentioned the first
criticism by VDOT officials which dealt with congestion on the site caused by
vehicles trying to enter Route 20 at a point where blockage of the entrance
can be anticipated due to normal stacking of traffic at the Routes 20/250
signal. He said VDOT officials are concerned there will be stacking in the
internal part of the applicant's lot which might block exiting vehicles. He
thinks this criticism is solved by making an entrance only in this area. This
plan closes the existing entrance and then creates an entrance only much
further down the road away from the intersection at such an angle that it can
only be used for an entrance and cannot be used as an exit. He mentioned
another criticism raised by VDOT officials which was the possibility that
somebody might want to exit, cross the lanes of traffic and then get into the
lane of traffic to turn left to go east. He believes this problem is resolved
also by making the entrance only slip lane which has such an angle that it
cannct be used as an exit. In addition to designing the entrance in such a
way that it cannot be used as an exit, Mr. Sutton explained that signage would
be installed prohibiting use of the entrance as an exit. He mentioned another
criticism contained in VDOT's report relating to the concern that someone
coming down Route 250 would try to turn into the entrance. He added that
making the lane at such a severe angle at the farthest northern boundary of
the property would preclude such a maneuver taking place. It is his feeling
that by designing a slip lane all three concerns raised by VDOT officials can
be addressed. It not only addresses the concerns, but it improves the traffic
situation because it moves the entrance further away from the intersection,
and it facilitates cars coming onto the lot from Route 20 without having to go
through the intersection. He pointed out that to close the access entirely
would force more traffic through the intersection and increases the problem of
traffic back-up, as well as putting more traffic through the access points.
He said by having the proposed entrance, it allows the traffic to come onto
the lot, into a natural traffic flow. This would also enhance the circulation
of traffic on the property. He mentioned that by closing the entrance on
Route 20 entirely creates a very difficult situation for his operation. He
said typically ~the purchase of gasoline and often the purchase of fast food is
done on an impulse type of reaction, and the person who sees the site and has
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
O00ZOG
the impulse to come to the site would have no access to it from Route 20. He
noted that the people will be past the access for the McDonald's lot. He
said, too, the access from his property to the McDonald's lot is a remote
entrance, and there is no provision to put any signage there to show this is
the access for his lot. He also mentioned that it would force all of his
customers who were coming from a certain direction to come across a competi-
tor's lot to get to his business.
Mr. Martin said if this entrance is so important to Mr. Sutton that he
wants to pursue it, then it would probably be better if the staff and VDOT
officials have time to scrutinize the plan. If Mr. Sutton wants action
tonight, the action would probably not include this entrance. Mr. Sutton
responded that he certainly wishes for the entrance to be included in the
Board's consideration. The entrance is crucial to all use of this property.
Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris agreed with Mr. Martin's comments.
Mr. Martin remarked that the Supervisors do not have the expertise to
make such a decision based on something which has not been examined by
experts. Mr. Sutton said he would be glad to take the proposal back and have
it examined by staff and VDOT officials. At the Commission meeting it was
recommended that he develop this plan and bring it to the Supervisors for
their consideration. He hopes once this proposal has been back to VDOT
officials and staff, he can bring it to the Supervisors without going back
through the Commission. He asked Mr. Martin's feelings in this regard. Mr.
Martin answered that he has no problem with Mr. Sutton bringing his plan back
to the Supervisors, only.
Mr. Tucker stated that he believes staff members feel this proposal
should be referred back to the Commission. The staff and VDOT officials would
consider it, as well as Commission members. He understands the Commissioners
did not consider this change in the entrance. Mr. Cilimberg responded that
the Commissioners only discussed the concept of the site, but they did not
have this plan. It is the Supervisors' choice, however, as to whether or not
the plan needs to go to the Commission.
Mr. Sutton said this entrance is imperative to his company, because it
is a make or break part of the development to have some sort of entrance off
of Route 20. It is essential to the drive-in and fast food concept for the
development of this site. He agreed with Mr. Martin that he wants a decision
which includes consideration of the entrance. He will be glad to go back and
work with the staff and VDOT officials on the plan, but his only concern
relates to the amount of time involved.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he has talked to Mr. Fritz, Senior Planner.
Mr. Fritz informed him that the staff recommended, after the meeting, the
applicant get a plan to the staff so a review could be done in order to bring
such information to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg reiterated that the staff has
not seen this plan. This is the first time this plan has appeared since the
Commission meeting.
Mr. Marshall concurred with Mr. Sutton that the business will not
succeed without the entrance off of Route 20. He asked if staff and VDOT
officials could review the plan and then have staff bring the recommendation
back to this Board without going through a public hearing or taking it back to
the Commission. This would shorten the process considerably.
Mr. Martin stated that he has no problem with handling the matter in
this manner. He wants some expertise on the situation before making a
decision.
Mr. Sutton mentioned that he hopes there is no confusion between the
staff and his office. He said Mr. Cilimberg is correct that Mr. Fritz called
his office four or five days after the Commission meeting and left a message
on his voice mail. He interpreted the message to say that he should go ahead
and draw the slip lane and bring it for consideration to the Board. He did
not understand the request to have it submitted for consideration by VDOT or
the Commission.
Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Cilimberg has any idea as to how long it will
take for his staff and VDOT officials to review the slip lane plan. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that the most important thing relating to a time frame is
the time it will take for the information to go through the County Engineering
Department and the VDOT office. He cannot speak for VDOT officials in terms
of how long it might take for them to examine the proposal, but the County
staff will certainly try to expedite it as quickly as possible. He mentioned
that the next opportunity for this Board to review the matter would be
December 13. He suggested it could be deferred until that time, and the staff
could try to have the information ready for this meeting.
Mrs. Humphris said she really thinks the matter should be handled in
this manner, but she wants everybody to understand, especially Mr. Sutton, why
this is being done. She has grave concerns about the intensity of this use on
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
000 07
the site. She had the same concerns with the McDonald's proposal. She did
not think the McDonald's decision was a good one, either. Since then, the
County's transportation consultant, Dick Keller, has told the Supervisors many
times that intersections cannot continue to be designed in this traditional
way of putting businesses in the middle of them. This destroys the use of the
intersection which is for the purpose of moving traffic. This is exactly the
reverse of what the thinking has always been, and it is also Mr. Sutton's
thinking. She said this thinking involves putting businesses where the
traffic is located in order to get the business. She reiterated that her
concerns do not relate to the use for the site, but they relate to the
intensity of the use since there will be a Wendy's, a convenience store, and
gas pumps with entrances both on Route 20 and Route 250. She thinks it is too
much for the size of the site and the location. She wanted Mr. Sutton to know
up front that she has grave concerns.
Mr. Sutton remarked that he appreciates Mrs. Humphris sharing her
concerns with him, but he assured her that he has studies which he feels are
persuasive arguments to combat some of her concerns. He will be glad to
address those with her. The use being proposed for this property is consis-
tent with the zoning on the property and the amount of parking as it is
designed meets zoning requirements.
Mr. Martin mentioned that the problem relates to the drive-through
windows. Mr. Sutton concurred. He could have the entrance, if he eliminated
the drive-through windows. Mrs. Humphris said she understands the zoning is
there, and it has always seemed natural to have that zoning. She pointed out
that experience and times have changed to show that maybe everybody has been
wrong for a long time. Mr. Sutton commented that it is an important point
that he, as a matter of right, could put the gasoline and convenience store
there and would probably have a comparable amount of traffic in food service
and gasoline, if not more, without the drive-through window.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
defer this petition until December 13, 1995.
Mr. Davis suggested closing the public hearing before making the motion,
unless the Supervisors want to continue with it.
Mr. Bowerman said this is a significant change, and he would like to get
the input of the public, if there is any. However, he sees no benefit to
continuing this public hearing.
Mrs. Thomas asked the staff members, when they are considering this
proposal, to help the Supervisors see how people would proceed east after
stopping at this site. She can see how this could be done when people drive
to McDonald's and enter Route 20. She would like to think this traffic
situation through ahead of time, because she has found herself in some similar
situations.
Mr. Perkins remarked that when he goes into the Wilco Station for gas,
he will go to River Road and turn around and come back. He said this is all a
person can do in this situation.
Mrs. Thomas stated that if the McDonald's access is kept, she can see
how people can make both of those movements without it being too dangerous.
She said she also wants to picture the slip lane alternative.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the parking area is shown with parking spaces
where the access to McDonald's is located. She also wondered if they are
included in the total number of parking spaces. Mr. Sutton replied that they
are counted as of now. Some of those places will be eliminated, however, if
the access is kept open.
Mrs. Humphris indicated that if this project comes back before this
Board, she thinks it is really important to have more information on the
decision making going into the access to McDonald's, as well as the whole
parking situation.
Ms. McCulley responded that she will work with Mr. Sutton and the
Planning staff to provide some direct comments on the parking requirements.
Mr. Perkins then restated the motion which was to defer SP-95-32 to
December 13, 1995, without closing the public hearing. This was done so the
applicant could submit a revised site plan for review by the Highway Depart-
ment and staff as to an entrance off of Route 20. Staff is also to provide
more information on why access to McDonald's was originally required, and the
number of parking spaces that are needed.
I
Approved by
Board
initials~-~
000208
November 15, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 9:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs.
Humphris, to go into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the
Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to discuss appointments to boards and
commissions, and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
regarding specific legal matters concerning reversion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 10:30 p.m. Motion was
immediately offered by Mr. Bow~rman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to certify by
a recorded vote that to the best of each Board members's knowledge only public
business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the
Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing
the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive
session.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
By consensus, the Board reaffirmed appointment of Mr. Jerry Jones to the
Library Board to replace Mrs. Christine Baker. Term will expire on June 30,
1996.
Mrs. Thomas mentioned a letter from Mr. David Booth, who has resigned
from the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee. She asked
that he receive a letter of appreciation.
Mrs. Thomas suggested that staff follow federal legislation about flow
control and communication towers.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that the Secretary of Natural Resources may
contact the County regarding a letter from the Southern Environmental Law
Center about the Rivanna River.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. At 10:40 p.m., with no further business
to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs.
Humphris, to adjourn this meeting until November 29, 1995, at 3:00 P.M., in
the County Executive's Conference Room for an executive session.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.