1994-01-120 0
O0
r~
-tn
0 ~'~
~0
0~
O~
~0
0 ~-~
~0
~-d o
~o
t~ ·
0
0
.ri
o x~
~ 0
-
.oO0
~ 0
er}-H 0
,-q 0
O0
0
-H
0
0
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 2
000319
at HasBrouck Management Corporation, P.O. Box 5384, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia, 22905. The first months rent will be prorated
and due January 15th, 1994. At the end of each calendar year of
the lease term and any extensions, the rent will be adjusted
upward at 5%.
IMPROVEMENT BY TENANT
The Lessee shall have the right, from time to time, to make
all such alterations and improvements to, and decoration of, the
interior of the leased property as shall be reasonably necessary
or appropriate for the conduct of Lessor's business therein,
provided that prior to the commencement of any such alterations or
improvements the Lessor shall in each case have approved in
writing the plans therefore. If within thirty (30) days after
such plans are submitted by the Lessee to the Lessor for such
approval, Lessor shall not have given Lessee notice of disapprov-
al, stating the reasons for such have disapproval, such plans and
specifications shall be considered approved by the Lessor. Any
alteration, addition or improvement made by the Lessee after such
consent shall have been given, and any fixtures which have been
installed and would damage the building if removed, shall become
the property of the Lessor upon the expiration or sooner termina-
tion of this lease; provided, however, that the Lessor shall have
the right to require the Lessee to remove such fixtures at the
Lessee's cost upon such termination of this lease, with property
returned to its original condition. Lessee has the option to
remove fixtures, at Lessee's expense provided that Lessee repair
any damage, age caused by removal; to the building's prior condi-
tion.
ATTACHED RULES AND REGULATIONS
Lessee shall observe and comply with rules and regulations
hereinafter set forth which are made a part hereof, and with such
further reasonable rules and regulations as Lessor may prescribe,
on written notice to the Lessee, for the safety, care and cleanli-
ness of the building and adjacent areas and for the comfort,
quiet, safety and convenience of other occupants of the building.
MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES
Lessee shall commit no act of waste and shall take good care
of the premises and the fixtures and appurtenances therein, and
shall, in the use and occupancy of the premises, conform to all
laws, orders and regulations of federal, state and municipal
governments having jurisdiction. Lessee will maintain the interi-
or of said leased premises in good, safe and presentable condition
during the term of the lease and will surrender the premises in as
good condition as they were at the beginning of the term, reason-
able wear, tear, and damage by fire, the elements, casualty or
other cause not due to the misuse or neglect by Lessee or Lessee's
agents, servants, visitors or licensees expected. Lessor shall be
responsible for the maintenance of mechanical systems including,
plumbing, heating, cooling and wiring, except that any individual
repair charge less than $250.00 will be the responsibility of the
Lessee. All the property of Lessee remaining on the premises at
the expiration of the lease, or any renewal, shall conclusively be
deemed abandoned and may be removed by the Lessor, and Lessee
shall reimburse the Lessor the cost of such removal. Lessor may
have any such property stored at Lessee's risk and expense.
SERVICES
The following services will be paid by:
Water & Sewer Lessor
Gas Lessee
Electricity Lessee
Trash Removal Lessee
Exterminator Lessor
Oil N/A
FIRE CLAUSE
In the event the premises shall be destroyed or so damaged or
injured by fire or other casualty during the life of this agree-
ment, whereby .the same shall be rendered untenantable, then the
Lessor shall have the right to render said premises tenantable by
repairs within ninety days therefrom. If said premises are not
rendered tenantable within said time, it shall be optional with
either party hereto to cancel this lease, and in the event of such
cancellation the rent shall be with either party hereto to cancel
this lease, and in the event of such cancellation the rent shall
be paid only to the date of such fire or casualty. The cancella-
tion herein mentioned shall be evidenced in writing. Not with-
standing the provisions hereof: In any event of loss or damage to
the building, the premises and/or any contents, each party shall
look first to any insurance in its favor before making any claim
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 3
000320
against the other party; and TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL COST, EACH PARTY SHALL OBTAIN, FOR EACH POLICY OF SUCH
INSI/RANCE, PROVISIONS PERMITTING WAIVER OF A/qY CLAIM AGAINST THE
OTHER PARTY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE INSUR3LNCE.
INSURANCE
Tenant, at tenants expense, shall carry and keep in full force and
effect at all times during the term of this lease for the protec-
tion of Landlord, Landlord's managing agent, any other parties in
interest designated from time to time by Landlord by written
notice to tenant, and tenant:
(1) Comprehensive general public liability insurance with limits
acceptable to Landlord written by solvent, reputable insurance
company satisfactory to landlord. Tenant shall deliver to Land-
lord a copy of said policy or, at Landlord's option, a binder or
certificate showing the same to be in full force and effect. It
is understood and agreed that liability coverage provided for
hereunder shall extend beyond the Demised Premises to portions of
the common areas of the Building used from time to time by tenant,
its employees, agent, contractors and invitees, and further, shall
include contractual liability insuring the indemnity provisions of
this lease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, tenant shall have no
responsibility to indemnify Landlord for loss, damage, causes of
action, judgments or costs arising solely from the gross negli-
gence or willful misconduct on Landlord, its employees or agents.
EMINENT DOMAIN
If the premises or any part thereof or any estate herein, or
any other part of the building materially affecting Lessees use of
the premises, be taken by virtue of eminent domain, this lease
shall terminate on the date when title vests pursuant to such
taking, the rent and additional rent shall be apportioned as of
said date and any rent paid for any period beyond said care shall
be repaid to lessee. Lessee shall not be entitled to any part of
the award or any payment in lieu thereof; but Lessee may file a
claim for any taking of fixtures and improvements owned by Lessee,
and for moving expenses.
WAIVERS
The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance
of any covenant or condition hereof, or to exercise any option
herein contained, shall not be construed as a waiver of such
covenant, condition or option in any other instance. Acceptance
by Lessor of monthly installments of rent with knowledge of a
default by lessee under this lease, or acceptance by Lessor of
performance by Lessee that varies from the provisions of this
lease or rules or regulations adopted by Lessor, shall not consti-
tute a waiver of the right of Lessor to terminate this lease or
seek damages, (a) for the continuation of the.same breach or for
another breach of this lease by Lessee occurring after the month
to which such monthly installment of rent was applicable, or (b)
for the continuation of the same variance or for another variance
of performance by Lessee occurring after the month during which
Lessor accepted such variance. Acceptance by Lessor of partial
payment of past due rent shall not constitute any waiver or any
right of lessor to terminate this lease for breach of its provi-
sions by Lessee, and acceptance of unpaid rent after expiration of
a termination notice shall not constitute a waiver of the termina-
tion.
SUBORDINATION OF LEASE
This lease shall be subject to all mortgages or deeds of trust
which may now or hereafter affect the real estate of which the
premises form a part, and also to all renewals, modification,
consolidations and replacements of said mortgages or deeds of
trust.
ENTRY BY LANDLORD
Lessor or his agent may, but shall not be obligated to, enter
the demised premises at any reasonable time, on reasonable notice
to Lessee (except that no notice need be given in case of emergen-
cy) for the purposes of inspection or the making of such repairs,
replacements and additions necessary or desirable.
CONSTRUCTIVE EVICTION
Lessee shall not be entitled to claim a constructive eviction
from the premises unless Lessee shall have first notified Lessor
in writing of the condition or conditions given rise thereto, and,
if the complaints be justified, unless Lessor shall have failed
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 4
within a reasonable time after receipt of notice to remedy such
conditions.
LESSOR MAY SHOW PREMISES
Lessor or his agent may show the premises to prospective
purchasers and mortgagees at any time, and, during the four months
prior to termination of this lease, to prospective tenants, during
business hours and upon reasonable notice to Lessee.
QUIET POSSESSION
Quiet Enjoyment - The LESSOR covenants that the Lessee, on the
paying of the rent and the performing of covenants and conditions
contained in this lease, shall and may peaceably and quietly have,
hold, and enjoy the leased premises. The Lessee covenants that no
use shall be made or permitted to be made of the leased premises,
or any part thereof, and no acts done therein that may unreason-
ably disturb the quiet enjoyment of any other tenant in the
building or buildings of which the leased premises are a part. In
the event that the Lessee's conduct or that of his family, in-
vitees or guests is unreasonable injurious or damaging to the
Lessor and/or the rights, privileges or welfare of the other
tenants of the leased premises or surrounding neighborhood, the
Lessor may serve a written notice on the Lessee specifying the
acts or omissions consulting the breach herein and stating that
the rental agreement will terminate upon a date not less than
thirty (30) days after the receipt of the notice if the breach is
not remedied in twenty-one (21) days, and the rental agreement
shall there after terminate as provided in said notice. Nothing
contained herein shall be construed to give Lessee any right of
action for damages against lessor for the noise or conduct of
other tenants renting from Lessor unless said noise or conduct of
said other tenants is actually authorized by the Lessor. In
addition to the other remedies provided herein, in the event that
Lessee's conduct, whether or not authorized by Lessor, unreason-
ably disturbs other tenants of Lessor that tenants or tenant may
lawfully terminate their lease agreements, with Lessor and/or sue
Lessor for damages incurred thereby.
PUBLIC AREAS
Except as otherwise herein provided, Lessor will keep all
hallways, stairways, elevators, entryways, sidewalks and parking
areas in a clean and presentable condition and will, as soon as
reasonably possible, remove all snow and ice from parking lots and
other public areas.
LATE FEE
In the event that any installment of rent is not received by
the tenth of the months for which such installment is due, a late
fee of $50.00 shall be paid by Lessee or Lessor.
RENTAL FEE
Lessor agrees the HasBrouck Management Corporation shall be
entitled to receive a commission of 5% of all rent for the proper-
ty during the term and on any extension of such term, on half of
the initial rate.
COMMISSION ON SALE OR EXCHANGE
In consideration of the negotiation of this lease or the
handling or management of the property Lessor agrees to pay
HasBrouck Management Corporation a fee of if during the term
or an additional term of the lease, or within 90 days after
expiration of the lease, Lessor shall sell the property of any
kind and wherever located.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. The sidewalks, entrances and passages, courts, vestibules,
stairways, corridors and public parts of the building shall not be
obstructed or encumbered by Lessee or used by Lessee for any
purpose other than ingress and egress to and from the premises.
2. No awnings, air conditioning units or other projections shall
be attached tot he outside wall or windowsills of the building or
otherwise project from the building, without the prior written
consent of Lessor.
3. No sign or lettering shall be affixed by Lessee on any part of
the outside of the premises, or on any part of the inside of the
premises, without the prior written consent of Lessor. However,
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 5
Lessee shall have the right to place its name on any door leading
into the premises, the size, color and style thereof to be subject
to Lessor's approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
4. The windows in the premises shall not be covered or obstructed
by Lessee, nor shall any bottles, parcels or other articles be
placed on the windowsills or in the halls or in any other common
areas of the building.
5. Lessee shall not make, or permit to be made, any unseemly, or
disturbing noises or interfere with other tenants or those having
business with them.
6. No additional locks or bolts of any kind shall be placed upon
any of the doors by Lessee, and Lessee shall, upon the termination
of this tenancy deliver to Lessor all keys to any space within the
building, either furnished to, or otherwise procured by, Lessee,
and in the event of the loss of any keys, Lessee shall pay to
Lessor the cost thereof.
7. Lessor reserves the right to prescribe the weight and position
of all safes and other heavy equipment so as to distribute proper-
ty the weight therefor and to prevent any unsafe condition from
arising. Business machines and other equipment shall be suffi-
cient in the Lessor's reasonable judgement to absorb and prevent
unreasonable vibration, noise and annoyance.
8. Lessor shall not be responsible to Lessee for the nonobser-
vance or violation of any of the Rules and Regulations by any
other Lessee.
Amendment to Lease dated December 7, 1993
1. Modifications of enclosed floor plan (on file) is approved.
Lessee is allowed to carpet the premises with owner approval of
color and style. Lessee is allowed to paint interior at their
discretion. Lessee agrees to paint the building back to its
original color when lease is terminated.
2. The owner understands the intended use as a teen center
including, but not limited, to recreation such as ping-pong and
dances, school studies, and counseling.
3. Lessee agrees to pay first and last month's rent by January
15th, 1994.
Item 5.2. Proposed Legislative amendments on railroad construction and
maintenance of fences, wagonways, etc. The request to incorporate these
legislative amendments into the County's legislative program was approved by
the above recorded vote.
Item 5.2a. Appointment - Thomas Jefferson Regional HOME Consortium
Managing Body. It was noted in the staff report that on January 6, 1994, the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission recommended that Commission
members be appointed as the Managing Body of the Thomas Jefferson Regional
HOME Consortium. The Managing Body will review policies and provide direction
to a regional housing program which is guided by the Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy, HUD and local government jurisdictions.
Approved the appointments of Mrs. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. Walter F.
Perkins to the Thomas Jefferson Regional HOME Consortium Managing Body, by the
above recorded vote.
Item 5.3° Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1993, was received
for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing to receive comments on Final Design
Guidelines prepared by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). It is the
purpose of ARB review and these Guidelines that proposed development within
designated entrance corridors reflect elements of design characteristic of the
significant historical landmarks, buildings and structures of the Charlottes-
ville and Albemarle area, and to promote orderly and attractive development
within these corridors. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 27,
1993, and January 3, 1994.)
Ms. Marcia Joseph, Design Planner, distributed and read a statement (on
file) concerning the Architectural Review Board guidelines and gave a slide
presentation. Ms. Joseph said Mr. Rudy Beverly, Mr. Tim Lindstrom and Ms.
Diane Miller (members of the ARB) are present.
January 12~ 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 6
0003 3
Mr. Beverly said Mr. Frank KeS'Sler wasnot able to be present, but sends a
statement of support. The ARB has been careful to make sure the concerns and
needs of the architectural and design people, developers and concerned
citizens were taken into consideration. The ARB asked for input and attempted
to incorporate as many comments as possible throughout the document. The ARB
worked diligently to make the guidelines a template. This document is not set
in stone, but is a working blue print. At the beginning of the guidelines
there is a letter from Mr. Lindstrom. The first paragraph addresses the
concerns the ARB felt were most important to emphasize. It is important that
any applicant have the opportunity to make sure it is an efficient process,
questions are answered as quickly as possible, so all will be proud of the end
product. He believes these guidelines are sound and will provide the develop-
er with an understanding of the County's desire to protect the character of
this historic area. For over a year, the ARB and staff worked hard to develop
this document. It is the ARB's hope that this Board will acknowledge this
effort and adopt the guidelines.
Mr. Perkins then opened the public hearing.
Ms. Treva Cromwell, representing the League of Women Voters, distributed a
letter (on file) and said the League strongly endorses the proposed guidelines
and urges the Board .to support these guidelines.
Ms. Eleanor Santic said as a new citizen to Albemarle County, she can
vouch for what can happen without ARB guidelines. The northern area, which
she left, has lost its entrance corridors with the resulting look being
identical with "Anyplace Strip, USA". A citizen no longer had any input or
impact on decisions governing the appearance they are supporting with their
taxes. Mere, in Albemarle County, she feels a citizen can still have input
into those decisions and hopefully impact the outcome.
Ms. Santic said the proposed document is most generous which is another
reason to support it. The current draft, which this Board is asked to
approve, has replaced "shall" and "must" with "should". The proposed document
no longer has the force of a commandment. Within the parameters available,
these guidelines offer the County and its citizens a reasonable expectation
that Albemarle County will not lose the identity of its corridors. Supporting
the guidelines can mean that Albemarle County will offer the future an
appearance both recognizable and distinctive, and an appearance reflecting its
unique character.
Mr. Don Wagner, representing the Board of Directors of the Charlottes-
ville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, said copies of the proposed guidelines
were circulated within the Chamber when they first became available late last
spring. The Chamber has a broad range of members and recognized that on this
subject it was quite likely that members would have differing views. With
this in mind, the Executive Committee of the Chamber sent a letter to the ARB
requesting that a committee be formed. This Committee would interact with the
ARB in coming to an understanding of the different points-of-view, and of
reaching a consensus that most could support.
He questions the guidelines which are purported to serve the public
interest by improving the quality of development along the main highways. He,
generally, supports the stated objectives, but does not accept at face value
that the guidelines, as proposed, will accomplish that. He thinks it is
likely that the guidelines will be administered by someone other than the
writer who knew what he/she intended to say.
Mr. Wagner asked the Board to remember that when the Sign Ordinance came
to it, it was a proposal which had the Planning Commission's full support for
adoption. The guidelines tonight come with the full support of the ARB. Me
believes they are also similar in that a committee, as proposed by the Chamber
in both cases, would have similar results. Temporary ARB guidelines have been
in use since 1991. Using them for a few months more would not make a big
difference. The Chamber believes that while the ARB solicited public input
and held a public hearing, that process was not nearly as effective as the
give and take of a committee meeting or an open work session. Me urged the
Board to accept the Chamber's suggestion and accept input from a broadly-based
committee.
Mr. Wagner said he has not spoken for himself about any specific problems,
and would not do so as a Chamber representative. Some of his concerns may not
be concerns of the Chamber's members. If the Board is not inclined to go the
committee route, or if any member of the Board would like to hear more
specific suggestions, he would be happy to come back after others have spoken
and go into as much detail as the Board would like to hear.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Wagner to give one example of Where the Chamber is in
agreement with the objective, but unsure of the strategy. Mr. Wagner said,
speaking for himself, the guidelines state "lighting should achieve an
incandescent effect". Me has no idea what "incandescent" means. Me looked
for the word "incandescent" in the dictionary and one definition said it is
something glowing because it is hot; another said "very bright." Today, sites
are not lighted with incandescent lights because they are not energy effi-
cient. The bulbs burn out and there are various other problems with them.
Most site lighting is with some type of art light. This could be a desirable
goal and something that everyone could agree with, but, as a developer, he
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 7
O0O324
does not know what "incandeScent'' means. ~nother example is the way sites are
rated, stating "steep cuts and fills should be avoided. The relationship
between the site and adjacent site should be maintained." The main applica-
tion of these guidelines is going to be to commercial areas along the entrance
corridors. They apply to things for which site plans are required. Business-
es typically require parking lots. The County Zoning Ordinance is specific in
its requirements for parking lots which have to be flat, they can only slope
two degrees one way and five degrees the other. This is not the way land lies
in Albemarle County. To develop a business with a parking lot which meets
zoning Ordinance requirements, most of the time there has to be cut and fill.
When there is cut and fill to get a flat area for a parking lot, it cannot go
beyond the property line and the site on one side quite often is higher and
the sit on the other side is lower. A developer ends up leveling a place for
a parking lot and building and, it is almost universal, that around one side
or more of the property, there is a cut slope and on one or more sides there
is a fill slope. The only way he knows to get away from this is to use five
acres for a one-acre development so there is no grading anywhere close to the
adjacent properties. If this were done, it would take five times as much area
to do the commercial development which seems controproductive to him. Also,
the Zoning Ordinance is quite specific about the maximum slopes for cuts and
fills. The guidelines state that there should not be a steep slope. He is
not sure what the definition of a steep slope is. Opinions of the definition
will vary. The definition of a steep slope in the Zoning Ordinance is very
specific and states a number.
Mr. Kevin Cox said he does not feel the ARB is what it appears to be. He
thinks the ARB is a thinly-veiled growth management tool which is intended to,
and effectively does, raise the cost of doing business in the County and thus
the cost of living in the County. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today and
tried to build Monticello, the ARB would not allow it because its architecture
was such a radical departure from the contemporary architecture of his time.
He encourages the Board to quit wasting the taxpayers money and tend to its
own business, which is protecting the public health and safety, and stop
trying to force the aesthetic values of a select body of its appointees on the
rest of its citizens.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom, Chairman, ARB, said he would like to comment on the
points made by Mr. Wagner. The request for a committee came at the end of the
comment period. The ARB did not want to meet with just one sector of the
public, as opposed to meeting with all of the people in the community. The
other statement Mr. Wagner made is important and one that the ARB has inter-
nally debated for quite a while. The ARB has two choices; one is a detailed
and specific set of guidelines with lots of numbers and specific designs with
pictures, etc.; secondly, a number of people in the community want no specif-
ics and a great deal of latitude. These people do not want the ARB to design
their projects for them.
The ARB did not feel, particularly in this community, it was appropriate
to have very detailed, specific and controlling guidelines, but decided to let
the landowners, their developers and designers come up with their own designs.
He feels the ARB has had the most effect on trademark buildings, i.e. Mc-
Donald's, Toys-R-Us, etc. Sometimes the ARB has said a design will not work.
The guidelines proposed are the same guidelines which have been in place since
the ARB was first established. Most of the people who have worked with the
ARB have not had any complaints about the design or development process, nor
any concerns about what the guidelines are intended to achieve. There have
been dialogues about what buildings will look like before people understand
what the ARB is asking for. Essentially, those are people from out of state
who come to Albemarle County with trademark buildings and cannot understand
that members of the ARB have travelled outside of Albemarle County and know
that these people can construct buildings other than their trademark building.
He feels Mr. Wagner has raised important points, but the Board needs to under-
stand that these points have been the subject of a great deal of discussion.
A lot of it is choosing one approach or the other. The ARB chose the approach
which tries to give the maximum latitude to the landowner and developer in
coming up with a project, rather than "voluminous" guidelines that are very
detailed, exacting and demanding.
Mr. Martin asked. Mr. Lindstrom if he was involved with rewriting the Sign
Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he observed the process. Mr. Martin said a
committee was formed to work with the people who had written the ordinance.
They looked at realities as opposed to theories and a better document was
drafted. In this instance, Mr. Frank Kessler represents the building indus-
try, Mr. Harry Porter represents design professionals, Mr. Rudy Beverly repre-
sents the business community, and he (Mr. Lindstrom) represents the conserva-
tion community. All of these members were appointed to reflect the various
views of the community. There is a significant difference because the Sign
Ordinance was written by a technical committee of staff people who did not
necessarily represent the community in the same sense as an appointed body
specifically intended to represent the community.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Lindstrom about the issue Mr. Wagner brought up about
incandescent light and the issue of definition. Mr. Lindstrom said "incandes-
cent effect" means it looks like incandescent lighting and will have a soft
yellow glow. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Wagner is the only person that has come
before the ARB who has not understood what incandescent means. It is fair to
say that if he (Mr. Lindstrom) did not want these guidelines, he could spend a
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 8
000325
long time going through things that he could say he did not understand and it
would be difficult for him to implement, but he thinks the proof is that
essentially, these guidelines have been in place for over two years.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Lindstrom if he sees any benefit to postponing
adoption of the guidelines to let people who will have to live under the
guidelines share in or at least give their opinions. Mr. Lindstrom said he
cannot say there would be no benefit, but there has been enormous input, most
of which was incorporated. Mr. Wagner's comments were not comments that could
easily be accommodated in a set of guidelines.
Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Wagner sent a letter and gave comments, which were
transcribed in the record of the ARB's meeting, that raised questions about
the authority of the County to have guidelines, an ARB, and the structure of
the whole process of entrance corridors. Those comments were not things that
the members of the ARB felt confident to answer and referred them to the
County Attorney. Mr. St. John responded to them. In terms of detailed
technical questions, there has been a lot of input, a number of meetings were
held, the ARB went over every letter and comment that was given and the tran-
script of the hearing that was held. The ARB used approximately 80 percent of
those remarks in making substantial changes to the guidelines. These guide-
lines were formed over two years and are not a substantative change from what
the ARB has operated under. The ARB just tried to make them clearer, more
understandable. He would be happy to work with a committee if that is the
Board's desire, but, frankly, he thinks it is a delay tactic. He does not
know why anyone would want to delay adoption since the ARB is presently
working under these guidelines. If this Board establishes a committee, he is
concerned that it have representatives from all of the different interests of
the community and not just one. Those people who are happy with the guide-
lines have not come in and said that they want a committee. If the guidelines
are going to change in response to one sector, then people have lost out on
their opportunity. If a committee is going to be established, he feels it
should be a broad committee. He is not convinced the process used by the ARB
was not thorough.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Lindstrom if he is saying that the process used by
the ARB and the process used in redrafting the Sign Ordinance were entirely
separate processes. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks they are different because
the people who wrote the Sign Ordinance are different people than those who
wrote the ARB guidelines, not only in who they are, but in what they repre-
sent. He feels the ARB represents what the Board of Supervisors considers a
cross section of this community, interested in design. The ARB worked
carefully and thoroughly with everyone who gave input over more than a four-
month period of time.
Mr. Ken Clarry, representing the North Charlottesville Business Council,
said the Council is made up of business and property owners in the Route 29
North corridor. As this is the most visible entrance corridor to Charlottes-
ville and Albemarle, they are greatly concerned about the character of the
area and the effects of any guidelines on their livelihoods and properties.
More than any other group, the Council will suffer if this corridor is not
appealing to the citizens and visitors. It, therefore, has an interest in
pursuing the implementation of the spirit of the ARB guidelines. The Council
does have serious reservations about both specific items in the guidelines and
the process by which they are carried out.
Mr. Clarry said he thinks that in order for these guidelines to be both
effective and workable, they need to be realistic, understandable and cause a
minimum of cost and effort for those subject to them and those who have to
administer them. He feels the current ARB guidelines caused confusion to some
developers who had to come back to the ARB time and again before their plans
were approved. Some specifics in the current guidelines with regard to
grading, lighting, signs and design are either confusing or difficult to
comply with in real situations. The Council supports the concept of the ARB
guidelines, but would like to see some changes and clarifications to make this
a better document for everyone who will be using it. During a similar process
with the Sign Ordinance, it was sent back to a committee, the ordinance later
came before this Board and was adopted as a better document. The Council sent
a letter to the ARB last year requesting that a committee be set up to study
the guidelines. The letter included specific suggestions and offered to help
in this process. The ARB did not respond to the suggestions or the offer.
The Council requests, as has the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Com-
merce, that the ARB guidelines be sent to a committee made up of interested
parties, so that they can be improved upon and thereby be a better benefit for
everyone.
Mr. Bob Watson, representing the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association,
said the Association supports the basic concept of the ARB. The Association
believes that new buildings in the entrance corridors should be compatible
with the many historic structures in Albemarle County. He has been a resident
of the County for approximately two years, and he, personally, also supports
the concept of the ARB. Throughout the publication of the ARB's interim draft
guidelines, it is stated that it is the intent to allow broad latitude in
approval "to avoid extensive design detail". The Association believes many of
the details which are part of the ARB's final approval process should not be
there, but should be a part of the Planning Commission's approval process;
referring to landscaping, screening, water control, lighting, signing, site
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 9
0003;86
grading and developmental passages. The Association does not argue with the
enabling legislation under which the ARB is formed. State law also says that
local governments can assign the site plan approval process to any agency. In
Albemarle County, this has been assigned to the Planning Commission. Now the
Association thinks it is fuzzy as to whether the ARB has site plan approval
authority. The final ARB draft states that a Certificate of Appropriateness
is required prior to final site plan approval, yet, it seems the ARB covers
all of the basics. This is a gray area so the Association is concerned with
the whole site development process. The Association is not arguing about the
premise of the ARB being involved and having final approval of architectural
development of the building itself. The Association, therefore, concurs with
the Chamber of Commerce and the North Charlottesville Business Council and
respectfully requests that the Board defer any action and support the appoint-
ment of a citizens committee to further review the draft presented tonight.
Mr. Carter Myers made the following recommendations: (1) Appoint a study
committee or task force to meet with the ARB and take written and oral
comments during a review period. Although staff analysis of the written
record is valuable and perhaps quicker, face-to-face interaction is a dynamic
and thought-provoking process which can generate ongoing cooperation and
healthy working partnerships. He thinks a ninety day delay would be warranted
in light of the impact of the guidelines on the community as a whole; (2)
Revise the guidelines to incorporate a periodic review process, at least on an
annual basis. He strongly supports the goal of quality development and
believes the community benefits from and deserves a higher standard. It is
the mechanics of the higher standard where disagreement originates. Flexibil-
ity is vital; (3) The Pantops area (Route 20/250 East) from Free Bridge to the
crest of Pantops Mountain, and Route 29 North from the City limits to the
South Fork Rivanna River are already so intensely developed that imposition of
the entrance corridor standards is impracticable for the business and develop-
ment community. He thinks too much development occurred before the adoption
of the ARB guidelines to achieve the desired effect now. The above described
areas should be redesignated in the standards to meet a somewhat lower or
different standard for the still undeveloped portion. Allowing dense or more
diverse development within these current business districts would help avoid
the leap frogging and sprawl resulting from the search for inexpensive quickly
developable sites. It would maximize return on investments, capital improve-
ments and help preserve other parts of the County; (4) Incentives nearly
always work better than penalties when it comes to investment issues. As an
alternative to penalizing a developer for deviation or non-compliance of the
ARB guidelines, allow more latitude for diversion from the standards if the
project interprets tradition in a unique manner or is innovative, i.e., energy
efficient structures, better use of natural light, active or passive solar,
half bermed designs, site designs that maximize use of existing utilities or
access systems or some other concept altogether. The developer would be
responsible for proactively presenting to the ARB a case for deviation from
the guidelines. Rather than reducing all future development to duplication,
reward creativity. Everyone appreciates Thomas Jefferson's innovations and
creativity. He strongly endorsed the goal of quality development and the
benefits it has brought, and will continue to do so throughout the community.
He also believes in building flexibility into the ARB guidelines, and reexam-
ining the review process at regular intervals.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Marshall said he cannot support the proposed guidelines for reasons
stated by several people; the Chamber of Commerce primarily. He supports the
ARB and the concept, but feels it needs more study and input, particularly
from the business community.
Mr. Bowerman said he will not vote against a deferral if that is what the
Board desires, but feels ninety days will not make a big difference. Most of
the arguments he heard tonight dealt with the basic concept of wheth'er the
County should have an ARB and what its role should be. Those questions were
answered over two years ago when the ARB concept was adopted by the Board.
The argument that Route 29, Route 250 East and Route 20 should be ignored in
these guidelines is not a valid argument because of the things that have been
done there. Toys-R-Us on Route 29 North and McDonald's on Route 20 North are
clear examples of what can be done along those corridors if good design
guidelines are used. Mention of confusion between what the Planning Commis-
sion's role is and what the ARB's role is was cleared up two years ago when
the ARB was created.
Mr. Bowerman said the process by which this was brought to the Board
tonight is totally different from the way the Sign Ordinance came to the
Board. There has been ample opportunity for public input. In reviewing the
proposed guidelines, he notes that there is hardly a paragraph without changes
which directly reflects the enormous amount of public input the ARB received
during the past four months. Ninety days will allow for additional public
input, but he does not feel that this Board should be under any false notion
that when the process came back to the Board the same thing would not happen
again. He thinks there is a lot of lip service being given to the laudable
goals of the ARB, but, in every case, the issue is really the design guide-
lines, and he does not think those are going to go away.
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 10
,000327
Mr. Martin said he will support a ninety day deferral because he does not
feel it will hurt anything. When people first contacted him, he was looking
at this in terms of it being similar to the Sign Ordinance and he, personally,
feels the Sign Ordinance became a better document because of the citizen input
after the public hearing stage. He does not have any problem with citizens
having the ability to give input, or with changing a document at this stage.
As he heard the comments tonight, he began to feel this was really an attack
on the ARB and not just fine tuning a document that is good.
Mr. Marshall said he does not share Mr. Bowerman's or Mr. Martin's
feelings. He supports the ARB, but wants to make sure that it will not be
damaging the business community and these are good and workable guidelines for
the County. As part of the community, he feels the document could use some
more work from a committee and he would like to give the community that time.
Mrs. Thomas said one thing she was frequently asked when campaigning for
her seat on the Board was how she was going to help with citizen participa-
tion. The ARB is a citizens group and has involved, for one year, citizens,
both as individuals and as involved groups, in this process. If this Board
tells the ARB they did not do the job expected, it could diminish the willing-
ness of citizens to participate in time-consuming, responsible jobs that this
Board turns to citizens and volunteers to do. She thinks the public hearing
tonight was very instructive. It brought out the fact that some people want
more specific guidelines, i.e., Mr. Wagner's comments, and some people want
more flexible guidelines, i.e., Mr. Myer's comments. The present proposals
are an improvement over the interim guidelines, but the old ones can continue
for another ninety days if this is the desire of the Board.
Mrs. Humphris said she is discouraged to find that these groups have come
forward at the end of the process when there was an opportunity for input for
months. One thing that disturbs her is the idea that the County should give
up on Route 29 and Route 250 East. She does not like to hear an idea like
that because this community has worked hard to "put the brakes on" in those
particular areas and turn them around so as to prevent any future damages from
occurring. She feels a deferral would simply be a delaying tactic. She has
every confidence in the work of the ARB, staff and citizens. She does not see
any need for a delay. She thinks the guidelines have been discussed, refined
and are ready to be accepted. She hopes this Board accepts the guidelines as
presented, but if it is the Board's desire to defer to a committee, the
committee should be very broad-based.
Mrs. Humphris then made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the
final ARB guidelines as presented.
Mr. Perkins said no Board member has stated that he/she wants to do away
with the ARB. The document, perhaps, could be fine-tuned. This Board holds a
public hearing to adopt a plan, or guidelines in this case, then there is no
opportunity to incorporate the ideas or comments that come forward at the last
moment. He feels that good ideas can come forward at any time. Even if the
guidelines were delayed for ninety days, the ARB would still operate under the
interim guidelines. Perhaps, there is a need to step back and look at this
closer and try and eliminate any vague areas.
Mr. Bowerman said the guidelines have had an enormous amount of changes
which are reflected by the public's comments. He feels that if there are
specific things brought to the Board's attention tonight that need to be
changed in the document, those things cab be dealt with. Usually when a
public hearing is held, specific problems or solutions are brought before the
Board. The proposed guidelines did not come this far with an absence of
public input.
Mr. Marshall said he has not yet made a motion for deferral, Mrs. Humphris
has made a motion to approve the proposed guidelines and the motion has been
seconded. Mr. Marshall then made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to call for
the question. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins
and Mrs. Thomas.
None.
Roll was then called on the motion to approve the proposed ARB guidelines
as presented (set out below) and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall.
BACKGROUND ~ PURPOSE OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Background
Section 15.1-503.2 of the Code of Virginia authorizes localities
to regulate the design of development along streets, roads, and
highways providing access to significant historic structures and
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 11
000328
to cities and towns to insure that such development is compatible
with the architecture of the historically significant landmarks,
buildings, and structures to which these routes lead. These
"entrance corridors" are to be designated by the locality. The
review of development proposals within such corridors is to be
undertaken by locally designated Architectural Review Boards.
On October 3, 1990, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
adopted Section 30.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
This section is titled "Entrance Corridor Overlay District" and
implements the authority described above. It specifically desig-
nates a number of "entrance corridors", establishes standards for
the review of development proposed within the corridors and
creates a five member Architectural Review Board (ARB). The Board
of Supervisors also appointed members to the ARB and charged them
with the responsibility for proposing and administering a set of
Guidelines for development within the designated corridors.
Purpose
The goal of the regulation of the design of development within the
designated entrance corridors is to insure that new development
within the corridors reflects the traditional architecture of the
area. Therefore, it is the purpose of ARB review and of these
Guidelines, that proposed development within the designated
entrance corridors reflect elements of design characteristic of
the significant historical landmarks, buildings, and structures of
the Charlottesville and Albemarle area, and to promote orderly and
attractive development within these corridors.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS
What projects must be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board?
If a proposed development project has the following characteris-
tics it must be reviewed by the Albemarle County Architectural
Review Board:
The project is' to be located upon a parcel which is within an
"entrance corridor", and
1)
The project requires County approval of a site plan or
approval of an amendment to an approved site plan before
development can begin (generally, .only commercial, indus-
trial, or multi-family development projects are required
to have a site plan and, therefore, require ARB approval),
or
2)
The project requires a special permit from the Albemarle
Board of Supervisors because it involves outdoor storage
or display within an entrance corridor street, or
3)
The project requires a special permit, rezoning, or com-
prehensive plan amendment and the Albemarle Board of
Supervisors or Planning Commission have requested advice
from the ARB before acting upon the proposal.
An entrance corridor includes all parcels which adjoin or are
located within five hundred (500) feet of the right-of-way of a
County road or highway designated in Section 30.6.2b. of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as an "entrance corridor
street." Appendix A contains a list of the current designations.
In the case of reviews under item 1 above, the ARB must issue a
Certificate of Appropriateness in order for the site plan to
receive final 'approval and the project to commence. In the case
of reviews under items 2 and 3 above, the ARB must make a non-
bonding recommendation to the Planning Commission or Board of
Supervisors.
What is required to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from
the Architectural Review Board?
Filinq an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
The developer must submit an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to the staff of the ARB which is located within
the Albemarle County Zoning Department. The ARB meets twice a
month on the first and third Mondays. In order to be considered
at a scheduled meeting the application and supporting documenta-
tion should be submitted to the staff at least two (2) weeks prior
to such meeting. Appendix B lists the items which must be submit-
ted with the application. An application form and further infor-
mation about the review process can be obtained from the ARB
staff.
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 12
000329
Preliminary Conferences
It is recommended, but not required, that prior to filing an
application the developer first request a preliminary conference
with the ARB. 'Neither the developer nor the ARB is bound by the
results of a preliminary conference, however, the ARB will provide
the developer with a written list of any suggestions discussed
during a preliminary conference. Experience has shown that
incorporating these suggestions into a final application will save
the developer time and expense. Information required for a
preliminary conference is minimal and is listed in Appendix B as
well. Preliminary conferences with the ARB should be arranged
through the ARB staff.
Desiqn Requirements
State law and County ordinance both require that the ARB approve
only those proposals which reflect designs which are compatible
with the historically significant architecture of the County of
Albemarle and City of Charlottesville. It is not intended that
proposed designs mirror existing historic structures in the area.
Replication of such structures is neither required nor desired.
However, developers proposing "trademark" designs can expect that
significant modification will be required by the ARB before
approval will be granted.
The guidelines which follow are intended to provide assistance to
the developer in designing projects which will meet the design
requirements of the ARB. In addition, Appendix C contains pic-
tures of historically significant structures in the area; drawings
which highlight some of the important features of these struc-
tures; and photographs of modern buildings, both in the area and
elsewhere, which are considered compatible with these historic
structures.
What is required for a review other than one required for approval
of a Certificate of Appropriateness?
Review of development requiring a special permit because outdoor
display is proposed within an entrance corridor shall require
provision of the information required for a "preliminary confer-
ence'', or, in the discretion of the ARB staff such additional
information, any of which would be required for the issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness. Any other reviews requested by
the Board of Supervisors shall be accompanied by such information
as shall be deemed appropriate by the ARB or ARB staff, including
the information which would be required for the issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
What appeal is available from decisions of the Architectural
Review Board?
Provisions of a Certificate of Appropriateness, or the denial of a
Certificate of Appropriateness may be appealed to the Board of
Supervisors by making a written demand for such appeal to the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of
the decision with respect to which the appeal is sought.
Recommendations of the ARB with respect to special permits,
rezonings, comprehensive plan amendments, and preliminary confer-
ences preceding application for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
are not appealable because they are advisory only.
Decisions regarding the application or intent of Section 30.6 of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance establishing the Entrance
Corridor Overlay District may be appealed to the Albemarle County
zoning Administrator.
DESIGN GUIDELINES -- GENERAL
Visitors to the significant historical sites in the Charlottes-
ville and Albemarle area experience these sites as ensembles of
buildings, land, and vegetation. In order to accomplish the
integration of buildings, land, and vegetation characteristic of
these sites, the Guidelines require attention to four primary
factors: compatibility with significant historic sites in the
area; the character of the entrance corridor; site development and
layout; and landscaping.
Compatibility with significant historic sites:
New structures' and substantial additions to existing structures
should respect the traditions of the architecture of historically
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 13
0003.30
significant buildings in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area.
Photographs of historic buildings in the area, as well as drawings
of architectural features, which provide important examples of
this tradition are contained in Appendix C.
The examples contained in Appendix C should be used as a guide for
building design: the standard of compatibility with the area's
historic structures is not intended to impose a rigid design
solution for new development. Replication of the design of the
important historic sites in the area is neither intended nor
desired. The Guideline's standard of compatibility can be met
through building scale, materials, and forms which may be embodied
in architecture which is contemporary as well as traditional. The
Guidelines allow individuality in design to accommodate varying
tastes as well as special functional requirements.
Compatibility with the character of the entrance corridor:
It is also an important objective of the Guidelines to establish a
pattern of compatible architectural characteristics throughout the
entrance corridor in order to achieve unity and coherence. Build-
ing designs should demonstrate sensitivity to other nearby struc-
tures within the entrance corridor. Where a designated corridor
is substantially developed, the Guidelines require striking a
careful balance between harmonizing new development with the
existing character of the corridor and achieving compatibility
with the significant historic sites in the area.
Site development and layout:
Site development should be sensitive to the existing natural
landscape and should contribute to the creation of an organized
development plan. This may be accomplished, to the extent practi-
cal~ by preserving the trees and rolling terrain typical of the
area; planting new trees along streets and pedestrian ways and
choosing species that reflect native forest elements; insuring
that any grading will blend into the surrounding topography
thereby creating a continuous landscape; preserving, to the extent
practical, existing significant river and stream valleys which may
be located on the site and integrating these features into the
design of the surrounding development; and limiting the building
mass and height to a scale that does not overpower the natural
setting of the site, or the entrance corridor.
Landscaping:
The requirements of the Guidelines regarding landscaping are
intended to reflect the landscaping characteristic of many of the
area's significant historic sites which is characterized by large
shade trees and lawns. Landscaping should promote visual order
within the entrance corridor and help to integrate buildings into
the existing environment of the corridor.
Continuity within the corridor should be obtained by planting
different types of plant materials that share similar characteris-
tics. Such common elements allow for more flexibility in the
design of structures because common landscape features will help
to harmonize the appearance of development as seen from the street
upon which the corridor is centered.
DESIGN GUIDELINES -- SPECIFICS
This section provides specific recommendations intended to achieve
the goals described in the general design statement above.
Compatibility with significant historic sites:
Structure desiqn:
1)
Building forms and features, including roofs, windows, doors,
materials, colors and textures should be compatible with the
forms and features of the significant historic buildings in
the area, exemplified by (but not limited to) the buildings
described in Appendix C. The standard of compatibility can be
met through scale, materials, and forms which may be embodied
in architecture which is contemporary as well as traditional.
The replication of important historic sites in Albemarle
County is not the objective of these guidelines.
2) Buildings should relate to their site and the surrounding
context of buildings.
3) The overall design of buildings should have human scale.
Scale should be integral to the building and the site design.
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 14
00083 1
4)
Architecture proposed within the entrance corridor should use
forms, shapes, scale, and materials to create a cohesive
whole.
5) Any appearance of "blankness" resulting from building design
should be relieved using building design details or vegeta-
tion, or both.
6) Arcades, colonnades, or other architectural connecting devices
should be used to unify groups of buildings within a develop-
ment.
7) Trademark buildings and related features should be modified to
meet the requirements of the Guidelines.
Accessory structures and ec[uipment
1)
Accessory structures and equipment should be integrated into
the overall plan of development and shall, to the extent
possible, be compatible with the building designs used on the
site.
2) The following should be screened to eliminate visibility from
the entrance corridor street:
a) Loading areas,
b) Service areas,
c) Refuse areas,
d) Storage areas,
3)
e) Mechanical equipment,
f) Above-ground utilities, and
Chain link fence, barbed wire, razor wire, and similar
security fencing and devices.
Screening devices should be compatible with the design of the
buildings and surrounding natural vegetation and may consist
of:
a) Walls,
b) Plantings, and
4)
c) Fencing.
Surface runoff structures and detention ponds should be de-
signed to fit into the natural topography to avoid the need
for screening.
Liqhtinq
1) Light should be contained on the site and not spill over onto
adjacent properties or streets.
2) Light should be shielded, recessed or flush-mounted to elimi-
nate glare; and
3) The light should achieve an incandescent effect.
Siqns
1)
Signs located within the entrance corridor must conform to the
size, height, and setback requirements as outlined in Section
14.15 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
2) Material used in both sign and support structures should
reflect the building being served by the sign;
3) Lighting should be shielded and not create a glare;
4) The structure of monument signs should not overpower the
message portion of the sign; and
5) Sign colors should be harmonious with the building which they
serve.
Landscapinq
1) Landscaping along the frontage of entrance corridor streets
should include the following:
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 15
000..q82
a)
Large shade trees should be planted parallel to the en-
trance corridor street. Such trees should be at least
three and one-half (3 1/2) inches caliper (measured six
[6] inches above the ground) and should be of a plant
species common to the area. Such trees should be located
at least every thirty-five (35) feet on center.
b)
Flowering ornamental trees of a species common to the area
should be interspersed among the trees required by the
preceding paragraph.
c)
In situations where appropriate, a three (3) or four (4)
board fence or low stone wall, typical of the area should
align the frontage of the entrance corridor street.
d)
An area of sufficient width to accommodate the foregoing
plantings and fencing should be reserved parallel to the
entrance corridor street, and exclusive of road right-of-
way and utility easements.
2) Landscaping along interior roads:
Trees should be planted parallel to all interior roads. Such
trees should be at least two and one-half (2 1/2) inches
caliper (measured six [6] inches above the ground) and should
be of a plant species common to the area. Such trees should
be located at least every forty (40) feet on center.
3) Landscaping along interior pedestrian ways:
Trees should be planted parallel to all interior pedestrian
ways. Such trees should be at least two and one-half (2 1/2)
inches caliper (measured six [6] inches above the ground) and
should be of a plant species common to the area. Such trees
should be located at least every twenty-five (25) feet on
center.
4) Landscaping of parking areas:
a)
Trees should align the perimeter of parking areas, located
forty (40) feet on center. Trees should be planted in the
interior of parking areas at the rate of one (1) tree for
every ten (10) parking spaces provided and should be ev-
enly distributed throughout the interior of the parking
area.
b)
Trees required by the preceding paragraph should measure
two and one-halve (2 1/2) inches caliper (measured six [6]
inches above the ground); should be evenly spaced; and
should be of a species common to the area. Such trees
should be planted in planters or medians sufficiently
large to maintain the health of the tree and shall be
protected by curbing.
c)
Shrubs should be provided as necessary to minimize the
parking area's impact on entrance corridor streets.
Shrubs should measure twenty-four (24) inches in height.
5) Landscaping of buildings and other structures:
a)
Trees or other vegetation should be planted along the
front of long buildings as necessary to soften the appear-
ance of exterior walls. The spacing, size, and type of
such trees or vegetation should be determined by the
length, height, and blankness of such walls.
b)
Shrubs should be used to integrate the site, buildings and
other structures; dumpsters, accessory buildings and
structures; "drive through" windows; service areas; and
signs. Shrubs should measure at least twenty-four (24)
inches in height.
6) Plant species:
Plant species required should be as approved by the staff
based upon Generic Landscape Plan Recommended Species List
and Native Plants for Virginia Landscapes List.
Site development and layout:
Development pattern
The relationship of buildings and other structures to the entrance
corridor street and to other development within the corridor
should be as follows:
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting) 000333
Page 16
1) An organized pattern of roads, service lanes, bike paths, and
pedestrian walks should guide the layout of the site;
2)
In general, buildings fronting the entrance corridor street
should be parallel to the street. Building groupings should
be arranged to parallel the entrance corridor street;
3) Provisions should be made for connections to adjacent pedes-
trian and vehicular circulation systems;
4) Open spaces should be tied into surrounding areas to provide
continuity within the entrance corridor;
5)
If significant natural features exist on the site (including
creek valleys, steep slopes, significant trees or rock out-
croppings), to the extent practical, then such natural fea-
tures should be reflected in the site layout. If the provi-
sions of Section 32.5.6.n of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance apply, then improvements required by that section
should be located so as to maximize the use of existing fea-
tures in screening such improvements from entrance corridor
streets;
6) The placement of structures on the site should respect exist-
ing views and vistas on and around the site.
Site Gradinq
1)
The site grading should respect the existing topographic
characteristics of the site and blend with adjacent proper-
ties;
2) Site grading should not change the basic relationship of the
site to surrounding conditions;
3) Steep cut or fill sections are generally unacceptable;
4) Cut and fill slopes should be rounded (minimum ten [10] foot
radius) to meet adjacent conditions;
5)
No grading, trenching, or tunneling should occur within the
drip line of any trees or other existing features designated
for preservation in the final Certificate of Appropriateness;
6)
Areas designated for preservation in the final Certificate of
Appropriateness should be clearly delineated and protected on
the site prior to any grading activity on the site. This
protection should remain in place until completion of the
development of the site;
7) Preservation areas should be protected from storage or move-
ment of heavy equipment within this area;
8) Natural drainage patterns (or to the extent required, new
drainage patterns) should be incorporated into the finished
site to the extent possible.
APPENDIX A
Entrance Corridor Overlay District
Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts are established:
a. To the full depth of all parcels of land in existence on the
adoption date of section 30.6 of the zoning ordinance which
are contiguous to the rights-of-way of the following entrance
corridor streets in Albemarle County; or
b. To a depth of five hundred {500) feet from the rights-of-way,
whichever shall be greater, along the following entrance
corridor streets in Albemarle County:
U.S. Route 250 East and West
U.S. Route 29 North and South
Virginia Route 20 North and South
Virginia Route 631 from Charlottesville City limits to
Virginia Route 708
Virginia Route 6
Virginia Route 151
Interstate Route 64
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 17
000334
Virginia Route 22
Virginia Route 53
Virginia Route 231
Virginia Route 240
U.S. Route 29 Business
U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass
Virginia Route 654
Virginia Route 742
APPENDIX B
Preliminary Conference
The Preliminary Conference should be the first step in the site
plan approval process. To save time and money this review is
encouraged prior to site plan submittal. The ARB requests a
minimum of information and investment for this initial review.
Submittals required for the preliminary conference:
a) Sketch or photograph of proposed buildings,
b) Albemarle County Tax Map and Parcel number, and
c) Any other material which the applicant believes will make the
preliminary conference more productive.
Certificate of Appropriateness
A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site
plan approval.
Submittals required for approval of Certificate of Appropriate-
ness:
a) Preliminary site plan including small groups of trees of any
size, indicated by common name, approximate caliper and loca-
tion;
b) Elevations of all facades visible from the entrance corridor;
c) Three dimensional sketch of all buildings visible from the
entrance corridor;
d) Cross section if necessary of the site from the entrance
corridor illustrating:
· Existing topography
· Proposed topography, vegetation, and building;
e) Samples of building materials proposed;
f) Photometric lighting plan and lighting details;
g) Description of how the proposal complies with the Guidelines.
Submittals required for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a
sign:
a) Scale drawing illustrating size and shape;
b) Explanation of the proposed sign, including the following
information:
· Materials
· Colors
· Method of lighting proposed
· Lettering, style and size
· Method of support for sign;
c) Justification for any requested deviation from the Guidelines.
APPENDIX C
The following list contains properties that serve as examples for
architecture and site design proposed within the Entrance Corridor
Overlay District. The list contains historic buildings as well as
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 18
000335
more recently constructed buildings. The buildings are located
within Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville.
Albemarle County Court House
Amoco Convenience Store (intersection of Route 29 North and
Airport Road)
Ash Lawn
Barracks Road Shopping Center (Barracks Road and Emmet Street
intersection)
Crestar Building (High Street)
Forest Lakes Commercial Area (intersection of Route 29 North and
Airport Road)
Legal Research Building (Route 250 West)
McDonald's (intersection of Route 20 and Route 250 East)
Memorial Gym (University of Virginia)
Monticello Hotel (500 Court Square)
Monticello
Moser Radiation Therapy Center (Route 250 West)
Queen Charlotte (High Street)
Rotunda and the Lawn (University of Virginia Grounds)
Shell Convenience Store Building (Route 250 East)
The buildings as noted above are either historically significant
or serve as examples of architecture compatible with historically
significant buildings in the Charlottesville and Albemarle area
and serve as examples of shapes, structures, materials, colors,
textures, site development, and the integration of site and
structure which are encouraged by these guidelines.
It should be recognized, however, that replication of these
examples will not necessarily result in the issuance of a Certifi-
cate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board because
each building site and its context is unique.
Large Shade Trees
Botanical Name
Acer platinoides
Acer mbmm
Acer sacchamm
Aesculus hippocastanum
Aesculus carnea
Celtis occidentalis
Cercidiphyllum japonicum
Fraxinus americana
Gingko biloba
Gynmocladus dioicus
Liquidambar styraciflua
Liriodendron mlipifera
Nyssa sylvatica
Platanus acerifolia
Platanus occidentalis
Quercus acutissima
Quercus alba
Quercus imbricaria
Quercus palustris
Quercus phellos
Quercus robur
Quercus mbra
Sophora japonica
Tilia americana
Tilia cordata
Common Name
Norway Maple
Red Maple
Sugar Maple
Horse Chestnut
Horse Chesmut
Hackberry
Japanese Katsura Tree
White Ash
Gingko (male species)
Kentucky Coffee Tree
Sweet Gum
Tulip Tree
Black Gum
London Plane Tree
American Sycamore
Sawtooth Oak
White Oak
Shingle Oak
Pin Oak
Willow Oak
English Oak
Red Oak
Japanese Pagoda Tree
Littleleaf Linden
Silver Linden
GENERIC LANDSCAPE PLAN
Recommended Species List
Botanical Name
Tilia tomentosa
Ulmus hollandica
Ulmus parvifolia
Zelcova serrata
Medium Shade Trees
Amelanchier canadensis
Carpinus betulus
Carpinus caroliniana
Cercis canadensis
Comus florida
Crataegus cms-galli
Crataegus laevigata
Crataegus phaenopymm
Halesia monticola
Koelreuteria paniculata
Malus varieties
Ostrya virginiana
Oxydendmm arboreum
Phellodendron amurense
Pnmus varieties
Pyres calleryana
Sassafras albidium
Common Name
American Linden.
Groenveldt Elm
Chinese Elm
Japanese Zelcova
Serviceberry
Euopean Hornbeam
American Hornbeam
Eastern Redbud
Flowering Dogwood
Cockspur Thom
Paul's Scarlet English Hawthorn
Washington Hawthorn
Mountain Silverbell
Golden Raintree
Crabapple
American Hophombeam
Sourwood
Amur Corktree
Cherry
Bradford Pear
Sassafras
GENERIC LANDSCAPE PLAN
Recommended Species List
Page 2
Botanical Name
Styrax japonica
Syringa amurensis
Viburnum pnmifolium
Screening Shrubs
Abelia grandiflora
Eleagnus augustifolia
Ilex comuta "Bufordii"
Ilex Fosteri
Ilex "Nellie R. Stevens"
Ligustmm lucidum
Osmanthus heterophyllus
Photinia frazeri
Prunus laurocerasus "Schip- kensos"
Viburnum rhytidophyllum
Screening trees
Cedms atlantica "Glauca"
Cedms deodara
Chamaecyparis lawsoniana
Cupressocyparis leylandii
Ilex opaca
Junipems virginiana
Magnolia grandiflora
Common Name
Japanese Snowbell
Japanese Tree Lilac
Black Haw
Glossy abelia
Russian Olive
Burford Holly
Foster Holly
Nellie Stevens Holly
Glossy Privet
Holly Olive
Red Tip Photinia
Schip Laurel
Leatherleaf viburnum
Blue Atlas Cedar
Deodara Cedar
Lawson Cypress
Leyland Cypress
American Holly
Eastern Red Cedar
Southern Magnolia
Botanical Name
Pinus nigra
Pinus strobus
Taxus baccata
Taxus cuspidata
Thuja occidentalis nigra
Tsuga caroliniana
Street Shrubs
Abelia "Edward Goucher"
Abelia grandiflora
Berberis thunbergii
Buxus sempervirens
Deutzia gracilis
Euonymus alata
Forsythia varieties
Ilex comuta
Ilex crenata
Ilex glabra
Ilex "Nellie R. Stevens"
Jasminum nudiflomm
Junipems varieties
Leucothoe catesbaei
Mahonia bealei
Myrica cerifera
Nandina domesfica
Photinia fraseri
Prunus laurocerasus varieties
Common Name
Austrian Pine
Eastern White Pine
Irish Yew
Upright Japanese Yew
Dark American Arborvitae
Carolina Hemlock
Pink Abelia
Glossy Abelia
Red Japanese Barberry
Common American Boxwood
Slender Deutzia
Winged Euonymus
Forsythia varieties
Dwarf Burford Holly
Japanese Holly
Inkberry
Nellie R. Stevens Holly
Winter Jasmine
Juniper varieties
Drooping Leucothoe
Leatherleaf Mahonia
Wax Myrtle
Heavenly Bamboo
Redtip Photinia
Laurel varieties
Street Shrubs
Botanical Name
Pyracantha coCCiaea
Pyracantha "Lowboy"
Rhododendron varieties
Spiraea varieties
Taxus varieties
Vibumum varieties
GENERIC LANDSCAPE PLAN
Recommended Species List
Page 3
Common Name
Orange Layland Firethom
Orange Lowboy Firethom
Azaela varieties
Spirea varieties
Yew varieties
Viburnum varieties
Trees:
Small deciduous
Botanical Name
Comus florida
Cercis canadensis
Crataegus spp.
Sassafras albidum
Amelanchier canadensis
Chioanthus virginicus
Ilex decidua
Salix caprea
Rhus typhina, glabra
Prunus spp.
Large deciduous
Betula nigm
Fagus grandifolia
Taxodium distichum
Nyssa sylvatica
Tilia americana
Oxydendmm arboreum
Acer rubrum
Carya spp.
NATIVE PLANTS FOR VIRGINIA LANDSCAPES
Common Name
Flowering Dogwood
Eastern Redbud
Cockspur Hawthorn
Downy Hawthorn
Washington Hawthorn
Green Hawthorn
Sassafras
Serviceberry
Fringetree
Possumhaw
Goat Willow
Various Sumacs
Carolina Cherry laurel
Beach Cherry
Plum Cherry
Wild Red Cherry
Common Chokeberry
Botanical Name
Carya spp.
Ostrya virginiana
Carpinus caroliniana
Diospyros virginiana
Robinia pseudoacacia
Celtis laevegata
Cladrastus lutea
Platanus occidentalis
Liquidamber syraciflua
Quercus spp.
River Birch
American Beech
Bald Cypress
Black/Sour Gum, Black Tupelo
American Linden, Basswood
Sourwood, Red Maple
Mockernut
Magnolia spp.
Liriodendron tulipifera
Common Name
Shagbark
Pignut
American Hophombeam
American Hornbeam
Persimmon
Black Locust
Sugar Hackberry
Yellowwood
American Sycamore
Sweetgum
White Oak
Swamp White Oak
Southern Red Oak
Shingle Oak
Chinkapin Oak
Water Oak
Scarlet Oak
Chestnut Oak
Post Oak
Willow Oak
Cucumber Tree Magnolia
Umbrella Magnolia
Sweetbay Magnolia
Tulip Poplar
Evergreen Trees
Botanical Name
Ilex opaca
Magnolia grandiflora
Junipems virginiana
Quercus virginiana
Ilex vomitoria
Pinus spp.
Tsuga canadensis
Tsuga caroliniana
Shrubs
Deciduous
Callicarpa japonica
Clethra alnifolia
Fothergilla major
Lindera benzoin
Hamamelis virginiana
Sambucus canadensis
Comus racemosa
Comus sericea
Rhododendron spp.
Calycanthus floridus
Vaccinium spp.
Viburnum spp.
NATIVE PLANTS FOR VIRGINIA LANDSCAPES
page 2
Common Name
American Holly
Southern Magnolia
Eastern Red Cedar
Live Oak
Yanpon Holly
Virginia Pine
Loblolly Pine
Shortleaf Pine
Canadian Hemlock
Carolina Hemlock
American Beautybush
Clethra
Fothergilla
Spicebush
Witch_hazel
Elderberry
Gray Dogwood
Redtwig Dogwood
Decidous Azaleas
Carolina allspice
Highbush Blueberry
Sugar Huckleberry
Gooseberry
Mapleleaf Viburnum
Botanical Name
Viburnum spp.
Rosa carolina
Physocar~us opulifolius
Evergreen Shrubs
Ilex glabra
Myrica cerifera
Kalmla latifolia
Vines
Clematis virginiana
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Campsis radicans
Gelsemium sempervirens
Lonicera sempervirens
Groundcovers
Rhus aromatica
Mitchella repens
Epigaea repens
Gaultheria procumbens
Hypericum
Wild Flowers
Ferns
Grasses
Common Name
Arrowwood
Pasture Rose
Ninebark
Inkberry
Southern Waxmyrtle
Mountain Laurel
Virginsbower, Clematis
Virginia Creeper
Trumpet Creeper
Carolina Yellow Jessamine
Trumpet Honeysuckle
Fragrant Sumac
Partridgeberry
Trailing Arbutus
Creeping Wintergreen
St. Johnswort
Violets, Trilliums, etc.
Ressurection, Christmas etc.
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 24
00034'1
(Mr. St. John left the room at 8:18 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-93-31. Richard & Carol Greene & Ringwood Company.
Public Hearing on a request for a private airstrip on 134 acs znd RA.
Property located on W side of Rt 680 approx 1/2 mi S of the Rt 810/Rt 680
intersec. TM40,P39. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on December 27, 1993, and January 3, 1994.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's
office and is a part of the permanent records of the Board.
He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 21, 1993, by a
vote of 4-3, recommended approval of SP-93-31 subject to the following condi-
tions:
Special use permit is issued to the applicant only, and
landings and takeoffs shall be limited to aircraft operated
by applicant;
2 o
The airstrip shall be located not less than 500 feet hori-
zontally nor 1000 feet longitudinally to any existing dwell-
ing on adjacent property;
3. No lighting of the airstrip shall be permitted;
4. Approval/registration by/with the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration and the Virginia Department of Aviation;
5. Landings and takeoffs shall be limited to daylight hours
only, except in emergencies;
6 o
Ail maintenance, repair and mechanical work, except that of
an emergency nature, shall be performed in an enclosed
building;
7. Ail areas used by aircraft under its own power shall be pro-
vided with a reasonably dust free surface;
8. Commercial activities and private clubs shall not be permit-
ted on site in conjunction with the airstrip;
9. Fuel storage shall be limited to 10 gallons;
10.
Aircraft usage is limited to Cessna 172 or similar single-
engine, fixed-wing aircraft not to exceed 2500 lbs. gross
weight;
11. Not more 'than five takeoffs or landings per week.
(Mr. St. John returned to the room at 8:21 p.m.)
Mr. Fred Payne, representing the applicant, said Ringwood Company is
beneficially owned by Mr. and Mrs. Greene. Staff outlined the use being
proposed. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) application (on file)
states what the use will be and what will happen if this Board approves the
request. This application lists the use as personal, which is much more
limited than a private airport. The application also lays out the physical
specifications for the facility itself, the number of operations per month (15
to 20) which equates to the Planning Commission's five per week. If the Board
has any questions about what is specifically proposed, he would refer them to
the FAA application because it is clearly binding on the applicant with the
Federal government.
The airstrip is intended for the personal use of the Greenes. The
Greenes have a business and another home in northern New Jersey. Also, both
Mr. and Mrs. Greene have elderly parents who are in poor health and require
frequent personal attention from the Greenes.
Mr. Payne said some people have the impression that the Greenes would
take off from New Jersey, fly to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport,
service the airplane, gas up and then fly over to their private airstrip, stay
for the intended period, fly back to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport,
and then fly back to New Jersey. This is not what is proposed and would not
make sense for the Greene's purposes. The way that the Greenes actually
travel is to take off from an airport in northern New Jersey, land at another
spot, usually Lancaster, Pennsylvania, take on fuel, fly here for the intended
stay, fly back to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, refuel and land again in northern
New Jersey. It is not safe to fly with a full load of fuel because of fire
danger. The easiest thing is to break up a trip. It takes approximately one-
half tank of fuel to fly the total distance and the tank holds 42 gallons.
The Planning Commission was concerned that the County control on the
number of operations per week. The Planning Commission recommended adding a
condition that would limit the use of the strip to five operations per week.
This is consistent with what the Greenes plan to do and what they told the
FAA. In any typical week, it will probably not approach that number. Another
condition the Planning Commission recommended was that the operators of the
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 25
000842
airplane be limited to the applicants. He thinks the Planning Commission
recommended that because the Greene's have exemplary records of safety with
their airplanes. Both Mr. and Mrs. Greene are licensed pilots and have been
licensed for over twenty years and neither of them have been involved in an
incident or been written up on safety violations.
Mr. Payne said Mr. St. John suggested at the Planning Commission meeting
that a condition be added to limit the type of airplane that will be used.
There are detailed specifications in the application as to what that type of
aircraft is. In terms of the aircraft's weight and carrying capacity, it is
smaller than a compact car.
Mr. Payne said the best thing to illustrate this use in the RA district
is to note: (1) the map which shows where the facilities are located. As he
remembers, there are only two private airstrips that are not in RA districts
and, as he recalls, both are heliports. The fixed wing ports are all in the
RA district; (2) If talking about a district in which residents are located, a
personal use airport does not make any sense unless it is in an area where the
owner lives. The only district that permits residences as well as a facility
like this is the RA district.
He would like to emphasize that staff has said the Zoning Ordinance does
contain specific provisions relating to airports and airstrips. The Zoning
Ordinance is specific and very restrictive, much more restrictive than the FAA
regulations. This application meets both the FAA regulations and the County's
Zoning Ordinance regulations.
The primary regulator of this type of activity is the FAA. They are
knowledgeable about the subject and it is their charge to insure the safety
and efficiency of the air space for everyone. The FAA has already approved
this application because of the completeness of the application and it
essentially had no questions. The FAA made a detailed inspection of the
property and site visits. The Federal regulations require that the FAA
physically go to the strip after it is built. The Richmond office of the FAA
commented to Mr. Green that this was probably the most complete application
they had ever seen. The FAA approval does not preempt this Board's action
because it is subject to this Board's land use review.
The Greenes want this facility because it is a convenience to them. The
Greenes own this property and are trying to use this property in a way that
maximizes their benefit from it. There is no effective alternative for them.
The Greenes have had experience in their airplane in public common hanger
space and their plane has been damaged. Public hanger space is inconvenient
to use and takes approximately twice as long depending on use of the hanger
space. What the Greenes are asking for is a "T" hanger. "T" hangers are used
at the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport, but there are none available and the
most recent information stated that it will be approximately six to seven
years before any will be available. There is a significant difference in
terms of the safety of the plane.
At the Planning Commission meeting, there was a question raised about Mr.
Greene's figures as to how long it takes from Ringwood Farm to the Airport.
The Greenes were told they should go the back way to the Charlottes-
ville/Albemarle Airport because it would be much quicker. The Greenes cannot
do that because their daughter is a student at St. Anne's-Belfield and she
would have to be picked up. For most purposes, the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Airport is not a reasonable alternative for them.
Mr. Payne said if this Board does not see fit to approve this petition,
it is unlikely that Mr. and Mrs. Greene will use the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Airport on a regular basis because there are airports in the valley that are
more convenient to them. In terms of the effect this application would have
on the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport, which is something this Board is to
consider under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance, this application will have
no effect one way or another. A statement has also been submitted from the
Airport that this operation will not have any effect on it.
At the Planning Commission meeting, there were some specific issues
raised. One issue concerned the noise and whether it was consistent with the
rural areas district. The noise generated by an airplane is generated almost
exclusively on take-off for a little over one minute. From the time the plane
takes off, it is out of locally controlled airspace anyway. On landing, there
is virtually no noise because the engine is usually idling. The takeoff noise
is set out in the application at 61 decibels.
There were also some concerns about safety. The best answer to this is
that the experts, FAA, have examined this matter and it has said that, in its
judgement, this is safe. In the FAA's approval, it considers the things that
all of us think are important, i.e., power lines, roads, houses, buildings and
trees. The fact that there was another airstrip approved approximately two
and one-half miles away, to him, suggests that it is appropriate to approve
this one. He was astonished to hear a member of the Planning Commission argue
that because the other airstrip was located two and on-half miles away, it
made this request unsafe because there was a probability of the planes
colliding on take off. He thinks the probability of this happening is so low
that it is not Worth considering. Obviously, it is the business of the FAA to
see that this does not happen and it has stated that in its judgement it will
not.
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 26
000.343
The specifications for take-off in a Cessna 172 are a little over one-
half what this runway will allow. The Greenes are well-equipped in terms of
their safety record to show what safety really is and this is one thing the
application could be conditioned upon. This application, because of the FAA
requirements and the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, permit
only visual flight operations which means if there is fog, snow or bad weather
this strip cannot be used. (Mr. Bowerman left the room at 8:43 p.m.)
There was a reference as to how this use would be inconsistent with the
neighborhood and the RA district because it would disturb stock and livestock.
There are three neighbors who keep stock, one keeps stock in rotation on
Ringwood Farm by contract with the Greenes. The stock property (Batna Farm)
directly north of the proposed airstrip has specifically indicated, in
writing, approval of this application. The second stock property is the Hodge
property which has also indicated approval. The third stock property (Small-
wood Farm) has also indicated approval. These people have specifically
considered the effect on their stock and are not concerned about it.
The issue of saturation also concerned the Planning Commission and how
many airstrips can be allowed. The ordinance says that this airstrip is a
permitted use so the issue is not whether it is a permitted use, but if the
use is permitted in this location and, if so, under what circumstances. The
Planning Commission was particularly concerned about saturation and directed
staff to make inquiries at the local airport and Virginia Department of
Aviation. He understood that the Virginia Department of Aviation considered
this to be a safety question and answered that it is saturated when the FAA
says that it is unsafe; therefore, as he understands the Department of
Aviation's view, that saturation point has not yet been reached. (Mr.
Bowerman returned to the meeting at 8:47 p.m.)
Mr. Payne said the applicants feel all of the requirements of the ordi-
nance have been met. They believe this application is consistent with the
applications which have been approved and feel this one is entitled to
approval. The applicant does not have any objection to any of the conditions
imposed by staff and the Planning Commission and are willing to accept those.
Mrs. Thomas asked if there is a prevailing direction of the landings and
takeoffs if the wind is mostly west to east and the strip is north to south.
Mr. Greene said the pattern depends on the actual landing direction and this
strip is designed, basically, north, northwest and south, southeast. Whichev-
er direction has prevailing wind at the time would be the direction of the
landing or takeoff, i.e., if wind is blowing from a southerly direction, the
landing or takeoff would be toward the south from the north and vise versa.
If there were excessive crosswinds, there would not be a landing or takeoff.
Mr. Bowerman asked why the proposal is in a corporate name as well as
their own name. Mr. Payne said the property is owned by the corporation.
Mr. Perkins then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Paul Patterson said his wife is disabled and owns the property
adjoining this. Her father has owned this property since 1940. If planes are
going to land and take off across that property, she will not be able to sell
the property for its true value. Mr. Patterson said that he and his wife both
oppose the proposed airstrip. Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Perkins if he is
involved, in any way, with removing the timber of the Greene's land. Mr.
Perkins said "yes." Mr. Patterson said he does not feel Mr. Perkins should
vote on this request because of his involvement. Mr. Perkins. said he will
defer to the County Attorney as to a possible conflict of interest.
Ms. Jerri McCormick Ray, University of Virginia, Department of Environ-
mental Sciences, said her husband was unable to attend the meeting but wrote a
statement and asked that she distribute and read the statement to the Board.
Mr. and Mrs. Ray are both ecologists at the Department of Environmental
Sciences, UVa. The proposed action to build a private airport will inevitably
make a contribution to the decline of increasing erosion of the environment.
The proposed airport will detract from the rural setting and tranquillity of
the area; contribute to noise pollution; may significantly affect adjacent
property values and taxes; constitutes a potential hazard to both people and
wildlife; and is a trivial pursuit. The report by Mr. Fritz to the Planning
Commission makes explicit that this proposal should be approved only if
"equivalent or better service is not available at the Charlottesville-Albe-
marle Airport." It is perfectly apparent that the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport would suit the Greene's emergency and business needs, and that their
request for up to five take-offs and landings per week is principally for
unnecessary convenience and recreational purposes. Wildlife has decreased
greatly during the past several decades in this country, mainly due to
development of rural areas. This airport, if built, may not have a great
effect, but will contribute to the "death of a thousand cuts" that is being
experienced in rapidly developing rural areas, such as that around White Hall.
Again, referencing the report of Mr. Fritz, she noted that "The Compre-
hensive Plan makes no specific comments regarding private airports .... " They
sympathize with the Board in attempting to make decisions regarding specific
cases such as this one. Approval contributes to what has been called the
"tyranny of small decisions" none apparently significant alone, but taken
together, possibly disastrous. The development may be subtle, but the effects
are cumulative and long-lasting.
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 27
000344
The Comprehensive Plan, if truly "comprehensive" is an attempt to avoid
this situation. Would it not be wise, in view of the many effects of aircraft
and airports on our environment, to take this entire issue up as a part of the
Plan's revision? She and her husband request that a decision be delayed until
such time as the issue of aircraft and landing strips can be treated county-
wide.
Mr. Richard Cogan, resident of White Hall, spoke in opposition to the
proposed airstrip. He has also been asked to speak for Mr. Tom Curtin, owner
of Parcel 38B (13 acre parcel adjacent to and southwest of the proposed
airstrip property) who lives out-of-state. He referred the Board to the
special use permit application and to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordi-
nance. He feels this use would be of substantial detriment to adjacent
properties. He has spoken to realtors and appraisers and unquestionably, if
this request is granted, they indicated that adjacent properties will be
devalued. He also referred the Board to Section 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
and suggested that equivalent service is available, although it may not be to
Mr. Greene's liking at the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport. Mr. Greene can
leave his farm, drive to the airport wi~thin 20 minutes and be in the air
within 20 more minutes. He does not feel 40 minutes is a big inconvenience.
As to the question of noise, there is a big difference between air noise and
ground noise. As to the question of safety, there is a section in life
insurance applications which asks if you are a pilot, if so, premiums are
increased dramatically.
Mr. Rick Weiss, adjacent property owner, said he is one of the most
immediately affected property owners. He learned second-hand of this applica-
tion by Mr. Greene. He objects because aircraft of any type, size or weight,
taking off and landing just a few hundred feet from his home would constitute,
at best, an imposition on his family's peace and tranquility, and, at worst, a
danger to his family and property. Anyone who lives in this immediate area
knows that the prevailing winds are west to east and are frequently sudden and
fierce. There are power lines and tall oaks on White Hall Road that must be
cleared on take-off or landing and are just a few hundred feet to the north of
the proposed airstrip. His home and family are being put in a danger zone by
a plan that, on its own admission, has nothing but convenience to recommend
it. At substantial expense for land, construction and taxes, he and his
family located in White Hall to be free from the sort of noise and distraction
that Mr. Greene's plans would impose upon them. There is nothing in this
proposal to indicate that the environmental impact of aircraft take-offs and
landings has been considered. Mr. Greene has not spent much time here, but
must be aware that flocks of geese make their home on his and surrounding
lands and are a joy to the people who live there and an irreplaceable asset to
western Albemarle County. Mr. Greene admits that he purchased land to the
south of him to protect the area from precisely the kind of thing he now wants
to squeeze in between his house and Mr. Greene's driveway. He has 100 plus
acres where he could put this airstrip in the back of his property. He is not
challenging Mr. Greene's right to build this airstrip but challenges his right
to impose problems on other people.
Mr. Richard Roderick, property owner in the White Hall area, said he
feels Mr. Greene has the right to apply for any use that the County permits.
After listening to the comments, he has questions about the convenience issue
such as going to town to pick up his daughter at St. Anne's-Belfield, which
seems a moot issue when he would have to drive from White Hall to St. Anne's
and back to White Hall again to leave. He is curious as to how, if this
airstrip is to be used for emergencies, can Visual Flight Rules (VFR) weather
be scheduled during the emergencies. As far as the noise of a plane versus
the noise of a lawnmower, he moved to the White Hall area to get away from
lawnmowers. In regard to Mr. and Mrs. Greene's parents, he, too, has ill
parents and he moved them to his property instead of having to fly to see
them. Mr. and Mrs. Greene seem to have plenty of land to have a home for
their parents.
Ms. Lisa Keyes Glass, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council
(PEC), said the views of neighboring property owners are an important factor
in the Board's decision for any special use permit and reflect potential
change to the character of the area. With the increasing number of private
airstrips in the County, PEC hopes the Board will give consideration to the
cumulative effect of the increasing number of uncontrolled flights.
Mr. Len Hartman said he has been a pilot for approximately 40 years and
is still active in flying. The issue here, as he sees it, is that this is Mr.
Greene's land, but he is skeptical, even though the FAA has approved the
airstrip, that the airstrip is long enough. This is the only safety factor he
sees, but he realizes the FAA is very careful in its recommendations. He
cannot see how it could cause any safety hazards to anyone in the area.
Mrs. Louise Maloy, Parcel 2lA, said she lives across the street from the
proposed airstrip, approximately 800 yards away, and heard nothing of the
request until told about it by a neighbor. She heard of the Planning Commis-
sion meeting on radio station WINA. She is quite upset that she was not
notified and thanked Mr. Payne for giving her one light moment because it
surprised her that a man planning an airport hired a self-proclaimed dumb
lawyer to represent him against concerned citizens. She does not have cattle,
but does have seven children. She also has a mother who is 89 and her sister
who is 91. She flies to check on them, takes the long route and arrives at
the airport in 20 minutes. If the children have to be picked up, she goes to
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 28
000345;
Henley and gets them first. Her other aunt is 94 and at this point does not
choose to move here. She flies to check on them; it can be done and is
inconvenient, but possible. She hopes the Board takes this into consider-
ation. She considers herself a good neighbor and tries to cooperate and this
has come as a big surprise to her.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain why Mrs. Maloy was not noti-
fied. Mr. Cilimberg said the County is required to notify only immediately
adjacent property owners and there is one intervening property between her
property and Mr. Greene's property. Mrs. Maloy said in her estimation, 800
yards is very close to an airstrip.
Mr. Jim Maloy said he lives across from the Hodges and he and his wife,
from their porch, look at the back of Mr. Greene's house. Mr. Maloy said the
winds are very fierce and he gave two examples. The wind crosses this field
where the proposed airstrip is to be located at a 90 degree angle and this is
a concern. If the plane is as light as a compact car, it will be easy for
fierce winds to alter its route.
Ms. Fern CampbeLl, resident of Route 811, approximately one and one-half
miles from the proposed site, said she opposes the permit, because there is an
airport 20 minutes away and the proposed airstrip presents a safety and
environmental issue. This location is not only in rural agricultural, but
there are a lot of residential homes in that area. She asked that the Board
consider these issues.
Ms. Mary Lou Weiss, adjacent owner, asked that the Board deny the request
for an airstrip. She distributed a picture of her property in White Hall (on
file) showing power lines and how the airstrip would be placed next to her
house and how close it would come. She is concerned about the effect on her
property value. She has consulted with several realtors and was told that
their house would be very hard to show because they would have to say that a
plane would be landing next to their property and the airstrip would be
visible from their home. The realtor also said the property value would
decrease significantly. She is a registered nurse and has lived in Albemarle
County for 23 years. She is concerned about safety and has worked with people
who have been in aircraft crashes. She received a phone call from Sandy Shank
who is a doctor in this community and was involved in a small plane crash and
significantly burned. He called to say that he was at the Planning Commis-
sion's meeting and had a lot of concerns about this parcel of land and her
property being adjacent to it. There is a volunteer fire department, but no
appropriate fire safety for this plane to land next to them in the event that
an accident did occur. No one ever wants to think of an accident occurring,
but her house and this property are so close that there are just hay fields
between the airstrip and their home. When something ignites in a hay field
and conditions are dry, fire can move quickly.
Noise is another factor. She knows Mr. Greene has said that this air-
plane sounds like a lawnmower when it is on the ground, but there is a noise
factor when a plane is in the air. This airstrip is approximately 500 feet
from her bedroom. As a health care professional, she works different shifts
and sleeps during the day; this airstrip will have an effect on her as a
professional, her sleep patterns and activities.
Ms. Weiss stated that if Mr. Greene is landing and has to go toward the
north there is no area for him to turn the plane around because the airstrip
is planned between his driveway and her house. If he comes from the north the
plane can be turned around on his property, but if it lands from the other
direction, in the event that the winds were not appropriate, there would be no
area for him to turn around. With regard to the safety, environmental and
property value issues, she respectfully requests that the Board deny this
request.
Ms. Charlene Sterling, resident of Route 680, approximately one mile
south of the proposed airstrip, said according to the map, staff has referred
to the residents as rural agricultural. She and her husband purchased their
land fifteen years ago. She does not have a farm, but a home, and the people
around her also have homes. She does not know when the Board redesignates
property, but this particular area is no longer rural agricultural, but
residential. She asked if the FAA would allow Mr. Greene to have a landing
strip in a rural residential area which she feels is where she now lives.
Secondly, she worries for the safety of the neighbors and pilots and asked who
would monitor the landings and takeoffs. If Mr. Greene needs a "T" hanger at
the Airport and the Airport is under the Board's jurisdiction, the Board
should do something with the Airport instead of granting exceptions for
individual pilots because obviously a critical need is being missed. She
understands that this is Mr. Greene's land, but questions the zoning category
of rural agricultural and feels these properties are becoming rural residen-
tial. She moved to White Hall to be away from Route 29, and that traffic
corridor and if she wanted to live beside an airport she could have purchased
land on Route 29. She asked that the Board deny this request.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed at 9:24 p.m.
Mr. Perkins said he would like to straighten out the issue Mr. Patterson
brought up in regard to his work with Mr. Greene and cutting his timber. Mr.
Greene has an agreement with Westvaco Corporation where it assists him in
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 29
000;
managing his timberland. He assisted Mr. Greene in lining up a logging
contractor to cut the pines that were dead on this property and this operation
has been completed. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. St. John if he feels this is a
conflict of interest. Mr. St. John said "no," this, under the statute is not
a conflict of interest. The Commonwealth's Attorney gives official opinions
on conflict of interest, but he does not feel, in his legal opinion, that this
is a conflict.
Mr. Bowerman said this Board had an application before it some months ago
for a heliport on Pantops. On the face, it seemed to be a very logical
request, but during the public part of the application the question was raised
by an individual of the audience which defined the problem for him. He feels
it is the same in this case. It is a convenience and good for this particular
company, but what is the cost to the community for the convenience it offers
to a small group of people.
If Pegasus (air rescue) had this before the Board and could demonstrate a
legitimate public need for the creation of a nuisance in this area, he might
be reasonably inclined to consider it, but the premise on which this request
was presented, which is for the convenience of the applicant being the only
real justification, simply does not warrant the inconvenience to the rest of
the community. Everyone has dealt with ill family members and has had to
accommodate the best way possible. This does not mean it necessarily takes an
airport to do so. He cannot support the request for those reasons.
Mrs. Humphris said she cannot support the request. She agrees that a
person has the right to maximize the use of their property, but feels that
right has to be tempered by the rights of other property owners. She will not
repeat all of the issues expressed tonight, and feels the people who spoke
stated their cases clearly. She believes there is a hanger available at an
airport that is convenient and that is soliciting usage. This Board may need
to do what was suggested by Mrs. Sterling and find out what is wrong with the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport instead of proliferating private airstrips
in the rural residential areas.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks there has to be an overriding public benefit
in a situation like this and he does not see that.
Mrs. Humphris then made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to deny SP-93-31.
Mrs. Thomas said she thinks an airstrip is consistent with the rural
area, in use, appearance and noise. She crashed at the end of an airstrip
just like this 30 years ago. She drove to the site and drove the road to
figure out where the proposed runway would be located. She decided that it
was not a great danger to the nearest house, particularly when hearing this
evening that the landings will be coming in that direction rather than coming
from the north, so she came prepared to support this request. However, the
presentation was such an obvious attempt to pull a heart string when so many
people have elderly parents as well as talking about picking up children from
school in a way that was clearly an illogical attempt to suggest that the
airport could not be used that, in fact, she has changed her mind. She still
believes that airstrips of this sort are consistent with the rural area, but
she is not convinced that this particular airstrip is the right thing in this
area.
Mr. Marshall said he has mixed emotions about this request. His brother
was killed in a plane just like this not long ago. He was also in a helicop-
ter crash and was lucky enough to walk away from it. It has been and always
will be his belief that an individual has certain rights on his property and
this certainly is one of them. He does not believe those individual rights
should infringe upon the rights of others. It is obvious to a lot of people
here that they perceive that this will infringe upon their rights. He will
support the motion to deny the request.
Mr. Perkins said he feels that one of the greatest threats that this
country has today is the infringement on personal property rights. Mr.
Perkins said there are many things Mr. Greene could do by-right that would be
much more disturbing and inconvenient to the neighborhood than what he is
proposing to do.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion to deny
SP-93-31 carried'by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins
and Mrs. Thomas.
None.
The Board recessed at 9:33 p.m. and reconvened at 9:43 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Service Agreement - Sheriff's Deputies for
the Town of Scottsville.
Mr. Tucker said during the boundary adjustment proceedings recently
completed with the Town of Scottsville, the Town agreed to provide full-time
police protection within the corporate limits for the Town of Scottsville.
This agreement, drafted by the Town, points out that Section 15.1-131.3 of the
000347
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 30
Code of Virginia provides that a governing body of a county also may enter
into a tri-party contract with the governing body of any town and the sheriff
for such county for the purpose of having the sheriff furnish law enforcement
services in the town. The sheriff then becomes the town's chief of police.
It is the Town's.hope that entering into an agreement will secure funding
for the two deputies requested from the State Compensation Board. This
funding obviously would be a tremendous benefit to the Town of Scottsville and
the arrangement has been agreed to by Sheriff Hawkins. No commitment from the
Compensation Board to provide this funding has been received at this time.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the agreement be amended to make it
clear that the County's commitment to this agreement is contingent upon the
State and the Town covering any and all costs associated with this function.
It should be clear that if the Compensation Board does not fund these posi-
tions, the County assumes no responsibility in providing funding for this
agreement. Staff further recommends that a separate agreement be developed
between the Police Department and the Sheriff's Department as to mutual
assistance, i.e., which agency would be considered primary for handling calls
for service and criminal investigations, and how federal and state crime
reporting requirements will be met for this area so that duplication of crime
statistics is not an issue. Last, the staff recommends that a provision be
added stipulating that the Town is required to pay its pro rata share of the
Emergency Operations Center Police Dispatch costs for dispatch services
provided by that entity. These costs would be assessed after a full year of
data for calls for service is established.
Mr. A. Raymon Thacker, Mayor of Scottsville, said the Town of Scottsville
might have an opportunity to get police assistance through the State Compensa-
tion Board under Sections 14.1-70 and 15.1-131.3 of the Code of Virginia. The
Town is asking for the County's cooperation in helping it to do this, with no
cost obligations on the County's part. Mayor Thacker asked if the Board had
any questions.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Compensation Board were to provide the Sheriff
with the two deputies to do the duty for Scottsville, would it diminish the
County's 599 funding for its Police Department. Mr. Tucker said the Compensa-
tion Board has indicated it does not feel this would diminish or reduce the
County's 599 funds, but has not reduced this to writing. This will reduce the
Town's 599 funds because it would be supplemented with Compensation Board
funds.
Mrs. Humphris asked who would pay for the police cars. Mr. Tucker said '
the County pays for its Sheriff's Department, provides for capital and
operation needs, and the Compensation Board primarily provides salaries. Any
fringe benefits and other operational costs would be the responsibility of the
Town. This is why staff has indicated that the agreement should make it clear
this is not the County's responsibility, but that of the Town.
Mrs. Humphris said under the question of which agency would be the primary
contact, staff recommends that there be a separate agreement developed between
the County Police Department and the Sheriff's Department. She asked if this
covers all of the possible areas where there may be a question of responsibil-
ity. Mr. Tucker said that would be the intent. The Police Chief and Sheriff
would work out an agreement for mutual assistance and decide who would be the
primary person to handle various responsibilities. This is something that has
not been worked out yet.
Mr. St. John asked if the County has the consent of the Town that the
County Police Department have jurisdiction to enforce the law in Scottsville.
Currently, under the statute, the County Police Department has jurisdiction in
Scottsville. Mr. Tucker said this has been done, but he does not know if
there is a formal agreement. Mr. St. John said it needs to be clear whether
this agreement will oust the County Police Department of its jurisdiction in
the Town. There is also a question of whether these deputies would have
jurisdiction within the whole Town or just that part in Albemarle County
because part of the Town is in Fluvanna County.
Sheriff Terry Hawkins said he has spoken to Sheriff Richardson in Fluvanna
County and he understands which part of the Town is in Fluvanna County. He
has no problems with entering into a mutual aid agreement with the two town
officers and giving them full jurisdiction. He sees no change in the County
Police Department being the primary law enforcement agency. The purpose of
this agreement is to get state funding for these two positions and nothing
else will change. The only thing that this agreement is trying to do is
derive state funds to assist the people of Scottsville with law enforcement
for its ordinances, parking violations, etc., which, currently, County police
are not authorized to do. Mr. St. John said the County Police can enforce the
law of the Commonwealth but not the Town's ordinances. Sheriff Hawkins said
these two deputies would be able, under this statute, to enforce Town ordi-
nances which is the main difference between the County Police Department and
the two deputy positions. These deputies will act as Town Police for the Town
of Scottsville assigned to use his authority because of state funding. The
Albemarle County Police Department will still be the primary investigative
agency in this jurisdiction. In reference to 599 funding, it has nothing to
do with this formula. It will affect the Sheriff's law enforcement ratio,
i.e., if he were allowed 36 deputies under state code, and two deputies were
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 31
000348
allowed for the Town of Scottsville, he would then only have 34 for the rest
of the County. It affects the law enforcement funding formula for the
Compensation Board for a Sheriff, but that has nothing to do with the County's
599 funding. This is an entirely different circumstance according to the
Compensation Board. If approved by the Compensation Board, it will set a
precedent. This request cannot go to the Compensation Board until the
agreement is finalized with this Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there were a situation of illicit drug activity in
the Town of Scottsville, who would handle investigations. Sheriff Hawkins
said, in his opinion, the Town Police would not only enforce town ordinances,
but all state and local laws in its jurisdiction and if assistance was needed
they would call on the County Police Department. This is the way it is
currently.
Mr. Tucker said the difficulty the Compensation Board will probably have
is the statute which states that the funding formula for law enforcement is
basically one deputy per 2000 population. This obviously could not be met.
The other difficulty will be their setting a precedent. Towns in other
localities may in turn decide that this is a good deal because it can get
Compensation Board funding rather than 599 funding which is less than what the
Compensation Board provides.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the County Police Chief feels about this situa-
tion. Mr. Tucker said Chief Miller recommended that there be a mutual
assistance agreement with the Sheriff on how investigations and other issues
in the Town would be handled.
Mrs. Thomas asked if this will take the place of the part-time police
officer the Town has. Mayor Thacker said they are shooting high by asking for
two positions and the Compensation Board may only give them one; if that is
the case, a person would be hired to work with the part-time police officer.
If there is a possibility of getting the funding, he feels the Town would be
stupid not to request this.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to authorize the
Chairman to sign the service agreement for Sheriff's Deputies for the Town of
Scottsville as amended (set out below). Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins
and Mrs. Thomas.
None.
The service agreement will be set out in the minutes when it
is ~received by the Clerk.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appropriation: Transfer to Textbook Fund - $15,000.
(Form ~930048).
Mr. Tucker said that at its meeting on December 13, 1993, the School
Board approved and requested that $90,000 in additional funds be transferred
to the Textbook Fund due to an unexpectedly high expenditure for replacement
textbooks purchased in anticipation of growth. Also, carryover funds from FY
1992/93 were $15,000 less than projected. Funding for this request will be
accomplished by reducing the budgeted transfer to the Summer School Fund by
$75,000 and reducing Education/Recreation supplies in the School Fund by
$15,000. Expenditures within the Summer School Fund are also being reduced to
offset the $75,000 reduction in revenues. Staff recommends approval of this
request.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt a Resolution
of Appropriation (set out below) in the amount of $15,000. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins
and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
NI/MBER:
FUND:
PURPOSE:
930048
SCHOOL
TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS FROM SUMMER SCHOOL AND
SCHOOL FUND TO TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1331060205111400
1331060205112100
1331060205600100
1331060205601300
1331060205601700
1331060254111400
1331060254112100
1331060254114100
1331060254600100
1331060254601300
SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT
SALARIES-TEACHER
OFFICE SUPPLIES
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
COPY SUPPLIES
SALARIES-OTHER MANAGEMENT
SALARIES-TEACHER
SALARIES-TEACHER AIDE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
ED/REC. SUPPLIES
($ 4,200.00)
(2,000.00)
(500.00)
(11,600.00)
(8,500 00)
(3,000 00)
(30,000 00)
(5,000 00)
(200 00)
(8,000 00)
0003' 9
January 12~ 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 32
1331060254601700 COPY SUPPLIES
1211493010930008 TRANSFER FOR TEXTBOOK FUND
1210393010930007 TRANSFER TO SUMMER SCHOOL FUND
1211161311601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES
1340063070601200 BOOKS/SUBSCRIPTIONS
TOTAL
(2,000 00)
90,000 00
(75,000 00)
(15,000 00)
90,000 00
$15,000 00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2331051000512001
2340051000512001
TRANSFER-SUM. SCH. FROM SCHS.
TRANSFER-TEXTBOOK FROM SCHS.
TOTAL
($75,000.00)
90,000.00
$ 15,000.00
Agenda Item No. 10. Appointments.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to appoint Ms.
Katherine L. Imhoff to the Planning Commission as the at-large member with
said term to expire December 31, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins
and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowerman made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to appoint Ms. Monica
Vaughan to the Planning Commission as the representative for the Charlottes-
ville District with said term to expire December 31, 1997.
Mrs. Thomas made motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to appoint Mr. A. Bruce
Dotson to the Planning Commission as the representative for the Samuel Miller
District with said term to expire Decemberr31, 1997.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins
and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to appoint Mr. Ken
Clarry to the Industrial Development Authority as the representative for the
Rivanna District with said term to expire January 19, 1998. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins
and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Martin requested that he be replaced on the Hazardous Materials
Local Emergency Planning Committee due to a conflict in meeting dates. There
was a consensus that Mr. Bowerman serve on the Hazardous Materials Local
Emergency Planning Committee replacing Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: March 13 (A) and March 18 (A),
1992.
Mr. Martin had read the minutes of March 18, 1992, and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the minutes
of March 13 (A), 1992. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
lng recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mrs. Thomas.
Agenda Item No. 12. Cancel Board meeting for January 19, 1994.
Mr. Martin made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to cancel the meeting
for January 19, 1994. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins
and Mrs. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD. There were none.
000850
January 12, 1994 (Regular Night Meeting)
Page 33
Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. At 10:12 p.m., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman