HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-15January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
245
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
~anuary 15, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., in the Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401
~cIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George R.
St. John; Deputy County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and Director of Planning and
Community Development, Mr. John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Not DoCketed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to appoint Mr. Peter A. Stark to serve
on the Planning Commission to represent the Jack Jouett District; said term to expire on
December 31, 1987. Mr. Stark is a resident of Canterbury Hills, a retired Naval Captain,
serves as the Assistant Vice President in the Office of Student Affairs at the University of
Virginia and is a member of the University of Virginia Master Planning Committee. Mr. Stark
will Provide a fortunate link with the University. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve Item 4.1 on the consent
agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses in which the State Compensation Board participates,
for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month
of December, 1985, were approved as presented.
Item No. 4.2. The following letter dated January 2, 1986, from the Highway Department
re: roads in Terrell Subdivision being taken into the State Secondary System, was received.
"As requested in your resolution dated October 16, 1985, the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective January 2, 1986.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
TERRELL SUBDIVISION
Terrell Road East - From Route 656 to NW cul-de-sac 0.32 Mi.
Terrell Road West - From Terrell Road East to NW cul-de-sac 0.38 Mi.
Terrell Court - From Terrell Road West to SW cul-de-sac 0.08 Mi."
Item No. 4.3. Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1985, for the
County of Albemarle, accompanied by Management Letter dated September 27, 1985, was received.
Item No. 4.4. A copy of Planning Commission minutes for its meeting of December 17, 1985
~as received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-29. Lake Reynovia (PUD) - Daley Craig. To rezone 390.33
~cres from R-2 to PUD to include six acre shopping center; 25.2 acres industrial; 230 square
feet detached dwellings; 70 multi-family dwelling units and including roads, recreational
~reas, and open space areas. Property on west side of Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742) from the
~ational Guard Armory to about 3.4 miles south of Lake Reynovia entrance road. Tax Map 90,
Parcel 36A. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 31, 1985 and
~anuary 7, 1986.)
Mr. Horne said the applicant had requested deferral , so the Planning Commission ~h~s not
ret acted on this petition. Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer~'
~MA-85-29 until February 5, 1986. Roll was called and the motion carried by the foli~wing
recorded vote:
%YES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. ~
~AYS: None.
246
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-85-85. Gregory O. Smith. To locate a double-wide mobile home on
two acres zoned RA. Property located off private easement on west side of Rt. 20, about 0.4
mile south of its intersection with Rt. 627. Tax Map 112, Parcel 18D1. Scottsville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 31, 1985 and January 7, 1986.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"LOCATION:
Property described as Tax Map 112, Parcel 18D1, located approxi-
mately 900 feet off a private easement on the west side of Route
20 south, approximately 0.4 mile south of the intersection with
Route 627.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The property is presently vacant. The surrounding area is rural
in character, with the Montdomaine Vineyards on an adjacent tract.
Residences in the immediate area consist primarily of single family
residences with some mobile homes. Within one-half mile, there are
four mobile homes.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The applicant is the contract purchaser from his father, who also
owns the parcel adjacent to the east. It is the intent of the
applicant to reside in the mobile home. The proposed location of
the double-wide would be approximately 1100 feet west of Route 20;
90 feet from the front (driveway); 56 feet and 187 feet from the
sides and 210 feet from the rear of the parcel (plat on file
showing location).
It is staff's opinion that the proposed location would not be
visible from Route 20; and would be fully visible to one
residence (on Montdomaine Vineyards), and partially visible to
the parcel adjacent to the west. The parcel is open and
partially wooded along the fence line on two sides (north and
south). Therefore, required screening would be most effective to
the west and to fill a gap on the boundary common with Montdomaine
Winery.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Access to Route 20 shall be limited to the 50 feet access
easement as indicated on the attached plat.
Rental of the double-wide shall not be permitted under this
special use permit."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 14, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval of SP-85-85 subject to the conditions of the staff and a fourth conditior
reading: "Screening to be installed, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, to the
west and to fill the gap on the Montdomaine common boundary."
Mr. Fisher said the plat attached to the staff report shows a 50 foot access easement,
and asked how many parcels have use of this easement. Mr. Horne said three properties,
including the applicant's father, have use of the easement.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Gregory Smith, the applicant, addressed the Board.
Mr. Smith mentioned some of the concerns with regard to mobile homes, but said he plans to
avoid those problems. He distributed pictures of his mobile home for the Board to review and
presented a brochure of a regular-sized house to compare to the mobile home. Trees will be
provided for screening. The mobile home is well constructed; two by six floor joists on 16
inch centers, wood siding, sheet rock interior walls, shingle roof, and it meets HUD specifi-
cations and is close to meeting BOCA standards. The home will set on footers the width of the
mobile home and will be poured by the dealer. He contacted three real estate agencies, Real
Estate III, Montague Miller and Roy Wheeler Realty, all of which stated that a mobile home is
not guaranteed to increase in value, but it is conceivable depending on the location, the
landscaping and the maintenance. The mobile home will contrast nicely with the rural setting,
it is built to HUD standards and he does intend to provide adequate screening. Mr. Smith said
he and his wife plan to live in the mobile home.
Mr. Michael Bowles, owner of Montdomaine Vineyard, addressed the Board. He said he has
made a substantial investment in his property and therefore has problems with this application
The proposal is minimal with two-acre zoning, setback at a minimum of 56 feet, access easement
to Rt. 20 is questionable, and the mobile home is large and will take up much of the site.
There are six mobile homes within one-half mile which he sees as creating problems in the
future for the predominantly rural area. Every year or so another mobile home appears on a
minimum lot which in turn is creating a defacto rural trailer court. The winery has its own
commercial entrance off Rt. 720 and does not use the private easement. The natural screening
on the site is questionable and screening of two sides only is entirely inadequate. He then
presented photographs taken from the prQposed site towards the neighboring dwellings, and said
photographs speak for themselves on how mobile homes are allowed to deteriorate.
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
247
Mr. Sam Page, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Board. 'His opposition is based
on the devaluation effect this mobile home will have on his home. He and his wife made an
equity investment for the future in the 15 acres they own anticipating the appreciation, care
and maintenance of the surrounding properties. The three realtors contacted said they felt
with proper maintenance, there would not be a devaluation, but the realtors could not make any
guarantees. Another look should be taken at the site because of the conflicting reports by
the Planning Commission on the site and visibility. Not only is his property and Mr. Bowles
property visible to the mobile home site, but so is Mr. Earl Smith whose property is located
on the west side. He hopes that a determination on the screening can be made before issuance
of a permit.
Mr. Earl Smith, an adjacent property owner to the rear, next addressed the Board. He
does not think that two acres is adequate for drainage and water, nor is it enough land for a
house. He also is trying to build equity in his property.
Mr. Frank Buck, representing Mrs. Turner and other property owners, addressed the Board.
He said that in Section 31 of the Zoning Ordinance it states that to grant a special permit,
the Board must find the proposed special permit will not cause substantial detriment to the
adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed, and that such use
will be in harmony with the purposes of planning and will be consistent with public health,
safety and the general welfare. A special permit provision is in the ordinance for mobile
homes because of a mobile home's inherent characteristics. A factor that makes mobile homes
attractive and less expensive is the ability to move them, but that factor also makes mobile
homes a less safe investment in terms of commitment to the neighborhood. Mr. Buck then
described some of the properties located in the district of the proposed site. Substantial
investments have been made in the properties and there is a great deal of concern with what a
proliferation of mobile homes will do to the area. Are people going to be willing to invest
substantial sums in renovating historic properties if there is a proliferation of mobile homes
in the area? This rural area has a special historical and architectural character that could
be damaged by a proliferation of mobile homes. The mobile homes that are presently in the
district have been there for many years and are nonconforming uses. There is concern over a
mobile home that was allowed to be placed there in 1979 which has deteriorated substantially.
How many more mobile homes will be allowed before acknowledging damage to the character of the
area? This proposed mobile home will be visible to the neighbors and will have an impact and
it is out of harmony with the overall 'character of the area. He presented a letter from the
Southside Albemarle Association expressing opposition to the mobile home.
With no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Way said he is familiar with this area. It has always been the practice of the Board
to allow a double-wide mobile home on a two-acre lot and this application is not significantly
different from previous applications. Mr. Way then offered motion to approve SP-85-85 subject
to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
e
Access to Route 20 shall be limited to the 50 feet access easement
as indicated on the attached plat;
3. Rental of the double-wide shall not be permitted under this special
use permit;
Screening to be installed, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning, to the west and to fill the gap on the Montdomaine common
boundary.
Mr. Henley seconded the foregoing motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he will support the motion
if the mobile home is to be owner-occupied. It is difficult to distinguish this mobile home
from a conventional home. How a person maintains his property is more significant than what
the person starts with. There are a number of conventional homes which he would not like to
live next to. He does regret the acreage is not larger.
Mr. Fisher said he does share the concern about the historical area. A matter of concern
for many years is what constitutes a historical area and how to protect the area. That
question has never been solved. There are between 1,500 and 1,600 mobile homes in Albemarle
County on scattered sites. It is the one way many people can afford housing today and he
feels that this is a form of housing that is here to serve a purpose. When the mobile home is
owner-occupied, he feels the Board should be lenient and, therefore, he supports the motion.
Mr. Henley said the people that do no want to look at the mobile home have the option of
putting up additional screening of their own.
With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-85-25. Hydraulic Associates. To rezone 5.5 acres from R-10 to
R-15. Property on northwest side of Commonwealth Drive at its intersection with Northwest
Drive. Tax Map 61W, Parcel 03-22. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on D. ecember 31, 1985 and January 7, 1986.) (This petition had been deferred from
November 20, 1985 without a hearing.)
-248
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Location:
Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 03, Parcel 22, is
located at the intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Northwest
Drive. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Character of the Area:
This site is situated between Eldercare Gardens (Zoned C-i) and
Commonwealth Drive. Properties across Commonwealth Drive have been
developed with duplex units (R-10 and R-15, Residential). Turtle
Creek condominiums (R-10, Residential) are to the southwest. Oak
Forest Subdivision (R-4, Residential) consisting of single-family
detached dwellings, is to the north. Property directly on the
northeast is undeveloped (R-15, Residential).
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial office usage in this
area.
Staff Comment:
In July 1985 the applicant submitted a site plan for 79 one-bedroom
dwelling units which was denied on the basis that bonus provisions
were unsatisfactory. A second site plan proposing fifty-five (55)
four-bedroom units was scheduled for review in October, 1985 but was
withdrawn as part of an agreement between Hydraulic Associates and the
Oak Forest Neighborhood Association.
In order for Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation to agree
to accept Commonwealth Drive into the State Secondary System, Mr.
Heischman and Dr. Hurt entered into formal agreement to limit traffic
generation from their properties. Densities on the 1980 zoning map
were intended to reflect this agreement. Virginia Department of Highways
& Transportation has stated that the requested R-15 zoning would not
exceed traffic volume limits of the original agreement.
Staff opinion is that R-15 zoning would permit the applicant to complete
the final phase of Turtle Creek consistent with prior development and
that R-15 zoning would be in general accord with other zoning and
development in the area. Staff recommends approval."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 7, 1985, unanimously
recommended denial of ZMA-85-25. It was noted at this meeting, that the application could
have been viewed more favorably if the applicant had limited the proposal to one-bedroom
units.
Mr. Horne said the following proffer was attached to a letter dated January 2, 1986
addressed to Ms. Lettie E. Neher, said letter signed by S. W. Heischman:
"Proffer of Conditions for Rezoning ZMA-85-85
Hydraulic Associates, Limited Partnership
WHEREAS, Hydraulic Associates, Limited Partnership is the Contract
Purchaser of approximately 5.5 acres of land now owned by Joseph C.
Palumbo and Sandra C. Palumbo; and
WHEREAS, the Contract Purchaser desires to have the property rezoned
from R-10 to R-15;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Contract Purchaser and the Owner voluntarily
proffer the following reasonable conditions which shall be in addi-
tion to the regulations provided for in the zoning district R-15.
These conditions are proffered as part of the requested zoning, and
it is proffered and agreed that the following limitations:
1. Are required or give rise to the need for these additional
restrictions because of the nature of the property and the rezoning
sort;
2. The proffers have a reasonable relation to the rezoning
request.
The proffers are as follows:
1. That in the event the subject property is rezoned to R-15.
The maximum number of units that maybe constructed on this property
shall not exceed 83 living units.
2. Living units shall be limited to one bedroom each. One half
of the living units constructed shall be permitted to contain a den
which is not a bedroom.
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
3. The ravine on the north side of the property shall be kept
as a natural barrier without jogging trails, tot lots, and other
activities within the ravine area.
Hydraulic Associates, Limited Partnership
(SIGNED)
S. W. Heischman, General Partner
Owners
(SIGNED)
Joseph C. Palumbo
and
(SIGNED)
Sandra C. Palumbo"
Mr. Horne said a ravine separates this property from the Oak Forest property. Mr. Fisher
said in reference to the second proffer numbered 2, he thought a den and a bedroom were
interchangeable. Mr. Horne said he is also unclear on how the applicant intends to separate
the two. Most items in the proffer are in response to discussions the applicant had with his
neighbors.
Mr. Lindstrom asked why the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial office
usage and if the increase in zoning from R-10 to R-15 agrees with that designation. Mr. Horne
said he discussed the Comprehensive Plan designation with members of the staff and the Plan-
ning Commission, and no one has been able to explain the reasoning for the designation.
Commercial office is inconsistent with development in the area; the area is basically residen-
tial. Mr. Lindstrom asked if commercial office would be a less or a more intensive use than
R-15. Mr. Horne said it depends on the type of office and the scale of development, but the
Department of Highway & Transportation feels that the traffic generation would be similar. In
terms of the limitation on the number of units and bedrooms, the Planning Commission felt that
a limit on population density could make R-15 more acceptable in the area.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne to elaborate on what needs to be done to bring this section
of Commonwealth Drive into the State system. Mr. Horne said he was informed by the County
Engineer that one final inspection needs to be done by the Highway Department. This entails
having one of the inspectors crawl through a three-foot wide pipe under the roadway. After
that is done, the Highway Department will be ready for a resolution to accept the road into
the system.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Thomas R. Wyant, Jr., architect for the project and
representing the applicant, addressed the Board. Turtle Creek is a garden-type condominium
and is designed with one stairway serving four living units. The den in these units does not
have a closet and is not of adequate size for a bedroom. The reason for the proffer of one
bedroom and den is that should the Board vote favorably for this petition and the property is
developed, a building inspector will not be able to shut the job down because he feels there
are two bedrooms. The dens are not designed to be bedrooms. The developer intends to con-
tinue the character of development presently at Turtle Creek. In addition to limiting the
development to one bedroom, the developer is willing to not use the ravine area and maintain
the natural barrier between Oak Forest Subdivision. A letter has been received from the Oak
Forest Neighborhood Association to Mr. David Benish of the Planning staff, supporting this
proposed rezoning.
Mr. Fisher asked how much of the property is unbuildable because of the ravine. Mr.
Wyant replied approximately one acre of the property is unbuildable. Mr. Fisher said the 83
units proposed will build out the entire property and are being pushed onto 4 1/2 acres which
includes roadways and everything. Mr. Wyant said there is space available for a considerable
amount of landscaping and green area. This portion of the project will follow the same
character as Turtle Creek and the developer has no intention of downgrading the property.
There are many residents in Turtle Creek who live alone and the developer has found a need for
high quality condominiums for the person living alone.
With no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the size of the undeveloped parcel to the northeast which is zoned
R-15. Mr. Horne replied the parcel is between one and two acres, but he does not believe the
parcel is owned by the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom asked the feasibility of develOping that
small parcel as R-15 also. Mr. Horne said, except in conjunction with another parcel, it
would be somewhat difficult.
Mrs. Cooke said this property is in her district and it appears that the applicant and
homeowners have gotten together and resolved their differences. Mrs. Cooke then offered
motion to approve ZMA-85-25 subject to the proffer presented, attached to a letter dated
January 2, 1985 addressed to Lettie E. Neher from S. W. Heischman and signed by S. W.
Heischman, Joseph C. Palumbo and Sandra C. Palumbo, and set out in full above. Mr. Bowie
seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has a hard time with this application. This is the only piece of
property on that side of Commonwealth Drive that can actually be developed as R-15; the other
highest density is R-10. He thinks that a lot of units are trying to be squeezed onto a very
small piece of property. He feels uncomfortable with trying to "shoehorn" 83 units on less
than five acres. He is concerned with the intensity of development and the impact environ-
mentally on the single-family dwellings with regards to runoff, etc. This is a 50 percent
in density over most of the other zoning in the vicinity. With no further discussion, roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
250
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-85-83. Robert M. and Halene S. Huff. To allow operation of a day
care center on .5 acres zoned R-4. Existing use as a nursery school in a two-story house.
Located on east side of West Park Drive in Knollwood Subdivision. Tax Map 60A, Parcel
07-B-12. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 31, 1985
and January 7, 1986.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-85-84. Robert M. and Halene S. Huff. To allow operation of a day
care center on .5 acres zoned R-4. Existing use as single family residence. Located on east
side of West Park Drive in Knollwood Subdivision. Tax Map 60A, Parcel 07-B-12. Charlottesvil]
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 31, 1985 and January 7, 1986.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"SP-85-83 - Request for a day care center at 134 West Park Drive
which is currently a non-conforming nursery school.
SP-85-84 - Request for a day care center at 136 West Park Drive
which currently has a vacant residential structure.
These properties are zoned R-4 Residential and are located on the
east side of West Park Drive in Knollwood Subdivision.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Character of the Area:
Knollwood Subdivision consists of 47 lots with an average lot size
of 0.3 acres. On-street parking occurs on West Park Drive effec-
tively reducing it to a one-lane roadway. A fire hydrant is located
near this site.
Staff Comment:
The applicant has operated a nursery school at 134 West Park Drive
for 15 years. Currently, as a nursery school the time which a
child may stay on premises is limited. (Two classes are conducted
with a total of 20 children). There is a need for some children
to remain throughout the working day, therefore, the request for
day care approval. The number of children would increase by five.
Meals would be offered. Licensing by the Virginia Department of
Welfare would be obtained for both buildings.
The applicant has sought other locations in the past. In 1978,
approval was granted for a location on Hydraulic Road, however
that location.was not pursued due to development costs. In 1979,
a petition to locate on Georgetown Road was denied.
Knollwood compares in lot size to Canterbury Hills and Queen
Charlotte where similar day care requests have been denied in the
past (SP-78-10 Deborah Winn; SP-82-15 Thomas Moore). In this
particular case, however, the use exists, expansion would be
slight, and conditions could be imposed which would bring the use
more in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 Supplementary Regulations:
Se
No such use shall operate without licensure by the
Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center.
It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to
transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the
original license and all renewals thereafter and to
notify the zoning administrator of any license expira-
tion, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days
of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful
noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance;
be
Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by
the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion.
Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such
inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with
the provisions of this ordinance;
Co
These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated
herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the
requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare,
Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire
Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency;
Not more than twenty (20) children shall be on the combined
premises of 134 and 136 West Park Drive at any time;
4. Fire Official and Building Official approvals;
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
paved entrance and staff approval of parking."
JanUary 15, 1986 (Regular.Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
251
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 7, 1986, by a vote of
4-1, recommended approval of SP-85-83 and SP-85-54 subject to the conditions of the staff and
a sixth condition reading: "Planning Commission approval of sketch plan." ~
Mr. Horne said there currently are morning and afternoon classes with 18 to 20 children
in each class. There is a need for some of the children to stay longer than the time allowed
for a nursery school under State regulations. If the children stay longer hours, there is the
necessity for a day care license. This current proposal is for 10 to 15 of the morning class
children to be transferred to 136 West Park Drive for afternoon hours along with some additio-
nal children. If the applicant receives approval from the Board, he then would be licensed at
both locations as a day care school and children could stay the entire day at either structure.
Mrs. Cooke asked for an explanation of a nonconforming nursery school~ Mr. Horne said a
nursery school has been at this location since prior to zoning in Albemarle. This structure
is a nonconforming nursery school under County regulations and a nursery school under State
regulations. If the application is approved, the applicant will also seek licensing from the
State as a day care center in both structures. Even though the official operation is in 134
West Park, 136 is also being used in some manner with the nonconforming nursery school. The
distinction made by the State between a day care center and a nursery school is the length of
time that a child stays at the location. A child can stay at a nursery school approximately
four hours per day. If the child stays at the location up to eight hours then it is a day
care center.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that the on-street parking proposed reduces the effectiveness of
the access. Mr. Horne said, at the Planning Commission meeting, there was quite a bit of
discussion on the safety of the existing parking facilities. Both of these dwellings have
larger than normal driveways off the street and the street has a very wide shoulder. There is
room for two cars to pull into the driveways, but then the cars would have to back out of the
driveways onto the roadway and the Planning Commission felt that was an unsafe method for the
cars leaving the premises. There was a lot of discussion of a loop that would connect the two
driveways, thereby a person could enter one side of the driveway and exit from the other. The
reason the Planning Commission recommended approval of the sketch was that the Commission
would like to see if the loop driveway is a physical possibility.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the County has regulations concerning a day care center or nursery
school in an established residential neighborhood. Mr. Horne said there is nothing specific
concerning the service population. Since this is a use by special permit, the character of
the district in terms of water should be taken into consideration.
Mr. Horne said if this were a new proposal, the staff recommendation would be somewhat
different. If this permit is denied, the noncOnforming nursery school can continue to oper-
ate. In this case, the staff looked at approval as somewhat of a trade-off for the additional
licensing and inspection that would be required.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert M. Huff, the applicant, addressed the Board.
Mr. Huff presented a petition signed by 15 parents of children at Knollwood School, in support
of the request. Knollwood has been in operation for approximately 15 years and the children
are ages two and one-half to four. The reason for this request is that some parents want
their children to remain at the center all day. A facility must be licensed by the State of
Virginia as a day care center to keep more than five children all day.
Mr. Huff said his wife and daughter operate the nursery school. There are no plans to
advertise or solicit as a day care center to bring in children; it is strictly to be operated
in conjunction with the nursery school as an accommodation to parents. The premises are in
excellent condition. He and Mrs. Huff lived at 134 West Park Drive for many years and now
live at 129 Bennington Drive. They also own 136 West Park Drive. One problem voiced at the
Planning Commission was the noise and traffic. The number of children will not increase and
the children will be picked up at 12:00 P.M. or 5:00 P.M. He can foresee no problem with
putting in the loop road. Also there is not a lot of traffic on West Park Drive, but
Bennington Road is a speedway from 4:30 P.M. to 6:30 P.M, and the problem is not caused by
Knollwood Nursery School. The major problem appears to be the noise. The children play in
the morning and afternoon and the playground is directly behind #134. The people most affec-
ted by the noise are Mr. Titus, Mr. Vidrine, Mrs. Park and Mrs. Roseberry. To his knowledge,
Mrs. Park and Mrs. Roseberry have made no complaints about the children, but complaints have
been received from Mr. Vidrine and Mr. Titus. The school is not open on Saturday and Sunday.
He hopes that the Board will accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Pete Keyser, a resident of Stadium Road, addressed the Board. His wife used to teach
at Knollwood and his children attended the nursery school. Mr. & Mrs. Huff are very profes-
sional. The traffic did not appear to be a problem to him. He encourages the Board to
approve the request.
Mr. William Reinhold, a resident at 127 Bennington Road, addressed the Board. He pre-
sented the following letter to the Board signed by about 29 residents in the Knollwood and
Hessian Hills Subdivisions:
"We, the undersigned property owners residing on West Park Drive and
Bennington Road, Knollwood and Hessian Hills Subdivisions, Charlottesville
Magisterial District, respectfully request that the above referenced
petitions be denied for the following reasons:
a. Although there is existing use of 134 West Park Drive, the
expansion would not be slight. Until recently, the nursery school use of
134 West Park Drive was in addition to the use as the Huff residence. The
Huffs are apparently living in 129 Bennington Road which borders on the
subject West Park Drive properties. Approval of the permits would more than
double the amount of residential property to be used solely for commercial
activities. We believe this to be contrary to the intent of R-4 zoning.
252
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
b. The increase in activity due to the differences between a nursery
school conducted in ones home and the sole use of two adjoining properties
as day care centers is considerable. The expansion of the noise and traffic
will be an annoyance and inconvenience to neighbors. The properties are
separated from adjacent residences by simple wooden fences. Since no buffer
zone exists, nor could one be created due to the rather small (typically 90 X
100 feet) lot size involved, this increase in activity and noise will deprive
the nearby homeowners of quiet outdoor relaxation and privacy. As such
property values will surely suffer.
c. The Planning Commission report recommendation that approval be
subject to a paved entrance and staff parking site will permanently destroy
the residential character of the homes involved. As such, the report
recommendation that the permit be non-transferrable is debatable, at best.
Transferability is not the issue. The property would no longer be desirable
as a residence if it were modified to make it acceptable as a day care
center.
2. We, the undersigned property owners, also wish to make known the
following:
a. Existing use as a nursery school in one's own home should not be
allowed as an argument for the conversion of such to the sole use as a
commercial day care center in a residential subdivision. This should
especially be so when considering the conversion of an existing single
family residence to sole use as a commercial day care center. Please note
that similar requests were denied according to the Planning Commission staff
report.
b. That the property at 136 West Park Drive has apparently been
utilized recently to expand the nursery school existing at 134 West Park
Drive. That this is based on our observations and that we protest this use
without proper permit.
Mr. Reinhold said the fact that the nursery school at 134 West Park Drive is nonconform-
ing is significant. If this permit is approved, there is no guarantee about State licensing.
They feel approval of these permits would permanently change the character of the area from
residential to commercial property. Mr. Reinhold then asked those present in opposition to
stand; about 12 people stood.
Mr. Chester Titus, resident of 138 West Park Drive, addressed the Board. He is concerned
with the general traffic on Bennington Road. Noise is not a problem if you are getting paid
for it. The residents are not opposed to children, but are opposed to a business enterprise
located in the neighborhood. One nursery school is not justification for another one. The
vicinity is surrounded with day care centers and there is no need for an additional one. The
average lot size in this development is three-tenth of an acre, but the lot size of 136 West
Park is one-fifth acres. He asks that the Board give consideration to the people who live in
the neighborhood.
Ms. Debra Smith, Mr. & Mrs. Huff's daughter, addressed the Board. She worked at Knoll-
wood during high school and after graduation from the University of Virginia. Mrs. Huff and
the employees at Knollwood share a relentless drive to create a safe, happy and quality
environment for children. The children enjoy many planned activities including art, music and
singing. Parents are comfortable leaving their children at Knollwood. This application comes
as a result of repeated requests by parents for all day care. The school has not changed the
neighborhood, driven homeowners away, devalued the properties or caused anyone undue hardship.
The number of children in the day care center are set by the State and highly regulated by the
State. She fails to see how these children staying extra hours will cause any more change in
the neighborhood. If a small day care facility is not allowed to exist in a residential
setting, where will it be allowed? Will the facility only be allowed on business property or
high traffic roads where noise, lead pollution and concrete surround the children? Parents
prefer this small peaceful neighborhood. Ms. Smith read a statement written by Mr. & Mrs.
Howard Pape who have a child who attends Knollwood, supporting the request by the Huff's (copy
on file).
Ms. Corrine Carr, a resident of 142 West Park Drive, addressed the Board. She was a
leader in the development of the Central Virginia Child Development Association; which'has a
goal of promoting quality day care for children. She has a lot of mixed feelings about this
petition as a property owner and a member of the neighborhood. Her concern as a property
owner is the conversion of a structure into a business, because the structure is then no
longer a family-operated business when the family does not live in the structure. The resi-
dents want to keep the neighborhood atmosphere and are concerned about changing the utiliza-
tion of the two structures to a day-care center. She also objects to the paving of the
entrance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Presently the property looks like part of
the neighborhood and to change the appearance physically would make it appear commercial. The
Board needs to look at physical planning, the real intent of R-4 zoning and the residents
desire to maintain the character of their neighborhood.
At this point, Mr. Fisher requested that the public hearing be closed to give the Board
an opportunity to explore some of the issues raised. There were other persons who wished to
speak, therefore, the public hearing continued.
Mr. Leroy Vidrine, resident of 133 Bennington Road, addressed the Board. The residents
are not against children, nursery schools or day care centers, but to gradually establish a
day care center/nursery school in a single family community gradual will deteriorate the
neighborhood. They want to preserve the single-family dwellings.
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mrs. Halene S. Huff, operator of Knollwood Nursery School, addressed the Board. The
children's activities are controlled. The driveway would blend with the rest of the neighbor-
hood. The traffic congestion on Bennington is also a result of business conducted by the
Vidrine's in their home. If the loop driveway is installed there should be no problem for
people entering and exiting. Mr. Fisher commented that the driveway will not be an issue
unless the permit is approved.
Ms. Donna Morris, a resident of 135 Bennington Road, addressed the Board. This expansion
will destroy the single-family residence. She thinks that the Planning Commission approved
this petition as a trade-off to make the nursery school conforming. She feels that the
business should be contained in one building.
With no further comments at this time, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne to read the definition in the Zoning Ordinance of day-care
centers. Mr. Horne said the definition of a nursery school is "A school designed to provide
daytime instructions for six or more children from two to five years of age inclusive, and
operated on a regular basis". A related definition of day-care/child-care is "Any facility
operated for the purpose of providing care, protection and guidance to a group of six or more
children separated from their parents or guardian during part of the day only except: a
school operated primarily for the educational instruction of children from two to five years
of age at which children two through four years of age do not attend in excess of six and
one-half hours per day". Mr. Horne said the definition limits the age of a child in a nursery
school, but in this request the time limit is crucial. The applicant is proposing that the
children remain longer than State regulations allow. Mr. Fisher said the definition does not
deal with the intent of a special permit for either of the operations in a residential neigh-
borhood. Is it the intent that the operations be in structures that are not family homes?
Mr. Horne said he does not know the intent of the specific use in relationship to structures.
In related applications to make nonconforming uses conforming, the petitions have been denied.
Mr. Fisher said he has a problem with a house in a residential neighborhood being used as
a quasi-commercial venture, and then extending that use to two houses, with possible extension
to a third house. He does not think this is the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Cooke said this property is in her district. The present use is somewhat accept-
able, but expansion is questionable in a residential neighborhood. Without any clearer
direction from the Zoning Ordinance, she finds this to be a very difficult situation to deal
with.
Mr. Lindstrom said he can understand the need for expansion, but has a difficult time
approving this use in this location and does not think it is in the interest of the neighbor-
hood. The use is there because it started before there was a Zoning Ordinance. He, there-
fore, does not support the request.
Mr. Fisher said he cannot support the expansion of this service. He cannot support
converting residential homes in an existing neighborhood to structures dedicated solely to the
purpose of caring for children as it will no longer be a residential neighborhood. He cannot
support broadening a current nonconforming use.
Mr. Way said he agrees with Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mrs. Cooke said she also agrees with Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom. In not supporting
this application, it in no way is a reflection on the applicants. The Board must take into
consideration the quality of life in the are and the other neighbors. Mrs. Cooke then offered
motion to deny both SP-85-83 and SP-85-84. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Not Docketed: At 9:41 P.M., the Chairman called a recess.
P.M. with all members present.
The Board reconvened at 9:51
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-85-1. Fontaine Forest. To rezone 25 acres of a 54 acre parcel
from R-10 to PD-SC in order to construct an inn and shopping center. Property on south side
of Fontaine Avenue, past intersection with Route 250/29 Bypass; bounded on the east by the
Corporate City Limits. Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B (part). Samuel Miller District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on December 31, 1985 and January 7, 1986.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Requested Zoning:
PD-SC Planned Development - Shopping Center
on +25 acres and R-10 Residential (PROFFER)
on 29 acres.
Acreage:
53.52 acres.
Existin9 Zoning: R-10 Residential (PROFFER).
Location:
Property, described as Tax Map 76, parcel 17B, is located on the
south side of Route 29 Business, west and adjacent to Charlottes-
ville corporate limits. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
NOTE: In 1979, the entire 54 acres was rezoned with a proffer
to limit development to 10 residential units per acre. The
current proposal is to rezone the front 25 acres for a shopping
center. The rear 29 acres have been included only to insure
provision for relocation of Route 782.
254
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Character of the Area:
Much of this property has been timbered and steep areas along the
major drainage swale are currently being filled. (This area is
shown for parking on the Application Plan). Fill activity consists
of about 40,000 cubic yards of various soils and is subject to the
Soil Erosion Ordinance and supplementary regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance. The property consists of three ridges perpendicular to
Route 29 with steeper slopes and floodplain to the rear of the site.
Soils consist of Culpeper fine sandy loam, Albemarle fine sandy loam
and Louisburg. The Culpeper and Albemarle are well-drained soils
with rock at 40 to 60 inches. The Louisburg is found on steeper
slopes with hard rock at 20 to 40 inches. These are all very erosive
soils which warrant particular attention during earth-disturbing
activities.
The site is bordered on the south by the Southern Railroad and on
the west by the Virginia Division of Forestry. To the north
across Route 29 is undeveloped property of the University.
Property to the east in the City is developed residentially. The
closest dwelling is about 150 feet from this site.
Applicant's Proposal:
The Application Plan proposes commercial development as follows:
GROSS FLOOR AREA
PARKING*
TRAFFIC
GENERATION*
RETAIL 125,000 sq. ft. 688 spaces 9088 vtpd
OFFICE 60,000 sq. ft. 264 1200
HOTEL (150 rooms) 150+ 1575
TOTAL 285,000 sq. ft. 1102 spaces 11863 vtpd
*Figures provided by Planning staff based on prior study by
Wilbur Smith and Associates. When combined with potential R-10
development ( + 290 units ) traffic generation increases to about
13,900 vehicle trips per day (vtpd).
For purposes of comparison, the retail area would be comparable
to Dart Drug/Shopper's World, the hotel would compare to the
proposed Marriott at Branchlands and the office area would be
about 75 percent of the Sachem Village complex which is under
construction on Whitewood Road.
Office uses are proposed adjacent to residential areas of the
City as a transition from more intensive commercial areas.
Retail uses are shown in the central portion of the site with the
hotel and convenience store/gasoline service station along the
western boundary.
Main access to the property would be on the east at the existing
intersection of Route 29 and Route 782. Route 782 would be
relocated through the site and the existing roadway could be
abandoned. The hotel and convenience/gas service station would
be served by a secondary access on western end of the site which
would reduce usage of the main access. These two entrances would
also reduce mixing of dissimilar traffic since the main entrance
would be utilized primarily by shopper/office/residential traffic
while the secondary access would be the focus for tourist/highway
traveller traffic.
Staff Comment:
In October, 1985, the Board of Supervisors approved CPA-85-3, a
request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to show +25 acres for
commercial development. The staff report accompanying the
request addressed recommendations and standards of the Compre-
hensive Plan related to shopping center development and will
not be repeated in this report. The shopping center as proposed
is consistent with representations made by the applicant at time
of Comprehensive Plan amendment and will occupy the entire area
of the amendment.
This report will focus primarily on issues of physical development.
Staff has reviewed five submittals of the Application Plan, which has
been improved with each submittal. Initial plans were fairly descrip-
tive as to building shape, size, and location. Since tenants are not
definitive at this time, staff suggested a more general approach as
to building specifications and that focus be directed to issues of
access, circulation, sewers, and other site development considera-
tions.
Section 8.5.4 of Planned Development Districts states that
recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board shall
include findings as to:
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
so
The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD
district proposed in terms of: relation to the
Comprehensive Plan; physical characteristics of the land;
and its relation to surrounding area;
Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and
services;
Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitability of
any proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions,
sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other
instruments, or the need for such instruments or for
amendments in those proposed; and
Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as
applied to the particular case, based on determination that
such modifications are necessary or justified by demonstra-
tion that the public purposes of PD or general regulations
as applied would be satisfied to at least an equivalent
degree by such modifications.
Staff will discuss matters outlined in Items A and B, recommend
certain modifications/agreements in accordance with Item D, which
would result, if acceptable to the applicant in documents/
agreements outlined in Item C.
ae
The suitability of the tract for the ~eneral type of PD
district proposed in terms of: relation to the
Comprehensive Plan~ physical characteristics oz the land~
and its relation to surroundin~ area.
Physical Characteristics of the Land:
Most design problems are related to the varying topography of the
site and difference of grade elevation between the site and Route
29. (Grade differential to Route 29 will be discussed later in
this report). In order to accommodate commercial development
with reasonable transition grades, cuts and fills of up to 25
feet are proposed. Since hardrock occurs at depths of 4-5 feet,
blasting would be necessary in some cut areas. Retaining walls
may be necessary along the eastern and northern borders of the
site. Early in this review the County Engineer commented that
"commercial uses will probably require more earthwork than would
residential, however, either use will involve major amounts of
grading."
Proposed grading of the property will also complicate stormwater
disposition. As with Riverbend Shopping Center, due to the grade
differential between the commercial area and proposed stormwater
detention basin, velocity at the point of discharge is a
consideration which will require special attention (for the
amount of fill work to date, the County Engineer has required
concrete ditching to avoid excessive erosion). Stormwater
discharge to the east toward residential areas in the City should
be diverted to the proposed detention facility or to discharge to
the stream on-site in the southern area of the property.
Drainage facilities to be located on steep slopes/floodplain
areas should be designed to ultimate capacity (including
potential residential development) to avoid repeated disturbance
of these areas. Stormwater detention facilities as proposed will
require special use permit approval in the floodplain. It is the
applicant's responsibility to determine limits of the floodplain.
An 18-inch raw waterline located in a 30 foot easement traverses
the site parallel to and about 700 feet from Route 29. This is
an old cast iron line with leaded joints and unknown bedding,
susceptible to leaks and breaks. Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority has cautioned as to excessive fill over the line
stating that additional easement width may be required to safely
access the line in areas of fill. An alternative would be
relocation/reconstruction of the line at a lesser depth. The
line should be field located and surveyed and method of
protection/relocation approved by Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority prior to review of any final site plan or fill activity
which could affect the line.
As can be seen from this discussion, development of the property
to the extent proposed will likely result in comparatively high
site preparation costs. Economics of site preparation may result
in a lesser building area than shown on the Application Plan.
Both Planning and Engineering staffs would emphasize that final
plans may vary substantially in physical layout from the
Application Plan. Section 8.5.6.3 requires final plans to be
"generally in keeping with the spirit and concept of the approved
application plans", which in staff opinion would accommodate
changes in layout provided functions (i.e. - circulation, access,
etc.) remain consistent with the Application Plan.
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Relation to Surrounding Area:
Charlottesville Planning and Community Development has expressed
concern as to impact of this development on the adjoining
residential area. Office uses are proposed as a transition
between more intensive commercial uses and the City's residential
area. The closest office building area to an existing dwelling
is about 250 feet. The County's new landscaping provisions would
also aid in buffering. Therefore, the shopping center development
would be buffered by use, distance, and physical screening.
be
Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and
services.
Utilities:
An Albemarle County Service Authority 10-inch waterline is
located at the property. This line was installed around the year
1875 and has subsequently been constricted by mineral deposit.
Currently available flow at 20 PSI is less than 180 GPM. The
Albemarle County Service Authority has indicated that the
existing 10-inch waterline can be "pigged" to improve flow and
would undertake such a project. The applicant should coordinate
with the Albemarle County Service Authority regarding timing of
development. Nothing stated herein should be deemed as request
for Albemarle County Service Authority to give special
consideration to this waterline improvement project.
Sewer service is available from a 21-inch line located about 150
feet south of the property. The Application Plan proposes two
sewer lines which could serve all commercial and residential
areas by gravity.
Transportation:
Route 29 currently carries about 11,000 vehicle trips per day which
exceed design capacity. The CATS Study projected about 12,000
vehicle trips per day by the year 2000 and recommended a Phase IV
(i.e. - year 2000) improvement to a four-lane, urban cross-section.
Commercial and residential development as proposed would add about
13,900 vehicle trips per day.
Currently, due to a hill, adequate sight distance to Rte. 29 is
available only~to a limited area near the center of the property.
With future highway improvement, this portion of Rte. 29 would be
lowered. The applicant proposes to regrade Rte. 29 at this time
in order to improve sight distance and avoid future problems due
to grade differential following roadway improvement. As stated
earlier, one access would be established at the existing Rte.
29/782 intersection and Rte. 782 would be relocated through this
site.
The Hylton case has been interpreted as a limitation on a
locality's ability to require general road improvements and
further, the Code of Virginia limits the nature and extent of
roadway improvements which a developer may offer. From past
discussions with the County Attorney's office, staff
understanding is that roadway improvements may be required to the
extent of providing safe and convenient access to a site and to
avoid danger in the existing public streets. Obviously, this
results in case-by-case decisions in an area of some ambiguity
and debate. In this particular case, the developer has been
highly cooperative in development of a program of road
improvements which would serve both the developer's and the
general public's interest. This program would basically result
in improvements to Rte. 29 in the County as outlined in the CATS
Study. The developer and staff have arrived at the following
verbal agreements:
The developer would regrade Rte. 29 in accordance with its
ultimate horizontal alignment;
®
The developer would provide an additional lane on the south
side of Rte. 29 from the existing Forestry (State Division of
Forestry) entrance to the main entrance of the shopping center
(about 870 lineal feet);
The developer would provide appropriate transition tapers and
about 870 feet of additional lane on the north side of Rte. 29;
Except for transition tapers, improvements in Items 2 and 3
would involve installation of curb and gutter to Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation standards;
The Fontaine property has over 1,000 feet of frontage on
Rte. 29. Not more than two entrances will be established to
Rte. 29;
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
257
The developer will construct new Rte. 782 through the site
to a standard occasioned by the commercial and residential
development of the site. In effort to obtain an improved
roadway and to reduce maintenance costs of Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation, the County would
hold public with the intent to abandon existing Rte. 782.
Temporary measures in order to maintain service of existing
Rte. 782 as development occurs may be necessary;
The developer would provide sidewalk internal to the site in
appropriate locations;
Other land with frontage on Rte. 29 is owned by the
Commonwealth. The County would request Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation to undertake four-laning improve-
ment to the remainder of the roadway. This would be most
effective if it were done simultaneously with improvements to
be made by the developer. Funding for these Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation improvements would be from the
primary system budget. Such project may also include instal-
lation of walkway on the north side of Rte. 29 consistent with
the MPO Pedestrian Obstacle Study.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors
approve ZMA-85-1, Fontaine Forest (South 29 Land Trust &
Sariandale Corporation) subject to certain agreements between
the applicant and the County. Such agreements are to be
presented in writing to the Director of Planning By January 2,
1986 and shall include the following:
Agreement by the applicant to proceed with the project in
accordance with the concept of the Application Plan to be
guided by comments provided in this report. The County
recognizes that final plans may vary from the Application
Plan;
Agreement by the applicant to proceed with road improvements
as outlined in this report. Such agreement would include
provision that the County would proceed as outlined in this
report.
Mr. Horne said regarding the traffic generation figure shown in the report for retail
space (9,088 vtpd), should be 6,200 vtpd. This new figure was provided by the Federal Highway
Administration. The new figure is based on the size of the shopping center. He further
stated that the total projected vehicle trips per day, including the potential residential
development to the rear of the property, using the revised figure, would be approximately
11,000 vtpd.
Mr. Horne said the following written agreement dated December 30, 1985, addressed to Mr.
John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning, from Charles Wm. Hurt, M,D., Co-owner and Co-applicant
for South 29 Land Trust, and Mr. Leonard Dykes, Co-owner and Co-applicant for Sariandale
Corporation, has been received:
"This is in response to your letter dated November 26, 1985, and the
Staff Report dated December 17, 1985, concerning ZMA-85-1 Fontaine
Avenue, a request to rezone 25 acres of a 54 acre Parcel from R-10,
Residential to PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center in order to
construct an inn and shopping center, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel
17B (part).
Pages 6 and 7 of the Planning Staff Report, containing the Staff's
recommendations for approval of the rezoning application and the
agreements and conditions attached thereto, are attached as Exhibit
A (on file). The Planning Staff letter of December 17, 1985,
addressed to Dr. Hurt, is attached as Exhibit B (on file).
We, the undersigned, agree to all of the foregoing conditions. We
also agree to the conditions added by the Planning Commission in its
recommendation for approval of the rezoning; that the road improve-
ments to Route 29, as contained in items 1, 2, 3, and 4, in page 6 in
the Staff Report be completed before issuance of an occupancy permit
for any building constructed on the entire 54 acre parcel.
We believe it will assist the Board of Supervisors in considering
this matter to summarize as follows testimony concerning the timing of
the various stages of proposed development at the Planning Commission
hearing on December 17, 1985.
It is not possible, of course, to foretell the future with accuracy.
In general, however, we may say that development will proceed only in
response to known economic demands. Total development of the site may
well be some ten years away. In more detail, our best present estimates
based on known and anticipated demands, are as follows:
The first construction will probably be a rather small office
structure, which may be completed within eighteen (18) months
to two (2) years.
58
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
®
The probable next developments will include, over a period of
several years, a service station, a hotel, and office, commercial
and shopping structures.
Under foreseeable market needs, the residential construction on
the rear 29 acres will probably not be undertaken for nine (9)
or ten (10) years.
Following the completion of improvements to Route 29 prior to certi-
ficate of occupancy, as specified and agreed to above, the remaining
improvements would be completed as appropriate for the foregoing
stages of development.
We are glad to acknowledge and appreciate the guidance and cooperation
of the Planning staff and the members of the Site Review Committee."
The following memorandum dated January 9, 1986, from Mr. John T. P. Horne, to the Board
of Supervisors, entitled: "Amendments to Staff Report on Developer's Agreement - ZMA-85-1,
South 29 Land Trust and Sariandale Corporation:
"The staff would propose two amendments to the staff report and
developer's agreement concerning improvements to be installed in
conjunction with the development plan on the above mentioned
property should the Board of Supervisors approve the requested
rezoning. On page 6 of the staff report, item 7 should be amended
to read: "The develope~ ~hould provide sidewalks internal to the
site in appropriate locations; and provide a sidewalk on the
south side of Fontaine Avenue from the eastern property line to
the westernmost entrance to the site." Item 8 on page 6 should be
amended to delete the final sentence referring to an asphalt
walkway on the north side of Route 29 (Fontaine Avenue).
Should this rezoning be approved, sidewalks along the frontage of
this development would be eligible for maintenance by Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation in that they are
adjacent to multiple commercial businesses. It is the staff's
opinion that state-maintained sidewalks on the south side of
Fontaine Avenue are preferable to a temporary asphalt walkway on
the north side of the street, and in this case will be installed
at the developers' expense. Staff has discussed this with the
applicant on January 9, 1986, and Dr. Hurt agreed to the
installation of these facilities."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 17, 1985, by a vote of
5/2, the Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA-85-1 subject to the following
conditions:
Agreement by the applicant to proceed with the project in
accordance with the concept of the Application Plan to be
guided by comments provided in this report. The County
recognizes that physical layout of the Final Plan may vary
from the Application Plan, but that critical functions such
as access, circulation, sewers must remain consistent with
the Application Plan and that the Final Plan must reflect
the spirit concept of the Approved Plan as required by
Section 8.5.6.3.
Agreement by the applicant to proceed with road improvements
as outlined in this report. Such road improvements to be
completed prior to any occupancy permit.
Mr. Home said Route 782, located at the City/County line, is the main entrance to the
proposed site. The proposal includes relocation of the entire roadway through the site to
coincide with the main entrance and then rebuilt same to State standards. In order to meet
minimum requirements for an entrance, a third lane or turning lanes are required.
Mr. Fisher said it seems that the Planning Commission felt road improvements were neces-
sary for any development of the property. The agreement provided by the applicants in the
letter dated December 30, 1985 (set out in full above) reads as follows: "We also agree to
the conditions added by the Planning Commission ...; that the road improvements to Route 29,
as contained in items 1, 2, 3 and 4 in page 6 in the Staff Report be completed before issuance
of an occupancy permit for any building constructed on the entire 54 acre parcel." The
agreement does not state who will pay for the road improvements. Mr. Horne said page six of
the staff report pertains to the road improvements. The transition tapers (Item 94) are
required as part of the entrance improvements to provide two full lanes of through traffic. A
third lane tapered at each end is proposed to be constructed from just inside the City limits
to just short of the entrance to the Division of Forestry property. The conditions include a
full third lane on the south side all the way from the Division of Forestry road to the main
entrance which includes a deceleration lane. On the north side there would be a taper at each
end and a full additional lane through the width of the property. Therefore, there will be an
additional lane on each side of the road. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne if he interprets from
the December 30, 1985 letter that the developer himself agrees to all of these conditions.
Mr. Horne said yes, but there is no bonding requirement at this point.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if the agreements in the December 30, 1985 letter with
the attached exhibits can be enforced. Mr. St. John said yes, but it is unclear as to who is
actually supposed to do the work. The language needs to be clarified further to indicate that
259
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
{Page 15)
the road improvements are to be completed "at the expense of the developer" before issuance of
an occupancy permit. Although the exhibits identify the developer, the exhibits could become
separated from the letter.
The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. Donn Bent, representing Dr. Hurt,
addressed the Board. Mr. Bent first presented some of the history of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (CPA-85-3). He said it is therefore apparent that the Board expects the property to
be used for a commercial shopping center. All technical problems have been taken care of.
The December 30, 1985 letter is the result of agreements between the staff and the developer.
He emphasized that Charlottesville and Albemarle are both "doomed" to expand. There is no way
to stop the growth and he said emphasis should be placed on how to balance the growth to be
beneficial for the whole community. The real issue is not whether there should be a shopping
center at this location, but is the lot suitable, attractive and in compliance with ordinance
requirements. The applicants feel all of these items are present.
Mr. Leonard Dykes, co-owner of the property, addressed the Board. He highlighted the
following distinctive features of the application that he feels will serve the local and
regional needs of southwestern Albemarle and the needs of others that must travel through the
area:
The combination of facilities, accommodations, services, and housing is
unmatched and unequal in any other commercial area in the City or County.
Nowhere else will you find office buildings, a motel, a shopping center,
a full-scale service station and housing in one unified plan. The signi-
ficance of this kind of integration of facilities will create an internal
movement of pedestrians and automobiles that will lessen traffic on
Fontaine Avenue.
The office buildings offer more space closer to the University than
available anywhere else in the area. As high tech development begins to
evolve in the business industry, there is a growing need to seek scienti-
fic and technological information and support for the academic sector.
The University is moving to a closer relationship with industry.
President O'Neal announced the creation of an industrial liaison task
force to "identify new directions in which the University can develop even
closer ties with business and industry." The Engineering School is
earmarked in the new State budget for major improvements of its' facili-
ties. The close location of these office buildings to the University will
make them especially attractive to business, industry and commerce along
with other organizations and agencies having a long-range of ongoing
interest in University research.
The motel will provide conference facilities that could serve the numerous
University and hospital conferences and seminars. Thirty-three University
entities organize conferences and thirty-eight conduct seminars. The
University has decided not to build its' own conference center choosing to
-depend or seven motels, and four of the motels are on Route 29 North. Con-
ference facilities could also serve for business and industrial conferences.
The shopping center, serving a complex of needs, will attract a variety of
stores and shops that will satisfy many of the needs of the southwestern
part of Albemarle and beyond.
The Exxon Service Station would be moved to the southwestern corner. Much
of the business will be highway-oriented. With a separate entrance, and
moving the motel traffic internally, there will be little or no impact on
the eastern part of Fontaine Avenue.
In summary, Mr. Dykes said as a commercial development in the southwestern section of
Albemarle, this proposal will bring balance to the County's otherwise uneven distribution of
commercial areas in the urban perimeter. The proposal addresses the basic reality that the
hospital and University are a resource that serves the entire Commonwealth. This is a reality
that was completely ignored by the CATS Study and again recently by the City's planning staff
analysis that he feels misled citizens and City Council to oppose the proposal. The Planning
Commission studied this proposed and voted twice to recommend approval. People from across
the Commonwealth come through Fontaine Avenue, the business route from Route 29 South. People
will continue in increasing numbers, whether or not a commercial development is located there,
to seek the benefits of the most advanced research available to them. This unique development
will serve those needs functionally and efficiently. The Board should take a long look at the
future and a prospective of the total picture. This proposal is one way for the County to
participate through its tax base in the high tech era. Mr. Fisher asked how this proposal is
going to help the County participate in the high tech era. Mr. Dykes said the combination of
development and office buildings closer to the University are not available anywhere else, nor
the availability of office space and the related integrated design of the entire layout.
Mr. David W. Carr, who holds an option to purchase the land, next addressed the Board.
He expressed his gratitude to the staff for their work. This project will not be another
Barracks Road Shopping Center, as it is only 25 percent of that size. Fontaine Avenue needs
to be improved and it is not on anyone's agenda to improve. The proposed improvements are
expensive, but he thinks they are reasonable in view of present conditions on Fontaine Avenue.
He anticipates that this proposal will make a tremendous improvement on Fontaine Avenue. It
is anticipated to take five years to complete the shopping center. He has been interested in
Albemarle County for many years and thinks that the County has had difficulty in balancing
its growth. Growth has been shifted to Route 29 North for many purposes. This proposal will
help balance the growth and commercial efforts in the community and redistribute some of the
needs of the people.
Dr. Charles Hurt, owner of the property, stated that he would like to make his comments
after the neighbors have expressed their concerns.
260
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting')
(Page 16)
Mr. Frank Buck, Mayor, City of Charlottesville, addressed the Board. On December 16,
City Council unanimously passed a resolution requesting that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors deny the request to rezone 25 acres on Fontaine Avenue for the PD-SC for the
following reasons:
2.
3.
4.
Fontaine Avenue is inadequate to handle present and proposed traffic.
It would have a significant impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood.
There is already significant business zoned land for neighborhood commercial.
It would have a significant impact on one of the entrances to the City and the
University.
Mr. Buck said he does not believe this proposal will alleviate traffic problems on Rt. 29
North. The traffic problems that exist on Rt. 29 North are primarily north of the Route 250
Bypass. The problems are not south of the Route 250 Bypass through Emmett Street and Barracks
Road. It is inaccurate to suggest that this proposal will make the situation better. The
roads in this area are not capable of handling present peak hours traffic and this proposal
will not improve the situation. This is a residential neighborhood and this proposal is not
compatible and harmonious with the residential environment. Customers are not the persons who
complain about the traffic; complaints are received from the residents. Pedestrian and
vehicular safety must also be considered. There is fear that the residential character will
be damaged irreversibly. Already development in the University is creating stress on the
neighborhoods. This is not just a situation of moving cars, but moving people within a
neighborhood. He does not think it is in the best interest of the City, County or people in
the community to sacrifice the southside neighborhood residential areas to high tech and
industry. This development will be destructive to the area and will push traffic onto
Fontaine Avenue and Jefferson Park Avenue, roads that are not going to be improved. The
development will condemn this southside city residential area to a slow death.
Mr. Raymond M. Haas, Vice President for Administration, University of Virginia, addressed
the Board. He is present as a representative of the University of Virginia and as Chairman of
the University Master Planning Committee. He presented the following letter dated January 15,
1986 from his office to the Board:
"The University of Virginia wrote the County Planning Commission prior
to its hearing on the application for a change in the County Comprehen-
sive Plan regarding the property on Fontaine Avenue which is under
consideration this evening. In that letter the University expressed
its full support for the County Comprehensive Plan then in existence
and, by that expression of support, opposed the requested change in the
Comprehensive Plan.
When the County Board of Supervisors considered the proposed change in
the County Comprehensive Plan regarding the property on Fontaine
Avenue, the University contacted the County Executive's Office to
assure that the position it had presented to the County Planning
Commission had been relayed to the County Board of Supervisors. The
University was assured that its letter was a part of the materials
being reviewed by the County Board of Supervisors at that time.
The University of Virginia continues to support the County Comprehen-
sive Plan regarding the area under question as that plan appeared
before its recent change and therefore opposes the proposed rezoning
for the same reasons for which it opposed the proposed change in the
plan.
To assure that there is no misunderstanding, the University notes that
this property is of a type that the University may have an interest in
acquiring someday and, while the future uses of properties of this type
are not known, the probability exists that the University's uses at
some future date could be just as intense as those proposed by the
petitioners - although they would most likely be uses more consistent
with University purposes."
Mr. Haas said Fontaine Avenue is a very important point of entry to the University and it
is the University's opinion that this proposal would deteriorate the nature of the entrance.
Mr. Charles Tolbert, a resident of Westminister Road in Canterbury Hills, representing
McCormick Observatory of the University of Virginia, addressed the Board. He is not speaking
either for or against the proposed zoning, but on the issue of protection of the general
environment. McCormick Observatory is located on Mt. Jefferson immediately to the north of
Fontaine Avenue and the proposed shopping center. He presented a letter dated January 15,
1986, from himself, (on file) explaining the effects lighting from this proposal will have on
the Observatory. He asked that if this proposal is approved a condition of the rezoning be
added that the developer use all reasonable care to reduce any light pollution produced on the
site.
Mr. Charles Mowbray, a resident near Fontaine Avenue, addressed the Board. He is in
favor of the shopping center, but would like to request the developer to fix the roads adja-
cent to the City limits and adjacent to the Rt. 29 ramp. In response to comments about the
change in the neighborhood, it seems that every month one more house is converted into a
commercial use on Fontaine Avenue.
Mr. Malcolm P. Woodward, a property owner of several parcels near the proposed site,
addressed the Board. He is in favor of the proposed application. This site is difficult to
develop and if converted to this use, it will be very useful to the people living on the
southside of Albemarle County. This will also be a benefit for investment purposes. Resi-
dents could walk to the shopping center rather than drive to other neighborhoods. This
proposal is a logical counter to development in the north. This is will be an expensive site
to develop, but the proposal will upgrade the whole neighborhood.
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
261
Mr. Drake Fink, a resident of McElroy Drive, addressed the Board. It appears to him that
just the developer and a few scattered neighbors support this proposal. There is no need for
this proposal. He explained about some of the facilities that are available in the area.
Noise pollution would also be a problem. It is not written anywhere that progress and growth
mean more commercial property. He opposes the proposal.
Mr. Gaston Fornes, a professional engineer and a resident of Canterbury Hills addressed
the Board. Mr. Fornes said he lived on the southside of Charlottesville for 18 years. When
1-64 was constructed, the eastbound lane went through his living room. When he moved to this
area in 1948, he thought it had worse roads than Boston and Baltimore, and the roads have not
improved much since that time. Noise and traffic is not a problem to him because they repre-
sent activity going on that is beneficial. He is in favor of this development. He thinks
that Dr. Hurt is a man of tremendous good taste and has excellent engineers. Something
precious must be given up at times in order to get other things. He does not think a lot of
the fears expressed by others will materialize. Progress cannot be upset. Also he does not
have a problem with adding another shopping center to an area when it is badly needed.
Ms. Rae Ely, representing the Coalition of Neighborhood Associations and citizen organ-
izations addressed the Board. She said that as she looked at the issues that needed to be
addressed, she felt it would be best to have the people who want to speak to do so on each She
asked then that all persons in the audience in opposition to the proposal stand to make their
presence known; approximately 95 percent of the audience stood.
Mr. Scott Hartsel, a resident of Mimosa Drive and representing the Coalition of Neighbor-
hood Associations, addressed the Board. He presented petitions with more than 420 signatures
in opposition to the proposal and stated that a similar set of petitions was presented at the
Planning Commission meeting, but the petitions were almost entirely ignored.
Mr. Cliff Haury, a resident of Buckingham Circle and representing the Coalition of
Neighborhood Associations, addressed the Board. Last month he appeared before the Planning
Commission to register his opposition against the Fontaine Forest project. He is before the
Board as a County resident urging the Board to ask the developer to use the same wise planning
for this development that the Board asks of the School Board. Here is a project where the
road improvements and the traffic issues are not resolved. There has been no coordination of
this project with the City or the University. The project does not represent the wishes of
the residents of the area. No one took the time to ask him or other residents about the
development. The Fontaine Avenue project will generate a lot of traffic, congestion to his
family, and will have a large impact on the watershed. The project will affect the County,
City and University for many years. He asked if this project shouldn't warrant the same
careful study that a school does. He urge the Board to consider allowing this project not to
proceed.
Ms. Carolyn Silver, a resident of Gildersleeve Wood, addressed the Board. She and her
neighbors already feel "elbowed" by the new hospital, but that is a necessity. She said her
views have adequately been expressed by Mr. Buck, and left a letter for the Board dated
January 15, 1986 (on file) expressing those views.
Mr. Bob Johnson, a resident of Batesville, addressed the Board. Mr. Johnson said the
present situation on Rt. 29 North is not an accident. It was intentional, planned for and was
fully predicted 15 years ago. Public outrage should be redirected against any planning which
will produce similar problems in the future, and that is this proposal. For example, approval
of a shopping center on 250 West near Crozet and the Western Albemarle High School indicates
either satisfaction with Rt. 29 North or stupidity, defined as "not being capable of learning
from past mistakes". This is an especially important zoning request because it is a "foot in
the door" for that part of the county and these developers have been very good at exploiting
incremental zoning. He has heard nothing about who will pay for the traffic lights, but
common sense dictates that this rezoning will be detrimental to most everyone except the
developers, and he, therefore, strongly urges the Board to deny this request.
Mr. Peter Keyser, President, Jefferson Park Avenue Neighborhood Association, addressed
the Board. He presented a letter to the Board dated January 14, 1986, (on file) from the
Neighborhood Association, opposing the Fontaine Avenue proposal. He is the father of three
children all under the age of five. Projects from the University have already greatly
increased the traffic volume. The upper part of Stadium Road is approximately 15 feet wide,
just wide enough for two cars to pass and there are no sidewalks. The traffic volume scares
him because of his children and he is not willing to sacrifice the safety of his children.
Ms. Marcella Jost, a resident of 125 Mimosa Drive, addressed the Board. She is concerned
about the amount of traffic that will be generated on Mimosa Drive and Stadium Road in order
to avoid the light at Jefferson Park Avenue and Fontaine Avenue. There are no sidewalks. She
is concerned about the number of strangers that may increase as traffic increases. If this
project is approved, it will generate more people, heavy traffic, noise and pollution and tear
apart the citizens lives.
Ms. Charlotte Sherman, corresponding secretary for the Charlottesville Federation of
Neighborhood Associations, addressed the Board. She presented a statement from the Federation
concerning the adverse affect this proposal will have on the neighborhoods (on file).
Mr. Roy Patterson, a resident of Crozet, addressed the Board. Mr. Patterson stated that
he is not directly affected by the issues before the Board, but he thinks the issue tonight
should be community cooperation. The City and University have both requested denial of this
development. He thinks the Board should deny this request. The Board should let by-gones be
by-gones and move forward in a spirit of cooperation.
Mr. Frederick Schmidt, a resident of Observatory Avenue, addressed the Board. He is not
against business or development, but this proposal appears to him to be too large for the
area, neighborhood and road. Because of a statement by Governor Baliles to radically revise
road funding, many proposals, including the assumption on which this development is based,
will have to be revised. He asks that the Board take more time to consider proposals such as
262
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
this so that it will be certain about who will pay for what, and where and when it will
happen. In addition, he does not want to have to raise his daughter to be afraid of cars
because of the traffic in the neighborhood.
Mr. Paul Rood, a resident of Buckingham Circle, addressed the Board. He is opposed to
this project because of the traffic and the jogging trail that many pedestrians use. There
are other sites available for a shopping center in the southern part of the County. He hopes
that the Board denies the request.
Ms. Betty Siegner, Acting President Fry's Spring Neighborhood Association, addressed the
Board. She handed out a statement from the Association opposing the proposed shopping center.
She feels that this is a serious decision. She also has a daughter and feels that the traffic
would create a problem if she continues to live in the neighborhood.
Ms. Josephine Williams, a member of the Fry's Spring Neighborhood Association, addressed
the Board. She asked if land was clear cut before issuance of a permit.
Ms. Adele Wood, a resident of Langford Farms Subdivision, addressed the Board. The
Fontaine Avenue neighborhood is beautiful and natural. The shopping complex, the high tech
business and hotel complex are grand ideas, but would be a mistake to put on Fontaine Avenue.
This is a place where children can play, and people can come from work and relax. To create
more stress on people is a mistake. To keep Fontaine Avenue as a neighborhood would be a wise
and compassionate decision.
Mr. Aaron Zatcoff, a resident of Boyd's Tavern, addressed the Board. He is not directly
affected by this impending decision, but he would like to register his opposition as this is
an opportunity to avoid disastrous amounts of traffic. He asked that the Board oppose this
request.
Ms. Allison Campbell, a resident of 121 Mimosa Drive, addressed the Board. Ms. Campbell
read a statement (on file) on the total picture of the effects of congestion at the Fry's
Spring corner on traffic in the Charlottesville urbanized area, opposing the request.
Mr. James F. King, Jr., a resident of 2012 Lewis Mountain Road, and a member of the
Citizens Coalition for People affected by Fontaine Avenue, addressed the Board. There is no
diagram that shows the impact this proposal will have on Lewis Mountain Road. There has been
a growing spirit of cooperation between the City and the County and in general the Charlottes-
ville neighborhood associations have supported the County. In the CATS Study in alternative
four is shown that a western bypass is needed to take the traffic off of Rt. 29 North, but the
City is not insisting on the bypass because it may be bad for the County and the watershed. A
decision in favor of this proposal may force the City to rearrange its highway priority funds
and will not be consistent with the spirit of cooperation. He is sure the County will use the
principle of cherishing its neighbors. If this project is approved, he does not believe he
will want to live on Lewis Mountain Road any longer.
Ms. Jane Heyward, representing Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the Board.
read a statement (on file) from the Citizens urging the denial of this request.
this proposal is late in coming, but the opposition is growing fast.
Ms. Heyward
Opposition to
Mr. Earl Price, a resident of Buckingham Circle, addressed the Board. He has heard
nothing favorable concerning this site selection. The traffic count has already reached the
projected 1990 level. He does not want to see six days a week football traffic on Fontaine
Avenue.
Ms. Rae Ely again addressed the Board. Ms. Ely said if there is any doubt about the
wisdom of denying this project, then the Board consider an alternative of a discussion forum
to allow the City and the University to-fully develop its views and see if the three agencies
cannot come up with a solution that will promote harmony in the future This is an opportunit~
to strengthen the concept of the inter-government cooperation. The ne~t case will be the City
or University doing something that will injure the County. It was appropriate for the Board
to amend its master plan, but there is no rush. When the roads are ready to carry this
traffic, that is the time to put this kind of development in use. If the Board were to deny
this project tonight and time proved the Board to be wrong, there is the opportunity in five
years to approve the project. One of the most accurate statements made is "Charlottesville is
doomed to growth and progress". She asks that the Board take the necessary steps to see that
Charlottesville is not doomed, but that the growth is orderly, reasonable and in response to a
need and demand, not just in response to a developer's wants and desires.
Dr. Charles Hurt, owner of the property, addressed the Board. He appreciates the concern
with the traffic, but if the University acquires this property, the use will be just as
intense. The property is presently zoned for 500 residential Knits. He does not think there
will be an opportunity to rezone this property five years from now for business. The property
will be used and the traffic problems will still be there. The issue is the best use the
property will serve for the community. He does have respect for the needs of the Observatory
and would not overlight the site unnecessarily. He feels that safety will be acquired for
this area quicker through this proposal.
With no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
called a recess. The meeting reconvened at 12:05 A.M.
At 12:00 A.M. the Chairman
Mr. Fisher asked if the site plans were prepared by the applicant. Dr. Hurt said yes.
Mr. Fisher said the location of the detention pond is in the floodplain. Dr. Hurt said he
does not think the detention pond is in the floodplain. Mr. Fisher asked how much of the
40,000 cubic yards of cut and fill have been accomplished. Dr. Hurt said between 40,000 and
60,000 yards of fill 'have been accomplished, all coming from the University of Virginia
Hospital. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Highway Department,
if he had any comments. Mr. Roosevelt said he had written four letters (all on file) concern-
ing this application and he is present tonight only to answer questions.
26 3
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Fisher said this property lies in the Samuel Miller District. In October he was
rather outspoken and criticized the changes being made in the Comprehensive Plan. He does not
want to make a repetition of those arguments, but he is not convinced that a rezoning of
property today in advance of road construction is a proper role for County governments. A
promise to build a road, particularly an expensive road even by honorable people, is only a
theory. Until that road is built, there are many things that can go wrong. There isn't money
from the State and there isn't money from the locality to build roads, and once the zoning has
been conferred on a property, a county's ability to enforce the construction of roads needed
by development is almost nonexistent. From that standpoint he feels that setting the prece-
dent of rezoning in advance of road construction is a bad idea. In Northern Virginia,
developers who want rezonings get together and build the road. It has been promised here, but
has not been done in any other subdivision by any other developer. Bonding is usually required
to be available to the County in the event that the road is not built. This road is much more
important to people in the County and the City than most roads. He does not think a promise
to build at some future point before a building is occupied is adequate for the County's
planning or for the citizen's safety. He does not think it should be done until the road is
there.
Mr. Henley commented that the developer may not trust Board members any more than the
Board members trust him. It is also possible that the Board will not rezone property after a
road is built. If he lived in this neighborhood he would be present tonight fussing like
these neighbors, but something is going to happen in the area. If the University acquires the
land, the situation may worsen. He supports the rezoning request.
Mr. Bowie said although the University of Virginia urged the Board to deny the request,
it also expressed interest in the property and suggested that its development would be at the
same intensity. It is inevitable that the property will be developed. If this proposal goes
forward, he would like to see mention of anti-light pollution. As he stated at the previous
hearing for the comprehensive plan amendment, people are already on the road going to a
shopping center, and.the people that live east and south of the City have to come all of the
way thr6ugh the City to find decent shopping.. He believes that this shopping center will meet
the needs of the community. He intends to support this request with measures for anti-light
pollution.
Mr. Lindstrom said the County, City and University of Virginia are presently working on
an agreement with guidelines for operating in certain areas of the City, County and University
grounds. If this proposal is denied, he is fairly confident that the three entities will be
able to come to an agreement concerning development of this property should the University
acquire it. He would offer motion for a reconsideration of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
if he thought it would pass. He thinks that the issue before the Board is how to implement
Comprehensive Plan recommendations. The Comprehensive Plan is a long-range planning document,
and the issue in a rezoning for compliance with the Plan depends largely on the existence of
adequate infrastructure. Previous rezonings have been denied because of the inadequacy of
roads even though the rezoning was in compliance with the Plan. Everyone is aware of the
severe limits on primary road funds. The likelihood of getting funds to ameliorate the
~ongestion and crowding already on Fontaine Avenue and, which will by all accounts, be doubled
)y this one project, is next to nothing in the foreseeable future. The improvements proposed
~y the developer are significant, but he is very uneasy with the general list of improvements
~resented by the developer. If this proposal is approved he is absolutely certain that the
~o~rd can expect protracted data and confusion about what was meant today five years from now.
% tremendous amount of weight and expectation is being placed on what historically has been a
;e~y thin reed. He is not questioning the integrity of the developer. There are no specific
~lans. If the proposed improvements are on a limited segment of the road, the improvements
$ill not significantly lessen the impact of additional traffic except in the immediate vicinity
of this project. Therefore, he thinks it is a mistake to consider that the road improvements
proposed are in any way going to alleviate the burden of traffic. The Board has a responsi-
bility, not only to County citizens, but to the neighbors that share our waters. One of the
peculiarities of this application is that the impact is more likely to fall upon City residents
rather than County residents. Fontaine Avenue Extended extends from Jefferson Park Avenue and
a number of other predominantly residential streets. This project will place a tremendous
amOunt of pressure on roads that are primarily residential, heavily used by pedestrians, and
by University of Virginia students. Driving Jefferson Park Avenue today requires care and
caution. The Board needs to keep in mind that other roads with these kinds of projects have
been highways such as Routes 250 East, 250 West and 29 North. Fontaine Avenue is not a
highway; it is a street. By approving this request, the Board is assuring that the road will
ha~e highway volumes of traffic while still being a residential street. The attitude expressed
by some Board members that road improvements are not'going to occur until traffic increases is
a Very bad approach, particularly when dealing with a residential area. He urges Board
members to seriously consider denying this rezoning as it has other similar rezonings until
sugh time as the Board can be assured of the kind of road improvements that a major, commer-
cial shopping center area is going to necessitate. The Board will be making a very big
mistake if it does otherwise.
Mr. Way said he feels that the improvements that are going to be made to the road are
fairly clear and a tremendous amount of work will be done on the road that might not otherwise
be done. It is clear that this piece of property is going to be developed in a very intense
way and, it seems to him that the Board has more control over how this project is going to be
developed. He feels that a vast majority of the traffic going to the shopping center will not
go all the way through the City, but go back out on the interstate highway.
Mrs. Cooke said she voted for the change in the Comprehensive Plan for this project and
she has not changed her views concerning that change. She has a great deal of sympathy for
the citizens present tonight. She is a lifelong resident of this community and can remember
when Fontaine Avenue, Maury Avenue, Stadium Road and JPA had well-kept, manicured residences,
lawns and single-family dwellings with no traffic problems. It is a shame that because of
poor planning and a lack of sensitivity on the part of the City and the University that this
arga is in its present state. The citizens have a right to be frustrated. By the same token,
th~ County has a growing demand for its schools, recreational facilities and services that the
Board must address. She views this piece of property as a very valuable tax revenue source
264
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
for the County. As various members of this Board have already said, this piece of property is
going to be developed whether as a shopping center or whether by the University. If developed
by the University, the property is taken off the County's tax rolls. She does plan to support
the request as proposed by the applicant.
Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve ZMA-85-1 subject to the conditions as recom-
mended by the Planning Commission. He asked if it was necessary to include the resolution
adopted by the Planning Commission on December 17, 1985, for further clarification of road
improvements. It was also suggested earlier by Mr. St. John that condition 92 concerning the
road improvements be clarified.
Mr. St. John said if any Board member intends to vote to approve this request and is
predicating his vote on the fact that the developer will make these road improvements, then it
should be spelled out, without any doubt and absolutely so clear that it can't be misunder-
stood exactly what is to be done and who is going to pay for it, and he does think that can be
done tonight. He also thinks there should be a set of plans available showing exactly what is
to be done, regrading and widening and relocations of any roads. At the least, Dr. Hurt
should put into the record that the work will be at the developer's expense.
Dr. Hurt said he will put that into the record here tonight and he has no objection to
rewording or clarification by the staff. Mr. Henley suggested that a plan handed to the Board
earlier be made the application plan. Dr. Hurt agreed.
Mr. Lindstrom said, although he has no intention of supporting the request, it appears
that the request should be deferred until the staff has more specific documentation and
sketches.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. St. John if it is appropriate for the Board to defer action until
such time as the County Attorney's office and the staff have gotten together to prepare proper
language to be included in the motion. Mr. St. John said he would feel safer with a deferral,
but if not, that Dr. Hurt state for the record that this work is to be done at the developer's
expense. Dr. Hurt said he has no problem with stating that the work is to be done at the
developer's expense and he is also satisfied with whatever additional wording the staff wants
to include. Everything is very clear to him, but if there is something that needs to be added
for clarification he has no objection. He has faith in the Board, yet it appears the Board
does not have faith in him. Mr. St. John said he does not want someone else to have to
interpret the meaning of the motion. Dr. Hurt said again, he understands what he is supposed
to do and he is endorsing it.
Mr. Horne said he thinks the exhibits and conditions of approval from the Planning
Commission are clear. The applicant is agreeing to proceed with the project in accordance
with the application plan (on file). The applicant is also agreeing to proceed with the eight
road conditions outlined in the Planning staff report and attached to the applicant's letter
of December 30, 1985 as Exhibit A. He does not object to rewording the language if Mr. St.
John thinks it is necessary, but it states three times "the developer would provide". He then
suggested that in the letter dated December 30, 1985, from the applicants on Virginia Land
Company stationery, the second sentence of paragraph #3 be amended to read: "We also agree to
the conditions added by the Planning Commission ... that the road improvements to Route 29, ..
in page 6 in the Staff Report be completed at the expense of the developer before issuance of
an occupancy permit for any building constructed on the entire 54 acre parcel." Mr. St. John
said that amendment clarifies the statement and helps to eliminate his concerns. The appli-
cants' letter also references "... and conditions attached thereto, .... Unless there is a
problem with the wording of the staff conditions, he is comfortable that there will not be
confusion concerning the agreement. Mr. St. John then asked Dr. Hurt and Mr. Dykes to ver-
bally agree to the amendment. Dr. Charles Hurt said he agrees to the changes as outlined.
Mr. Leonard Dykes, Sariandale Corporation, said he also agrees to the changes as outlined.
Mr. Henley then restated his motion to approve ZMA-85-1 subject to the two conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission, said to include the letter dated December 30, 1985
from Virginia Land Company Realtors signed by Dr. Hurt and Mr. Dykes with the change in
paragraph 93 as stated on the record, agreed to verbally by the applicants.
Mr. Horne said another item of significance is the question of sidewalk construction. He
noted the second paragraph of his memorandum dated January 9, 1986 and set out above. Mr.
Horne said the Board may wish to include that in the conditions as it would be a significant
improvement to the property.
Mr. Roosevelt said there are two things that the Board and Highway Department need to
consider with regard to the sidewalk. First, does the Board want to encourage pedestrian
traffic along this road? He does not think that pedestrian traffic should be encouraged
unless there are facilities available for pedestrians over the entire length. This sidewalk
is proposed to be constructed only in front of the proposed development which will leave a
considerable length from the City line to the development where Pedestrians would have to walk
along the narrow shoulder of the road. A disservice is being done to the public if pedestrian
traffic is encouraged. Second, the Highway Department made a conscious decision several years
ago that it was only going to maintain sidewalks that served a significant number of pedes-
trians. Based on his discussions with his traffic people a sidewalk would need to serve 100
users per day. He does no~ think that sidewalks should be built for joggers and he also
thinks that one of the last places to recommend jogging is Fontaine Avenue. Unless 100 people
per day can be found to walk to the shopping center and the sidewalk connects to walkways in
the City, he does not think the Highway Department is going to be agreeable to maintaining the
sidewalk.
Mr. Horne said the Pedestrian Obstacle Study mentions asphalt pavement to be built on the
north side. It appears to be logical that since the applicant is regrading the entire roadway
that a standard concrete sidewalk be constructed on the other side of the street. He thinks
it is valid to do so even if the Highway Department does not agree to maintain the sidewalk
given that there will be an organization involved for maintenance of the facilities. There
could still be an agreement with the owners to maintain the sidewalk. If this is not taken
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
265
"ca]re--of nuw, Li~~i~ not be an- ' ' ' '
Board amend the conditions as outlined in his memorandum dated January 9, 1986. The memorandum
suggests amendments to item ~7 and item 98 on page 6 of the staff's report.
Mr. Fisher said it seems appropriate to defer action on this to get everything straightened
out and worked out with the applicants, attorneys and planning staff and then take up again
for approval at the next Board meeting. Mr. Henley said he is prepared to take care of this
tonight. Mr. Horne said the only changes he proposes is to item ~7 and item 98.
Mr. Henley then included in his motion the amendments to item 97 and item 98 on page six
of the staff report as outlined in Mr. Horne's memorandum to the Board dated January 9, 1986.
Dr. Hurt said he understands the amendment and is in favor of the sidewalk. Mrs. Cooke then
seconded the motion subject to the conditions as set out below:
Conditions as recommended by Planning Commission in a letter dated
December 17, 1985 to South 29 Land Trust & sariandale Corporation
as follows:
Agreement by the applicant to proceed with the project in
accordance with the concept of the Application Plan to be
guided by comments provided in this report. The County
recognizes that physical layout of the Final Plan may vary
from the Application Plan, but that critical functions such
as access, circulation, sewers, must remain consistent with
the Application Plan and that the Final Plan must reflect the
spirit and concept of the Approved Plan as required by
Section 8.5.6.3.
Be
Agreement by the applicant to proceed with road improvements
as outlined in this report. Such road improvements to be
completed prior to any occupancy permit.
Letter dated December 30, 1985 from Virginia Land Company Realtors
signed by Charles Wm. Hurt and Leonard Dykes (with Exhibits A and
B as attached) with second sentence in Paragraph 93 amended to
read: "We also agree to the conditions added by the Planning
Commission ... the Staff Report be completed at the expense of the
developer before issuance of an occupancy permit for any building
constructed on the entire 54 acre parcel."
o
Memorandum dated January 9, 1986 from John T. P. Horne to the
Board of Supervisors referencing "Amendments to Staff's Report (of
December 17, 1985) and Developer's Agreement - ZMA-85-1 South 29
Land Trust and Sariandale Corporation" as follows:
ke
On page 6 of the staff report item 7 should be amended to
read "The developer should provide sidewalks internal to the
site in appropriate locations; and provide a sidewalk on the
south side of Fontaine Avenue from the eastern property line
to the westernmost entrance to the site;
Bo
Item 8 on page 6 should be amended to delete the final
sentence referring to an asphalt walkway on the north side of
Route 29 (Fontaine Avenue).
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Mr. Fisher (he prefaced his vote by saying he thinks there should be bonding for all
road improvements for any project.) and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 11. Virginia Association of Counties - Legislative Fund Contribution.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum from himself, dated January 9, 1986, to the
Board:
"VACo is coordinating an effort among counties to request that the
General Assembly conduct a major study on local government structure to
include the desirability for continuing the system of independent
cities and repealing the Dillon Rule. The request will include a
moratorium on annexation during the period of the study, estimated to
be two years. To fund the effort, VACo is requesting a contribution of
$1,000 from all counties.
As a member of VACo, it seems appropriate that Albemarle support
efforts by other counties to study local government structure. Equal
taxing authority among cities and counties, and the Dillon Rule are two
matters of concern to Albemarle. It is recommended that a contribution
to VACo be authorized from the Board's contingency appropriation."
Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to contribute $1,000 to VACo to conduct
a study on local government structure and to include a moratorium on annexation. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
January 15, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Agenda Item No. 12. Resolution of Intent to Amend Mahanes Tract from Low Density Resi-
dential to Public Use Recreational.
Mr. Fisher said a public hearing is required to amend the Comprehensive Plan for the
Mahanes site to change the area from low density residential to public use recreational. The
City/County Joint Committee has been meeting on this matter regularly. The consultant's
report has been received. The present proposal does no~ include field lighting or nighttime
use of the park. In addition, two softball fields at McIntire Park will be upgraded and
cOntinue to be used. It is important that if the purchase option is going to be exercised,
the Board move forward with setting the public hearing. The dates suggested are as follows:
February 4, Planning Commission hearing; February 5, Board of Supervisors hearing; and
February 12, final decision by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bowie said he has had two meetings with citizens in the area of the Mahanes site and
he thinks the proposal is becoming more acceptable. He then offered motion to adopt the
following Resolution of Intent:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan
to show approximately 100 acres of land located west of Route 20 North
and north of Elk Drive with extensive Rivanna River frontage, from low
density residential to public use recreational; and
FURTHER requests that the Albemarle County Planning.Commission
hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan on
February 4, 1986, and return its recommendation to this Board immediately.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he is voting in favor of the resolu-
tion, but he is not doing so on the assumption that if this is approved there will never be
night lighting or night activities. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. At 12:55 A.M., Mr. Fisher suggested that Agenda Item Nos.
13, 14 and 14a be carried over to a meeting to be held on Wednesday, January 22, 1986, at
3:00 P.M. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to adjourn until January 22, 1986 at 3:00 P.M. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
CHAIRMAN