Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-21March 21, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 21, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7,~Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Deputy County Executive and Director of Planning, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-84-1. Walter Jaeger and R. Craig Ernst. Request to amend conditions of SP-454 relating to the number of employees. Located on the south side of Route 641 adjacent to and west of Southern Railway at Burnleys. County Tax Map 34, Parcel 52. Rivanna District· (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 6 and March 13, 1984.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and presented the following staff report: "R.e. Gue s t: Acreage: Location: Staff Comment: Amend condition #3 of SP-454 as it relates to maximum number of employees. 23.09 acres RA Rural Areas Property described as Tax Map 34, Parcel 52 is located on the south side of Route 641, west of and adjacent to the Southern Railroad. In 1975, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-454 authorizing a custom woodworking shop with not more than three employees. The applicants are currently requesting a maximum of five employees, not including the applicants. To staff knowledge, during nine years of activity, no complaints have been made to the County about this operation. The request for five employees is not unusual compared to other craft shop operations. However, an area of concern not discussed in 1975 is access to the site. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended that the existing entrance be upgraded to a private street commercial entrance with adequate sight distance. While the entrance can be physically reconstructed, obtaining sight distance based on the posted speed limit for Route 641 is questionable due to severe horizontal alignment. At staff request, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation will attempt to conduct a speed study in the area prior to public hearing to determine if sight distance requirements can be reduced. (Mr. Tucker said the study has been done and same is set out below.) Recommendations for amendments to conditions of SP-454 are as follows: (Unchanged) Any renovations of the existing structure shall have County Building Official approval; (Unchanged) Production be limited to custom-made items, i.e., no assembly line production to be permitted; (Changed) Employment to be limited to a maximum of five (5) persons, not including applicants. Any additional employment will require an additional special use permit; (Unchanged) Signing be limited to one free-standing sign, not to exceed six (6) square feet; (Unchanged) Ail woodworking equipment shall be located within an enclosed area; 6. (Unchanged) Sales be limited to only products of the applicants; (Unchanged) Special use permit is issued to the applicants only and is nontransferrable; (New) Entrance improvements including improved sight distance and entrance reconstruction as set forth in the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation letter of March l, 198~, with attached sketch, (on file in Clerk's Office) are to be accomplished within six (6) months of special use permit approval." March 21, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) (The letter as noted in condition #8 is set out below:) "March 1, ~1984 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Department of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 County Office Building Charlottesville, Va. 22901-4596 Re: SP-84-1 Walter Jaeger & R. Craig Ernst Dear Mr. Keeler: This is in reference to our meeting of February 28, 1984, concerning the above special permit application. Based upon the speed study done by our traffic engineer, we have determined what is adequate sight distance for this entrance. To obtain this necessary sight distance it appears that trimming of vegetation within the highway right of way will be acceptable. Attached is a sketch drawn by Mr. Coates indicating the basic design we would require at this entrance (Copy on file in Clerk's Office). If we can be of further assistance, please advise. Yours truly, (SIaNED BY) J. A. Echols Assistant Resident Engineer" Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 6, 1984 unanimously recommended approval of SP-84-1 with the above eight conditions. Mr. Fisher stated concern about condition #1 regarding renovations and particularly if any renovations are planned to the existing building. He said the primary reason for his question is concern that the building might be expanded over the entire twenty-three acres. Mr. Tucker said there is nothing in the recommended conditions to prohibit that from occurring and the Board must add a condition if that is a concern. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Walter Jaeger, applicant, was present. He said for clarification purposes he wanted to bring to the Board's attention that there is a dust collection system located outside of the building. This system has never been approved or disapproved by anyone, but he did want the Board to be aware that the system exists outside of the building since condition #5 speaks to the woodworking equipment being in an enclosed area. Mr. Bowie said this is being mentioned at his suggestion so there will be no any future misunderstandings about the system. Further, he noted that the system was placed on the property at the request of the County fire official. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. LindStrom offered motion to approve SP-84-1 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicants have any intention of expanding the existing building. Mr. Jaeger said due to setback requirements and other problems, expansion of the building is very limited. He also noted that if the business is extremely successful and more building space is needed, another location will have to be found for operation of same. Mr. Bowie felt this use is excellent for this old building. Otherwise, the building would be dilapidated. However, he would suggest that condition #8 be reworded since adherence to same would require cutting down 250 feet of trees and shrubs which are decades old and very attractive. At either end of the 250 feet, there is a ninety degree turn. He has personally driven the road and did not feel there is anyway one could pass the business without seeing same. Mr. Bowie said with the petition requesting only two additional employees, he did not feel this justifies the Highway Department requiring that an additional one hundred feet of right-of-way be upgraded. With that suggestion, Mr. Bowie said he would support the motion. After a brief discussion, Mr. Tucker said if condition #8 is not included in this approval, then the Highway Department has no means of requiring the upgrading of the existing entrance. Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Tucker's statement implies that the condition can be deleted. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mrs. Cooke agreed with the suggestion and suggested the motion be restated to delete same. She said she would amend her second accordingly. Mr. Lindstrom said the County deals with a lot of similar circumstances and he did not care to establish a precedent by eliminating this entrance permit requirement. March 21, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 057 Mr. Jaeger said when the Highway Department brought a test car out to the site to determine the maximum safe speed, fifteen miles per hour was determined to be the maximum safe speed. He then explained the layout of the road and noted that anyone coming west could not turn into this driveway easily. He also noted that the second thing mentioned by the Highway Department was that the department did not want a large truck "bottoming out" when coming off of the hard-surfaced road into this driveway. Mr. Jaeger said there have been no problems with that to date. In conclusion, Mr. Jaeger said the requirement by the Highway Department appears to be more of a technicality than anything else. Mr. Bowie agreed since this is not a retail establishment, and the request is only to add two more employees. Mr. Lindstrom said although he will probably regret not including the condition, he will amend his motion to approve SP-84-1 with conditions 1 through 7 as recommended by the Planning Commission and deleting condition #8. Mrs. Cooke accepted the amendment to her second. 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. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-84-6. R. D. Wade Builder, Inc. Request to rezone 1.16 acres currently zoned R-10 with proffer (ZMA-79-05) to CO Commercial Office. Located adjacent to Putt-Putt Golf on northern side of Route 631. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 124C (part of). Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 6 and March 13, 1984.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: UR_equested Zoning: Existing Zoning: Locat ion: CO Commercial Office 1.16 acres of 8.78 acre tract R-10 Residential with proffer Property described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 124C (part), is located on the north side of Rio Road east and adjacent to the Putt-Putt golf course. Histor~_ In 1979 this property was rezoned from R-2 to R-3 with a maximum residential density of 12 dwelling units per acre. In August, 1983, the Planning Commission approved a site plan for 72 townhouse units on this property with the area subject to this current petition shown as 'Residue - Future Development.' Summary and Recommendation: This property currently in use as the office of R. D. Wade Builder, Incorporated, would be developed with an additional real estate office building. CO Commercial Office is generally comparable in traffic generation to higher density residential. Commercial Office is viewed as an appropriate transition zoning between C-1 Commercial on the west and R-10 Residential on the east. Staff would recommend special restrictions related to permitted uses and access. Character of the Area: This property is developed with the R. D. Wade, Builder, Incorporated, office building. The applicant is seeking Commercial Office zoning to permit location of a related real estate firm on the property. While the Comprehensive Plan recommends medium-density residential in the area, staff would note that CO Commercial Office zoning would provide a reasonable transition between the C-1 Commercial to the west and R-10 Residential to the east. (The Putt-Putt golf course to the west is likely to be redeveloped into more intensive commercial usage, given commercial land values in this area.) Staff would note two concerns related to Commercial Office zoning for this property: 1. Given transportation concerns in the Route 29 North/Rio Road area, access to the property should be provided internally; 2. Commercial Office is generally comparable to higher density residential in terms of traffic generation; however 'financial institutions' (23.2.1.3) are often traffic-intensive uses. Should these two concerns be adequately addressed, staff could recommend favorably on this rezoning request." Mr. Tucker noted that the following two proffers were submitted after the application had been scheduled for public hearing, to address the above two concerns: "March 6, 1984 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning Department of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 RE: ZMA-84-6 REZONING REQUEST March 21, 1984 (Regular Nig. ht Meeting) Dear Mr. Keeler: The recommendation that the area proposed for rezoning be accessed only from the proposed road that is to serve the rest of the future development is perfectly acceptable to and desired by me. Yours truly, (SIGNED BY) Randolph D. Wade President" "March 6, 1984 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning Department of Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 RE: ZMA-84-6 REZONING REQUEST Dear Mr. Keeler: I hereby agree that a financial institution, having a drive-up window that would generate unusual traffic flow, may be excluded as a 'by right' usage of subject property, if rezoning is granted. Yours truly, (SIGNED BY) Randolph D. Wade President" Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 6, 1984 recommended approval of ZMA-84-6 with the two proffers set out above. Mr. Bowie asked if the concern is about a financial institution or just the drive- up window such an institution may have. Mr. Tucker said the staff's only concern is the intensive traffic which might be created by such a drive-up window. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Randolph Wade, applicant, was present. He said Mr. Tucker has expressed his intent very well but would like to point out that the description for Commercial Office zoning in the Zoning Ordinance is as follows: "intended as a transition between residential districts and other more intensive commercial and industrial districts". With the~C~t zoning on the west (Putt-Putt) and R-10 Residential to the east, the request appears to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance. With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve ZMA-84-6 with the two proffers set out above and as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vo~e: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-84-2. Robert E. and Laura L. Hull. Request to rezone 2.44 acres from RA Rural Areas to HC Highway Commercial. Located south side of Route 649, .1 mile west of its intersection with Route 29 North. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D (part of). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 6 and March 13, 1984) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: Acreage: ~xi.s~ing Zoning: Location: HC Highway Commercial 2.44 acres of a 8.97 acre tract RA Rural Areas Property described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D (part), is located on the south side of Route 649 (Airport Road), west of and adjacent to Maupin's Grocery. Character of the Area: A food store and bank are to the east. Commercial development, including a service garage and food store, are located across Route 649. A single-family dwelling, owned by Airport Road Limited Partnership, is to the west. The portion of the property adjacent to Route 649 and subject of this petition is open and flat, while the southern portion of the property to remain RA Rural Areas is wooded. Public water is available; therefore, two uses could be located on the property. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended additional reservation/dedication of right-of-way for Route 649 improvements. March 21, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 059 ~mmary and Recommendation: HC Highway Commercial appears consistent with Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Property across Route 649 was rezoned HC Highway Commercial in 1981. Staff recommends approval. Staff Comment: The applicant's stated purpose for requesting Highway Commercial is to locate a tire sales and recreational vehicle sales. The tire sales, to be established initially, would involve~ mounting and balancing in a garage structure. The recreational vehicle sales, to be established later, would also include equipment installation and servicing. Aspects favorable to HC Highway Commercial zoning are as follows: 1. While the Highway Commercial district is intended to be applied along major highways, this request appears to comply with the textual recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan states that 'additional commercial areas are planned for the intersection of Route 649 at Route 29. These areas may be developed as highway oriented commercial to serve the residents of the Hollymead community as well as travellers on Route 29.' 2. The Comprehensive Plan recommends eighty acres of new commercial development by 1995. Currently about thirty acres of vacant commercial exist and rezoning petitions are pending on an additional forty-five acres. Therefore, the area is not currently 'overzoned'. 3. A rezoning to HC Highway Commercial of property across Route 649 was approved in April 1981 (ZMA-81-14)." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 13, 1984 unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-84-2. Mr. Tucker then explained the commercial areas surrounding the subject property. Mr. Fisher questioned the recommendation from the Highway Department dated February 23, 1984 that the County require necessary right-of-way be dedicated or at least reserved for the ultimate design of Route 649 (a four-lane divided highway) and he asked if this property has recently been divided into smaller parcels. Mr. Tucker said there is a plat showing the metes and bounds of the property; the plat is dated January, 1984. Mr. Fisher asked if the fifty-five feet from the centerline of the road has been dedicated on a site plan. Mr. Tucker said no, that will be requested at the site plan stage for at least a reservation of the necessary right-of-way. The only amount the County can require is twent~ive feet from the centerline of the road. Once there is a site plan, a further reservation can be made or requested. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Hull, applicant, was present. Mr. Hull said he and his wife live in the Earlysville area and desire to remain in the same general area. The meeting on the Comprehensive Plan which was held at Broadus Wood School in 1980 was attended by both he and his wife. At that time, he had stated appreciation for the endeavors to organize the plans for the County and particularly to avoid scattered growth. Mr. Hull said he and his wife purchased a copy of the Comprehensive Plan prior to looking for property and discovered that the subject property is in an area designated for commercial zoning. As has been stated, his intentions are to locate a tire store on the property and in the future, a recreational vehicl~ establishment. Mr. Hull said he appreciates the County's concern about Route 649 since this road is a visitor's first and last impression of the County. He noted that his property will be maintained in a way that the visual dignity of the County will not be destroyed and further, if there is concern about used tires being piled on the property, he can reassure the Board that this will not occur. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no problem with the request and appreciated the process the applicants had gone through before submitting the petition. Mr. Bowie agreed and offered motion to approve ZMA-84-2 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-84-3. Wolfgang Oehme. Rezone 1.377 acres from R-15 Residential to CO Commercial Office. Located north side of Route 250 East, at entrance to Ashcroft Subdivision. County Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 6 and March 13, 1984.) Mr. Tucker said Mr. Fred Landess had represented Mr. Oehme at the Planning Commission meeting and he did not see anyone present at this time to represent the applicant. Therefore, he ~ould suggest waiting until later in the meeting to see if the applicant's representative appears. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone was present to speak on the petition. Hearing ~o one, Mr. Fisher agreed to defer this petition until later in this meeting. 06O March 21, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting Agenda Item No. 8. Request to connect Inglecress Subdivision to water service area (Deferred from March 14, 1984). Mr. Tucker explained the request (set out in the minutes of March 14, 1984) and summarized the staff report as presented on that date. This matter was deferred since the property lies in the Jack Jouett District and Mr. Lindstrom was absent that date. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the area under discussion is clearly defined in the Comprehensive Plan for water service or is this situation similar to a recent request where the exact outer boundary of the service area was not defined. Mr. Tucker said, in this case, the boundary is the watershed line. Mr. James W. Gercke, President of Inglecress, Ltd., was present. He said he was not involved in Inglecress subdivision when approval was initially granted in 1980. He then summarized his memorandum dated March 19, 1984 as set out below: "Re: Request for the expansion of the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Inglecress subdivision, to be considered by the Board on March 21, 1984 Prior to your consideration of our request for the inclusion of Inglecress subdivision in the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional area, would like to provide the following background. 1. This subdivision was originally approved by the Planning Commission on July 22, 1980. The approval was granted on the assumption that County water was to be provided. The approved plat (then known as the Berta Jones final plat) was appealed to the Board, which approved it on September 10, 1980, but the Board declined to allow public water to be extended to this subdivision. (Mr. Gercke said prior to that Board meeting in 1980, Mr. Bill Brent of the Albemarle County Service Authority wrote a letter to Mr. Dave Wood, attorney representing the Berta Jones Estate, responding to an inquiry and stating that it was the unanimous decision of the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors not to petition the Board of Supervisors for water jurisdictional expansion. The feeling of the Board of Directors was that if the Board of Supervisors approved the subdivision, then the Service Authority boundaries would be adjusted at the appropriate time to serve the property.) 2. The plat for this property is now of record, a grading permit has been issued, and work is scheduled to start this month. The expansion of the Albemarle Service Authority jurisdictional area will have no impact on whether this subdivision will occur, since that issue is a fait accompli. The issue, as I see it~ is whether or not, on balance, the provision of public water to this project is beneficial to the County and to the future residents of Inglecress. 3. Inglecress, Ltd., has no aim in this matter other than the provision of fire protection and residential water service to the 43 lots currently of record. Restrictions which would prevent hookups in addition to the 43 requested and prevent rezoning or future subdivisions are acceptable to us. major water line of adequate pressure is readily accessible and all costs to construct the water lines in the project would be borne by In~lecress, Ltd. A 4. Expansion of the water jurisdictional area to include Ingtecress could be done without detriment to County policy; benefits to the County and future Inglecress residents in the form of reliable water supply and the presence of fire hydrants are undeniable. It seems to me that the Board's concern for the welfare of County residents after a developer's role has concluded (as manifested, for example, in the changes it has recently voted in the private road ordinance) makes the approval of water service for this project highly desirable and in the interests of both the County and future Ingtecress residents." Mr. Gercke said he feels the request is reasonable since there is to be no additional growth or change in the number of lots already put to record and approved by the County. He feels a County citizen should reasonably expect the right to hook onto an existing waterline when that line is adjacent to the property. Mr. Gercke then provided some background of the subdivision and noted that when the project was first presented, there was some controversy in the neighborhood and expressions of dismay about development of this property. He does plan to make certain that when the development is complete, same will be as attractive and compatible to the area as possible including the placement' of restrictive and landscape easements on certain parts of the property to preserve its rural character. Mr. Gercke concluded by stating that he has no problem being restricted to water service only for the forty-three lots of record. Mr. Lindstrom asked the range of lot sizes. Mr. Gercke said lot sizes range from two to twelve acres with the average being 4.2 acres. He then pointed out that a twelve- inch waterline runs into the Vepco transmission easement, down to the road known as "21 Curves" and out to Garth Road. He noted that the plat shows a seventy-five foot easement from Garth Road. Mr. Gercke said he is studying the lot configurations and considering some adjustments of same since he personally did not care for the layout of the forty-three lots. He further noted that some of the lot lines are desired to be readjusted from the standpoint of the County staff to protect the building sites. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone else was present to speak on the matter. one present to speak for or against the subject. There was no March 21, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 06! Mr. Llndstrom recalled the debate and concern expressed when the project was previously discussed. He has some concern about the request today and stated one concern is that the Board has a policy to limit water service to the urban area only, and this policy' is gradually being "whittled" away. Although, he recognizes that public water will not increase the density of this project since same has already been approved and any additional units would require a special use permit, he is concerned that changing policies concerning water service is setting precedents and water in the rural areas of the County is becoming much easier to obtain. Mr. Lindstrom said that concern leads ~to his second'concern which is that water is a relatively limited resource. The Board has gone to a great deal of effort, as well as some inconvenience to many citizens in the County, in order to preserve this resource, and substantial amounts will be spent in the future to provide another reservoir. Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom said he is very concerned about precedents being established for public water use in nongrowth areas. GroWth areas are designed ~ ~ for development on small lots where public water is a necessity with the close proximity of buildings and the need for fire protection. With the community growing at the fast pace which has been seen in the past, and can be foreseen in the future, and the increasing costs of housing, there will be a growing need for lower cost housing which translates into smaller lots in the urban area. Mr. Lindstrom said water is a scarce resource and opening the doors for use of the resource in the rural areas will cause availability problems in the urban area where public water is a necessity. Mr. Lindstrom said despite the Board's effort to protect the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, same continues to deteriorate and again, he emphasizes the resource of public water must be used in areas where necessary and that is the urban area. In conclusion, Mr. Lindstrom felt the Board mUst adhere to its polfc!es for planning of this scarce resource. Mr. Henley said as he has stated in the past, he does not consider water as a stimulant to growth. He then referred to a recent request, similar to this request, where the area was adjacent to the public waterline and that request was approved restricting connections to the number of lots already platted. Therefore, he intended to support this request with the same condition. Mr. Henley said preserving water for the urban area with small lots and apartments is fine, but everyone does not desire to live in such surroundings. He. then noted that after West Leigh Subdivision was developed,~water was often transported to the well, and finally public water was made available, and that did not stimulate growth in that area. Mr. Henley said there is a distinction in this request and future requests since the lots being discussed today have already been platted, these are large lots, and the property is adjacent to an already developed area. Further, he emphasized that he did not intend to support public water for any subdivision far from a growth area, or if a new waterline would have to be run into an area. This subdivision is adjacent to a developed area and adjacent to an existing waterline. Therefore, he intends to support the request. Mr. Fisher said he also is concerned. He'noted that this subdivision could not be built today without obtaining arezoning because of the number of lots in the rural area. Mr. Gercke has stated that adjustments are being considered for the configuration of the lots, and he asked Mr. Henley if the applicant were to apply for a special use permit, If Mr. Henley would consider that as new business, or would he be committed to the forty-three lots of record. Mr. Henley said he is only committing himself to the forty-three lots of record and not stating where the lots have to be located on the property. Mr. Fisher again noted that there could only be thirteen lots under existing zoning if the applicant resubmitted a petition. Mr. Henley did not feel the applicant would be that foolish and the Board should not penalize the applicant for that possibility. He would not support that type Of request but did not feel the Board should consider that p~ssfbility by denying this request when same is not before the Board at this time. Mr. Fisher said he is only alerting the Board that same is a probable step. He then noted strong opposition to continuously expanding the water service area simply because waterlines are adjacent to the boundaries of the existing areas. He felt if these exceptions are advertised for public hearing and the' request then denied, a judge would decide that the Board is not being consistent. Mr. Fisher said a lot of work has been done over the past ten years to guide growth out of the watershed area and this type of approval is demolishing those efforts. Mr. Bowie said he had voted for approval of the recent request in the Zvy area. He does recognize the arguments from both sides, but as pointed out, this property is adjacent to an existing waterline. Therefore, Mr. BoWie said he intends to support the request. Mr. Lindstrom said those persons choosing to live in a rural area must face the fact that certain public services are not available. Since water is not a commodity without limitation, he did feel adhering to County policies to preserve this resource is essential. Mr. Lindstrom said this subdivision can still be built, even without using public water, and he feels that is a concern separate' and aside from concerns about stimulation of growth. He also noted that there are thousands of lots in the rural areas of the County that have been approved and platted, but are not developed and are closer to public water than this subdivision. He visualized approval of this request as increasing requests for public water service. Therefore, growth will be stimulated in the area because more lots will be used than otherwise could take place without that service. Mr. Henley said since he has been on the Board, more arguments have been made to require persons to hook onto public water than denials, particularly since the Board has been hesitant to approve wells for subdivisions. Mr. Lindstrom again emphasized that the rate of growth in the County i's about three percent a year and the major problem the County has been facing is the limited resource of water. Mrs. Cooke felt that this type of housing is needed as much as high density development and she noted that high density is putting a crunch on the urban ring of the County. She, therefore, is more concerned about that problem than the development of this area and the crunch this development would put on the usage of Water. She agreed with Mr. Lindstrom's statement about setting a precedent if the request involved running a waterline to the area, or if the development were not adjacent to an already developed area. However, this is not the situation because the subdivision is in close proximity to the waterline, and is adjacent to a developed area. Mrs. Cooke said she felt there is a need for lower density housing in the area. March 21, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom said this subdivision does not need public water to develop because private wells can be used just like other subdivisions with lots of the same size. However, water is a necessity in order for high density areas to develop in the future. Mrs. Cooke said she felt this subdivision needs fire protection as well as those in the urban area, and that is another consideration. Before Mr. Henley offered motion, he asked if this is a public hearing to change the service boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Agnor said this is not a public hearing, but rather a discussion of the request from Mr. Gercke. The Board has done these type of requests by public hearing in the past. However, he thought Mr. St. John had advised the Board that a public hearing is not required. Mr. St. John said he would like to check the Code. The Board recessed at 8:48 P.M. in order that Mr. St. John could research the procedure involved. The Board reconvened at 8:55 P.M. Mr. St. John said according to Virginia Code Section 15.1-1247, a public hearing is necessary but there are no advertising requirements specified. Therefore, he feels one advertisement seven days before the hearing date would be satisfactory. Mr. Henley felt the subject had been thoroughly discussed this evening and he offered motion to postpone the request until April 11, 1984 and the change of the Service Authority project areas be advertised as noted by Mr. St. John. He then asked if the Comprehensive Plan needed to be amended at the same time. Mr. St. John said since this area is outside of the growth area, the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to include this subdivision in the water service area, with this request being sent to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. Mr. Henley then amended his motion to advertise for public hearing on April 11, 1984, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the Albemarle County Service Authority project areas to include Inglecress Subdivision for water service only and 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 "Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas Map" in the Comprehensive Plan to include that property located on the south side of Garth Road, Route 601, just north of Farmington, for water service only. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission is hereby requested to hold a public hearing on this resolution and to make a recommendation to this Board as soon as possible. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he will not support the motion because this proposed action is opening the door to similar requests and he did not see any justification to extend the waterline to Inglecress Subdivision, but rather this will create legal problems in the future, and tap a limited resource, water, that the Board has struggled to preserve. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Messrs. Henley and Way. Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 9. Division of Woodbrook Precinct (Deferred from March 14, 1984). This matter was deferred from March 14, 1984 since this is the precinct for the Charlottesville Magisterial District and Mrs. Cooke was absent at that time. Mr. John Burns, Chairman of the Electoral Board, was present and summarized the following memorandum: "TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ALBEMARLE COUNTY ELECTORAL BOARD March 14, 1984 Division of the Woodbrook Precinct, Charlottesville Magisterial District At the February 7 meeting of the Electoral Board, motion was made and unanimously approved to establish a second polling place for the Charlottesville District with the boundary lines being as shown in Attachment i and on Attachment 2 (map). (The two attachments are on file in the Clerk's Office.) There are currently 4,879 registered voters now in the Woodbrook precinct. Title 24.~1-37 states as follows: 'In the event that any precinct contains a number of qualified voters in excess of five thousand, the governing body of the county shall within six months proceed to alter or rearrange the precinct boundaries in order that such precinct shall no longer contain in excess of five thousand qualified voters. The mere failure to comply with the requirement of this paragraph shall not' invalidate any election.' It is anticipated that the number will exceed 5000 prior to the November 6th General Election. March 21, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) The Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department has offered the use of the Fire House as a polling place. Mr. Burns, Chairman of the Electoral Board, has inspected the faoility and ,it meets the requirements to the fullest extent. Therefore, we propose to the Board that a second polling place be established in the Charlottesville Magisterial District to be called the Seminole Trail Precinct. The necessary submission will be made to the United States Department of Justice if and ~when this proposal is approved by the Board." Mr. Burns said this division will not cost more than $325 which is the cost of postage and the purchase of a telephone. The same voting machines can be used and the same personnel. Mrs. Elizabeth Haugh, member of the Electoral Board, was present and said the Electoral Board felt the responsibility to inform the Board that the precinct is nearing the limit in the State Code. The purpose of informing the Board at this time is to allow the Board ample time to make a decision on establishing another precinct. Mr. Fisher asked if the November election will be difficult to handle at one precinct in the Charlottesville District. Mrs. Haugh said parking and traffic have always been a problem at Woodbrook. Mrs. Cooke asked where there is adequate parking at the fire station. Mr. Burns said there is a large parking lot at the fire station. Mrs. Cooke asked if the parking around the fire station will interfere with fire trucks exiting if need be during election day. Mrs. Haugh said that area will be kept clear and she noted that other fir~ stations have been used for voting in the past and that has not been any problem. Mr. Burns further noted that parking will not be allowed in specific areas. Mrs. Cooke said she is also concerned that there are no sidewalks along Berkmar Drive and she is concerned about the safety of those persons parking along said road. Mr. Burns said with the noise that fire trucks make, certainly the voters will know to get out of the way. Mrs. Cooke asked if there are any provisions in the fire station building for handicapped persons. Mr. Burns said there is a ramp to the community room which is on the second floor, and the room which is to be used for voting. Concern was expressed by both Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom about a voter who is confined to a wheel chair. Mr. Burns said the law allows someone to assist those persons by taking a ballot to them. Mrs. Cooke said although it is wonderful for the fire station people to offer the building for this use, she is concerned that there are some problems involved and she would like for those to be answered before a decision is made. After a brief discussion about the necessity for this change to be approved by the Board of Supervisors in sufficient time to have same submitted to the Justice Department and the State Board of Elections, Mr. Fisher suggested the concerns expressed by Mrs. Cooke regarding possible traffic hazards and inconvenience to handicapped persons be placed on the April ll, 1984 agenda for further discussion. He then asked if the two precincts will be equalized by this division. Mr. Burns said the new precinct is to have 2,500 voters and the Woodbrook precinct is to have 2,250 voters. Mrs. Cooke said this proposal appears to place more voters at the smaller precinct. Mr. Fisher then asked Mrs. Cooke if she is going to investigate other locations within the Charlottesville District for this new precinct. Mrs. Cooke said she is not certain of any other possibilities but would be happy to work with the Electoral Board regarding same. The discussion concluded at this time with ~his topic to be further discussed on April ll, 1984. Also requested were the most recent voter registration figures relative to the Charlottesville District along with some further information to clarify the concerns of Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-84-3. Wolfgang Oehme. (Deferred from earlier in the meeting) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "R.e.~uested Zoning: CO Commercial Office ~ 1.377 acres Existing Zoning: Property described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D is located on the north side of Route 250 East,. west and adjacent to the Odyssey Night Club. Character of the Area: The Odyssey Night Club is to the east, across an access road leading to Ashcroft PRD. Other properties in the immediate area are un~r~'~? developed. Properties east of the Ashcroft access road are zoned HC Highway' Commercial and R-6 Residential. Properties west of the access road are zoned R-15. This site which appears to have been graded and filled some years ago is open and flat. A deep ravine separates the site from R-15 property to the west. ~.~m~ary. and Recommendation: While the Comprehensive plan recommends high-density residential in this area, staff recommends that due to other considerations, CO Commercial Office zoning would be reasonable in this particular case. 064 March 21, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Staff Comment: While the Comprehensive Plan recommends high-density residential in this area, staff would note aspects supportive of CO Commercial Office zoning: 1. Location adjacent to the Odyssey Night Club is a deterrent to residential usage. While other large properties in the area could develop under a cluster alternative with open space buffering from the night club, the small size of this lot is not conducive to such an approach; 2. CO Commercial Office zoning could provide a reasonable transitional use in the area; 3. Traffic generation under CO Commercial Office zoning is similar to higher-density residential; 4. Access to the site is restricted to the existing access road by prior subdivision approval. Staff recommends approval." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 13, 1984 unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-84-3. Mr. Fisher said a letter from the Highway Department dated February 23, 1984 recommends that this property have access off of North Pantops Drive and not off of Route 250 East. He asked Mr. Tucker to comment on this recommendation. Mr. Tucker said that comment is addressed by #4 under the "Staff's Comments". When this lot was originally divided from the parent tract, the Planning Commission required that access be from the interior road and not from Route 250 East. Therefore, that concern has already been solved. Mr. Fisher said a similar situation exists on Riverbend Drive, but that is subject to change. Mr. ~ucker said in order for.this situation to change, the applicant would have to request the Planning Commission to change the original approval regarding access being limited only from the interior road. Mr. Bowie said with the existing zoning of R-15, a small apartment building could be built on the property and that is an absolutely illogical use of the land. Also, with the eighty-foot deep ravine on the west, the property is blocked off and the woods will simply provide a buffer. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Fred Landess, attorney representing the applicant, was present. As pointed out in the staff report, the R-15 Residential zoning is inappropriate to the land because developing anything residential in this location is impossible. Further, Mr. Landess noted that this property is only 1.377 acres so is impossible to be a part of an overall development. Considering the development already in existence in the area and foreseen for this area, this location appears to be best for a professional office building or a financial office, both of which are allowed under Commercial Office zoning. Mr. Landess said Mr. Clover, as well as a friend of the applicant, Mr. William Bayles arc. present to explain this petition. Mr. William Bayles, resident of Charlottesville and friend and former colleague of the applicant, spoke next. Mr. Oehme is a German citizen and a resident of Hamburg, Germany. Mr. Bayles said a few years ago, Mr. Oehme while visiting in Charlottesville stated interest in investing in property as he liked this area. Mr. Bayles said he has, therefore, assisted Mr. Oehme and when this lot was seen, Mr. Oehme was very interested due to its isolation with a street on two sides, and the deep ravine on the other side. Mr. 0ehme envisioned the property as being used for a small office building or as a corporate communications headquarters, same to be shared with other tenants. Mr. Bayles said Mr. 0ehme is the head of the Exxon operation in Germany, the third largest industry in that country. In addition, he has a number of directorships not only in Germany but in other European countries and the United States as well. Both Mr. and Mrs. Oehme are active in civic affairs in Hamburg. Mr. Oehme.is also involved in German government activities and participates actively in common market affairs both at the council and commission level. Mr. Oehme is rector of a German University which is a very high academic title much appreciated by Germans. Mr. Bayles said he saw Mr. Oehme before Christmas and Mr. Oehme stated interest in proceeding with development on this parcel of land. As has been noted, this property when purchased by Mr. Oehme was zoned Commercial Office and in 1980 was rezoned to R-15 which is of no use to Mr. Oehme since he has no desire for the property to be used as residential. Therefore, Mr. Bayles said the request is to change the zoning status in order that Mr, Oehme's original intended use, an office building, can be fulfilled and he asked for favorable consideration of the request. Next to speak was Mr. Bill Clover. He noted that as previously stated, the property is virtually useless as R-15 zoning. He did not.feel anyone would build an apartment building across from the Odyssey Night Club or on Route 250. Therefore, Mr. Clover felt the requested zoning for Commercial Office is a better use of the property than the existing R-15 zoning. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked about the roads surrounding the parcel of land. Mr. Tucker pointed out the 100 foot right-of-way that is being used by Ashcroft Su~ivision as.a temporary access, but which will be closed at some future time when Ashcroft will have access off of the frontage road adjacent to 1-64. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve ZMA-84-3 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. March 21, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: and December 14, 1983 and January 11, 1984. November 16 (Afternoon), November 16 (Night), Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes for November 16 (Afternoon) and (Night) and noted no corrections. Mr. Henley had read pages 15-26 as assigned for December 14, 1983 and noted no corrections. (The other pages of this set of minutes had been read and are so noted in ~mi~t~s~af March 14, 1984). Mr. Bowie had read pages 1-10 of the minutes of January 11, 1984 and noted two typographical errors. Mr. Way had read pages 11-21 as assigned for January 11, 1984 and noted no corrections. Motion to approve the minutes of November 16 (Afternoon), November 16 (Night) and December 14, 1983 and January ll, 1984, was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were none presented. Agenda Item No. 12. At 9:35 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn to March 22, 1984, at 1:00 P.M. in Meeting Room 7. 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.