Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-0619.4 June 6, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia, was held on June 6, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. Frederick 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; Deputy County Executive and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-84-8. Hillcrest (Hurt Investmen~ Cbmpany). Request to rezone 176.07 acres from R-1 Residential to Planned Unit Development for a gross density of 4.08 dwelling units per acre. Located on the east side of Route 742 and west side of Route 20 South. County Tax Map 91, Parcel 2. S¢ottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 22 and May 29, 1984.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, was present and said the Planning Commission will not hear this petition until July and he recommends deferral of ZMA-84-8 indefinitely. Motion to this effect was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Llndstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-84-02. John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. Request to amend Section 19.0 Planned Residential Development in Zoning Ordinance to allow under Section 19.3.1, a country inn described as small hotel with no more than 30 rooms and small restaurant. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 22 and May 29, 1984.) Mr. Fisher said the following letter dated June 4, 1984 has been received from the applicants: "We respectfully request that our application with regard to the above referenced zoning text amendment, scheduled to be heard by the Board on June 6, 1984, be withdrawn without prejudice. Thank you for your support and consideration. Sincerely, (S~NEO BY) John and Elizabeth Wildermuth" Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept the withdrawal of ZTA-84-02 as requested by the applicants without prejudice. 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. 5. ZMA-84-12. Caleb Stowe Associates. Request to rezone 1.892 acres from Planned Residential Development/R-4 Residential to R-10 with proffer retaining existing use and adding Caleb Stowe Associates and use of manor house with 1.892 acres as single-family residence to proffer. Located in Ednam community on the south side of Route 250 West. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 22 and May 29, 1984.) Agenda Item No. 6. described in ZMA-84-12. SP-84-25. Caleb Stowe Associates. Request to permit use as (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 22 and May 29, 1984.) The staff presentation and public hearing for the above two petitions will be held jointly with action to be considered separately. Mrs. Cooke said she will abstain due to a conflict of interest in these two petitions and left the room at 7:35 P.M. June 6, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker presented the staff report: ~.ackground: Ednam Planned Residential Development was approved under both rezoning and special use permit petitions in 1980. While the majority of land was zoned under a planned development designation, the main Ednam House and grounds (1.73 acres) was designated high- density residential with proffer and special use permit in order to allow use of the house as a clubhouse and professional offices for Ednam residents. The purposes of these current petitions are: a) to add Caleb Stowe Associates office use to the approved uses, and b) in the alternative, permit sale of the main Ednam house as a single-family dwelling. Staff Comment: Currently, Caleb Stowe Associates is operating in three locations. The main office is located in the Boar's Head commercial area, while project sales/management offices operate at Branchlands and Ednam. (Historically, project sales/management offices have been viewed as accessory uses allowable for the duration of project development.) This has resulted in triplication of some staff, office equipment and the like. While office uses are not viewed as incompatible to residential areas, staff views the proposed consolidation of offices at Ednam in a manner similar to the proposed inn at Wavertree Hall. In ZMA-83-7, John and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth, staff stated that the Planned Residential Development 'does not contemplate the location of primarily unrelated commercial uses centrally within the residential community.' In regard to the proposed alternative (i.e., sale as single-family dwelling), staff has no concern regarding residential use of the property, however, no alternative clubhouse or other community facility has been proposed. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve these petitions, staff opinion is that the proffer as submitted provides adequate safe- guards of the public interest." Mr. Tucker then read the following PROFFER marked received in the Planning Department on April 16, 1984: "The Ednam House Land Trust, as the applicant, proffers to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, the following reasonable and acceptable conditions of approval for the required rezoning: I. The clubhouse use of the existing manor house shall be limited in membership to the members of the Ednam Homeowners Association, and in use to its membership and their guests. II. The professional office use of the existing manor house shall be limited in use to (a) professional offices for Caleb Stowe Associates, and to (b) professional offices for residents of the Ednam Development, consistent with the definition of homeowners occupation, class B, as regards employees, floor area, traffic and equipment or process, per resident; limited in total area to available existing space on the second and third floors. III. The service use of the existing manor house shall be limited to services for the residents of the Ednam Development and their guests. IV. The use of the existing manor house and the 1.892 acres of R-10 District shall be limited to the above uses in I, II and III, excluding all other permitted uses or special permitted uses in the R-10 District other than off-stre~t parking, and any additions or new construction for professional office use without amendment in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Albemarle. V. As an alternative use to the uses permitted in I, II, III and IV, the existing manor house and the 1.892 acres may be utilized as a single-family residence. EO AM LA O TR ST Stuart F. Carwile, Trustee" Mr. Tucker said a memorandum dated May 1, 1984 from Ms. Carol Bauman, Resident Manager of Ednam Corporation, has been distributed to the Board fo~ information. The memorandum advised the Ednam homeowners about this proposal and the reason for same (Copy of this memorandum is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 8, 1984, recommended approval of ZMA-84-12 and SP-84-25 with the above proffer. June 6, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked why R-10 zoning is necessary for the described purpose. Mr. Tucker said R-10 is the lowest~residential density permitting office space use by special use permit and was choosen by the applicant instead of requesting spot zoning of CO, Commercial Office. Mr. Fisher clarified that the rezoning, if approved, will be an R-10 category, but limit same to a single-family residence or office use if the special use permit is also approved. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr. Fisher asked if there were conditions placed on use of the clubhouse specifically. Mr. Tucker explained that the original process was to apply for a Planned Residential Development (?RD) and a rezoning to R-3 under the old Zoning Ordinance (the R-3 permitted the same office use as the R-10 now with a special use permit). Mr. Fisher said the present request will essentially take 1.892 acres out of the ?RD and rezone same to the higher density of R-10. This could result in someone putting eighteen dwelling units on that acreage unless these petitions are clearly tracked. Mr. Tucker said that is a possibility which always exists when a parcel is rezoned, but the proffer protects the County. He also realizes that a precedent is possible in this type of rezoning. However, Mr. Tucker felt the reason for this request is evident since the applicant intends to simply utilize the office space. Mr. Fisher asked if any other methods have been pursued to accomplish the intent of the applicant. Mr. Tucker said a ?RD is basically to provide flexibility for residential type uses and to also permit certain types of commercial activity (convenience nature) but not activities which would serve the populus of a larger area. An amendment to the PRD regulations could create a problem since the use would then be allowed either by special use permit or by right. Using the approach as before the Board tonight, the application can be examined on its merits. Mr. Fisher asked if the 1.892 acre parcel will still be a part of the ?RD. Mr. Tucker said with this rezoning and the proffer as written, the parcel could technically be separated from the PRD if option 5 in the proffer is allowed for the single-family residence, however the parcel is not being removed and will remain within the confines of the ?RD. The parcel will only be considered as being separate from the ?RD in the sense that it has a different zoning category. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that changing the original status of the ?RD will cause open space, etc. to be considered open for rezoning requests, and then the original intent of the PRD zone would no longer exist. Mr. Tucker said that is always a possibility. He related a concern of the Commission and staff that if the manor house is a single-family dwelling, then there will no longer be a clubhouse available to the residents and from that perception, one could say the idea of a PRD was being deleted. Mr. Fisher said the original ?RD showed this building as being set aside for community use; not just the first floor of same. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. The building was for use as a clubhouse, community use and office space, but Stowe Associates has always planned to use part of the building for a project sales office. Mr. Lindstrom asked which persons were mailed notices about these two petitions. Mr. Tucker said the staff notified all the residents of Ednam ?RD, although there are few people involved at this time. He understands the applicant also sent notices to the residents. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Caleb Stowe, applicant, was present. He said when the rezoning for the Ednam ?RD was requested, the development of the project was envisioned to be at a faster rate. It was felt that the manor house would be a lovely place to frequent, and the homeowners in the ?RD would want to use the house~. This has not been the case, in fact, the house has become an impediment in the neighborhood. After three years of dealing with the maintenance and care of the house, it was decided to use the house as requested in.these petitions. Mr. Stowe said this is a sensitive area; the house is on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, it is desired to maintain the house in that manner. Mr. Stowe said he has a personal attachment to the house, but cannot say the same for the present homeowners and landowners in the PRD. The use for the house is being approached in two ways. One is to allow the house to be a single-family residence; this has received unanimous approval of persons living within the ?RD. Mr. Stowe felt there is support of the efforts to find a regional use for the property which will not place a financial burden on the homeowners. He also noted that a year ago the house was removed from the homeowners association due to inequities of maintaining same. Therefore, the developer is now totally responsible for the house. The second alternative is to allow use of the house by the Caleb Stowe real estate office in a more extensive way. Use of the house is now limited to development, care and maintenance for this particula~ neighborhood. Mr. Stowe said his office has been located only about three hundred yards from this building for the last twelve years; maintenance of two sets of offices has been a harrowing experience the last three years. Therefore, the request is to combine both offices and function out of this house only. Mr. Stowe said the manor house has more than 10,000 square feet and only business purposes. The rezoning is not requested to allow other persons use of the house, but the use will be restricted to Caleb Stowe Associates due to its involvement in.the community as developer of the ?RD. Mr. Stowe added that this is an economic compromise since the rapid growth in the community was misjudged. Therefore, this is an attempt to find a reasonable and sensible way to use the building and also to preserve the quality of the house. Mr. Fisher said this petition limits the use of the house to the professional offices of Caleb Stowe Associates and its current real estate and management operation. He asked if there are plans to employ more than one hundred people in the business if this request is approved. Mr. Stowe said he went into business in 1963, and there are now only about ten people working in the real estate brokerage phase of the business. Therefore, he does not envision that large of an increase in employment. Mr. Fisher asked about the erection of signs for the general sales operation. Mr. Stowe said thought has been given to that matter at this time but any signs will be ~in good taste. With no one else present to speak for or against the petitions, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve ZMA-84-12 with the proffer as set out above. He does have some concern about "tinkering around" with an established plan but felt that with the proffer, and the fact that all the owners within the ?RD have been notified, no opposition has been voiced, and the proposed change is substantially in character with the original ?RD, he does support the requests. He can understand that this type of project has to have some opportunity for flexibility within the context of the original proposal. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. June 6, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked if the zoning map amendment coupled with the proffer will allow the property to remain as a part of the original PRD. Mr. St. John said yes; this use was originally considered when the PRD was approved. He does not feel this type of change is inconsistent with the concept. Also, as noted by Mr. Lindstrom, a developer cannot predict what is going to happen in the future. Mr. Fisher said he did not have any objection, but wanted to be careful about the process used. He also wants the Board to know what is going on with development of this property. Now that the record contains these comments and discussion regarding same, he does not feel any problem exists. Roll was called on the foregoing motion of approval for ZMA-84-12 (with proffer) and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-84-25. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if there should be any conditions attached to this approval or does the motion incorporate the proffer. Mr. Tucker said the proffer limited the use of the zoning category, and the proffer is limited to office use. Mr. Lindstrom said he perceived that the base zoning limits the special use permit and the special use permit is then limited by the proffer. His motion is made with that understanding. Mr. Bowie accepted that to his second. Roll was called and the foregoing motion of approval carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke. (Mrs. Cooke returned to the meeting at 8:10 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 8. SP-84-19. Free Union Country School. Request to locate private school on two acres of total 75 acres zoned Rural Areas, RA. Located west side of Route 601, 1/4 mile north of its intersection with Route 665. County Tax Map 29, Parcel 15C (part of). White Hall District (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 22 and May 29, 1984) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "R.e~uest: Ac~age: Zoning: Location: Private School 2.0 acres RA, Rural Areas Property, described as Tax Map 29, Parcel 15C, is located on the south side of Route 601, approximately 300 feet east of the Post Office at Free Union. Character of the Area: Maupin's Grocery and a post office are to the west. Shelter Associates (builders) are across Route 601. Other properties in the immediate vicinity are farm lands. An old log building, which would be retained for storage, and a cemetery exist on the site. Due to the curvature of Route 601, sight distance easements will be necessary to satisfy the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commercial entrance requirements. (Comments of the Department of Highways is set out below). Summary and Comment: From the applicant's representation, there appears to be substantial local support for the proposed school. Staff opinion is that, with appropriate conditions of approval, this petition would be consistent with criteria for issuance of a special use permit, and staff recommends approval. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to construct and operate a private school for students from pre-school through grade 5 with an initial enrollment of ten to eighteen students and an ultimate enrollment of thirty to thirty-five students. Staff opinion is that a private school should be reviewed under !ocational criteria similar to a public school. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that new public facilities should be located in areas designated for growth, such as designated villages. Free Union is not a designated village and the applicant observes that Free Union is served by Meriwether Lewis Elementary School, which is remote from the area. Additionally, from the applicant's written statements, there appears to be substantial local support for this project. Due to the inclusion of pre-school children, staff would recommend adherence to the requirements of Section 5.1.6 governing such uses. (Note: Should 5.1.6(a), which requires State !icensure, prove to be inapplicable, ~ire Official regulations governing space requirements for pre-schoolers would apply.) In view of the time constraints stated by the applicant and the relatively small scale of the project, site plan approval by the Site Review Committee may be appropriate. (The applicant has contacted the Planning staff, Fire Official, Health Department and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation regarding physical development of the property.) June 6, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Under criteria Set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff opinion is that with appropriate conditions of approval, a private school in this location would not be of substantial detriment to adjoining. property, would not change the character of the area nor be inharmonious with other uses in the area and would not be inconsistent with the intent of · the Zoning Ordinance nor with the general health, safety and welfare. Therefore, staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning staff approval of site plan in accordance with recommendations of the Site Plan Review Committee; 2. If licensure is not'required by the State Welfare Department, this approval shall be construed to include waiver of Section 5.I.6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Ail other requirements of Section 5.1.6 shall be met; 3. Permit is issued to Free Union Country School, Incorporated, and is non,transferrable; 4. Enrollment shall be limited in accordance with recommendations of the Site Plan Review Committee, provided that enrollment shall, in no case, exceed thirty-five students; 5. Staff would recommend that the applicant, both for the protection of the children and the applicant, voluntarily comply with the Virginia Department of W&lfare's Minimum Standards for Licensed Child Care Centers." The following letter dated May 25, 1984 was received from Mr. J. A. Echols, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, regarding the study by the Highway Department of this petition: "The Department has reviewed this location and has determined that the safe driving speed of the curve along this property frontage is 30 m.p..h. Based on this study, 300 feet of sight distance is required for the entrance to this site. At a location approximately 50 feet south of the edge of the existing building an entrance could be located that would obtain the necessary sight distance. A sight easement would be needed across the frontage of this property to the north to insure the maintenance of the sight distance, but it would be only on this property. To obtain sight distance in both directions would require trimming of vegetation and removal of the existing fence along the property frontage." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 29, 1984, unanimously recommended approval of SP-84-19 with conditions i through 4 as recommended by the staff and the condition #5 reworded to say: "Compliance with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum Standards for Licensed Child Care Centers." The public hearing was opened. Speaking first was Mr. Charles McRaven, vice-president of the Free Union Country School Board of Directors. He noted that a packet of information regarding the school was distributed to the Board this evening (Copy of this is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. McRaven said he is contributing the basic structure for the school. The goal of the Board of Directors is to establish this privately-operated, pre- and elementary school in the Free Union area. The Board of Directors is aware of the overall of recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan and that the school should be located in a designated growth area. Free Union is not a growth area, but the school is proposed as a service to those persons living within the area at the present time. Mr. McRaven said those proposing to use this facility are current residents of the Free Union area. Mr. McRaven said there are a couple of reasons for locating in this particular area. One- is the safety factor. This particular area has a posted speed limit of thirty miles per hour which is easier to cope with than fifty-five mph in other rural areas. As has been stated, the Highway Department has looked at the site and commented that the curve going toward the center of Free Union cannot be approached at more than thirty miles per hour. After the Planning Commission hearing, Highway Department engineers viewed the site. The entrance originally proposed required the applicants to obtain property for additional sight distance from an adjoining property owner. This was done. However, as mentioned by Mr. Tucker another entrance has been presented by the Highway Department which does not require the additional sight easement off of the property. Mr. McRaven said the Highway Department has also stated that a turn-lane into the property may be necessary. The applicant has agreed to construct a turn-lane at its own expense and to the specifications of the Highway Department. Mr. McRaven said a suggestion was made at the Planning Commission meeting that the Highway Department investigate the posting of school zone signs as a safety measure. The applicant has no problem with that. Mr. McRaven said another reason for desiring to establish in this area is that Free Union is already the center of a rural community, and most of the families supporting this project are located in the area. The Board of Directors hope that the school can be a community center for those involved with the project. Mr. McRaven said it is planned to restore the existing log building which is picturesque and use same for storage. The new building will be erected behind the existing building, but will be of the same type of construction. Mr. McRaven said he feels this project will enhance the area. Speaking next was Mr. Douglas Little, property owner across the road from the proposed project. He summarized a letter of opposition dated June 5, 1984 from himself and his wife, Deborah B. Little, Richard Freedman and Burton M. Webb (Copy of this letter is on file in the Clerk's Office). Their first concern is that the school is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Free Union is not a designated growth area and there is concern about the possible increase of growth as a result of this facility. Mr. Little said approval of this special use permit could trigger other petitions for more intensive use~ June 6, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) 109 Traffic is also a considerable concern. With a maximum enrollment of thirty-five students, that means an additional thirty-five vehicles in and out in mornings and afternoons to the school. The applicant has stated that the school may become a community center, and there is concern that this will draw a large amount of traffic. The property is located on a very sharp curve which is difficult to negotiate even at the posted twenty-five miles per hour speed limit. Mr. Little said he has found an almost total lack of support for this project. With the amount of existing traffic and then this additional traffic, he would urge that a turn lane be required if the petition is approved. Mr. Little said Free Union is a quiet community and the persons in opposition feel that the additional noise and activities to be generated from this facility will be detrimental to the area. Next to speak was Mr. David Waldron, President of the Free Union Country School Board of Directors. Mr. Waldron said this is a core group of approximately a dozen families with about eighteen to twenty children committed to the project. On the curriculum committee, there is a combined teaching experience of seventy-four years. The point is that this is an organized group of people both in the expertise of the building and the curriculum. The group will do all in its power to construct a turn lane if required to do so, and all specifications required. In conclusion, Mr. Waldron urged approval of the petition. Mr. Fisher asked how this type of school is accredited by the State. Mr. Waldron said there are no set guidelines to adhere to other than personal beliefs. This school will teach the basics of education. Mr. Fisher asked if there are any plans for play areas. Mr. Waldron said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if such will be constructed under requirement~ of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said any requirements can be imposed on the site plan. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Waldron if he is aware that that requirement for playgrounds will be addressed at the site plan stage. Mr. Waldron said yes. Next to speak was Mrs. Bertha Durbin, Chairman of the Curriculum Committee. She has discussed the regulations for this type of facility with the State Board of Education and there are none other than those forwarded by the Association of Accreditation for Schools. She said in the State of Virginia, most private schools are operated under their own volition. The intent of this school is to hire teachers who are Virginia-accredited so that Virginia standards will be met. Mrs. Durbin further noted that there are parts of the plan which must be met for pre-school children, as well as regulations for the playground, health and other related facilities. Mr. Fisher said the design of the site plan should include screening and location of the playground in order to alleviate noise to the neighbors. Mrs. Durbin said most of the neighbors will not be at home while school is in session. Although there may be some weekend activities, the noise will not be any greater than that now generated at the parking lot at the general store. Next to speak was Dr. Charles Durbin, parent of three children and resident of the Free Union area. He said the corner of the parcel in question is now difficult to transverse because of vegetation. Clearing the area will allow people to safely walk around the corner. Dr. Durbin said having a school in that location will hopefully slow down drivers. Even without the school, safety items in the area should be considered by the County. Next to speak was Ms. Leni-Ashmore Sorenson, resident of Free Union, and member of the Free Union Country School Board of Directors. She has been concerned about the distance children have to ride buses to school. Therefore, having a school in this area means less travel time, also smaller classes with the children knowing their classmates. Mr. Douglas Hargrave, resident of Free Union and secretary-treasurer of the Board of Directors, spoke next. He noted excitement about the school and urged approval of the proposal. Next to speak was Mrs. Linda McRaven. She said there are plans for soundproofing the building~ as well as cutting back the bank to improve sight distance at the entrance and to help correct problems caused by the vegetation. Mrs. McRaven said she is aware of the safety factors involved. She assured the Board that being a parent with a child attending the school, safety measures will be taken. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said the staff comments about the Comprehensive Plan indicate that a new public facility should be located in a designated growth area, but these comments have not been specifically addressed. Mr. Tucker said the Plan is silent about where projects are to be located, and what criteria is to be followed for same. Free Union is not a designated growth area, but the area has developed faster than some of the designated growth areas. He then referred to the recently constructed medical center, the post office, and the general store, as well as proposals for other types of uses in some of the older buidings in the area. From that perspective, locational criteria can be used for that area just as for any other designated growth area, and the area will still have the character of a village. Mr. Bowie said he read the comments to say that placement of schools in growth areas applies to public schools but private schools can be placed where best suited. Mr. Lindstrom said school facilities have the characteristic of faciliting development which is why schools are viewed as being public facilities in the Comprehensive Plan. He is concerned that approval of this petition will change the character of the area and make same a Type II village. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not certain he can support the request. Mr. Tucker said the special permit limits the size of the facility; any expansion of same will have to be approved. Mr. Lindstrom said although this school will have a maximum of thirty-five students, the school will be a magnet to growth, and he is concerned that this is a rural area, not designated for growth. June 6~ 1984((ReMular Night Meetin~ Mr. Bowie asked if it is expected that the eighteen to thirty-five students will come from families already living in the Free Union area. Mr. McRaven said that is correct, the core group represent the first year enrollment. The group has not tried to recruit more children since the school has not been approved yet. He also noted that a study was conducted of young couples in the area who have children. The numbers are quite high. The study was made so the group starting this school would know there are enough children in the community to support the facility in the future before expending funds on same. As for the concern of Mr. Lindstrom about expansion of the facility, same is limited by the fact that there are only two acres in the parcel. Mr. Bowie asked if the school has a guaranteed number of students for the first year. Mr. McRaven said there will definitely be from ten to eighteen children the first year. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels Free Union will become a village if this request is approved because a school is a stimulant for growth. The Board recently amended the Comprehensive Plan to eliminate parts of the Type I villages lying in the watershed area, and Free Union is in the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. He expressed fear that approval of this request will bring forth other requests which will be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan particularly in respect to the watershed. He had no problem with the school itself, but is concerned about the location of same in an area that is not designated for growth. Mrs. Cooke asked how much development can take place in this particular area. Mr. Tucker said the area is zoned Rural Areas (RA) and no property can be more intensively zoned than two acres per dwelling unit, each existing parcel has five-development rights. There is a lot of vacant land in the area, and a lot of subdivision activity has taken place during the last couple of years by utilizing the five development rights. Mrs. Cooke said a certain amount of development is going to take place regardless of the school. Mr. Tucker said that is a fair statement. Mrs. Cooke said not many houses are necessary to fill a maximum school capacity of thirt~ive students. Therefore, she did not feel a large number of homes will be involved as a result of the school being built. Mr. Bowie said he personally supports the return of a community school. He is not sure that a private school does the same, but did not object to the use as a community center where meetings can be controlled. He then offered motion to approve SP-84-19 with the conditions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom felt the staff "just slid over this one". He said it does not make sense not to expect growth when there is a school, doctor's office and a post office in an area. This will make it difficult to resist pressurefor more development and is contrary to what the Board has attempted to accomplish in the rural areas, particularly since this area is in the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. Based on the above comments, Mr. Lindstrom said he will not support the motion. Mr. Fisher said he will support the motion, but agreed with Mr. Lindstrom about the staff's comments in relation to the Comprehensive Plan. However, he feels the impact will be minimal and he wants those in the community to have the opportunity to educate their children as desired. In conclusion, Mr. Fisher said the precedent of approving this request will have to be a concern in the future. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. Mr. Lindstrom. At 8:53 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:02 P.M. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-84-20. Jerome Corporation. Request to locate a motel on 1.124 acres out of 7.8 acres zoned C-I, Commercial. Located west side of southbound lane of Route 29 North, 1/8 mile south of its intersection with Dominion Drive. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 119 (part of), Lots 4 and 5. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 22 and May 29, 1984.) Mr. TuCker presented the following staff report: ,.Request: Motel Ac.r.eage:. 1.124 acres -~ Zoning:_ C-l, Commercial Location: Property described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 119 (part), is located on the west side of Route 29 North, adjacent to Berkeley Su~bdivision. Character of the Area: A commercial subdivision plat consisting of seven lots was approved for this property in 1980. The proposed motel would occupy lots four and five. A mobile home park is located on lot seven. A private road would provide access to Route 29 North at two points. The northern entrance would have access to a crossover. As a condition of the subdivision plat, deceleration and turn lanes are required at. both entrances, as well as at the crossover on Route 29 North to serve t'he northbound lane. The closest residential lot line to the proposed motel would be about 175 feet away. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to construct a forty-eight room motel, restaurant and swimming pool on this site. This area is recommended for commercial usage in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with the criteria for issuance of a special use permit as set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and offers the following comments: a) The (motel) would not be of substantial detriment to adjoining property; adjoining properties are designated commercial. The site plan has been amended to show additional landscaping toward Berkeley. June 6, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) b) The character of the district will not be changed (by location of the motel); staff opinion is that a motel would be consistent with the character of development permitted in the C-1 Commercial District. c) The (motel use) will be consistent with the (supplementary regulations) of the zoning ordinance and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Subject to appropriate conditions, this criteria can be satisfied. Both the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and staff recommend that the commercial subdivision road be constructed at this time. The swimming pool should meet the requirements of 5~1.16. Staff opinion is that with appropriate conditions of approval, the proposed motel would be consistent with the criteria for issuance of a special use permit. Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of private road and all c~mmercial entrance improvements as required under approval of SUB-8G-027 Mary ~atricia M. Brown; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.16." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 8, 1984, voted unanimousl to recommend approval of SP-84-20 with the two cgnditions in the staff report. In separate but related action, the Commission reached a consensus to relate its concerns about screening on the remainder of the parcel, and to advise that the staff intends to work on additional comments and suggestions for the area along the internal road. Mr. Tucker said the staff met with two property owners in Berkeley SubdiviSion and the applicant's attorney, Mr. Clifton McClure, concerning screening and buffermng from Berkeley Subdivision. He understand a verbal agreement has been reached between thes~ parties. Basically, the two property owners who live in Berkeley will be given the opportunity to have some input, during or prior.to the construction of this road, regardint between this site and Berkeley. Mr. Tucker said week that several mobile homes will be displaced tion. These mobile home owners are concerned be. lots are on monthly basis. The staff has search~ parks in the area, and there are none at this ti] future. Mr. Fisher asked if any of the lots shot Mr. Tucker have been developed according to a pe~ Mr. Fisher asked if the two entrances being so cl for entrances. Mr. Tucker said the commercial s~ manner and he does not recall that the Highway D. Mr. Fisher asked if the location of the internal subdivision plat as approved. Mr. Tucker said y, plat lies along the rear property line with the ~ location of screening and buffering the staff has learned during the past as a result of the road and motel construc- ~ause their leases for the mobile home ~d for vacancies in other mobile home ~e nor any anticipated in the immediate cn on the subdivision plat mentioned by ~manent site plan. Mr. Tucker said no. Lose together meets current requirements ~bdivision plat was approved in this ~partment had any problem with the entrances. road will be controlled by the existing ~s, the right of way on the subdivision ~oadway being used as the buffer strip. The public hearing was opened. Speaking fi~ Moore, developer of the motel. Ms. Sessoms said betWeen the applicant Jerome Corporation, and th~ understands the subdivision plat and ring road i~ imposed by the Planning Commission is part of th. (ComPliance with Section 5.1.16) relating to the met. A person will always be on duty at the mot~ that might arise. The site plan has been amende, property and the attorney for Mrs. Mary Patricia with adjoining property owners at the rear of th does not pertain to the concerns of Mr. Gorman o~ for the rear of the property and those concerns plat approval stage or when the site plan is sub~ Next to speak was Mr. Clifton McClure, atto~ property. The seven lots of the commercial subd and none will be serviced directly from Route 29 of $150,000 had to be posted for the road improv plat was approved in 1980, and that plat contain 29, but none of those entrances have been used. median strip, deceleration lanes and access road will be lost. Mr. McClure Said the spaces will special permit because the subdivision plat has the improvements. Therefore, he did not feel t~ before the Board this evening. He is very symph court, and is also trying to find those persons this time to take other trailer spaces. Mr. McC will be requested not to work on the portion of homes until the very last part of the job. The homes will be August 1st and hopefully not until obligation to complete all of the work within fo with Mr. West and Mr. Gorman, property owners in staff be allowed to approve the screening along subdivision plat as approved required the preser of the property. .Mr. McClure said until the act vegetation examined, it is difficult to determin Therefore, the property owners would rather wait applicant and obtain staff approval. Mr. Fisher as a third condition. Mr. McClure said the scre site plan, but rather on the approved subdivisio special use permit he is suggesting that the sta and screening. Mr. Fisher said that would bind and the owners can work out the problem. ?st was Ms. Lisa Sessoms, representing Mr. the road is part of the contract agreement ~ developer of the entire site. She ~sue have been settled. The first conditiOn contract agreement. The second condition setback of the swimming pool has been ~l to control the noise or related problems to show additional screening on the Brown,~owner of the property has mst property. Ms. Sessoms said this applicatio Mr. West because this petition is not hould have been addressed at the subdivision ~itted for same in the future. ?ney representing Mrs. Brown, owner of the [vision are serviced by the access road . Mr- McClure said a bond in the amount ~ments. .Mr. McClure said the subdivision ~d three commercial entrances off of Route In order to do the improvements required, , eight of the thirty-nine trailer spaces oe lost regardless of approval of this oeen recorded and the bond posted to do loss of mobile home spaces is a question .thetic to the people in the mobile home relocation space. There are no plans at lure said the contractor doing this work ~he property involving those seven mobile aarliest date for removal of the mobile September. However, there is a contractura] ~r months of the closing date. He has met Berkeley, and it is proposed that the the two lots affected by the road. The vation of the existing trees in the rear ~al cut and fill has been done and the a what screening will be necessary. until that time and then meet with the asked if Mr. McClure is suggesting that ~ning is not shown on the Jerome Corporation n plat. Therefore, as a condition on the ff be allowed to approve the owners planting the applicant, but perhaps the applicant 202 June 6, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Next to speak was Ms. Helene Sullivan, one of the eight mobile home owners to be displaced. Ms. Sullivan said she has been unsuccessful in finding another location for her mobile home, therefore, she requested that if the special use permit is approved, a ruling be imposed that the families will not have to move for at least ninety days. ~ Mr. Gorman, resident of Berkeley spoke next. His property borders the proposed access road and so does Mr. West's property. .A meeting was held with Mr. McClure and all sounded fine with an agreement to plant some white pines along the access road. However, after the meeting, it occurred to both he and Mr. West that their houses are in line with the cars coming off of the access road. Therefore, there is concern about car lights shining in the rear of their houses. Mr. Gorman requested that some additional screening, such as a fence, to block the lights be required. Mr. Fisher asked what the height of such a fence would be. Mr. Gorman said perhaps six feet, but he is not certain since comments have been made that the earth will be lowered where the road will be laid. Mrs. Evelyn Giannini, one of the mobile home owners, spoke next and asked if the land was sold in 1980. Mr. Fisher said 'he did not know. Mrs. Giannini expressed concern that if the property was sold in 1980, that fact was never mentioned to the tenants of the mobile home park until time to move. Speaking next was Mrs. Vicki Morris, one of the eight soon-to-be displaced mobile home owners. She expressed concern because it is a financial burden to move a mobile home. She also urged the Board to keep in mind that spaces in mobile home parks in the county are scarce, and people who cannot afford to rent apartments would at least have a place to live if more parks were made available. Therefore, she felt the County would benefit from encouragi mobile home parks rather than subsidizing low-income apartments. Mr. Fisher said the Board is concerned about mobile home parks and is trying to deal with the problem. However, it seems that this property owner has month-to-month leases with a number of persons and those leases can be terminated at any time. Also, if this application is denied, there is nothing which prevents the property owner from terminating the leases and reapplying later. Mr. Fisher said the application before the Board this evening is separate from the issue of month-to-month leases on the mobile home spaces. Next to speak was Mrs. Joan Graves, representing the League of Women Voters. The League earnestly requests that the Board instruct the Planning Commission to make a study of the location of mobile home subdivisions in Albemarle County as a first priority. According to the Planning Commission schedule, the study is planned for the Fall and Winter of 1984 but with the plight of mobile home owners who will have to move from this property without any place to relocate, the matter is desperate. Further, the League requests that the Board take whatever action possible to mitigate the hardship of these people, who while owning their homes have no place to place them. Mrs. Graves said as a personal comment, she can think of nothing worse than displacing the eight mobile homes. Therefore, she hoped the Board would delay the construction of the road which will displace these people as long as possible in order that those persons can find another place to live. With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked the amount of time before these people will have to relocate. Mr. McClure said as mentioned previously, there is a maximum of four months in the contractual obligation with Mr. Moore to have the road improvements completed. Mr. Fisher asked if a ninety day notice coul'd be given. Mr. McClure felt a notice to move as of September 1 could be offered. Mr. Bowie said that is also his concern. He realizes that if this petition is denied, the owner can still request the mobile home owners to relocate. Mr. McClure said with Mrs. Brown's investment in the property, there is no other choice. However, he would say that she is willing to do her best until September 1 but no commitment can be made until this is discussed with Mr. Moore and the contractor about the possibility of working around this particular area. He also noted that the major improvements to be made are on Route 29. Mr. Fisher asked if disturbing the roadbed will interfere with moving the mobile homes. Mr. M¢Clure said those people do not have to use the road which is involved in construction. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Moore if he would agree to having a condition placed on the permit requiring a ninety-day written notice before displacement of the homes. Mr. Moore said if that can be worked out with the contractor. Mr. Lindstrom asked about fencing that was mentioned by Mr. Gorman. Mr. Tucker said when the commercial subdivision plat was approved, maintenance of as many trees as possible was made a requirement. This petition uses just two of the seven lots in the subdivision and these lots are not adjacent to any property in Berkeley. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a fence can be required. Mr. Tucker said other than making that a condition, approval by the staff prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy of screening and evergreen planting and/or buffering along the rear property line can be required. Mr. Fisher said the motel itself has not yet been addressed. He then asked how this request will meet requirements in the Stormwater Detention Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said he has not seen an overall plan, but more than likely a plan will be developed for the entire site and not just for these two lots. Ms. Sessoms said Mr. Moore's engineer has been working with the County Engineer on the question of stormwater detention. The last two lots on the ring, and part of the area west of that land will be piped toward Route 29. and then there is to be a large pipe installed to detain the water and go across Route 29 into an existing pipe. The problem area lies near Berkeley Subdivision where there are a lot of flooding problems and no detention facility. The engineers are working on a solution to detain the rest of the water from the developed property. She said Mr. Elrod wants a detention facility plan for the entire subdivision upon construction of the ring road. Mr. Fisher asked if that means a pipe will go under the road and out to a swale on the other side of Route 29 and he asked who owns that property. lg \0 June 6, 1984 (Regularly'Night Meeting) Ms. Sessoms said there is a detention facility on that side of Route 29. Mr. Tucker said the property is owned by Dr. Hurt~ Mr. Tucker said he did not realize this was going to be d~¢u~e~his evening, however, he understands that there will be a plan designed and computations completed to meet requirements in the Stormwater Detention Ordinance for the entire site. Mr. Fisher said he thought that in absence of ia regional basin, to handle stormwater detention, same had to be handled on site. Mr. Tacker said that is correct. Mr. Fisher said a statement has been made that the water will be piped across the road to another property. Ms. Sessoms said that was shown on the site plan when same was approved and a condition was imposed requiring the County Engineer's approvlal of stormwater detention. Mr. Fisher said he feels the matter of water detention should be~ discussed with the County Engineer before this petition is approved even though he doeis not have any problem with the request for a motel. Ms. Sessoms said she understands the COunty Engineer has approved the idea for the runoff to be directed away from the problem are,as in Berkeley and Four Seasons. Mr. Fisher asked the present condition of the property. Ms. Sessoms said the property is mostly in grass. As previously mentioned~ discussions h~ve taken place between the engineers about a detention facility which will release the~water at the rate it is presently leaving the site. There is an existing drop inlet that takes the water off of the site and across Route 29. The anticipation is to hook to the existing drop inlet and let the water out at the same rate as before development. Mr. Fisher again expressed his feeling that this question should be discussed with the County Engineer before approving this permit request. The site plan has already been-approved by the Planning Commission and if this petition is approved by the Board, and then the County Engineer approves the detention basin, the Board will have no further recourse. Mr. Agnor said the County Engineer's approval Lindstrom said the ordinance requires that the current runoff rate. He said Mr. Fish~ of the site plan can be appealed at this t~ expired for appeal of the site plan. Mr. weeks in order that a report from the Coun requested. Mrs. Cooke said there has been in regard to runoff control and the existi~ further to the problems is unknown and, th~ was then offered by Mrs. Cooke to defer SP- be received from the County Engineer conce~ that problem on this specific site. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no problem but he does not think the County Engineer County ordinances. Mr. Fisher said he is of the ordinances. Mr. Bowie did not feel th~s project. Mr. Lindstrom then seconded plat appeal date has expired, and Mrs. Coo! expressed concern. Mr. Bowie suggested that when site pl~ Planning Commission along with zoning petil ~as to be based on ordinance requirements. Mr. runoff not be released at any rate faster than ~r's concern is legitimate and asked if approval ~me. Mr. Tucker said the ten-day time period ~as 'isher then requested deferral of SP-84-20 for two y Engineer concerning the water runoff can be much concern expressed about this particular area ~g problems. Whether this project will contribute ~refore, he agreed to defer the petition. Motion .84-20 to June 20~ 1984 in order that a report can 'ning the runoff control and the handling of ~ith waiting for a report from the County Engineer, ~an approve anything not in accordance with .nterested in knowing Mr. Elrod's interpretation the two-week deferral will be of any detriment to the motion stating he does so because the final ~e, the representative for this district, has ~ns or subdivision plats are approved by the ~ions, this fact should be made known to the Board within that ten-da~ appeal time, in order ~hat the Board might appeal the site plan, etc., if so desired. Mr. Tucker noted this came about because of the new streamlining procedures of the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher also suggested that someth~ the property owners concerning the screeni~ deferral and same carried by the following AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fish~ None. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-84-23. Willi~ office on 1.09 acres zoned R-10 Residentia east of Route 29 North. County Tax Map 61 in the Daily Progress on May 22 and May 29 Mr. Tucker presented the following st~ ".R~Muest: Professional Office ~c~eage[ 1.09 acres ~oning:_ R-10 Residential Location: Property described as the northeast side of Rio Road, Character of the Area: This site is Property immediately southeast i property. Farther southeast is Directly east is Raintree Subdiv northwest and north are a single proposed Rio Woods townhouse dev units)· These properties are zo Apartments zoned R-15 Residentia .ng be submitted in writing on that date between ~g issue. Roll was then called on the motion of recorded vote: ~r, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. ~m W. Bailey. Request to locate professional · Located north side of Route 631, 2,000 feet Parcel 128. Charlottesville District. (Advertise~ 1984.) ff report Staff Comment: The applicant proposes a 2,400 square foot addition to the e~-residence which would r~sult in a total floor area of about 4,500 square feet and would hous~ offices of Bailey Realty. The Comprehensive Plan recommends low and medium densities of residential use in this area. Commercial usa is recommended near the intersection of Route 29 North and Rio Road. ~ax Map 61, Parcel 128, is located on ~orthwest of Merridale School. leveloped with a single-family dwelling. ~ a vacant portion of Merridale School ~erridale School zoned R-2 Residential. [sion zoned R-2 Residential. To the -family dwelling (Parcel 124A) and the lopment (Parcels 124B and 124C, 72 .ed R-10 Residential. Squire Hills are across Rio Road. June ~ 1984_~Regular Night Meetin~ Staff has reviewed this request for consistency with the criteria for issuance of a special use permit as set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and offers the following comments: a) The use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property: Staff opinion is that professional office use within the R-10 district should meet regulations similar to those for CO Commercial Office. In this case, the building would not be set back fifty feet from adjoining residential properties. If this is a concern to the Commission and Board, it should be determined whether other measures (stockade fencing, landscaping) would be satisfactory. b) The character of the district will not be changed (by professional offices in this location): In the past, staff has recommended office usage as a transitional use between residential areas and intensive commercial/ industrial areas. In this case, the office use would be surrounded by residential zoning and development. While office use is not viewed as incompatible to residential use, approval of this petition could set precedent for similar requests on adjoining properties (i.e., about four to five acres, including single-family dwelling to northwest and vacant portion of Merridale School site). c) Professional office use would be consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare: Staff has identified no conflicts between this proposal and the general welfare. Due to concerns outlined in (a) and (b) above, staff opinion is that this proposal does not satisfy the criteria for issuance of a special use permit. Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Stockade fencing or similar means of buffering from adjoining residential areas; 2. Building expansion limited to maximum total floor area of 4,500 square feet." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 8, 1984, unanimously recommended approval of SP-84-23 with the above two conditions. Mr. Lindstrom asked why the Planning Commission recommends approval when the staff commented that the proposal does not satisfy criteria for issuance of a special use permit. Mr. Tucker said several single-family owners, and other adjacent owners in the area, desire to develop their properties for a commercial use and have expressed support of the petition due to the fact that neither the present use nor the zoning on the properties is comparable to the higher density uses. Mr. Tucker said basically the traffic generation from an office use of this type is compatible with R-10 residential zoning so in that respect there is no difference. The Commission also felt the market in this area is better for commercial office use than medium or high-density residential use. Recently the Board rezoned Parcel 124C for Commercial Office. Also, a townhouse development was also recently approved in the area. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board should consider changing the zoning on the subject property to Commercial Office. Mr. Tucker said that is the other alternative. Mr. Tucker said he is concerned that if other properties do follow this type of procedure perhaps an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be appropriate for the entire area which is now shown as medium to low-density residential. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Tucker feels this request is not compatible with the current Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Mr. Tucker said the plan calls for medium-density residential. This use will provide a fairly good transition between existing low and high-density in the area since both have comparable traffic generation. Mr. Tucker said eventually the existing median on Rio Road running fram Route 29 past the Fashion Square Mall and ending at the entrance to the Bonanza Restaurant, will be extended when Rio Road is four-laned past this point. However, if properties in the area continue to develop individually, and each of the properties has a right to its own entrance, there will not be a crossover in that median to service each property. Getting into and out of those properties could therefore be a problem. It would be best if the properties could be developed jointly somehow. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a review of the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for the area in question will be made if this petition is approved. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said there is a lot of high-density zoning already existing in the County. He asked if there is a demand for commercial office property that is not being met by existing zoning. Mr. Tucker said that might be the case in the urban area, but not otherwise. The public hearing was opened. Mr. William Bailey, applicant, was present. He said the property was purchased so the existing house could be used as an office. The facade will remain as it exists and the addition to be built is 1,200 square foot per floor. The height of the hill will mean that the building will barely be seen from Rio Road. He is willing to comply with the turn lanes and thirty-foot wide entrance being required by the Highway Department. Mr. Bailey said with Rio Road planned for four-laning in the future, he does not feel the properties remaining zoned for residential use is practical. He does not feel his request is out of character for the practical use of the land in the subject area. In conclusion, Mr. Bailey said he did not intend to do anything to damage Rio Road and the reason for purchasing the house is because of the homey atmosphere for a real estate company. He requested approval of the petition. June 62 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) .205 Next to speak was Ms. Lisa Sessoms, representing Mr. Bailey. She did not feel commercial office use on the property will be of any detriment to the adjacent properties. The property to the west is presently for sale. She understands the purchaser intends to use the property in a commercial manner. However, if the property is not used in that manner, proper screening will be provided. The property to the right is Merridale School and those owners have informed Mr. Bailey that there is no problem with his request. The R-2 property in the rear is 170 feet away from the building and adequate screening is already provided from that use. The proposed use is a much better alternative for this property than R-10 due to there being less noise and traffic generation from this type of business. In conclusion, Ms. Sessoms said the concern expressed by Mr. Tucker about the entrance to the property has been discussed with the contract purchaser of the property lying to the north. A willingness to share an entrance with Mr. Bailey has been expressed. Ms. Sessoms said Mr. Bailey is willing to comply with the two conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. Speaking next was Ms. Charlotte Ramsey, representing Mrs. Acree, property owner to the north of this property. Ms. Ramsey said this neighborhood is changing in cha~aCter~beaause it is no longer a pleasant place to live with the apartment complexes in the vicinity and an enormous amount of daily traffic. The parcel owned by Mrs. Acree is small in size, as is the property of Mr. Bailey. Therefore, both are better suited to an office use than a single-family residential use. Mrs. Ramsey said Mrs. Acree has her property under contract to an individual who will probably want a commercial office use. Next to speak was Mr. Randy Wade, contract holder of the property adjacent to the property under discussion, on the north side. Mr. Wade said he also owns the two parcels between that parcel and the Putt-Putt Golf Course. The property closest to the Putt-Putt has already been rezoned to Commercial Office. The decision tonight will determine his proposed use of the other two parcels. If this special permit is approved or the other parcels rezoned to Commercial Office, he will probably apply for Commercial Office on the two parcels just mentioned. He hopes the comment that this area is not a good place to live is not true since he plans to build seventy units at the rear of all of this property. Further, Mr. Wade said Mrs. Acree and the other single-family owners knew the area when it was in the country, but the environment has now changed to urban. He feels that commercial office as a buffer between the apartments and Rio Road is very appropriate. Mr. Wade said a road will be constructed leading into the area where the apartment complex will be construct This road lies between the apartments and the commercial office property. He said it is appropriate to have all of these properties exit onto this service road rather than directly onto Rio Road. Even though these properties are not a part of this application tonight, he feels the comment should be made since that will help with some of the traffic problems on Rio Road. Mr. Wade further described other properties in the area. He noted that in Raintree Subdivision which lies to the rear of the subject property, the nearest house is 300 feet away and there is a tree-covered ravine in that 300 feet. Mr. Wade said he feels the proposed Commercial Office use is appropriate and practical for this area, and he, as an adjacent property owner, supports the request. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke said this area is in the Charlottesville District which she represents, and she feels Mr. Wade's comments are valid. She agrees that single-family dwellings are no longer desirable in this area even though a high-density apartment complex is proposed. She has no objection to the petition and has heard of no opposition to same. Mr. Lindstrom said Ms. Sessoms made a comment about providing a joint entrance with the adjacent property owner. Ms. Sessoms said that proposal seems to have changed, but there are plans to consolidate the number of entrances off of Rio Road. Mr. Bowie said he has personally walked over the property and he also feels same is no longer suitable for single-family residences. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve SP-84-23 with the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel the question is whether there should be single- family houses or R-10 because the zoning already exists. Mr. Lindstrom said he is more concerned with procedures. Listening to the comments made this evening, he feels a review of~the Comprehensive Plan for the entire area should be made immediately. He would prefer to have the study completed before action is taken on this request. Approving this petition with the negative comments made in the staff report to him means the Board is essentially deciding to change the area without any staff study of the entire area. Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has tried to design the Comprehensive Plan so as to avoid this type of piecemeal decision. Mr. Tucker said the staff comments are not totally negative because the staff did indicate that an amendment to the Plan or some sort of coordinated access to these properties fronting on Rio Road should be pursued. Mrs. Cooke felt that what is going to happen in that area has basically already happened Mr. Lindstrom said agreed, but noted that the area is zoned R-10, and is becoming Commercial Office. It can be argued that CO[~ good buffer between Rio Road and the residential use at the rear of these properties, but he feels uneasy about taking that action without a study. Mr. Fisher said the Board had spent many hours discussing this area when the new zoning map was drafted in 1980. The decision was not easy because some owners already had plans for some of the property; actually, most of the property was zoned according to the requests. He felt a study should be made of the entire area instead of taking action in a manner which could be interpreted as piecemeal commercial spot zoning in a residential area with same in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 20,G / June 6, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Bowie said he Bas no'problem with staff reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, but did support the request this evening. Mrs. Cooke agreed. Mr. Lindstrom asked about deferral until the staff can review the Plan and present more information. He preferred that approach instead of piecemeal action. In terms of impact, he did not see a substantial difference in traffic from this requested zoning as opposed to what could happen under existing zoning. In conclusion, Mr. Lindstrom favored the staff analyzing the matter further instead of acting on properties in the area application by application. Mrs. Cooke asked how much undeveloped land there is in this particular area. She felt that most of the parcels have already been developed except for maybe two small sections. Mr. Tucker said his main concern is not so much whether the area develops as commercial office or residential, but rather access to and from these areas and the handling of traffic. Mrs. Cooke said the only problem seems to be with the property actually fronting Rio Road as far as the commercial office zoning is concerned. Mr. Tucker said the property does not have access to a crossover. When the median is constructed, the closest crossover will be the one already approved for Mr. Wade. Mr. Tucker said perhaps some agreement could be worked out between the property owners to share an entrance but nothing has been submitted in writing at this time. Mr. Bowie did no~ feel there is any reason to defer action on this petition for a study by the staff on whether or not to change the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said perhaps the Board would prefer to have the owners of the properties get together and provide some type of easement or connection rather than having the staff study this area at this time. Mr. Lindstrom said it appears that a lot of things in the subject area are just coming together and he is concerned about dealing with these i~em~on~an~aDDlic~tion~L~y~ap~lication basis. Perhaps the property owners could get together to work on some approach to deal with the traffic problems. Mr. Wade said as concerns the property owners getting together, he would like to point out that he owns the land all the way from the Putt-Putt Golf course to Mr. Bailey's lot. Behind these lots, the property is owned by Mr. Lloyd Wood. If the contract is consummated with Mrs. Acree, that will be his property also. Therefore, the only two parcels owned by others from Old Brook Road all the way to the Putt-Putt Golf course are the properties being discussed, and the Merridale School property. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Wade is willing to give access through his property. Mr~ Wade said he is not willing to do so at this time. Roll was then called on the motion of approval and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Way. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom (preceded his vote by stating that he does not feel this is the way to go about making this change and he feared this action will set a precedent). Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to request the planning staff to prepare a study for the Board's consideration of the area between Old Brook Road and P~rcel 124C regarding whether or not the Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended changing zoning on the subject area to Commercial Office. 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. 11. June 13, 1984. Request from Vepco for Easement. This matter is to be heard:on Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: December 21, 1983 and March 7 (Night), 1984. Mr. Henley had not read the minutes of December 21, 1983. Mr. Way noted no correction on the March 7, 1984 (Night) minutes and offered motion to approve same. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said the landscaping project in front of the new Albemarle County Office Building was dedicated on June 3, 1984. He feels the Board should consider adopting a resolution expressing appreciation for the project to the anonymous donor. Mr. Bowie offered motion to adopt the following resolution to that effect. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. June 6, ~84 (Regular Night Meeting) WHEREAS, during the Spring of 1983 an anonymous donor graciously offered to make a gift to Albemarle County in the form of exterior beautification of the Albemarle County Office Building at 401 McIntire Road; and WHEREAS, the donor engaged the firm of Van Yahres Associates, ASLA, to develop landscaping plans for this beautification, which plans were reviewed by the Board of Supervisors on or about June 1, 1983; and WHEREAS, the said donor then engaged the firm of Martin-Horn, Inc. to undertake construction of this project according to the approved plans; and WHEREAS, on or about October 1, 1983, the work commenced with a completion date on or about May 31, 1984, all at the expense of the said donor and at no expense to the taxpayers of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 1984, a public dedication of the completed community park was conducted, followed by a celebration concert given by the Charlottesville Municipal Band; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby express its very great appreciation to the anonymous donor for this gift to the citizens of the entire community, and hereby calls the attention of the public to this act of generosity. Mr. Fisher referred to a recent article in the Daily Progress about the Farmers Home Administration turning funds back to the State which in turn go to other states, and these funds would have been available to low ~n~om~.~p~s~n~in.~r~alo~raa~.~mg~b~m~ ~ouhty to buy Housing. He is concerned that this is happening and has received calls regarding that article. He is concerned how the people in this community are affected and is interested in knowing if persons at the State level might be influenced to make loans available in this community somehow. He asked Mr. Tucker his feelings about the way in which to handle this concern, Mr. Tucker was not familiar with the article, but suggested that the staff investi what has happened and what can be done to change the State's policy. Mr. Fisher said he would appreciate the staff examining this further and reemphasized that it is not a question of money being spent in Virginia, but rather going to other states instead. Mr. Agnor reported that the rabies innoculation clinics have been completed and a total of 1500 dogs and cats were innoculated in the eleven clinics. He plans to meet with Dr. Richard Prindle of the Health Department next week to get a new assessment of the rabies program since the clinics have been completed. Mrs. Cooke said several weeks ago she requested that the planning staff examine the impact that development in the Charlottesville District is having on the Four Seasons and Hydraulic Road loop areas. This information has been provided and since a study on Rio Road has now been requested, perhaps the Board should review this area at the same time. If the Board is agreeable, she will request that the staff present the information submitted to her at the same time the Rio Road impact study information is submitted so the Board can review both areas in relation to Comprehensive Plan recommendations. No objections were offered by the Board. Mrs. Joan Graves said the Board did not address the suggestion of the League of Women Voters noted during the discussion of the special use permit for the Jerome Corporation concerning an immediate study regarding locations for mobile homes in the County and that the Planning Commission revise its priorities accordingly. Mr. Tucker said the study of mobile homes is not the top priority of the Commission, but is on the work schedule for the Fall and Winter of 1984. However, projects can be shifted, if the Board so desires. A discussion followed regarding whether the Board wanted to request the Planning Commissi~ to move the mobile home study to a top priority. Mr. Lindstrom said mobile homes affect a substantial number of people. Mr. Tucker said the staff is very concerned about some of the major existing mobile home parks and particularly one adjacent to Four Seasons on Rio Road. Mr. Bowie offered motion to ask the Planning Commission to try to expedite the study for location of mobile homes in the County. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 14. adjourned at 10:52 P.M. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was