Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-02September 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting was held on September 2, 1981, by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M., by the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-81-24. Knopp Enterprises, Inc. Petition to rezone 16.174 acres currently zoned R-1 to R-6 with proffer. Located on northern side of Route 250 West, approximately 1/2 mile west of the intersection of Routes 240 and 250 West. County Tax Map 56, Parcel 17B(1). White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 19 and August 26, 1981.) Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated August 26, 1981, from Mr. Daniel W. Knopp as follows: "Reference: ZMA-81-24 Knopp Enterprises, Inc. Proffer Subject: Request for change of Zoning Rear Sirs: We are presently scheduled for a public hearing at your September 2, 1981, meeting on the above referenced request. Due to unforeseen recommendations by the Department of Highways and Transportation it is necessary for us to amend our proffer. We request the hearing be deferred until the September 16, 1981, meeting to give us time to clarify conditions affecting the amended proffer." Mr. Tucker noted that all adjoining property owners were properly notified of this request for deferral. No one was present to speak regarding this petition and motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to defer this public hearing to September 16, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-81-35. Anna Lee Johnson. Petition to locate a mobile home on 108.40 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located on Route 623 approximately 8/10ths mile from the intersection of Route 616 and Route 623, Tax Map 094, Parcel 20, Rivanna Magisteri'al District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 7, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report as follows: Request: Mobile Home Acreage: 108.4 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 20, located west of Route 623, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Boyds Tavern. Character of the Area: The immediate area surrounding the applicant's property is primarily forest, composed of both deciduous and non- deciduous trees. Open farm and pasture land lie north and west of the adjacent woods. There is one mobile home, which is occupied by the applicant's brother, on the property. It is not visible from Route 623. There are no single-family residences located south of the proposed location, on Route 623. The nearest one to the applicant's property is 3/10ths mile away. Planning Department~ files indicate other residential development in the area includes Woods Edge Subdivision with 50 homes located 6/10ths mile north of the proposed site. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to locate the mobile home in a small clearing just west of Route 623. While the mobile home may be partially visible from Route 623, it would not be visible from any of the residences south or north of the property. The proposed site may have to be altered slightly in order to meet front yard requirements of the RA district. This should pose no real problem on the applicant's property. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this request, Staff recommends the following condition: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 357 September 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 18, 1981, unanimously recommended that this petition be approved with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff approval of screening and/or setback to restrict visibility of mobile home from State Route 623. Mr. Tucker noted receipt of a letter of objection from Mr. Alan S. Kane dated July 28, 1981 as follows: "I have been advised that Mrs. Anna Lee Johnson has requested a Special Permit SP-81-35 to locate a mobile home on property described as County Tax Map 094, Parcel 20, Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is located on Route 623. I live on property designated as Parcel 2lA and although technically I am not now an adjacent property owner, I was until recently when 20 was divided into 20A bequeathed to C.R. Thurman, Jr. and 20 to his sister, Anna Lee Johnson. Accordingly, I wish to oppose the request on the grounds that to locate a mobile home on this property is detrimental to the public interest and welfare of the citizens and property owners of Albemarle County. Starting at the intersection of Route 616 and Route 623 and traveling southwest, there is the development Woods Edge consisting of approximately forty privately owned homes valued in the $40,000's and higher. Further down the beautiful wooded area of Route 623 there are three custom built homes ranging in value from $75,000 to over $100,000. To permit Mrs. Johnson to locate a mobile home between these two residential areas at the location she has apparently chosen according to my observations, would not be compatible with the development of the area and would not be in harmony with the purpose or intent of the zoning ordinance as I interpret it. Please advise me if any public hearings are scheduled regarding this matter so that I can arrange to attend." Neither the applicant nor someone representing the applicant was present, and Mr. Fisher suggested this item be deferred until later in the meeting. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-81-34. McCtenahan Broadcasting Corp. Petition for relief from a condition of approval of SP-80-07, in order to increase height of an antenna from 298 feet to 360 feet. Property consists of 1+ acre out of 53.95 zoned RA and located on southwest side of Little Yellow Mountain, north of C & 0 Railroad, approximately 2 1/4 miles west of Crozet, adjacent to Mint Springs Park. County Tax Map 55, Parcel 25. Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 19 and August 26, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report as follows: Request: Relief from a condition of approval of SP-80-07 to increase the height of the WCMZ (FM) broadcast tower from 298 feet to 360 feet (10.2.2.6) Acreage: Approximately one acre of a 53.95 acre tract Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 55, Parcel 25 (part), is located on the southwestern slope of Little Yellow Mountain adjacent to Mint Springs Park. Staff Comment: The Board's approval of S?-80-07 on May 7, 1980, limited the height of the tower to 298 feet as proposed by the applicant. At this time, WCMZ is experiencing signal interference in its broadcast area attributed to the peak of Little Yellow' Mountain. The applicant proposes an additional 62 feet of height to the existing tower in an attempt to correct this problem. Staff recommends approval, subject to the following revised conditions for SP-80-07: 1) Only those trees necessary for the erection and guying of the tower and location of the equipment building and fence shall be removed; 2) Staff approval of fencing around the tower to discourage tres- passing; 3) Tower shall be removed within 90 days of abandonment, if such shall occur; 4) Tower shall be limited to a height of 360 feet; 5) Notification of FAA and Virginia Department of Aviation of increased tower height. White September 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 358 Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 4, 1981, unanimously recommended approval of this petition with the conditions as recommended by the planning staff. Mr. Lindstrom asked if conditions one and two have already been met. Mr. Tucker said all the conditions were met for the existing tower. Mr. Tucker said he has already received written approvals from the FAA and the Virginia Department of Aviation as re- quired in condition five. Mr. Joe Biehl, representing the applicant, was present and stated this additional height is needed to improve the signal of WCMZ. Mr. Fisher stated that when the original' petition was before the Board it was stated that the FAA would a 298 foot tower and no higher. He asked why the FAA is now allowing only 360 feet at this time. Mr. Biehl said he did not know the answer. Miss Nash asked if the additional height would totally solve the problem of the radio signal being bounced back. Mr. Biehl said engineering studies indicate that this requested additional height should solve the problem. Mr. Fisher declared the public'hearing opened, and no one was present either for or against this request. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher noted that this additional height will make the tower more visible from Mint Springs Park and for citizens living in the area. Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes the tower will be more visible with this additional height, but the tower is already there, but cannot be used; in order to have a usable signal this tower will have to be heightened or a new tower site will have to be found. This will cause great expense and inconvenience to the applicant as.well as the Board and citizens of the area. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-81-34 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and~Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 3. meeting.) SP-81-35. Anna Lee Johnson. (Deferred from earlier in this Mrs. Anna Lee Johnson was now present, and stated she did not know why Mr. Kane would complain about her request. Mr. Fisher asked if she intended to live in this mobile home herself. Mrs. Johnson said she did intend to live there herself. Mrs. Johnson then asked how far the mobile home would have to be set back from the road. Mr. Tucker said the Planning staff would meet with her about that and work out a location which meevs set back requirements as well as not being visible from Route 623. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. No one was present to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Dr, Iachetta, to approve SP-81-35 with the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-81-23. Marvin and Carolyn Spencer', Lillian C. Boggiano, Anthony and Evelyn Guttilla. Petition to rezone 2.5 acres currently Zoned R-2 to R-10 with proffer. Located in Rockbrook Subdivision, between Stonehenge and Rio Road. County Tax Map 61Al, Section 1, Block A, Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4 and Block B, Parcels 1, 2 and 3. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 19 and August 26, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report as follows: Requested Zoning: R-10 Residential (Proffer) Acreage: + 2.5 acres ~xisting Zoning: R-2 Residential Character of the Area: Of' the seven lots in Rockbrook, four are vacant, two are developed with single-family dwellings ahd one is developed with a two-family dwelling. Stonehenge, to t~e north and west, is developed with townhouses. Rio Heights Subdivision is across Rio Road. Zoning in the area consists of R-4 and R-6 Residential. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium-density residential development in the range of 5-10 units per acre in this area. Staff Comment: Staff has revised its original staff report subsequent to receipt of comments from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and in view of recent discussions with the applicant. It is staff's understanding that a clarification of the proffer is being prepared which will restrict the development of each existing lot to not more than two dwelling units, which would result in a gross density of five dwelling units per acre. Given this clarification, a R-6 designation would be appropriate should the Board choose to approve this petition. Staff has prepared a listing of aspects favorable and unfavorable to this rezoning request: 359 September 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Favorable The request of five dwelling units/acre is consistent with the density recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan; The requested density is consistent with the approved plans for Stonehenge; The requested density is consistent with the R-4 and R-6 zoning ~in the area; Water and sewer mains are in the ground in Rockbrook Subdivision. The design capacity of Rockbrook Drive exceeds the traffic which could be generated as a result of this rezoning. According to the applicant, in 1964 when the development was approved, Rockbrook Drive was anticipated to serve the Stonehenge property. This area was proposed for annexation and review was made under the City's R-2 zoning which permitted development as currently requested by the applicant. Highway Department approval was apparently obtained at that time for access to Rio Road. Unfavorable The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended in its letter of July 31, 1981, that "the Department could only support this rezoning if access to the development were exclusively through Stonehenge Drive and Stonehenge Road." Note: Should the Board choose not to approve this petition based on concerns of access to Rio Road, it may be appropriate to review the zoning of other property served by this same access. "PROFFER July 29, 1981 We the below signed, sole owners of the property described as Tax Map 6iA1, Section 1, Block A, Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4; and Block B, Parcels 1, 2 and 3, known as Rockbrook Subdivision, located between Stonehenge and Rio Road, do hereby petition the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to restore the necessary density to Rockbrook Subdivision under the old zoning R-2, which allows attached houses, duplexes and tWo family houses. It is our understanding that this is R-10 Residential (Proffer), which would allow single family detached, semi-detached and attached units. We do not intend to have multiple family dwellings, such as garden and mid-rise apartments. It is our intention that the density would not exceed 8 1/2 units per acre which will allow each lot to be used as a two family unit, duplex or attached unit. This property was divided and approved in 1964 under the R-2 zoning and has been zoned R-2 since that time. The subdivision has a 56 foot approved street with curves, water and sewer to each lot. Respectfully submitted, (signed) Lillian C. Boggiano, Anthony Guttilta, Evelyn Guttilla, Marvin A. Spencer and Carolyn L. Spencer" "AMENDED PROFFER August 26, 1981 On behalf of my neighbors and myself, I would like to clarify our petition proffer dated July 28, 1981. It is our intention to have two family housing, attached units or duplexes for each existing lot in the Rockbrook Subdivision. This in no way would increase the density which was alloWed under the old R-2 zoning. Respectfully submitted, (signed) Marvin A. Spencer" Mr. Tucker next read a portion of a letter received from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, dated July 31, 1981, as follows: "ZMA-81-23 Marvin & Carolyn Spencer, Lillian C. Boggiano, Anthony & Evelyn Guttilla, Route 631. This is a proposed rezoning of the Rockbrook Sub- division along Route 631, Rio Road. Current access to this seven lot subdivision is directly to Rio Road just east of its intersection with Stonehenge Road. The Department recommends denial of this rezoning request if access to the subdivision remains at its current location. It appears that the rezoning would feasibly allow the current seven lots to be increased to serve twelve units. The Department feels the traffic from this number of units makes the current entrance impractical. The Department could only support this rezoning if access to the development were exclusively through Stonehenge Drive and Stonehenge Road." September 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Board members asked if there was access available for Rockbrook Subdivision through Stonehenge. Mr. Tucker said he has not checked the deeds involved, but felt that such access has been permanently closed. Mr. Marvin A. Spencer, one of the applicants, was present and stated it was the intention of the applicants to build two family homes. He then presented a clarification of the proffers previously submitted~_for the Board's review as follows: "September 2, 1981 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Court Square Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Gentlemen: On behalf of my neighbors and myself, I would like to clarify our petition proffer dated July 28, 1981. It is our intention to have two family housing for each existing lot in the Rockbrook Subdivision. Respectfully Submitted, (signed) Marvin A. Spencer" Mr. Spencer said the area is served with water and sewer lines, has all utilities and excellent visibility from the entrance road. He said he has no intention of changing the character of the neighborhood and that there will be no increase in density. Mr. Spencer said he spoke with Mr. Coburn of the Highway Department who stated that the entrance must be improved. · Miss Nash suggested that possibly the property at the left of the entrance could be purchased by Mr. Spencer to "straighten out" the entrance road. Mr. McCann and Dr. Iachetta said that would only make the entrance worse. Mr. Spencer said he could not do that because there is a very large water line directly under the road in that area. Next to speak was Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Roosevelt said there are two problems with the entrance to Rockbrook Subdivision. First, if you are leaving the subdivision, it will be extremely difficult to make a right turn onto Rio Road without crossing over the centerline. Secondly, if you are making a left turn from Rio Road into Rockbrook Subdivision, cars approaching the vehicle waiting to turn left do not have adequate stopping distance which creates potential accidents. Mr. Roosevelt said this Subdivision would be better if the entrance were eliminated completely and access were established through Stonehenge. Mr. Spencer said it would not be possible to create an entrance for Rockbrook through the Stonehenge community. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Spencer if any attempt has been made to purchase right-of-way through Stonehenge for access to Rockbrook Subdivision. Mr. Spencer said no. Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. George Allen, attorney representing the residents of Stonehenge. Mr. Allen said when Stonehenge was first being constructed, the developer wished to use Rockbrook Drive as the main access. That access route was not made available to the developer, therefore a separate access road was constructed (Stonehenge Road). Mr. Allen then stated that he was sure the zoning placed on Rockbrook Subdivision was intentionally done to prevent populous develop- ment which in turn would create hazardous ingress and egress situations at the inter- section of Rio Road. Mr. Allen presented a petition signed by approximately 85% of the residents of Stonehenge requesting that this application be denied. The petition as presented read as follows: "We, the undersigned owners and residents of homes in Stonehenge, hereby request that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors deny the application of the owners of the Rockbrook Subdivision to have their 2.5 acres rezoned R-2 to R-10. We believe that such rezoning would be extremely dangerous to us because of the limited access available to these lots onto and off of Rio Road; and, in addition, we feel that the increased density of population and the possibility of structures out of character with the existing uses in the area would be extremely detrimental to our property values and the quality of our lives in Stonehenge." Next to speak was Mr. Arthur McCabe who stated that the entrance to Rockbrook is dangerous as it presently exists, even for those vehicles making right turns into same. Mr. Bruce Williamson, an attorney who resides in Stonehenge, illustrated the entrance situation at Stonehenge and Rockbrook Subdivision. He said the recreation area at Stone- henge is immediately at the entrance and the criss-cross pattern which these two entrances create, is very dangerous to pedestrians walking to that recreation area. He requested that the rezoning be denied. Dr. Virginia Green, present owner of the old stonehenge property, said the thought of additional vehicles using the already very poor entrance of Rockbrook Subdivision is very upsetting. She said she has already had one accident attempting that turn onto Rio Road, and the possibility of so many additional vehicles makes her feel it will be even more dangerous. She also felt that additional multi-family homes will reduce the property value of her old, very large house. Mr. John Wilson noted the location of a school bus stop near the entrances of Stonehenge and Rockbrook. He said anyone turning into the Rockbrook Subdivision is cutting directly across the path that those children take to reach that bus stop. 36:!. September 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tom DeBerry also expressed his concern for school children waiting at the school bus stop at these entrances. He said it is already dangerous and the hazard does not need to be increased. No one else wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Dr. Iachetta asked the approximate number of trips per day estimated by the Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt said the department uses an average of seven trips per day for townhouse units, and estimated that Rockbrook would create approximately 49 trips per day with these additional units. Mr. Lindstrom said he agreed with statements made that the present entrances to Rockbrook and Stonehenge are already dangerous. Dr. Iachetta also agreed that the entrance was dangerous. Mr. McCann said the problem is more than these two entrances, it is all of Rio Road, from the Park Street Bridge to the Vocational Technical Center. Mr. McCann said there are no safe entrances of any kind along that stretch of road and the problem is more than just a few additional units at Rockbrook Subdivision. He said he felt the zoning requested is compatible to that of the adjoining properties, but if the Board is so concerned ~bout additional traffic on Rio Road, the"Jackson property" development on Rio Road should never have been approved. Mr. McCann said Rio Road, next to Hydraulic Road, is the most dangerous road in the County and in the most need of improvements. Mr. St. John said regarding the proffers submitted by Mr. Spencer, the most recently received proffer is the one the Board should consider. Mr. St. John added that the Board can rezone to the density requested by Mr. Spencer (R-6 equals the density requested in the proffer) or a zone less dense. Miss Nash stated her concern about the additional units and the affect they will have on the entrance of Rockbrook. Dr. Iachetta said he has sympathy for Mr. Spencer's problem in this case, but cannot see allowing four times as many vehicle trips per day on an already bad entrance. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny this rezoning appli- cation. Mr. Lindstrom said this rezoning request has again brought to light a long standing problem in the County, that being where the densities designated on the zoning map are not achievable at the present time because of poor road conditions. He said he does not like to make this suggestion, but with the lack of state road funds, maybe the county should consider funding road improvements in cases such as this. Mr. Spencer requested another chance to speak to the Board. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened again. Mr. Spencer suggested that the Board visit the site of Rockbrook Subdivision and determine which entrance is more safe, Rockbrook or Stonehenge. Mr. Spencer said the people of Stonehenge are illustrating a picture that Rockbrook is creating a very unsafe situation for its residents; but Mr. Spencer felt that the Rock- brook entrance has much better sight distance, and that it is the Stonehenge entrance which has created the unsafe situation. Mr. George Allen noted that the danger at the entrances of Stonehenge and Rockbrook exists, and additional traffic will create an even greater danger. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed again. Miss Nash asked if the 01d Stonehenge righ-of-way was a legal right-of-way. Mr. St. John said he has not done a title search, but felt it was a legal right-of-way because it is still in use and has apparently never been abandoned. Mr. McCann asked if Stonehenge is fully developed. Mr. Tucker said he thought there were areas which could still be developed within the Stonehenge community. Mr. McCann said if that is the case, he could not vote to deny this rezoning request, when there is further development allowed in Stonehenge, which would further increase the dangers at the entrance. He said the Comprehensive Plan allows the zoning density requested by Mr. Spencer, and there are sufficient utilities to support this density. Mr. Fisher asked if future development of either Rockbrook or Stonehenge will ever come back before the Board or Planning Commissionso the County will have an opportunity to require improvements to the entrance. Mr. Tucker said no, that Stonehenge is already platted and the way the proffer is proposed for Rockbrook, no further review is required by the County. Mr. Henley said he would not support the motion. He said before the new zoning ordinance and map were approved, duplex housing would have been allowed with the road in exactly the same condition. He added that where people know of a hazardous intersection they are usually more cautious. Miss Nash said she could not vote to approve a new zoning where there are inadequate roads to support the development. She said she would support the motion to deny the requested rezoning. Mr. Fisher said this is a major problem in the County at this time, and that there is no way to improve this road situation and more specifically the entrance situation in this case. Mr. Fisher said he would vote to support the motion. Roll was then called and the motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning~Commission and deny ZMA-81-23 carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Messrs. Henley and McCann. At 9:15 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess. order at 9:28 P.M. The meeting was called bacM to September 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 362 Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding churches and cemeteries in Residential Districts. (Deferred from July 15, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report dated July 7, 1981, which constitutes the changes as advertised for tonight's public hearing: Public Hearing: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for churches and cemeteries as uses by special permit rather than by right in all residential districts. On June 3, 1981, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for churches and cemeteries as uses by special use permit rather than by right in all residential districts. Staff has prepared the following amendments: 1. In the VR District Delete 12.2.1(5) Churches, parish houses, and adjunct cemeteries Add 12.2.1(5) Parish houses 12.2.2(15) Churches 12.2.2(16) Cemeteries 2. In the R-1 District Delete 13.2.1(4) Churches, parish houses 13.2.1(5) Cemet.eries Add 13.2.1(4) Parish houses 13.2.2(10) Churches 13.2.2(11) Cemeteries 3. In the R-2 District Delete 14.2.1(4) Churches, parish houses 14.2.1(5) Cemeteries Add 14.2.1(4) Parish houses 14.2.2(12) Churches 14.2.2(13) Cemeteries In the R-4 District Delete 15.2.1(6) Churches, parish houses 15.2.1(7) Cemeteries Add 15.2.1(6) Parish houses 15.2.2(12) Churches 15.2.2(13) Cemeteries 5. In the R-6 District Delete 16.2.1(9) Churches, parish houses 16.2.1(10) Cemeteries Add 16.2.1(9) Parish houses 16.2.2(12) Churches 16.2.2(13) Cemeteries 6. In the R-10 District Delete 17.2.1(9) Churches, parish houses 17.2.1(10) Cemeteries Add 17.2.1(9) Parish houses 17.2.2(14) Churches 17.2.2(15) Cemeteries 7. In the R-15 District Delete 18.2.1(9) Churches, parish houses 18.2.1(10) Cemeteries Add 18.2.1(9) Parish houses 18.2.2(14) Churches 18.2.2(15) Cemeteries 8. In the PRD District Delete 19.3.1(4) Churches Add 19.3.2(6) Churches 9. In the PUD District Delete 20.3.1(4) Churches Add 20.3.2(6) Churches Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, on July 7, 1981, voted to have the planning staff prepare supplemental regulations relating to public health, safety and welfare for churches and cemeteries to be permitted by right in all zoning districts. This material was submitted to the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 4, 1981. Mr. Tucker then read the planning staff report from the August 4, 1981, meeting as follows: Addendum: Amendments regarding churches and cemeteries in residential districts: At its meeting of July 7, 1981, the Planning Commission deferred action on certain amendments regarding churches and cemeteries. The staff was instructed to develop supplementary regulations for Com- mission consideration. In view of questions which arose and in order September 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) to provide a framework for further of questions which arose and in order to provide a framework for further discussion, staff has re viewed the Planning Department files and researched standard ref- erences on planning concerns (Urban Land Institute, Community Builder's Handbook; F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., Urban Land Use Planning; Joseph De Chiara and Lee Koppelman, Planning Design Criteria). Local Setting: Some 90 churches and 180 clergy are listed in the telephone directory for the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. Planning records show 20 site plans (including amendments) since 1968, indicating a goodly portion of church construction has occurred in recent years. Staff recollection is that about half of these site plans were re- viewed in the last two or three years. De Chiara and Koppelman state that about sixty percent of the nation claims affiliation with a local church. Locally, this translates to about 57,000 people, indicating a need for additional church facilities. Given recent church building activity and population to be served, staff would expect continued church construction activity in the future. In the last five or six years, staff can recall that there was some public comment received on two church related proposals. Planning Considerations: Churches apparently exhibit little consistency in site area requirements. A small worship facility can be accommodated on an acre, while larger community-oriented churches, involved in providing such activities as parochial schools or day care, may require sites of eight acres or more. Church sites should be reasonably level (to avoid excessive site development costs) with adequate area for parking and landscaping. Consideration should be given to possible future expansion, both of worship facilities and subordinate or related uses. While churches also vary in locational needs, convenience to potential membership appears important. A neighborhood church should be located within walking distance of the majority of the membership. Larger community churches should have direct access to a major street. A church may choose to locate near a shopping center or in a rustic, rural setting, as a matter of preference. The following are the staff's recommendations for supplementary regulations for churches (cemeteries would be by special use permit in all residential districts): 3.0 DEFINITIONS Church: A place of public religious worship. 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS 5.1.24 CHURCHES ae Accessory uses and activities (such as day care, child care, and nursery facilities; private schools; group homes; homes for the developmentally disabled; adult care facilities including such uses as rest, convalescent, and/or nursing homes; orphanages; hospitals; community centers; cemeteries and day and/or boarding camps) shall not be exempt from the requirements of this ordinance and shall be subject to the regulations of the district in which such uses are to be located and all other applicable requirements of this ordinance. Child care facilities and schools of re- ligious instruction, operated during normal worship activities and provided for the use and convenience of the congregation shall not be subject to this provision; be Such subordinate and fund-raising activities as bingo, raffles and auctions shall be conducted in enclosed buildings only. Noise generated from such activity shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line. No such activity shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.; Prior to site development plan approval, the Commission shall determine that the proposed use at the location selected will not endanger the health and safety of the users and/or residents in the area. In making such determination, the Commission may consider such matters as: the adequacy of existing public roads in the area to accommodate traffic which may reasonably be expected to be generated by such use; the extent to which, by virtue of the proposed location, traffic may reasonably be expected to increase on primarily residential streets; and the adequacy of the proposed site location to support the intensity of the proposed use. The Commission may, for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, require such additional conditions as it deems necessary, including but not limited to provisions for additional physical buffering such as fencing and/or planting or other landscaping; additional setback from residential uses in the area; additional on-site parking space; and location and ar- rangement of lighting; 3:6 4 September'2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) The requirements of 4.1 notwithstanding, where public sewer is not reasonably available, no such use shall be established without written approval from the Virginia Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic fields adequate to serve such use with particular atten- tion to peak demand characteristics of such use. Establishment of accessory or subordinate uses shall require Heaith Department review. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission,-at its meeting of August 4, 1981, voted unanimousIy to recommend that cemeteries be allowed by special use permit only in all residential districts, with the exception of PUD and PRD districts, where cemeteries are not allowed, and that additionally, churches be allowed by right in all residential districts. The Planning Commission also voted unanimously to recommend the following amendments to be advertised for inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance at a later date. (These three recommendations have not been advertised for public hearing at this time.): Amend Article t0 to provide churches by right in Rural Areas. Amend Article 3, adding the definition of church. Amend Article 5 to provide for the addition of the supplementary regulations for churches. Under Section 5.1.24(c), Mr. St. John said he did not think the Planning Commission could require additional conditions as listed in this proposed section, because the general intent of this zoning ordinance amendment is to allow churches and cemeteries by right in certain zones, and in the same amendment conditions are being placed on those proposed uses. Mr. St. John said it is more logical to allow churches and cemeteries by special use permit, rather than create this inconsistent situation. Mr. St. John said the word "parish house" used in the proposed zoning ordinance changes should actually be "parsonage" which refers to the house used by the minister of the church. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was a representative from the League of Women Voters who stated that the League supports the requirement for a special use permit for churches. She stated that the League feels the Board is creating greater uniformity in the Zoning Ordinance by requiring such a permit for churches in the County. Mr. Roy Patterson representing Citizens for Albemarle said this organization supports the proposed amendment. Mr. Patterson referred to the Monticello-Wesleyan Church being constructed on the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir and said if the Board had been able to issue a special use permit in that instance there would have been far better control. No one else wished to speak either for or against these proposed amendments, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom said that the action taken by the Planning Commission emphasizes the concern over the physical impact created by a church in any area of the County. Mr. Lindstrom stressed that the Board can never approve or deny a special permit on the basis of the religion, but only the physical and environmental aspects of the request. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the amendments as advertised. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Lindstrom for his intent regarding the words "parish houses" or "parsonage" as spoken to earlier in the meeting. Mr. St. John said a parish house is part of the church and a parsonage is the home of the minister and therefore a parsonage should be treated as any other residence in that zone. Mr. Henley suggested simply deleting any reference to "parish houses" in the proposed amendments. Mr. Lindstrom said he wished to rephrase his motion stating that he wished to amend the residential districts as outlined in the staff report to delete "churches", "parish houses", and "adjunct cemeteries" as uses by right. Mr. Henley suggested that "parish houses" be eliminated completely. Mr. St. John and Mr. Fisher concurred with Mr. Henley's suggestion. Mr. Lindstrom said he wished to include that in his motion, to delete all references to "parish houses", and that churches and cemeteries be added as uses allowed by special use permit. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. McCann sa±d he has never seen any problems with churches, and that they are usually a pleasant addition to any neighborhood. Mr. McCann said any problems created by a church, i.e. _lighting, traffic, parking; can be handled in the site plan review process. Mr. McCann said he felt this was putting an additional stranglehold on the citizens, and creating government regulations that the average citizen cannot deal with, without the assistance of an attorney. Dr. Iachetta said he was concerned that these proposed amendments would allow per- sonal prejudices against certain religions to be voiced under the disguise of concern for the envmronment. Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is that many churches are proposed in areas that are already densely populated, and that this is the reason he feels so strongly that the special use permit requirement must be adopted. Mr. McCann s.ai~d he felt there probably would be no more than six or seven churches built in the next ten years, and that it seemed a waste of time for the Board to revise the entire zoning ordinance for these few instances. Mr. Fisher requested that the roll be ~called, and the motion as stated by Mr. Lindstrom (and set out in detail following the vote) carried by the following recorded vote: - AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Messrs. Iachetta and McCann 36-5 September 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as approved: Section Number Action Taken 12.2.1.5 12.2.2.15 13.2.1.4 13.2.1.5 13.2.2.10 13.2.2.11 14.2.1.4 14.2.1.5 14.2.2.12 14.2.2.13 15.2.1.6 15.2.1.7 15.2.2.12 15.2.2.13 16.2.1.9 16.2.1.10 16.2.2.12 16.2.2.13 17.2.1.9 17.2.1.10 17.2.2.14 17.2.2.15 18.2.1.? 18.2.1.10 18.2.2.14 18.2.2.15 19.3.1.4 19.3.2.6 20.3.1.4 20.3.2.6 Repealed Added "Churches" Repealed Repealed Added "Churches" Added "CemeTeries" Repealed Repealed Added "Churches" Added "Cemeteries" Repealed Repealed Added "Churches" Added "Cemeteries" Repealed Repealed Added "Churches" Added "Cemeteries" Repealed Repealed Added "Churches" Added "Cemeteries" Repealed Repealed Added "Churches" Added "Cemeteries" Repealed Added "Churches" Repealed Added "Churches" Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Henley reported that he had read the minutes of June 11 and June 25, 1980, and found no errors. Dr. Iachetta reported that he had not reviewed the minutes of June 9 and June 18, 1980, and that he would read them prior to the next meeting. Mr. Lindstrom reported that the minutes of August 13, Sep, tember 3, September 10 and September 17, 1980 had also not been read. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes of June 11 and June 25, 1980, as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann. Agenda Item No. 8. Set Public Hearing for Leash Law in Greenbrier Subdivision. Mr. Agnor said a request has been received from the Greenbrier Subdivision homeowners to ~enact a leash law for the portion of Greenbrier which is located within Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor noted that a portion of this subdivision is located in the City of Charlottesville, and that that portion is covered by the City's leash law. This request was made so that the entire subdivision would be covered by leash law restrictions. Dr. Iachetta said he received a telephone call from Mrs. Barbara Lane regarding this request. Dr. Iachetta said he was informed by Mrs. Lane that she has obtained twenty-four signatures out of thirty-three households, in favor of the enactment of this ordinance. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to set October 7, 1981, as the public hearing date. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Not Docketed. Dr. Iachetta said he would like the staff to review a request he has received to have a portion of a road off Dominion Drive abandoned. Dr. Iachetta said he received t~e following letter dated August 31, 1981~ "This is a formal request from all affected parties that the Board of Supervisors vacate the right-of-way located between Lot 11, Block 4, Section 1 (2219 Dominion Drive) and Lot 1, Block 5, Section 1 (2221 Dominion Drive). The street provides access for one townhouse located in Four Seasons Lot 1, Block F, Section 2 (56 Woodlake Drive). The street is deteriorating rapidly from considerable traffic that enters it in anticipation that it enters Four Seasons or uses it as a turn-around. Also, a number of vehicles are left frequently for unspecified periods of time along the street. Damage has been done to various pieces of shrubbery along the street from the vehicles. This request was brought before the Planning Commission in 1976 but was dropped because the house at 2219 Dominion was unoccupied. We ask that you re-activate this petition before the Board at your earliest convenience. Agreement has been reached between the three affected parties to change the identity of the street to a mutually satisfactory driveway. September 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) September 2, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 366 Thank you very much. With warmest r~gards, (signed) Keith and Sharon Mabe, 2219 Dominion Drive (signed) Mike and Johnnie Lee Demetsky, 2221 Dominion Drive (signed) Judy C. Barnes, 56 Woodlake Drive" Mr. Lindstrom said he has been contacted by Mayor Frank Buck of Charlottesville about possibly retaining the services of a "back-up" consultant to study the Vivarium issue. Mr. Lindstrom said concerns have arisen regarding figures presented in the first study and that possibly the Board would consider a more indepth study of this facility. Mr. Fisher asked if this request could be placed on the Wednesday, September 9, 1981, agenda. Mr. Lindstrom said that date would be. fine and that he would obtain something in writing for presentation to the Board at that time. Agenda Item No. 9. At 10:10 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of discussing property ac- quisition and legal matters. Roll was called and~the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. At 11:05 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session and immediately adjourned. Chairman A regular meeting of the Board of SuperviSors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 9, 1981, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.(arrived at 10:25 a.m.), F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:14 a.m.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:07 a.m., by Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda: Mr. Agnor presented a six item consent agenda for the Board's consideration and vote. Motion for approval of the consent agenda (detailed below), was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. Agenda Item-No. 2.1 Consent Agenda: Street Sign Requests. WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Commonwealth Drive (State Route 852) and Westfield Road (State Route 1452) at the northwest corner of its intersection. Westfield Road (State Route 1452) and Minor Ridge Road (State Route 1453) at the southwest corner of its southern intersection. Westfield Road (State Route 1452) and Minor Ridge Road (State Route 1453) at the southwest corner Of its northern intersection. WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards se.t by the State Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs.