Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-20NJune 20, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 20, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Codrthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:35 P.M.) Absent: Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Officers present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.~, County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M. by the Chairman. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-79-28. Floyd R. Shi£flett. To locate a mobile home on 8+ acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the south side of Route 649 across the~road £rom the Springfield Subdivision. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 29(0)1. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 15, 1979). Mr. Ron Keeler said this request has not been acted on by the Planning Commission and recommended that the petition be deferred to July 18, 1979. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. _ Agenda Item No. 3. SP-79-25. Viola Irene Turner. To locate a mobile home on 4.98 - acres zoned A-1. Property is located west of Route 627 in Esmont approximately 0.5 mile north of the intersection of Routes 6 and 627. County Tax Map 128A-1, Parcel 33. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 15, 1979). Skipped temporarily because the applicant was nov present. Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-79-12. Cushman Realty and Building Corporation. To rezone 157.41 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RPN/A-1. Property east of Route 678 and on the north side abuts West Leigh Subdivision; property is also approximately one mile northeast of the intersection of Routes 678 and 250 West. County Tax Map 58, Parcels 81V (part thereof) and 81 (part thereof). Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1979). Mr. Keeler read the following staff report: "Character of the Area The site is bordered to the east and south by the West Leigh Subdivision, to the southwest by Meriwether Hills, and to the west and north by Lewis Hill. The topography is gently rolling with the steeper areas near the designated open space. The site is generally open with some scattered wooded areas. Existing-zo-ning 'in 'the 'Area ~es'tLeigh 'is.zoned R-'l; Meriwether' ~lls is zaned-RS-'l;r-Sect~.ons I and. 2 _of' Lewis KTll''and Lewis ~ll'~est ~aralzoned A-1 Ag~icUltur. e. History ZMP-282 - request to rezone 214+ acres from A-1 to RS-1 was withdrawn on December 3, 1973. ZMP-30Z - request to rezone 113+ acres from A-1 to RS-1 was withdrawn on July 24, 1974. Lewis Hill~ Section 3 Preliminary Plat - Proposal for nineteen, two plus acre lots with individual wells and septic systems; approved October 18, 1977, with conditions. Lew~s Hi'Ii~''SeCt'ion 3 'Preiiminary and Final Plats - Preliminary proposal for 30 lots with an average size of 5.2 acres with 10 ~five-acre lots shown on the final plat; lots proposed to have individual wells; approved on July 25, 1978, with conditions (not including provision of public water). Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The site is located just north of the Ivy Village and is recommended for agricultural/conservation area. Comparative .Impact Statistics Dwellings Population Vehicle Trips/Day School Children Land Use Data Number of lots Total area Estimated total lot area Estimated total open space Average lot area Proposed gross density Gross density permitted Range in lot size ~xisting A-1 RPN/A-1 74 60 229.4 186 518 420 42.1 32.4 6O 155.54 acres 99.5 acres 51.5 acres 1.65 acres 0.38 du/acre or 1 du/2.59 acres 0.5 du/acre 40,000 sq. ft. to approximately 5 acres June 20, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) RPN Prqposal The applicant proposes 60 lots with an average size of 1.65 acres with 51'.5 acres in open space. The site is proposed to have a combination of state and private roads. Public water.is available and will be utilized in accordance with Waterworks Regulations of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Albemarle CounTy Service Authority. Staff Comment The 1978 traffic count indicates 1,000 vehicle~trips per day for this section of Route 6Z8 which is listed as non-tolerable. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has noted that the entrance to Route 678 is acceptable. Staff recommends approval of this application for the following reasons: Staff feels that this type of development is compatible to the development in the surrounding area. The larger lot size at the eastern portion of the site appears to be compatible with adjacent development. Als0, much of the designated open space is located on the perimeter of the site. Staff feels that the proposed development takes advantage of the topography in regard to the building sites and designated open space. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. Approval is for a maximum of 60 lots. Location and acreages of land uses shall comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in accordance with the number of lots approved. No grading shall occur until final subdivision approval. Compliance with Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances. County AttOrney approval of homeowners' agreements prior to final approval to include the use of open space for septic facilities, and for private road maintenance agreements. Health Department approval of two septic field locations for each l~t. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations, prior to final subdivision approval. No lot shall have access on the old road shown on the plan; the road shall be abandoned prior to final subdivision plat approval. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, road or other feature approved in a final plan are to be located, shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. Ail units shall be served by a public water supply system and approved by appropriate agencies prior to final subdivision plat approval. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans." Mr. Keeler said on May 29, 1979, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the staff's conditions but changing No. 4, No. 5, and No. 7 to read as follows and adding No. 11: County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Agreements prior to final approval to include the use of open space for septic field, if necessary, and for private road maintenance agreements· Health Department approval-of two septic field locations on each lot. Only lot 25 shall have access on the old road shown on the plan; the ~ road sr~a'll ~e a~andaned upon Comp. let'ion of'.~oa'd fronting on lot 25. Lot #1 to enter onto interior road. Mr..Fisher said he noted provision had been made for two septic field locations on each lot as well as use of the open space for this purpose, should same become necessary. He asked Mr. Keeler if this was done because the soil in this area is not suitable for septic field locations. Mr. Keeler said he had no such information on the soils in the area. This condition has been included as an additional safeguard on several RPN's. Dr. Iachetta pointed to a spot on the topo~map which indicated that the slopes in that area are 25% or greater. He asked Mr. Keeler if the. County was not discouraging installation of septic fields on-. slopes of 25% or greater. Mr. Keeler said that is the policy of the County. Dr. Iachetta said it appears that condition No. 4 is in contradiction to that policy. Mr. Keeler said condition No. 7 was put in because lot No. 25 currently has access only through an old farm road. When the subdivision is completed and lot No. 25 has access from the road on which it ~will front, the access through the old farm road will be abandoned, Mr. Fisher asked if this farm road will be used by the developer while construction and grading are in progress. Mr. Keeler said that was not the intent of the Planning Commission. The farm road is to provide access only to the existing dwelling. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Keeler to read the following report from a Highway Department letter dated May 2, 19179: ".Lewis Hill RPN, Route 678. The 1978 traffic count for Route 678 indicates 1,000 vehicles per day. This section is 16 feet wide, paved surface and is currently listed as non-tolerable. This property enters Route 678 at a point which ~has been improved through previous approved subdivision and RPN plans. The ~entrance is acceptable; ge·metrics of the state road appear to be acceptable. Road plans need to be developed so that details such as grades, curvatures, and drainage, as well as drainage easements required can be finalized." Mr. Keeler .noted that the sentence "ge·metrics of the state road appear to be acceptable" refers to the state ~road shown on the RPN plan. He also noted that there had been comments received at the Planning Commission meeting that this plan actually shows t~o dissimilar neighborhoOds. He assumes that was based on lot sizes shown, however, the frontage on these lots exceeds that required under A-1 zoning. June 20~ 1979 (Regular~Nigh~t Mea~in~ ) ~ _ Ms. Vera Holowinsky was present, representing the surveyor. She stressed the fact that this is a rezoning request and not a request for an increase in density. Ms. Hotowinsky said the reason for the request is to use the land the best way possible and to achieve the greatest number of lots possible with the topography of the land. She said the best land has been reserved for building sites and state highways, using private roads in the areas where roads cross steeper slopes and streams. She said public water will be brought through West Leigh subdivision to this property by installation of a 12-inch line. This will provide the pressure needed for fire hydrants in this whole project. Ms. Holowinsky did not feel condition No. 5 is necessary and would not be required of the normal two-acre subdivision. Mr. Fisher said this is a normal requirement for rezonings to a residential use. He said the only question that arises is where there is a large percentage of the lot itself with slopes of 25% or greater. Ms. Holowinsky said slope analyses have been done and there are very few lots in this development which have any 25% slopes. Mr. Sandy Lambert, representative of Caleb Stowe, was present as agent for both the present owner and the prospective buyers of the property. Mr. Lambert said he would like to address two issues -- water and sewer. He has worked with the Albemarle County Service Authority, who is enthusiastic about the prospect of extending the lines to Route 678. This extension will complete a loop and enhance fire protection. Mr. Lambert said he feels there is adequate protection through the Health ~Department's requirements for two sites for septic drain fields SO there need not be too much concern over the use of the common open space. Mr. Lambert said the Health Department has informed him that the other subdivisions in this area have no history of septic problems. Mr. Lambert said he recognizes the concerns from people in the surrounding area, but he feels this is the best plan for the property. He feels this development is the best transition from the West Leigh subdivision, where the lots are generally larger, and he said the private roads proposed will create the least disturbance of the land. Mr. Robert Wittnebel, resident of Cumberland Road, West Leigh, spoke in opposition to this petition. He referred to his letter of May 25, 1979, expressing his opposition. He said his concern is that the plan provides two separate and distinctly dissimilar residential areas separated by relatively narrow strips of green areas. These green areas are charac by excessively steep slopes or creek beds which would not permit residential construction. In addition, the relatively high density portion of this plan is situated on the high and open area of the parcel creating a crowded neighborhood that is not. in character with the surrounding area. This area is essentially treeless and can be seen for miles. Mr. Wittnebel said this high density area is then connected to the second, less dense residential area, by a proposed private road. There are also two other private road segments in the high density residential area. He feels there should be a strong homeowners' association to administer and effectively maintain these private roads as well as the common open space. In looking at the overall plan, he feels the objectives of an RPN have not been met and the plan does not appear to be an imaginative effort to establish a reasonable and attractive residentia planned neighborhood. Mr. Louis Scribner, Jr., owner of.property immediately to the north of this proposed development, was concerned about condition No. 7 relating to the old farm road. He said this road crosses his property and he would like to see the right-of-way closed as stated in the conditions. He asked if abandonment of the road constitutes abandonment of the right-of-way. He asked if this would be written into the final plat or into the deed of the property owner owning that part of the ~oad. Mr. Fisher said this is an old farm road currently serving an existing dwelling (shown as lot No. 25 of this proposed development). He said this question will be addressed later in the meeting. There being no One else'to~sDeak for or' against '.this petition, the public hearing was, closed. Mr. Fisher said there have been two previous attempts to rezone this land to RS-I, both petitions being withdrawn Just prior to the public hearing. The developments previously proposed were to be served by a central well system. There was considerable opposition from the surrounding communities. The proposal before the Board at this time shows lot sizes comparable to RS-1 zoning, but the proposal has an overall density closer to A-1 zoning. The 100 foot setback required by the Runoff Control Ordinance is being shown as common open space. Mr. Fisher said he has misgivings about the common open space being shown in areas along streams and in steep terrain, since this land is not conducive to public use. He ~ particularly wants an assurance that there will be no dwelling units or septic drainfields on slopes greater than 25%. Mr. Fisher said he is also concerned about the old farm road which was set aside years ago for a purpose other than as access to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Fisher said he asked the County Attorney to draft a condition that would be more explicit as to who can use this old farm road. The proposed condition No. 7 reads as follows: "Only lot 25 shall have access on.the old road shown on the plan and lot 25 shall have access on said old road only until such time as the new road as shown on the plan is constructed to serve lot 25. Upon completion of the new road fronting on lot 25, use of the old road is to be discontinued and its right-of-way shall be extinguished and abandoned of record. This condition shall be enforceable by the County of Albemarle or by the owner or owners of any lot or lots over which the right-of-way of said old road lies." Mr. Dorrier said the RPN approach to zoning is much better than the normal subdivision approach. His inclination is to support RPN's unless there are major problems and he sees no major problems with this proposed development which is in an area slated for growth. Mr. Lindstrom asked if anyone had any information on soil suitability for septic systems in this area. Mr. Fisher said he did not know of any significant septic problems in the area. Mrs. Treva Cromwell said there have been some failing septic drainfields in West Leigh Subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels it is a good idea to have a soils scientist report on lands in any subdivision. Mr. Keeler said the Health Department requires a soil study on any division of 10 lots or more on land located in the South Fork Rivanna Watershed. Mr. Fisher said he had never seen that regulation in writing and asked Mr. Agnor if he had any * .... ~ .~ w~ ~tm~t ~e~uires soil studies. Mr. Agnor said no. Mr. June 20, 1979 (RegUlar ~Night Meeting) Dr. Iachetta felt condition No. 4 should specifically exclude the use of any common open space with slopes of 25% or greater for septic fields. He. said the Board has a poticy to discourage this and he did not feel any condition should remotely suggest this is possible. Mr. Lindstrom suggested instead, changing condition No. 5 to read as follows: "Health Department approval of two septic field locations on each lot. No septic field shall be sited on any slope of 25% or greater." Dr. Iachetta agreed. Dr. Iachetta said he agrees with Mr. Dorrier in principle that the RPN approach is better than just mindlessly cutting up two acre lots; but his concern is that the common open space is not usable by the residents. Mr. Lindstrom said, in this instance, he feels the RPN approach is a much better plan than what could be done under present zoning. He feels the present zoning ordinance is anachronistic and when the Board tries to be progressive in land planning, the only area where the Board has any flexibility is in the RPN. He hopes that when the new zoning ordinance is adopted, land planning can be accomplished in a more sensible way. He has no real objection to this rezoning request and will vote for it with the condition suggested by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to know more about what the Health Department is doing and would like to have a work session with them in the future. Mr. Henley said he did not understand the.other members' objection to the open space shown. He does not'think the open space is supposed to be for the entertainment of the residents, but to be left purely in natural open space. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to approve ZMA-79-12 with conditions No. 1-4, 6, and No. 8-11 as recommended by the Planning Commission and conditions No. 5 and 7 as amended by the Board. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the folloWing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Roudabush. (The conditions as approved are set out below:) 1) 3) 4) 5) 6) 8) 10) ll) Approval is for a maximum of 60 lots. Location and acreages of land uses shall comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in accordance with the number of lots approved. No grading shall occur until final subdivision approval. Compliance with Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Agreements prior to final approval to include the use of open space for septic field, if necessary, and for private road maintenance agreements. Health Department approval of two septic field locations on each lot. No septic field shall be sited on any slope of 25-% or greater. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations, prior to final subdivision approval. 0nly Lot 25 shall have access on the old road shown on the plan and Lot 25 shall have access on said old road only until such time as the new road as shown on the plan, is constructed to serve Lot 25. Upon completion of the new road fronting on Lot 25, use of the old road is to be discontinued and its right-of-way shall be extinguished and abandoned of record. This condition shall be enforceable by the County of Albemarle or by the owner or owners of any lot or lots over which the right-of-way of said old road lies-. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, road or other feature approved in a final plan are to be located, shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. Ail units shall be served by a public water supply system and approved by appropriate agencies prior to final subdivision plat approval. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans. Lot #1 to enter onto interior road. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-79-26. Norman O. Dailey. Request for a Home Occupation Class B on 5.42 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the south side of Route 250 East approximately 1/2 mile west of the Fluvanna County line. County Tax Map 95, Parcel 15. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1979). Mr. Keeler read the following staff report: "C'har~c'te'r of the Area This property is developed with a single-family dwelling and garage. The occupation would be conducted in the garage which is located behind the house about 400 feet from Route 250 East and 250 feet from the nearest dwelling. Staff Comment The applicant proposes to produce such wrought iron'items as handrails, gates,~and other household hardware. Since this would be custom work, no customers are expected to visit the property. There may be one employee other than family members. Machinery involved would include a welder', bench grinder, and household shop tools. Staff recommends approval subject to the requirements of Section 16-4~.1 Home Occupation Class B of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, on June 5~ 1979, unanimously voted to recommend approval of this petition with no conditions, but it was their intent that the requirements of Section 16-44.1 be complied with. 354 June 20, 1979 (Regular Night-Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Keeler if the Planning Commission intended that this use be permitted in the existing garage building. Mr. Keeler Said yes. Mr. Fisher then asked if any additional expansion of the garage building could take place without additional approvals. Mr. Keeler said this was not discussed, but that Section 16-44.1 provides for 1500 square feet to be used and he does not believe the existing garage is~that large. Mr. Fisher said conceivably, the garage could then be enlarged without obtaining any additional approval. Mr. Keeler said yes. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Norman Dailey was present. He said he feels there is a need for custom iron works in the area. He has been in this business for over 30 years and would like to start his own business. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Dailey had any plans to expand the building. Mr. Dailey said no. There being no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve SP-79-26 as recommended by the Planning Commission, and added that he felt this type of permit should be granted by staff action where there is no obj-ection. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the followin recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. - ~r. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-79-14. Holly Memorial Gardens. To rezone two acres from A-t Agriculture to B-1 Business. Property located on southeast side of Route 29 North, approximat~ 1/3 mile southwest of intersection of Routes 649 and 29 North. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 42G. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1979). Mr. Keeler read the following staff report: "Character of the Area With the exception of Holly Memorial Gardens, other properties in the area are generally undeveloped. Two dwellings and a barn are located on this property. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recognizes Holly Memorial Gardens and recommends this property for cemetery-related use. The property is in the Hollymead Community. Staff Comment This rezoning is being sought in order to locate a funeral home adjacent to the cemetery. A joint access easement between this property and the remaining cemetery property is shown on the proposed subdivision plat.- Estimation of traffic impact is difficult since it is expected that much traffic will be internal between the cemetery and funeral home and will not impact Route 29 North. While the staff is concerned about uncontrolled B-1 uses in this area, staff opinion is that a funeral home is appropriate in this location and recommends approval of this petition." Mr. Keeler said on June 5, 1979, the Planning Commission byra vote of 5-4, recommended denial of this petition. Mr. Keeler said while the Commissioners were sympathetic to the use of this property as a funeral home, to. rezone to a straight B-1 zone would allow the applicant all the various uses permissible under B-1 zoning. Mr. Keeler said he received today, June 20, 1979, from Mr. Leroy R. Hamlett, Jr., attorney for the applicant, a proffer to this application as follows: "June 20, 1979 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, Virgfnia 22901 On behalf of Holly Memorial Gardens, Inc., I hereby amend our application for a B-1 zoning to include only use as a funeral home (7-1-11). Yours very truly, (Signed) Leroy R. Hamlett, Jr." Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mr. Hamlett was present, representing Hill & Wood, contract purchasers for the property.' He said the applicants did not give this proffer to the Planning Commission because Hill & Wood did not have a contract on the property at that time. Now they do have a contract and they .are offering this proffer for a funeral home only on this parcel of land. Mr. Bradley Peyton IV was present representing Holly Memorial Gardens. He said the intent of the contract, which has now been executed, is to establish a funeral home at this location. Mr. Paul Wood was also present. Mr. Wood said Hill & Wood intended to build a funeral home at this location since they feel there is a need for one in the northern part of the County. There being no one else present to speak for or against this application, the public h~r~n~ was closed. Ly June 20, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked if the letter presented is a formal binding proffer. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve ZMA-79-14 with the proffer dated June 20, 1979, signed by Leroy R, Hamlett, Jr. for Holly Memorial Gardens', Inc., limiting the B-1 zoning to funeral home use only. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: M~. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-?9-15. Hunter Faulconer. To rezone 33.8+_ acres from A-1 to R- 3, B-1 and CO. Property located on the east side of Route 250 West and has a small amount of frontage on Route 754 (Old Ivy Road). County Tax Map 60, Parcels 50 and 24 (part thereof). Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1979). Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-79-16. S. W. Heischman. To rezone 33.549 acres from A-1 to R- 3 and B-1. Property located on the north side of Route 754 (Old Ivy Road) approximately 1/4 mile northwest of the city limits. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 53. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the .Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1979). Mr. Keeler said these two applications are located in the same area and, in fact, abut each other and the staff has prepared some general comments on both, as follows: "These applicants and other property owners in the area met with the staff some months ago to discuss increased residential density and increased commerci'al zoning in the area. Staff was hopeful that a unified, planned approach would result. Access: The major problem identified in discussions was the adequacy of Route 601. Simply stated, improvements to Route 601 would be of limited utility unless the railroad underpasses at both ends of the road were improved. Staff encouraged the applicants to approach the University to obtain use of the existing road network connecting Route 601 with the Law/BusineSs Complex and ultimately Route 29 North at Barracks Road Shopping Center. The University indicated that no such usage would be granted. This is unfortunate since a large percentage of the residents of the Old Ivy Road area are University students housed off-grounds. C.omprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends high-density residential and commercial uses in the area. The Neighborhood 7 Committee recommended a maximum residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre and a neighborhood commercial center for this area. Full development Under the requested zonings would house about 3,400 people or 25% of the recommended Urban Area population increase by 1995. Total development in the Old Ivy Road area would be about 1800 units housing about 5,000 people. Support Commercial: The potential 1800 units in this area could support 36~000 square feet of gross commercial floor area or the equivalent of about a n~ne~acre nel'gh~m~olod' a~o'pPing center (for shopping centers, building area/site area ratio of about 1.11). Commercial zoning: Acres ZM^-79-15 (B-l) 2.5 (C-O) 1.3 /MA-79-16 (B-l) 2.25 Existing (der/under excluding uses) approx. 3.0 9.05 Therefore, the requested commercial acreage appears appropriate in terms of existing and potential residential development. However, staff is concerned about spreading this zoning over three sites. The Neighborhood 7 Committee had recommended one internally-oriented location." Mr. Keeler then gave the individual staff reports as follows: "ZMA-79-15. Hunter Faulconer. Requested Zoning: 30 acres from A-1 to R-3 2.5 acres from A-1 to B-1 1.3 acres from A-1 to CO Location: Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcels 50 and 24, part thereof, is located in the northeast quadrant of the Route 250 bypass/Route 601 interchange. Comparative Impact Statistics Dwellings Population VTPD Residential Water Comsumption (gpd) School-Aged Children A-1 R-3/B-1/CO 1~ 6oo 6o 1680 110 5400 6400 '240,000 8 282* *Recent information indicates 0.2 students/unit at Huntington Village in this area. Assuming the same occupancy characteristics, redua~ t~ ~,,~ *^ June 20 1 Re ular Ni ht Meetln Staff Comment Requested R-3: Staff finds this request in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendation of Neighborhood 7 and recommends approval. R~quested B-i: B-1 in this location provides some buffering for the proposed residential zoning ~rom the interchange area. Due to difficulty of access from the Route 250 By-pass, staff does not foresee appreciable highway trade. The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial use in this area. Neighborhood 7 Committee recommended one internally-oriented neighborhood center to serve this area~ While staff also favors centralized commercial development, staff does not believe this location will have adverse impact and recommends ' 1 approval. Requested CO: By the shape and location of property requested for CO, it appears that this prope.rty is intended to be developed with the "Nokes" ~property. At this time, no rezoning petition has been received on the Nokes property, which remains A-1 Agriculture. Considering the required setbacks from A-1 and residential districts, staff questions the utility of this request at this time. A more appropriate course of action would be to consider this request with the possible Nokes request." --~ Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at their meeting on June 12, 1979, by a vote of ~ 6/0/1, recommended approval of this request. Mr. Keeler then read the staff report on ZMA-79-16: "ZMA-79-16. S. W. Heischman. Requested zoning: 31.299 acres from A-1 to R-3. 2.250 acres from A-1 to B-1. Location: Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 53, is located west and adjacent to Ivy Gardens Apartments and borders Huntington Village on the north and east. Comparative Impact Statistics Dwellings Population VTPD Residential Water Consumption (gpd) School-Aged Children A-1 R-3/B-1 1-~ 626 5O 1750 110 5400 6400 250,400 8 295* *Recent information indicates 0.2 students/unit at Huntington Village located in this area. Assuming the same occupancy characteristics reduces this figure to 125 school children. Staff-Comment Requested R-3: Staff finds this request in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the recommendations of Neighborhood 7 and recommends approval. Requested B-I: B-1 in this location provides some buffering between the requested R-3 and Old Ivy Road. The C~mprehensive Plan recommends commercial use in this area. Neighborhood 7 recommended one in~ternally-oriented neighborhood center to serve this area. While staff also favors centralized commercial development, staff does not believe this location will have adverse impact and recommends approval." Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission on June 12, 1979, by a vote of 6-0-1, recommended approval of this application. Mr. Keeler noted that in drafting the staff's report, no consideration was given to existing development in the area such as Ivy Gardens and Huntington Village. If the Faulconer and Heischman properties are developed to their maximum along with these other existing developments, the density in the area will be over 20 dwelling units per acre (20.2). Mr. Fisher said these two applications, combined with existing developments in the area, will increase traffic from 200+ vehicle trips per day to 10,800 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Fisher said he cannot believe the staff or the Planning Commission members have ever driven Route 754 (Old Ivy Road). Mr. Keeler then gave the Highway Department's recommendations contained in a letter dated June 5, 1979: "ZMA-79-15: Route 601 - The requested rezoning of 30 acres R-3, which would allow 600 dwelling units, with 1.3 acres of CO, and 2.5 acres of B-I, would generate approximately 5,400 VPD. The CO and B-1 zoning would probably also have considerable walk-in trade~. The volume figures indicate support for our sizing recommendations transmitted to R. W. Tucker on April 20, 1979. (Copied in below,) At that time we indicated the ultimate design for~Route 601 would be a 52' face of curb to face of curb cross section with a storm sewer system to accommodate drainage would be needed based on the potential development of the area. We would recommend that the number of entrances be kept to a minimum to serve this property and that the frontage be improved placing the curb line at 26' from the center of the existing road. June 20, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) ZMA-79-16: Route 601 - The requested rezoning of 31 acres R-3, would allow 626 dwelling units, and 2.25 acres of B-1 would generate approximately 5,400 VPD. These generation figures will support our ultimate design for Route 601 which is a 52' face of curb to face of curb cross section with storm sewer necessary to accommodate the drainage." "April 20, 1979 County of Albemarle 414 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Attention: Mr. R. W. Tucker, Jr. RE: Route #601 - 01d Ivy Road (Sizing of Facility) Dear Mr. Tucker: Concerning recent requests that we study and size the Route 601 facility based upon existing and proposed development and zoning; the potential indicates that a 52 foot face of curb to face of curb cross section following the existing alignment with some minor improvement to grades will be needed based upon the existing development, proposed development, and potential rezoning. Concerning any additional access or modification of access from Route 601 to Route 250-29 Bypass, we do not believe that at this time such revisions would be necessary. However, if at some time in the future a revision is necessary, this would be at Department cost. Concerning existing entrances to Route 601; entrances to the existing apartment developments are satisfactory as far as alignment is concerned. Some revisions may be necessary due t~ minor changes of roadway alignment or grade. However, the cost for reconstruction of the existing entrance would be borne by the Department or the developer if he redevelops. As I am sure you are aware, the biggest "bottleneck" along this section is the railroad underpass near Route 250. This would be a very costly improvement and as with all other improvements would have to be coordinated through the Department. If you should have any further questions concerning sizing of Route 601, please advise. Very truly yours, (Signed) W. B. Coburn, Jr., Asst. Resident Engineer" Mr. Fisher said the staff report notes that improving Route 601 would be of no benefit unless something can be done to each end of this road (railroad underpass at Route 250 West and entrance from the Route 250 By-Pass). Also, the Board has not yet seen the recommendation~ of the Neighborhood 7 Committee, (Committee working on revisions to the Comprehensive Plan) so no weight can be given t~o'~e recommendations at this time. Mr. Fisher did say the Comprehen Plan recommends that by 1995 this area should develop in high density residential and commercia uses. At this time~ the public hearing was opened. Mm. William Perkins was present representing the applicants~ the Paulconer Estate, Mr. Heischman and also Dr. Nokes. the contract purchaser for these properties.) Mr. Perkins said Dr. Nokes is ready to file for a rezoning of his land. The application will be forthcoming. He said Ivy Gardens~ University Gardens and Huntington Village apartments~ all operated by Mr. ~eischman, have been established for a number of years and have had a minimal impact on the public schools. There are 936 units in these three complexes and the~e are only 21 school children. Mr. Perkins said he has been driving on Old Ivy Road for over ~0 years and he understands Mr. Plsher's concern~ but the developers know there is a commercial demand ~or apartments and they would not be putting in units that cannot be rented. The road and the underpasses have been in the same condition for many ~ears~ but the road has been carrying the traffic. People~traveling this road would like to see it improved. He did not feel it is the developer' problem to build new highways because the cost would be far beyond the return on e~uity. Mr. Perkins asked that the Board approve these petitions as recommended by the Plannin~ Commission. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Huntington Village is under the control of Mr. Heischman. Mr. Pe~kins said only partly~ the property has been divided into a limited partnership. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Nokes property and the 1.3 acres of the Paulconer property will be used for a shoppinE center. Mr. Perkins said yes~ but under Commercial Office zoning. The Nokes home is of more value if converted to a use compatible to Commercial Office zonin~ than a use under R-3. Mr. Dorrier asked the shape of the CO pa~De~t(~alf-moon) shown on a plat showing th~s proposed rezoning. Mr. Perkins said in pro~ecting plans for this land~ placement of the interior road was c~nsidered. The topography of the land is such that this would be a natural boundary for the road to follow. Mr. Dorrier asked if the CO parcel would have access from Old Ivy Road and if a third lane would be constructed. Mr. Perkins said access to the shopping area would be through the Nokes parcel~ which is not a part of this rezon~n~ request. Also, ~he Hi~hway Department has recommended construction of a decelera- tion lane. With no one else to speak for or against these petitions~ the public he~ring was closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked for the present traffic counts on 01d Ivy Road. Mr. Keeler said they were not available. The Highway Department was involved in initial discussion of these petitions~and at that time~ Mr. Heischman felt the traffic generation figures presente~ some years ago for Huntington Village and Ivy Gardens were too high because there is a lot of pedestrian traffic back toward the University. It was suggested 368,' Ivy Road. Mr. Keeler said no. Mr. Lindstrom said the Comprehensive Plan indicates that this area will be developed with high-density residential development, but these two petitions compaise 25% of the recommended high-density land in the 1995 Plan. He did not feel it is wise for the Board to consider rezoning this 25% without looking at the roads. He then offered motion to defer ZMA-79-15 and ZMA-79-16 until July llth, with a request that the Highway Department present traffic count information and a report on existing rights-of-way on Old Ivy Road along its entire length (250/29 By-Pass to its intersection with Route 250 West at the City Limits). June 20, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Dr. Iachetta seconded the~motion and said this is one request for ~oning that will clearly impact roads. He felt the Board~should also consider the 1.3 acres of CO because on this rezoning request, it has no access from Route 754. Dr. Iachetta also felt the applicants should put all of the B-1 land together in one location in order toe, have a more internal use of such ~oning. Mr. Dorrier agreed with Mr. Lindstrom and Dr. Iachetta. He said he drives this road quite often and it is definitely in need of improvement. Mr. Dorrier said he would not be present at the July llth meeting, but he is in favor of the concept presented in these zoning applications, if the road problems can be resolved. Mr. Fisher said it is obvious that these proposed ~evelopments are, to a large extent, to provide housing for University students, faculty and staff. While the University is trying to provide housing, there are more than I0,000 students living off-grounds. He asked the County Executive to contact the University administration to see whether or not there is any possibility of providing access through University property to these develop~ ments since there is no way the road can be improved for at least five years. Mr. Lindstrom said the University impacts the community more than any Other single organization and he feels they should be involved in the problems they create in a constructive way. Mr. Henley said he use~ this road often and has been amazed at how little traffic uses the road. He also would like to know more about the rights-of-way on this stretch of road. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lindstrom if he would amend his motion to include a request that the County Executive contact the University about this problem. Mr. Lindstrom amended his mot~ to include this request. Dr. Iachetta accepted the amendment. ROi1 was called on the motion~and same carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Roudabush. The Board recessed at 9:30 P.M. and reconvened at 9:37 P.M. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-79-17. Common Source. (Great Eastern Management Co., Inc.) To re~one 2.467 acres from R-l~to R-3; 0.761 acres from R-1 to B-I; 1.203 acres from R-3 to B-I; 0.204 acres from R-3 to B-I; and 6.453 acres from R-3 to R-~; all with a proffer. Property located on the southeast side of Route 656 just southwest of the intersection of Routes 656 and 7~3. C~unty Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A; County Tax Map 60A, Parcel 9(2); and County Tax Map 60A, Parcel 9(3). CharIottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1979). Mr. Keeeler began by saying that mn June 14, 1978, the Board approved SP-78-22 for Great Eastern Management Co., that permit allowing 375 dwelling units and 8000 square feet of professional office space on this property which was all zoned R-3. Mr. Keeler then .read the following staff report: "Requested zoning: 2.467 acres from R-1 to R-3 Proffer (Tax Map 60A, Sec. 9, Parcel 2, part thereof) 3.1 acres from R-3 to R-3 Proffer (Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A, part thereof) 6.453 acres from R-3 to R-2 Proffer (Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A, part thereof) 0.761 acres from R-1 to B-1 Proffer (Tax Map 60A, Sec. 9, Parcel 3, part thereof) 1.203 acres from R-3 to B-1 Proffer (Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A, part thereof) 0.204 acres from~R-3 to B-1 Proffer (Tax Map 6lA, Parcel 42A, part thereof.) Location: Properties are located on the east side of Georgetown Road, south and adjacent to Westgate Apartments. ~The applicant has acquired additional property and is seeking a modification to the plan.) Staff Comment: The effect of this application would be to: (1) increase residential acreage but maintain the total number of dwellings as approved under special permit for the Mowinckel tract; and (2) provide for limited commercial uses. Residential use: Under proffered conditions residential density would be reduced. Staff recommends approval. Commercial use: The Comprehensive Plan does not recommend commercial use in this area. However, the s~le and density of residential development in this area could support limited commercial usage. Additionally, the uses proffered are not drama- tically different from uses permitted by right and by special use permit in the R-3 zone. Staff recommends approval." on ~une 20, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) "(Proffer) Application for Zoning Map Amendment, Mowinckel and Adjacent Properties May 10, 1979. This is a request for the rezoning of portions of two parcels known as the Lemuel Ross and Bessie J. Ross properties, tax map 60A, parcels (9)2 and (9)3 respectively. Petitioner is contract purchaser of these properties. Petitioner also requests rezoning of a portion of the former Mowinckel Estate fronting on Georgetown Road immediately to the east of parcel (9)3 and defined by the marked plat attached hereto. The Ross properties are contiguous to the former Mowinckel Estate, now the property of the Petitioner. Petitioner proposes to combine 2.467 acres of parcel (9)2 with approximately 3.1 acres currently part of the approved site plan for Barclay Place, to create alanew sub-division, Georgetown Woods. In addition, .761 acres of parcel (9)3 would be combined with that portion of the former Mowinckel Estate that fronts on Georgetown Road to improve the entrance to Barclay Place and to allow the construction of additional commercial space. The area of the portion of parcel (9)2 for which we request rezoning is 107,492 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 and, by right, can be subdivided into 13 single family lots. Under the approved site plan for Barclay Place, the approximately 3.1 aq~a~eto be included in Georgetown Woods has 70 dwelling mnits. The total number of dwelling units authorized under present conditions for the approximately 5.567 acres is therefore 83. Also an office building and commercial entrance has been approved for the portion of the Mowinckel tract fronting on Georgetown Road as part of the Westgate Phase IV site plan. We request rezoning of the 2.467 acres of parcel (9)2 from R-1 to R-3. We also request rezoning for the .761 acres of parcel (9)3 from R-1 to B-I, and of the Tract I plus 50 feet ingress and egress easement formerly of the Nowinckel tract as described on the attached plan from R-3 to B-1. In return we make the following proffer: (1) Limitation of use of the 2.467 acres being rezoned R-3 and the approximately 3.1 acres being removed from Barclay Place and included in Georgetown Woods to 57 dwelling units. (2) Limitation of use of the property being rezoned B-1 to a beauty or barber shop, a florist shop, a theatre, a gift shop, or any of the uses allowed under Com- mercial Office zone as they may be establ&shed in that zone. (3) Rezoning of Bennington Woods subdivision from R-3 to R-2, and limitations of the total number of dwelling units in the subdivision to 33. Agree to limit the allowable density on the combined Mowinckel Property and that portion of the Ross Property to be rezoned R-3 to the same 375 units as currently permitted under an approved Mowinckel Special Use Permit." Mr. Keeler said the proffer was amended at the Planning Commission hearing of June 12, 1979, and the Planning Commission by mnanimous vote, recommended approval of ZMA-79,17 with the following proffers: Limitation of use of the 2.46? acres being rezoned R-3 and the approximately 3.1 acres being removed from Barclay Place and included in Georgetown Woods to 57 dwelling mnits. Limitation of use of the property being rezoned B-1 to beauty or barber shops, florist shops, gift shops, or any of the uses allowed under Commercial Office Zone as they may be established in that zone. Rezoning of Bennington Woods subdivision from R-3 to R-2, and limitations of the total number of dwelling units in the subdiVision to 33. Agree to limit the allowable density on the combined Mowinckel property and that portion of the Ross Property to be rezoned R-3 to the same 375 units as currently permitted under an approved Mowincke! Special Use Permit. Mr. Rotgin said this petition is the ~ulmination of an effort to purchase proPerty between the Mowinckel property and Georgetown Road. The .0761 acre parcel has been in an estate for several years and was recently purchased, but after the plat was prepared, it was found that a house was located on the property (home of Mrs. Ross). In order not to create a hardship on Mrs. Ross by having her house on a non-cnnforming lot, the developers ha~e swapped property with her. Approval of the subdivision was given by the Board of Zoning Appeals because the lot does not meet area requirements for water and sewer. The plat has been submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. (Plat showing parcels A, B, C, D, E and Tract 1, being Parcels 9, 2 and 3 on Sheet 60A and portion of Parcel 42A on Sheet 6lA, County Tax Maps, prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates, Ltd., dated June 15, 1979, copy on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board.) Mr. ROtgin said on their original plan, there was an "S" shaped road leading in from Georgetown Road. Through acquisition of this property (half of Which is now pr.posed for an access easement to the Mowinckel tract), that road can be straightened. Mr. Rotgin pointed to the 1203 acre parcel and noted that it is already shown on the approved site plan (SP-79-22) for a professional office building; the 2.431 parcel is what is being added to the Mowin~el property and the density is being reduced. The 6.453 acre parcel being requested for R-2 is being developed by Randy Wade and the developers had agreed with Mr. Wade that instead of having detailed, complex deed restrictions in order to protect the homeowners from future uses under R-3 zoning, the developers would request that the property be rezoned backward to R-2. A note was included on the subdivision plat that the uses permitted on this tract wou!d~be restricted to those mses allowed under R-2 zoning. Mr. Rotgin also 37O June 20, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) noted that he has been working with the Highway Department for some time and has entered into an agreement for improvements along Georgetown Road. The developers have agreed to dedicate right-of-way to the Highway Department sufficient to widen the road and have agreed to three-lane Georgetown Road at the back entrance to Westgate apartments in order to allow both right and left turning movements. The right-of-way being dedicated will be wide enough to accommodate a pedestrian path should the County decide to build one. Mr. Fisher asked about the office building. Mr. Ro~g~n said it is a professional office building, and his firm will use about one-third of the space, but the building will not be built in the near future. Mr. Rotgin said this proposal was discussed with neighboring property owners and the theatre included in the proffer was dropped after that meeting. At this point, the public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the petition, the p~blic hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said there are four seperate proffers listed in the Planning Commission's action of June' 13. He asked the County Attorney if the Board felt that one of the proffers was not in the public interest, if the Board could accept the other three and drop one proffer, or if the Board had to consider the four proffers as one item. Mr. St. John asked how the proffers were submitted. Mr. Fisher said they were listed inaa single letter from the applicant. Mr. St. John sa&d it is his opinion that the proffer submitted by the apPlicant constitutes one proffer with four paragraphs. Mr. Fisher asked if the proffer should be accepted or rejected as a whole. Mr. St. John said yes, but the applicant could amend the proffer to exclude any part rejected by the Board. Mr. Fisher said there is a letter in the file dated June 18, 1979 from Ms. Gay Johnson Blair in opposition to this application. He read the last paragraph of that letter as follows: ~ "In summary, the Board of Supervisors is respectfully requested: To support the statement of intent of the adjacent residential zones by rejecting the request of the developers for B-t (and/or CO) downzoning, 2. To require sewer connections for all approved buildings, To require screening between any authorized office development and the surrounding residential area, and To make sure that the developers are required to comply with the Runoff Control Ordinance both during and after construction, particularly during the design and construction of any access roads on Georgetown Road." Mr. FiSher said there is also a letter dated June 12, 1979 from Ms. Blair to the Planning Commission, expressing similar concerns. Mr. Fisher said he does not think that what is proposed for the residential units is much different from what was proposed last year. He said he is concerned about extending commerc~a~ areas a~pmg Georgetown Road and creating "strip type" development which the Board has been fighting on other public roads. Even though this commercial would be limited, he did not feel he could support this part of the petition. Mr. Lindstrom.asked Mr. Keeler what other business zoning is in the area. Mr. Keeler said there is no other business zoning on Georgetown Road, although there is some business zoning at the inter- section of Georgetown Road and Hydraulic Road. Mr. Fisher said staff comments usually received by the Board on this type of proposal indicate that if there is to be small scale commercial development in a project, the commercial should be in the center so it will serve internal needs. He said in al~st all of the applications which come to the'Board, the commercial is shown onSthe edge of the development or on a corner lot so the commercial use will serve a much larger population. Mr. Fisher said he does not feel it is correct to expand commercial uses into this area of the County. Mr. Dorrier said the Planning Staff and Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this petition and he did not think these uses will be detrimental to the area. He said he cannot see any good reason to deny the petition considering the recommendations and there has been no public opposition. Dr. Iachetta said he agreed with Mr. Fisher that the overall change is probably good, but he was not incl,.ned to change the R-3 to B-1 along Georgetown Road. The commercial presently in existence in the area is ~thin walking distance of this development. If there is to be any additional B-i, and it could be placed in the middle of the devel~opment, he would be in favor, but he did not think that extending B-1 zoning down Georgetown Road is a good idea. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not realize that professional offices were permitted by right in the R-3 zone. Although there is a difference in the impact of traffic from a commercial operation and a professional office, Mr. Lindstrom said he feels an office in a residential zone also creates a problem. If he has to vote against the whole proffer because of the County Attorney's ruling, he will do so because he cannot support the B-1 request for this area. Mr. Ro~gin said the developers have tried to anticipate their needs for the future and have ~orked not only with the staff, but the Planning Commission and the neighboring property owners on this request. He said Ms. Blair was the only~neighbor who objected. Her objection was to the theatre, and this was dropped from the proffer. Mr. Rotgin said the developers do not know exactly what will be built on this property and because they do not want the whole plan denied, he asked if the Board could accept Commercial Office or R-3 zoning for that area. He feels the overall plan is good, in fact, this was the first time the Planning Commission had ever voted 8/0 for approval of part of this plan. Mr. Rotgin then amended his proffer to change the B-1 request to Commercial Office. He ~ ~,~ ,~ ~m~ ~/~ ~¢ ~h~ 0.76~ ~arcel will be used as an access easement for the 371 June 20, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) road. Mr. Lindstrom read the uses permitted by right under CO zoning, and said amending the proffer at this meeting is awkward. Mr. Rotgin then amended the proffer again to change the B-1 request to R-3. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to work with this petition, but he ~s against an office building in this area. Mr. St. John said he was not sure changing B-1 to R-3 constitutes an amendment to the proffer; it is merely a change in the zoning request. He also was not sure that R-3 is a less intensive use than B-1. Mr. Rotgin said to clarify the discussion, he would like to change the zoning request, but the proffers remain the same. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Rotgin if he would withdraw proffer No. 2 since that proffer relates only to the B-1 request. Mr. Rotgin said yes. Mr. Fisher then asked for a clarification of the petition. Mr. St. John said the applicant has a~ked that the entire B-1 request be rezoned to R-3 with no conditions, but abolishing proffer No. 2. Mr. Rotgin said with one exception; he is dropping the request for the 1.203 acres to be rezoned to B-I; he is dropping the request that the 0.761 acres be rezoned B-1. Mr. St. John said the remainder of the B-1 request is already zoned R-3 and is the subject of a special use permit. He asked Mr. Rotgin what effect he saw his present request having on the special use permit. Mr. Rotgin aaid it would have none because the use approved under the special use permit (professional office building) is exactly what will be built on that piece of property. Mr. Lindstrom said he cannot support this petition, even as amended, be.cause he does not want to see any more office buildings in that area, and the R-3 will allow offices by right, regardless of the present intent of the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom asked what size office building could be built under the special use permit. Mr. Rotgin said 6400 square feet of rentable area on two levels is what has been proposed. Mr. Henley said he feels Mr. Lindstrom will have to start trusting the developer. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion for denial of the petition. There was no second to the motion. Dr. Iachetta said he thinks the change the applicant has proposed is better than what was originally proposed because a professional office use would probably be limited to daylight hours as opposed to uses under B-1.' This change, coupled with the somewhat less inst~sive use in the area of Bennington Woods~and the proposal being less rental oriented, seems to be a better overall change for the area. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve ZM~-79-17 as set out below: 2.467 acres from R-1 to R-3 Proffer (Tax Map 60A, Section 9, Parcel 2, part thereof) 3.t acres from R-3 to R-3 Proffer (Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A, part thereof) 6.453 acres from R-3 to R-2 Proffer (Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A, part thereof) 0.761 acres from R-1 to R-3 ~roffer (Tax Map 6~,[?~ectio~29, Parcel 3, part thereof) 1.203 acres from R-3 to R-3 Proffer (Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A, part thereof) 0.204 acres from R-3 to R-3 Proffer (Tax Map 6lA, Parcel 42A, part thereof) The motion ~as seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Rotgin the status of the agreement with the H~ghway Department. Mr. Rotgin said plans have been submitted for the work the developer has agreed to do along the frontage of the property on Georgetown Road. The developer has also agreed to dedicate a strip of land along the entire frontage on Georgetown Road for the future improvement of the road. The developer will build a right turn lane coming from Barracks to Hydraulic Road going into the property at Barclay Place and the 01d Dominion Day School; and also will build a third lane coming from Hydraulic Road to Barracks Road. Mr. Fisher said he is not convinced that this proposal is best for this area. He is concerned about the procedures used in having a written proffer submitted and then having it amended verbally at this meeting. He said this is not the applicant's fault; the Board has a history of doing this at the advice of the County Attorney. Mr. Fisher said he does not think that either additional offices, or R-3 zoning, are appropriate in this area and he is not going to support the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not question what Mr. Rotgin has said he is going to do on the property; he trusts him and has a lot of respect for him, but as he said previously, he does not think offices should be in this area and hetis not going to,support the motion for that reason. Mr. Dorrier said the Planning staff recommended the proffers and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. He said he, is not saying the Board should not ask questions, but the Planning staff and the Planning Commission do not feel an office is an incompatible use in that area and he does think the Board should support, the Planning Commission in their recommendation. Roll was then'called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Not Docketed: Mr, Agnor announced that"he had received a message saying Mr. Earl Sudduth, DireCtor of Parks and Recreation, had beenffatallY injured in a bi'cycle accident tonight near his home in Goochland County. · 372 June 20, 1979 (Regular Ni ht Meetin ) At 10:40 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:45 P.M. Agenda Item No. 10. Resolution of intent to amend the def~'~i~n of "Subdivision" as it appears in Chapter 1~ (Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance) of the County Code and to provide for dedication along certain lots. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5, and June 12, 1979). Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission on June 12, 1979, by unanimous vote, withdrew its resolution of intent to amend the definition of subdivision (Section 18-2 of the County Code), but did recommend that Section 18-8 of the County Code, which provides for right of way addition, be amended in order to provide for dedication in excess of 25 feet from the centerline. Mr. Keeler then read the proposed wording of Section 18-8: Section 18-8 ~ights-of-way addition: Where the Comprehensive Plan indicates a proposed right of way greater than that existing on the boundaries of a subdivision or lot, such additional right-of-way shall be reserved for public use, when the plat is recorded, by the requirement of an additional setback in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Where a subdivision has occurred on public streets less than 50 feet in width, additional right-of-way shall be dedicated in order that the public street or right-of-way shall be at least 50 feet in width; provided, however, that in any case in which it shall be determined by the c"ommission~ or the agent, that a right-of-way in excess of 50~feet will be necessary to serve the traffic which may reasonably be expected to be generated by such subdivision, such greater width of right-of-way m~y be required by the Commission, the agent, or the Board of Supervisors, as the case may be. Mr. Keeler on petitions such as the ones for Fau~oner and Heischman tonight, this amendment is essential because the Highway Department is recommending 52 feet of payeme~t and the County is only requiring a dedication of 50 feet. This amendment would be used primarily in the urban area where rights-of-way of 60 to 70 feet are necessitated by h~gh density types of uses. Dr. Iachetta asked if the potential developer will have access to information that will warn him as to how much right of way will be needed or if this will be determined through staff negotiations. Mr. Keeler said he understands that when the Charlottesville- Albemarle T~ansportation Study is completed, it will be adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This will then be the transportat$on plan for the County. Until that is done, there is no way to put the developer on notice other than through consultation with the staff and Highway Department. Mr. Henley asked if this amendment will affect the rural area~. Mr. St. John said the Planning Commission had withdrawn the part ~f the amendment which would have been applicable to all subdivisions of land. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the amendment, the public-hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to amend and reenact Section 18 of the Albemarle County Code, said section being a part of Chapter 18, Subdivision o~ Land, by adopting Section 18-8 as set out above. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Roudabush. The Board again returned to Agenda Item No. 3. ~P-79-25. Viola Irene Turner. Mr. Fisher said there being no one present to represent the applicant, he would request that this petition be rescheduled for July 18, 1979 and that the applicant be so notified. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to defer SP-79-25 to July 18, 1979. seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Dorrier AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. Mr. RoudabuSh. Agenda Item No. 11. Resolution approving amendment of the Constitution and By-Laws of the Virginia Association of Counties. Mr. Fisher noted the Changes being requested as: (1) To allow each member attending the annual meeting of the Virginia ~ss~ciation of Counties to vote instead of having one vote per county. (2) To limit the number of years a person can serve on the Board of Directors to eight years plus any terms as an officer. (3) The question of how dues are cha~ged would be de'termined by the Tayloe Murphy Institute population estimate. (4) Would permit the Executive Board, or two or more County Boards of SDpervisors, amendment before the full Association. (5) The Attorney is now the General Counsel. (Basically a change in language.) Mr. Fisher then requested a resolution to be transmitted to the Recording Secretary of ~ ....... ~ ~~_ ~~ toaadoDt the June 20, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) 373 following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby adopt the recommendations of April 1, 1979, of the Executive Board of the Virginia Association of Counties for amendments to the Virginia Association of Counties Constitution and By-Laws. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: April 4, 1979 (Night). Mr. Lindstrom~requested that on Page 238, a sentence be changed to read: "...the real estate "to" an amount equivalent or near...". There being no other corrections noted, Mr. Lindstrom offered~motiol The motion was seconded by AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fis NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 13. Lc Mr. Agnor presented a ment for a raffle and bingo proceeds will be used to me~ offered by Mr. Henley to apt Board's adopted rules for il same carried by the followi~ AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fis! NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 14. O~ Mr. Fisher said he had Albemarle County Sign Advise "Gent lemen: The membersDo£fth~Com~ the extension of the Ir We feel the current gat Logo systemtto the con% of the contribution thc oriented businesses. about theaservices ava confronting those who County are tourists se Mountain, it seems to % status for the erectioz Mr. Fisher requested a Department. Mr. Fisher asked if th~ as a vacation week. After meetings in July and August resular meeting is not sche~ Mr. Fisher noted that from the Health Department. day meeting and asked that then requested that this me ~ to approve the minutes of April 4, 1979 (Night) as corrected. ~r. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: ~er, He. nley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. ~ttery Permit. Crozet Volunteer Fire Department. .ottery permit application for the Crozet Volunteer Fire Depart- at Claudius Crozet Park from July 3 through July 7, 1979. The ~t the Fire Department's operating expenses. MotiOn was ~rove a lottery permit for these dates in accordance with the ~suance of such permits. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and ~g recorded vote: ~er, Henley, Iachebta and Lindstrom. ;her matters not on the Agenda. received a letter from Mr. William S. Edwards, Chairman of the ~ry Committee, and read as follows: ~ission urge the Board of Supervisors to request once again ~terstate Highway logo system for the 1-64 exits in our County. ~oline shortage increases the contribution of~the Interstate ~enience and safety of the traveling public. We are all aware ~se signs can make to the economic well being of Our travel 'urthermore, the logo system would accurately inform visitors .lable at the Ivy exit, thus remedying the present confusion .eave the Interstate at that point. Since only in Albemarle 'vices available close to 1-64 between Richmond and Afton .s that a strong case can and should be made for a high priority of these signs before the peak of the summer season." status report on the erection of these signs from the Highway Board members would like to take the third week in August omc discussion, it was decided to hold the regularly scheduled holding the last two weeks in August (those in which a .uled) for vacation. .r. Lindstrom has asked for a work session with representatives Dr. Iachetta said he will not be present for the July llth this work session be scheduled when he is present. Mr. Fisher ting be arranged for August 8th. 374 June 20, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution in memory of Earl Sudduth: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors is shocked and saddened by the sudden death of Earl D. Sudduth, Director of Parksaand Recreation; and WHEREAS, Earl assumed the duties of directing his depart- ment with a dedicated sense of direction and under his leader- ship an expanded recreational program was developed and well received by the citizens of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, by his untimely death, the County has lost a vigorous and aager member of its staff who will be greatly missed by this Board, h.&s co-workers and the citizens who have benefited from his untiring efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the sympathy of the members of this Board be extended to the family of Earl D. Sudduth and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to his family, and that such resolution be spread upon the minutes of this meeting. The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 15. At 11:06 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Chairman The regular meeting of July 4, 1979 was cancelled by the Ju~ 13, 1979.