Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-16AuguSt 16, 1979 (Adjourned from August 15, 1979) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 16, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from August 15, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (Arrived at 8:08 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, Coun:t.y-Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who requested a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-79-26. John M. Nokes. To rezone 5.3 acres from A-1 to CO Commercial Office. Property is located on the north side of Route 754 (Old Ivy Road). County ~Tax Map 60, Parcel 51. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 2 and August 9, 1979.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: CO Commercial Office Acreage: 5.3 acres EAisting Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 51~ is located on the north side of Route 601 about 500 feet east of the access ramp to the Route 250 Bypass. Character of the Area: A dwelling exists on this property which may be converted to offices should this petition be approved. Staff Comment: Two rezoning applications - ZMA-79-15 Hunter Faulconer and ZMA-79-16 S. W. Heischman - are pending in this area. In an overview statement on those applications, staff indicated that if approved, the existing and potential residential development could support about a nine-acre neighborhood shopping center. Deducting about three acres-of existing developed/undeveloped commercial zoning, the area could support about six more acres of commercial zoning (assuming residential rezonings are approved). follows: ZMA-79-15 Faulconer (co) ZMA-79-16 Heischman (B-l) ZMA-79-26 (Nokes) (CO) Requested commercial acreage is as 2.5 acres 1.3 acres 2.25 acres 5.3 acres 11.'35 Therefore, current requests exceed area needs by about five acres. 'Area needs' in this case are based on potential residential development along the segment of Old Ivy Road between the two railroad underpasses. Staff has recommended consideration of the Faulconer application with the Nokes application. Since the Commission has already acted on the Faulconer and Heischman applications, staff would recommend that the Commission forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation for approval. This would place all commercial requests before the Board on equal footing and would permit the Board maximum flexibility in deliberations on the three petitions. Staff recommendation to the Board of Supervisors: In review of the three pending applications, staff has relied primarily on Neighborhood 7 Committee's recommendation that a single internally-oriented neighborhood commercial area would be appropriate. Staff makes the following summary observations in relation to the Neighborhood committee recommendations: The pending applications would establish three separate commercial areas; No indication has been made that building development would be oriented towards the residential areas. Site locations are not internal; Requested acreages exceed the neighborhood scale by five acres; Currently, Old Ivy Road functions primarily as a service road for properties located along it rather than as a through-traffic mover, Excessive commercial zoning, which would require external support, would attract non-local traffic; The 20 square feet/dwelling of commercial floor area employed by the staff is for convenience commercial uses rather than office uses, therefore, B-1 zoning is more appropriate, though many B-1 uses are not of a convenience nature. Staff recommends denial of the requested 1.3 acres of CO in ZMA-79-15. Staff recommends denial of ZMA-79-26. In pre-application discussions, staff impression was that all three applicants would submit a unified application. An alternative to denial of some of the commercial requests would be the limitation of development to not more than 30,000 square feet of floor area. This limitation would have to be voluntarily proffered by the applicants." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on August 14, 1979 had no recommendation by a vote of 3-3-1. A study of the traffic on Old Ivy Road was done by Wilbur Smith and Associates since three rezoning requests had been received for the subject area and all will impact the road· The study was presented at the August 8, 1979 meeting at which time the Highway Department staff was requested to review the 'study· Much of their review focused on the underpass at Route 2~0 and Old T~r~ R~_ 0o2 __ Au ust 16 1979 (Adjourned from August 15, 1979) Mr, Tucker then noted the following comments received from the Assistant Resident. Highway-Engineer, Mr. W. B. Coburn, Jr., dated July 26, 1979: "The proposed zoning would creat~ a potential 1,192 vehicle trips per day increase on Route 601.- Route 601 is currently a non-tolerable road and with other proposed developments adjacent would cause the need for 601 to be improved to a 52' curb to curb cross section roadway. We would recommend that necessary right of way along the frontage of the property be dedicated and the half cross section constructed." Mr. Tucker said recently it has been determined that there is a 60 foot dedicated right of'way on Route 601. Mr. Fisher then requested that Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, comment on the traffic impact study which was presented at the August 8, 1979 meeting and is set out in Minute Book 17. Mr. Roosevelt said the basic recommendation was to realign Old Ivy Road to come under the underpass at a different angle. This would be using the space between the two abutments rather than the space between the two wing wails. Mr. Roosevelt said it was indicated that there is 44 or 45 feet between the two abutments and the Highway Department has measured this and confirms same. Therefore, what has been recommended is possible. However, Mr. Roosevelt felt three problems needed to be brought to the Board's attention. Number 1--In order to realign this roadway under the underpass, 01~ Ivy Road would have to be relocated outside of the sixty-fmot right of way onto property owned by the University of Virginia. Number 2--The distance from the underpass to Route 250 would be shorter and since 'Route 250 rises as it goes westward, the grade on this section would have .to be increased. The minimum grade on this relocated roadway, in order to get from tha~un~d~pa~.s~toRoute 250, is about 8%. Therefore, an additional 8% would have to be added coming under this underpass. Number 3--Left-turn lanes out of 01d Ivy Road onto Route 250 going toward the City would have to be doubled. The pavement width in the City is capable of carrying the double left-turn lanes, but the ro~d is marked for one lane in and one lane out of the Ivy Square Shopping Center. Therefore, agreement would have to be obtained from the City to change the way the pavement is being used. Mr. Roosevelt said if all these problems are resolved, in the year 1992, or when the development is completed, this intersection will only provide a level D service. Mr. Roosevelt said the CATS study will recommend that most of the urban area have a level of Service C. Once all the improvemen that can be financed are put into place, this intersection will still have a lower level of service than is actually wanted. Once the projected traffic is dropped on this intersection, improvement to Route 250 would have to follow before the level of service could be improved. Mr]~Fisher asked if i.t would possible to have any pedestrian pathway through the under~ass. Mr. Roosevelt felt it would. Dr. Iachetta asked if Mr. Roosevelt agreed with the 355 peak hour volume projection given in the impact study. Mr. Roosevelt said this f~gure is based on a residential construction pro~ram of about 50 units per year. The consultant feels that the units will generate only five ~ehicle trips per day as a maximum, the Highway Department feels that the units will generate about seven vehicle trips per day. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. William A. PerkinS, Jr., representing the applicant, was present and restated his previous presentation. He noted that when ZMA-79-16 (Heischman) was presented the consensus of various people in the area was to look at the Nokes property as well. Since the Nokes property contains a house, it was felt that the house should not be abandoned, but should be used in terms of making a commercial office area such as Ednam Forest. Howe~er, if the Board preferred, Dr. Nokes would agree to the property being rezoned R-3 and the Faulconer property could be rezoned the same. Mr. Perkins then compared this road with other roads in the CoUnty, particularly Rio Road and Georgetown Road. He also noted that sewer facilities are now available to the area and extra money would not be required to provide same. The request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted a contractor has been consulted about the road improvements and will do the job for $85,000. He felt it was a perfect time for the County to work hand in hand with private investment and capital to satisfy a need in the community. In rebuttal to the statements made by Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Perkins felt the existing road would be acceptabl~ for a number of years. Mr. Alan Scouten~was present in opposition. He did not feel this road was comparable to Rio Road. He noted that students have gone back to living in University housing because of the change in student housing economics. Private enterprise can no longer provide housing at a cost which is competitive to University housing. The proposed realignment is deficient in terms of access to Route 250 and possible grade problems and creates a regular "dead man's curve" at the underpass. This makes the situation more dangerous since there are poor shoulders and narrow frontage. Mr. Scouten said, if the area is developed to the suggested density, he hoped some manner could be used to reduce traffic. He felt commercializ on Old I~y Road would overtax the road. He also disagreed with the recommendation of the Neighborhood 7 Committee that the Commercial be centralized. Mr. Scouten felt this commercial will be service oriented commercial and it would be better to have it spread throughout the project. Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, was present. following two paragraphs in his letter dated August 13, 1979: He read the "Generally, we endorse the policy of development in the Urban Area as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Such development is less costly to the County and to the environmens, and will conserve energy. Since there is considerable doubt whether the existing roads can safely accommodate an increase in the projected traffic from the present 2,500 cars per day to 12,000 per day without a costly widening of the underpass or realignment of the road, we offer the following suggestion: Limit the rezoning to permit only one third of the proposed number of housing'units to be built in the near future and thus limit the traffic flow to about 5700 daily. Further, traffic studies and/or the availability of public or private road funds would then dictate how much more rezoning would be sensible." Mr. John Hulvey, one of the owners of property under contract for purchase by Mr. Heischman, spoke next in support of the request. He did not feel the amount of traffic discussed was true because he basically sees more joggers than vehicles. Mr. Hulvey felt ~i.on Au ust 16 1979 (Adjourned ~from~ August 15, 1979) An unidentified gentleman spoke next in opposition. County more services would be needed. He felt with more people in the With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher noted several different ways zoning could be approved for these properties.. 1) A standard blanket rezoning of the properties to permit the maximum density of twenty units per acre. 2) A planned neighborhood which would commit the applicants to putting the buildings, entrances, parking areas, buffers and road improvements as shown on that site plan. This would allow phasing of the project so it could be worked parallel with expenditures of public funds. 3) Proffered zoning to limit the use to a certain density and meeting problems identified by the staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher felt th~s request was difficult for him to approve since it is unknown how the traffic will be handled. The situation on Rio and Georgetown Road occurred from decisions made years ago and the Board now has to correct such traffic problems. He did not feel adequate transportati facilities could be provided with public funds for the amount of traffic projected. Mr. Fisher preferred this be an RPN instead of a straight rezoning and did not feel he could support such. Dr. Iachetta said this project will increase the traffic on Old Ivy Road and cannot be compared to Rio Road where the increase resulted from public needs. He felt the applicant should expend the funds to improve the road. Mr. Perkins said as he understands proffered zoning, one can proffer a lesser density, but a proffer to do off-site improvements would be conditional zoning and that is prohibited by law. Therefore, the applicant cannot request rezoning and proffer money. Mr. St. John said no condition shall include payment for, or construction of, off-site improvements except those provided for in Section 15.1-466(j); for sewage and drainage facilities. He also noted a bond cannot be required on a rezoning. Discussion then followed on the many plans improving the road. Mr. Roosevelt said there are no funds in the County's Six-Year Plan for improvement to Old Ivy Road. However, he was hopeful the Board would include it for improvement when the Six-Year Plan is reviewed this year. Mr. Roudabush asked if there was a need to improve the road based on its current use. Mr. Roosevelt said yes. Mr. Roudabush asked if the $85,000 quoted included purchase or acquisition of any right of way needed to make the improvement. Mr. Perkins said no. It included the cost of blasting and removal of rock, paving and adapting the existing storm sewer to a new situation. Mr. Dorrier felt the road needed improvement now and with an increase in traffic the situation would worsen. Mr. Henley did not know of any instance where money had been put in before the need, He felt the property should be high density since it is close to the University. He was not willing to commit any funds now, but was willing to wait until the need arises. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel a rezoning of this magnitude on what is essentially a one- lane road with a dangerous intersection could be justified. Mr. St. John did not know of any way the road improvement could be a part of a rezoning or an RPN. He felt approval would be void for a plan which contained improvements to property not on the subject property. Mr. Tucker did not know of any off-site improvements which had been required in a rezoning. Mr. Roudabush was frustrated that an applicant who was willing to expend funds could not do so because it has to be a public improvement and the public has to pay for it. Mr. St. John said if he wanted to do it, highway department approval would have to be obtained and the C & 0 Railroad would have to approve it. But he did not think it could be attached to a rezoning and be binding. Such could be done at the site plan stage. Mr. Dorrier felt apartments were compatible to the area. If the road improvements could be put into the Six-Year Highway plan and made mandatory at site plan approval stage, then the problem could be resolved. Mr. St. John said approval would have to be obtained first from the University and the C & O. Since the road seems to be the only problem, Mr. Roudabush suggested deferral in order that the applicant could explore the right-of-way and the possiblity of making the improvement or alternative ways of doing such without public funds. He felt it was unfair to deny the request based on public funds not being available for road improvements. Mr. Perkins said the applicant is prepared to put up the. S85,000 needed and is willing to discuss this further with the C & 0 and the University. The landowners would like to request deferral to explore the possibility of hawing the road improved. Dr. Iachetta felt that implied a commitment of approval and he was not willing to support such. Mr. Roudabush disagreed. Mr. Fisher said even if the problem at the intersecti was resolved, he was not absolutely sure he would support the rezoning requests. Mr. Henley did not object to deferral. Mr. Dorrier felt the Board needed to act as a liaison between the Highway Department and the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom said if there was some legal way to assure the needed improvements would be done then he did not have any problem with it. Mr. Roudabush asked if the improvements could.be required as part of site plan approval. Mr. St. John said if the need is generated by the proposed building on the site. If the property is rezoned, the things being discussed may not happen, therefore, the traffic may not be generated and the conditions for improvements may not be required. The Board recessed at 9:26 P.M. and reconvened at 9:35 P.M. Mr. Fisher felt the underpass was just part of the problem. He was not prepared to rezone the property because the County is in the midst of preparing an overall plan for the Urban Area and in the midst of revising the Zoning Ordinance and map. He felt that work should be completed before 25% of the urban area population is committed. If this project is not going to be developed in a short period of time, then he felt it was better for the 004 Mr. Lindstrom did not feel it was sensible to permit higher and higher densities on an assumption that a development will end up with overall utilities and an overall zoning plan designed to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Without any legal, practical way to have a guarantee that necessary road improvements will be done, he could not support the request or a deferral. Mr. Roudabush did not feel the request should be denied because other ordinances are being ~aviewed and he did not feel it should be presumed that the application is merely before the Board because ~ ordinances are being reviewed. He felt the Bo~ard should deal with what is before them. Mr. Dorrier agreed. He desired a deferral in order that the road situation could be resoZved and was not convinced that the $85,000 was adequate. Due to suc~ being unresolved, he could not support the request. Dr. Iachetta felt if the rezoning requests were approved, then it was a moral commitment to improve the road. He then offered motion to deny ZMA-79~,~.~MA~79r~5 and ZMA-79-16. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. He did not want to make a commitment for public funds for a rezoning that would require an investment in public money without a uniform and proper procedure which the Board does not have. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dormer, Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: .Messrs. Henley and Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-79-22. Charles W. Hurt. Petition to rezone 69.71 acres from A-1 Agriculture to R-3. Property is located on the northeast side of Route 768 and is northeast of the intersection off Routes 768 and 631 (Rio Road). County Tax M~p 62, Parcels 17 and 17A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 2 and August 9, 1979.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: R-3 Residential General (with a Proffer) Acreage: 69.71 acres Existing Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map 62, Parcels 17 and 17A, is located on the north side of Route 768 adjacent to Penn Park. Character of the Area: Roadways have been cut and graveled. Five or six dwellings are located on the property. The property is a heavily wooded ridgeline, which is the area suitable for development. The Rivanna River and Key West are to the east, with Penn Park on the southeast, Penn Park Subdivision on the south, and Dunlora on the west and north. Compr~h~s~e.~n: The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for low density residential and flood plain open space. The Neighborhood 2 Committee has recommended a low/medium density of six du/acre in this area. Existing Zoning in the Area: Properties to the north, west and south are zoned R-2 Residential. A-1 Agriculture is to the south and east. 1979: Comparative Impact Statistics: Density Dwellings Population Vehicle trips per day Water Consumption School Aged Children Existing A-1 Proffer R-3 0.5 du/acre 6 du/acre 34 418 109 ll?O 248 3050 13,600 gpd 16~,200 gpd 24 302 Water is available from Rio Road'. Adequate sewage capacity exists in the Meadowcreek Sewage Treatment Plant. Staff Comment: Additional traffic to Route 768 would bring the road near its tolerable limits. Improvements to Route 768 and its intersection with Rio Road may be recommended in site plan review. Rio Road is not scheduled for improvements in this area and additional traffic will increase the burden on this road. Staff recommends approval for the following reasons: This request complies with the recommendations of the Neighborhood 2 Committee; Adequate public utilities are available; Staff opinion is that the goal of encouraging and accommodating growth in the Urban Area offsets potential increased traffic problems on Rio Road." Mr. Tucker also presenved the following proffer received from Dr. Hurt dated August 3, "As per our telephone conversation we have agreed to change the property use from eight to ten units per acre to six units per acre." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on August 14, 1979 unanimously recommended approval with the proffer. Mr. Fisher noted letter dated August 12, 1979 from Ms. Sylvia Fox in opposition. Dr. Iachetta asked why ~3 zoning with a proffer of six units per acre was requested instead of R-2 zoning. Mr. Tucker said the applicant plans to have gardenhouses and they are no~ allowed in an R-2 zone. oos August, 16, 1979 (Adjourned from August 15, 1979) The public hearing was opened. Speaking was Mr~ Jim Hill, representing Dr. Charles Hurt. When the road was built into Penn Park, the right of way was dedicated in order to have safe access into Penn Park. The development will be on top of the ridge which runs down to%he center of the property. Mr. Hill said the development will consist of rental units for retired and 35 years or older couples. Mr. Alan Scouten was present and felt an R-2 zone was more suitable for the land due to possible drainage into the Rivanna River. Ms. Sylvia Fox, resident on Rio Road, was present in opposition. She stated her concern about increased traffic on Rio Road. Ms. Fox did not feel continued indefinite growth was a good idea and was opposed to developing in agricultural areas. Mr. Fisher noted that population in the County has increased by 33% to 40% in a decade and emphasized the struggle to provide places for people to live where there are adequate utilities and suitable roads. An unidentified gentleman, also a resident on Rio Road, was present in opposition. stressed his concern about the increase in traffic on Rio Road from this project. He Mr. Goode Love was present in support. Although he understood the concerns of those in opposition, he felt the topography and the convenience to recreational facilities and the crossroads of the County, (Route 29 and Rio Road), was a plus and recommended favorable consideration of the request. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Discussion then followed on future improvements to Rio Road and the fact that the Board i~ committed to improving Rio Road from Route 29 North into the City and is also committed to improving the Park Street Bridge. Mr. Fisher asked if offices are permitted by right in an R-3 zone. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was any intention of building offices. Mr. Hill said the intent is strictly residential and there are no plans for offices. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve ZMA-79-22 with the proffer as submitted on August 3, 1979 and the clarification made tonight about the intended use of the property. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom noted if density is not allowed in areas where water and sewer are available then growth will go into the rural areas. Dr. Iachetta was concerned about creating more R-3 zoning on Rio Road when a substantial amount is already at the western end of Rio Road. He felt the only thing being created was apartments and he was opposed to that. He did not feel apartments should be the only kind of housing provided in the urban area. Mr. Dorrier supported the application due to the availability of utilities and the commitments for improvement to Rio Road. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-79-39. Minor Land Trust #2. Petition to locate multi-family townhouses for sale on 1.008 acres zoned B-1. Property is located on the west side of Commonwealth. Drive. County Tax Map 61W, Parcel 01-B(3). Charlottesville District. (Advertis in the Daily Progress on August 2 and August 9, 1979.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Residential townhouses for sale (Section 7-1-42(12)) -Acreage: 1.03 acres Zoning: B-1 Business Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 1, Block B, Parcel 3, is located on-the northside of Commonwealth Drive east~and adjacent to the Reliance Oil Company Office. History: SP-375, permitting parking and loading of ice cream trucks, was approved on a portion of this property in August 1974. That special permit has expired. In'September, 1975, the Westfield Office/Retail Complex site plan was approved showing two buildings; 3,400 square feet and 5,600 square feet. Character of the Area: Reliance Oil and three other offices are located to the west. General Electric and the Division of Motor Vehicles are to the south. Property to the north has recently been approved for duplex development (Wynridge). Property to the east is undeveloped. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium density residential uses (ay. 10 duZacre) in this area. The Neighborhood 1 Committee recommended commercial office uses. Staff Comment: The applicant is requesting 11 residential townhouses at a density of 10.7 du/acre. Staff opinion is that this request is compatible to the commercial office and residential character of the area. Staff recommends approval." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on August 14, 1979 unanimously recommended approval subject to one entrance to the property. The public hearing was then opened. present. Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant was Mr. Fisher asked why the request was for a special permit under the B-1 zone rather than residential. Mr. Jim Hill also representing the applicant said the property is currently zoned B-1 and pending purchasers for the townhouses prefer B-1. He also noted engineering and site plans have been submitted and the Planning Department advised this approach. .006 Au :ust ~6~_~9_7~~ from August 15_ 1-~79] .... Mr. Fisher suggeSted approval of the maximum of eleven residential townhouses subject to one entrance onto the property. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve SP-79-:9 with the following 2 conditions: 1) Maximum of eleven residential townhouses. 2) Only one entrance allowed onto the property. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-79444. Appalachian Power Company. Petition to locate a sub-statio~ on 4.15 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture. Property is located on the west side of Route 726 approximately two miles south of Route 6. County Tax Map 130, Parcel 4lA. Scottsville District. -'(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 2 and August 9, 1979.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Electrical Substation Acreage: 4.15 acres Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map 130, Parcel ~IA, is located on Route 726 across from the Valmont Farm entrance about one mile southwest of Scottsville. Character of the Area: The existing subStation is well screening from Route 726 by woods. Valmont Farm is across Route 726. The area is rural in nature. Staff Comment: APCO proposes to expand the existing power station with the addition of "current limiting devices", designed to function essentially as giant circuit breakers. When an overload occurs in one portion of the system, it is temporarily removed from service in order to maintain service to other areas~Because of the existing substation layout, expansion must be toward Route 726 according to APCO. Therefore, much of the existing natural screening would be removed. The toe of the new fill would be about 15' to 20' from the centerline of Route 726. APCO has agreed to provide cyclone fencing interwoven with redwood slats for screening from Route 726. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Maintain as much existing vegetative screening as possible; 2. Provide redwood slatting cyclone fence to serve as screening, with low growing evergreen shrubs such as juniper, located roughly midway of the fill area, running parallel to the fence and staggered on five foot centers to the reasonable satisfaction of the staff; 3. Dedication of 25 feet from the centerline o£ Reute 726 either by plat or deed; 4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on August 14, 1979 unanimously recommended approval with the above conditions and the following added condition: "5. Site Plan is to be modified so that no fill, bearing wall or other improvement shall be located closer than 25 feet from the centerline of Route 726." Mr. TUcker said condition #4 could be deleted because the Highway Department agrees that the traffic coming in and out will not change and therefore a commercial entrance is not' needed. The applicant also prefers that condition #5 be deleted or reworded to require Appalachian Power Company to remove the fill when the road improvements are completed. The fill is 25 feet from the center!ine and removal will be required when Route 726 is improved. Mr. Tucker said an agreement for the power company to b'e liable for removing the fill and providing a bearing wall when Route 726 is improved has been discussed. The public hearing was opened. Mr. J. G. Tapley, Assistant Station Superintendent for the Appalachian Power Company, was present. He said there are no objections to conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the Planning Commission but they do object to conditions 4 and 5. The basic objection to condition No. 4 is that there is sufficient access into the property and will be no traffic increase. Without any definite plans to upgrade Route 726, they feel it unwise to justify construction of a retaining wall at $25,000 to $30,000 and 3,000 cubic yards of fill will be needed. This cost would have to be passed to their customers and the present situation does not require such an improvement. Mr. Tapley said the reactors will limit the load coming from Bremo into the southern portion of the County and keep the service tolerable so as to prevent overloading of the lines. Therefore, approval is requested ~ith just the first three conditions. Mr. Fisher asked if the bottom edge of the fill was proposed to be in the right of way. Mr. Tapley said yes. Mr. Roudabush said if the 25 feet of fill is dedicated, it will be 10 feet within the new right of way and 15 feet from the centerline of the road. Mr. Roudabush asked if there were any objections to dedicating the 25 feet. Mr. Tapley said no. Mr. Roudabush said the problem seems to be the right to retain the fill within that area until such time as it is required by the Highway Department and then a retaining wall would be built. Mr. Roudabush felt the Highway Department would be receiving a good deal from such a requirement since this is not a subdivision but only an amendment to a site plan. Mr. Dorrier did not feel the proposal was unreasonable. He felt it senseless to have a slope from the edge of the substation to the road and then have a retaining wall which will be 16 feet high and be located 25 feet from the centerline. Mr. Dorrier felt approval could be made with a condition that if the road is improved a retaining wall would be built at the expense of Appalachian Power Company. Mr. Tapley said he was agreeable to such a condition. Mr. Roosevelt said the proposal is that no fill would be required within the existing 15 foot right of way and the land to be disturbed would be within the additional 10 feet to be'dedicated. The Highway Department has no problem with the proposal but is concerned about the enforcement of an agreement in the future when Route 726 is widened. In future years, when Appalachian Power Company is approached about the retaining wall and they state ~ .... o~ *~ ~ ~ ~l~tive would be to sue. Mr. Fisher expressed his concern about how such an agreement could be enforced when Route 726 is improved. He felt a contractual document was needed in writing. Mr. Tapley said Appalachian is willing to enter into an agreement bindi~ng the discussion tonight. Mr. St. John did not feel a contract for a retaining wall was appropriate for a special permit. He felt it easier to enforce if such was a condition. A contract would have to be between the Highway Department and the Appalachian Power Company. Mr. Fisher asked if there was a need for a commercial entrance. Mr. Roosevelt said no. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion ~Q~P~QM~ SP-79-44 with conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the Planning Commission, deleting condition 4 and rewording condition 5 to read: "Applicant may fill within 10 feet of dedicated right of way provided that at such time as the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation determines to use that pOrtion of the right of way, they will remove the fill within 90 days notice of receiving request to do so from the Virginia Department of Highways." Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher suggested condition #5 read as follows: "Site Plan is to be modified so that no fill, bearing wall or other improvement shall be located closer than 25 feet from the centerline of Route 726, or that Appalachian Power Company may fill up to 15 feet from the centerline of the existing road provided they shall vacate such right of way within 90 days of receiving request to do so from the Virginia Department of Highways." Mr. Lindstrom accepted the amendment, as did Dr. Iachetta. Roll was called on the motion as amended and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The~next two items were considered together. (Mr. RoudabuSh abstained from discussion of these items because his firm has done some work for the applicant on these proposals.) Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-79-28. Robert M. and Helene S. Huff. Petition to rezone 41,065 square feet from R-1 to.R-3. Property is located on the southeast side of Route 656 (Georgetown Road). County Tax Map 60A, Parcel 1. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 2 and August 9, 1979.) Agenda Item No. 9. 8P;79%41. Robert M. and Helene S. Huff. Petition to locate a day nursery on 41,065 square feet zoned R-1 (proposed to be zoned R-3). Property is located on the southeast side of Route 656. County Tax Map 60A, Parcel !. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 2 and August 9, 1979.) Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff reports: "ZMA-79-28 Requested Zoning: R-3 Residential ~ralGw~.~haR Proffer Acreage: 41,065 square feet Existing Zoning: R-1 Residential Limited Location: Property, described as Tax Map 60A, Parcel 1, part thereof, is located north and adjacent to Hessian Hills on Georgetown Road. Staff Comment: The applicant has proffered to limit the use of the property, to a single-family dwelling or nursery school. Therefore, staff discussion will be found in the accompanying special use permit application SP-79-41. Staff recommends approval of ZMA-79-28." The following proffer was received from Mr. Huff dated July 30, 1979: "This letter is to offer to keep the premises as a Nursery School or single family residential, in the event the rezoning request is granted. We plan to use the premises as a nursery school. It is our understanding that if a special use permit were granted, we would not be able to use the premises other ~han as a nursery school, or as a single family residence." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on August 14, 1979, recommended that ZMA-79-28 with the proffer, be denied. Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report for SP-79-41: "Request: Nursery school Acreage: 41,065 square feet Zoning: R-3 Residential General .Location: Property, described as Tax Map 60., Parcel 1, part thereof, is located north and adjacent to Hessian Hills on Georgetown Road. Character of the Area: Properties across Georgetown Road are generally undeveloped. Hessian Hills is to the south. Property to the north and west is zoned R-3 (Bennington Ltd. Partnership). A day care center wats recently approved to the north adjacent to Westgate Apartments. Two dwellings exist on thiS property, both of which are served by an individual well and septic system. A variance from the area regulations related to utilities was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals recently. Should this application be approved, staff opinion is that requiring public water hook-up would be appropriate due to intensification of use. (Since this nursery school would not receive State licensing, the Health Department would not monitor water quality from the well.) Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to operate a nursery school for 15 students with two employees, possibly expanding to two shifts with a total of 30 students'and four employees. Due to the hours and educational nature of the operation, no licensing is required by the Virginia Department of Welfare and no further review or inspection would be made by that agency. Consequently, the Virginia Department of Health will review this use only in terms of adequacy of water supply and sewage facilities and not in terms of sanitation and maintenance as outlined in Welfare De.partment regulations. In past applications, staff has viewed child care uses as residential support uses which should be located within convenient walking distance from 008 ' August 16, 1979 (Adjourned from Aug~~ 77~ --~ ~_ ~ ~ The question of adequacy of utilities arises. At a minimum, staff recommends that both dwellings hook to public w~ater. Staff opinion.is that this recommendation complies with the intent of the area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and with the recent Board of Zoning Appeals action. In respect to public sewer, staff makes the following observations: Public sewer has been extended to Hessian Hills due to septic problems in the area and is reasonably available to this propertY; Since no State licensing of the nursery school is required, the Health Department will not monitor ~aa~itation and maintenance of the existing septic system; Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Both dwellings must be served by public water and sewer; 2. Enrollment limited to two shifts; not more than 15 students per shift; 3. Site plan approval. The site plan shall include the following: Buffering of play area from surrounding properties and safety fencing of play area; b. The following minimum area requirements shall apply: 1. Not less than 25 square feet of indoor play area per child; 2. Not less than 200 cubic feet of indoor air space per child; 3. Not less than 75 square feet of developed outdoor play area per child; c. Five Parki~g4sp~oesl~o~et~e~ ~O children plus one per employee); 4. Not less than two.-~staff members shall be present at all times during operation; 5. ~spection~of the premises by the Albemarle County Fire Official at least . .:'-.. ~ annually. Additional inspections may be made at his discretion. Such inspections may be announced or unannounced. Failure to promptly admit the Fire Official shall be deemed wilful noncompliance with the conditions of the special use permit; 6. This special use permit is issued to the applicant only and is non-transferrable; 7. Approval of appropriate State and local agencies. Conditi.ons stated herein are supplementary-and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of requirements and regulations by the Virginia Department of Welfare or any other agency." Mr. Tucker then read the recommendation from the Highway Department dated July 26, 1979: "A day nursery of this size proposed to have 15 students and two employees would be predicted to generate approximately 65 vehicle trips per day. A commercial entrance with frontage improvements would be required. Improvements placing curb line 26 feet from centerline of Route 656 and dedication of adequate right of way is recommended." Mr. Tucker then noted that the Planning Commission on August 14, 1979, also recommended denial of this request. He also noted a petition dated August 7, 1979, from residents in the area registering their objections to the rezoning basically because they felt the requests will change the.character of the property drastically. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission denied the request mainly because they felt it was commercial in nature rather than residentia] and the fact that there are other day care nursery type facilities in the immediate area. Mr. Fisher noted letter dated August 14, 1979 from Mr. Allen Cohen, resident of Georgetown Road, who was opposed to the rezoning and the special permit. Mr. Fisher asked for a briefing on the rezoning request. Mr. Tucker said an R-3 zone with a proffer allows the nursery school. R-1 zoning allows five units per acre and this is not quite an acre. The traffic~generated from an ~1 type use, if developed to its full potential, would be 28 vehicle trips per day versus 65. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Huff, the applicant, was present. He noted that the house is about 50 years old, stucco and in a very deterioriated condition. Several thousand dollars would have to be spent to make the house usable. Mr. Huff said their desire is~ to make the nursery school a physical fitness type facility. He did not feel traffic would be a problem if what the highway department's recommendation for the entrance is complied with. He noted his wife currently operates the Knollwood Nursery and has many requests to take additional children into that nursery which she cannot accommodate. Therefore, the need is evident that children need a place to stay during working hours and he requested approval of both requests. Mr. Allen Cohen was present in opposition. He noted his objection was not the traffic flow as much as cars coming and stopping o~mEgeho~n~R~ad~.'~.L~A~o~her objection is the fact that other nursery schools are currently in the community and he did not feel another is needed. Mr. David O'Brien, resident in the area, was present in opposition. His property borders the subject property. He agreed with Mr. Cohen that another day nursery in the area was not needed. Mr. O'Brien strongly objected to the rezoning since it seems commercial are already intruding on the residential aspects of Georgetown Road and he was opposed to the request for a nursery school. Mr. Soterios Economos, adjacent property, owner, was present in opposition. He did not see any reason to change the zoning and was opposed to a nursery school next to his house. Dr. Iachetta said input he has received is that enough is enough and the residents do not want anymore R-3 in this area. They feel it is becoming a high density area and is an encroachment on the residential aspects of the community. Mrs. Helene Huff was present and noted that they are trying to build a~ound the population and to serve the neighborhood. With no one else present to speak for or against the matter, the public hearing was closed. August 16, 1979 (Adjourned from August 15, 1979) Mr. Lindstrom noted he had never voted for any R-3 zoning on Georgetown Road. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny both ZMA-79-28 and SP-79~1. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher agreed that there is a need for nursery schools but he did not favor extending R-3 in this area because he felt the current densities are adequate. Dr. Iachetta agreed. Mr. Dorrier said the property is run down and this will be an improvement. Mr. Fisher said the~current ordinances only allow a nursery school in an R-2 or R-3 zone which means that a nursery school could never be in a single family neighborhood. Mr. Dorrier said nursery schools are not a high profit operation and they are being pushed into the commercial zone where most people cannot afford land for such an operation. Mr. Fisher said he would support the motion because he was opposed to extending R-3 on Georgetown Road but he was concerned about how the problem of providing such a service can be handled. The consensus of the Board was that there is a problem with the current ordinances and such needs to be studied further. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 10. Resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for frontage improvements on public roads. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 2 and August 9, 1979.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has deferred action on this request and he requested the Board to do the same. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer this item to September 19, 1979. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES' NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachett, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. There were no items presented. Agenda Item No. 12. At 12:12 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn to September 5, 1979, at 2:00 P.M. i~n the Board Room of the County Office Building~ The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: ~N~YS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. September 5, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, scheduled for 2:00 P.M. on September 5, 1979, in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlotte~ ville, Virginia, was called to order at 2:13 P.M. This meeting was adjourned from August 16, 1979. Present- Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (Arriving at 2:30 P.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta (Arriving at 2:19 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arriving at 2:13 P.M.), and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: Tucker, Jr. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Planner, Robert W. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to.order at 2:13 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fis Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session - Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Henley ~uld be late arriving and suggested the Board skip the first agenda item until Mr. Henley arrived. Agenda Item No. 2B. Ivy Village PIan. Mr. Tucker summarized the aspects of the Ivy Village plan. The population for this village has been reduced from the 16,000 proposed in the 1971 plan to 1200 in this plan.- The Village basically e~coypasses an area the size of the "01d village." There is some limited expansion recommended to the east and south of the -"old village." The commercial center is located on Route 250 West. A park area for active recreat is proposed south of 250 directly behind the commercial area. A quasi-public area is proposed at the old train station. A footpath is proposed along Route 738 and a pedestrian path is proposed over the railroad overpass to give access to the park. Also proposed is a realignment of Route 676 ~o improve s~ght distance where it enters onto Route 250. Mr. Tucker said the - ~lanning Commission made only one change and that. was to shift the western boundary of the village to the east of the Murray School site. There were no comments on this plan at either the Planning Gommission's or the Board's public hearings.