Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-05-03N/ ? May 3, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Super~±sors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 3,~1978, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. 'Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 7:38 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item Ne. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who called for a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 3. Set Public Hearing date for Leash Law in. West Gate and Soloman Court Apartments. Mr. Agnor presented a letter requesting enactment of this leash law. A letter from Ms. Gale M. Tenhoopen, rental assistant for Great Eastern Company, requested enactment of this leash law. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to set a public hearing on this request for May 22, 1978, wit~ a stipulation that the apartment owners notify all tenants of this request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No..2. Set Public Hearing date for Leash Law in Oakhill Subdivision. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of petitions signed by 64 residents requesting enactment of this ordinance. Mrs. Dorothy Underwood who circulated the' petition was present in support of this request. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to set' apublic hearing on this request for May 22, 1978. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing. SP-78-15. F. Bosley. Crowther. To locate a planned community on 1,650 acres zoned A-1. Property is located between Route 20 South and Route 631 South, south of Interstate 64. County Tax Map 89, Parcel 85A, part thereof; Tax Map 90, Parcels 5; 6,part thereof; Parcel 9A, part thereof; and Parcel 1SA; and County Tax Map 90A, Parcel 3, part thereof, Samuel Miller and Scottsville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 26, 1978.) Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission has not yet acted on this request and that same must be deferred. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to defer the public hearing on this request until June 7, 1978. The motinn was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing. Resolution of Intent 'to amend the M-2 Zone of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for all those uses permitted in the M-1 Zone. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 26, 1978.) Mr. Tucker said on November t, 1977, by unanimous vote, the Albemarle County Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend the M-2 General Industrial Zone to provide for M-1 Industrial Limited Uses as uses by right. Because'Of the pending zoning ordinance revisions, the sgaff has been requested to minimize County initiated amendments to the current zoning ordinance. At this time, however, the' staff~is aware of current needs for these amendments and therefore recommends approval of the amendments as follows: To provide for M-1 Uses by Right-'in the M-2 Zone. Section 9-1-24. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this Article, Uses Permitted in Article 8, Limited Industrial District M-1. To provide for M-1 Uses by Special Use Permit in the M~2 'Zon'e. Section 9-1-23 (2.1) Airports Section 9-1-23 (9[1) Drive-In Theaters Section 9-1-23 (10.2) Go-Cart and Trail Bike Tracts Section 9-1-23 (20) Veterinary or dog or cat hospitals, kennels. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, by nnanimous vote, has recommended approval of the staff's proposals. The publi~ hearing was opened. Mr. Rick Wilhoite-said if the' zoning ordinance is changed so that light industry can move in, it would be a good idea. With no one else rising to speak for or against the amendment, the public hearing was closed. May 3, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom said, if there is a need for this change in the ordinance, the Board should make same, but he is not convinced t~ere is a need at this time. He felt the change should be brought up with the general changes to be made to the zoning ordinance later this year. Mr. Dorrier said he did not think changes should be made to the zoning ordinance piecemeal, but if there is a need and these amendments have been recommended by the Planning Commission and the staff, he saw no reason not to adopt same. Mr. St. John said these amendments, as written, would allow as a matter of right in the M-2 zone everything that is presently allowed in the M-1 Zone as a matter of right and as a use by special permit. If the Board adopts these amendments, they loose control over those items which are now allowed by special permit only in the M-1 zone. Mr. Henley did not feel that M-1 uses could not be permitted in the M-2 zone. He felt a lot of uses would be compatible with each other and it would help to use land efficiently. Mr. Lindstrom said he saw no need for this change and he felt it will only muddy the zoning ordinance by extending uses from one zone to the other. Mr. Dorrier felt the less intensive use Of land is preferable and felt the differences between the M-1 and the M-2 zones are relatively slight. Mr. Roudabush did not feel this would effect that much land in the County, but said he did not feel one way or the other about the amendment. Dr. Iachetta said he saw no compelling need for this change. If an applicant has a problem, he should ask for a rezoning. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to accept the recommendation of the planning commission and approve the above stated amend- ments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, but gailed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush. Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing. ZMA-78-03. North Rivanna First and Second and Third Land Trusts. To rezone 292.9 acres from A-1 Agricultural to M-1 Industrial. Property located on the north side of Route 649 and the east side of Route 606 at the Charlottes- ville/Albemarle Airport. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 19, part thereof; Parcel 6, part thereof; and Parcel 17, Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 26, 1978.) Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report: Character of the Area This undeveloped property is both wooded and open and slopes to the streams which traverse it. (These streams are impounded in two locations on the site.) Industrial and residential uses and a mobile home park are to the east. Resi~dential and commercial uses are to the south. To the west are residential and industrial uses and the airport and property to the north is undeveloped. Existing Zoning in the Area Agricultural, residential, commercial, and heavy industrial zoning eXist to the east. Agricultural and light industrial zoning are to the south. Agricultural' zoning is to the west and north. Comprehensive. Plan A portion of this property is within the designated Hollymead Community, and is recommend- ed for industrial useage. (At this time, the land use plan forrthis area is very general. Some areas such as DeerfieId and Airport Ac.res ~are not~ ~emggniz~d; .bmt~3off' these:areas are recommended in the plan map for industrial useage)~. ~ .respec~ :to~ industrial' use's 'in tke' Hollymead Community, the Comprehensive Plan recommends the 'foll'owl~ng: The community, although related to the Urban Area by proximity and transportation linkages, is designed to be a community of its own with balanced employment, service and recreation oppQrtunities. Industrial plans 'envision' taking advantage of the idisadvant~ges of the 'airport environment for other uses 'and recommendations ofI the 'County's Airpor't Plan should be carefully considered. Ail of the land in the Hollymead Community area west of Route 29 is proposed as industrial. This area is proposed to be a major employment area for the future. This also allows all community functions,residential, commercial, educational, -~ ...... ~ without entering or andcrossing recreational,on Route 29. the east side to be easily ~~ ~~/~?~~ Differences from the 1971 Comprehensive Plan are: Desire to avoid having Route 29 North split the residential community. Definition of employment areas on the west side of Route 29 as related to the community. Timing - the five year perspective: A fine tuning of the service area and distribution system for water and s~wer should be accomplished to reflect the eventual expansion of the Hollymead PUD and the industrial development anticipated in con~:unction with the airport. Road improvement plans for the area should be designed and built as develop- ment occurs as a prerequisite to same. Industrial park lots should be developed and made available to users. May 3, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Crossings of Route 29 should be limited to three points: Route 643 on the south, Route 649 on the north, and the Hollymead development primary entrance. Industrial and residential growth will eventually necessitate a grade separation interchange at one of these points. Requested acreage vs. Comprehensive Plan recommendations. The Comprehensive Plan recommends 145 acres of industrial land be developed in the Hollymead Community by 1995. However, the Plan recommends that additional land be provided for the following reasons: In the planning for future industrial growth it is customary to apply multiplier factors to minimum land demand quantities anticipated. In order to provide a wide degree of choice in site locations, characteristics, and price, it is prudent to provide at least twice the amount of land that is anticipated to be developed (this margin also allows for underestimation of demand in a projection). Further, ~ince the supply Sf potentially prime industrial sites is very limited in compari- son to potentially suitable sites for other types of land use, it is foresighted to insure that land is available for development beyond the 20 year planning period. The multiplier for post-plan land supply recommended is two. Applying these factors to the Hollymead Community indicates that 580 acres of industrially zoned land should be provided. Therefore, this request represents one-half of the recommend- ed industrial zoning. While rezoning a large area under single ownership does not "provide a wide degree of choice site locations, characteristics, and price," (the basis of appli- cation of one multiplier), staff opinion is that enough 'potential acreage remains to meet ~hese concerns. Therefore, staff feels that this request complies ~i~h the industrial acreage proposals of the Comprehensive Plan. Evaluation under Comprehensive Plan industrial land us'e'C'ri't'e~i'a. The following are criteria for selecting land for industrial development as outlined in the' Comprehensive Plan. Staff has commented on this site following each criterion: ~1) Within one-half mile of major highway, airport, or'~r~iI 'faCilities: site is within one-half mile of the Charlottesville'Alb'emarle Airport and Route 29 North; This (2) Level to gently rolling land less than 10% Slope: Though a slope study has hot been conducted for this site, a general review reveals that the slopes are nod severe in nature, i.e., only a limited area exceed 15%. (3) Availability of public sewerage system co'nn'e'c'tiOn: Public sewer can be made available to this site when the Camelot Waste Treatment. facility, is expanded. Until such time, no public sewer is available though the site lies within the Service Authority's jurisdictional area. (4) Availability of public water system connection: The Albemarle County Service Authority has stated that water is available to this site from Route 649 and from Route 606 near Camelot. The water line size and pressure is more than adequate to handle this site. (5) Preferably open as opposed to forest land: This site is about half open and half wooded. Open areas exist near Route 649 and in the vicinity of the streams and impoundments. (6) Within reasonably close proximity to communit'ies''or ~he~'~rb'an''area for worker commuting purposes: A portion of this site is 'clearly within the Holly- mead Community as currently proposed. In summary, this area is ranked as a Priority 2 for potential industrial development areas when applying the above stated industrial land use criteria. Traffic Generation Existing and projected conditions under existing zoning: Recent traffic counts show that Route 649 west of Route 29 North has an average daily traffic count (ADT) of around 3,400 vehicle trips per day. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan forecasts that by 1980 their site-specific ADT will increase by 300 vehicle trips per day. The staff forecasts that, without any ~ajor developments which would increase traffic~levels, by 1980 Route 649 will be handling approximately 4,500+ trips per day. Projected conditions under requested zoning: For this study, the proposed industrial site has been divided into three tracts: Tract A is parcel 17, Tax Map 32 and fronts on Route 649; Tract B is the part of Parcel 19, Tax Map 32, that fronts on Route 649 and runs parallel to Parcel 17; and Tract C is Parcel 19, Tax Map 32 and fronts on Route 606. The following table (~ata is derived from traffic generation data based on national stan- dards furnished by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation) estimates the possible traffic volumes which can be expected to be generated bY the parcels. The traffic volumes indicated are generally high because they assume full intensity development of a standard gross acre. They also do not reflect the general character of industrial develop- ment which has historically occurred in Albemarle County: Zone Use Tract A Tract B Tract C Total A-iI Residential2 98+ tpd 84+ tpd 686+ tpd 868+ tpd M-1 Industrial Park 226~ tpd 1805~ tpd 14,806~ tpd 18,814~ tpd M-1 Offices and Motor Vehicle Sales, etc. 4229+ tpd 5465+ tpd 28,419+ tpd 36,112+ tpd 1 Assumes 2.0 acre lots 2 Acreage assumed allows for roads to comprise 15% of the total acreage. ?.31. May 3, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Though it is difficult to determine the projected traffic on each route some general obser- vations can be made. Since the general population concentration is located to the south of this site, it can be concluded that a great majority of the projected traffic would use a Route 29 North to Route 649 to Route 606 route. Minor traffic volumes can be expected from the north along Route 606 and from the west from Routes 606 and 743. The majority of truck traffic will be using Route 29 North and have access to the sites by Route 649 or by Route 606 if it is improved all the way to the site. Recommendations of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan. in February, 1974, recommends that: This plan completed "Land usage surrounding the airport be zoned to assure compatibility with airport operations, noise sensitivity, and safety of aircraft operations. Some suggested land uses would be agricultural, open space, light commercial and/or industry. (Heavy smoke producing industry should be avoided wherever possible)." The plan also maps noise sensitivity areas around the airport. A portion of this property lies within NSC-2 and NSC-3 in which residential uses, institutional uses, hotel, motels, office buildings, restaurants, theaters and retail commerce should be avoided or prohibited. Staff opinion is that the requested re~oning complies with the land use recommendations of the Airport Plan. Compatibility to the Area. The M-1 Industrial Limited District is intended to be compatible with residential development. From the statement of intent of the M-1 Zone: "The primary purpose of this district is to permit certain industries, which do not in any way detract from residential desirability, to locate in any area adjacent to residential uses." Staff understands that the applicant has ~Oo~acted adjacent property owners with a willingness to provide setback buffers in excess of the requirements of the ordinance. Approval of this petition as submitted would isolate several properties north of Route 649 and east of Route 606. Staff opinion is that,combined with existing zoning and conditions in the area, approval of this petition Would predispose these isolated properties to similar requests in the future. These observations also apply to undeveloped properties between this site and Route 29 North. Existing Industrial ( M-1 ) Zoning in the County. The County presently has approximately 400 acres zoned M-1 which are vacant. Some of this land, however, lacks proper utilities and/or is located on steep terrain. Summary Staff makes the following comments concerning this request: (1) It does substantially comply with the locational and acreage recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan; (2) It substantially meets the criteria for industrial land as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan; (3) It substantially complMs with the land use recommendations of the Charlottes- ville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan; Staff observes that approval of this request: (1) Would be a stimulus ts 'similar reques'ts in the Vicinity, primarily along Route' 606 Route 649, and Route .29 North;' (2) Development of th~s prop:e.r.ty.~o'~ld ne.c'es~it~te 'improvements to Rou'te'60~, . ~ROute 649, and Route.29 'Nort'h;' (3) Add substantially to the eXisting industrially zoned land. Staff Comment A traditional rezoning of ~his scale causes staff concern in terms of the County's ability to require improvements which would be necessitated by subsequent development. Currently, the County is reviewing the rezoning petition of one applicant. In the future, if this property is rezoned, the County will review site plans for several applicants and the process of requiring necessary improvements will become complex. These future applicants will not know what will be required by the County until final site plan approval. Realizing improve- ments from this approach has proven an uncertainty. The staff suggests that consideration be given in the revision of the zoning ordinance to a device similar to the Residential Planned Neighborhood or Planned Community which could be applied to commercial and industrial rezonings. Such a process would remove many of the uncertainties for the County, adjoining property owners and subsequent developers. Such considerations as off-site improvements, performance standards for buffering, location of structures, and limitations of useage could be addressed at the initial stage of rezoning. -While the staff is of the opinion that this site is in compliance with_the Comprehensive Plan (and we favor an industrial park concept), our concern still rests with insuring that the proper improvements are made in an appropriate manner as development occurs. Should the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors choose to approve this rezoning, at this time, without such a mechanism described above for insuring appropriate improvements, and so forth we would recommend that approval be limited to Tracts B and C only; i.e., Tax,Map 32, Parcels 19 and 6 (part. thereof). Tract A (Parcel 17) is not contiguous to the other two parcels and would, therefore, not be a logical element of a comprehensive industrial park. May 3, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 232 Mr. Tucker concluded by stating that the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 11, 1978, by a vote of 5-3, recommended approval of ZMA-Z8-03 for the rezoning of 292.9 acres as requested by theapplicant. Mr. Tucker said those voting against this petition were concerned about the improvements required for the transportation facilities feeling they would not be made prior to the development of site plans. Fisher noted receipt of several letters as follows: "April 26, i978 Our Board of Directors voted on behalf of the members to endorse the new industrial complex near the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. The retailers in this community f~el that the payroll generated by this new clean industry will be instrumental to the success of our future business expansion in this community. This will broaden Albemarle County tax base two-fold. We would very much appreciate your support in this matter. Sincerely, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. President, Retail Merchants A~sociation" "April 22, 1978 At a special Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Commission meeting held on April 17, 1978, the Commission considered Mr. Wendell Wood's proposed industrial airpark and the related rezoning request. As you would expect, the Airport Commission is most interested in Mr. Wood's plans, their effect and possible impact on the airport community. The property surrounding any airport is extremely attractive for siting of commercial or industrial interests. However, many such interests, because of smoke, building heights and other characteristics, are not compatible with ~the airport environment. At numerous airfields, industrial activity has severely hampered &irport operations. Naturally, the Airport Commission is concerned that growth in the vicinity of our airport does not include the potential to cripple the community's air transportation system or have a negative effect on our airport neighbors. After careful consideration, it is the feeling of the Airport Commission that the PrOPosed industrial airpark and the Bede General Corporation, in particular, by nature of their association with aviation, wo~ld be extremely desirable air- port neighbors. An aviation-oriented industry of this type, and the industrial airpark, would attract other aviation interests, all of whom would be familiar with - and sensitive to - the special needs of an &irport community. Therefore, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Commission recommends that Mr. Wood's request for rezoning be approved. Sincerely, James H. Scott, Jr. Chairman, Joint Airport Commission" "May 3, 1978 The League of Women. Vo.te~s:suppo.rta tk~ iconcept of' an industrial park near the airport. However., ~e. lsk~re ~.~ei-~co.n~er'ns of the-county ?lanning St'~ff about rezoning so many a.~eS~to M-1~, without adequate s~feguards 'to' assure we~l-planned, well-coordinated development, with the requisite off-site improvements. In this connection, we urge that serious consideration be given to whether the RTM zone could be appropriately used in this case. If not, there is definitely a need for a new zone relating to large commercial and industrial complexes with performance standards specified. Regarding road access to the land under consideration, we wish to emphasize our concern about any increased traffic on both Routes 649 and 606. Im- provement of these roads is absolutely necessary for public safety before they could handle any large increase in car and truck traffic. It is vital to the whole community that the road to our airport be safe. The possibility of IndUstrial Access Funds for the improvement of these roads should be explored. Sue Rainey Land Use Committee League of Women Voters" Mr. Tucker also mentioned letter received from Mr. James R. Tirrell, an adjoining property owner, who was basically in favor of the rezoning, but is concerned about improve- ments to Route 606 and Route 649. 233 May 3, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) At this time the public hearing was opened. The.first to speak was Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant. Mr. Wood noted that before any planning w~i~done for this property, he contacted the League of Women Voters, Citizen'S for Albemarle, Albemarle County Taxpayers Association, and all the residents in the Airport area. This plan (a copy of which was presented for the Board's review) evoIved out of several meetings with these groups. He then introduced Mr. Bob McKee, an engineering landscape ar0hitect, who discussed the topographic features of the property. Mr. McKee said that Parcel A, which contains roughly 40 acres, is the site selected for use by the Bede General Corporation. The total request contains n~ne parcels which range in size from 16 to 40 acres. Mr. Wood said a road leading from Route 606 to this parcel would be constructed immediately, but since there is only one use for the property at this time, Bede General, he will not construct the road shown on the plan as extending to Route 29 North until the operation grows to 200 employees. He said the utilities for this industrial park will be installed at the beginning since the water and sewer lines will have to be sized for the whole park and not just sized for Bede's operation. This also applies to the road system. He plans on leaving a buffer of 150 feet along Route 606. The only other concern expressed by the neighbors and general citizens in the area is the expected traffic increase on Route 606. Mr. Fisher interrupted to ask about a notation on the plan labeled as "runway to the airport". He asked how the planes would get to the airport. Mr. Wood said it would cross Route 606. There are precedents around the country for including such an item. Mr. Fisher said he thought this was a grade separation. He did not realize the plane would be going directly across the road. Mr. Wood said a grade separation would be prohibitive in cost. Some type of a flashing sign, like those used at railroad crossings, would be in- stalled at the crossover. He then made reference to the internal road network of his plan.. Mr. Fisher said that no controls could be put on a rezoning request. He would prefer to see the whole concept take place under some sort of a planned item so that the statements made and the plan shown to the Board would have legal significance for the County. Mr. Wood said obviously the park cannot be developed in its entirety using access only from Route 606, and cannot be developed in its entirety without having proper sewer lines or water service. He felt that the Board and he both had the same goal in that respect. At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Dennis Foreman, a resident of Deerwood Subdivision. He said as far as he knew, no one in Deerwood Subdivision was contacted by Mr. Wood about this request as was mentioned earlier. He felt some good points had been brought up this evening. One is concern about the roads in the area and also the fact that if the~rezoning takes place, the County has no control over what happens either inside or outside of the industrial park as long as the business meets the require- ments of the M-1 Zone. Since this request will have an impact on Deerwood Subdivision, particularly the traffic and possibly environmental impact, because of the streams that flow to the north fork of the Rivanna River, he felt the Board should look more closely at the application before it makes a decision. Mr. Foreman added that Bede Aircraft ma~nufactures a small kind of aerial motorcycle. A one-passenger, play airplane, powered by a snowmobile engine. These engines are very tiny and noisy. A lot of northern states have been passing legislation about snowmobiles because of their noise. Mr. Foreman felt this category is basically heavy industry even though it is a small object. He asked if this should not be handled through some sort of industrial park zoning where controls could be placed on the development of the land. He would be in favor of such a concept because he thinks Albemarle County could use that kind of a park, but to rezone this entire parcel of land M-1 based on the prospect of attracting one business is speculative. Next to speak was Mr. Dale Hogue general counsel for Bede General Corporation. He said the aircraft is not extremely noisy. It is no noisier than existing airplanes in the air- port area. It is not a motorcycle engine,lbut~an engine made by Sinco Aircraft of-Japan. The aircrafts are generally flown during business hours and not'~at nigh'time ~acause you'_ cannot test an airplane at night~ ~ime.' The '~ircraft ass~em~Iy plant would be'extrlemely clean There are no furnaces, or forges, or' any .of these types of heavy industrial uses. The mai~ parts of the aircraft will ~e made outside Of the~ area, with assembly being of a highIy technical nature, although there will ~e'some weIding and painting. Mr. Fisher asked if each aircraft ia ~t~s't floWn, prior, to certification. Mr. Hogue said they must have a test flight he.fore ~ey are ~ell!ve~d. Certificatio~ is a di~ffe~ent matter. He said Mr. Boggs from the' iairpo~rt~co~ld ~explain th~s bet'ter. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Boggs to come forward and answer questions. Mr. Boggs explained certification procedures required by F~A. He said most of the test flying would be done away from the airport in an ~rea designated for same. The Airport Board would have to authorize any test flying or any procedures around the airport and that~includes noise abatement procedures. If the community disagrees with the noise that is generated by this particular airplane, or the pattern that the airplane uses, then the procedures would have to be altered. Next to speak was Mr. Richard Wilhoite who was in favor of the rezoning. light industry would be a big benefit to the community. He felt that Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Wood to explain more about the planes and the certification of same. Mr. Wood said that approximately 60% of the airplanes would be trucked away, leav- ing only 40% of them to be flown locally. The rest would be shipped out, flown and certified by a dealer somewhere else in the United States. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that all this information was very interesting but it really had nothing to do with the proposal that was before the Board tonight for a rezoning~ He said at the Planning Commission meeting a question had been raised as to whether or not this use for Bede General was allowed in the M-1 Zone and asked if that had been answered. Mr. Wood said he checked with the zoning administrator and it was his opinion that this use~is not allowed. An amendment to the ordinance would have to be granted first. Mr. Fisher ask- ed Mr. Wood if he had any further comments before he closed the public'hearing. Mr. Wood said yes. The reason for having an industrial park of this size is to preserve the area for industrial uses for the years to come. If this is not done, there could be another Deerwood Subdivision built on two-acre lots in the area. By zoning the land to M-i, residential development is precluded in an area that the comprehensive plan recommends for industrial May 3, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 234 Mr. Dorrier asked if the entire parcel were rezoned to M-i, what would keep Mr. Wood from building one giant plant ~right in the middle of the property. Mr. Wood said he felt the larger the industry, the more desirable for the community. Mr. Dorrier asked if he were brea~ing the property down into smaller parcels out of necessity. Mr. Wood said the property may be subdivided and sold or it may be leased. Mr. Dorrier asked if the roads would go in before or after the property is subdivided. Mr. Wood said the road would go in immediately for the first part, however his projection is that the road to Route 29 will not be needed until there are 200 or more employees on the property. The road will be platted and easements given, but will not be built until required. Mr. Dorrier asked if the right-of-way would be recorded. Mr. Wood said yes. Mr. Foreman asked if the property were subdivided into lots and sold, who would have the overall responsibility for the road system; the County or the developer. Mr. Fisher said that question is not determined in a rezoning. That would only be determined if and when the land is subdivided. There would be nothing to assure that the road would be ~uilt. Mr. Foreman asked if the property were subdivided, if the roads would have to be built to County standards. Mr. Fisher said that would be a matter for the Planning Commission to solve during site plan review. At 9:25 P.M., the public hearing was closed and the Board recessed. convened at 9:37 P,M. The meeting re- Mr. Fisher said he was concerned about the amount of~ land involved in this application. He feels that industrial zoning has more fiscal impacts on the County than any other type of zoning. It may provide jobs for different types of businesses but also has a great impact on traffic and demand for schools. Mr. Roudabush said the only substantial objection he has heard to this'~request is the ma~ter of roads. He did not know of another parcel of land in the County with a priority status (recommended for such use in the Comprehensive Plan) where the roads Would be accept- able. The Board must recognize that if the County is to have any type of industrial park or industrially zoned land, there will be a need for road improvements. This proposal has some advantages by the fact that most of the road structure that will serve the sites themselves will be internai (according to the plan shown by Mr. Woodi this evening); therefore, will not be built with public funds. Every site will front on a road that the developer will have to build. If this area is to be preserved for industrial use~ the owner must be given an opportunity for flexibility. The staff report indicates that residential development should be prohibited in this area, and this is one way to prohibit that type of use. Mr. Fisher said he did not disagree that this is a good site for eventual development, but rezoning of almost 300 acres at this time will use up almost the entire industrial zoning "budget" for the County for 18 or 20 years according to the Comprehensive Plan. That would be alright if the County could be assured that the property will be developed in a systematic and logical way. Further, the Board has been told tonight that the rezoning will not even serve the purpose of the applicant without further amendment to the zoning text of the ordinance. Mr. Roudabush said he was not relying particularly on this one use locating ~n the County. He would not consider the request based on just this one industry, and did not feel the~Board had ever used that as a yardstick when considering a rezoning request. Dr. Iachetta said this may be a good use to put under an airport runway, but the plan shown to the Board tonight is not a legal requ,irement for a rezoning and there is no way the BOard can set conditions. There is no assurance that the road network will ever be built. Route 606 is not suitable as prime access for a substantial area of industrial activity. Dr. Iachetta agreed with a comment in the staff report that an industrial park zone should be created so the Board could ~.!ace controls on how the park would develop instead of just opening it up to all uses allowed in the M-1 or M-2 zones. Mr. Henley said he did not agree that the County would have no control over the property since he felt strict con~ro!s can be placed through site plan review. He felt i~ was better to~ ha~e a plan such 'as 'that presented ~Y Mr. Woo~~ ton'ight~ rather~ than ~inging in ~ndividual parcels and then there is no chance ~to Plan for the looat!on~ of roa'ds ~and' utlliti'es' ~ Mr Dorrier said, if there is to be any industry in the County, he' 'is basically i~ favor of lo. cating same in an industrial'park. Since this area is contiguous to the airport, it will not be a good location for residential development. His only questions concern the planning for adequate roads and water and sewer lin~s. Although he had reservations about certain aspects of the plan presented by Mr. Wood, he felt the concept was good and would support the request. Mr~ Fisher said the maps presented by Mr. Wood were very nice but they have no significance whatsoever because there is no legal way to bind the applicant during a rezon- lng request. The maps are informational only. The County would be creating vast areas with- out any assurance as to how they would be developed. Also, the staff has recommended that this c~:ibetter be handled through a revision of the zoning ordinance to provide for a planned industrial park zone. Mr. Roudabush felt the Planning Commission could r~quire, when the first piece of land is cut off of this parcel, that a preliminary plan for the entire development be submitted as a guide for the overall use of the property. Mr. Roudabush said although ~he wou~ld like to see some sort of planned industrial park zone in the ordinance, he did not think the County should, each time an a~plicant comes in, say we have a better idea and then hold up approval. Mr. Lindstrom said he did.not want to vote against this proposal, but he is concerned that the County ha~e sufficient control to justify the Board's considering the layout that Mr. Wood had presented tonight. He felt the only realistic way to look at this proposal is for a rezoning of 292+ acres to M-1. Although the County has control through the site plan ordinance, they have no control over the overall layout of the property. He would support requesting the staff to begin a study of a change in the zoning ordinance to provide for a zone for industrial parks. 235 Ma_y_y~31978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Roudabush said the County has nothing of this sort in the ordinance now and he feels the proposal must be acted on using the present ordinance. As he understands it, this proposal is in compliance with recommendations of the comprehensive plan for this area. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel the County had the tools to deal with 300 acres of M-1 zoning today. Mr. Fisher said if the 300 acres are rezoned he did not think the comprehensive plan would envision any additional M-1 zoning in the area for 15 or 20 years. Mr. Dorrier asked if allowances could not be .made for industrial parks using the present site plan procedures. Mr. Tucker said he felt certain controls could be directed through site plan review, but there is nothing in the ordinance to require that a master plan of the property be filed. If Mr. Wood decided to sell off parcels, and was no longer the developer of the property, the County might have problems in having improvements made such as those to Routes 606 and 649. Mr. Dorrier said even if the County had the industrial park category in the zoning ordinance, he felt there would still be trouble with improve- ments to the State secondary roads. Mr. Tucker said that was correct, but at least everyone would know what improvements would have to be made from the very beginning, therefore these improvements could be phased as development occurs. At the present time, there is no mechanism to insure that. Mr. Roudabush said this big parcel will be made into small parcels through the subdivision process. Ail of the little parcels do not front on a State road, therefore they would come to the Planning Commission under the subdivision ordinance which requires that roads be built, bonds be posted and utilities be provided. Dr. Iachetta said if the County can tailor a provision of the ordinance to fit this request, he felt this was the time to do it. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this revision would have normally taken place in the zoning ordinance revision process. Mr. Tucker said the consultants have already been requested to look at industrial uses and large commercial uses with special provisions for same. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board could defer action on this request until an ordinance dealing with industrial parks was drafted. Mr. St. John said it is not permissible to hold up someone's application on the grounds that a new ordinance is being drafted. However if the applicant agrees to deferral, the Board could defer action. Mr. Roudabush said it was his feeling that if the ordinance is deficient, that is the County's fault. This application comes highly recommended. He has seen few applications that have been less controversial and which have had the recommendations of the staff, the general public in the neighborhood, and also meet comprehensive plan requirements. He felt to defer action on this request because of a deficiency in the County's ordinance is unfair to the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt this was too large of a piece of property to deal with under present ordinance requirements. Mr. Dorrier said he would like to ask Mr. Wood a question. Mr. Fisher agreed that he could answer yes or no. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Wood if he would agree to a deferral. Mr. Wood said he could not answer yes or no, but would like to make a statement. Mr. Fisher said that no statement could be made. At this time, Mr. Rmudabush offered motion to accept the recommendations of the Plann- ing Commission and approve this rezoning request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, but failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush. Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to direct the staff to undertake a study of an amend- ment to the zoning ordinance allowing for industrial park useage. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: -NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. ~ Mr. Fisher asked how long this process would take. Mr. Tucker said the motion was for the staff to make a study, it was not necessarily a resolution of intent to amend the ordinance. Mr. Dorrier said it was his intention that it would be a formal resolution. If he had misstated the motion, he would restate it as a resolution of intent. Mr. Fisher then asked for a clarification from the County Attorney as to whether this would require a reconsideration of the previous question. Mr. St. John said he Board could adopt a motion to clarify the previous motion. Mr. Dorrier then offered motimn to adopt the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to a~!~w ~dUstrial parks in Albemarle County; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission is hereby directed to hold public hearings on this matter and to return a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At this time, Mr. Wood asked if he could make a statement. Mr. Fisher said yes. Mr. Wood said that Bede General has a contract on land in the City of Petersburg. If he has to wait until the zoning ordinance is revised, they will not come to this area. He, therefore, asked the Board to consider rezoning the 40-acre parcel for use by Bede General. Mr. Lindstrom asked the County Attorney if that were legal. Mr. St. John said yes. The Board can consider all or any amount less than the whole amount that was submitted for approval tonight. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board could defer this mat~er until the staff can work out the details of such a proposal, Mr. St. John said yes. The application before the Board stands denied unless it is deferred, and it has not been deferred. Mr. Fisher said the application is denied. Mr. Roudabush asked if the petition were denied, how it could May 3, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 236 be deferred. Mr'. St. John said it does not stand denied, it stands unapproved. To amend the ordinance there must be an affirmative vote of the majority, but the Board can still defer the application that was before them tonight, but that would take another vote. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board could legally defer consideration of rezoning the Parcel designated as "A" until the staff can make a report under present zoning ordinance laws for consideration by t~e~Board. Mr. St. John said yes, however there is no definition of the boundaries of this parcel. He would suggest that theDBoard defer the whole petition with the idea of examining this one parcel and establishing boundaries for same. Mr. Dorrier asked if the correct procedure would be to adopt a motion to reconsider and then defer. Mr. St. John said no. The Board has not affirmatively voted to deny the petition. They have just failed to approve it. If the meeting ends this way, then the petition is automatically denied. Since the meeting has not ended, all that is needed is a motion to defer. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion that the Board consider the rezoning of a portion of this property and defer action on that consideration until May 10th, at ~hich time the staff should present an impact study and staff report concerning this one parcel of land. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Resolution of Intent to rezone all properties owned by the City of Charlottesville lying within the watershed areas of the Sugar Hollow, Ragged Mountain and South Fork Rivanna River Reservoirs from their present classification to the CVN-Conservation District Classification under the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 19 and April 26, 1978.) Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report: On March 8, 1978, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to rezone all properties owned by the City of Charlottesville lying within the watershed areas of Sugar Hollow, Ragged Mountain and the South~Fork Rivanna River reservoirs from their present zoning classifications to the CVN - Conservation District. This motion was clarified on March 17, 1978, at which time the Board requested the staff to prepare an additional report on all publically-owned properties within these watersheds. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the "purposes of conservation are related to environmental elements involving water quality, hydrology, air quality, and minerals." The Plan goes further to outline those categories where conservation practices should be applied. They include hillsides, flood hazard areas, woodlands and impoundment watersheds. Staff Comment It is the staff's opinion that the properties owned by the City which are adjacent to the impoundments of the South Fork of the Rivanna, Sugar Hollow, Lake Albemarle, and Ragged Mountain are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate for CVN designation. We therefore recommend approval of the rezoning to the Conservation District. There are other small properties near the Moormans River, owned by the City,which are used for pumping stations. These sites are less than one acre in area. It is the staff opinion that these sites should not be rezoned since they would be non-conforming to the CVN District. While the staff has not had 'ample time to analyze all publically-owned properties within these watersheds 'for' c'ompliance~ with the Comprehensive Plan. as they relate to the Conservation District,~ thelre-:are several properties which We 'feel'--are. appropriate for CVN. These include tkeLBeaver Creek Reservoir, Mint Springs Park, Shenandoah National Park and the iGe3omEe ~ashfngton Nation'al Forest. The'~e 'are Othe'r properties, such as University ~and County igchoo1 Board properties which 'need further analysis in terms of their compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Should the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors choose to adopt a resolution of intent to rezone any other publically owned properties other than those requested by the city, we would recommend that the rezoning be limited to those areas described above which we feel are appropriate for CVN. Ragged Mountain Reservoir Tax Map 75, Parcel 1 979.726 acres Sugar Hollow Reservoir Tax Map 24, Parcel 1 Tax Map 25, Parcel 7 South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir Tax Map 30, Parcel llA1 liB 12A 143 1SA 16C1 16D 17Al 18A 18B 2~A1 2~G Tax Map ~, Parcel 3A 12V 21E Tax Map 45, Parcel 6 Total 187.000 acres 836.590 acres 1023.590 acres 3.49 acres 4.00 8.93 12.260 o.64 6.31 1~.62 7.20 3.29 3.50 1.31 2.43 41.43 47.94 237 May 3, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Lake Albemarle Tax Map qlA, Parcel 74 Grand Total: 10.000 2,565.553 acres Mr. Tucker noted that on April 11, 1978, the Planning Commission, by unanimous vote, recommended Co the Board of Supervisors that these properties be rezoned. At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against, the public ~ hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission and rezone the above described properties. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher said there was a question about County owned properties identified by the staff located at Beaver Creek and Mint Springs and properties owned by Shenandoah National Park and George Washington National Forest. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to rezone all properties owned by the County of Albemarle lying within the watershed area of all present water supply impound- ments in Albemarle County from their present classifications to the CVN-Conser- vation District classification under the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission is hereby directed to hold public hearings on this matter and to return a recommenda- tion to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following re- corded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to appoint Mr. Lindstrom as an ex-officio member of the Scenic Rivers Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to appoint Mr. Thomas D. Blue to serve as a citizen member on the Scenic Rivers Committee. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier said he would like to recommend Mr. Roy Parks for appointment. Mr. Parks is a land planner and a trout fisherman, and although he is not from-Scottsville, he has been recommended for appointment.~ Mr'. Lindst.~om Se-c'oi~ded t.h~ motion, hut said t~t Board should be aware of the limit set'on the' numbers who would serve on the committee. If Mr.. Parks is appointed, the committ:e:e must be expanded.. Mr. Fisher said he. felt it would be better if Mr. Dorrier found someone 'toi~e~ve 'to' represent the Scottsville District.' Mr. Dorrier than withdrew his motion. - ..... Mr. Dorrier said he was concerned ton['~mght: ~hat ~fte~ the puhlic ihe'aring hgd been clOSed Mr. Fisher would not allow any additional comments to be made by the applicant. He asked if the Board could amend their rules so that additional information could be received by the Board. Mr. Lindstrom agreed that he did not like to not allow the applicant to speak if he had pertinent information to present to the Board. Mr. Fisher said as Chairman, he has to decide quite often when comments will and will not be received. At 11:00 P.M. the meeting was adjourned.