Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-06-21N316 June 21, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June 14, 1978) June 21 1-~r-~gh~ Meeting~ Mr. Lindstrom offered m0timn that the Board approve the basic concept of the plan presented. If the vote for the motion is favorable, they go on to vote on the specific conditions of the special permit. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. St. John recommended against taking such vote, and recommended the Chairman just take a poll of the Baard. Mr. Lindstrom withdrew his motion. Mr. Lindstrom then offered the following motion; to deny the application for SP-78-15 as proposed. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom. Messrs. Henley and Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta commented that this application was too big and too early in this location. Mr. Dorrier said it was a difficult decision because the plan had a great deal of merit, but he couldn't support the plan because of the location and the proposed industry on the site. Mr. Lindstrom hoped the Board would seriously restudy the Planned Unit Development part of the Zoning Ordinance before one is approved that is seriously inadequate. Agenda Item No. 6. Mr. Fisher noted the time has run out for the remainder of the agenda, but ha requested a motion to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Motion to this effect was offered at 5:45 P.M. by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned. June 21, 1978.(Regular-Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 21, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. ~ Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald~E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and ~. S. Roudabush. Officers present: Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; also Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant, sittinE in for the Cmunty Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to order: the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. The meeting ~as called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Agenda Item No. 4. Meeting Dates: (from the June 21, 1978, Afternoon Agenda.) Discussion of July Mr. Fisher said a survey indicated that a quorum would not be present for the meeting of July 19th, but that all Board members could be present at an alternate date of August 7, 1978, which is a Monday night. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to cancel the meeting of July 19, 1978, and advertise all public hearings scheduled for that night for August 7, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-78-06.Caleb N. Stowe. To amend Article 7, Business General District (B-i) to permit the following by special use permit: "Receiving and storage of electronic components for distribution, including testing and limited assembly of premanu- factured components." (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 7 and June 14, 1978.) Agenda Item No. 10. SP-78-29. Caleb Stowe Associates, Ltd. Receiving and storage of electronic components for distribution including testing and limited assembly of premanu- factured components on 4.5 acres zoned B-1 Business. Property is located on the south side of Rio Road at Berkmar Drive (Charlottesville Hardware). County Tax Map 45, Parcel 102A. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on jUne 7 and June 14, 1978.) Mr. Fisher read the following letter received from Sandy H. Lambert, III, representing the applicant, requesting withdrawal of ZTA-78-06 and SP-78-29 without prejudice. "June 21, 1978 Mr. Robert W. Tucker Jr. Director of Planning, Planning Department County of Albemarle 414 East Market Street, Charlottesville, Virginia 11901 Re: ZTA-78-06 to Amend Article 7 SP-78-29 Charlottesville Hardware Property Dear Mr. Tucker: June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 317 "As previously indicated to you, I am on behalf of Caleb N. Stowe, request- ing the withdrawal of the subject zoning test amendment and special permit applications which are scheduled for public hearings and consideration this evening by the Board of Supervisors. In doing so I would like to confirm those reasons which Mr. Stowe am~ I previously discussed with you. Our application for the amendment and special permit were premised on a particular tenant for the subject property, which, by their specific use of the building without alteration of the site and archi- tectual character, would have been a desirable use of the property in terms of land use and economic viability for both the owners and the community. Despite what Mr. Stowe considered a strong commitment to the leasing of the property, that specific tenant has decided upon an alternative location. Whi~e we continue to believe that the proposed limited assembly use is compatible in the B-1 District under the review process and controls of a special permit, we feel that in the absence of the specific tenant, whose use of the building we could assure by the lease under consideration, that both the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission will concur with the request- ed withdrawal. We appreciate the efforts of your staff and the Planning Commission in the consideration of the proposed amendment and special permit on our behalf as well as the behalf of the community. I would emphasize that we feel that the withdrawal is requested out of respect for the efforts of those involved, including the community as a whole. In part the withdrawal request further recognizes that the County will be considering a revised zoning ordinance this Fall in which the B-1 District uses, as well as the overly exclusive wording of uses in various districts, will be reviewed. Without a specific tenant, we believe this will be the time to consider where lighter than industrial uses might be located in districts where availability of existing or developable sites is conducive to such uses either by right or special permit. Whenever possible both Mr. Stowe and I will support this desirable and needed review of the Zoning Ordinance. In closing, I again express our appreciation for the time and effort~sof your staff in the subject matter. Sincerely, (Signed) Sandy H. Lambert III" Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to accept the request of the applicant and grant a withdrawal without prejudice. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-78-04. Robert David Rosson. (Deferred frmm May 17, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: Character of the Area To the west is vacant property and the Rockfish Gap Country Store. Single-family dwellings are to the east and south. Property to the north is undeveloped. Route 250 West has been designated an Albemarle County scenic Highway. A non-conforming log operation, two mobile homes, and a single-family dwelling exist on this property. The average lot size in Blue Ridge Acres is 0.768 acres. Comprehensive Plan This area is recommended for Agricultural Conservation. Staff Comment In April, 1971, the Board of Supervisors, by resolution, zoned the platted portions of Blue Ridge Acres and Parcel 52A from A-1 to RS-1. The staff report for ZMP-160 indicated that such rezoning was for the purpose of excluding mobile homes and was contrary to the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. (This rezoning ~as similar to that which took place at Boyd's TAvern, the objective apparently being the exclusion of mobile homes.) At a later date (ZMA-329, August, 1975), parcel 52A was zoned back to A-1 to permit continued farming activities. This applicant is currently requesting rezoning back to A-1 to permit the continuance of and to make legal the recent expansion of the logging operation. In addition, his mother (owner of Parcels 94 and 95) wishes to continue the keeping of fowl and livestock and to request a mobile home for the applicant's sister. None of these activities are permitted within the RS-1 zone. Staff makes the following observations: Recent establishment of the large metal shed on parcel 3, whether due to in- sufficient information submitted by the applicant or clerical error by the Inspections Department, constitutes unlawful expansion of a non-conforming use. As indicated by the Zoning Administrator, rezoning of this property could make this use conforming (either ~y right of by special permit) and a control to site plan would be required. This woul~ provide the County in what is, in staff opinion, a currently dangerous and unsightly situation. 318 June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Staff disagrees with the County action of 1971 rezo~ing this property to RS-1 sinee it is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and apparently was based on property owners' desires to exclude mobile homes from the area. In phone conversation, the Health Department indicated that septic permits had been denied in portions of this subdivision and that those lots fronting on Route 250 West and 796 were particularly questionable (The Health Department denied two permit~applications by Mr. Rosson). Though rezoning this property would leave an isolated lot zoned RS-1 (lot 1), staff recommends approval of this petition. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, as was done in the case of the RS-1 zoning in the Boyd's Tavern area, may wish to consider rezoning Blue Ridge Acres to A-1 Agriculture, due to its conflict with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Mr. Tucker noted that on May 9, 1978, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to approve ZMA-78-04 as recommended by the staff. Mr. Rosson was present, but had no comments to make to the Board. No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to accept the recommendation of the~lanning Commission to approve. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No.. 3. SP-78-18. Bearing Technology, Inc. (Deferred from May 17, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: Request: Acreage: Zon±ng: Locatimn: Engineering and light manufacturing · 2 acres ~-1 Business Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C part, is located off Route 738 near Dettor, Edwards, and Morris, west of Ivy. Character of the Area This property is located on the south side of the access road serving the Tull Manufacturing Company, which branches off eastward from the main Dettor, Edwards, and Morris access road. This property is heavily wooded. Comprehensive Plan This property is within the western limits of the designated Ivy village. proposed as a larger Type I Village with commercial and Industrial uses. Ivy is Staff Report This property was included under a previous application (SP-244, Herbert Tull) for a similar use. Minutes of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors indicate that ~here was discussion at that time as to whether such use was provided for and appropriate to the B-1 zone. It is the current opinion of the Planning and Zoning Departments that such use is neither provided for nor appropriate to the B-1 General Business District. The currently proposed use involving laB.he and milling work is a manufacturing use appropriate to industrial zoning. Staff opinion is that an error was made in approval of the' previous application in the B-1 zone. The Zoning Administrator has indicated that if a second approval of such use is granted, that he will have no alternative but to advise the public that manufacturing (machine shop, welding, babbitting) is permitted in the B-1 Zone. (In the case of Paulette Hardware Company, the court, according to the Zoning Administrator, indicated that the three previous approvals of supply yards at hardware stores established such use in the B-1 zone and that it could not be attributed to error or mistake in inter- pretation as it might have been had such use been approved only once.) Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose~to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Site plan approval; 2. Not more than 20 employees, including the applicants; 3. No outside storage; 4. Ail design, construction, and testing activity to be done inside the proposed buildings; 5. There shall be no noxious noises or odors emitted from the site. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended denial with a tie vote o& 4-4. Mr. Fisher asked about the staff comment that engineering and light manufacturing are not allowed in a B-1 Zone ~y either right or special permit. Mr. Tucker said the applicant felt the proposed use could fit under the headings of either professional office, machinery sales and service, and wholesaling or processing. At 7:54 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Dr. David Lewis, the applicant. He said there would be no customers visiting the building, and that their product would not be manufactured in an assembly line fashion; only special orders would be taken. He said they looked for M-1 or M-2 property, but could find none suitable for their purposes. June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting). 319 No one else wished to speak either for or ~gainst this application, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he felt the B-1 zone should not be expanded to include the requested use, because if it is opened up to this type bu~ness, a precedent has been set. Dr. Iachett.a said he was of the opposite opinion from Mr. Fisher in that this business does not involve regular manufacturing of a product. He noted that an e~gineer- ing office would be acceptable in a B-1 zone, and since the manufacture of a finished product is secondary in this business, it should be allowed. Following some discussion among Board members, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve SP-78-18. Mr. Fisher said he felt it would be a drastic mistake for the Board to approve this application. Mr. Henley said he would con- sider amending the B-1 to include this use. Mr. Fisher said he felt this application should not have been accepted by the Zoni~ Administrator in the first place, and should have~a~y~been~at~oWed as atrezoning. Mr. St. John said the Zoning Administrator had no legal right to refuse the application, whether he felt it proper or not. Mr. Roudabush said he also could not support this use under the present application, and that if the applicant wished to reapply in some other zone he would reconsider his decision. Roll was then called, and the motion failed by the following recording vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Iachetta. Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Roudabush. Mr. Fisher noted that under the Board's rules of procedure a tie vote is a denial. Mr. St. John told the applicant he could apply for a zoning text amendment under Section 11-4 of the Zoning Ordinance to try and include any use not provided for in the B-1 zone. Agenda Item No. 4. Resolution of Intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for Industrial parks in Albemarle County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 7 and June 14, 1978.) Mr. Tucker said this resolution would not be handled by the Planning Commission until their meeting of July 11, 1978, and recommended the Board of Supervisors defer action until their meeting of September 6, 1978. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer this public hearing to September 6, 1978. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Public hearing on intent to amend and reenact Section 4-19 of the Albemarle County Code to include Carrsbrook Subdivision as one of those areas where dogs are not permitted to run at large. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 7' and June 14, 1978.) Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant, presented the petition. She stated that of 119 homes, 89 families signed the petition in favor of a leash law, and 30 homes re- fused; giving a total of 75% in favor of the law. Mr. Fisher read the following letter received from Dr. and Mrs. Willian Van Hoose. "June 19, 1978 ~Albemarle~Gounty Board of Supervisors ~ounty Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Sirs: We have changed our minds and want our names removed from the petition supporting a dog leash law in Carrsbrook. Every pet dog in our area should not be punished just because there was one supposed outlaw in the neighborhood, who actually no longer resides here. Therefore, since the cause gor the petition has been removed, we feel the petition should be dropped. Sincerely, (Signed) Dr'. William Van Hoose and Hazel Van Hoose" Mr. Fisher then read a letter from Mrs. Edward L. Freeman requesting her name be re- moved from the petition in support of the leash law: "June 19, 1978 Albemarle Count~ Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia Gentlemen: Being called upon to sign a dog leash petition, Shortly after the death of my hmsband, I didn't give much thought to the after effects of it until later. Therefore, I want my name removed from the list supporting a leash law. ~i~n.g 3£0 June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) The reason for the petition (a large dog in the neighborhood) has been removed because the family has moved away from our area. I have lived on Indian Spring Road for fourteen years and had a pet dog for twelve years and we never once had any problems from other pets. Besides, since I am alone I find it very comforting to know there are dogs on the loose in the area. Strangely enough though~ I rarely see any of them. Living in a wooded area like we do there have been occassions when copper- head snakes and others have been spotted and killed in the area. If our few large dogs are tied, we will become overrun with snakes, ground moles and such. Give me a dog any day compared to trying to get rid of the snakes. Mainly, many animals suffer unnecessarily because they are tied. Be it either heat or cold. It brings to mind the little dog who froze to death in the city because he was tied to a car bumper and could not find shelter for himself. Heaven forbid! I can understand in the city it is a necessary law--but here in our area, not yet! Very sincerely, (Signed) Mrs. Edward L. Freeman" Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Dr. James Moore. Dr. Moore presented the petitions to the Board, saying he had no tales of. horror created by stray dogs, but that all who signed the petition did so with ready acceptance of its terms even though they themselves may be dog owners. Mrs. Richard Arthur said she was one of ten people who circulated the petitions, and she estimated that approximately eight of every ten who signed are dog owners. Mr. Lee R. Lucas said dogs have destroyed his garden even before the plants were sprouted properly. He added that although dog owners have the right 'to own dogs, they do not have the right to allow their dog to destroy other neighbors property. Mrs. Janice Creasy said unfriendly dogs have roamed in packs throughout the area. She said she has lost bushes~etc., and therefore supports the petition. Mr. E. B. Loftin said he once owned a dog and kept it in his own yard and would expect other dog owners to show the same courtesy to their neighbors. Since they do not, he supports the leash law. Ms. Doris Moore said she had two large dogs jump on her while she was out walking a few weeks earlier. She feels they should be restrained by the leash 'law. Mr. Thomas McQueeney said he felt roaming dogs presented a traffic hazard. Dr. Iachetta requested a show of hands of all those in favor who were also dog owners. Mr. Fisher then asked for a show of hands for those opposed. (Clerk's Note': About half and half.) Mrs. Joan Barnachi said she spoke on behalf of the children in the community who owned dogs. She felt it was unfair to keep their dogs so restrained or to ask the hume owners to fence in as much as three acres in order to corral their dogs. Mr. Robert Musselman said the basic problem is caused by only two or three dogs, and not every dog in the community. He felt the petition was presented unfairly, as he was told that over 80% of the people had already signed in favor, therefore he should also sign. Mr. Richard Joseph said they moved to Carrsbrook 15 years ago to keep their dogs from 'being killed in traffic. He hoped that their dog would still be allowed to run freely on his own property. Mr. Willie Williams said children had done several hundred doll~s worth of damage to his property, and after the purchase of a small dog there has been less of a problem. He also said that if the leash law is imposed, that it should also affect cats, as they do as much damage to property and other animals as dogs. Mrs. John Allen said she was representing six neighborhood children whO owned pets they wished to be allowed to run free. She added that the reason they mov'ed to the County was to have a pet-they Could allow to run free. Mrs. Connie said each name on the petition did not represent an entire family. She then presented a counter-petition to the Chairman. (Petition signed bY 35 persons.) Mr. Ray Hunt said he was Opposed to enactment of the leash 'law and that he felt the manner in which the petition was circulated grossly misrepresented the feelings of the community. Mr. James Grabmon said he would rather have the minor annoyances than have a rash of robberies as in other communities. A young girl said her dog patrols their property, and does not abuse its freedom by trespassing onto other properties. Mr. Guy Bernachi said that the number of people with dogs relative to the number of people without dogs should determine that those without dogs should do the fencing of their yards, and not those with dogs. June 21,1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Ms. Benzenski also felt those without dogs should do the fencing. Mr. Musselman said a number of people opposed to the leash law did not have a chance to sign the counter-peti- tion. Mr. Fisher declared a recess at 9:00 P.M., and suggested that anyone wishing to sign either petition do so during the recess. Meeting was reconvened at 9:07 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed, and summarized his opinion by saying that he was in favor of the_leash law. Dr. Iachetta~ said he was~a property owner, who also had a dog and children, but that property must be protected. He then offered motion to adopt the following ~dinance, Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Messrs. Dorrier, Lindstrom and Roudabush 'ail agreed that the law should be imposed at this time, because if there were no probtem the people would never have requested this hearing. They also felt that after a trial period, if things do ~ot work outs possibly the law could be repealed. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Alb'emarle~County, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Article II, Division 2, Section 4-19 of the Albemarle County Code be amended and reenacted by the addition of the'following area as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large: (2O) Carrsbrook Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court in Deed Boom 357~ page 55; Deed Bood 361, page 127; Deed Book 376, page 224; Deed_Book 380, pages 249, 251 and 253; Deed Book 384, page 27; Deed Book 387, page 469. At 9:15 P.M., roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing on intent to amend and reenact Section 4-19 of the Albemarle County Code to include Deerwood Subdivision as one of those areas where dogs are not permitted to run at large. (Advertised inthhe Daily Progress on June 7 and June 14, 1978.) Mrs. Moon presented a petition requesting adoption of this ordinance, and noted that there were 61 signatures. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Paul Dupree who said he started the petition.. He said 39 of 45 homes signed in favor of the petition. He said most of the families have already begun restraining their dogs in anticipation of the enactment of the leash law. Mr. Carrol Turner said he was in favor of the law because his wife had been attacked twice and his own dog was attacked while it was chained in their yard. Mr. Clyde Dobbs said he did not want to spend $1~000 to put up a fence to keep some- one else's dog out. He wished to see the law passed. Mr. Richard Lambert said he was tired 0E-picking up garbage cans knocked over by stray dogs, and that he was in favor of the petition. No one in opposition wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the following ordinance: Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Article II, Division 2, Section 4-19 of the Albemarle County Code be amended and reenacted by the addition of the following area as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large: (21) Deerwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of the circuit court in Deed Book 426, page 457; Deed Book 455, page 16. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-Z8-08. J. W. Wright, Jr. and Frank Kessler. To amend ZMA-77-16 (a plan for a Residential Planned Neighborhood R-1)~ The 14.68 acres of property is located at the end of Wilder Drive, bounded on the north by Meadow Creek. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 198, 199, 200, and 201. Charlottesville and Rivanna Magisterial Districts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 7 and June 14, 1978.) Mr. Roudabush said he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on this item as he has done survey work on this property. Mr. Robert Tucker read the planning staff's report: Location: Between Meadow Creek and the city limits just east of Park Street Extended and at the end of Wilder Drive in the 8ity. Acreage: 14.462 acres Existing Zoning: RPN/R~i Requested Zoning: RPN/R-1 June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) History The Planning Commission previously approved a similar application to this one on September 13, 1977, subject to nine conditions. Subsequently, the same appli- cation was approved on September 21, 1977 by the Board o£ Supervisors subject to the same conditions. Subsequent to that, the Planning Commission approved the Wildwood Final Plat on October 27, 1977, subject to 11 conditions, and the Charlottesville City P~anning Commission approved the plat on November 9, 1977. Existing Zoning in the Area Wildwood and Idtewood Subdivision are zoned R-1 Resi. dential in the city and Woodhaven Subdivision is zoned R-2 in the City. Properties to the north are zoned R-2 Residential with the exception of the Cochran's Mill Antique Store which is zoned B-1 Business. Densities allowed in these zones are as follows: City of Charlottesville Zones R-1 Residential R-2 Residential Wildwood Subdivision Idlewo0d Subdivision Density (du/ac~r'e) 5.4 12.1 (single-family attached) 7.3 (single-family detached) 4 du/acre 5 du/acre Albemarle County R-2 Residential 6.0 (townhouse) 5.3 (single-family detached) 8.4 (duplex) Applicant's Proposed RPN/R-1 2.43 du's/gross acre 7.06 du's/net acre As can be seen in the chart above, the proposed density of the requested RPN/R-1 designation is considerably less than the existing R-2 zoning allowed on the site, and is much less than densities allowed in adjaCent properties. Applicant's Revised Proposal The applicant is proposing only a slight revision of the approved Wildwood RPN/R-1 plan. The changes are: (1) the total number of dwelling units has been reduced from 37 to 35; and (2) the interior roads are no longer to be state' maintained; instead they will be private roads with t~enecessary homeowner's-mainte'nance agree- ments as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Conformance The Comprehensive Plan recommends this property for park/flood plain usage. At the time the Comprehensive Plan was developed, the Army Corps of' Engineers flood plain study for Meadow Creek was not available. Staff has reVieWed this site in the context of the Corps' Study and the criteria established for conservation of stream valleys and found that the majority of the Wilder Tract Plan is in com- pliance in terms of areas to be developed and areas to remain open space. It appears, however, that at least three of the proposed building sites will infringe on slopes which are in excess of 25% and thus violate the Comprehensive Plan's recQmmendations against any building on slopes 25% or greater. Staff Comment ) The applicant is proposing to locate 35 single-family dwelling units on this site at a gross density of one dwelling per 2.43 acres, and maintaining more 'than 55% of the site in common area. Three]tot lots are shown in the common area. The remainder of the common area would remain wooded and would contain that portion of the site in the 100 year flood plain. In staff opinion, the RPN/R-1 approach as presented in the preliminary plat is appropriate to this site. Steep slopes and flood plain have, with 'the' exception of the three lots mentioned above, been respected and the common area is more than twice that required under the RPN designation. In addition', the s2aff has recommended that the applicant construct and provide an easement for' a bicycle trail along the Meadow Creek frontage. Furthermore, the proposed density of development is less than one-half the potential density allowed under existing zoning. However, the maximum potential density under the existing R-2 zoning (8.4 du/acre) is probably not possible due to the steep terrain of the site. In the staff,s opinion, the proposed density would be harmonious with surrounding development. The reason this amendment is back before you is that when the road plans were drawn up certain~vertical and horizontal sight distance requirements of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation could not be met without a drastic regrading of the site. Rather than regrade the site, the developer has chosen to develop using private roads. The staff has no objection to the development of this property with private roads. It should be noted that although the "private roads" requirements of' the Sub- division Ordinance call for an 18-foot wide prime and ~ouble seal surface, that the developer has indicated that the roads would meet Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation pavement and design standards with the exception of vertical and hQrizontal sight distance. June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 323 Impact Analysis Acreage Density Total Dwelling units Population School Enrollment Vehicle Trips/day 14.462 2.430 du/acre gross 35.0OO 112.000 24.500 students 245.000 School Enrollment K-5 6-8 9,12 TOTAL 10.290 students 5.706 students 6.790 students 22.785 students Summary of Proposed Land Uses Acres % of Site Residential lots ~ 34.3% Streets 1.449 10.0% Common Area 8.050 55.6% Total 14.462 100.0% Recommended Conditions of Approval: No dwelling units are to be built on slopes of 25% or greater without County Engineering Department approval of site work; Water and sewer facilities to be approved by, and dedicated to, the Albemarle County Service Authority; 3. County Engineering Department approval of private roads' specifications; County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for common spaces, recreational facilities, and private roads; 5. Grading permit required prior to subdivision approval; Dedication to Albemarle County of a 15-foot wide strip for future con- struction of a bycicle and pedestrian trail as shown on plan received September 12, 1977; Uses in the flood plain of Meadow Creek shall comply to Article 9A of the Zoning Ordinance; Removal of cul-de-sac at Cottonwood Road and restoration of disturbed areas. Mr. Lindstrom asked to abstain from this discussion also, as he t~D had some connection with the plat of this property. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on May 23, 1978, gave conditional approval, with the eight conditions recommended by the staff and the following added conditions: Wildwood Court and Cottonwood Road shall have street lights similar to those on the existing Cottonwood Road; 10. Ail utilities are to be located underground; 11. Connection of roadways and sidewalks to Cottonwood Road as well as removal of the existing cul-de-sac shall be done at the applicant's expense; 12. Staff approval of tot lot location and equipment. Mr. Claude Cotton, the developer, said nothing different would be done, except that the sight distance would not be the same as required by the State Department of Highways. He felt that during the winter months, the residents would get better service if a private snow plow is called in, than if they wait for state forces. No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he felt 35 lots on a private road were too many. Mr. Henley said he would be willing to support this request for private roads, but that he would not support every request presented, unless they had similarly good reasons. Mr. Dorrier asked if the ordinance contained different requirements for a development containing more than 35 lots. Mr. St. John said the only requirement that is different is in materials used for actual construction of the road; not the alignment or the grade. Following some debate as to why Mr. Cotton could not meet the sight distance require- ments so the development's roads co~uld be taken into the State system, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to approve ZMA-78-08 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but changing to read: condition #3 to read: "County Engineering Department approval of private road specifications and inspection to insure specifications are met."; also adding a condition #13 to raad: "Roads to be con- structed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportations standards as to width, pavement depth and curve requirements." Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Iachetta. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. ABSTAINING: Messrs. Lindstrom and Roudabush. 324 June 21, 1978-(Regular-Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-78-05. Wendell W. Wood. To permit aircraft assembly plants in the M-1 Industrial Zone as a use by right. (Advertised. in the Daily Progress on June 7 and June 14, 1978.) No one was present to represent Mr. Wood, therefore, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to defer this public hearing until July 5, 1978, and to notify the applicant that action will be taken at that time. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:~ AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-78-28. Charles W. Hurt. For a Day Nursery pursuant to Section 6-1-21(2) of the County Zoning Ordinance on 2.909 acres zoned R-3 Residential. Property is located on the south side of Whitewood Road at the corner of Whitewood Road and Greenbrier Drive. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 29C. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 7 and June 14, 1978.) Mr. Tucker presented the County Planning Staff's report: Character of the Area This area is primarily in multi-family development with Jefferson Towne, West- field, Club, and Whitewood Apartments and recent approvals for Camelia Gardens and Copperfields. Applicant's Proposal This applicant proposes to erect a structure to serve as a day nursery for 125 children. Staff estimates from the applicant'~s proposal and considering state licensing requirements, at least 13 employees will be necessary. Staff Comment While the staff has no objection to a use of this nature in this location, the staff is concerned about the intensity and impact of this proposal (the actual acreage involved in 1.07 acres as opposed to 2.909 acres' in the Original appli- cation). Comparative traffic generation ~rom a 1.07 acres site' is as follows: Use R-3 Residential (20 du/acre) R-3 Residential (34 du/acre) CO Commercial Office B-1 Business Proposed Day Nursery VTPD People 153 55 263 94 161 642 540 138 While this facility would be located in a densely developed area, the child per dwelling ratio'~:is lower for multi-family development and at least one apartment in the area does not permit children. Therefore, staff assumes that ali enroll- ment will arrive by automobile and has employed four vtpd per child. Two vtpd per employee was employed. These calculations exclude the possibility of more than one child delivered per automobile. Likewise, service traffic is excluded. Staff makes the following comments: Traffic volume generated by the day nursery would he mo.re 'akin to' that generat- ed by B-1 development than R-3 development. The nature of' such 'traffic would be basically peak hour. However, other traffic-intensive uses such as libraries, swimming and tennis clubs, hospitals, and various types of schools are permitted in the R-3 district; There would be about 47% more people on this site under the proposal than if the site were developed at the maximum R-3 density of 34 units per acre. While a comparison of child care and residential "pepple" density may not be appropriate, it should be noted that a child care facility can represent a major portion of a child's daytime environment. One approach would be to require the same Child-to-site area ratio as is provided in public schools, however, the ability of private enterprise vs. government to absorb site development and maintenance costs should be considered as well as the fact that much of a public school site is underused or unused. (In elementary schools in Albemarle County, the 1977 average site area ratio was 2515 square feet/student asacompared to 373 square feet/child in this request. New elementary schools would provide about 708 squ~re feet/student.) If licensing by the Virginia Department of Welfare is required as a condition of approval, the applicant would have to comply with minimal spatial requirements of that agency (in addition to indoor requirements, 75 square feet of outdoor play area is required per child on the playfield at one time). Conclusion Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to increase the lot area to a size where the "people" density would be comparable to R-3 Residential (34 dwelling units/acre), a lot area of 1.65 acres would be required. To reduce traffic impact to a per acre level comparable to R-3, a 2.18 acre site would be necessary. If the applicant demonstrates that the proposed site has adequate area for this use (to include landscaping and buffering from adjoining properties) and receives state licensure, the staff has no objection to the requested 1.07 acre lot area. In con- sidering the intensity and impact of this request, note that day nurseries are pro- vided for only in the R-2 and R-3 Residential, RPN, and CO Commercial Office districts, which are comparatively high value properties. Additionally, child care June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) uses, whether publically or privately operated, are generally considered as community facilities in planning literature. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. Enrollment limited to 125 children or that number approved by the Virginia Department of Welfare, whichever is less; No other use may be made of this property without amendment of this special use permit~;~ Site plan approval to include landscaping and buffering from adjoining properties; Licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. In the event of license expiration, suspension, or revocation, the Zoning Administrator shall refer this petition to the Board of Supervisors for public hearing after notice pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to transmit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the Zoning Administrator of any license expira- tion, suspension, or renovation within three days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful non-compliance with the provisions Of this special use permit; Approval of approPriate federal, state, and local a~encies. Conditions stated are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of requirements and regulations of the Virginia Department of Welfare or any other agency; Inspection of the premises at leaSt twice annually by the Albemarle County Fire Official including at least one unannounced inspection. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commi. ssion recommended, by ~a'vote of 7-0-2, approval of this request subject to the six conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Ms. Dorothy Davis one of the applicants, who stated that they are very experienced in taking care of young children, and that they hope to receive a license from the State Department of Education to include kindergarten classes in their day-care facility. No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom noted there was a discrepancy in the acreage listed in the advertisement and that listed in the staff's report. He recommend ed a seventh condition that "approval be for a lot of 1.07 acres in size." With this addition, he offered motion for approval of the request with the six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and #7 as stated. 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. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said the subject of the Clean Air ~ct of 1977 and the responsibility of the County to enforce it has been brought to his attention.~ He noted that the City is interested in studying ~his matter and $15~000 in Federal money may be a~aitable for use by the Planning District in making such a study. Dr. Iachetta said the City and the County should first see what the law means to the govermments at the local level, then decide what action they wish to take. He felt the County has.enough citizens and workers who are expert in this area to avoid using the Planning District staff and paying a bill of $15,000. Mr. Tucker said he and Mr. Agnor had &ttended a conference in Fredericksburg last week regarding this new law, and he noted that its potential effect on the County and the country will 'be extraordinary. He suggested that something be done now to better understand the new law and how the County will be able to cope with it. Mr. Henley said he could not support spending $15,000 in this manner and offered motion not to support the suggestion of the Charlottesville City Council to spend $15,000 to have the Thomas Jefferson planning Di,strict Commission conduct a study regarding the 1977 Clean Air Act. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Fisher commented that the law would be in full effect in the very near future, and that the County does not know anything as to how it will effeCt them directly. Agenda Item No. 12. Authorize Chairman to accept Post Office Deed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville have entered into an agreement with the United States Postal'Service to purchase that property known as the Downtown Post Office for $250,000·00; BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is authorized to accept on behalf of the County of Albemarle the deed conveying thelDowntown Post Office property to the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle; June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Le~tie E. Neher, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County is hereby authorized to affix the seal of the County of Albemarle to the deed and to attest thereto. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Authorize Chairman to accept Lane High School Deed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. R~udabush, to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has entered into an agreement with the City of Charlottesville and the City of Charlottesville School Board to purchase the Lane High School property for $800,000.00; BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, is hereby authorized on behalf of the County of Albemarle to accept the deed conveying the Lane High School property to the County of Albemarle; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County is hereby authorized to affix the seal of the County of Albemarle to the deed and to attest thereto. Roll was called and ~he-~.motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 14a. Appoint County Attorney and Deputy County Attorneys: Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded b~-'Mr. Henley, to reappoint Mr. George R. St. John as County Attorney for a period of one year beginning July 1, 1978. and to reappoint Mr. Frederick W. Payne and Mr. James M. Bowling, IV as Deputy county Attorneys for the same term. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 14b. Appointment: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to reappoint Mrs.. Jane Biltonen of 217 Brentwood Road, Charlottesville, to a new term which Will expire on June 1, 1981. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier.~ FiSher, Henley, Eachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriations: Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, was present. He requested that special appropria~'~ tions in the amount of $11,717 be made for the following purposes: General District Court: There were an excessive amount of blood tests on drunken driving cases and the insurance premium on the nurses who administer these tests was increased. There were also minor increases on service contracts for some special office equipment. An appropriation of $750.00 i~ needed. Sheriff's Department: False arrest insurance premiums have doubled during the past two years. These premiums exceed the appropriation by.$2,~67..Also the maintenance of vehicles is about $2,500 higher than est~imated. An appropriation of $5,967 is needed. Involuntary Commitment: The cost of hearings on these petitions has more than doubled. Every person committed must have a rehearing every six months. Each hearing has a judge's fee, attorney's fee and a docto'r"s fee'. This is all local money. An appropriation of $5,000 .is needed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $11,717 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded as follows: 5B General District Court 750.00 6A Sheriff's Department 5,967.00 18B10 Involuntary Commitment 5,000.00 Roll was called and the motion carried'by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) 327 Mr. Jones next requested an appropriation in the amount of $400,000 from the Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for the purchase of the Lane High School Building. Currently there is $600,000 appropriated and the purchase price is only $800;000. However, it is felt that adequate money should be available to begin roof repairs in July. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. ROudabush, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $400,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Revenue Sharing Fund and coded to 47-184A, Administrative and Court Buildings. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Do~rier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Transfers. Mr. Ray Jones requested that he be allowed to transfer $15,373 from Code iF, Salary Adjustments, to the following codes to cover cost of merit increases for the fiscal year: 4A-109 Compensation of Assistants $ 3,070.00 6A-i02 Compensation of Sheriff 227.00 6A-105 tCompensation of Deputies 5,080.00 6A-106 Compensation of Dispatchers 3,077.00 6A-109 Compensation of Secretaries 100.00 10A-102 Compensation of Engineer 65.00 10A-109 Compensation of Assistants 217.00 10E-102 Compensation of Planning Director 607.00 10E-109 Compensation of Assistants 2,435.00 10E-i~0 Compensation of Supervisory Persons 495.00 Motion to approve the above transfers was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed: Report from Space Committee. Mr. Roudabush reported that a meeting was held with a number of architectural firms who are interested in the renovation of Lane High School. He noted that interviews were held with four firms. He then recommend- ed that the County Executive be authorized to negotiate a contract with the firm of Stainback and Scribner and that such contract be brought to the Board of Su~_ervisors for review and approval. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachet'ta and carried by the follow- ing ~ecorded vote: AYES:~ Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. (From the Afternoon Session). Regional Jail Expenses for the month of May. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve a supplemental request to the DepaDtment of Corrections for reimbursement of salary for the paramedic supervisor. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor noted receipt of lease for the Regional Health Department located at 1138 Rose Hill Drive in the City of Charlottesville. The lease is for one year beginning July 1, 1978, and all terms except the rental fee are identical to the lease presently in effect. Under this lease the Health Department will pay the City/County $1,350 quarterly because of the additional space just added to this facility. Mr. Agnor requested authority to sign this lease on behalf of the County. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, authorizing the County Executive to execute the document when the form of same is approved by the County Attorney. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 11:00 P.M. motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to go into executive session to discuss property acquisition. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 11:15 P.M., the Board returned from executive session, and motion to adopt the following resolution was offered by Dr. Iachetta. BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby offer to purchase from David J. Wood, Jr. and Joseph M. Wood, II, partners trading as Berkeley Partners, for $175,000.00, that certain parcel of land in Albemarle County, Virginia, containing 77,777 square feet, more or less, lying on the west side of Berkmar Drive, lying north of that parcel described as Parcel "Y" on plat of Frank A. Gregg, dated June, 1978, which Parcel "Y" was June 21, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) AYES: NAYS: recently given by the Woods to the County of Albemarle, extending around to an easterly extension of the northern boundary of Block 4 of Berkeley Subdivision. The ~arcel by Berkmar Drive on the east, by ?~rcel "Y" on the south, by Berkeley Subdivision on the west, and by the easterly extension of the northern boundary of Block 4 of Berkeley Subdivision on the north. The Woods shall be responsible for preparing a proper survey of the property. This ofger shall be good for 30 days and is contingent upon title being found marketable in the manner provided by law. Motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:' Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 17. At 11:20 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adjourn this meeting to July 5, 1978, at 4:00 P.M. in the' Board Room. was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. -- - (./Chairman Roll