Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-09-20ASeptember 20, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned) =426 An adjourned meeting of the Board Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia~ was held on September 20, 1978, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Char- lottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from September 137 1978. Board Members present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. HenleN Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. ~fficers present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. I. Call to Order. the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 2:04 P.M., by Agenda Item No. 2. To amend the R-2 Residential and R-3 Residential zones of the Ordinance to provide for the subdivision of duplexes. (Public hearing continued from Sep~.ember 6, 1978.) Mr. Tucker summarized the County Attorney's letter dated September 15, 1978, regarding duplexes in R-2 zones. He said this would permit the subdivision of a duplex ~dwelling as long as the lots meet the width requirements of the original lot the way the ordinance was written before. Mr. Tucker noted that no matter how the ordinance is written, it will not change the density of the property. Mr. Fisher noted that the proposed amendment seemed to make the ordinance more confusing, and asked if there were any way to amend section five (R-2 zone) as proposed~ but leave section six (R-3 zone) as it presently stands. The subject of tri- plexes was brought up by Mr. Lindstrom, who was concerned this would increase the density in the residential zones. Mr. Tucker said triplexes are considered attached townhouses, and are handled differently. Following considerable discussion regarding the specific language of the ordinance pro- posed, Mr. Fisher suggested Mr. Roudabush meet with the Planning Staff and try to develop a consistent ordinance regarding the subdivision of duplexes. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta that Mr. Roudabush work with the staff to try and improve the language of these proposed ordinance changes and bring their results back to the Board on October 4, 1978. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. NAYS: None. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 3. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for Planned Industrial Park (PID) designation. (Deferred from September 6, 1978). Mr. Wendell Wood was present, and requested the Board to please take prompt action on this amendment. He said many companies might wish to locate in a particular area, but due to delays like this, their time schedules are too disrupted and they become disinterested~ He concluded by saying he could easily work within the framework of this proposed ordinance. Mr. Bob McKee asked how a developer is supposed to analyze the vehicular cou=t required, if the type of industry is not yet known. Mr. Fisher said this was added at the request of the Highway Department~ Mr. McKee said he researched this with the Highway Research Council, and they felt this type of study could not be accomplished. Following some discussion by Mr. Tucker and Mr. Keeler of the Planning Staff, Mr. Fisher suggested the possibility of leaving out the very detailed language of types of trucks (i.e. single axle, double axle, vans, etc.) and leave in the phrase "percentage of truck traffic by type". No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this amendment, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher asked about Section 20-2-1, who wou~d be responsible for the construction of roads, utilities, etc.; the developer, or companies who purchase lots in the P.I.D. Mr. Tucker said he felt it was handled in the site plan stage where all roads and utilities must be accounted for. Dr. Iachetta said he felt allowing the P.I.D.to be subdivided into 10 acre sites was far too small, and would cause problems. Mr. Lindstrom said areas in the County must be searched out and identified as those well suited for industrial development, a financial incentive must be given to encourage business to locate here, and the assurance that all utilities are in before the company locates -- avoiding piecemeal development. Mr. Roudabush said he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom in that the development should be allowed to be large in order to attract the ideal type of industries and to allow for buffer zones in order to protect surrounding neighbors. Considerable discussion ensued regarding the possible minimum acreage for each site. Board members consistently brought up the number 50, but no final figure was settled upon. ~t 3:30 P.M., Mr. Fisher noted that the Highway Department was present for discussion of Agenda Item No. 4, and he suggested this subject be continued following that discussion. Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion of Route 29 North with Highway Department representatives Mr. Fisher summarized the purpose of the meeting, saying the work session was to review the overall highway plan for the Route 29 North corridor. Input from this meeting will help the staff proceed with a general area concept plan which would come back to the Board after January 1979, for the Board's endorsement. If the Board does decide to endorse the plan, the staff of the Highway Department can then request the Highway Commission to allocate preliminary engineering funds for future improvements. September 20, 1978 (Afternuon-Adjourned) Mr. D. B. Hope ~f~.t~fHi~hway Department was present, along with Mr. Richard Lockwood, Transportation Planning Engineer. Mr. Loc~ead said they have estimated that by the year 2000, a bypass will be needed on the northern end of Route 29 corridor, connecting aast and west highways. Route 29 will also need to be upgraded to a six-lane road, with major inter- changes established along the length. Mr. Lockwood said he would ultimately like to see Route 29 from the 250 Bypass to the County Line increased to six lanes. He said that some time in January, the Highway Department could come in and review Route 29, and make more detailed recommendations to the Board and Planning Con,mission. He said they would review Route 29 in two phases; first, between the Route 250 Bypass and the South Fork of the Rivanna River, and then north of the river to the County Line. He said this would mainly help give access to many undeveloped parcels of land along Route 29, which have not yet been planned. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see the Planning Commission review the suggestions made by the Highway Department, and then hopefully meet again to discuss other recommendations. Mr. ~ucker said he would like to see the "CAT~ Study" (Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study) adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan with regard to High- way matters. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to have the Planning Commission review the "Restudy Thoroughfar~ System", as outlined on the map presented by the Highway Department; and present their recommendation as to whether the Board of Supervisors should amend the Comprehensive Plan. Motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. St. John recommended that no resolution of intent be adopted by the Board until the f_'_-~ CAT~ 'study is received. Dr. Iachetta said he did not-make that request in his motion, he only wished to receive the opinion of the Planning Commission on the Highway Department's study. Planning Commission members present were in agreement that they wished to review the proposal. Mr. Fisher said if the Planning Commission wished to obtain public input on this matter, they would themselves adopt a resolution of intent, hold some hearings to obtain the public input desired, then forward their recommendation to the Board. Roll was then called on Dr. Iachetta's motion, and it carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None .~ ~ Mr. Dan Roosevelt then reviewed for the Board detailed possibilities for ~ · .:~ .....-~ · the ~ity. Board ~embers were in agreement that they di~ not want freque~ access points onto such a road because it would cause excess traffic on the bypass. The Board returned to ~genda Item No. 3. Mr. Lindstrom questionsd the performance stan- dards for this ordinance. Mr. St. John and Mr. Fisher said there are already performance standards in the present "RTM" zone. Mr. Roudabush asked if it would be possible to place performance standards on each application am a oondition of approval. Mr. ~ucker said he would recommend that the performance standards be made part of the full ordinance, and not placed as a condition on the final approval. He~felt the standards should be something able to be adapted to all circumstances. Dr. Iachetta requested a word change in 20-4-2, second line, the word "qualified" should be changed to "certified'] engineer. Mr. Fisher said in section 20-6-1 regarding setback, he wished to know how the require- ments fit in with the scenic' highway regulations. Mr. Tucker said, and Mr. St. John agreed, the scenic highway regulations would take precedence. Dr. Iachetta asked if the setbacks in 20-6-2 were inconsistent with the present setback allowed ~n the M-1 zone. Mr. Tucker said they were not inconsistent. The Board next discussed the minimum acreage allowable. The amount of 100 acres was discussed, but Mr. Fisher noted the lateness of the hour, and recommended the discussion be continued at a later date. Board members were in agreement to continue the discussion on Wednesday, September 27, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Planning Staff would provide some information regarding the 100-acre minimum rather than a 50-acre~ minimum. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to a~journ this meeting and continue this discussion and work session to Wednesday, September 27, at 2:00 ~.M. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. NAYS: None Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. At 5:45 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested the Board adjourn into executive session for the discussion of personnel matters and property acquisition. Motion to ~his effect was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. NAYS: None Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned.