Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-21NSeptember 21, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 21, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. 0pal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr.; Gerald E. Fisher; J. T. Henley, Jr.; F. Anthony Iachetta; and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to order. At~7:30 P. M. Mr. Fisher, Chairman of the Board, called the meeting to order. Due to court being in session, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to immediately adjourn to the County Office Building Board Room. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Meeting reconvened at 7:36 P.M. in the Board Room of the Albemarle County Office Building. Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing on a resolution to amend Article 3, Article 4, Article 5, Article ?, Article 7.1, Article 8 and Article 9 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as each of these relate to minimum area rlequirements. (Deferred from August 17, 1977.) Mr. Robert Tucker said this public hearing was deferred by the Planning Commission due to questions regarding Health Department regulations. Mr. Tucker said a meeting is scheduled between Mr. St. John, the new director of the Health Department and himself to discuss those regulations in question, and he would recommend that these amendments be readvertised for public hearing at a later date. Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing: from September ?, 1977.) ZTA-77-05. Gelletly Properties, Inc. (Deferred Mr. Tucker read the staff report as follows: "Getletly Properties,. inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend Article 9 General Industrial District (M-2) to provide for "travel trailer sales and service" as a use by right. "Mobile home and travel trailer sales and service" is currently by special use permit ~n the B-1 General Business District and by right in the M-1 Limited Industrial District. Since this is a "by-right" use in the less- intensive M-1 zone, staff recommends the following amendment which would establish this use by right in the M-2 zone: Section 9-1-8.1 Mobile home and travel trailer sales and service" Mr. Tucker noted that at their meeting of August 2~, 1977, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve this request. The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Skip Gelletly, President of Gelletly Properties, Inc., reiterated his reasons for requesting this change (as previously stated in the staff report). No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion to amend and re-enact the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: (Deferred from August 17, 1977.) ZMA-77-15. Frank Kess!~er and Joe Wright, III. Mr. Tucker read the County 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 City. Acreage: 14.403 acres Existing Zoning: R-2 Residential Requested Zoning: RPN/R-1 Existing Zoning of Area Wildwood and Id!ewood Subdivisions are zoned R-1 Residential 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: September 21, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) City of Charlottesville Zones R-1 Residential R-2 Residential Wildwood Subdivision Idlewood Subdivision Albemarle County R-2 Residential Applicant's Proposed RPN/R-1 Density ( du/acre ) 5.4 12.1 . ( single-family attached ) 7.3 ( single-family detached ) 4 du/acre 5 du/acre 6.0 ( townhouse ) ~ 5.3 ( single-family detached ) 8.4 ( duplex ) 2.56 du's/gross acre 7.36 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 ~nsi~eM allowed in adjacent properties. 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 v&lleys and found that the majority of the Wilder Tract Plan is in compliance 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 recommendations against any building on slopes 25% or greater. Staff Comment The applicant is proposing to locate 37 single-family dwelling units on this site at a gross density of one (1) dwelling per 2.56 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 RPM/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 staff 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 ~ the potential density allowed under existing zoning. However, the maximum potential density under the existing R-2 zonzng ( 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. Comparative Impae~ Analysis Acreage Density Total dwelling units Population School Enrollment Vehicle trips/day. Existing Zoning R-2 Residential ( Based on Townhouse Development ) 14.403 less 15% for roads - 12.24 acres 6 du/acre 73 233 48.5 students 533 Proposed Zonin~ RPN/R-1 14.403 2.56 du/acre gross 118 24.5 students 270 School Enrollment K-5 6-8 9-12 21.9 students 12.1 students 14.5 students 48.5 STUDENTS 11.1 students 6.1 students 7.3 students 24.5 STUDENTS Summary of Proposed Land Uses Acres % of Site Residential lots 5.03 34.9 % Streets 1.6 11.t % Common Area 7.773 54.0 % Total 14.403 100 % Mr. Tucker noted that this petition was originally deferred by the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 2, 1@77, in order that the staff, the applicant, and the Charlottes- ville City Planning Staff could have an opportunity to discuss the possible improvement of Wilder Drive between Cutler and North Avenue. A member of the planning staff met with the City's Planning staff, Mr. Huja of the Community Development Department and the City's traffic engineer, and indicated that Wilder Drive would have to be upgraded. Although the right-of-way is available, widening of Wilder Drive would necessitate taking a considerable amount of property and trees from homes already established on this road. Many residents of September 21, 1977 (RegUlar-Night Meeting) Wilder Drive, upon receiving notification from the Planning Commission of possible road improvements, attended the meeting, and stated their opposition to doing so. Due to this opposition, a second meeting was held with the City, and it was decided that Cottonwood Road was adequate to handle the additional traffic. However, residents of Cottonwood Road have expressed their opposition to being connected to this proposed development. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends approval with the following nine conditions: "1. No dwelling units are to be built on slopes of 25% or greater without County Engineering Department approval of site work; 2. Water and sewer facilities to be approved by, and dedicated to, the Albemarle County Service Authority; 3. County Engineering Department and Highway Department approval of roads; 4. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for common space and recreational facilities; 5. Grading permit required prior to subdivision approval; 6. Dedication to Albemarle County of a 15 foot wide strip for future construction of a bicycle and pedestrian trail as shown on plan (received September 12, 1977); 7. Uses in the flood plain of Meadow Creek shall comply to Article 9A of the Zoning Ordinance; 8. Removal of cul-de-sac at Cottonwood Road and restoration of disturbed areas~ 9. Applicant shall submit two copies of a revised plan addressing changes recommended by the staff on lots 91, 96, 97, and 1." Mr. Fisher read the September 16th letter received from Mr. Huja. "The purpose of this memo is to convey to you the City's comments concernin~ this matter. Usually we make such comments when a subdivision is presented to us. In this case, we feel that it may be desirable to convey to you these comments earlier so that they can be considered as part of your approval process and hopefully, result in a better project from the City's as well as the County's point of view. The following are some of our and the neighborhood resident's present concerns: Traffic: This is a major area of concern to the residents and to us. Given the two choices, one on Wilder Drive and second, on Cottonwood Road, our Traffic Engineer and we think that Cottonwood would be a better choice because of the wider payement unless appropriate improvements can be made to Wilder Drive as indicated in our letter dated August 8, 1977, to Mr. Robert Tucker. It has been suggested to us that you may wish to explore other ac·ess to the property coming directly to Rio Road. Any such access can be a detriment to the flood plain and may not be economically feasible. One could also consider the possibility of having two accesses to this property, one at Cottonwood Road and one at Wilder Drive, thus dividing the traffic load. In such case, some improvements may be necessary to Wilder Drive. Adequate care needs to be taken to control the speed of the traffic so as to result in safe movement and safety to the children living on Cottonwood Road and in the Wilder Drive area. Drainage: Adequate provisions must be made so that drainage will not flow to the adjacent City properties. Vegetation: Trees and vegetation should be protected as far as possible especially adjacent to the City boundary. We would suggest that areas to be cleared should be replanted, especially adjacent to the City boundary. Appropriate screening should be provided from adjacent houses in the City. Recreation: Adequate pedestrian and bicycle access should be provided to recreational areas. We Would suggest that recreational areas be accessible, safe, and show the nature of improvements to be provided in detail and assurances made that such improvements will be completed. Homeowners Association: If there is to be a Homeowners Association, we will suggest that this Association's document should allow membership to the adjacent residents in the City within 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius from the project boundaries. Lighting: Adequate street lighting should be provided, but the lighting should be dire·ted away from City property. Fire Protection: Adequate fire protection should be provided and cul-de- sacs should be wide enough for fire trucks to turn-around. Utilities: Adequate utilities should be provided and appropriate easements should be shown on the plan. Destruction of vegetation should be minimized by appropriate location of easements and utility lines. Bike Path: A bike path should be provided around Meadowbrook and that the bike path should be developed by the developer as part of this subdivision. September 21, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) 10. Easements: Adequate pedestrian and bicycle easements should be provided to Wilder Drive if Cottonwood Road is selected as the sole access. Let me also indicate that we do not have the authority to approve this subdivision. The subdivision must be approved by the Planning Commission of the City, and any curb cuts must be approved by the City Manager. We feel that the above comments will improve the development. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Satyendra S. Huja Director of Planning and Community Development" Mr. Fisher then read the letter and attached petition submitted by Mr. Lawrence Rudnick. "To: Charlottesville Planning Commission Albemarle Board of Supervisors From: Residents of Idlewood Subdivision, by Lawrence Rudnick Re: Proposed Wilder Tract Subdivision Enclosed please find a petition signed by 78 residents, representing 54 households in the Idlewood SubdiviSion of the City of Charlottesville. The petition asks that anyone with the proper authority suspend further action on the approval of the proposed Wilder tract subdivision. We ask that action be suspended until such time as all concerned citizRns can be fairly heard on the suggestions and objections concerning the development. We realize that the established systems for public input are the open meetings of the Charlottesville Planning Commission, and through the courts. However, we feel that it will be beneficial to all parties if any disagree- ments can be ironed out informally, at an early stage. Sole access to the Wilder tract, in the County, is proposed through City streets. Yet no channels have been set up for City residents to explore problems which may arise during or after construction. Inadequate thought has been given to current traffic problems in the area, and the impact of the proposed development. Residents of the City will lose the recreational use of their dead-end street. No mechanism has been incorporated to permit their use of common areas in the new subdivision. There is also no access, or even easement for one, to the largest suggested recreation area. Two of the "typicali~ot lots" are drawn on slopes of 30%. These are typical of aspects of the proposed subdigision which deserve further thought, before it is approved. This situation has come about because neither the Developer, nor the County, nor the City took any initiative in soliciting the ideas of the neighborhood citizens in planning the development. The Developer did notify the two adjacent households~of the proposed Cottonwood breakthrough, at the suggestion of the Community Development Department. This was only one night before the scheduled approval by the Albemarle Planning Commission. There is no question that the proposed breakthrough of Cottonwood Rd. and/or Wilder Dr. would change the quality of life in the neighborhood. It is our desire to minimize the deleter- ious impact of the new subdivision, within reasonable economic and other con- straints. We suggest that the City Community Development Department and the Albemarle Planning Staff coordinate discussions between concerned citizens and the Develop- er, as one possible course of action. We have already secured the gracious cooperation of Mr. S. Huja in the City, and look forward to further interaction with hims After initial discussions among all parties, a larger public meeting would probably be appropriate. We estimate a timescale of about 30 days for these discussions. We arc-anxious to cooperate with all interested parties in finding solutions to matters of concern. We hope that the Developer, the City, and the County would join in this effort, and we sincerely seek your support. Thank you in advance for your cooperation." "We the undersigned residents of Idlewood Subdivision feel that the increased traffic by the opening of the cul-de-sac at the end of Cottonwood Road would be hazardous forfthe following reasons: ~ (1) A blind curve now exists i~ the front of 1028~!029 residences. (2) The approach coming in/out of Cottonwood via North Avenue is not conducive to a large volume of traffic. Here too a blind curve exists. (3) During rush hour traffic a situation now exists where it is near impossible to enter Park Street extended from North Avenue. Traffic has already increased on North Avenue due to the new High School, the new Albemarle Square Shopping Center, as well as the new apartment complexes on Rio Road. (4) The City has previously promised to construct a playground at the corner of Calhoun and Sheridian Avenues. Apparently these plans have been dropped leaving no recreational area for the residential children, who currently .play in the street. September 21, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) 270 1977: (5) Some of the residents along Cottonwood and Beechwood Roads are now using Cutler Lane due to the hazardous conditions at the approach of Cottonwood/North Avenues. Conclusion: We therefore consider the proposed modifications to Cottonwood Road un- acceptable and request that no action be taken until the City of Charlottes- ville and all the residents of the Idlewood Subdivision have had a chance to examine possible alternatives." Mr. Fisher then read the letter submitted by Mr. William E. Myers, dated September 21, "I am a resident of the Idlewood Subdivision in Charlottesville and I feeI that the proposed development of the Wilder Tract Subdivision in Albemarle County will have some direct and unwanted effects on my neighbor- hood, primarily increased traffic and traffic r~elated problems. I am decidedly against channeling all traffic for the proposed development onto Cottonwood Road; my preference is for direct access to Park Street. Should access to Park Street be physically or financially impossible, broad consideration should be given to potential problems in existing adja- cent neighborhoods before approval is granted bY the Charlottesville Planning Commission. The area of interest includes Idlewood and Albemarle Homes Subdivisions and contains Cottonwood and Glendale Roads, Wilder and Beechwood Drives, Cutler and Dell Lanes, Ashby Place, North Avenue from Glendale Road to Park Street, and Park Street in the vicinity of the Cutler Lane and North Avenue intersections. Although I Would prefer that the neighborhood remain unchanged by outside construction, I accept that planned development will continue. Since develop- ment of the Wilder Tract Subdivision has been previously planned for, as evidenced by the dedicated accesses to city streets, my part in the orderly, planned development of the area is limited to communication with appropriate government officials and with the developer. Such communication will allow me, and other neighborhood residents, to make suggestimns and point out problems that may have been overlooked by the developer or city officials and will insure a flow of information between all parties involved. Hope- fully this will minimize misunderstandings and insure consideration of present neighborhood residents. The following suggestions, questions, and considerations have come to mind. Some may have already been resolved by the developer or may be subject to local regulations but since I am not aware of these, candid and forthright responses would be helpful. I should point out that I am speaking for m~se!f but I am sure that much of what I have to say is or will be supported by o~her neighborhood residents. (Refer to the letter of 18 Sep. 77 from Lawrence Rudnick to the Charlottesville Planning Commission and the Albemarle Board of Supervisors which forwards a related petition.) Increased traffic seems to be the most obvious problem for the nei~hbor- hood. The following suggested traffic scheme is based on personal observa- tions and also deals with some problems that preceded the developer's announced plans. 1. Access to the proposed development by both Cottonwood Road and a combined Wilder DriVe--Cutler Lane route. This should lessen the traffic congestion of a single street access and would allow residents of the develop- ment a choice of routes based on traffic cOnditions. 2. Improve Wilder Drive north of the Wilder Drive--Cutler Lane intersectionii!ionly. Southbound traffic on Wilder would not be permitted past this intersection but would be routed to Park Street by way of Cutler Lane. Residents on Wilder between Cutler and North Avenue would be permitted to '-i~ travel in either direction. 8. Place a "NO THROUGH TRAFFIC" or "DO NOT ENTER" sign at Wilder and Cutler for southbound traffic. 4. Place a "YIELD" sign at Wilder and Cutler for northbound traffic. 5. Place stop signs at Cottonwood Road and Beechwood Drive for both Beechwood and southbound Cottonwood traffic. 6. Place a "STOP" sign on Cottonwood Road at North Avenue. 7. Place three signs on Cottonwood Road warning motorists of children playing. 8. Cut down the vegetation on the west side of Park Street northwest of the North Avenue intersection. This will benefit motorists entering Park Street from North Avenue, southbound motorists on Park Street approaching North Avenue, and residents on the west side of Park Street. 9. Make the former bus stop on Park Street at No~th Avenue a right turn lane with no parking. This will eliminate a hazardous condition for traffic entering Park Street from North Avenue. September 21, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) The rationale for this scheme is that traffic control signs and street corners will tend to slow traffic whereas long downhill streets tend to increase the speed of traffic. The above suggestions should reduce the impact of increased traffic in the neighborhood. Other questions and considerations are of two types; those dealing with direct impact on adjoining neighborhoods and those of a broader nature affecting city government and taxpayers in general. 1. Where will utility lines be located? (gas, water, electric, sewer, phone, cable) Will neighborhood property have to be disturbed for any of these utilities? If easements across neighborhood property are utilized who is responsi- ble for any damage done, for returning easements to original condition, and for determining that easement restoration is satisfactory? 2. Will recreation areas be provided within one year to get children off of the streets in both the present neighborhood and in the proposed develop- ment? This is in reference to both the proposed city park off of Sheridian Avenue and the proposed recreation areas in the development. 3. Will altered drainage and erosion conditions cause unwanted changes to Meadow Creek downstream where it flows within the city limits (Locust Grove Extended Subdivision)? What erosion prevention measures will be required of the developer during construction? What measures will be required to prevent long term erosion problems? How does riparian law bear on the problem? What re- course will the city or downstream property owners have should undesirable situations arise after construction? 4. Can the developer be made responsible for future problems created for city residents as a result of the developer's activities or will residents be "stuck" as in some past cases? Can the developer be required to post a performance bond to cover this potential problem and those in t, 2, and 3 above and 8 below? 5. What obligations to present neighborhood residents and to R-1 zoning values d6 the various involved city offices assume vis-a-vis the developer's "rights"? (Community Development, City Manager, City Attorney, etc.) 6. Who will provide trash collection--city or private trash haulers? This will affect traffic and may cause litter problems. 7. Any increased street maintenance in the city required by increased traffic will be borne by the city (both funding~and manpower). 8. Who will maintain streets within the proposed development? Will they be built and maintained to city standards (a consideration for future annexation or incorporation)? Will they be initially designated as state roads or private roads? This last question may bear on 9 and 10 below. 9. Who will provide law enforcement services? Jefferson Village experienced problems in this respect. I understand that 10. Who will provide fire protection? 11. Which schools will children in the proposed development attend? If county schools, will county school buses go to the development? If city schools, will an additional city school bus be required and will there be tax support to the city? Will residents of the~development be permitted to send children to city schools by paying tuition? 12. Will water supply and sewers be provided by the city? Will administrative costs be added to the bills of residents in the development? 13. Will city gas be supplied to the proposed development? If so how does this impact on city residents who have had to wait for gas hookups and how will this affect the problem of gas shortages? 14. Should any considerations be taken now in terms of a possible future annexation or incorporation of the proposed development into the city? 15.. The proposed bicycle path may be an unnecessary expense since it will be at the bottom of the cliffs where it will not be readily available to residents of the proposed development or to city residents. I hope that the preceeding will be of use to all involved parties and will help the developer and mity officials to better under~tand the concerns of neighbor- hood residents. I would further hope that this letter will encourage more open and meaningful discussion when the subdivision plans are presented to the city for public hearing and final decision, if I can be of assistance, please call me at home (293-5034) or at my office (296-5171, ext 547)." Mr, Frank Kessler and Mr. Claude Cotton, applicants said they felt their planned use was the best possible for that site. Mr. Cotton said he was in agreement with most recom- mendations and conditions suggested by the Planning Commission, but requested the proposed "bike path" be left as an easement until specific "bike pa~h]~ rules and regulations" are set out by the County. It was further noted that all roads would be built to state spec- ifieations. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing'oPened. First to speak was Mr. Earl F. Davis, Cottonwood Road, who felt the possibility of multiple access to the development should be explored more fully. September 21, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) q7~ Mr. William F. Bowman said that if Wilder Drive is to be used as access to this new development, the road must be improved and widened. Mr. Gary Legner said he was against making Wilder Drive a through street into the development, but if this is done, then it is in need of widening and improvements. If widening is done, several very large trees would have to be removed, and he felt the property owners would protest. Mr. James Collier suggested that to keep the additional traffic off the presently in- adequate streets, access to the new development should be from Rio Road. Mrs. Bernard Cook said that if the streets were widened, curbs would be needed or water would come down the hill onto her property. Mrs. Lucille Frazier was also opposed to the increased traffic. Mr. H. G. Britts of Cottonwood Road said the corner of Cottonwood Road and North Avenue is a very dangerous blind curve, and can't take additional traffic. No one else from the public spoke either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. After a brief discussion as to road access to the property, Mrs. David offered motion to approve SP-77-15 with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr; Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher suggested a letter be written by Mr. Tucker to the Parks and Recreation Department requesting them to look into the question of who will be responsible for the upkeep and policing of future bicycle paths, such as the one required to be dedicated in the previous petition. Agenda Item No. 5. Gene Granger: Final Site Plan (Deferred from September 7, 1977). Mr. Tucker said the applicant wished to defer this once more, as percolation tests and contracts with the prospective buyer have not been completed. Motion to defer to October 12, 1977, was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. S. Public Hearing: SP-77-51. Roger W. Staton. To locate a mobile home on 2.011 acres zoned A-1. Property on north side of Route 605 approximately 8/4 mile~ from intersection of Route 605 and Route 748. (County Tax Map 11, Parcel 1, part thereof. Rivanna District.) (Adveriised in Daily Progress on August 9, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said this petition was withdrawn before the Planning Commission at their meeting last night, and that no action is required by this Board. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: SP-77-49. Brenda M. Lloyd. To locate a gift, craft and antique shop on 4.576 acres zoned A-1. Property on west side of Route 718 approximately 300 yards northeast of the intersection of Route 715 and Route 20 South. (County Tax Map 121, Parcel 82B, Scottsville District.) (Advertised in Daily Progress on September 7 and September 14, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the staff report. "Character of the Area This area is rural, characterized by large parcels. The site is heavily wooded and the dwelling is not visible from the road or surrounding properties. The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for agricultural use. Staff Comment The applicant proposes to op%rate an antique shop in the basement of the dwell- ing ( 500 square feet ). The business would be operated primarily by appointment and no employees are fb~e~een at this time. The applicant desires a location sign on Route 20. Route 718 is basically a "one-lane" gravel road, and in staff opinion is inappro- priate for commercial use. Staff recommends denial of this petition. If, however, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Business be limited to 500 Square feet and operated by appointment only and no employees; 2. Limited to one location sign on Route 20 South with the wording "Woodhouse". Sign is to comply to Article 18 Scenic Highway Designation; 8. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entranees~ 4. Staff approval of site plan. Seven ( 7 ) parking spaces are required; 5. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies." September 21, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker then noted the Planning Commission voted by 8-1 to approve SP-77-49 with the following 10 conditionS: "1 · 2. 8. 7. 8. 9. 10. Business to be limited to 500 square feet; Business to be operated by appointment only; No employees; Limited to one location sign on Route 20 South with the wording "Woodhouse". Location sign to comply to Article 18 Scenic Highway Designation; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances; Approval of appropriate state and local agencies; No gifts or crafts to be sold; Special permit issued to applicant only and is not transferable; Existing parking spaces to be properly maintained." Mr. Jim Murray, representing the applicant, said the occupation would be in the appli- cant's basement, and that customers would be by appointment only. He said that although the access road is presently narrow and in poor condition, the applicant would be willing to make the necessary improvements as required by the State Highway Department. No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the Public hear- ing closed. Motion was offered by Mr, Dorrier to approve SP~77~49 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Dr. Iachetta felt that the 10 conditions stated were very excessive, and Mr. St. John said he was~of the same opinion. Roll was then called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-77-50. Dr. Robert Partridge. To locate a veterinary clinic on 0.655 acres zoned B-1 General Business. Property on 250 East approximately 1/4 mile east of the intersection of Route 250 east and New Route 20, and just east of the Sun 0il Company. County Tax Map 78, Parcel 15 part thereof (Parcel C-3) Rivanna District (Adverl on September 7 and September 14, 1977.1 ' Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report: "Character of the Area A vacant gasoline station and Moore's Lumber Company are to the west, a motel and dwelling to the north. Two other dwellings exist on this parcel to the east. Ail properties in the immediate area are zoned B-! Business. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area for commercial use. Staff Comment The applicant proposes to operate a veterinary clinic in an existing dwelling which will be served by public water. This property, containing 3 dwellings and composed of 1.83 acres has not been subdivided as yet. Staff opinion is that the applicant,~-s proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible in this area. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Site Plan approval; 2. Minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet as required by Subdivision 0rdinanee; 3. Veterinary use restricted to existing building. Expansion of use will re- quire amendment of this special permit. NOTE: The property owner has agreed to serve all lots resulting from division of this parcel by one existing entrance located on "C-2". This item will be addressed in subdivisionfsite plan approval:" Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with one additional condition, that being, "No outside boarding or housing of animals". A letter was then read from Mr. E. E. Thompson of the Albemarle County Service Authority: "September 6, 1977 To: Robert Tucker From: E. E. Thompson, Jr. RIVERBEND WATER SYSTEM - SP 77-50 This is to advise that a connection to the Riverbend Water System to serve · the Veterinary Building for Dr.R~,b~t,'~ ' ~. ~P~mtrzdge will be allowed by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me." Dr. Partridge was present, and stated that it was his understanding that the water line to his property was one and one-half inches. If for some reason that water supply should stop, there is a supplementary well on the property that he can use. There was considerable discussion by Board members as to the adequacy of this water line, and also who was the legal owner of the company supplying this water. September 21, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) No one from the public wiBhed to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve the request with the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, changing condition number two to read: "Minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet as required by the Subdivision 0rdinanee, i.e. the site will be provided with public water service." Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iaehetta and Roudabush. None. At 9:34 PIN., a short recess was called for by Mr. Fisher~ 9:40 P.M. Meeting reconvened at Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-77-18. Liberia Development Corporation. To ~ezone 214.5 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RPN/RS-1. Property on Route 631 three miles south of Charlottes- ville. County Tax Map 89, Parcels 95 and 95A; County Tax Map 90, Parcels 3 and 5, part thereof. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in Daily Progress on September 7 and September 14, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the staff report as follows: "Character of the Area This area is rural in character, predominated by large acreages. Part of the subject property is Whittington Subdivision which the Commission approved with conditions last year. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan proposes agricultural use of this area. lng in the area is A-1 Agriculture. Existing zon- Comparative Impact Statistics RPN/RS-1 Existing Avl Dwellings 111 91 Population 355 291 Vehicles 167 137 Vehicle trips/day 777 664 Water Consumption ( gpd ) 35,500 29,120 Students 73 60 Request as % of Existing +22% +22% +22% +22% +22% +22% Land Use Statistics USE ACREAGE Res'idential 135 acres Open Space 72.5 acres Roads 7.0 acres TOTAL 198.75 acres* % of Total 67.92% 28.55% 3.53% 100.00% Average lot size - 1.22 acres Gross density - 0.56 unit~Tacre Net density - 0.83 units/acre *NOTE: Application is for 214.5 acres. deeds totals 198.75 acres. Plan shows 204 acres. Acreage from Staff Comment As can be seen in the tables above, this plan calls for 22% increase in density ( 20 dwellings ) over that recommended as permissible by the Comprehensive Plan. On several occasions in the past, staff has indicated an unwillingness to support densities greater than recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff also indicated that slight increases in density could be supported under a Residential Planned Neighborhood or Planned Community if that approach reflected land Use goals of the County. Staff opinion zs that the public interest would be better served under the Whittington RPN than under a traditional subdivision approach. Reasons for this are as follows: (a) About 1/3 of the property will remain in open space. This open space is around swales, streams, and steeper slopes and shows regard for these features; (b) The applicant has agreed to a dod±cation of 55 feet from the eenterline on Route 631 and to a setback of 130 feet from the centerline for dwe%lings; (c) Generally, this plan is more compatible to the land than a traditional sub- division. Staff would point out that the proposed road system in this plan makes extensive use of the private road/private drive concept in that about 2/3 of the lots would be served by these roads. Approval of this plan would be a change in "policy" in regard to extensive use of the private road concept. Staff opinion is that recent amendment of the Subdivision Ordinance ( i.e. - private contracts ) provides ade- quate safeguard of the public interest and the County to warrant such change in policy. Staff recommends approval of this petition." Mr. Tucker then hoted that the Planning Commission on September 6, 1977, recommended approval by a vote of 8 - 1, with the following conditions: SePtember 21, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) "1. Approval is for a maximum potential of !11 single-family residential lots, however the number of lots finally approved shall be governed by conditions of approval established in this petition. Open space is to be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots platted. In the event a proposed lot shall not be approved for building development, such lot may be combined with another lot, or may be added to common open space upon a finding by the Plann- ing Commission that such action is compatible with the overall development plan; 2. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements for maintenance of open space and private roads; 3. Lots are to be 40,000 square feet or greater in area; 4. Ail lots shall use internal roads as the sole means of ingress/egress. Direct access from lots to Route 6.31 will not be permitted; 5. Health Department certification that each lot is adequate for two septic systems (one main system and one back-up field) prior to final plat approvals; (a) No dwelling is to be located on slopes of 25% or greater without County Engineering Department approval of site work. Septic tank drainfie~ds may be located on steep slopes only upon written approval of the Health Depart- ment which specifically acknowledges the previous statement by Edwin S. Roseberry to David Breeden concerning Whittington Subdivision; (b) In the event that either a main septic system or back-up drainfield shall require pumping to adequately service a dwelling, such requirement shall be stated on the plat and in the contract of sale for such 6. Impacts from this development ( i.e., school enrollment impact, traffic ) will be considered in future approvals for other properties and requirements for improvements will be made accordingly; 7. Subject to Highway Department approval of public roads and Engineering Depart- ment approval of private roads; 8. Fire Marshal approval to include approval of water line sizes and locations, emergency access provisions, locations of dwellings and provision of fire protection facilities and fire hydrants; 9. Ail lots are to be served by a public water supply C as defined by Section 16-70 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance ) if the same shall be reasonably available. Otherwise, all lots are to be served by a central water supply ( as defined by Section 16-18.02 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance ) approved in accordance with the Code of ~lbemarle County, the Code of Virginia, and all other applicable law. No further approvals or reviews, including grading plan, drainage, and road plan reviews, by any department of Albemarle County shall be given until said public water system or central water system shall have been approved as setforth in this condition~ 10. 0nly those areas where a structure, streets, utilities, pedestrian trails and other improvements are proposed shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; 11. The minimum setback from all interior roads shall be 30 feet; 12. Dedication of 55 feet from the centerline of Route 631 in accordance with recommendations of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Ail dwellings shall be setback 75 feet from the resulting right-of-way line." Mr. Roy Parks, representing the applicant, presented maps showing the planned community. He also presented a letter, which Mr. Fisher read as follows: "To: From: Date: Mr. David Breeden Mr. Edwin S. Roseberry July 5, 1977 Subdivision #201 acres plus on Route 631, Tax Map 89, Parcels 95 and 95A; Tax Map 90, Parcels 3 and 5, part of, appears to be suitable for subsurface drain- fields. The lot sizes are such that there is enough space to install the re- quired amount of septic tank system necessary for the planned building with additional space ~o install new drainfields when needed; however, each lot will be evaluated on its own merit and percolation test may be required at the time the septic permit is applied for. Results of a percolation test when required must be acceptable before a permit to install a septic tank is issued. Soil studies done on 201 acres." Mr. Bruce Rasmussen said he represented a group of 20 farmers who were concerned about the effects of this development on the watershed which serves their properties. Mr. David Kradravetz, attorney for the applicant, said it was economically unfeasible to bring water from the public water system, because they would have to lay pipe for'~'~: over a mile. This is the reason they decided to go with the public well. Mr. Charlie Yost felt the development should be required to use public water, because a development of that size would pump neighboring wells dry, and those adjoining property owners may not have the resources to drill new wells. Two other unidentified men also felt the use of a well for this development will cause problems to neighboring landowners and felt the problem should be examined more closely. After very considerable discussion as to the problems a central well system may cause, and whether or not it was possible to expand the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdiction into that area, it was noted by Mr. Fisher that if.the developer eliminated 10 or 11 lots, they could apply under A-1/RPN zoning. He added that he was afraid of setting a precedent for higher density. Mr. St. John said the water companies presently operating in that area owned by Mr. T. J. Breeden, are illegal in that they are not incorporated by the State Corporation Commission as public water companies. He also noted that if the County decided that they did not want any further independent water companies, they could have the Service Authority take over the small water companies with funds given or loaned by the County. Following open debate on this possibility, motion was offered by Dr. Iaehetta to defer any decision on this request to 0etober 5, 1977, at 3:00 P.M., at which time the reasonableness of requiring that the development be served by public water could be determined. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. September 21, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) Setep_~er 28, 1977 .~Adjourn_____ed from September 21~l~ZTJ It was suggested by Mr. Fisher that the Albemarle County Service Authority be informed about the concerns the Board has on the extension of water lines and jurisdictional boundaries for this~property, and that they be invited to meet with The Board on that date to discuss same. Mr. Fisher noted that it would be a public meeting, not a public hearing. Roll was called, and motion carried by' the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher then requested the staff to contact the Service Authority, and review with them the possibilities of extending their coverage into this area. Recommendations would be solicited at the October 5th meeting. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from the Chairman of the Economic Development Commission indicating a public meeting will be held on October 6, 1977, at 7:80 P.M. at the Gordon Avenue Public Library. The meeting, requested by the County and City governments, is being held to explain the purpose of the Commission, and to allow the public the opportunity to voice their wishes. He requested copies of the letter be sent to members of the Industrial Development Authority, Mr. Fisher noted receipt of an application by the Potomac Edison Power Company for an increase in rates; hearing to be held in Winchester on Thursday October 8, 1977. Mr. Fisher said he had received notice from the Division of Legislative Services that the State is considering eliminating some railroad crossings which are "little used and of danger to the traveling public,'. At 11:85 P.M., motion was requested by Mr. Fisher to adjourn the meeting to 1:30 P.M. on September 28, 1977. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dottier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. ~hairman An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 28, 1977, beginning at 1:30 P. M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 21, 1977. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Rou~buSh. Absent: None. Officers present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, and Mr. George R. St.John, County Attorney (arriving at 1:55 P. M.). Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 1:35 P. M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. la. Request for additional deputy. Sheriff George Bailey was present. He said that three additional deputies had been requested for funding by the State Compensa- tion Board for fiscal year 1977-78. Originally, the Compensation Board authorized the employment of one deputy beginning July 1, 1977. A month or so later they had authorized the employment of a second deputy. At an appeal before the Compensation Board last Friday, they had compromised by agreeing to allow a process server presently on the payroll to serve as a road deputy, and at the same time authorizing the hiring of another process server beginning January 1, 1978. The Sheriff said that because his law officers are tied up during civil work, he requests that the Board of Supervisors allow him to fill this position as of October 1, 1977, since he does not feel this will require any new money from the County. Mr. Agnor said the Board had funded three additional persons in the sheriff's budget for the fiscal year, but because of delays in hiring, adequate funds are available in the sheriff's budget to coyer this salary for three months. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to allow the Sheriff to hire one additional deputy beginning October 1, 1977; said deputy to be paid entirely from local funds for the three remaining months in 1977. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None.