Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-10-23N10-23-74 '(nigh~) 3O5 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 23, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, T. M. Batchelor, Jr., and County Attorney, George R. St. John. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Mr. Wheeler announced that the regular Board meeting of November 21, 1974, had been changed to November 19, 1974, and the meeting scheduled for November 27, 1974, had been cancelled. The Board began with discussion of request for SP-416 for Alice C. Fray Quarterman. Public hearing on this petition was deferred from October 9, 1974, because the applicant was not present at that time. Mr. Humphrey said this request is to locate a mobile home on two acres of land zoned A-1 and located on the south side of Route 600 near its intersection with Route 784. There are several single-family dwellings located in the immediate area. A new single-family dwelling is being constructed approximately 150 to 200 yards northeast of the proposed site. Since the site was cleared at one time and even though there were some hardwoods left within the cleared area, it would be difficult to completely screen a mobile home from Route 600. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission is recommending denial of SP-416 on the basis that the granting of this permit would set a precedent for mobile homes in the area. It would be the only mobile home on Route 784 in this area and they do not feel the mobile home can be adequately screened and would not fit the character of the area. Mrs. Quarterman was present in support of the petitiOn. Mr. John Dezio was present representing several landowners in the vicinity in opposition, namely, Messrs. Crawford, Kovaks, Davidson, McDaniel, Taylor and Hall. He said this is an area of single-family dwellings from modest to upper middle class. The closest mobile home is about two miles away on Route 600. He said this use would not be compatible and would be detrimental to the other landowners. He asked the Board to deny this permit request. Mrs. Quarterman said Mr. Crawford is the only landowner whose property directly joins hers. Mr. Crawford said he has measured the distance to the nearest mobile home and found it to be two and one-half miles in either direction on Route 600. There are no mobile homes on Route 784. Mr. Wood asked the staff's recommended conditions if this permit were approved. 10-23-74 (night) Mr. Humphrey gave the following conditions: (1) County building official approval. (2) Individual well and septic tank systems. (3) Setback from Routes 600 and 784 of 100 feet. (4) Screening along Route 600. (5) Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile home. (6) This permit is issued to the applicant only and is not transferrable. (7) Time limit of five (5) years. Mr. Wheeler asked the size of the tract. Mr. Humphrey said it is two acres. The staff referred to the clearing because the property has been completely cleared on the front side and would take substantial screening. Mr. Wheeler said he is familiar with this area and he agrees with Mr. Dezio about the type of homes in the area. Also the Ruritan Club is close to this property. He reminded the Board that the Planning Staff had stated it would be almost impossible to screen the mobile home from surrounding properties. He said approval of this petition would be detrimental to property values and he urged the Board to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Wood said he also is familiar with the area. He said Mrs. Quarterman owns the property and will live in the mobile home and it is hard to vote against the permit with the conditions recommended by the Planning Staff. Condition ~4 says be the mobile home is to/screened from Route 600 and he takes that condition to mean what it says. He finds ~ hard to deny someone the right to put a mobile home on their own property and would be in favor of voting for this request. Mr. Wheeler said he knew of no instance where screening has been successful in the past. Mr. Humphrey said there are no mobile homes in the immediate area and the Planning Commission took that as starting a precedent. Mr. Thacker said he views this type of housing as temporary but feels it is necessary from time to time to place mobile homes such as this in the County. In the past he has supported the feelings of the residents in the area effected. In this case nearly all of the adjacent residents and many others close to the property are opposed to approval of this request. If this had been presented as a hardship case he may have looked upon it differently. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to deny SP-416. Mr. Henley said he looks at mobile homes as being a fairly ~decent place to live in and he cannot see that placement of mobile homes lowers property values in any way. Mr. Wheeler declared Mr. Thacker's motion dead for lack of a second. Mr. ~isher said he has agonized more over mobile home applications than any other application that comes before the Board. Everytime a request is presented there is the same controversy between those who do not want mobile homes in their neighborhood and those who want them for a home. Faced with such a conflict he is forced to vote for the property owner. He said this Board needs to show some guidance. In many cases, he feels that with the proper help, the people coming to the Board could find a permanent home. 10-23-74 (night) 307 Mr. Wood said the Planning Commission has taken this under advisement and appointed themselves a committee of the whole to draft recommendations. Mr. Wood then offered motion to approve SP-416 with the recommendations of the Planning Staff. Mr. Wheeler said the Planning Commission has started a committee to study the placement of mobile homes in the County and that is not what Mr. Fisher said. He asked Mr. Fisher to restate what he meant. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board should proceed with the Housing Committee to take an active role in helping to find low income housing. Hopefully they will help create permanent housing which will be of a better value to the people who need housing. Mr. Wood said the Planning Commission is going to study mobile homes as a means of living and also study mobile homes as they relate to Albemarle County. Mr. Henley said he is not sure what happens at the end of five years. Does the applicant have to reapply for a new permit? Mr. Humphrey said yes. Mr. Henley asked if a mobile home is not kept in presentable shape if this is grounds for the Board to deny a new application. Mr. St. John said the theory is that the Board will have absolute discretion at that time, just as they have the right to deny the permit at this time for no other reason than their discretion. But, Mr. St. John said, five years is not the depreciating life of a mobile home. He has doubts as to whether the Board can deny'a request for renewal of the permit at the end of five years if it has been kept in good shape. He said the applicant would have a good argument before the Court if he is told he has to move his mobile home and has not gotten his investment back. Mr. Henley asked how much weight it would carry if the property had not been kept in good shape. Mr. Wheeler said he will not be on this Board five years from now, but he does not believe the Board at that time will start moving all of these mobile homes. He has always thought that in areas where there are no mobile homes and where it looks like it might be detrimental, the Board should be very cautious about placing same. If permission is given this week to place a mobile home and next week there is another application for the same area, what basis can be used to deny that request. He always felt that anyone wanting a mobile home must be in a hardship position because if he could do better he would. ~ Mr. St. John said that did not answer Mr. Henley's question. If a person clearly maintains what amounts to a public nuisance this would be a rebuke of the mobile home permit and that person could be required to move it. But the Board needs more than a county official's idea of how a mobile home should be kept. At this point Mr. Carwile gave second to Mr. Wood's motion for approval. Vote was taken and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, ~Fisher, Henley, and Wood. ~ NAYS: Messrs. Thacker and Wheeler. The Board continued with a report from the Sign Study Commission. Present were Messrs. Michael Gleason, Chairman, Harry Wright, John Craifax, Leroy Graves, Edward Jackson, and Mrs. Betty Scott and Mrs. Martha Seldon, members of the Commission. Mr. William Thacker is also a member. Mr. Gleason read the following report: "You established the Albemarle County Sign Study Commission on July 1, 1974, to study and make possible recommendations with regard to signs and sign laws in Albemarle County. The member- ship of the Commission has attempted to justly represent the varied interests and concerns of the community, regarding both the positive and negative opinions of signs. "Since July, the Commission has had a number of work sessions, and during September and October it conducted three public hear- ings to obtain citizen input. Numerous persons contributed their ideas and opinions during the hearings, including the County Attorney, the County Zoning Administrator, and representatives of the Virginia Department of Highways, the 500-member Civic League, the 400-member Citizens for Albemarle, the 250-member Realtor's Association, the Restaurant Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and motels. With such a broad interest and concern, both for and against signs, there is no easy or simple solution for this com- plex problem. "The value and necessity of signs are viewed from a number of perspectives. Each argument, for or against signs, seems to have an equally significant counter-argument. "The County needs to protect its strong and growing economy. This requires a healthy, competitive business community stimulated by -- among a number of factors -- adequate directional and on- premise signs to serve potential customers. "The County also needs to protect its rich historic and nat- ural beauty. This requires a strong defense against the encroach- ment of outdoor advertising upon its scenic countryside. "Tourism is the County's second largest industry, and millions will visit here in the coming years during the two hundredth anni- versary celebration of American Independence. These visitors will depend on adequate signs to find gasoline, food, lodging, informa- tion, and many other services. "Tourists come to Albemarle County to see one of the most his- toric and attractive areas in the nation, a leading Bicentennical locality, not to be subsequently asked to join the Army, promised a good deal on a Pontiac, or thanked for using brick. "Albemarle is a growing County. Its residents are part of a mobile society influenced by, and dependent upon, road-side adver- tising. Its residents are also part of a society beset by an economic crisis. Any dramatic change in the County's sign policy, without a feasible alternative, could possibly heighten the crisis situation. "Signs mean clutter for the scenic motorist, a livelihood for the sign maker, revenue for the property owner, an eyesore for the ecologist, license and tax revenue for the Finance Office, a head- ache for legal and zoning authorities. "Signs grow faster than the laws that control or protect them. The laws are quickly outdated; sometimes vague; often unenforced. Meanwhile, old signs go unattended and deteriorate; clusters grow; new signs get bigger and bigger. Signs are legal one year and non-conforming the next. Sign owners face a double threat of sign elimination as well as inadequate compensation. "This matter is not a problem for an isolated few businesses or interested citizens. It is a community problem; it requires community-wide attention; it demands a well,balanced approach to serve many and harm few. "It is significant then~ that our Commission -- representing business, tourism, government, ecology, citizen, and organized interests -- report its recommendations in unanimity. Each recommendation -- every one of the twelve -- is made without one dissenting vote. 10-23-74 (night) 309 "The Commission concluded that amortization is a widely recog- nized solution for off-premise sign removal. Ahead of any attempt to institute amortization, however, is the need for enabling leg- islation from the State of Virginia. Because of the varied inter- est in amortization throughout the State, local option legislation is suggested by the Commission as an alternative to general legis- lation. "Sign removal is reflected in the Commission's suggestion that local civic and business organizations be encouraged to purchase and take down signs along designated scenic highways. Scenic highway designation will not become a re~ti~y?~i~hQut~h-e~limina- tion of signs, and the purchase of the signs will help compensate a sign owner's investment. A recommendation is also made to accel- erate action regarding compensated, off-premise sign removal on U.S. 29 North and South under the provisions of the Federal Highway Beautification Act. "This report includes the recommendation for the establishment of a permanent Sign Advisory Commission to provide further, detailed study regarding any other possible sign removal or new sign and information systems. "This report specifically recognizes the need for an adequate directional sign program in Albemarle County, and a recommenda- tion to encourage a new sign and information plaza system to coordinate signing effectively. Also recommended is support for requesting an experimental Interstate sign program in Albemarle County similar to that being tested on Interstate 95 north of Richmond. "Changes, additions, and deletions are suggested for the pro- posed amendments to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance regard- ing non-conforming signs and removal of signs. "THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS: "1) The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors request General Assembly legislation which would give local option as to the amortization of signs. "2) A permanent Sign Advisory Commission be established in Albemarle County to study the communication of information to ~%h~puhlic through signs, and other means, and to make recom- mendations as to the most effective ways of informing the public about the businesses, services, and tourist activities in the Albemarle-Charlottesville area. "The purpose of the Sign Advisory Commission would be to dis- cover the most effective means of transmitting information to the public while maintaining the scenic and historic beauty of Albe- marle County and Charlottesville. "The Sign Advisory Commission would be composed of business and~citizen representatives, would meet on a regular basis, and would submit reports and recommendations to the government of Albemarle County. "The Sign Advisory Commission would work with local organiza- tions to establish and evaluate specific new programs. "The Sign Advisory Commission would consult wit~ the Albemarle County planning staff to develop appropriate quidelines for the use of signs and other means of communication. "The Sign Advisory Commission would investigate the financial implications of both sign amortization and any new communication system. "3) The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors support the Sign Advisory Commission in its efforts to request from the Virginia Department of Highways immediate priority status on U.S. 29 in Albemarle County for compensated, off-premise sign removal under the provisions of the Federal Highway Beautification Act, condi- tional upon implementation of an adequate traveling public infor- mation and sign program. "4) An adequate information and sign program should include directional signs and information plazas for Albemarle County's road system. 310 10-2'3-74 (night) "5) The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors support the Sign Advisory Commission in its efforts to promote sign purchase along scenic highways by interested civic and business organizations. "6) The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors support the Sign Advisory Commission in its efforts to request an experimental sign program on Interstate 64 similar to that being tested on Interstate 95 between Richmond and Washington. "7) Changes be made in subsection (a) of Section (A) of the proposed amendment '15-9~1 Non-Conforming Signs and Discontinuance' of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, so that it reads as follows: 'a) Any business sign existing prior to the adoption of this ordinance/amendment, and not conforming to the terms of this ordinance, is hereby declared a non-conforming sign and may not be ~e~e~ replaced or altered in size or shape or in a manner as to change its general classifica- tion unless said sign conforms to the requirements of this ordinance. Upon the cessation or termina- tion of a particular use on a parcel of real prop- erty, the owner thereof shall w~h~-s~y-~68~ ~ays-e~-eessa~em-~-~e~m~ma~ remove all non- conforming signs within a period of time conform- ing with the State law. If the owner shall fail to comply with this requirement, then written notice shall be given by the Administrator to the owner advising of the violation. If such signs are then not removed within ten (10) days, the Administrator shall cause such removal and charge the cost to the owner of the premises.' "8) Deletion of subsection (b) of Section (A) of the proposed amendment '15-9-1 Non-Conforming Signs and Discontinuance' which did read: 'b) Any billboard, location or general advertising sign in existence at the time of the effective date of this ordinance which becomes non-conforming shall be removed or made conforming within five years of the adoption of this amendment, but not later than August 31, 1979.' (Note: This was deleted because of our own recommendation regarding amortization.) "9) The current section '15A-9-2 Non-Conforming Signs and Discontinuance' of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be kept as a part of the proposed amendment '15-9-1 Non-Conforming Signs and Discontinuance,' to have: 'Any sign lawfully in existence at the time of the effective date of this Ordinance may be maintained athough it does not conform with the provisions of this Ordinance. If any non-conforming sign is destroyed or damaged in any manner, to the extend that the cost of restoration to its condition before the occurrence shall exceed fifty pe~ent (50%) of the cost of reconstructing such sign, it shall be restored only if such use complies with the requirements of this ordinance.' "10) Changes be made in Section (B) of '15-9-2 Removal of Signs' of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance so that it reads as follows: 'Whenever a sign becomes structurally unsafe or endan- gers the safety of a structure or premises or the pub- lic or is erected in violation of this ordinance the Zoning Adminstrator shall order such sign to be made safe or comply with this ordinance. The Administrator or his designee shall remove or cause to be removed at the owner's or tenant's expense any sign erected or maintained in conflict with these regulations if the owner or lessee of either the site or the sign fails to correct the violation within 30 days after receiving written notice of violation from the Administrator or his designee. Removal of a sign by the Administrator or his designee shall not affeCt any proceedings insti- tuted prior to removal of such sign.' 311 "11) Detection of Section (C) of the proposed amendment which did read: 'To accomp~lish the purpose of the above amendments Articles 15A-1-4; 15A-6-7; 15A-7-7; 15A-8-7 are to be deleted as permitted signs.' "12) The existing Sign Study Commission express a willingness to remain in existence to provide a swift and more orderly transi- tion into the formation of the new Sign Advisory Commission, to insure the Accomplishment of its goals by January, 1976. "The Commission is aware that any adequate sign program in Albemarle County must be designed to serve no one special inter- est -- only the general community in every way possible. There- fore, the success of any such program depends on the support of all citizen groups and individuals. This community has been designated a state and national Bicentennial locality, and the celebration affords us a timely opportunity to take immediate and positive action to acquire adequate funding from state and national sources. The urgency of the situation cannot be over- stated." Mr. Gleason said when the Commission first met in July they all felt they would reach no satisfactory conclusion because of the diverse representation. At their last meeting they came to an unanimous vote and they do not want the steam to slow down. They are encouraged by the progress that has been made even thOugh these are general recommendations. They asked the Board to pass part or all of the report tonight in order to keep the ball rolling. Mr. Wheeler thanked the Commission members present for their report to the Board and then asked for comments from Board members. Mr. Fisher said he was pleased to see that the Commission has worked on methods which seem to be in the best interest of everyone. He questioned the establishment of a permanent Commission, but felt the Board should ask the Commission to work with the Board in trying to implement some of the recommendations, hopefully to make some improvments by 1976. Mr. Gleason said the Commission did not want to be presumptuous and say the present members should be continued, but they would be willing to serve if asked to do so. Mr. Fisher felt the Commission should be continued until some goals are achieved. He said this will take dedicated effort on the part of many people working together. Mr. Wheeler asked if it was the pleasure of the Board to accept this report and ask the Commission to serve through 1975 to help carry out the recommendations. Mr. Fisher offered motion to this effect. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Thacker felt recommendation ~1 should be turned over to the County Attorney for drafting of the proper resolution. It was suggested that this be returned to the Board before the Virginia Association of Counties Annual Meeting which begins on November 20. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to adopt the following resolution in reference to other recommendations regarding amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County Virginia, does hereby refer to the Albemarle County Planning Commission for further study and recommendations, those amendments to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance advertised as amendment and repeal of Articles 15A-9-1 and 15A-9-2 to preclude further erection of billboards, general advertising and location signs and the removal of existing signs within five years of adoption of such amendments; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does hereby request that the Planning Commission, in their study of this matter, consider those recommen- dations made by the Albemarle County Sign Study Commission in their report to this Board on October 23, 1974. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. The Board continued with public hearings on zoning matters as advertised in the Daily Progress on October 2 and October 9, 1974: (1) ZMP-311. John M. Nokes has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 13 acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-3 Residential. Property is situated on the north side of State Route 754 (Old Ivy Road). Property is further described as County Tax Map 60, Parcel 52. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said the property is located on the north side of Old Ivy Road approximately 800 feet west of Ivy Gardens Apartments. This area is suburban in nature although surrounding properties, as well as the property in question, are gently rolling, open lands. To'th~.~s~u~h of the property in question is Chemtron Corporation, located on M-1 property; there is also B-1 property in the vicinity which is vacant. Development in the immediate area consists of the Ivy Gardens Apartments, Ivy Inn Restaurant, a tennis shop, Chemtron Corporation, a bowling alley, and two single-family dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan suggests this area be developed as high- density residential. The proposed zoning map proposes low-density residential (RR), for this area. This parcel contains 13.42 acres of land. The following impact on the area would be possible under a proposed R-3 zoning assuming 30 units per acre. Possible Impact Under R-3 Zoning On 13.42 Acres Units 403 apartment units Population 1048 persons Children 248 children (131 elementary, 53 junior high, 53 senior high) Base vehicles 605 vehicles Vehicle trips/day 2821 vehicle trips Traffic counts taken in June-August, 1972, by the Virginia Department of Highways indicates that 803 trips were registered from the intersection of Old Ivy Road and Route 250 West to Route 855. It is the feeling of the staff that this count is low and this can be attributed to the fact that the majority of the student population from the University of Virginia were~away on summer break. Since the staff report -~ was written the following letter was received from R. G. Warner, Resident Highway Engineer, dated October 1, 1974: "This is to acknowledge your letter of September 20, 1974, with reference to the traffic counts on Route 754 (Old Ivy Road). I had a traffic count taken again on this road and the new count revealed a daily volume of 1144 VPD. We have no plans to improve this road in the near future. Your projected volumes will certainly place an additional burden on the road, but I feel the road will handle the increase. I would also point out that the 2800 additional vehicle trips will not all go to the Route 754 and 250 west intersection to which you refer since a certain percentage will go east and a certain percentage will use the ramp to the by-pass. A public water distribution line runs relatively close to the proposed parcel and a public sewage line serves Ivy Gardens Apartments. Sewage capacity to serve the proposed 13+ acre tract by the Meadow Creek Sewage Treatment Plant will possibly be made available in March 1975, but only on a first-come, first-served basis. The following information has been received from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, in a memorandum dated September 17, 1974: "According to the information supplied the Albemarle County ~ty~'-/_7~ Service Authority from the Rivanna Authority, the updating of the Meadowcreek Treatment Plant is on schedule and should be complete by the end of October. Upon completion the plant will be performance tested by the regulatory agencies and recertified. The most recent information indicates that the Meadowcreek Plant is operating well within its certified capacity both hydrau- lically and biologically. This has been true since May 1974. The Water Control Board indicates that beginning in January 1975 the Plant will be recertified after the additional flow from Albemarle High School and the Berkeley Treatment Plant has been added to its existing flows for an additional 500,000'gall0ns. This will be the first incremental rating of the additional capacity which has been designed into the interim improvements." Information on the impact this rezoning would have on local schools has been received from the Albemarle County School Board who state that this development would add an additional 130 students at Greer Elementary. The Greer District is one of the fastest growing elementary districts. The projected enrollment from this development represents a 23% increase over current actual membership. Redistricting of the School system will relieve Greer of about 80 sixth graders. Burley-Jouett- Albemarle'proposed redistricting in the fall of 1976 or 1977 (depending on the completion date of Westside High School) will take a number of students from Jouett which now houses Albemarle ninth graders, and reassign them to Westside. Jouett will then house some of the sixth and eighth graders who currently attend Burley and several other elementary schools. At the same time, Albemarle High School will be relieved of a number of students who will be reassigned to Westside. Mr. Humphrey said there are presently 1029.48 acres of vacant land zoned R-3~ in the urban area. The Comprehensive Plan proposes only 873 acres of land to be utilized as multi-family residential by the year 2000. The Planning Staff's primary objectiOn to this rezoning lies with the transportation capacity of Route 754 and its "Y" intersection at Route 250, Because of its location near the University, it can safely be assumed that a large percentage of the tenants living at the propoSed apartment development on this site would be University students. These students, as well as others, would be entering 250 West from the "Y" intersection formed by Route 754. The staff feels this is a hazardous and unsafe intersection. The applicant stated to the Planning Commission that although plans have not been finalized, the idea of condominiums on this site.as opposed to rental units, is under consideration. To add approximately 2800 more vehicle trips to thOse already generated by Ivy Gardens Apartments would not be in the best interests of the public. The Planning Staff feels this request is premature. State Route 754, which has an eighteen foot pavement width, cannot handle the traffic generated from a 200 unit apartment complex~ This, in addition to the traffic which would be added at the "Y" intersection formed by Route 754 and 250 West, and the fact that there is ample acreage of vacant R-3 land in the urban area, forms the basis for the staff's recommendation of denial. However, the Planning Commission, with only one dissenting vote, does recommend approval of the petition. Mr. Thacker asked if the information received from the Highway Department did not indicate that they see no problem with the road or the intersectionl Mr. Humphrey said yes. Mr. Wheeler asked how many unitS could be built on R-3 in the present ordinance. Mr. Humphrey said there could be 40 or 41 on the base acreage, or 34 units and after the first three, one for each 1000 square feet of area. Mr. Wheeler asked how many units would be allowed under the new ordinance. Mr. Humphrey said the closest comparable zone would be the RM designation and would allow 18 to 20 units. He noted that there have only been two occasions when a developer has developed the land to the maximum density per acre. Mr. Bill Perkins was present to represent Dr. Nokes. He said the information from Mr. Warner concerning the roads was received after the staff report was written. Mr. Perkins said Dr. Nokes had bought this property in 1946 with the idea that he would hold the property for high density development to be sold upon his retirement from practice. Dr. Nokes retired in June, negotiated a contract for purchase with Mr. Heishman in July and that is when this application was filed. He noted that the existing Zoning Ordinance controls the situation at this time. What may be in the future is not revelant. The property owners surrounding this land are all in support of the rezoning and concur in the request. He asked the Board's approval of ZMP-311. _~ Mrs. Frances Martin spoke in opposition. She felt the request is excessive for the area in view of the proposed map and planning staff recommendation. She could see no great demand for this type of housing between now and the time the new zoning ordinance is adopted. She asked the Board to look at the precedent they are setting. No one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Wheeler declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Carwile said the Board must consider this case on its own merits as a legitimate zoning request. He said he is familiar with the area and in light of the communication received from the Highway'Department, he offered motion to approve ZMP-311. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood. 10-23-74 (night) 3 .5 Mr. Fisher agreed that the petition must be addressed on its own merits but he said he comes to a different conclusion. The problems of the road and the intersection with Route 250 are not minimal. He does not blame the Highway Department for saying the problems can be handled, but is not sure it would be in the best interest of planning if the Board encouraged this. Mr. Fisher said~_he is concerned that this is not a situation where there is no land zoned for such a use, where a case could be made that unless the request is approved it would create a hardship. There are presently 1000+ acres zoned and vacant in the urban area. This is about 150+ acres more than Rosser Payne said the County would need for 225,000 people. On that basis he could see no great need to move at this time to create additional high density zoning which by right could be developed to 500+ units. Mr. Carwile said he questioned whether the Board is going to penalize Dr. Nokes because when zoning first went into effect in Albemarle County he did not go to the Zoning Office and ask that this land be zoned R-3. Just because there is a surplus of land zoned R-3 does not mean that the Board should not rezone other lands for other people. If all the existing R-3 were evenly distributed between all the people who want R-3, it would be a different matter, but that is not the case. Mr. Wheeler said the Board recognizes that there are lands zoned R-3 which should not be and he supports the idea that proper land in the proper areas should be recognized as R-3 zones. He asked how many B~d members, when it is time to vote on the new zoning ordinance, will stand up and be counted and down zone that land that should not be R-3. He said he has often heard Mr. Carwile say he is not in favor of down zoning. Mr. Carwile said he had said that before, but that matter is not before the Board tonight. Mr. Wood agreed that the new zoning ordinance is not before the Board. Mr. Wheeler said it seems some Board members do not want to peer into the future.and~it!isfimpossible to do zoning without peering into the future a little bit. Mr. Fisher said he will be prepared to address that question at the proper time, but is not before the Board at this time. The question to be addressed is whether the Board believes it to be in the best interest of the citizens to rezone this property to a maximum density of 40 units per acre which will add 500+ units with an additional 1000+ people to use that existing road and thereby endanger the safety of those presently using that road. Mr. Fisher said he does not feel this is the proper time to approve this request. At this time, Mr. Wood .called for ~he question, and the vote was as follows: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Thacker and Wood. N~YS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Wheeler. Mr.'Perkins asked that the question be reconsidered. He said as far as this property is concerned, it is important to note that this entire area was originally ].0-23-74 (night) zoned A-1. Properties which now contain the University law School, dormorities, high density apartments, the Business School, the School of Government, Old Salem, the Faulconer prop~rty~and the property where a ninteen million dollar project for the Exec~ Institute will be built were all originally zoned A-1. A-1 zoning as originally passed was considered to be transitional lands. 90% of the County was A-1 on the original zoning~map. It was recognized that the acreage would be transferred as uses came about. Dr. Nokes did try to look forward to zoning and he asked that the Board reconsider the question instead of turning same over to the tie-breaker. Mr. Wheeler said his main concern is about the road system in the area. Since there seems to be conflicting information, he asked that the Board reconsider the question and have the Highway Engineer present at that time to answer questions. Mr. Henley said he also voted no because of the road system. He cannot see building apartments, creating a worse traffic hazard, and having a crash program to improve the road. Mr. Perkins said the intersection in question is in the City. The other inter- section, in the County, has been improved by dual laning. Mr. Heishman has build other apartments in the area and is aware of the problem. Mr. Thacker said the road also is of concern to him. However, he could not vote to deny rezoning of this property when the Board has information from the Highway Department stating that the road is adequate. For that reason, he offered motion to reconsider the vote on ZMP-311 at the November 13, 1974, meeting and asked that the Highway Engineer be present at that time. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood. Mr. Wheeler asked if the City had commented on this application. Mr. Humphrey said no, but he would make inquiries. Mr. Wheeler said he felt the City should have some input since this rezoning may effect their plans for this road. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. At 8:58 P.M. the Board took a ten minute recess. When they reconvened they continued with zoning matters as advertised on October 2 and October 9, 1974: (2) SP-412. Woodlake Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate an office and/or nursery school and day care center on 0.67 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural (Planned Community), thereby amending CU-lil Four Seasons. Property is situated on the south side of the intersection of Four Seasons Drive and Lakeview Drive.~ Property is further described as County Tax Map 61X(1), Parcels 5, AA7, and AA8. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said this property is surrounded with residential development and common ope~-~sp~es~. To the north of the property and across Lake View 'Drive is a parking lot. Patio houses are also located to the east, southland north. Rental townhouses and apartments are located to the west of this property. To the northwest are the newly developed condominiums. Until recently, Parcel 5 of the property in question was occupied by Xerox as an office building. Parcels 7 and 8 of the property 10-23-74 (night) are vacant and would be used as a playground area in connection with the actual day care center to be.tl~c~ed~in the existing building on Parcel 5. The staff feels location of either a nursery or day care center would be compatible with Four Seasons Development. A major asset of the PUD concept is the flexibility given to land uses which can be incorporated within a planned development, provided the intensity of the uses can be controlled. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission is recommending only the proposed use of a day care nursery on this parcel and not the office use. · he ~lanning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions: (1) Administrative approval of site plan. (2) Provision for children's play area with equipment. (3) The play area is to fenced in from other activities. (4) Limit enrollment to 15 per 1000 square feet of floor area. -~i (5) Limit of one sign on the property with a maximum area of four square feet. (6) Limit time to five years, with administrative approval for the second five years. Mr. Humphrey said the staff had asked the State Fire Marshal to look at the facility and after review, he submitted the following memorandum: "As you requested, the occupancy load of the 32 children (which he had computed would be the capacity of the building) was obtained by the formula of 35 square feet of net floor area, per child, and this standard is covered in the Life Safety Code, Chapter 101, National Fire Code, Volume 4, Section 9-7121, titled Occupancy LQad for Child Care Center." Mr. Humphrey said the Board may wish to consider this in lieu of a limitation of 15 per 1000 square feet. This is a standard which is on the books. Mr. Wheeler asked what value it would be to have a limit of five years on the permit if the premises are to be rented. Mr. Humphrey said he thOught the property would be purchased. Mr. George Conner, the applicant, was present in support of the petition. He said there is a need for a nursery school in this area and the building is ideal for such a purpose. He would like to have a nursery school which can be converted into a day care center if conditions warrant. However, it is not financially feasible to purchase a building for this purpose if allowed to have only 15 children. He also would not be able to purchase the building if the permit is issued for only five years. Also, if purchased, and the nursery school were not successful, he would need to sell the building for other purposes such as an office. Mr. Wheeler asked the .recommended number of students. Mr. Humphrey said the staff would recommend approval based on that number given by the Fire Marshal, or 32 students. Mr. Daley Craig, the owner, was present in support of the petition. He said 90% of the residents of the patio house area have indicated that they are in favor of this use. One adjoining owner, Dr. Bobbitt, will state that he objects to Lots 7 and 8 being used for non-residential purposes. Mr. Craig felt that if a barrier fence, four and one-half feet high, set back 25 feet from the sidewalk were installed, this would shield Dr. Bobbitt from the use of this lot as a playground. He objected 10-23-74 (night) to review of the permit every five years and also allowance of only~one four square foot sign. He felt the lot should be used according to the wishes of 90% of the people with the installation of a barrier type fence. Dr. Oliver B. Bobbitt said he is the nearest homeowner to the property in question. He is worried about the change of Lots 7 & 8 from non-residential single- family use. He is not opposed as such to the nursery school, only when located next to this property. Mr. Wheeler said from the number of calls he has received about nurseries and day care centers in Albemarle County, he will have to support approval of the petition. He will not support it on the basis of a five year review, but does approval of the fencing. Mr. Wood asked why the application asked for an office and/or day care center. Mr. Craig said Mr. Connor felt if the nursery/day care center failed, he might want to convert the building back to an office as it now exists. Mr. Wood then offered motion to approve SP-412 for an office OR nursery school and day care center. Conditions to apply to the nursery school and day care center as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Administrative approval of site plan. Provision to be made for a children's play area with equipment. The play area is to be fenced. The fence across the front of the property shall be a barrier fence, four and one-half feet high, set back 25 feet from the property line. The fencing on the other three sides of the property is to be chain link. Enrollment limited to a maximum of 32 children at any one time (or 35 square feet of floor space per child). A limit of one sign on the property with a maximum area of four square feet. Conditions to apply to any use of the property as an office are as follows: (1) Administrative approval of site plan. (2) Limit office personnel to ten employees. (3) Limit of one sign on property. Sign to have a maximum area of four-square feet. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote:~ AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (3) SP-413. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate Powell Creek interceptor on land zoned A-1 Agricultural and A-1 Agricultural (Planned Community). Property extends along Powell Creek from the Hollymead Planned Community in a southerly direction to the South Fork Rivanna River. Property is further described as County Tax Map 46, Parcels 21, 22, 22A, 26B, 26E, 27, 29, 29B, 35, 44, 44A, 44B, 56A, 97, 98, 98A, 98B, 99, 101, 106 and 107. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (4) SP-414. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has petitioned the Albemarle County Boa'~-~rd of Supervisors to locate the South Rivanna Woodbrook Sewerage Facilities on land zoned A-1 Agricultural, R-l, R-2, and R-3 Residential. Property is situated on the east sid~ of Route 29 North, and the west side of the Southern Railway, extending from a pumping station east of Carrsbrook near the South Fork Rivanna River in a westerly and southwesterly direction to the Woodbrook Lagoon, then southerly to an existing manhole just sOuth of State Route 631 (Rio Road). Property is further described as County Tax MaP 45B(1), Block B, Lot 3; Block B, Lot 5; Block B, Lot 6; Block C, Lot 5; Block C, Lot 9; Block C, Lot 10; County Tax Map 45B(2), BloCk C, Lot 11; Block C, Lot 12; Parcel 1; County Tax Map 45C, Parcel A~ Parcel B: C~unty Tax Map 45C, Section 4, __7 __ ~_0_ 2.3_ 7~ (n~ght)-_ ~ 319 Block J, Lot 9; Block J, Lot 10; Block J, Lot 11; Block J, Lot 12; Block J, Lot 13; Section 5, BlOck J, Lot 14; Block J, Lot 15A; Block J, Lot 16A; Block J, Lot 17A; Section 7, Block J, Lot 20; Block J, Lot 21; Block J, Lot 22; Block J, Lot 23; Block J, Lot 24A; Block J, Lot 25A; Block J, Lot 26; County Tax Map 46, Parcel 21; County Tax Map 61, Parcel 124A, 124D, 124E, 125, 127, 128, 129, 129A. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said both sewerage lines proposed are a part of the initial phase of the Regional Water Quality Management Plan for Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Effluent from both of these proposed sewer lines will be pumped to the updated Meadowcreek Treatment Plant on an interim basis until the completiton of the advanced waste treatment facilities at Moore's Creek. The Planning Commission recommends approval of both petitions with the following conditions: (1) Reseeding of all disturbed areas immediately after the placement of lines; and (2) Grading permits are to be obtained from the Zoning Department. (Note: Mr. Wheeler left the meeting at this time and Mr. Thacker assumed duties as Chairman. Mr. Wood also left at this time.) Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and Mr. Harry Marshall, attorney, were present in support of the petition. An unidentified gentlemen said he has property along these proposed lines and asked what assurance the property owners will receive that they can tap these lines. Mr. Williams said it is the responsibility of the Rivanna Authority to provide waste water treatment. These are major interceptor lines and not collector lines. Mr. Harry Marshall said the Rivanna Authority is a wholesaler only. The collector lines in this area will be those of the Albemarle County Service Authority. (Mr. Wood returned at 9:37 P.M.). The Rivanna does not have the legal authority to say a customer can or cannot tap a line. (Mr. Wheeler returned at 9:40 P.M.). Mr. Thacker said he did not feel this Board or the Rivanna Authority can give any assurance at this time that capacity will be available. The gentlemen asked that the lines be sized to determine capacity. Mr. Wheeler said the size of the plant is governed by the State Water Control Board and others. (Mr. Wood asked that the record show that he is not participating, discussing, or voting on this matter and is leaving the room since part of the line crosses his property.) Mr. Batchelor said part of this line has been under study for some six years. The lines have been sized to try to meet the needs of the community for the fore- seeable future. Plans call for the treatment plant to be completed by January, 1979. (Note: At 9:43, Mr. Carwile abstained and left the meeting.) Motion was then offered by Mr. Thacker to approve SP-413, with the conditions ~recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Messrs. Carwile and Wood. 320 10-23-74 night Motion was then offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher, to approve SP-414 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Messrs. Carwile and Wood. (5) The motion carried by the SP-417. Julius L., Jr. and Joyce T. Lively have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a two-family dwelling on 240.62acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of State Route 53, about one mile east of its intersection with State Route 729. Property is further described as County Tax Map 93, Parcels 54, 54A, and 54B. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said the area is rural in character with several conventional single family dwellings and mobile homes in the immediate area. The property in question is presently in pasture, cropland,_and forest. The applicant is in the process of building a single-family home with an apartment, seven feet to the rear, attached to the main structure by a breezeway~ The apartment is to be occupied by the mother-in-law of the applicant and the apartment will not be rented. The pro- posed two-family dwelling is located within the village cluster of Nix as outlined by the Comprehensiwe Plan. The Comprehensive Plan suggests a population of 5000 for the village of Nix by the year 2000. The staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the application with the following conditions: (1) Only a lineal relative of the applicant shall be permitted to reside in the apartment. (2) If anyone besides a lineal relative is to occupy this apartment, a new special permit must be obtained. (3) The apartment is not to be rented. Mr. Thomas Michie was present to represent Mr. Lively. He said the minutes should reflect the fact that Mr. Lively took his plans to the Building Department to get a building permit. The plans showed the single-family dwelling and the other building on separate sheets, but the plans did have a match line. If the plans had been read carefully, it was clear that the buildings are seven feet apart. The building permit was issued and Mr. Lively started construction. Only when the electrical inspector made his first inspection was it discovered that the construction violated the Zoning Ordinance. The fact that the two structures are connected by a breezeway causes a problem in the definition of a two-family dwelling. If 20 years from now, Mr. Lively wishes to sell the property, he would not want the purchaser to have a difficult time in obtaining a use permit for other than a relative, because he became involved in this situation innocently. No one from the public spoke for or against this request. Mr. Thacker asked if it was the intent that this second dwelling be occupied by a lineal relative. Mr. Lively said it will be occupied by his mother-in-law who has lived with him for the past 21 years. He did not know construction of this second dwelling ~as ~illegal. The house was under roof before this fact came forth. Mr. Wheeler said he has been on recOrd suppOrting duplexes on large tracts of land to provide housing for Albemarle County residents. He would like to support the request but not just for lineal relatives. He said this will add to the community. It will not be detrimental. Mr. Thacker asked if these are two self-contained units. Mr. Lively said there are separate baths and kitchens, etc. Mr. Fisher said he has discouraged~development:~suCh as this in his district if it was to be rented because it seemed the Board was building in duplex zoning by special permit. He could see the circumstances involved in this case and he wanted to provide means to legalize this building since he did not think it was Mr. Lively's fault. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned about making this a policy of the Board. Mr. Wheeler said that was not the intent of his statement. When the Board has had appli- cations like this for homes in subdivisions and on small tracts of land he has not supported same, but on large tracts of land he has supported all such requests. He views this as a better way to provide housing than through support of mobile home permits. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to approve SP-417 for a two-family dwelling with NO conditions attached. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by t~e following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (6) SP-422. Bruce L. Browne has petitioned the Albemarle County Planning Commission to amend the Hickory Ridge Planned Community. This property is located on the north side of Route 665. The property is further described as County Tax Map 30, Parcel 37. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey informed the Board that the Planning Commission has not acted on this petition and the public hearing will have to be deferred. Motion to defer this matter until November 13, 1974, was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: (7) Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. (Note: Mr. Carwile abstaining on the following matter.) SP-425. Eugene R. Clothier has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a Veterinary hospital and clinic on 3.01 acres zoned A-1 perty is located on Route 631 (Rio Road) near the Southern Railroad. Property is further described as County Tax Map 61, Parcels 154(c) and (d). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey said the area is suburban in nature. There is a mobile home to the west of this property and Monticello Oil Company is located further to the west and across the railroad tracks. The Vocational Technical School is located across from the subject property on the south side of Rio Road. A single-family dwelling is located to the east. Several single-family dwellings are located further to the east along Rio Road. T~e property in question is presently being occupied by A. B. Torrence & Company. There are two construction trailers, some construction equipment and one barn located on the property at the present time. The contractors equipment storage is nonconformi~. This office use can be considered compatible with proper conditions. The staff noted that the proposed zoning map indicates this property for commercial office zoning which does not permit veterinary hospitals. The staff reviewed this property and felt the proposed use would not have a greater impact than other types of office use and could be compatible in view of its proximity to the Vocational Technical School and other land uses. Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the permit with the following conditions: (I) Health Department approval. (2) Site plan approval. Soundproofing the facility. No internal sounds to be heard within 100 feet of the exterior walls of the building. (3) Establish and maintain an adequate tree buffer from any adjacent residences. (4) Removal of all existing accessory buildings and equipment from veterinary building site. (5) Treatment of small animals only. (6) All animal runs and boarding of animals to be enclosed within the building. Mr. Humphrey said the applicant had stated at the Planning Commission hearing that all animal runs will be enclosed in the building. The building will be air- conditioned. This would make the facility compatible with the area. Mr. Roger S. Martin was present to represent Dr. Clothier. He said Dr. Clothier has been assisted by Veterinary Hospital Building Limited in the planning, financing, etc. of this project. The Planning Commission approved the request with conditions which the applicant feels are feasible. The application covers the entire 3.01 acre tract. However, since the Planning Commission hearing, Dr. Clothier has agreed with the owner as to where the hospital will be located on that tract. Mr. Martin showed to the Board a plat indicating Lot 93 as the site for the hospital. The hospital would front on~ Rio Road. The actual hospital site will contain about 3/4 of an acre. Mr. Fisher asked what would happen to all the existing accessory buildings and equipment On the property. Mr. Martin said there are none on this lot. Mr. Thacker asked if the applicant is purchasing only Lot 3. Mr. Martin said that was correct. Mr. Thacker asked if the application was then reduced to the area showing Lot #3, or 0.6887 acres. Mr. Martin said that was correct. Mr. Humphrey said this is not adequate because public sewer and water are not readily available; Without both, the lot must have a minimum of 40,000 square feet in order to comply with Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Mr. Fisher asked if this information had been given to the Staff at the time the Staff Report was written. Mr. Humphrey said no. Mr. Wood asked if the plat had been approved. Mr. Humphrey said no. Mr. Thacker asked if the subdivision plat should he,approved first. Mr. Humphrey said the petition could be approved contingent upon subdiviSion approval of the lot. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission had seen the plat. Mr. Humphrey ~here is nothing in his files to indicate this. 10-23-74 (night) 323 Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Staff and Planning Commission has recommended approval because the application was for 3+ acres. Mr. Humphrey said that was correct. Mr. Martin said the Planning Commission did not raise the issue of whether or not the lot had been subdivided. He had showed the plat to the Commission and made it clear that they were only talking about 3/4 of an acre. Dr. Clothier holds an option to purchase 30,000 square feet. Mr. Fisher said 30,000 square feet is not large enough if public sewerage is not available. He asked if it would be a number of years before this facility would be built. Dr. Clother said no. L~3 Mr. Wheeler asked if the Health Department would approve this request. Mr. Humphrey said a subdivision of less than 40,000 square feet would not be approved by the Commission. Mr. Fred Payne said this issue was not raised at the Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Wheeler asked the zoning of this parcel. Mr. Humphrey said it is B-1. Mr. Wheeler asked the smallest allowable subdivision in the B-1 zone. Mr. Humphrey said there is no minimum lot size in B-l, however the subdivision ordinance says no lot of less than 40,000 square feet shall be subdivided and makes no mention of zones. Mr. Fisher suggested that the application be returned to the staff until it conforms to the ordinances under which the Board is presently working. Mr. Martin felt Condition 91 would encompass this problem. Mr. Fisher said the proposed subdivision is not in line with the County's Subdivision Ordinance and he did not feel it is proper for this Board to approve same. He said he would like to have the staff's recommendation on the entire proposal as to lot size, sewer availability and the fact that the accessory buildings will remain on the property. Mr. Martin asked if the Board could make approval conditional on this one item being satisfied. Mr. Fisher said he was not willing to do that. He did not feel the application was properly before the Board. He said the staff Should have the benefit of all available information before making a recommendation. Mr. Martin said 'he had sent the architect a copy of all specifications from the County Zoning Ordinance and the architect had determined that the parking, etc. would fit on this parcel. This was discussed by the Planning Commission; sewage was not. Mr. Martin said Dr. Clothier has a time problem. His option expires on November 16. Mr. Wheeler said the Board will meet again on November 13. He said he would like to accommodate Dr. Clothier and asked that the Planning Commission review this matter in time for the Board to act on the 13th. Mr. Wood pointed out thc the Board had recently denied a special use permit for a mobile home on the adjoining property. Mr. Fisher said he did not think he had prejudiced any decision this Board may make, except to say that he did not feel the permit request was properly before the Board. He did not think the Board has ~ made any promises that they will approve the request. He reminded Mr. Martin of this fact. 10-23-74 (night) Motion was then offered by Mr. Fisher to defer any additional hearing on this petition until November 13 and refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for additional information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher,~.Hentey, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. (8) consider amending the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by revising Sections 11-7-7(27), 11-7-7(28), 11-7-7(32) and 11-7-7(38) of the Off-Street Parking Provisions. Mr. Humphrey read the following recommended sections: 11-7-7(27) PRINTING AND PUBLISHING FACILITIES: One (1) space per each two (2) employees plus one (1) space per each 500 square feet of floor area for customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces. The Planning Commission may waive the customer parking requirements, if deemed necessary, to allow a more appropriate parking arrangement. 11-7-7(28) PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING OF MATERIALS, GOODS, OR PRODUCTS: One (1) space per each two (2) employees plus one (1) space per each 500 square feet of floor area for customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces. The Planning Commission may waive the customer parking requirements, if deemed necessary, to allow a more appropriate parking arrangement. 11-7-7(32) TESTING, REPAIRING, CLEANING, SERVING OF MATERIALS, GOODS, OR PRODUCTS: One (1) space per each two (2) employees plus one (1) space per each 500 square feet of floor area for customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking Spaces. The Planning Commission may waive the customer parking requirements, if deemed necessary, to allow a more appropriate parking arrangement. 11-7-7(38) WAREHOUSING AND WHOLESALING: One (1) space per each two (2) employees plus one (1) space per each 500 square feet of floor area for customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces. The Planning Commission may waive the customer parking requirements, if deemed necessary, to allow a more appropriate parking arrangement. Mr. Thacker said his main concern was that the original ordinance did not indicate the maximum parking that could be required and did not indicate to a prospective developer what could be required. He felt this is necessary. He said the proposed Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission the discretion to reduce the number of parking spaces and complies with his thinking on this matter. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to approve the amended sections as set out above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile. Mr. Fisher asked if this would be considered under site plan approval. Mr. Humphrey said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if this did not set guidelines and then allow the Planning Commission discretion to waive all of the requirements except two parking spaces. Mr. Thacker said that is true, but it provides the developer with a maximum so he will know what is expected. He felt it is better to go for site plan approval knowing what might be required. Mr. Fisher asked if the sections previously stated a minimum and then the Planning Commission set a maximum. Mr. St. John said this has never happened. Usually the Planning Commission imposed the minimum requirements and the developer could then install more spaces if he thought 325 the business would require same. Mr. St. Eohn said he did not think the Planning Commission had interpreted this.section as saying they could require more than the minimum number of parking spaces. ~ Mr. Thacker asked Mr. St. John if he interpreted the section that way. Mr. St. John said Mr. Thacker pointed out that the section is ambiguous~he did that everyone would interpret it that way. Mr. Batchelor said the County's Ordinance requirements were in excess of the national standard needs for commercial parking. The revisions were made to bring the standards back to a realistic figure instead of applicants going to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. Mr. St. John said the Board of Zoning Appeals did not have any right to review this because they cannot be asked to grant variances on the grounds that the applicant feels the Zoning Ordinance is in error. This is what they were being asked to do and that is why this amendment was proposed. In reviewing the amendment, which only reduced the number of spaces, it was thought that the whole ordinance was ambiguous; not only the minimum, but the maximum was incorrect. Mr. Fisher asked if the proposed amendments will be workable or if they will only add pressure to the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John said he felt they will complicate the issue. ~ ? Mr. Thacker said his original concern with the amendments was that it left it to thecPlanning~CQmmission as to how many spaces would be required. Mr. Fisher said this amendment also does that. Mr. Thacker said it sets a maximum. Mr. Henley did not feel a maximum should be set. Mr. Thacker said he would rather set a maximum instead of a minimum. At this time, Mr. Thacker withdrew his original motion and asked that these amendments be referred to the County Attorney for review. This motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. Discussion of the Pay/Classification Plan was ordered carried over t~ ~.J November 13. Mr. Thacker asked that the material presented to the Board t6night, be compared with the two previous plans. Request was received for a Lottery Permit for the Rose Hill P.T.A. for a one- day event on October 26, 1974. On motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Henley, the permit was granted. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Miss Page Godsey was present to discuss the Regional Jail Budget. She said City Council approved the operating budget exactly as approved by the Board on October 17, 1974. Since the County will be acting as Fiscal Officer for the Regional Jail, Miss Godsey requested the Board to adopt the following ordinance: ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE OF THE REGIONAL JAIL For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975 An ordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the REGIONAL JAIL for the fiScal year ending June 30, 1975; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: SECTION I That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro- priated for the purposes herein specified for the' fiscal year ending June 30,. 1975: Paragraph One For operational expenses of the Regional Jail the sums of three hundred twenty-four thousand four hundred forty-four dollars and no cents ($324,444) is appropriated from the Regional Jail Fund to be apportioned as follows: 102 -~ Compensation - Jail Administrator ..................... $ 13,288 109 - Compensation - Assistants ............................. 141,815 111 - Medical Supplies .............................. 10,640 127 - Compensation - Medica~ ~nnel . ~. ..~ .... 15,744 200 - Advertising.__. ............................ 200 206 - Dues and SubScripti°ns ..~ .... ~ ..... ~. ~ ~ .. 710 207 - Electric Current ...................................... 9,205 210 - Fire and Theft Insurance .............................. 2,000 211 - Personnel Liability Insurance ......................... 1,675 212 - Surety Bonds .......................................... 700 215a - Vehicle Operation_ ............................. 800 Building ~''' 1 750 215b - Contract - M~i~tena~ce .............. , 215c - Repairs/Replacement - Office Furniture ................ 500 215d - Service Contract - SeCurity System .................... 100 218 - Telephone, Telegraph and Postage ...................... 3,000 220 - Travel Expenses ........................... 2,000 223 - Water and Sewer ~i~ . ~ ......... ~ ...~ .... 763 226 - Contract - Trash Removal .............................. 400 295 - Hospitalization Insurance - Employer's Share .......... 4,320 296 - Life Insurance - Employer's Share ..................... 512 297 - Retirement - Employer's Share ......................... 3,538 298 - Social Security - Employer's Share .................... 11,438 301 - Laundry, Towels, Bedding ............................ 7,890 306 - Cleaning Materials and Supplies ........... ~ .~... 2,988 310 - Food Supplies ........ ~ ................ 37,110 311 - Fuel, Heating ~d 6AA~iA~ ...~.~ ~.~...~ ..~ ...~. 6,075 313 - Investigative Supplies ................................ 1,333 316 - Medical Supplies ........................... 1,500 319 - Stationery, Print~ F~s~ ~%~ . ~ .......... 2,647 325 - Uniforms ......................................... 5,567 403 - Furniture ....... ~...~ ~ ..~ ................. ~ 1,387 405 - Office Equipment .. . ~ ................... 585 412 - Kitchen Equipment a~ ~%~i~ i..i .~ ..... i.i. 4,044 420 - Lease/Purchase - Closed Circuit T. V .................. 28,220 SUMMARY Total REGIONAL JAIL appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975 $ To be provided as follows: Anticipated balance at July 1, 1974 $ State Reimbursements: 622 - Care. of Prisoners ................................. 623 - Fringe Benefits ................................... 624 - Expenses .......................................... 626 - Salaries .......................................... Local Sources: 722 - City of Charlottesville ........................... 723 - County of Albemarle ............................... Total REGIONAL JAIL resources available for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975 .............. $ 324,444 --0-- 69,874 10,326 5,652 113,898 83,130 41,564 324,444 SECTION II Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Section I are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said items and those set forth in this section. Paragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appropriations out of the Regional Jail Fund are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriation payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the fund is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year. Paragraph Two Ail revenue received by the Regional Jail not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the Regional Jail without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may the Regional Jail make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or make transfers between specific items of appropriation without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained. Paragraph Three Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the Regional Jail Fund at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June, 1975, shall be used for the payment of appropriations which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1975. Paragraph Four No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or con- tractural services for any purpose may be incurred by the Regional Jail except by requisition to the director of finance of Albemarle County; provided, however, no requisition for contractural services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and membership fees and sub- scriptions shall be required; provided, that the director of finance of Albemarle County shall be responsible for securing competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the Regional Jail. Any obligations incurred contrary to these requirements shall not be considered obligations of the county, and the director of finance of Albemarle County shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations. Paragraph Five Allowances out of appropriations made in this ordinance for expenses on account of the use of any officer or employee of the Regional Jail of his personal automobile in the discharge of his official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to main- tain like rates. Paragraph Six Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the director of finance of Albemarle County. Motion to adopt the foregoing annual appropriation ordinance was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. 10--23-74 (night) 32,8 Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of~ Supervisors of Albemarle ~ County, Virginia, that $6,564 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund' and transferred to the General Operating Fund and coded to 6-B-299, for the County's Share of operation of the Joint Security Complex, and expenditure of~t~ese funds is'hereby approved. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Appointment to the Library Board was ordered carried over to another meeting. Report from the Levy Opera House committee was ordered carried over to November 13. Moti~ncwas then offered by Mr. Wood to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. The motion was seconded by Mr. Car~ile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The Board reconveded. ~ Mr. Wheeler said that earlier in the day he had asked if the Board members would like to hold a meeting to discuss inflation and the County Budget for 1975-76. He asked if the Board wants to hold such a meeting and when? Mr. Fisher said he has thought about it and feels it would be a good idea. At 10:32 P.M. Mr. Fisher offered motion to adjourn this meeting until November 4, 1974, at~3 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, for such a meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None.