1985-06-05June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
3215
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 5, 1985, beginning at 7:30 P.M., in Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT:
Way.
Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher and Mr. Peter T.
ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; Chief of Planning, Ronald W. Keeler; and Senior Planner, Mary Joy Scala.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher introduced to the Board members, Mr. Richard Hall-Sizemore,
the newly-appointed executive director of the Virginia Association of Counties. Mr.
Hall-Sizemore said one of his goals is to visit the boards of supervisors from each of the 95
counties in Virginia. He wants to find out what kind of issues board members are called on
to face by citizens. He then invited the Board members to visit the new VACo offices in
Richmond.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, to approve item 4.1, and to accept item 4.2 as information. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
Item 4.1.a. Take road into the State Secondary System: Austin Drive (running through
General Electric property). The following resolution was adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and
is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
following road in Briarwood Subdivision:
Austin Drive, beginning with station 10+45, which is the edge
of pavement of the southbound lane of Route 29, and thence run-
ning in a westwardly direction 456.58 feet to station 15+01.58
which is station 4+01.84 at Briarwood Subdivision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of
way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat
in the Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book
711, pages 428-429.
Item 4.1.b. Take road into the State Secondary System:
Subdivision. The following resolution was adopted:
Austin Drive in Briarwood
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and
is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
following road in Briarwood Subdivision.
Austin Drive:
Beginning at station 4+01.84 of the boundary adjoining the
General Electric Plant, thence in a west to northwestwardly
direction 724.96 feet to station 11+26.80.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of
way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat
in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 775, Page 588.
32.6
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 4.1.c. Take road into the State Secondary System:
Subdivision. The following resolution was adopted:
Heather Court in Briarwood
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and
is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
following road in Briarwood Subdivision:
Heather Court, beginning at a centerline intersection of Whitney
Court at station 2+26.61 and running in a southeastwardly direction
627.46 feet to station 6+27.46 which is the end of pavement of the
cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of
way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat
in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 714, page 49.
(Note: This road was previously named Robin Court as shown
on road plans.)
Item 4.1.d. Take road into the State Secondary System:
Subdivision. The following resolution was adopted:
Briarwood Drive in Briarwood
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that_the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and
is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
following road in Briarwood Subdivision:
Briarwood Drive:
Beginning at station 25+65.03 which intersects the edge of pave-
ment of Austin Drive at station 11+01.80 and thence moves in a
southwestwardly direction to the end of pavement and beginning
of a temporary cul-de-sac approximately 849.03 feet to approxi-
mately station 17+16.00.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of
way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat
in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 775, Page 588.
Item 4.1.e. Take road into the State Secondary System: Whitney Court in Briarwood
Subdivision. The follOwing resolution was adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and
is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the
following road in Briarwood Subdivision:
Whitney Court: (formerly Cardinal Court)
Beginning at station 0+00 a centerline point of intersection
with Briarwood Drive at station 20+06.04 and running in an
eastwardly direction and looping to the right and intersecting
itself at station 4+52.33 of Whitney Court. The total road
length is 1,367.45 feet.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of
way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat
in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 714, Page 49.
Item 4.2. Resolution adopted by the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Direc-
tors detailing water and sewer rates proposed to go into effect on July 1, 1985. Mr. Bowie
noted that in a letter dated May 10, 1985, attached to the resolution, it states "The only
changes in these rates from current rates are the volume charges." He asked staff to find
out how the volume changes.
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Agenda Item No. 5. Taylor~'s Auto Body Site Plan~Appeal (deferred from May 8, 1985).
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief Planner, said this petition had been deferred from May 8, 1985,
to give the applicant's attorney an opportunity to contact other property owners along the
road concerning maintenance should the Board of Supervisors choose to allow this as a private
road. There were some objections to allowing this to become a private road from property
owners to the north of this property who said that the angle of their driveway was such that
they often come into Brookway Drive to turn around in order to enter their driveway. They
asked that the road not be vacated to public use, but that the Highway Department post an
"End of Maintenance" sign, only. Condition No. 1 of the Planning Commission's recommended
approval would need to be changed if this were made a private road.
Mr. David Wood, Attorney for the applicant, said they do not have an agreement which has
been executed by all parties. They have gone through about eight drafts trying to get one
that is agreeable to all parties. They have an agreement now where each party will agree to
maintain the road in front of his particular lot, except for Lot No. 1, where Mr. Flick will
not agree to anything. The Taylors have agreed to maintain the road in front of their lot
and the Flick lot. There are a total of eight lots so the Taylors would be maintaining the
road in front of four lots. Mr. Wood said he does not know if he can get an agreement signed
on Lot No. 2 because it is in a land trust and the person in charge of that trust is in
Germany. He has a new proposal to make tonight. The road is not now being maintained, and
they would like to suggest a way to get it in shape. S. L. Williamson has agreed to clean
all curbs and patch all potholes and apply a surface treatment with CRS-2, covered with 30
pounds of No. 8 stone for a sum of $5400. That will put the road in top shape at this time.
He has nothing to tender for future maintenance. The Taylors will assume the entire $5400
cost in order to get their site plan approved. Mr. St. John asked if that is all the way to
the turnaround. Mr. Wood said there is no turnaround on this road at this time. Mr. St.
John asked if it would include any new turnaround the Highway Department would require in
order to have the road taken into the State system. Mr. Wood said no. It is only to clean
the curb and gutter that is there now, patch all of the parts that are already installed and
put a covering over that. Construction of curbs and gutters and other parts would be quite
expensive. This will only get the existing road back into the condition it was in when it
was first constructed. He will, however, try to continue and reach a maintenance agreement
with the property owners. Mrs. Cooke asked how many properties have operating businesses on
those. Mr. Wood said there are three, then the three vacant lots where the body shop is to
be located, and Mr. Flick's property. There is also a seven or eight acre parcel at the end
of the road that has never been developed. Mr. Wood said Mr. Taylor has agreed to fix the
road in front of the Flick lot and Lots 3, 4 and 5. Mr. Denby will do Lots 6 and 7. There
is only one missing and that is No. 2, but Mrs. McCormick is in Germany, but all of this has
been agreed to in writing. Mr. Fisher then asked that Mr. St. John be shown a copy of the
agreement.
Mr. Bowie asked who owns the land on the part where the cul-de-sac would be located.
Mr. Wood said it is owned by Central Fidelity Bank. Mr. Fisher said if the Board allows this
to become a private road, it will be a private road forever. He asked if this work is done
if it will bring the road up to a standard where when the last property is developed, it
can get into the State system. Mr. Keeler said this would depend on when that last lot is
developed. At this time, Mr. Fisher reopened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Steve Bush said he owns property next door to this property. The adjoining land
owners have a long history of concerns about this property. They objected to the C-1 zoning
allowing a body shop. They have appealed the Planning Commission's decision on that to the
Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals agreed that it was an allowable use so
that decision has now gone to the Circuit Court but no decision has been handed down. Mr.
Taylor went back to the Planning Commission in the meantime on the site plan and conditions
were placed. One was that the road be brought to State standards and a cul-de-sac be built.
The adjoining property owners want this to be a condition. They are concerned because their
private driveway has a 45 degree angle coming from the north, so they must go past to
Brookway Drive, turn around and then go back north in order to get in the driveway. They are
concerned that with the increased traffic for the body shop, and if this road goes hack to
private maintenance, they would not have the right to turn around and get safely in their
driveway. He feels that as a taxpayer in Albemarle County he should have ~the right to use
the road.
With no one else coming forward to speak for or against the petition, the Public Hearing
was closed again. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John for his commen~s on the agreement. Mr. St.
John said short of checking underlying deeds, it appears to be in order. Mr. Fisher said it
occurs to him that it might be best to leave the road in the public domain because of the
undeveloped property at the end of the road. He is inclined to approve this request subject
to completion of all signatures on the agreement so that the road is covered down to Lot 8.
In that way, the public will still have access to the road and the road will be improved at
this time. When Lot 8 is developed, it would be considered as new business at that time. He
asked Mr. St. John if there were any problem with that concept. Mr. St. John said none from
the County's point of view. Mr. Fisher said it would be more palatable if the Board were
sure the road would be maintained all the way to the end. Mr. Wood said if he cannot get the
agreement signed, he would need to come back and tell the Board that. He has signatures for
all but 69 feet.
Mr. Bowie said he knows the road is in bad shape now. There are a lot of potholes. Mr.
Fisher said he thought a Condition No. 5 should be added that approval is subject to Mr. St.
John's approval of the maintenance agreement in its form and signature of all owners of lots
up through Lot 7, but excluding Lot 8. Mr. Keeler suggested Condition 1-A be reworded to
say, "County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for Brookway Drive," and that No.
2(d) be added tying road improvements to the certificate of occupancy for the body shop.
Mr. Bowie then moved that the site plan be approved with the conditions of the Planning
Commission, but changing l(a) to say, "County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for
Brookway Drive," and adding 2(d) to read, "Completion of repairs to Brookway Drive by S. L.
32.8
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Williamson Co., Inc. described in the Board Meeting of June 5, 1985 as follows: Clean curbs,
patch potholes, surface treat in accordance with VDH&T standards." The motion was seconded
by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
(Note:
1.
The conditions of approval read as follows:
A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for Brookway
Drive;
Issuance of an erosion control permit;
County Engineer approval of pavement specifications and first
floor elevation above the floodplain;
Vacation of drainage easement by the Board of Supervisors;
Fire Officer approval of firewall adjacent to parcel 168F, and
provisions for spray painting and body repair;
No entrances or exits to rear of building;
Landscape plan subject to review and approval of Planning
Commission.
e
A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
de
Fire Officer final approval of fireflow;
Recordation of plat combining parcels 168D and 168E;
Planning staff approval of method of delineating parking and
one-way travel;
Completion of repairs to Brookway Drive by S. L. Williamson
Company, Inc'. described in the Board meeting of June 5, 1985, as
follows: clean curbs, patch pot holes, surface treatment in
accordance with VDH&T standards.
e
Only seven service stalls are permitted without provisions for
additional parking.
Compliance with letter dated April 22, 1985, from applicant to Ms.
Patterson.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-85-29. Kenneth L. Gibson, Jr. and Ruby L., to locate a single-
wide mobile home on 17.531 acres zoned Rural Areas. Property is located on east side of Rt.
689, about 0.6 mile south of its intersection with Rt. 637. Tax Map 71, Parcel 57. Samuel
Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 1985.)
Mr. Keeler gave the following staff report:
Request:
Mobile home
Acreage:
17.53 acres
Character of the Area: This property is presently developed with a
double-wide mobile home. Other uses in the immediate area include two
single-wide mobile homes located on Parcel 57A (one mobile home has been
sold and is to be removed) and a single-family residence north of Mechum
River (parcel 29A). The surrounding area is rural in nature with the
predominant land use being agricultural or forestry related.
Staff Comment: The applicant presently resides in the double-wide, located
on the property and is requesting this mobile home for occupancy by his son
and his wife. The applicant is proposing to locate the mobile home 160 feet
from Route 689 and 100 feet from the side property line. The mobile home
would be visible from Route 689 and from existing mobile homes in the area.
Access to the mobile home would be from a private drive to Route 689.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve
this petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Access to Route 689 shall be limited to the existing private drive;
3. Occupancy shall be limited to Mr. Gibson's son and his family;
e
Location and screening of the mobile home to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Keeler said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 4, 1985, unani-
mously recommended approval of the petition with conditions 1, 2, and 4 as recommended by
staff, but changed No. 3 to read as follows: "Occupancy shall be limited to Mr. Gibson's son
and his family; should Mr. Gibson's son and family vacate the mobile home, the special use
permit is rescinded and the mobile home must be removed within 90 days of vacation."
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
At this time the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Clinton Gibson, the son who wishes to
live in the mobile home, was present in support of the petition. Mr. Fisher said the Plan-
ning Commission's condition limiting the use of the mobile home to Mr.'Gibson's son is not
specific as to which son that will be. Mr. Gibson said that is himself; one mobile home on
the property is to be removed, his grandmother lives in the other. He had wanted to purchase
a double-wide but could not afford it at this time.
Next to speak was Mr. Bob Johnson, who owns the property to the north of this parcel.
He expressed concern about the density of trailers in the area. He said an occasional mobile
home, well-maintained and well-screened does not mean much, but where there are too many in
the area it does tend to devalue the overall area. He did not understand before tonight that
one mobile home was to be removed from the property, so he is not that concerned now. He
would like to see additional restrictions relative to some sort of periodic review by the
County. He does not feel that mobile homes pay their way on the tax base, and does not think
the issuance of a Special Use Permit for a mobile home should last forever.
Mr. Fisher said the State laws controlling mobile homes had been under pressure from
manufacturers recently. This Board has been allowing the use of mobile homes for owner
occupancy Or ~for the family of the owners. He can support this application if the words,
"Clinton and his family" are added to Condition No. 3 so that it will be clear which son is
to use the mobile home.
Mr. Bowie said there are a lot of single-family homes that could use some fixing up and
cleaning up. There is no way for the County to go on personal property and say something
must be torn down. He then offered motion to approve SP-85-29 with the conditions of the
Planning Commission, adding the word "Clinton" after the words, "Mr. Gibson's son" to
Condition No. 3. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
ACcess to Route 689 shall be limited to the existing private drive;
Occupancy shall be limited to Mr. Gibson's son, Clinton, and his
family; should Mr. Clinton Gibson and family vacate the mobile home,
the special use permit is rescinded and the mobile home must be
removed within 90 days of vacation;
Location and screening of the mobile home to the reasonable satis-
faction of the Zoning Administrator.
(Mr. Fisher said he would call the next two agenda items to be presented simultaneously
since they are similar.)
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-84-08. To amend the Zoning Ordinance to include minimum lot
size provisions in the R-4, R-6, R-10 and R-15 zones; to amend definition of cluster
development, and to amend 2.2.3 Minimum Open Space Required, to require common open space in
cluster developments, etc. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 1985.)
Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, saying that these two
amendments really are not related, but both amendments have an effect on the charts so were
put together so that the charts did not need to be changed twice.
Staff Report - ZTA-84-08
This amendment is being presented concurrently with the Bonus Provisions amendment so that all
the required changes to the Area and Bulk Regulations charts found in each residential dis-
trict can be accomplished at the same time.
On November 27, 1984, staff presented a report concerning "Infill Development" which outlined
the problem of new development on small lots in older, established single-family areas. The
Planning Commission at that time decided that the most reasonable solution to the problem
would be to add minimum lot sizes to the zones which had none. By doing so, large lots could'
not be used to compensate for small lots to achieve the proper density.
Under the proposed amendment, cluster developments will still be permitted with no minimum lot
size, however the density must be maintained through the provision of common open space.
Recommendation
To amend the Zoning Ordinance, Article 3.0~ Definitions~ as follows:
Cluster Development: An arrangement of structures on adjoining lots in groupings allow-
ing closer spacing than would be generally permitted under ordinance requirements for lot
widths or area with the decrease in lot width or area compensated by maintenance of
equivalent ~pen-spa~e-either-etsewhere-~n-~he-~-~r-in-~he-f~rm-~ common open space.
To a~end the Zoning Ordinance~ Article 2.2.3~ Minla,,m Open Space Required~ as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in the PRD and PUD districts, a minimum of twenty-five (25)
percent of the total land area of the cluster development shall be in con,non open space,
subject to section 4.7, regulations governing open space.
330
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
To ~m,nd th, Zoning Ordlnm-ce~ Article 15.3~ Residential R-4~ Area and Bulk Regulations, to
add the following:
Requirements
Standard Level
Conventional Development Cluster Development
Minimum Lot Size
10,890 square feet
N/A
To nmmnd th, Zon{n~ Ord~nance~ Article 16.3~ Residential R-6~ Area and Bulk Re~ulations~ to
add'the following:
Requirements
Standard Level
Conventional Development Cluster Development
Gross Density
6 dwelling units per acre 6 dwelling units per acre
~;E6O-sqnare-feet~dwett~ng) ~;E6O-sqnare-feet~dwett~ng)
Minimum Lot Size
7,260 square feet
N/A
To m--nd th, Zoning Ordinance, Article 17.3~ Residential R-10~ Area and Bulk Re~ulations~
add the followinR:
Requirements
Standard Level
Conventional Development Cluster Development
Gross Density
10 dwelling units per acre 10 dwelling units per acre
~4~B56-~q~are-fee~dwett~ng) ~356-$~are-~ee~dwett~ng)
Minimum Lot Size
4,356 square feet
N/A
To mm,nd the Zoning Ordinance, Article 1B.3~ Residential R-15, Area and Bulk Re~ulations~ to
add the following:
Requirements
Standard Level
Conventional Development Cluster Development
Gross Density
15 dwelling units per acre 15 dwelling units per acre
~984-square-~ee~dwett~ng) ~984-sq~are-~ee~dwett~ng)
Minimum Lot Size
2,904 square feet
N/A
Mrs. Scala said that on April 9, 1984, the Planning Commission, approved ZTA-84-08, as
written in the staff report set out above.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-85-3. To amend Zoning Ordinance to delete all references to
Density Bonus Factor Provisions; to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for increased
residential density for dedication of land to public use; and to amend the Zoning Ordinance,
Article 19.1, Planned Residential Development, Intent Where Permitted, to reflect the change
in maximum density by right. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 1985.)
Mrs. Scala gave the following staff report and other pertinent information
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY:
June 19, 1984 - Staff outlined Commission's concerns regarding bonus provi-
sions. Concerns fell into two main categories: mechanics of applying bonus
factors, and the individual factors themselves. Staff prepared language to
make bonuses discretionary (to review bonus density requests under same
terms as rezoning request). Planning Commission discussed the deletion of
bonuses.
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
September 4, 1984 - Planning Commission approved request for resolution of
intent to delete bonus factors, but to provide for increased density for
dedication of land.
October 9, 1984 - Bonus provisions was deferred until October 30, 1984.
Staff received several letters from developers objecting to the deletion of
bonuses as "downzoning" their .properties.
October 30, 1984 - Planning Commission deferred indefinitely in order to
work on language of individual bonus provisions.
February 26, 1984 - Staff has four recommendations concerning the mechanics
of administering the bonus system.
Make each individual bonus as specific as possible, and review each
application carefully for compliance with the provisions of the Ordi-
nance. The developer must provide verification that he will be able to
satisfy the bonus requirements as stated.
Add language to the bonus regulations which requires that the resulting
density conform with the intent of the Comprehensive ~Plan. This would
not be considered discretionary because the maximum densities permitted
have already been established. The developer could consult the Plan
before making application.
Staff is also concerned that bonuses be recorded so that future owners
will be made aware of the restrictions. Otherwise, the possibility
exists that amenities could unknowingly be removed or altered. The San
Francisco ordinance states: "In application of the bonuses provided for
in this Section, the Zoning Administrator shall follow such procedures,
including placing of restrictions on the land records and other actions
as he may deem appropriate to assure the provision and retention of
such building features as are credited in order to meet the require-
ments of this Code.
Finally, it has been suggested by a developer that the building permits
for bonus units be withheld until it has been determined that the bonus
provisions have been met. Part of this site could be reserved for
bonus units - if the conditions are not met, then that area remains in
open space.
Also, at the meeting on February 26, the Planning Commission discussed the
idea of a promise made to developers.
March 12, 1985 - The staff requested consensus from the Planning Commission
regarding bonuses. The following arguments are given both for and against
this idea:
Arguments in favor of maintaining the bonus system are:
The bonuses offset the effects of the 1980 zoning map which
reduced the old R-3 zone from 20 to 15 units per acre, and which
lowered densities by right on many parcels.
Deleting the bonuses will increase approval time by requiring an
extra (rezoning) step in the process.
3. Deletion of bonuses will encourage rezonings to higher densities.
4. Deletion of bonuses will cause strain in public/private relations.
Arguments in favor of deleting the bonus system are:
There have been problems with the implementation of the bonus
provisions, both in terms of the individual bonuses and the
mechanics of applying the bonus factors: inadequate infrastruc-
ture for increased densities; resultant densities exceed Compre-
hensive Plan recommendations; bonus provisions contain vague
wording; density increases are too great; bonuses are provided for
items otherwise required.
o
Since 1980, only eight requests have been made for bonus densi-
ties. No request has been made for provision of low/moderate cost
housing.
Greater discretion is available through proffered rezonings or
planned developments.
0
If bonuses are retained, it will be necessary to carefully revise
the current ordinance to remove the Commission's concerns.
At that meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to
delete all bonuses, but the bonus for dedication of land.
332.
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mrs. Scala said that on April 9, 1985, the Planning Commission approved ZTA-85-03,
Alternative A, Numbers 1 through 11, which follows. The Planning Commission was concerned
about deletion of the low/moderate cost housing bonus. Mrs. Scala said she would read a
separate statement about that bonus a little later, but would now proceed with the actual
staff report on ZTA-85-03.
"Density bonus factors were intended to encourage improved and imaginative
design in residential development as well as to encourage provision of
low/moderate cost housing. Upon review, the Commission has determined that
bonus factors have not satisfied those objectives and sees no public purpose
to be served by continuance of those provisions.
Alternative A deletes all provisions for bonus factors and makes "Increased
density for dedication of land" a new section in each residential district.
Alternative B maintains the general bonus factor language and keeps "dedi-
cation of land" as the only type of bonus available. This alternative
anticipates the possible addition of other types of bonuses in the future.
The' amount of density increase for dedication of land remains as it is
currently, that is, a maximum of 15 percent.
Staff has suggested numbering changes to standardize all the residential
zones as much as possible (see attached summary of numbering chanqes).
Both alternatives include procedural changes recommended previously in staff
reports on bonuses:
1)
Resultant density shall not exceed Comprehensive Plan recommenda-
tions.
2)
The density increase shall be noted on the Zoning Map so that
future owners will be made aware of it.
3)
Frontage and lot size requirements may be reduced proportionately
to the density increase.
The amendment to the PRD Statement of Intent reflects the change in maximum
density permitted by right from 20 dwelling units/acre to 15 dwelling units/
acre if bonuses are deleted."
ALTERNATIVE A:
1. Delete 2.4, Intent of Bonus Factor Provisions.
2. Delete 2.4.1, Application of Bonus Factors.
3. Delete 2.4.2, Procedures - Generally.
e
Amend 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, Rural Areas (RA) District, by
deleting the words, "Conventional Development" and "Standard Develop-
ment''.
Amend 12.1, Intent, Where Permitted, Village Residential (VR) District,
to read: "Provides incentives for residential development by allowing
variations in lot size, density and frontage an~¢e~-ya~ requirements;
Amend 13.1, Intent, Where Permitted, R-1 District;
Amend 14.1, Intent, Where Permitted, R-2 District;
Amend 15.1, Intent, Where Permitted, R-4 District;
Amend 16.1, Intent, Where Permitted, R-6 District;
Amend 17.1, Intent, Where Permitted, R-10 District;
Amend 18.1, Intent, Where Permitted, R-15 District;
"... Provides incentives for clustering of development
..... env~enme~a~-an~-~e~e~pmem~%a~}-amen~es .... "
7. Amend 12.3, Area and Bulk Regulations, Village Residential (VR) Dis-
trict;
Amend 13.3, Area and Bulk Regulations, R-1 District;
Amend 14.3, Area and Bulk Regulations, R-2 District;
Amend 15.3, Area and Bulk Regulations, R-4 District;
Amend 16.3, Area and Bulk Regulations, R-6 District;
Amend 17.3, Area and Bulk Regulations, R-10 District;
Amend 18.3, Area and Bulk Regulations, R-15 District;
By deleting the words Standard Level" and "Bonus Level";
By deleting columns 3 and 4 under "Bonus Level" entirely.
8. Delete:
Bonus Factors - Sections 12.4, 13.4, 14.4, 15.4, 16.5, 17.5, 18.5
Locational Standards - Sections 13.4.1, 14.4.1, 15.4.1
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
333
Environmental Standards - Sections 12.4.1, 13.4.2, 14.1.2, 15.4.2,
16.5.1, 17.5.1, 18.5.1
Development Standards - Sections 12.4.2, 13.4.3, 14.4.3, 15.4.3,
16.5.2, 17.5.2, 18.5.2
Low and Moderate Cost Housing - Sections 13.4.4, 14.4.4, 15.4.4,
16.5.3, 17.5.3, 18.5.3
Cumulative Effect - Sections 12.4.3, 13.4.5, 14.4.5 15.4.5 16.5 4,
17.5.4, 18.5.4 ' ' '
Amend the wording of 16.4, 17.4 and 18.4 from "Area and Bulk Regulation
Options for Bonus Levels" to "Cluster Development Option Regulations"
and renumber as 16.5, 17.5 and 18.5, respectively.
Change the number of:
13.4.6, Cluster Regulations, to 13.5
14.4.6, Cluster Regulations, to 14.5
15.4.6, Cluster Regulations, to 15.5
15.4.7, Recreation, to 15.6
15.5, Building Separation, to 15.7 ,
10.
Add new sections: 12.4, 13.4, 14.4, 15.4, 16.4, 17.4, 18.4 titled
"Increased Residential Density for Dedication of Land to Public Use" to
read:
"For dedication of land for public use not otherwise required by law,
density may be increased in either of the following manners, whichever
shall be less:
a)
b)
Density may be increased by 15 percent; or
The acreage of land dedicated and accepted shall be multiplied by
twice the gross density and the resulting number of dwellings may
be added to the site.
In the case of' either a) or b) above, (frontage in 12.4, 13.4 and 14.4
only) and lot size requirements may be reduced proportionately to the
density increase. Minimum yard requirements shall be maintained.
The resulting density shall not exceed the recommended density shown in
the.Comprehensive Plan.
The density increase may be applied at the time of subdivision or site
development plan approval, whichever is applicable. The dedication
shall be accepted by the Board of Supervisors prior to final approval.
Following approval, such density shall be designated with an appropri-
ate symbol on the Official Zoning Map."
11.
Amend 19.1, Intent, Where Permitted, Planned Residential Development
(PRD) District, as follows:
... ~a-reee~a~ea-~ha~-~e~e~epmen~-a~-sueh-Seas&~es-geae~a~_~e_
~res-earefu~-~aaa&a~-w~h-~es~ee~-~e-&m~ae~7-&~-&s-a~se_~a~ea~e~
~ha~-~he-PRB-~e-em~eye~-~a-a~eas-whe~e-~he-eemp~ehens~ve_P~am_~eeem_
mem~s-~ems&~es-~n-exeess-e~-~e-~we~&m~-um~s-~e~-ae~ev
... While a PRD approach is recommended for developments of any
density, it is specifically intended that the PRD be employed in areas
where the Comprehensive Plan recommends densities in excess of 15
dwelling units per acre, in recognition that development at such
densities 9enerally requires careful Dlanning with respect to impact.
"TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner
June 4, 1985
Bonus for Low/Moderate Cost Housing: "For provision of low and/or
moderate cost housing, certified as such by the Albemarle County
Housing Coordinator, a density increase of 'X' percent shall be
granted, provided that the number of such units developed shall
not be less than one-half of the number of units achievable under
gross density - standard level."
On April 9, 1984, the Planning Commission recommended the deletion of all
bonuses except for dedication of land to public use. In recommending
deletion of the low/moderate cost housing bonus, the Commission was con-
cerned that the public or the Board might construe its actions as an effort
to discourage low/moderate cost housing. The Commission therefore requested
staff to address the issue of that particular bonus and to pass its concerns
along to the Board.
While the bonus for low/moderate cost housing is the largest bonus available
(30 percent out of a maximum 50 percent total bonus), it has not been used
since the introduction of bonuses in 1980. One reason may be that there are
other bonuses available much easier for which to qualify.
.334
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night'Meeting)
(Page 10)
The major problem with this bonus and with several other bonuses is the
implementation. Some type of ongoing enforcement procedure is necessary to
insure compliance. In contrast, the bonus for dedication may be satisfied
at the front-end of the process, by the simple recordation of a plat before
any building permits are issued.
A second problem is the current wording of the bonus. The definition is
left to the approval of the Housing Coordinator (this position no longer
exists). It is very important that the bonus provisions be carefully
constructed since our bonus system is ministerial rather than discretionary.
It is possible that the deletion of other bonuses could encourage the use of
the low/moderate cost housing bonus. If the Board chooses to retain this
bonus, staff requests time to study different methods for implementation.
Possibilities are: a cost limit on the initial sale price of a unit with a
time limit restricting resale at a higher price; initial sale limited to
qualifying buyers; a contractual arrangement with the County for a certain
number of years; or dedication of land to a housing authority."
Mr. Fisher said that before he opens the Public Hearing he would like to state-that he
has no intention of requesting a vote on these matters tonight. There are two Board members
absent, and he would like to study the language longer. He probably will request that a work
session be set in July.
The Public Hearing was opened. The first to speak was Mr. Blake Hurt. Mr. Hurt said he
has been watching the issue of the bonuses closely. He understands the criticism of the
Planning Commission was that the bonuses are not widely used and that they do not encourage
the kind of development wanted. He feels that when the bonus idea was instituted in the last
revision of the Zoning Ordinance, it was done to offset some downzoning that occurred on the
zoning map at that time. The wide use of the provision is somewhat of an opinion. County
staff has said that the eight developments that have been approved using bonus provisions
consist of over 1200 units. He had a subdivision that used the bonuses successfully. As to
accomplishing the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, part of the problem is the language
itself. Landscaping must be significant, and the problem is the definition of significant.
The developer usually has a different answer from that of the staff. He does not say that
bonuses are ideal, but he does not think they have been given a proper chance to work. He
suggests that the Board ask the Planning Commission and staff to look at the problem again,
and come up with some more specific language. There was also a question as to why the bonus
for low/moderate income housing had not been used. In this County, it takes a long time to
get a project approved, and because of that, if there is no way to determine what low/
moderate income housing is, why spend nine months trying to get a plan approved. One thing
that might help this bonus be more useful would be to set some sort of standard. Mr. Hurt
said another problem is with State roads. He thinks there should be an additional bonus
given for improving roads to more than State standards. If there were some way to allow road
improvements through bonuses, it would give an additional incentive to the developer and
probably the County would get a nicer project. He thinks the bonuses should be molded to fit
the circumstances. He recommends that the Board not decide what to keep and what to drop,
but to send the whole package back to the staff and ask them to sit down with developers to
come up with bonuses which are effective, more clearly defined and that could be used more
often.
Next to speak was Mrs. Jane Saunier, representing the Albemarle Housing Coalition. They
hope the Board will retain the low cost housing bonus. In 1980 when this provision was
adopted, they felt that it repreSented a public policy decision for support of such housing,
and she thinks it represents the position of this Board today. To delete it would be a step
in the wrong direction. She hopes the fact that it has not been used widely is not a valid
argument for doing away with it. She thinks the market conditions have been such that it was
simpler and easier for developers to build for the market and not put up with the perceived
hassle and constraints of such projects. This provision is a model for other counties in the
region. There is a regional housing market. Albemarle County and other counties in Planning
District 10 recognize a responsibility to share in assisted housing. Having the County
Zoning Ordinance and professional staff and community development objectives to look at as
models is helpful to other counties in working on low/and moderate income housing projects.
Another consideration is the fact that when funds are sought for community development from
the Federal and State agencies, points are awarded to jurisdictions on their policies,
comprehensive plan statements and strategies that support low/moderate income housing. She
urged the retention of this bonus provision.
Mr. Don Wagner said he thinks when all is said and done there is one basic question to
consider. Were the bonus factors integral to implementation of the Comprehensive Plan? He
attended several Planning Commission meetings and the Staff kept recommending things to the
Planning Commission that would help implement the Plan. The Planning Commission, however,
chose to slam the door closed. In contrast when the Board discussed its landscaping pro-
visions, Mrs. Scala worked with developers, landscape people, public interest people and came
out with a proposed amendment concerning landscaping. Although he does not like additional
regulations, a lot of people had positive input into that amendment. One aspect of the
landscaping provisions is called "significant features." This would give the Planning Com-
mission the right to require that the landscape feature be retained. He feels that would be
an ideal candidate for a bonus factor. In conclusion, if the Board of Supervisors pointed
the Planning Staff in the right direction, he feels they would come back with the right
answer.
Next to speak was Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres, for the Piedmont Environmental Council. She
said they do not support the bonus provisions the way they are working right now. She thinks
it would be good if they were designed based on criteria other than what an applicant might
submit. Physical characteristics of the land and public facilities are not looked at now.
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
335
It has been said that the bonus factors were based on development standards recommended by
the Comprehensive Plan, but if one looks at the Comprehensive Plan, it clearly states on what
criteria housing density should be based. It needs to be based on comprehensive planning
principles, on what the land can support, public utilities and good design criteria.
Mr. Tommy Lanahan said that every time you talk about changing things, you talk .about
making housing less affordable to more people. This is another way to continue to have
prices escalate and not have as many units available. As a builder, it gets more difficult
to find reasonably priced pieces of property. He thinks this is just another way to see that
people live in townhouses or condominiums, but he would prefer not to see that himself.
Mr. Keeler said he would like to make a statement for the record. Mr. Hurt referred to
the low moderate cost housing provision and arguing with the staff, and someone else men-
tioned the hassle with the provision the way it is written. To his knowledge, he has never
spoken to a developer about using that provision since it has been in the Zoning Ordinance.
He has never had a developer show any interest in it. He does not want anyone to get the
idea there are people applying for that provision and just tossing up their hands after
talking with the staff for extended periods of time. Mr. Hurt referred to the bonus for
improving existing State roads. That is a dilemma the staff has been working on for a couple
of years. The Board has made comments to the State Highway Department concerning such, and
he, at the staff level, will discuss this with developers this year to see if they can come
up with some type of proposal to the Highway Department and the General Assembly that will
correct this problem. The situation with public roads is hurting the developers, the County
and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan at this time.
Next to speak was Mr. Chuck Rotgin. He said that in 1980 they argued to have a low
moderate income bonus based on Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) criteria which
was for 20 percent of total housing. He understood that in order to earn a 30 percent bonus,
one-half of the base density units must be built as low/moderate income housing, and that is
not feasible. He thinks the developers could work on a committee with staff etc on this
idea. · -,
With no one else rising to speak for or against the amendments at this time, Mr. Fisher
said he would like to hold a work session on these amendments in July. Mrs. Cooke immedi-
ately offered motion to defer any action on these two petitions until July 17 at 2:00 p.m.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way.
: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
At 9:25 p.m. the Board recessed because of the improper working of the air-conditioning
system. The Board reconvened at 9:37 p.m. and continued with the next agenda item.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-85-4. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for automobile body shop as a use by Special Use Permit
in the LI, Light Industrial District, as a use by right in the HI, Heavy Industrial District;
also to provide definition of automobile body shop, automobile truck repair and automobile
service station. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 1985.)
Mr. Keeler said the Staff does not feel that this amendment is ripe for review at this
time and asked that it be referred back to the Planning Commission for further study. The-
problem is definitions. Mr. St. John said this amendment is not one he would recommend at
this time. Mr. Fisher suggested that if it is sent back to the Planning Commission, Mr. St.
John work with them on wording. Mr. St. John said he would be glad to talk to the Planning
Commission and tell them his concerns.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were anyone from the public present to speak on this amend-
ment. No one stood. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to
refer ZTA-85-4 back to the Planning Commission and to request that the County Attorney convey
his concerns to the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-85-06. The Albemarle County Planning Commission had adopted a
resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include landscaping and screening
requirements and related amendments. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28
1985.) ·
Mrs. Scala presented the staff's report:
INTRODUCTION
Revisions to the landscaping requirements were proposed last year during the
"streamlining" study. Staff suggested that minimum specifications would
facilitate approvals by reducing debate before the Planning Commission.
Specific requirements would permit developers to plan and budget for land-
scaping more easily. In addition, certain problems with the existing
regulations needed to be addressed, especially the increasing conflicts
between landscape plans and the requirements of the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation and the Service Authority.
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
At the same time, the bonus provisions came under discussion, including the
environmental standards for maintenance of wooded areas and significant
landscaping. Therefore, staff decided to address all these related land-
scaping issues in a single study.
The Planning staff organized work sessions in February, 1985, with a commit-
tee of landscape professionals from the community. The following individu-
als contributed their time and knowledge to this landscape study: Mr. Jack
Douglas (Douglas Associates); Mr. Blake Hurt (Republic Homes); Mr. Tim
Michel; Mr. Dave Myers (James Gercke Construction Company); Ms. Lisa Sessoms
(Roudabush, Greene and Gale, Inc); Mr. Craig Van de Castle; MS. Peggy Van
Yahres (Van Yahres Associates)
The 'Planning Commission received the committee's recommendations and held
several work sessions. On May 21, 1985 the Albemarle County Planning
Commission recommended approval of ZTA-85-06 with minor changes which have
been incorporated into the text.
The proposal consists of four parts:
1)
2)
3)
4)
New Section 32.8 to be added to Article 32 Site Development Plan
in the Zoning Ordinance;
Recommended amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to land-
scaping and screening;
A list of recommended plant materials; and
A tree conservation checklist.
The last two items will not be included in the Zoning Ordinance but will be
incorporated by reference. It is anticipated that staff will revise the
plant list from time to time.
OBJECTIVES
The proposed revisions to the landscaping and screening requirements empha-
size street trees, parking lot shade trees and screening of objectionable
uses and parking lots. Staff opinion is that these are the critical land-
scape elements which must be addressed in order to protect the public
interest. Additional landscaping intended to beautify the site is encour-
aged but is not being proposed as a requirement.
Staff has listed several objeCtives of the proposed requirements. It is
clear that landscaping is not considered a frill or cosmetic touch, but
rather a part of the implementation of larger community goals.
The landscape of Albemarle County may be characterized by its surrounding
ridge lines, rolling terrain and natural wooded character. Landscape
plantings of small trees and shrubs cannot offer the integration with the
surrounding area which large growing trees can do. Therefore, staff has
prepared a recommended list of large trees for use as street trees and shade
trees in parking lots. Medium trees may be used when site conditions
warrant their use, under overhead utility lines, for example.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed Section 32.8 includes the following important recommendations:
1)
Street trees are required in any development subject to site plan
approval in all commercial and industrial districts and resi-
dential districts if developed at four (4) dwelling units per acre
or greater. (32.8.4)
Parking lots must be landscaped in any development subject to site
plan approval in any district. (32.8.5)
Screening is required in six specific instances. (32.8.6)
2)
A "generic'' landscape plan will allow the developer to indicate
plant material by size and general type, including: large or
medium shade tree, screening tree or shrub, street shrub. Staff
has compiled a list of recommended plant materials to correspond
with the generic terms. This will provide flexibility by allowing
the applicant to substitute plant materials from the list which
may be more readily available, or of healthier stock. Species not
listed will require staff approval. (32.8.2.2)
3)
4)
Staff approval of landscape plans for sites with 80 percent or
less impervious cover. Plans which exceed 80 percent impervious
cover must be submitted concurrently with the site plan to insure
that required landscaping is planned for early in the design
stage. (32.8.2.1)
Standardized requirements will insure that similar sites will have
similar .requirements. More landscaping will be required on sites
with long road frontages, large parking lots, or for uses which
are incompatible with adjacent zoning. (32.8.4; 32.8.5; 32.8.6)
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
337
5)
Flexibility is provided for individual site conditions. Staff
recognizes that there are many solutions to each landscaping
design problem. The proposal is specific as to which requirements
may be varied by the staff and which will require a waiver by the
Planning Commission.
6)
Maintenance bonding insures the developer's responsibility for
required plant materials for twelve months following planting.
Thereafter the owner is responsible for maintenance. (32.8.2.7)
7)
The proposal provides for the preservation of existing landscape
features if they contribute.significantly to the character of the
Albemarle County landscape. The intent is to draw attention to
unique amenities which could otherwise be irretrievably lost due
to careless site design. (32.8.2.4)
8)
A tree conservation checklist is required to be submitted by an
applicant whenever existing trees are to be preserved in lieu of
planting new material to meet the landscaping and screening
requirements. The concern here is that simply marking a tree "to
be saved" on a plan is not sufficient to insure that it will be
protected during construction. (32.8.2.3)
The proposed amendments to existing requirements include the following
important changes:
1)
There will no longer be minimums for required landscape area (was
10 percent in commercial, 20 percent in industrial). Instead, the
amount of required landscaping will be determined by conditions of
the site.
2)
In general, existing landscaping and screening requirements have
been deleted, with the note, "See Section 32.8 for landscape and
screening requirements." The exception is Section 30.4.9, front-
age screening in the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District.
This section serves a unique purpose and has, therefore, been
retained.
3)
The area previously designated as parking setback, between commer-
cial and industrial and residential districts, has been upgraded
to a buffer zone. No construction including grading or clearing
of vegetation may occur in this zone, unless a waiver is granted
by the Planning Commission in a particular case. Screening is
required within this buffer zone, which is 20 feet wide in commer-
cial districts and 30 feet wide in industrial districts.
4) Inconsistencies in existing requirements have been deleted.
ADDITIONAL COM~RNTS
The question was raised during Planning Commission review whether the new
requirements will affect single family developments. Staff is recommending
that only the Zoning Ordinance be amended at this time, therefore the
requirements will apply to developments which are subject to site plan
approval.
The idea was suggested that a workshop be offered by the County for persons
who prepare plans to explain the requirements. Staff feels this is a good
idea, which could be easily organized.
Regarding implementation of conservation plans, the Planning staff will
review and approve the plans. Inspections will be made by soil erosion
personnel.
RECOM~.NDED AMRNDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO LANDSCAPING AND
SCREENING:
Under Article 21, Commercial Districts Generally, (C-i, CO, HC, PD-SC,
PD-MC), make the following changes:
21.6
MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA
M&m&mam-~am~seape~-a~ea-em-amy-&m~&v&~ua~-~e~-sha~-me~-~e-~ess
~ham-Sv~8-~mes-~he-a~ea-~f-~he-~e~--Saeh-~am~seape~-a~ea-sha~
Be-~se~-~e-emhamee-~he-appea~amee-~-~he-~e~?--The-eemm&ss~em-may
re~u~e-ermamem~a~-~am~seap&mg-e~-seree~-~rem~agesv See section
32.8 for landscaping and screening requirements.
21.7
MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
21.7.1
Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any structure except
signs advertising sale or rental of the property shall be erected
closer than thirty (30) feet to any public street right-of-way.
~ff-s~ee~-pa~k~m~-am~-~a~m~-spaee-sha~-~e-~ea~e~-am~
se~eene~-s~-as-~-m~m~m~e-v~sua~-~mpae~-~m-p~B~e-s~ree~sv No
off-street parking or loading space shall be located closer than
ten (10) feet to any public street right-of-way.
338
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
21.7.2
Adjacent, to residential and a¢~&e~a~ rural areas districts:
No portion of any structure except signs advertising sale or
rental of the property shall be located closer than fifty (50)
feet to any residential or a¢~&e~a~ rural areas district. No
off-street parking or loading space shall be located closer than
twenty (20) feet to any residential or a¢~&e~a~ rural areas
district.
Add a new section:
21.7.3 Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No
construction activity includinq grading or clearing of vegetation
shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or
rural ar_eas district. Screening shall be provided as required in
Section.32.8.
Except, the Planning Commission may waive this requirement in a
particular case where it has been demonstrated that grading or
clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design,
provided that:
Minimum screening requirements are met; and
Existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is
substantially restored.
Under Article 22, C-1 Commercial, make the following chanqes:
22.3
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the requirements contained herein, the requirements
of section 21.0 commercial districts, generally shall apply within
all C-1 districts~-p~ev&de~-~ha~-~he-eemm&ss~e~-may-me~-~a~y
~-wa~we-~he-~e~eme~s-~-see~s-~v6-an~-~-~n-a-pa~e~-
~a~-ease-~p~m-a-~md~m~-s~eh-ae~em-we~-Be-~-~eeD~m§-w~h-~he
eharae~er-e~-~he-a~-~ha~-a~erma~Yes-p~ep~se~-B~-~he-app~ea~
wea~d-sa~&s~-p~B~&e-&m~e~es~-a~-~eas~-~o-am-e~a&Ma~em~-~e~ree.
Under Article 25, Planned Development - Shopping Center (PD-SC), delete the
followinG section:
R~v4vB S~RBEN~N8
ya~sT-~e~eesT-wa~s-e~-~e~e~a~e-se~ee~n~-sha~-be-D~ev~e~
whe~e-~ee~e~-~e-p~ee~-~es~e~a~-~s~e~s-a~-p~b~e-s~ee~s
~em-a~e~se-~n~enees-s~eh-as-~es~aB~e-~ews?-~§h~n~-am~
~a~-a~easT-a~-~e~ase-s~e~a§e-a~eas-sha~-Be-e~ee~e~y
se~eeme~-~em-~s~-s~e~y-w~m~ws-em-aBu~m§-~e~s-~n-~es~e~a~
heree~v--Where-em~-vege~a~&ve-se~eem&mg-&s-prev&~e~7-s~eh-sereem-
~eea~&em?-~pe-amS-ex~em~-e~-sereem&mg-sha~-Be-appreveS-BM-~he
eemm~ss&em-er-~s-~es&gmee?
Under Article 25A, Planned Development - Mixed Commercial (PD-MC), delete
the following section:
where-mee~e~-~-p~e~ee~-~es~em~a~-~s~e~s-am~-p~B~e-s~ee~s
f~m-a~e~se-&m~uemees-sueh-as-un~es~aB~e-~ews?-~h~m§-am~
me~sev--~m-pa~&e~ar?-s~e~age-Mar~sT-ex~ems&Ye-pa~&m§-am8
~a~mg-a~easT-an~-~e~se-s~e~a~e-areas-sha~-Be-e~ee~¥e~Y
~s~&e~sv--Se~eem~m§-ma~-eems&sk-e~-a-s&§h~yT-epa~e-wa~-e~
here~?--Where-em~y-~e§e~a~e-sereem~m§-&s-prev&~e~T-s~eh-sereem-
&mg-s~&p-sha~-me~-Be-~ess-~ham-~wem~y-%~8~-~ee~-~m-~ep~hv--~he
Under Article 26, Industrial District Generally (LI, HI, PD-IP), make the
following chanqes:
26.9
MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA
~han-@?~e-~&mes-~he-a~ea-e~-~he-~e~v--Sueh-~am~sea~e~-a~ea-sha~
Be-mse~-~e-emhamee-~he-appearamee-e~-~he-~e~v See section 32.8
for landscaping and screening requirements.
26.10
MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
26.10.1
Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any structure, except
signs advertising sale or rental of the property, shall be erected
closer than fifty (50) feet to any public street right-of-way.
eff-s~ee~-~a~-am~-~ea~m~-s~aee-sha~-~e-~ea~e~-a~r
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
339
sereened-so-as-~e-m~a~m~e-M~s.ua~mDae~-frem_DuB~e_sE~ee~s_aa~
Be-~eeaked-a-m~m~m~m-~-~ea-~8~-~ee~-f~em-aaM-D~B~e_s~ree~_r~gh~
e~-way? No off-snreen parking or loading space shall be located
closer than ten .(10) feet .to any public street right-of-wa~.
26.10.2 Adjacent to residential districts: No portion of any structure,
except signs advertising sale or.rental of the property, shall be
located closer than fifty (50) feet to ~any agr~eu~ra~ rural
areas or residential district and no off-street parking space
shall be _closer than thirty (30) feet to any a§r~em~mra& rural
areas or residential district. For the heavy industry (HI)
district, no portion of any structure except signs advertising
sale or rental of the property shall be located closer than one
hundred (100) feet to any a§~e~u~a~ rural areas or residential
district and no off-street parking shall be closer than thirty
(30) feet to any residential or ag~em~ra~ rural areas district.
Add new section:
26.10.3 Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No
construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetatioD
shall occur closer than thirty (30) feet to any residential or
rural areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in
section 32.8.
Except, the Planning Commission may waive tb~s requirement in a
particular case where it has been demonstrated that grading or
clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design,
provided that:
Minimum screening requirements are met; and
Existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is
substantially restored.
Mar~sT-feaeesp-wa~s-er-~e~e~a~Me-se~eea~a§-sha~-he-DroM~Se~
where-nee~ed-~e-Preeee~-~es~em~a~-~ser~s~s-am~-pmB~e-s~ree~s
~em-a~Me~se-~n~mea~es-su~h-as-mndes~raB~e-M~ews?-~§h~m§_a~
~a~n~-a~eas?-a~-~e~se-se~a§e-a~eas-sha~-be-effeee~e~y
~s~r~e~s=--Se~eem~m~-may-e~ms~s~-~f-a-s~§h~y?-~pa~ue-wa~_~
~e~e~=--Whe~e-~n~y-~e§e~a~e-se~een~-~s-p~e~?-s~eh-se~ee~_
~-s~p-sha~-n~-Be-~ess-~ha~-~wen~y-%RS}-~ee~-~-dep~h=--The
~eae~?-~Ype-an~-ex~en~-~-se~een~n~-sha~-Be-app~e~-by,~he
Under Article 30, Overlay Districts - Natural Resource Extraction (NR),
section 30.4.9, Roadside Landscaping, Screening, remains unchanged.
Under Article 32, Site Development Plan, make the following change:
32.4 SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE SHOWN
32.4.33
A landscape and open space design plan, based upon accepted
professional design lay-outs and principals. The plans shall
include outdoor lighting proposals; recreational areas and open
space; location and type of plantings; location, type, size,
height and illumination of signs; a~-~ea~n-and-sereen~
ma~e~a~s-~e~-~o~-~ash-~e~e~n-a~eas-a~-~a~§e-~eeep~a_
e~es? See section 32.8 for landscape and screening requirements.
PROPOSAL - AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 'WITH THE ADDITION OF:
32.8
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
32.8.1 PURPOSE
The objective of these requirements is to provide for the instal-
lation, preservation and maintenance of plant materials in order
to:
a)
insure development which is consistent with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan related to natural resources and with the
Plan's environmental and land use standards;
b) promote the public health, safety and welfare;
c) conserve energy by providing shade and wind breaks;
d)
provide pervious area which helps to reduce runoff and to
recharge groundwater;
e) improve air quality;
f) minimize noise, dust and glare;
.340
.32.8.2
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
32.8.2.1
32.8.2.2
32.8.2.3
32.8.2.4
32.8.2.5
32.8.2.6
32.8.2.7
g)
h)
.promote traffic safety by controlling views and defining
circulation patterns;
to protect and preserve the appearance, character and value
of the neighboring properties;
ADMINISTRATION
Whenever a site plan is required by this ordinance, a landscape
plan shall be submitted for approval. The site plan shall not be
deemed approved until the landscape plan has also been approved by
the Director of Planning. If the impervious cover of the site
exceeds 80 percent of the. total ~site, the landscape plan shall be
submitted concurrently with the site plan. Otherwise the land-
scape plan may be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of
a building permit and prior to any clearing of the site; except
that the Director of Planning may require that a landscape plan be
submitted concurrently with the site plan due to unusual circum-
stances or conditions peculiar to the site. or if requested by the
Planning Commission.
The landscape plan shall show location, size and type of all
proposed plant materials, and verification that minimum land-
scaping and screening requirements~have been met. Plant materials
may be indicated in the following generic terms on the landscape
plan: large or medium shade tree, screening tree, screening shrub
or street shrub. The required plant materials shall be chosen
from a recommended species list approved by the Director of
Planning. Plant material not listed may be used as required plant
material only if its use shall be expressly approved by the
Director of Planning.
Existing trees or wooded areas may be preserved in lieu of plant-
ing new materials in order to meet the landscaping and screening
requirements, subject to the Director of Planning's approval. In
such case, the landsCape plan shall indicate the trees to be
saved, limits of clearing' location and type of protective fenc-
ing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls and trenching or
tunnelling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. In addition,
the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the
Director of Planning, to insure that the specified trees will be
protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly
approved by the Director of planning in a particular case, such
checklist shall, conform to specifications contained in the Virgin-
ia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III-284 through
III-297.
In addition, the landscape plan shall indicate existing landscape
features on the site. Such features may include, but shall not be
limited to: wooded areas indicated by general type and location
of tree line; other groups of trees or individual trees other than
scrub, indicated by general type, size and location; prominent
ridge lines, scenic views, existing structures, travel ways,
fences or walls. The Director of Planning may require that any or
all such features be preserved if the Director determines,
following a site inspection, that the features contribute
significantly to the character of the Albemarle County landscape
and that the preservation of such features is necessary to meet
the purpose and intent of this ordinance.
The purpose of this section is to protect unique amenities which
could otherwise be irretrievably lost due to careless site design.
It is not intended that this section be applied indiscriminately,
nor solely to prohibit development.
The-Planning staff in its review of the landscape'plan shall
consider comments from other agencies before approving the plan.
including the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and
the Albemarle County Service Authority. Once the landscape plan
is approved, no changes may be made unless the revision has been
approved by the Director of Planning.
Required landscaping may be bonded to insure completion prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All required land-
scaping shall be completed by the first planting season following
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
A maintenance bond for the required landscaping shall be posted by
the developer in favor of the County. If the landscaping is
completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy,
then the maintenance bond shall be posted prior to the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy. If the landscaping is bonded for
completion, rather than completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, then the maintenance bond shall be
posted when the materials are planted but before the completion
bond is released.
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
3,-41
32.8.2.8
32.8.3
32.8.3.1
32.8.3.2
32.8.4
32.8.4.1
32.8.4.2
32.8.4.3
32.8.4.4
32.8.5
32.8.5.1
The maintenance bond shall be in the amount of approximately
one-third of the value of required trees and/or shrubs, and shall
be held for a period.of 12. months following the planting date.
At the end of 12 month time period, the bond shall be released if
all required plantings are in healthy condition as determined by
the Zoning Administrator. Thereafter. required landscaping shall
be maintained in healthy condition by the current owner or home-
owners' association, and replaced when necessary. Replacement
material shall conform to the original intent of the landscape
plan. When existing plantings are preserved in lieu of required
new plantings, the bond shall be calculated according to the
replacement value of plantings which meet the minimum requirements
of this ordinance.
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Director of Planning may
demand a review of the plan by the Planning Commission. Such
request shall be made in writing and filed with the Director of
Planning within 10 calendar days of the date of such decision.
The term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant,
persons required to be notified pursuant to Section 32.3.2, the
Planning Commission, any member thereof, the Zoning Administrator,
County Executive, Board of Supervisors, or any member thereof.
MINIMUM STANDARDS
Large street trees shall be 1 1/2" - 1 3/4" minimum caliper
(measured 6" above ground level) when planted. Medium street
trees shall be 1" - 1 1/4" minimum caliper when planted. Ever-
green trees for screening shall be minimum 4' - 5' in height when
planted. Shrubs for screening shall be minimum 24" - 30" in
height when planted. Shrubs for street planting shall be minimum
15" - 18" in height when planted.
All landscaping shall be planted according to established planting
procedures using good quality plant materials. Planting islands
shall contain minimum 50 square feet per tree, with a minimum
dimension of 5 feet in order to protect the landscaping and allow
for proper growth. Wheel stops, curbs, or other barriers must be
provided to prevent damage to landscaping by vehicles.
Where necessary, trees shall be welled or otherwise protected
against change of grade. All impervious areas of the site shall
be permanently protected from soil erosion with either grass, a
ground cover or mulch material.
STREET TREES
Street trees shall be required along existing or proposed public
streets in any development which is subject to site plan approval
in all commercial and industrial districts and residential dis-
tricts if developed at a density of four dwelling units per acre
or greater. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement in
certain cases where site conditions warrant an alternate solution.
Street trees shall be selected from a current list of recommended
large shade trees, approved by the Director of Planning. Medium
shade trees may be used, subject to Director of Planning's approv-
al, when site conditions warrant smaller trees. The Director of
Planning may approve substitutions of species limited to large or
medium shade trees.
Street trees shall be planted in an evenly-spaced row adjacent to
the public street right-of-way. One large street tree shall be
required for every 50 feet of road frontage, or portion thereof,
if 25 feet or more. Where permitted, one medium shade tree shall
be required for every 40 feet of road frontage, or portion there-
of, if 20 feet or more. The Director of Planning may approve
minor variations in spacing.
In the case of development with units for sale, the trees shall be
protected through an open space or easement arrangement and shall
be maintained by a homeowners' association.
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING
Ail developments subject to site plan review shall include the
following required landscaping in the parking lot area:
1. Street trees:
Street trees shall be planted in accordance with Section
32.8.4 along the public street frontage which abuts a parking
lot. The trees shall normally be planted between the street
right-of-way and the parking area, within the parking set-
back. If required, street trees may not be planted within
342
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
32.8.6
32.8.6.1
32.8.6.2
32.8.6.3
the parking setback or within 10 feet of the street right-
of-w. ay due to sight distance or utility easements or other
conflicting requirements, then the planting strip must be
enlarged to accommodate the trees. If this requirement
creates a hardship by causing the relocation of required
parking spaces, then the additional planting area may be
counted toward the interior landscaping requirement.
2. Interior Landscaping:
In addition, an area equal to 5 percent of the paved site
area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs. This shall
include one large or medium shade tree per 10 parking spaces
or portion thereof, if 5 spaces or more. Interior land-
scaping shall be located in reasonably dispersed planting
islands or perimeter areas. Shrub plantings adjacent to a
building shall not be counted as interior landscaping.
Additional plantings along public streets:
When a parking lot is located such that the parked cars will
be visible from a public street, then additional landscaping
of low street shrubs shall be required between the street and
the parking lot. Shrubs shall be planted in a single row on
5 feet centers. Alternate methods of landscaping designed to
minimize the visual impact of the parking lot may be approved
by the Director of Planning.
SCREENING
When required, screening shall consist of a planting strip,
existing vegetation, a sightly opaque wall or fence, or com-
bination thereof. Where only vegetative screening is provided,
such screening strip shall not be less than twenty feet in depth.
Vegetative screening shall consist of a double staggered row of
evergreen trees on 15 feet centers, minimum 4' - 5' in height when
planted, or a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs on 10'
centers, minimum 24" - 30" in height when planted. Alternate
methods of vegetative screening may be approved by the Director of
Planning. Where a fence or wall is provided, it shall be minimum
6'in height. Plantings may be required at intervals along the
structure.
Screening of parking lots shall not be counted toward the interior
landscaping requirement. When screening is required along the
frontage of public streets, the Director of Planning shall deter-
mine if the street tree requirement has been met.
Screening shall be required in the following instances:
Commercial and industrial uses shall be screened from adja-
cent residential and rural areas districts.
Parking lots shall be screened from adjacent residential and
rural areas districts.
Objectionable features including, but not limited to the
following uses shall be screened from adjacent residential
and rural area districts and public streets:
- loading areas
- refuse areas
- storage yards
- detention ponds
- recreational facilities other than children's play areas
where visibility is necessary or passive recreation areas
where visibility is desirable.
Double frontage residential lots shall be screened between
the rear of the residences and the public right-of-way.
Natural Resource Extraction uses shall be screened from
public streets as required in Section 30.4.9.
The Planning Commission may require screening of any use or
portion thereof, if the Commission determines that the use
would otherwise have a negative visual impact on a property
listed on the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register.
Mrs. Scala said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 21, 1985, unanimous-
ly recommended approval of ZTA-85-06, as presented by the staff with the following changes:
The last sentence of section 32.8.2.3, beginning"In addition, the applicant shall sign
a conservation .... "-shall be deleted and replaced with the following sentence: "In
addition, the applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the Director of
Planning, to insure that the specified trees will be protected during construction.
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
343
Except as otherwise expressly approved by the Director of Planning in a particular case,
such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook, pp III-284 through III-297.
The first two sentences of section 32.8.3.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the
following sentence: "Large street trees shall be minimum height 1 1/2" to 1 3/4"
minimum caliper measured 6" above the ground when planted. Medium street trees shall be
minimum 1" to 1 1/4" minimum caliper when planted."
It was also decided a note should be added to the bottom of the conservation checklist
to the effect that "It is the developer's responsibility to confer with the contractor
on this matter."
At this time the Public Hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Blake Hurt, who said
that he had participated in the drafting of this proposed amendment. In general he is
against more regulations since it makes it more difficult to get a project approved and
drives up the cost. The regulation is really designed for five percent of the developers who
ignore good planning. However, if there is a need for this type of regulation, this is the
one. He does have a problem with Section 32.8.2.4 noted as "Significant Features," since it
does not define what significant features are. He feels that the section could be used
against the developer. He is not sure that the intent of the Section will be carried out by
such vague language, and he would like to see it excluded in its entirety. He also feels
that this is a bonus, so should be defined as s~ch. Finally, concerning grading of the
buffer area, there is a practical problem. Often the lots are a different elevation, so they
must be graded from lot line to lot line to achieve the necessary grade. He feels there
should be an understanding that if the Planning Commission approves the site plan with
grading of the buffer area that that is the approval to allow the grading. He gets the
impression that a separate approval will be required, and that is one approval too many.
Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Scala to comment about the "Significant Features,~ portion of that
section. Mrs. Scala said the Planning Commission was aware that "Significant Features" is
not well defined. They asked that Paragraph No. 2 state, "The purpose of this section is to
protect unique amenities which could otherwise be irretrievably lost due to careless site
design. It is not intended that this section be applied indiscriminately nor solely to
prohibit development." The Planning Commission did not feel they would use this Section
indiscriminately. Mr. Hurt's comment on grading in the buffer area is one on which the Staff
agrees. That would be the approval and it would not require a separate approval. If they
needed to grade in the buffer area, the Planning Commission would consider that as a waiver.
Under current rules, they would need to get a grading permit on any part of the site. But in
order to grade in the buffer area, they would need to get a waiver from the Planning
Commission. Mrs. Scala said she does not see why this could not be done during site plan
approval.
Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres said she was present tonight to speak for the Piedmont
Environmental Council and herself. She supports the regulation except for minor things; one
being the size of shade trees listed. The committee started by recommending larger trees,
but there are a lot of reasons for not staking trees, so they went to a size that did not
need to be staked. There is a chapter in the Virginia Soil Erosion Handbook which describes
how trees can be saved during construction. She agrees with Mr. Hurt on Section 32.8.2.4 and
would like to see significant landscaping features in Albemarle County retained which she
thinks are important, but the whole point of this ordinance is that it is very clear. That
particular section is not clear. The U. S. Forest Service, the National Park Service and the
National Trust have all done a considerable amount of work in defining significant
landscape features. Another problem she has is with the recommended species list. It is
very traditional to have a required shade tree list. Often it is done because some public
agency will be responsible for pruning the trees. Her problem is with the species list for
shrubs. It ties the landscaper's hands unnecessarily. She suggested it be called a recom-
mended list which states "includes but is not limited to the following list." She feels the
required shrub sizes are still too large. There are many street shrubs on the list that are
very expensive and often difficult to get. The same thing goes for the screening shrubs. It
will be hard for an applicant to get shrubs of that size. Shrubs grow quickly. Particularly
in the first year or two. Container grown shrubs survive better and are more available
although smaller.
Mr. Don Wagner said he thinks the best thing about this ordinance is the way it was
drafted using a committee. Concerning Section 32.8.2.4 he would suggest that that language
be saved as a bonus provision. He thinks that with some work, it could be effective, but
will cause mischief where it is since it is vague. One of the virtues of the ordinance is
that it tells the developer the rules before he starts. He thinks that if this were saved
for a bonus factor, the burden would be put on the developer of convincing the County it is
something worth saving and by saving, he would get something for it.
With no one else rising to speak for or against this amendment, the Public Hearing was
closed. Mr. Fisher said he thinks some of the requirements for minimum size shrubs are
strange. He then discussed with Mrs. Scala some of the requirements for sizes of street
shrubs. Mrs. Scala said she would like to comment on Mr. Wagner's suggestion that this item
be put in as a bonus. If it were, it would not apply to either commercial or industrial
districts but only to residential. Mr. Fisher said if it were a feature as significant as
Tarleton's Oak, and the Planning Commission said it must be left, if the provisions were
moved to the bonus section, it would be telling the developer if he did not cut it down he
would get a larger density. Mr. Fisher said he is not sure that is the right way to deal
with something significant.
344
June 5, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr.. Bowie said the Board does not even know at this time if there will be a bonus
section until after they hold their meeting on July 17. He has a problem with the total
concept, since it is another step in the big brother instance. It would be easy to go from
the Zoning Ordinance to the Subdivision Ordinance and put the provisions in there and then
even down to single-family dwellings. He certainly does not want anybody else telling him
what to put in his front yard. He cannot support the amendment. Mrs. Scala said during the
Planning Commission presentation, she had given the Commission examples of four site plans
that had already been a~proved and their landscape plans as they would look under this
proposal. She pointed out that this would not restrict those who are doing a good job. She
feels this would help when they have someone who does not want to do anything. Mr. Keeler
said the problem at this point is that there are no standards at all. They have had adjoin-
lng owners ask for trees 15 feet high. Mrs. Cooke said it seems that this proposal will
eliminate a good deal of work for the staff. She does not have any problem with what is
recommended. She feels it is a time saving device and necessary to answer the problem of
those who are not willing to do a good job.
Mr. Fisher said there are two Board members absent and he if not sure how to proceed
with this amendment. Mr. Bowie then offered motiOn that this amendment be considered in
conjunction with the two other items to be heard on July 17. Mr. Way asked that it not be
done on the 17th since he thought that would be too much for one meeting. Mr. Fisher said
Mr. Wagner's suggestion to put significant landscaping in as a bonus provision is something
with which he does not agree. There will be a Board member absent next week and the fol-
lowing week so he would suggest putting this on the day meeting, July 10. Mr. Way said if he
had to vote on this amendment tonight, he would definitely vote against it. He has mixed
emotions about the whole thing.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way to defer any action on
ZTA-85-06 until July 10, 1985. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: December 19, 1984, January 2, January 9,
January 16, 1985, February 6 (meeting with Planning Commission), February 6 (night), Febru-
ary 20, 1985, and March 20, 1985.
Mr. Bowie reported that he had read January 16, pages 8 - 16 and found them to be
satisfactory.
Mr. Way had read February 6, both afternoon and night meetings, and found no problem
with either set.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the minutes
which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board or the
Public. Mr. Way reminded the Board members about the Parade on July 4th in Scottsville.
said that if any member wished to participate he would make the arrangements.
He
Agenda Item No. 13.
adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was