Loading...
1984-03-07March 7, 1984 [Regular Night Meeting) March 7, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 15, 1984) Mr. Kennedy said._~e~planement figures for January and February show a 9.9 percent increase over last year. Projecting that over the entire 1984 year, would mean an enplanement increase from 80,000 to 88,000. Mr. Kennedy said that concluded his presentation and if there were no questions, he would like to invite all those present to tour the runway and terminal building facilities. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any appraised value on the airport property. Mr. Kennedy said no but the overall replacement for the structures'including the runway would be approximately $20,000,000. Mr. Kennedy further noted that the parking'structure is ineligible for federal funds and any projects eligible for federal funds are based on enplanement figures. With no further comments, the tour of the facilities commenced. The tour consisted of viewing the general ticketing area, facilities within the terminal building, the runway, t-hangar, the facility leased by AMVEST, the maintenance facility and the Blue Ridge Aviation office. At the conclusion of the tour, Mr. Fisher extended appreciation to Mr. Kennedy and others involved in this presentation for the opportunity to view the facilities and the information provided in the slide presentation. Not Docketed. At 4:12 P.M., Mr..Fisher said Mr. St. John has communicated with Mr. Agnor regarding the need for an executive session during dinner this evening and he asked Mr. Agnor to explain the items. Mr. Agnor said the three matters are of urgency and regard legal aspects of litigations of the Cason matter, Albemarle Bank & Trust, and the Garlick Tract. Motion to adjourn into executive session at 5:30 P.M. to discuss the above three legal matters was offered"by Mrs. Cooke, seconded Ky Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, M~s. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Way will not be present during the executive session and asked Mr. Agnor to brief him on the subjects. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned. ~ ~HAIR~g~ March 7, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 7, 1984 at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way (Arr~ved at 7:35 P.M.). Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive and Director of Planning, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and County Attorney, George R. St. John. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-83-7 ..... John L. & Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. S?-83-38. John L. & Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. SP-83-39. John L. Wildermuth. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., said the applicants have again requested deferral, this time to April 18, 1984. Motion to defer the above three petitions to April 18, 1984 as requested by the applicants, was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 5. SP-83-85. Samuel C. Delaura. Request to locate a mobile home on 20.437 acres zoned Rural Areas, RA. Located north of Route 637, 1/2 mile west of Route 682. County Tax Map 72, Parcel 46C. Samuel Miller District. (Deferred from January 18, 1984.) Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant or a representative for the applicant was present. There was no one present. Mr. Fisher said he understands the applicant was not present at the Planning Commission meeting, but the Planning Commission went-ahead and recommended denial. Mr. Fisher then asked if anyone from the public was present to speak on the petition. No member of the public was present to speak for or against the petition. Mr. Tucker said the applicant has a Virginia Beach address and several attempts were made to notify him by both certified mail and telephone, but without success. The Planning Commission deferred action on January 17 because the applicant was not present. The applicant did not respond to letters and was not present at either the February 21 or February 28 meetings. The Planning Commission then took action to deny the request. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Henley if he desired that action on this petition be deferred and the applicant be renotified of another hearing date. Mr. Henley said he is concerned that if the petition is denied, the applicant will have to wait a year before he can resubmit the petition. Mr. St. John said the petition can be dismissed without prejudice and the applicant would not be subject to the one year waiting period. Mr. Henley said he was willing to do that. He then offered motion to dismiss SP-83-85 from the Board's agenda without prejudice and to notify the applicant of this action. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-83-22. James or Virginia Hahn. Request to rezone 1.6 acres from Rural AreaS, RA to C-1. Located on south side of Route 649 adjacent to Deerwood Subdivision. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 48. Rivanna District. (Deferred from February 15, 1984.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "~equested Zoning: C-1 Commercial ~ 1.6 acres Existing Zoning: RA Rural Areas Summar~..and Comment: The Comprehensive Plan~recommends residential usage in this area; however, consideration should be given to other factors in this particular case. Certain aspects of the requested C-1 Commercial zoning are viewed as inappropriate to the adjacent Deerwood Subdivision. Character of the Area: Properties to the north, east and west are undeveloped. To the south is Deerwood Subdivision. A dilapidated house and cemetery are located on this property. A site plan has been submitted showing a 4,500 square foot building as the initial phase of development on the property. The building is proposed to be served by public water and a septic system. Health Department approval has been received. Under prior zoning, the frontage of Deerwood was zoned B-1 Business. Staff Comment: Two factors warrant consideration regarding the appropriateness of RA zoning and ~otential for residential use of this property: 1. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented that improvements to Route 649 in this area would require a right-of-way of forty feet from the centerline of Route 649. This acquisition would reduce the site area to about one and one-quarter acres and reduce the buildable area under RA zoning to a depth of thirty-three feet. Usable depth could be increased under other residential zoning classifications. (Mr.. Tucker noted that amendments have been made on the site plan to reflect these comments.) 2. The Master Plannin$ Study for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport forecasts a year 1990 noise level in this area of 'significant exposure'. Under HUD guidelines, this level is 'normally unacceptable'. (Noise attentuation construction would be required under zoning regulations.) The Land Use Guide of the airport plan does not recommend residential usage. Given this background, some alternative zoning of the property may be warranted; however, such zoning should be reflective of criteria outlined in 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. In regard to the criteria, staff's main concern is the appropriateness of C-1 zoning adjacent to Deerwood Subdivision. Normally staff-would 'recommend a Commercial Office (CO) designation as being more compatible to residential areas. In this case, the applicant has indicated a desire to have retail usage available and has requested C-1 Commercial on which staff could recommend favorably if: The property was limited to retail and office usage; Hours of operation were compatible to the residential area; Adequate buffering/screening of Deerwood was provided." 610 ~arch 7, 1984 CRe~Dlar.Nl~h~) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 14, 1984 unanimously recommended denial of ZMA-83-22 but in an addendum motion, by a vote of 4/1, a statement was made indicating that approval would have been recommended if the following three items had been proffered: 1) this property were limited to retail and office usage; 2) the hours of operation were consistent with commercial development adjacent to residential areas; and 3) there were adequate buffering and screening of the development from adjacent residential properties. Mr. Tucker said the applicant has since that time submitted the following proffer dated March 2, 1984: "Board of Supervisors Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901 In reference to our request for rezoning of Parcel 48, Tax Map 32, ZMA-83-22 we offer the following proffers for your consideration along with our application: t. The use of this property under the proposed zoning classification will be limited to retail and office facilities; 2. Screening and buffering will be provided between this development and the adjacent residential properties as shown on the attached site plan or'as approved by planning commission review. 3. Hours of operation of the retail facilities within this development will be restricted to the hours between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. Sincerely, (SIGNED BY) James D. Hahn" Mr. Tucker said regarding #2 of the proffer, a substantial amount of screening is shown on the site plan between the Hahn's proposed building and Deerwood Subdivision. Mr. Fisher asked if there is presently any commercial zoning south of this property on Route 649. Mr. Tucker said yes, at the intersection of Routes 29 and 649. ~Mr. Tucker said the property across from the subject property is zoned industrial. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the hours proposed are reasonable for a residential area. Mr. Tucker did not feel the hours were unreasonable since the intended use is for offices. The public hearing was opened. Mr. William Roudabush, surveyor, was present to speak on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Roudabush said the applicants have a real estate business which is located in their home in Earlysville under a home occupation permit. The applicants have been looking for a permanent place to operate their business which would and be more publicly oriented. This site was found and the applicants felt same suited their needs. Mr. Roudabush said his firm was engaged to do the necessary work to determine the suitability of the site for the proposed office use. Soil tests have been done by E. O. Gooch & Associates and the percolation and septic tank location are acceptable. Public water is located directly across the road and will be utilized on this site. Mr. Roudabush said the property contains only 1.6 acres which is less than that required for residential use under RA zoning. The site is located within close proximity to the Airport and the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend residential use in such a location. Immediately to the east of this property is a tract of land which was reserved by the developers of the Deerwood Subdivision for commercial uses in conjunction with the development of that subdivision. Directly across the road the property is zoned industrial, and the property to the west is owned by the Airport so it will not be used for residential purposes. Mr. 'Roudabush said the applicants have complied with the recommendations of the planning staff, Highway Department and the Health Department. The Highway Department brought to the Hahn's attention that Route 649 is to be widened at some future time and an intersection created directly in front of the property. Therefore, the Hahn's amended their site plan to include provisions to accommodate such plans. A forty-foot strip of land has been reserved in anticipation of the Highway Department's plans for Route 649. Due to staff concerns about the uses allowed by right in the Zoning Ordinance for C-1 zoning, the applicants have submitted a proffer Iimiting the use of this property to retail and office use only. Mr. Roudabush said their plans are.for real estate offices and a small retail sales facility in conjunction with activities at the Airport; specifically, a souvenir or gift shop. Again, Mr. Roudabush noted that the applicants have amended their site plan to reflect concerns expressed by the staff and he feels the proffer alleviates any concerns about the request. Mr. James Hahn, applicant, was present and said the comments of Mr. Roudabush are accurate as to their intentions for the property. He envisioned that a gift or souvenir shop may be desired and felt that use is compatible and compliments the activities at the Airport. However, if the real estate business grows and office space is desired by others in the building, the entire building may be used only for office use. Mr. Hahn said the request for a retail sales outlet is to allow some flexibility in the use of the building. Speaking next was Mr. Dennis Gorman, resident in~Deerwood Subdivision. He stated concern about the uses which would be allowed on this property under the requested C-1 zoning; particularly a grocery store or something similar. Although, he does not object to the proposal, he is curious about what other uses may be allowed. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. M_M~_7, 1984 (Regular Night MeetinE) Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker to comment on the uses allowed .under C-1 zoning. Mr. Tucker said the main concern of the staff was with the by-right uses, particularly the use for automobile and truck repair shops. Mr. Tucker then read the uses provided under the proposed zoning category. Mr. Bowie asked if fast-food establishments are permitted. Mr. Tucker said yes, fast-food establishments are part of the eating establishment category. Mr. Bowie said he. had talked with four residents in the Deerwood Subdivision and he did not feel there are any objections to the building itself, but there is a concern about the use(s) of same. After showing the residents a copy of the proffer submitted by the Hahn's, their only reaction was objection to items such as a gas station or body repair shop, but no objections to a small office building or even a convenience store. Mr. Bowie said he had no problem with the request and after looking at the property and the building, he feels anything would be better than the building as it exists. Mr. Bowie also stated that the screening proposed will improve the view that the residents in the subdivision currently have of the airport. Mr. Fisher stated concern about commercial uses developing along Route 649. He then related having traveled through other airports and seeing nothing but fast-food restaurants, hotels and service stations. He felt those landing at the Airport get their first view of the community by traveling this road and he does not care to have commercial uses along this road. Mr. Fisher said this would be spot zoning and he could foresee a future problem considering the many vacant properties along this road. He would be derelict in his duties by supporting this request since same could be the beginning of a commercial strip along Route 649. Personally, Mr. Fisher felt any retail outlet, no matter how it is done, would put this road in risk of becoming commercial. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. St. John if this proffer would actually set a precedent for future requests. Mr. St. John said before answering that question, he would like to make a disclosure. He and partners of his firm have represented the Hahn's at certain times, but other firms have also been engaged by the applicants. He was not certain if his firm represented the applicants in the purchase of this property. However, he did not feel a legal conflict is involved because he does not get five percent of his income by representing the applicants. Mr. St. John said if neither the Board nor the applicants have any objection to his answering that question, he will respond. Both Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Bowie expressed a desire to hear his answer regarding whether the proffer would set a precedent. Mr. St. John said if another person applied for similar zoning and submitted a proffer such .as this one, then he felt it would be hard to find a distinction between this property and that application. Mr. St. John said basically the proffer does not eliminate a precedent being set because the next applicant could present a similar proffer. Mr. Henley said he would not feel any obligation to rezone another property along this road Just because this one small parcel were rezoned to C-1. He feels there are a lot of other factors to consider, not just the zoning on one small parcel. Mr. Bowie said another factor to consider is what can be done with a parcel of land that has a highway on two sides and an entrance to the Airport across from same. He felt that makes a difference between this application and another parcel further down the road. Mr. Fisher did not feel the proffer is that restrictive. Mr. Lindstrom said the next request may be for property at the intersection of the two roads. If this request is approved, statements will be made that other properties also front on a road and are next to commercial zoning. Mr. Fisher felt approval of this request will set a pattern for other requests. Mr. Lindstrom said although he agrees with Mr. Bowie that this parcel is difficult to develop, he feels the proffer is very broad. If the proffer were limited only to a real estate office, he would then have no problem supporting the request. He did feel a precedent would be set and not because of real estate offices, but rather because of the other uses. Mrs. Cooke agreed and said she would have no problem with the request if it were only to permit office uses. Mr. Bowie said he did not want to see all kinds of strip development, but felt this property is different than other properties further down the road. Mr. Henley said he would feel differently about the request if Route 649 led only ~o the Airport, but this is a general county road and a lot of the community is served by same. Mr. Lindstrom said the question is not just that of the Airport but approval of this petition would open the door to other requests with a proffer. Mrs. Cooke asked if there is any way the applicant can use the property for a real estate office and not for the retail use. Mr. Tucker said rather than asking the applicant to amend the proffer to eliminate retail uses, he would prefer approval be given for commercial office zoning. Mr. Fisher said he thought the Board had to deal with the petition as presented. Mr. St. John said if the applicant wished to make that change in the request, the property could be rezoned to commercial office (CO) this evening, because that is a less restrictive zone. Mr. Hahn asked if he could amend his request verbally and ask that the property be rezoned to commercial office and include specifically a gift/souvenir outlet. Mr. Fisher said the Board is not in a position to negotiate, but rather is required under state law to act on the proffer as presented. Mr. St. John said according to an Attorney General's opinion, the proffer can be amended by the applicant verbally. He further noted that the Board has done this before. Mr. Fisher said he stands corrected, but felt that this procedure is getting very close to negotiating and state law does not permit that. Mr. St. John said that is correct, but if an applicant stands up during the meeting and requests the Board to allow an amendment, the Board can allow that request. Mr Lindstrom said his real concern is the retail aspect of this request. Mr. Fisher said it is very difficult when approving a zoning category, to distinguish a nice little gift shop from one that may not be so nice later. March 7, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Hahn then requested the opportunity to amend the request. He agreed that strip development is not desirable in this area, but said that what he has proposed is much better than the existing condition of the property. Mr. Hahn felt an attractive, quality gift shop may be desirable in this location. He then offered an amendment to his proffer to limit the use of the building to a quality gift retail outlet and noted that his primary interest is for office use, not only for real estate purposes, but also the possibility that a couple of dentists may desire leasing about 1000 square feet of the space. He again noted that the amendment would limit use to one small gift outlet with not more than 1000 square feet'. Mr. Hahn asked if a request can be made ten years from now to change the proffer. Mr. Fisher said if the question regards the zoning of the land, yes, an application can be made in a year. Mr. Gorman said he did not come to the meeting this evening to object but felt indications are that the applicant does not have any firm idea of his intentions. One thing that has not been mentioned with either a gift shop or an office are the days open during the week. Saturdays and Sundays from 7 A.M. to 11 P.M. in a residential area is certainly not desirable. Mr. Gorman said he would not object to an office building being open only five days a week and that is specifically, Monday through Friday. Mr. Bowie said he understands the rezoning ~$quest now is for an office and gift shop and those are the only two uses that can exist on the property. Mr. Fisher said the applicant has stated the use will be for one small quality gift outlet with not more than 1000 square feet in area and office uses. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to approve ZMA-83-22 with the amended proffer stated by the applicant this evening. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he cannot support the motion. Although he has no problem with an office use, he does feel that a retail outlet sets a precedent and he feels that distinction between a small quality gift shop and other small quality shops will be difficult. Mrs. Cooke agreed and was very concerned about allowing retail outlets along this road, particularly a fast-food establishment. Roll was then called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie and Henley. NAYS: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-84-1. Amend Section 5.3.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding mobile home park provisions (Advertised in the. Daily Progress on February 21 and February 28, 1984). Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Resolution of intent: Amend certain provisisns of Section 5.3 Mobile Home Parks provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. O~.igi~: Planning staff pDrpose: To provide more workable design provisions related to mobile home parks. Staff Comment: Staff is currently reviewing a petition and preliminary plan to establish a mobile home park, the first such proposal under the new Zoning Ordinance. In review of the plan, it became apparent that minor amendments would provide more workable design regulations. Proposed amendments are as follows: 5.3.2.1 Mobile home lots shall consist of four thousand (4,000) square feet or more, exclusive of open space and road right-of-way ~-~-e~ee~-~a~-~e~eme~e, and shall have a width of forty (40) feet or more. 5.3.4.3 Mobile homes and other structures shall be setback fifteen (15) feet or more from the right-of-way of interior streets, common ,, walkways and ~e~-e~aee-a~eae common recreational areas. Mr. Tuoker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 14, 1984, recommended approval of ZTA-84-1 but only amending Section 5.3.4.3 as set out above. Mr. Tucker said the staff had suggested the deletion of "open space areas" because it was felt that the setback should really only be related to recreational uses rather than open space. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the open space area also includes the common recreational areas. Mr. Tucker said yes, but the staff did not feel there was any reason to have a fifteen foot setback from the open space left in vegetation. The public hearing was opened. No one was present from the public to speak for or against the proposed amendment and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he liked the previous wording. If the open space is satisfactory, then he could see no reason to increase the setback by fifteen feet. In other words, if there is an area of one acre for open space and an additional fifteen feet is required,~ then the open space created is one acre in diameter plus fifteen additional feet. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel the fifteen foot setback is really necessary. Mr. Tucker said the setback is very important if an active recreational area is adjacent to a structure or a mobile home. Mr. Fisher asked if open space is the recreational area. Mr. Tucker said the recreational area can be considered as part of the open space, but not vice versa. Mr. Bowie asked why this amendment is needed, particularly if the open~ space includes the recreational area. Mr. Tucker said this is an attempt to to spell out that the setback is really intended to be from recreational uses, but maybe to be more specific, the word "active" should be included regarding the recreational use. March 7, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting~ Mr. Tucker said the staff is reviewing the idea of setbacks in general. Mr. Fisher asked if this requirement is to protect the occupant of the mobile home from noise and activity. Mr. Tucker said hopefully this will provide some additional screening and buffering between the area and the mobile home. Mr. Way then offered motion to approve ZTA-84-1 by adopting the following ordinance. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom again asked if this amendment is to proteot the mobile home or the common open space. Mr. Tucker said the staff envisions that the open space would be left in some type of vegetation such as trees. If there is an active recreational area, then the Board may desire to require some type of buffer. In other words, the amendment is for the protection of the occupants in the mobile home. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia, that Section 5.3.4.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: Mobile homes and other structures shall be set back fifteen (15) feet or more from the right-of-way of interior streets, common walkways and common recreational areas. Agenda Item No. 8. Amendment to Route 29 North Corridor Study to include a service road to intersect Route 29 North at Hilton Hotel crossover and to serve as sole means of access to Route 29 North for existing Real Estate III property and five other vacant properties to the north. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 21 and February 28, i984.) Mr. Tucker said in October 1983, the planning staff presented a monitoring report of the "Route 29 North Corridor Study" to the Planning Commission. The monitoring report contained two recommendations, one of which was the construction of a third lane from Shoppers' World to Dominion Drive. This recommendation was endorsed by the Commission. The second recommendation, a service road plan, is the subject tonight and was not acted on until February 14, 1984. Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "_ppqject Description: The service road which would intersect Route 29 North at the Hilton Hotel crossover is proposed as the sole means of access to Route 29 North for the existing Real Estate III property and for five vacant commercial properties to the north. Other aspects of the proposed service road are as follows: - The service road would be a public road constructed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications including a twenty-four foot travelway with curb and gutter and a forty-five foot radius cul-de-sac; - The road would be constructed by developers of the individual properties; - Interim access connections would be permitted to Route 29 North (to be abandoned when the ultimate service road is complete). pp.0_Ject Location: As outlined in a letter from Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, dated December 8, 1983, two alternative locations are proposed ('preferred® and ~aCceptable' locations). Under the 'preferred' location, the roadway would be placed on the rear of the properties at the toe of the existing graded slope. No substantial sloughing of this grade slope has occurred; however, the possiblity should be considered. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommends the 'preferred' location because it 'better serves both traffic on Route 29 and the traffic generated by the commercial properties using the service road'. .The 'acceptable' location is at the front of the properties, mostly within existing rights-of-way. Additional right-of-way would be required for alignment and a cul-de-sac at the northern end of the roadway. No special zoning amendments would be required for this alternative (under Section 32.5.8 a twenty-foot setback would be measured from the right-of-way of the service road). While this would be a more traditional location, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation states that traffic flow would not be as desirable as under the 'preferred' location plan." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission~ at its meeting on February 14, 1984 approved an amendment of the "Route 29 North Corridor Study" to include the service road described as "Acceptable Service Road Location" and shown in red on a plan displayed at that meeting, with two entrances onto Route 29 North, one at the southern point (the River Heights crossover) and one at the northern point (where the service road ends). Mr. Tucker said Mr. Roosevelt from the Highway Department is present and may desire to comment about the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting in regard to providing only a slip ramp at the end of the service road. March 7, 1984 ~Regular~Night Meeting[) The public hearing was opened. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and reviewed the history of events leading to this amendment. In 1979, the Board requested a study of the Route 29 North corridor in order to develop a road plan to serve existing and proposed development in that corridor. The study was requested due to slow progress being made by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS) committee on that plan and the Board desired having a plan available to guide development in the subject area. The study gave special attention to access for large, undeveloped properties having direct access onto Route 29. The study relied heavily on the expected recommendations of the CATS study for this area. The corridor study and the CATS study both showed an interchange on Route 29 at the beginning of the proposed western by-pass near the South Fork Rivanna River. The plan anticipated that the northbound lane of Route 29 would function as a service road for properties along the existing northbound lane from Carrsbrook Drive to the South Fork RiVanna River once the interchange with the western by-pass was constructed. However, the Board modified the recommendations in the CATS Study and the proposed route for a western by-pass was eliminated. The modification to the plan before the Board this evening is a necessity resulting from that action. Mr. Roosevelt said there are five separate undeveloped parcels in this area, and as each parcel develops, it could be served by its own individual entrance from Route 29. Development in this manner has a number of negative aspects. He compared such development with congestion in other areas of Route 29 where there is an entrance every one hundred to one hundred and fifty feet. There are also a number of U-turns for the southbound traffic in order for vehicles to gain access to development along the northbound lane and occasionally a two-mile trip back northward in order to reach the same spot in the southbound lane. He said these are substantial negative aspects. Mr. Roosevelt said one option for providing direct access to Route 29 would be to concentrate access at one point and serve the parcels via a frontage or a service road. This option reduces the effect of the negative aspects just mentioned. Mr. Roosevelt said at the planning staff's request, the Highway Department developed a service road ' plan to serve these five parcels. Mr. Roosevelt summarized the two proposals. The "preferred location" (green line on the plan) benefits by pulling conflict points such as left and right turning movements away from the intersection and allowing a well designed second access at the far end, the north end of the service road. A negative aspect is that the right-of'way necessary for this road is in private hands. This is a more costly concept and would probably require placing a retaining wall before allowing any development of the parcels along this stretch. The retaining wall would be a necessity for the steep bank which runs along the edge of the preferred location. Also, a waiver of setback requirements would be required in order to develop the properties. As for the "acceptable location" (red line on the plan), Mr. Roosevelt said the right-of-way or easements for the construction of a service road are already available for most of the road. Specifically, either a right-of-way or an eighteen foot easement was required when the properties were subdivided. Mr. Roosevelt said all the negative aspects of a classic service road arc incorporated in the acceptable line. Additional connections to Route 29 are not very well designed either. Slip ramps between the service road and Route 29 are not a good design feature. Mr. Roosevelt said a cul,de,sac at the end of the service road would be required in order that vehicles could turn around, most notably snow removal equipment. Mr. Roosevelt concluded by stating that the Highway Department supports either option as being preferrable to strip development. He further noted that this is the time to act on this amendment since the properties involved are now vacant and the plan must be adopted before any development occurs. This means that if one property developed and gained access to Route 29, the opportunity for this service road plan will be lost if this plan is not in effect. Mr. Fisher asked about the northernmost entrance where he understands the location proposes both an entrance and exit. He asked what is the best for the acceptable location line. Mr. Roosevelt said it would be best to have no connection to Route 29 at that point, but rather end the road in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Roosevelt further stated that this would be possible with some modifications of the acceptable location line such as extending the road further north to the cul-de-sac and then have a slip ramp allowing access to Route 29 from the service road. Mr. Fisher asked how far north a vehicle exiting at this point would have to travel in order to turn around to go south. Mr. Roosevelt said the first crossover is one mile north of this point. Mr. Roosevelt said a disadvantage to having individual exits from each property onto Route 29 is due to this~fact, having to travel north before going back south. Mr. Roosevelt said there are no plans in the foreseeabl future to change the location of any of the crossovers. He explained that sight distance north of the South Fork prohibits any additional crossovers. Mr. Roosevelt said the slip ramp would have to be designed at such an angle that motorists could not make a right-hand turn off of Route 29 onto the ramp. Mrs. Cooke asked if a traffic light is proposed for the crossover at the Hilton Hotel. Mr. Roosevelt said a light is not contemplated at this time, but future development may dictate the necessity for a light. Mrs. Cooke asked if in proposing these two alternatives, any consideration was given to the problem created for residents coming out of Carrsbrook Drive and having to use the Hilton Hotel crossover to turn around to go south. Mr. Roosevelt felt these are separate problems. The service road concept is proposed to serve the five vacant properties north of the Hilton crossover. This will help the situation where people from Carrsbrook come north and then make a U-turn. The existing problem should vastly reduce once the properties develop; particularly the U-turn from the southbound lanes back to the northbound lanes because there will not be any need to U-turn to get into these properties but rather enter the service road at the crossover. Also, the weaving effect of people making U-turns and trYing to get across the road and into an entrance that is only six hundred feet up the road will be eliminated. Mrs. Cooke said she had no problem with the service road concept but rather questions dumping all traffic into one circle and she did not see any problem with having a north exit from the service road. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not mean to give the impression of being against a slip ramp connection somewhere near the end of the "acceptable location" plan. However, he was only noting that there are some negative aspects connected with same. Mrs. Cooke again questioned the placement of a traffic light as development occurs in this area. Mr. Roosevelt said the light would control the problem to some extent but the rate of development is not known for the south side of Route 29 at this time. He noted that the south side of this area will be the controlling factor over placement of a traffic light. March 7, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) speaking next was Ms. Catherine Womack, attorney, representing Mr. & Mrs. Philip Ryder, owners of one of the vacant five parcels in the subject area. Ms. Womack said her clients own Parcel B plus 1/2 of Parcel A which is almost on the border of the preferred location (green line) shown on the map. She said there is an existing right-of-way across the front of the property for access to adjacent properties. Further, Ms. Womack said her clients do not object to having individual entrances onto Route 29. Since this property is valued according to square footage, she felt that the preferred line reduces the property value of her clients. Not only is the square footage reduced by the preferred location line but also there are the setback restrictions. The acceptable location line only requires six additional feet to be added to the present right-of-way. The setback restrictions for the preferred location line would be imposed in the front, back and on one side of her clients property. Ms. Womack said as she understands the Zoning ordinance requirements regarding setbacks, there would be a twenty foot setback from the preferred location (green) line plus a thirty foot setback from the right-of-way of Route 29. Unless an amendment is made to alleviate the setback requirements, only about forty-five feet of developable property in depth would remain. As has been mentioned, there is a steep slope to the rear of this property. Ms. Womack said dumpsters for businesses are usually placed in the rear of a business and she was concerned that with the road located at the rear of the property, customers would have to pass the dumpsters every time they came to this business. Another concern is that a customer traveling on Route 29 could not readily see how to enter the business and would therefore, pass by same. Ms. Womack said generally speaking it is not good to have a rear entrance for a business. Ms. Womack concluded by stating that since the Highway Department has no preference for either plan, and with the property value being diminished by the preferred location line, she urged the Board to adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding the acceptable location plan (red line). Ms. Womack said she knows of no specific plans that her clients have for this property but the preferred location line does diminish the value of the property and requires additional setback. Mr. Roger Davis representing Mr. Richard Bertram owner of the parcel just north of the Ryders was next to speak. He stated agreement with the comments of Ms. Womack regarding the acceptable location (red) line. Mr. Davis asked when the requirements for the constructior of either plan would become effective. Mr. Tucker said the construction would be required only upon approval of a site development plan for any of the parcels involved. Mr. Davis asked where access for the parcels would be located until the service road were fully constructed. Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department has indicated that the lines noted on the plan as "interim connections" would be permitted until the entire service road is constructed. When the cul-de-sac, or another entrance at the northern extremity of the road is constructed, the interim access would then be closed. Mr. Davis asked if only the Ryders parcel developed, if construction would be required only on the Ryders property. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Davis said that if the Ryders constructed that portion it would grant access to the property just north of the Ryders. He asked what would happen when the next property north developed. Mr. Tucker said as each parcel develops, a section of the service road subject to that property would be constructed at that time. Mr. Davis said that does not seem fair since the cost of obtaining approval seems to be granting access to an adjoining property owner. Also, it does not appear that the owner of the northernmost parcel, which is the largest of the five in the area, will have to incur any of the costs. Mr. Tucker said there are some inequities involved. Mr. Davis also asked what the entrance requirements are to exit onto a service road. Mr. Roosevelt said the property is required to have a commercial entrance. Mr. Davis concluded by stating that although he had not had enough time to propose any solution to the inequity he sees involved, he does feel same is significant when the cost involved for this type of improvement is considered. Mr. Fisher said without a cul-de-sac being required all the traffic would be turning around on the last parcel and therefore, he felt the cul-de-sac would be easier for all the properties. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with the statement of Mr. Davis regarding the benefit that one property owner is ultimately providing another owner. With no one else present from the public to speak for or against the amendment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher felt the general consensus is that the "acceptable location line" (red) be approved. The matter of entrances is a separate issue and should be dealt with later. Mr. Henley said he had no problem with having a northern entrance for the time being. Mr. Fisher .asked Mr. Tucker his feelings about that. Mr. Tucker said he does have some concern about putting a slip ramp south of the cul-de-sac because as the northernmost property develops, those motorists would have to come back south and therefore the slip ramp serves no purpose for that property. Therefore, he was not sure the slip ramp was the best approach and perhaps just having an entrance as suggested by the Planning Commission is the best solution. Mr. Bowie asked why a regular entrance and exit cannot be done. Mr. Roosevelt said an entrance at the north end where the c~ll-de-sac is shown would not function properly because a vehicle traveling north on Route 29 would use that entrance and be going at a speed too great to make the 180 degree turn to get on the service road. The same situation does not occur at the southern end of the properties where a car traveling on the service road would be going at a lesser speed. The traffic at the northern end of the road would be traveling at the rate of 55 miles per hour and those on the service road would be traveling at 35 miles per hour. In conclusion, Mr. Roosevelt said the radius for an entrance on the north end would be too sharp for a vehicle and certainly too much for a tractor trailer. March 7, 1984 (Regular N~ght Meet~ Mr. Henley asked why the cul-de-sac could not be placed on the last parcel; specifically, the one adjacent to the river in order that all the properties in this area would be sharing the cost. Mr. Roosevelt said that is possible. The cul-de-sac does not have to be located right at the exact point shown on the plan. It can be moved further north and by designating a slip ramp as a temporary connection as shown on the plan, the option is then left to the discretion of the Planning and Highway Departments to make this a permanent- slip ramp if same can be properly designed or if development along this service road allows for same in the future. Mr. Roosevelt said designating the slip ramp as temporary will indicate to all the property owners that same may disappear. Mr. Fisher said if that is not done, then basically the slip ramp can never be closed. Mr. Roosevelt said if referred to as temporary and properly designed, it could remain forever. Mrs. Cooke asked if the only request to the Board is to decide between the "preferred location" or the "acceptable location". Mr. Fisher again asked about the interim connection (shown in blue on the plan displayed). Mr. Tucker said the purpose of that interim connection is so that any of the properties developing before the entire service road is built will have a connection to Route 29. Mr. Lindstrom stated agreement with Mr. Henley regarding the ca~de-sac being placed on the last parcel in order that all the properties will share in the cost. Mrs. Cooke asked why the service road could not be designed to run the entire length of the properties that are developable along this area. Mr. Bowie suggested that the road be done with north and south entrances. Mr. Fisher said there would then be the possiblity of an exit right at the South Fork Rivanna bridge. Mr. Bowie then asked if the last parcel to the north is going to have its own entrance and exit to Route 29. Mr. Tucker said the cul-de-sac placed on the property would be the only access for that property to Route 29 via the service road. Mr. Fisher said as he understands the consensus is that the "acceptable location" (red line) be approved. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that includes the cul~de~aac. Mr. Roosevelt explained that the point where the cul,de-sac is located ~,~heD~ the northbound lane of Route 29 drops off. Sight distance north of that point is lost so that any entrance north of this point will not have adequate sight distance back to the south. Therefore, if the cul-de-sac is moved north and a slip ramp installed at that point, there may not be adequate sight distance to get out onto Route 29. Mr. Fisher asked if it would be possible to construct the service road as far as the properties are developable, then have a cul-de-sac ~ndaan exit at that point. Mr. Roosevelt said that will be a conflict with people cutting across the slip ramp. The property between the end of the service road shown on the plan and the River is just the one parcel. Until that parcel is divided into more than one parcel, the owner does not need the service road tp be constructed any further than it is currently shown. Mr. Lindstrom said there will be a conflict no matter where the road stops. Therefore, he suggested moving the cul,de-sac entirely on the northernmost large parcel. If a subdivision of that property takes place, a condition can be placed at that time to extend the service road further. He assumes that a parcel as large as this parcel will be further divided. If so, the service road will be needed; if not, there is no reason to actually construct the road. He then asked if the Board could adopt the "acceptable location" plan shown by the red line with the slip ramp, but move the cul,de-sac north so that same is entirely on the property to the north. This would give the Board the option to extend the service road further north depending on what happens with that parcel in the future. Mr. Roosevelt said that is not impossible. Mr. Bowie asked what happens if no one ever develops that property, then where is the cul-de-sac going to be located. Mr. Lindstrom said he had thought about that too, but the cul-de-sac is not possible as shown because half of it is on another person's property. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the amendment to the Route 29 North Corridor Study by providing for a service road_ running contiguous with the right-of-way of Route 29 North and running north of the crossover for the Hilton Hotel (said road shown in red on map displayed at meeting and on file in the Planning Department) with the slip ramp remaining as shown but moving the cul-de-sac onto the northernmost property of land contiguous to the South Fork Rivanna River. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mrs. Cooke questioned the increasing problem of trash along Route 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not relish the idea of being the trash man for the County citizens. Further, he felt one way of bringing the problem to the attention of motorists is to let the trash lie along the road. He said his department has other priorities besides picking up trash, but he does intend to make an effort to clean the highways before Garden Week in April. Mr. Fisher said he had mentioned this particular concern at a previous meeting and he felt part of this problem is caused by people hauling trash uncovered. The question of enforcing County ordinances is involved and he hoped the staff would find a way to put more pressure on people hauling trash to the landfills. Mr. Bowie said he felt the weigh master at the landfill could take the name and license number of any truck hauling trash uncovered and turn same into the Sheriff's Department. Further, he felt a deputy could periodically be at the landfill to issue summons to any person violating this requirement which is specifically spelled out in Section 16-3 of the County Code. In other words, he felt the problem could be corrected in this manner rather than badgering the Highway Department to run up and down the highway picking up trash. March 7, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Henley said there is a section of road on Route 811 with runoff problems and he felt there is plently of room in the area for a pipe to be installed to alleviate same. Mr. Roosevelt said he will have someone from his department view the site with~'~him. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he would not be present for the Board meeting on March 12 or March 14 next week. Agenda Item No. 10. At 9:47 P.M., ~otion was offered by Mrs. Cook~, seconded by Mr. Way to adjourn ~o March 12, 1984, at 1:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 7. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None.