Loading...
1981-03-18March 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on March 18, 1981, at ~7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:35 P.M.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. t. Call To Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M., by the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-81-5. Woodbriar Associates and General Electric Company. Petition to rezone eight acres from C-1 to PRD. Located on the west side of Route 29 adjacent to and on north side of North Fork Rivanna River, and on west side of Route 29 adjacent to General Electric on south. County Tax Map 32E, Parcel 1. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and March 11, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the Planning. Commission recommendation as follows: Requested Zoning: RA Rural Areas (previous request for PRD amended on February 18, 1981) Acreage: 8.0 acres Existing Zoning: C-1 Commercial Location: Property, described as Tax Map 32E, Parcel 1 (part), is in two locations. Site A consists of 3.81 acres and is located on the west side of Route 29 North, north and adjacent to the North Fork Rivanna River. Site B consists of 4.19 acres and is located on the west side of Route 29 North at the recently-approved entrance to General Electric. Note: General Electric owns 3.63 acres of the 4.19 acres in Site B. General Electric has not made application to rezone nor authorized anyone to make rezoning application of this property. Therefore, Staff opinion in regard to Site B is that this rezoning application has been improperly filed and should be dismissed. (Staff has been in contact with General Electric in regard to this matter. As of February 18, 1981, General Electric expressed no interest in rezoning this property.) Staff Comment: During review of Briarwood PRD, the applicant submitted a letter to the Board which was incorporated as a condition of approval. Among other things, the letter stated that the applicant "would also be willing to reduce the commercial zoning along U.S. 29 North by 20% and this would be reserved for residential development." This rezoning petition is intended to satisfy that statement. Staff makes the following observations: 1) About 3/4 of Site A is in the flood plain of the North Fork Rivanna River, subject to the restrictions of the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Most of Site B is owned by General Electric and would be used for industrial access. Staff would recommend that the Commission forward this petition to the Board rather than dismiss the application as improper. This would provide the Board the opportunity to review Sites A and B in terms of appropriateness to the applicant's proffered statement. At its meeting of March 3, 1981, the Albemarle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended to the Board of Supervisors that ZMA-81-5 be approved subject to the following: 1) That such rezoning apply solely to the 3.81 acres of Site A belonging to Woodbriar Associates and to the .56 acre of Site B belonging to Woodbriar Associates; That it be understood that the appropriateness of this rezoning request in terms of satisfying your proffered letter to the Board of Supervisors during its review of ZMA-79-32 was not evaluated by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission's recommendation was based on the fact that as part owner of the property, there was no signature on the application by General Electric. Mr. Tucker said that is correct, General Electric did not sign the application, which made the Planning Commission feel the application was improper. Mr. Wendell Wood, representing Woodbriar Associates stated that on January 23, 1980, the Board approved the Briarwood RPN which had 16 conditions, number 15 read that in accordance with letter dated January 15, 1980 "would also be willing to reduce the com- mercial zoning along U.S. 29 North by 20% and this would be reserved for residential development." Mr. Wood said since there are forty acres of land, that means a reduction must take place in the amount of eight acres. Mr. Wood noted that in a signed contract between Woodbriar Associates and General Electric, that the approximate three acres adjacent to the entrance road to Briarwood shall be restricted against any commercial development for thirty years from the date of closing. Mr. Wood said this deed restriction was done to assure compliance with the original approval for the Briarwood Development. 146 March 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher said that since General Electric presently owns that portion of property, why didn't they agree to sign this application presently before the Board. Mr. Wood said as a further guarantee that this acreage will not be commercially developed, he is willing to enter into an agreement with Albemarle County stating that the land wilt not be used for commercial development. Mr. Fisher asked the representative from General Electric his position on this property. Mr. Gene Manard, resi'dent manager of the new construction for the General Electric Company was present, and stated that the property was purchased strictly for the purpose of preventing commercial development at the General Electric entrance. Mr. Manard said General Electric agreed to the deed restriction placed on the property by Mr. Wood. Mr. Fisher asked if General Electric agrees to join in this application to downzone this property. Mr. Manard said General Electric is not asking for the downzoning, they have not applied for it. Mr. Fisher said this puts this application in an awkward position since the property owners do not agree to enter this application jointly. Mr. Fisher asked if General Electric cares whether or not the property is downzoned. Mr. Fisher said following the public hearing he would like an opinion from the County Attorney regarding this situation. Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to speak either for or against this application, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. St. John said he does not believe this application is properly before the Board or before the Planning Commission(that portion of property owned by General Electric) and should not be acted on by the Board of Supervisors. Dr. Iachetta said even if this property were downzoned, how could that guarantee the property to be used for residential use. Mr. St. John added that if it was the intent of the Board that this property not be used for commercial purposes, then this proposed downzoning would accom- plish that goal; however, if it was the intent of the Board that this property be used for residential development, then this proposed rezoning does not guarantee that outcome. Mr. Fisher said he felt the primary intent was only to reduce the commercial development, not to guarantee residential housing. Mr. Lindstrom agreed that the intent of the proffer was to reduce the amount of commercial frontage by 20%, and that residential development was not actively discussed. Mr. Fisher asked the Board if~hey wished to act on that portion of property properly before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be willing to act on Mr. Wood's property even though it does not meet the 20% requirement as stated in the proffer. Dr. Iachetta said he would prefer to see this application deferred until such time as the applicant can better fit this application to meet the proffer which requires a 20% reduction in com- mercial development. Mr. Tucker said that idea would not work, because the applicant, in order to have this property rezoned to a classification consistent with Briarwood other than RA, would now have to have an entirely new application because any zoning consistent with Briarwood would be more intensive than the requested RA. Mr. Henley said the land is presently zoned CO, and asked if it coUld not be "down- zoned" to a residential use. Mr. St. John said the code states that you cannot rezone property to a more intensive use than was advertised. Mr. Fisher said he felt Mr. Wood should bring this application back with eight acres of property that he himself owns, and that those eight acres be rezoned to something other than commercial. Mr. Fisher said in order to simplify the timetable, he suggested that this be carried over in order to allow the applicant time to incorporate different land. Mr. St. John said he felt the application would have to start over and be readvertised. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Wood if he would prefer to withdraw his application or have the Board of Supervisors act on that portion of property solely owned by Woodbriar Assoc- iates. Mr. Wood stated he would like to see the Board take action on the portion of land owned by Woodbriar Associates, because he felt this shows his intent to honor the original proffer accepted as a condition of approval with Briarwood. Mr. Wood then asked if the Board would consider those three acres owned by General Electric as land which will not be developed as commercial. Mr. Fisher said no, that land cannot be considered as part of this application, because the proffer states that the zoning will be changed from com- mercial to something else, and a deed restriction (as exists on the General Electric property) does not constitute a zoning change. Mr. Fisher added that if the Board votes on this application, it will not satisfy the condition of reducing commercial zoning by Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom that ZMA-81-5 be approved according to paragraph (1) of the Planning Commission recommendation dated March 4, 1981. Dr. Iachetta said he would second that motion if approval is given to the 3.81 acres of Site A only, and not to the .56 acres of Site B. Mr. Lindstrom said he would agree to .that because he would prefer to see the parcels contiguous. Miss Nash asked if this was to be rezoned RA. Mr. Lindstrom said yes. Miss Nash said this would put an RA zone in a village where it should not be. Mr. Fisher restated the motion to clarify the record as follows: This request for rezoning be approved on the 3.81 acres only, owned by Woodbriar Associates Site A. This is described as Tax Map 32E, Parcel 1 (part). Site A is located on the west side of Route 29 North, north and adjacent to the North Fork Rivanna River. This property is to be rezoned from C-1 Commercial to RA Rural Areas. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: Miss Nash (who said she could not agree to rezone this parcel RA). Mr. Lindstrom said he understands Miss Nash's concern yet feels that it does meet the condition of the previously approved plan and therefore he does not look at it as a normal RA rezoning. March 18, 1981 (Re~t~r ~ight Meeting_S) Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-81-6. Charles D. Kincannon and Dennis Ownby. Petition to rezone 6.532 acres from R-15 to HC. Located on north side of Route 250 East approximately 3,600 feet east of intersection of Route 250 East and Route 20 North. County Tax Map 78, Parcel 12 (part of). Rivanna~District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and March 11, 1981.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not acted on this petition, and requests that the Board of Supervisors also defer action. Mr. Tucker suggested this item be deferred to May 20, 1981. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer this request to May 20, 1981. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-81-2. Richard E. Muller. Petition, pursuant to Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, RA District, to subdivide 70.65 acres into 27 lots with an average lot size of 2.6 acres. Located on east side of Route 20 North at intersection with Route 649. County Tax Maps 47 and 36, Parcel 16. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and March 11, 1981.) Mr. Tucker noted receipt of a letter ,from Mr. J. Benjamin Dick, representing the applicant, requesting deferral until either April or May, 1981. Mr. Fisher said this request for deferral has come in at the last minute, not giving sufficient time to notify all interested parties. Mr. Fisher stated that he felt Mr. Muller's request is actually more complicated than just a special permit. Mr. Tucker said a subdivision plat denial is being appealed from the Planning Commission, and the applicant has requested this deferral in order that it be heard at the same meeting. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone was present who wished to speak regarding this special permit request. No one was present either for or against this petition. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer this petition to May 20, 1981. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-81-7. Malcolm J. Reid. Petition to rezone 1.27 acres from RA to C-t. Located in northwest corner of intersection of Georgetown Road (Route 656) and Hydraulic Road (Route 743), adjacent to "Hop In". County Tax Map 60F, Parcel 3. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and March 11, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report: Requested Zoning: C-1 Commercial. Acreage: 1.27 acres Existing Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 60F, Parcel 3, is located on the north side of Georgetown Road (Route 656) at its intersection with Hydraulic Road (Route 743). Character of the Area: Westgate Apartments are to the south across George- town Road. Property to the southeast is in single-family usage. Georgetown Green and the Hop-In Market are to the north. Comprehensive Plan: In adopting land use amendments in April, 1980, the Board deleted this area from the Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan. This area is currently shown in the Plan as rural. Staff Comment: This property is under contract to the adjoining Hop-In Market to be used in conjunction with that use. When the Hop-In site plan was approved in 1975, parking was adequate for the upper floor retail use only. The lower floor was designated as future office uses, which would require additional parking. Existing parking will be reduced and the gas pumps will be removed or relocated in the future due to improvements to Hydraulic Road. Due to new parking regulations, adequate parking for the market use could be provided after the road improvement. It does not appear that adequate parking could be provided on the existing site for both the market and office uses without extensive grading work and parking setback variances. (This would be the case whether or not the road is improved.)* While it is the applicant's stated intent to develop this property in conjunction with the existing Hop-In site, Staff would emphasize that this is a conventional rezoning application and therefore, no repre- sentations made by the applicant are legally binding in regard to future development. Since this rezoning request is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends denial. However, Staff could recommend favorably on this application if adequate assurances were made to limit the development of the site to those features necessary to gain full usage of the existing Hop-In building (i.e., required parking; relocation of gasoline pumps. This approach, in Staff opinion, would not set precedent for other rezonings in the area since the intent is to accommodate existing development). This could be accomplished through a planned approach which could also address the following concerns: 148 March 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 1) 2) 3) Proposed method of compliance with the run-off control ordinance; Access to existing public roads (see Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comments); Proposals for buffering and protection of adjoining uses. * It should be emphasized that Hop-In was aware of the future road improvement and its consequences at time of site plan approval in 1975. Staff opinion is that any hardship, inconvenience, or loss of trade experienced by Hop-In as a result of this road improvement has been self-imposed. Simply stated, the site was inadequate from the outset; Hop-In was familiar with the proposed road improvements which would further reduce site capacity. Under the current Zoning Ordinance, an estimated 22-24 parking spaces would be required to serve both the market and proposed office uses. Twelve spaces would be adequate for the existing market uses, the majority of which would be located at the rear of the building. Mr. Tucker then read the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows: "The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on March 10, 1981, recommended to the Board of Supervisors (with a vote of 5-1) that your p~etition as referenced be denied, with the further statement that the Commission could have recommended approval had the applicant proffered that the property be served exclusively by one entrance entering only on Hydraulic Road, that entrance to be located at the extreme northwesterly corner of the property and that use of the property be limited to what the applicant has stated here tonight, which is essentially that the "Hop-In" be relocated and be limited to its current retail use." Mr. Tucker stated that on March 13, 1981, Mr. David J. Wood, Jr., on behalf of the applicant, forwarded to the Board of Supervisors the following proffer: "An application for rezoning from RA-Agriculture to C-1 Business of the lot belonging to Exxon, located at the intersection of Georgetown Road and Hydraulic Road, was heard before the Planning Commission on March 10th. The Planning Commission is recommending denial of the application but indicated it would recommend approval of the application if the applicant proffered certain conditions or restrictions on the subject property. Therefore, Hop-In Food Stores, Inc., the contract purchaser of the~above described property, would like to, and does hereby, proffer the following conditions for development of the subject property: 1. The only entrance to the subject property shall be located on Hydraulic Road so that the northern margin of the entrance at the property line will be located 12 1/2 feet south of the northern boundary of the subject property; 2. The subject property will be used for a relocation of the Hop-In Food Store in accordance with the general lay-out of the enclosed preliminary site plan. Of course, a more definitive site plan will be presented at a later date. The new store shall not cover more than a 2,300 square foot land area and is expected to be 42 x 51,4 feet, more or less; 3. The applicant will comply with all requirements of the stormwater runoff ordinance. A 50 foot buffer zone, adjacent to the residentiaZ areas, will be maintained and as many trees as possible will be retained in this area, and, if sufficient trees are not retained, the applicant will plant sufficient evergreens to provide reasonably adequate screening; 4. The applicant will install, within 60 days after rezoning, a guard rail along the boundary adjacent to the play area of Georgetown Green. guard rail shall, be constructed of 4' pipes planted in the ground, with ~horizontal pipes running between vertical posts. This installation has proved very satisfactory in other locations. The The existing operation of the Hop-In Store will be severely damaged by the widening of Hydraulic Road. The gas pumps are being removed, some of the parking taken, and the attractiveness of the store severely damaged. The applicant simply wishes to continue the operation of its store in the neighborhood and is wiZling to purchase the expensive adjoining lot in order to do so. A contract to purchase this lot was executed in November of 1980 and would have been closed much sooner had it been known that this property would be rezoned from business to agriculture on December 10th. The property is assessed for taxation at $84,800.00, but none of the uses permitted in a RA zone could possibly justify the purchase of the property at the assessed figure. For the above reasons, Hop-In Food Stores, !nc., respectfully urges you to rezone the subject property from RA Zone to C-1 Zone." Mr. Tucker then read a memorandum from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, dated March 3, 1981, regarding drainage as follows: "Pursuant to your request, we have examined the Subject lot, relative to diverting stormwater runoff~ from its natural path to another drainage basin. The suggestion that the stormwater be removed from the Ivy Creek watershed to the Meadow Creek watershed was for the purpose of preventing additional nutrient loading from reaching the South Rivanna Reservoir. March 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) I am reluctant to endorse the diversion of water from one general watershed to another. However, the drainage area is too small to have any real effect on the hydrology of Meadow Creek. In order for the owner to accom- plish such a diversion, he must first secure right of ways across the highway and at least one piece of private property. The practicality of arranging such drainage on the property itself is suspect. The rear of the property falls away from Hydraulic Road. No matter which way the water is discharged, it will be subject to control by ordinance. If to Ivy Creek, the Runoff Control Ordinance; to Meadow Creek, the Stormwater Detention Ordinance." Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. David Wood, representing the applicant. Mr. Wood presented two plats representing the existing store and indicating the~land which will be taken during the widening of Hydraulic Road. Mr. Wood said the new lot will be approximately one acre, and is virtually unusable unless rezoned from the present RA. Mr. Wood said this'RA designation did not exist prior to the enactment of the new zoning ordinance, and he stated that the purchase price of this property is far too high to justify any use other than commercial. Mr. Wood said he felt the requested zoning is very compatible with the~ surrounding properties, and that all the water runoff ordinance regulations will be totally complied with. Mr. Fisher asked if Hop-In intended to remove the presently existing store. Mr. Wood said that store will be retained and converted into office area. Mrs. Babs Huck!e asked about the memorandum from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey about water runoff problems. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Bailey had only investigated the possibility of diverting the drainage from the property, and found it to be unfeasible. Mr. Wood said he spoke to Mr. Bailey about the design of a catch basin on the property and was informed that the applicant must have his own engineer design the basin and have it approved by the County Engineer. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this requested rezoning, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Dr. Iachetta asked about the parking requirements for the proposed office building, and whether there was sufficient area on the lot to provide such parking. Mr. Wood said once the gasoline pumps are removed and the building renovated, there will be more than sufficient land area for the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Highway Department plans for widening Hydraulic Road had not changed, would the applicant have been able to continue using his present store location. Mr. Tucker said yes there would be sufficient parking, but it would not be convenient to the store, as the parking would be in the rear. Dr. Iachetta said when the store was first built, there was sufficient area left to allow for the original road widening plan; but when the County changed those road plans, it deprived Mr. Reid of the use of the property frontage. Mr. Lindstrom said to permit a substantial expansion of the use, especially considering the land, zoning and that it is a residential area, he could not support this rezoning request. Mr. McCann said he felt the zoning prior to the new zoning ordinance was more appropriate than the present RA zoning, which he felt was inconsistent. Miss Nash said a country store would be allowed in the RA district by special permit, then asked if the Board would have any reason to deny a special permit. Mr. Henley said any of the reasons stated by Mr. Lindstrom could cause such a special permit to be denied. Miss Nash said this is in the Comprehensive Plan under the watershed and asked if the density of the proposed office space would increase the hazard to the watershed. Mr. Fisher said he can see no basis for making a judgment because there is nothing in the proffer as to how the office space will be used. Mr. Fisher asked if the present building is served by public sewer. Mr. Wood said it is connected to the Georgetown sewer system, and asked that the new building also be permitted to connect to that same sewer system. Dr. Iachetta said even if the rezoning is turned down, the present building can still meet all the requirements to be converted into office space. Mr. Henley asked if there was any difference between a country store and a "Hop-In". Dr. Iachetta said he felt it was mostly the merchandise. Mr. Henley said he could support the applicant's request, and that it is a good use for that small piece of property. Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann to approve this rezoning with the proffer as presented. Dr. Iachetta said he felt that the wording of condition two in the proffer was extremely restricting to the applicant by stating specif- ically that this land would be used for a "Hop-In" store. Mr. Wood said he could change that wording to state "convenience" store if it better suited the Board. Mr. St. John said he felt the word "convenience" adequ~ately described the type of store intended to be constructed in this instance. Mr. Wood said he would then like to change the wording as stated in his proffer to state "The subject property will be used for a relocation of a convenience store in accordance with the general lay-out of the enclosed preliminary site plan." Mr. McCann said he would accept that change as part of his motion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher said this property lies outside the Service Authority jurisdictional area so it will never be served by sewer. He said it is in the watershed area and to allow expansion of this use would be an inconsistent position for the Board. He said he could not agree to increase the intensity of the use by allowing the existing structure to be converted to office space, while allowing an additional structure to be built on the adjacent lot. Mr. Fisher said he could not support this request. Miss Nash said if this is denied, the Board will be denying the applicant use of his land. Mr. Lindstrom said he could support this if the applicant were only going to relocate the parking or gas pumps on the additional lot, or if a new building were to be constructed on that lot and the old building be removed. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not support this request. Mr. McCann said at the price the applicant paid for this one acre parcel, it cannot be used for anything, and he would suggest if this application is March 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) denied, that the applicant ask for a reappraisal of his property. Mr. Fisher noted that the new appraisals will reflect zoning changes made in December. There was no further discussion, and roll was called. The motion to approve ZMA-81- 7, with the proffer as amended, carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Henley, 'Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. At 9:30 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess. P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 9:37 Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-81-8. S-V Associates. Petition to rezone 2.4 acres from R- 15 to 1.2 acres CO and 1.2 acres HC. Located on west side of Route 29 North, SOuth and adjacent to South Fork ~f the-Rivanna River. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 68D(1), part thereof and Parcel 68D(3), part'thereof. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and March 11, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report: Requested Zoning: + 1.2 acres of HC Highway Commercial and + 1.2 acres of CO Commercial ~ffice. -- Existing Zoning: R-15 Residential Location: Property, ~described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 68D(i) part and 68D(3) part, is located on the west side of Route 29 North, south and adjacent to the South Rivanna River. Staff Comment: This rezoning request is for an additional 67 feet of depth (by 1,560 length) on the rear of the proposed hotel/conference center site (River Heights). Staff opinion is that this increased depth would provide for a more desirable development of the property. Staff recommends approval. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of March 10, 1981, unanimously recommended to approve this rezoning request. Mr. Fisher asked if Board's action (ZMA-80-21, River Heights Associates) was done by proffer. Mr. Tucker said yes and the staff feels that original proffer should apply to this rezoning as well. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned that if this strip is approved as a straight rezoning, and the original project does not come to completion, then this will be a freestanding piece of property. Mr. Fisher asked if this land strip was overlooked on the original petition. Mr. Tucker said yes, the problem came from determining the setback line from land which had unknowingly been transferred to the Highway Department for additional right of way for improvements to Route 29 at the South Fork Rivanna bridge. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant. Mr. Wood again explained the reason for requesting this additional rezoning, indicating the same reason as stated by Mr. Tucker about the transfer of pro- perty to the Highway Department for right of way. Mr. Wood said he is willing to make the last application's proffer apply to this rezoning also. Mr. St. John said the applicant cannot make a verbal proffer, and felt it was wrong for the Board to subject this appli- cation to the same proffer as submitted with the original application. No'one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this appliCation and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve this application subject to the proffer that applied to the original rezoning that this rezoning is a correction as stated by the applicant as follows:· "I hereby agree to proffer the following items with regards to the above application for increased depth of the Commercial B-1 zone: Limit access to two entrances. Agree to Commercial Office zone for 6.35 acres. Agree to submit a site plan within 60 days of Board of Supervisor approval. If ground has not been broken within 6 months of site plan approval, existing zoning will prevail." The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and-carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-81-9. "84" Lumber Company. Petition to rezone approximately 13,000 square feet from RA to HC. Located on east side of Route 29 North across from Airport Acres. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 20, Part thereof. Rivanna District. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and March 11, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report and the Planning Commission recommendation as follows: Requested Zoning: HC Highway Commercial Acreage: 0.3422 acres Existing Zoning.: RA Rural Areas Location: Property described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 20 (part), is located on the east side of Route 29 North approximately 850 feet north of Route 649 (Proffitt Road). March 18, 1981 (Regular Night Me,ting) Staff Comment: The applicant filed a site plan for the development of commercial property adjacent to the south prior to the adoption of the zoning map on December 10, 1980. Staff was unaware that the site plan included the property under this petition because the applicant had not properly identified the property as required for site plan approval. Therefore, this 0.3422 acre addition was not recognized with a com- mercial designation. Staff recommends approval. At its meeting of March I0, 1981, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this request. Mr. Fisher asked if the parcels of land to the north of this parcel were the subject of a rezoning application which was deferred last week. Mr. Tucker said that is correct, the Board had determined that that application was improperly before them since the applicant already had this application in process. Mr. Tucker said that when this pro- perty was initially submitted for site plan approval, the submittal did not properly show this property. Mr. Tucker said the applicant is buying this property,.but that the applicant felt it was already zoned HC. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Stuart Carwile, representing 84 Lumber Company. Mr. Carwile said this strip of land was pur- chased in order to straighten the boundary of the main parcel, and it was not discovered that the zoning was different until the Planning Commission hearing, thus the reason it is before the Board as a separate application. Mr. Fisher asked if this strip of land is part of a creek or hill. Mr. Carwile said no, just that the main parcel had a deviation which the applicant wished to have corrected. No one else wished to speak regarding this application and Mr. Fisher declared-the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve ZMA-81-9. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Notice Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Redistricting. /i~advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and March 11, 1981~i stating that the Board of Supervisors is "To receive testimony from any interested~persons concerning redistricting of the magisterial districts of Albemarle County. The Constitution of the State of Virginia requires the Board of Superviaors of Albemarle County to redistrict the magisterial districts of the County for local legislative purposes in 1981, The redistricting must ~be as equal as practicable in population and composed of contiguous territory. The proposed redistricting is shown on a~ certain map entitled "Redistricting Plan for Albemarle County, No. 6 Revised", dated February 25, 1981, prepared by the Albemarle County Planning Commission." Mr. Tucker gave a brief summary of the difficulties in obtaining a correct p~opulation figure from the Census Bureau upon which the new magisterial districts are based. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Fisher both stated that the area of difficulty is due to the last annexa- tion court proceedings inwolving the area around the University of Virginia. Mr. Fisher noted that this area was included in the City of Charlottesville's census figures, rather than those of the County. Mr. Fisher noted that a correct census report must be received so the matter of redistricting can be resolved in ample time to meet the requirements of the Justice Department. Zf this schedule is not met, local elections will not be able to be held this Fall. Mr. Tucker then presented a map with the existing magisterial district lines and Map No. 6 of the proposed changes. Mr. Tucker noted the boundary line changes and how these changes will affect the population figures. Mr. James Hyland of Ruckersville said he votes at the Earlysville Precinct. Mr. Hyland said the map proposed will cut Earlysville in half and he felt it would destroy the community interest in Earlysville. Mr. Hyland said he felt the districts which are shown at almost the maximum allowable population are also the areas of potentially greatest growth within the next decade. Mr. Hyland said he felt this public hearing should have been held when final figures were received from the Census Bureau. He felt to hold this hearing based on preliminary figures 'only served to confuse the publio. Mr. Allan Kendrick, a resident of Earlysville, said he did not want to see the Community "cut up" any further. Mr. Kendrick said he also felt the map of this proposed redistricting should be published prior to adoption by the Board. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this proposed map, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. St. John said any proposed redistricting must be approved by the Justice Depart- ment prior to August 2, 1981. Mr. Fisher said any candidate must file for local election no later than August 7, 1981, and if there is any lag in approval from the Justice Depart- ment, it will be impossible for candidates to file. Mr. St. John said if the County feels confident about the preliminary figures, the map as proposed could be sent on to the JustiCe Department. Mr. Fisher said the Board has decided~that April 1st is the last possible date a decision can be made on this map, and he felt it would be best if this were deferred until that time in the hope that the.final census figures will be received. Dr. Iachetta said he felt it would be premature to take action if the final figures have not been received. Motion was then offered .by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer action on this redistricting map until April 1, 1981. Roll was called and the motion carried by the fallowing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. March 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 4 and March 11, 1981.) Mr. Tucker read the proposed amendments as follows: out and proposed additions are underscored) (Proposed deletions are struck Section 4.6.1 -- LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS Lot width shall be measured at the building setback line, and shall be the same in dimension as required frontage for the district in which such lot is located. Section 4.11,.2 -- ~~-~~ STRUCTURES IN REQUIRED YARDS No portion of any accessory ~~ structure shall be permitted in any required yard; ~~,~-~,~,~?-$~a$ except as herein expressly provided: (NOTE: Additional wording of this section has been made new section as follows.) Section 4.11.2.1 -- If no utility or drainage easements or other easements are adversely affected, accessory ~~ structures or portions thereof may be erected no closer than five (5) feet to adjacent lot lines in the case of detached ~~, structures, or to a common wall in the case of attached ~~, structures; ~ provided further that no such ~~ structure shall be located within any yard required by section 4.6.3. Section 4.8.4 -- (Entire section to be repealed and readopted as section 4.11.2.2 with the same wording.) Section 4.11.2.2 -- PUBLIC TELEPHONE BOOTHS Public telephone booths may be located within required yards, but no closer to any street than the existing right-of-way line or right-of-way reservation line, provided that: A. Such booths shall be equipped for emergency service to the public without prior payment; B. The location of every booth shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator to ensure that the~same will not adversely affect the safe~y of the adjacent highway; C. Every such booth shall be subject to relocation, at the expense of the owner, whenever such relocation shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator to be reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare or whenever the same shall be necessary to accommodate the widening of the adjacent highway. Section 4.8.5 -- FENCES, MAILBOXES, AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES (This section to be repealed and readopted as section 4.11.2.3 but with the amended wording as set out below.) Section 4.11.2.3 -- FENCES, MAILBOXES, AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES Fences, free-standing mail and/or newspaper boxes, signs advertising sale or rent of the property, and shelters for school children travelling to and from school shall be permitted in all districts and shall be exempt from all setback and yard requirements except as otherwise provided in section 4.4. For the purposes of this section, the term "fence" shall be deemed to include free-standing walls enclosing yards and other uncovered area~. Section 4.12.6.6.2, subsection shown: Amend as follows: -Testing, Repairing, Cleaning, Servicing of Material, Goods or Products: One (1) space per two (2) employees on the main shift, plus one (t) space per each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area open to the public, for customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces. Section ~.1~.8 -- CERTIFIED ENGINEER REPORT SUBMITTAL Each future occupant of an industrial character shall submit, ~ as required by the county engineer, as a part of final site develop- ment plan approval, a certified engineer's report ..... Section 26.7 -- PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Each future occupant of an industrial character shall comply with standards set forth in section 4.1.4 and submit, $~ as required by the county engineer, as a part of final site development plan approval, a certified engineer's report .... Section 5.2.1 -- CLEARANCE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED Except as herein provided, no home occupation shall be established without approval of the zoning administrator. Upon receipt of a request to establish a home occupation, Class B, the zoning adminis- trator shall refer the same to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for approval of entrance facilities. ~-~~ and the zoning administrator shall determine the adequacy of existing parking for such use. No such clearance shall be issued for any home occupation, Class B, except after compliance with section 5.2.3 hereof. March 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Section 10.2.2 -- Add public garage by special use permit in the RA zone. Section 15.3 -- Delete minimum lot size and minimum frontage requirements in the R-4 district as was done in R-6 and others. Section 26.5 -- OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 2ee~&e~-26~&--&~--~e~-&~e~&&~-~eee~-e~e-(~-~&~-e~ee-e~6&~ ~e-~e~&~e~-¢e~-e&e~-e~&e~ee-e~-~e-~e~-~e~-e~&¢~ ~--~e~-e¢¢&ee~e~?-e~e-~-~a~&~-e~aee-e~a~-~e-~e~e~-~e~-e~e~ ~ee~&e~-2$~2. Ail e~e~ off-street parking and all off-street loading space requirements shall be in accordance with section 4.12. Section 5.3.2.2 -- Mobile home lots served by either a central water or sewerage system shall consist of $~&~$~-$~e~ea~-~?~ forty thousand (40,000) square feet or more and shall have a width of one hundred (100) feet or more. Section 5.3.2.3. Mobile home lots served by neither a central water or sewerage system shall consist of ~e~-~e~,~-~~ sixty thousand (60,000) square feet or more and shall have a width of one hundred thirty (130) feet or more. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 17, 1981, unanimously recommended approval of the above amendments. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission recommended deferral of the following section: Section 10.3.1 -- Regulations in section 10.5 governing development by right shall apply to the division of a parcel into ~&~-~$~-e~-~ewe~-~e$~-e~ ~&~ee~-&~e~&~-&~-~e,~e-~ee~ five (5) or fewer lots of less than twenty-one (21) acres in area and to the location of'e&~-(6~ five (5) or fewer dwelling units on any parcel in existence at the time of adoption of this ordinance. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mrs. Joan Graves, speaking on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle. Mrs. Graves said she supports the amendments as presented, since most are "housekeeping measures". She then stated her concern about the proposed amendment to Section 4.14.8 stating she did not understand the use of the word "future" in describing occupant. Mrs. Graves said the statement wherein the word "future" is used, could refer to the first occupant of an empty lot and if so, the requirement for a certified engineers report should not be waived. Mrs. Graves said the confusion generated by the word "future" is compounded in section 26.7 which speaks to "subsequent" occu')ants. Lastly, Mrs. Graves noted a typographical error in the amendment to Section 26.7 which refers to Section 4.1.4 which actually should be Section 4.14. Mrs. Babs Huckle, representing the League of Women Voters said the League continues to support the original text of the ordinance requiring performance standards and not to allow the waiver. She said the League urges the correction of the size of mobile home lots and the number of subdivisions by right as was originally intended. Mr. Tucker noted that the typographical error reported by Mrs. Graves exists on the staff report only, but is correct in the Zoning Ordinance. Miss Nash asked how Section 4.11.2.3 regarding signs and mailboxes would affect the proposed sign ordinance, recently submitted by the Sign Committee. Mrs. Huckle said the section stated here would def±nitely be in conflict with the setback distance required in the proposed sign ordinance. Mr. Fisher said the sign ordinance has not been formally adopted, and would have to conform to this section of the Zoning Ordinance if adopted today. Mr. Lindstrom asked if in Section 4.14.8 regarding the submission of a certified engineer's report, could not a future occupant simply submit a copy of an engineer's report from the prior use as long as there is no significant change. Mr. Tucker said an occupant could possibly do that. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the. wording in this section was a little too broad. Dr. Iachetta said he felt no new engineer's report should be required unless there is a site plan change. Dr. Iachetta said he did not favor this amendment and felt this section should be left as it presently reads. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to amend and reenact all sections of the zoning ordinance as proposed but deleting Sections 4.14.8 and Section 26.7 regarding certified engineer report submittal and performance standards. Miss Nash stated she felt the wording of Section 4.6.1 was confusing and oblique. Mr. St. John and Mr. Lindstrom made suggestions to modify the wording of this section to clarify the language, and it was the general concensus of the Board that the following wording was more clear: Section 4.6.1 -- MINIMUM LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS Minimum lot width shall be measured at the building setback line, and shall be at least the same width as frontage required for the district in which such lot is located. Mr. Lindstrom said he wished to amend his motion to include this wording change in Section 4.6.1. Mr. Lindstrom's motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. McCann said he would vote for the motion because he felt there were a lot of things which were necessary, however he does not agree with the changes to Section 10.3.1 and the omission of Section 4.14.8 and 26.7 from this motion of approval. 154 March 18, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) There were no further comments from Board members. Roll was called and the motion carrie~d by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Jarman Gap Estates, Section II Road Bond. Mr. Agnor read a memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., dated March 12, 1981, as follows: "As you know, the performance bond for the above-referenced subdivision is in default, and the County has cashed the $7,000 Cashier's Check we were holding to complete the roads in this subdivision. Since it is apparent that this amount is inadequate to complete both roads in this section, I would recommend that the Board of Supervisors take the following action: 1. Authorize the dispersement of the $7,000 we now hold, in order to complete the road serving Parcels 64J, 64K, 64L, 64M, 64N, 64P, 64Q and 64R on Tax Map 55 with the remainder of that dispersement to be placed in escrow to supplement the cost of building or bonding of the road serving Parcels 64S, 64T, 64U, 64V, 64W, 64X, 64Y and 64Z on Tax Map 55; and 2. Place a moratorium on building permits for Parcels 64S, 64T, 64U, 64V, 64W, 64X and 64Y on Tax Map 55, and a moratorium on a certificate of occupancy for Parcel 64Z on Tax Map 55 until such time as the road serving the above lots has been built or a bond is posted to adequately cover the cost of its construction." Mr. Agnor requested deferral of this request because Virginia National Bank (title holder of many of the lots) is considering providing security for completion of the roads. Mr. Alvin Toms of Crozet asked why the County is allowing the construction of a home on this road~if the road has not been completed in accordance with the bond. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Toms is referring to lot 64Z, which apparently had a house built on it on the assumption that the roadway would be completed prior to occupancy, but default on the subdivision occurred prior to this. Mr. Fisher suggested that the certificate of occupancy on this home be denied. Mr. Jerry Mabry representing Virginia Federal Savings and Loan said his bank is the owner of parcels due to default and stated that if there is no road then there must be a bond as security. Mr. St. John said the purpose of the bond is to protect the people living there and pay for the road which the developer did not construct. Mr. St. John said the law is clear with respect to bonds of this type being taken by lenders as security on their investment. Mr. Mabry said the bank, as the builder of a house, represents the public in a situation of this type. Mr. St. John said this bond does not apply as settlement in bankruptcy settlements. Mr. Toms said this bond should be applied to construct the road in the area of the development where homes are already built, and that building permits should be withheld on presently vacant lots. Mr. Toms stated that on January 12, 1981, he was informed that the home on lot 64Z had been sold. Mr. Toms felt it was the C~ounty's obligation to insure the construction of the road. Mr. St. John said it is the county's~ obligation to apply the money where it will do the most good. Mr. Lindstrom asked if building permits can be issued even after the bond has been collected. Mr. Agnor said yes, that a moratorium must be declared. Mr. Fisher asked if the recommendation from the Planning staff was the same. Mr. Tucker said lot 64Z has been using a temporary entrance and that funds from the $7,000 bond would be used to complete the proper entrance to that lot. Mr. Toms said funds should be used to construct a decel- eration lane. Mr. Fisher asked what the stage of completion was for this subdivision. Mr. Mabry said approximately 85% complete. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see denial of any occupancy permits, have the bond released and hold all other building permits. Following a brief discussion about the time schedule involved in the completion of this subdivision, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to authorize disbursement of $7,000 to complete the road serving Parcels 64J, 64K, 64L, 64M, 64N, 64P, 64Q and 64R on Tax Map 55 and any remaining funds to be applied to the ramainder of the parcels (64S, 64T, 64U, 64V, 64W, 6~X, 64Y and 64Z on Tax Map 55). Roll was called and the motion failed by the following tie vote: AYES: Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Miss Nash. Dr, Iachetta then offered motion to authorize disbursement of $7,000 to complete the road serving Parcels 64J, 64K, 64L, 64M, 64N, 64P, 64Q and 64R on Tax Map 55 with the remainder of that disbursement to be placed in escrow to supplement the cost of building or bonding of the road serving Parcels 64S, 64T, 64U, 64V, 64W, 64X, 64Y and 64Z on Tax Map 55 and also to place a moratorium on building permits for Parcels 64S, 64T, 64U, 64V, 64W, 64X and 64Y on Tax Map 55 until such time as the road serving the above lots has been built or a bond is posted to adequately cover the cost of its construction. Mr. Lindstrom said he would second the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom said in reference to lot 64Z, there should be a staff report to the Board giving the status of the house and whether or not there is access to that lot. Mr. Mabry objected to the action just taken stating that a house without an access is un- saleable. Mr. Fisher said the Board will not deny the certificate of occupancy, but when that certificate is issued, a report should be forwarded to the Board on the available access to the property. 155 Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: City request to participate in lighting of softball field at Piedmont Virginia Community College. Mr. Agnor said this request was received in a letter of February 19, 1981 from the City Manager. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Patrick Mullaney of the Department of Parks and Recreation has recommended that this item be considered along with all other capital improvement Programs to be considered in May or June of this year. Mr. Agnor recommended this be deferred. Motion for deferral was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, Mc©ann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor requested the Board approve an appro~ priation in the amount of $3,428.72, which is the amount of an insurance check from North American Insurance Company, received as payment for a vandalism claim at Rose Hill School which occurred on October 30, 1980. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,428.72 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Operating Fund and. transferred to the following codes: 1y32-305 $1,619.69 1TFi-ll9 226.38' 17F2-215cl 813.15 17F2-215c 769.50 TOTAL $3,428.72 The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Dr. Iachetta said he had heard that the insurance check was far from covering the actual damages. Mr. Agnor said that was correct although he did not have the actual damage figure before him. Mr. Fisher asked if any attempt had been made to collect damages from the parents of the juveniles found guilty of the vandalism. Mr. Agnor said he did not know, but would check with the Educa- tion Department. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Agnor said rental space has been located for the Data Processing Department in the Wilhoit Building, which can be leased for a six month period of time. Mr. Agnor asked the Board's approval for the County Executive to sign the lease for a six month period of time following the approval of the wording of the lease_by the County Attorney. Mr. Agnor stated that the rental is $6.50 per square foot. Motion authorizing the County Executive to sign the lease was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the .following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. At 11:40 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned.