Loading...
1979-09-19NSepte~mber 19, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) O90 A regular meetin~ of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 19, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-79-31. A. L. Kyser, Sr. (Deferred from July 18, 1979.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, said the applicant has requested deferral to November 7, 1979. There was no one present to speak for or against the petition. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer SP-79~1~ to November 7, 1979. Mr. Fisher asked the reason for deferral. 'Mr. Tucker said the applicant is debating on whether to withdraw the request. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-79-40. Mr. and~Mrs. Shannon Stinson. Locate a mobile home on 5.15 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the southwest side of Route 795, approximately 4 miles north of Scottsville. County Tax Map 123, Parcel t2A. Scottsville Dist~¢t. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17, 1979.) (Deferred from September 5.) Mr. Fisher noted this petition was withdrawn before the Planning Commission. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-79~8. Willoughby Corporation. To amend SP-435 (Willoughby PUD). Property is located anf~he~m~r~h~est side of Route 742, between the city limits and Moore's Creek. County Tax Map 76M2, Parcels 5A, part; 5B, part; 6A, part; 6B, part; 7, part: and 8, part. Scottsville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979.) ~Mr. Fisher noted letter dated September 18, 1979 from Mr. Roy G. Parks, applicant, requesting deferral of this request: "The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to hear a request for a change in ooncept for the Willoughby Corporation Planned Unit Development on September 19, I979. A major development has forced Willoughby Corporation to request a delay on.this matter. Please consider this a request to postpone the hearing until November 7, 1979." Mr. Fisher asked if anyone was present to speak on this matter. With no one being present, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer SP-79~48 to No~ember 7, 1979. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. -Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-?9-27. Dr. Charles W, Hurt. To rezone 89 acres from A-1 and R-3 to RPN/A-1. Property is located on the southeast side of New Route 20 and has a very.~small amount of frontage on Route 250. County Tax Map 78, Parcel 57, part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: RPN/A-1 Acreage: 89 acres Current Zoning: A-1 and R-3 Residential General ~Location: Property, described as Tax Map 78, parcel 57 part thereof, is located west and adjacent to Ashcroft RPN Character of the Area: This site is a continuation of a ridgeline of Ashcroft RPN. In respect to topography, this is a logical expansion of an approved RPN. Land Use Summary: Residential Lots Open space Roads and right-of-way Total Acres Percentage -~3.7 49.1 43.5 48.9 1.8 2.O ~ acres 100.0% Staff comment: The applicant proposes 28 lots for a gross density of one dwelling per 3.2 acres. Nearly half of the property would remain in open space. As with Ashcroft, lots are situated along the relatively broad ridge to avoid steeper slopes and take advantage of deeper soils (Soil Conservation Service: September 19~_~1979 (Regular Night M~eting) ~-- Approval is for a maximum of 28 dwellings subject to conditions contained herein. Locations and acreages of Yarious land uses shall comply with the Approved Plan. In the final site plan and subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved; No grading or clearing for street construction shall occur within any area until the final Stormwater Detention and drainage plans for subject sub-drainage basin have been approved for concurrent construction; No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as necessary for road construction as approved by the County Engineer; Ail lots shall be served by one or more central water systems approved in accordance with the regulations of the ¥irginia Department of Health, the Code of Albemarle County, and all other applicable law; Private road shall comply with the private roads provisions of the subdivision ordinance; County Attorney approval of Homeowner's Association agreements. Ail property owners shall become members of the Ashcroft Homeowner's Association and shall be subject to all regulations governing said association; A separation of 100 feet or more between dwellings shall be provided for fire protection. Fire Official approval of fire prevention system. Such system shall be provided prior to any certificate of occupancy; Planning Commission approval of areas to be cleared on individual lots. Planning Commission approval of general dwelling location on each lot; Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field locations on each lot. In such approval, the Health Department shall be mindful of the County's intent to discourage the location of septic tanks and/or drainfields on slopes of 25% or greater, since such practice has been described as questionable by the Health Department. Any lot not having adequate septic system sites shall be combined with a buildable lot and/or added to the common open space. NOTE: Condition #9 is nearly identical wording to that recommended by staff for Ashcroft. The Board of Supervisors changed the Ashcroft condition to read as follows: "Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field locations on each lot. The Health Department shall either supervise or test each lot utilizing both soil tests and percolation tests. Such tests must demonstrate that two septic drainfields can be located on each lot without encroaching on any slope exceeding 25%. Septic tanks and/or drainfields shall not be located on any slope of 25% or greater. Any lot not having adequate septic system site shall be combined with a building lot and/or added to the common open space." Mr. Tucker said on August 28, 1979, the Planning Commission appro.ved ZMA-79-27 with the nine conditions above. He noted condition #9 is different from the condition for Ashcroft but it does the same thing; the only difference being soil and percolation tests were required for Ashcroft. Mr. Fisher asked if the road is proposed to be private and if so, will it be an extension of the Ashcroft private road system. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if any lots in Ashcroft have been sold. Mr. Roy Parks, representing the applicant, was present and said no. Mr. Fisher asked if the County Attorney had approved the Ashcroft Homeowner's agreements. Mr. St. John did not recollect but knew a provision was included in the Ashcroft agreement relating to this project. 'Mr; Roudabush asked if the condition pertaining to a 100 foot separation of the dwellings was a requirement of the fire official. Mr. Tucker said yes. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Roy Parks, representing the applicant, was present. He presented to the Board a slope map of the subject property. He noted that the private road in Ashcroft runs midway down the ridge. The area designated for open space is wooded and contains mature vegetation. The area will not be used for active recreation but does contain a mining road which will be a trail. Mr. ParkS noted that amenities are in Ashcroft which is 800 to 900 feet down the road and a club house as well as other' recreational activities will be located in that area. The open space on this property w~tl simply be a buffer for the visual impact of the property since it is elevated and visible. Mr. Parks said the total density is low, one unit per three acres, and fits quite well with the Ashcroft plan. Mr. Parks said he objected to only one of the Planning Commission's conditions; that being #9. The basic objection to that is the Health Department does not supervise soil or percolation tests, but prefers that a soil scientist do the testing. Mr. Lindstrom asked the size of the lots on this plan. Mr. Parks said they are from 43,000 square feet to 75,000 square feet, which is larger than the lots in Ashcroft. Mr. Roudabush asked if the 100 foot separation for the dwellings created a burden. Mr. Parks said the condition is not preferred but it can be done. Dr. Iachetta asked the width of the lots' along the frontage of the road. Mr. Parks said 50 to 60 feet and at the building setback line it will be 150 feet. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said this property contains one of the higher ridges in the County. He noted the impact on the quality of the ridge lines was discussed in the Ashcroft application and also a condition was made with respect to the placement of house sites and vegetation because of the impact on the quality of the ridgeline. Mr. Tucker said this site is less visible. There may be some visibility from Route 20 and maybe one area on Carter's Mountain but otherwise there will not be any visiblity of the actual homes. Mr. Lindstrom felt the conditions for Ashcroft should be applied to this request because of consistency and the quality ~f development on ridge lines is discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. The conditions September 19, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) 092 and "Ten trees per acre shall be provided in the area marked "TREES" on the Approved Plan - Sheet 1. Deciduous trees shall be 1 1/2" to 2" in caliper; non-deciduous trees shall be four to five feet in height. Locations shall be determined at the time of final approval of Phase I." Dr. Iachetta said the condition relating to trees was added because Ashcroft is basically bare. Mr. Tucker agreed. Mr. Lindstrom said since the property is wooded then that condition is not needed. Mr. Fisher felt the request was for a good use of the land and consistent and similar to Ashcroft. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZMA-79-27 with conditions 1 through 8 as recommended by the Planning Commission but changing condition #9 to read as follows: Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field locations on each lot. The Health Department shall either supervise or test each lot utilizing both soil tests and percolation tests.. Such tests must demonstrate that.two septic drainfeilds can be located on each lot without encroaching on any slope exceeding 25%. Septic tanks and/or drainfelds shall not be located on any slope of 25% or greater.~ Any lot nov having adequate septic system site shall be combined with a building lot andjor added to the common open space. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-79~52. Patricia Ann Tiffany. To locate a general, gift, craft and antique store on 31.88 acres zoned A-1. Property located on the left of the access road, off Route 250 West, leading to Patricia Ann's Country Store. County Tax Map 55, .Parcel 19. White Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979.) Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Request: Country Store (Section 2-1-24(14); 2-1-25(15)) ~Acreage: 31.88 acresZoning: A-1 Location: Property, described as Tax Map 55, Parce 19, is in the western quadrant of the 1-64/Route 250 West Interchange at Yance¥ Mills. History: I. ZMA-173 (Price and Wood): Rezone 31.88 acres from A-1 to B-1. Staff recommended denial. Commission recommended denial. Petition denied by Board on August 19, 1971. II. SP-261. (Patricia Ann Tiffany): Request for general store. Staff expressed concern over access and drainage but recommended that proposed use would be compatible. Commission recommended denial. Board approved petition on July 11, 1973, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Highway Department for entrance permit and proper drainage structures under the fill; 2. No sign other than one identification sign of four square feet be permitted; 3. No signs to be located in view of 1-64; 4. That the access road be paved when it traverses on land not owned by the applicant; 5. Only one 50-foot entrance as indicated on the supplemental plan and to build deceleration and acceleration lanes to Highway Department standards; 6. 20-foot road is to be restored to its natural condition after construction is complete. Subsequent action: Board amended condition #3 on November 15, 1973, to read as follows: 3. (a) One wall sign to be allowed on rear of the structure which faces 1-64; (b) Sign to be identical in design to that submitted and attached herewith; (c) Sign to be limited to 50 square feet (square footage defined as the smallest rectangle totally enclosing the lettering). III. SP-352. (H. H. Tiffany and M. Price Distributing Co.): Request five additional gift, craft, and antique shops. Staff recommended denial. Commission recommended denial. Petition denied by Board on June 26, 1974. IV. ZMA-310. (Patsy O. Tiffany): Rezone 7.44 acres from A-1 to B-1. Staff recommended denial. Commission recommended denial. Petition was withdrawn on September 26, 1974. V. SP-76-31. (Patricia Ann Tiffany): Requested relief from Condition #2 .on SP-261 to permit a location sign. Staff recommended approval. Commission recommended approval. Approved by Board on July 7, 1976, subject to the following conditions: 1. Signing to be accomplished under provisions of Article 18, Scenic Highways Designation of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; 2. Conditions 1, 4, 5, and 6 of SP-261 and substitute conditions 3a, 3b, and 3c (approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 15, 1973) shall be complied with and completed to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and Highway Department before any sign permit is issued and before any sign is erected. 3. No signs (other than provided for in substitute conditions 3a, 3b, and 3c) are to be visible from Interstate Route 64. _Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to sell the existing "Patricia Ann's Country Store" and establish a second store on the property closer to Route 250 West. Staff recommends denial of this petition for the following reasons (some comments are restated from ZMA-173, SP-352; and ZMA-310.) 1. Staff finds no Change in circumstances from ZMA-173, SP-352, and ZMA-310 supportive of the applicant's request; 2. The applicant has obtained a special permit for this use and therefore has been extended an additional use not enjoyed by other A-1 property owners. Staff views this within the intent of special permits in the A-1 zone. However~ 093 Se~t...emb_e~! 9 ~. 1979 3. In ZMA-310, staff noted that about 114 acres of B-1 zoned land exists near the quadrants of 1-64/250 West interchange. Staff opinion is that this commercial zoning is excessive and does not support increased commercialization through the special permit procedure. Staff opinion, in this context, is that the request does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan; 4. As stated in ZMA-173, the topography of this property is not conducive to continued commercial development. This is amplified by the fact that this ,property is in the Rivanna Reservoir watershed." Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of SP-79-52 on September 4, 1979. ~he public hearing was opened. Mr. Hank Tiffany, representing his wife, Patricia Ann, was present. He noted his wife had been the owner of ?atricia Ann's Country Store since 1974. Mr. Tiffany then reviewed the history of S~-261 and the difficulties encountered with ~at request. He said the request should show only 29.88 acres because two acres have.be~n sold. The two-acre tract containing the Country Store was sold to the Ewalds. A ro~d was built back to the existing store and paved up to the store property. There is a fifty foot right-of-way and the road is jointly used by the Ewalds and Bradley Peyton (an adjoining property owner), and themselves. He then noted letters received in support of the request: Mr. William Maupin, owner of the Village Market which is across the road; Ms. Virginia Stinnet; Ms. Denice Shifflett; and Mr. and Mrs. Conway Stanley. Mr. Tiffany said the acreage consists of five acres zoned commerical and 24.88 zoned agriculture. The land zoned commercial is hot des~ZTa for a country store and he agreed with the County Planners that it was not suitable for intensive commercial development. The agricultural land is not prime agricultural land. Therefore, Mr. ~iffany said the land is best suited for this type of operation. Mr. Tiffany noted that his wife had to leave the larger business which consisted of 11,000 square feet because the maintenance and operation of the building was too intense for her and she desired a smaller store. The proposed operation will be about 2400 feet which is about 20% of the size of the other store. In conclusion, Mr. Tiffany urged approval'of the request and examination of the proposed Zoning Ordinance to include a category for gift, craft and antique shops. Mr. Fisher said there was no limitation on the size of the building in the application. Mr. Tiffany said it will be 30 feet by 80 feet and he did not object to such being a condition. Mr. Dorrier asksd if the special permit issued for Patricia Ann's Country Store went with the property when it was sold. Mr. Tiffany said yes. Mr. Dorrier asked the use of the existing store. Mr. Tiffany said it is a gift shop operation. Mr. Tiffany noted that the Ewalds, owners of The Very Thing (renamed for Patricia Ann's Country Store), have no objection to a smaller store being in the same ~icinity. Mr. Bradley Peyton, adjoining property owner, said the fifty foot right of way is of record and shared. He felt more land than necessary is being taken away from the A-1 zone and felt there was a substantial amount of commercial land in the area now. Therefore, Mr. Peyton requested denial of the special permit. The following persons were present in support of the request basically because they felt it was an asset to the community and provided several with employment: Mrs. Joyce Dudley, Carol Arnette, Sandra Johnson, Jackie Quann and Messrs. Cornelius Gentry, Jerry Dudley and Lloyd Wood. Speaking next was Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, represent±ng Mr. and Mrs. Harry Plummer, adjacent property owners. He noted that the Plummer's are neither opposed nor supportive of the request but feel certain conditions which have been agreed to by Mr. Tiffany should be included in the special permit. The conditions are as follows: Size of the structure be limited to 2400 square feet; Exact location of the building has been outlined on a topo map and agreed to by Mr. Tiffany; Mr. Tiffany has agreed that any bonding required by the County for grading, construction, roads, etc., will be designated for both on-site and off-site protection of Mrs. Plummer's property; Mr. Tiffany has warranted, agreed and insured that there will be no drainage from the entire 28 acres, except what might come into Tucked Away creek that flows in from the top of Mrs. Plummer's property, (Tucked Away Creek) and if that guaranty, warranty and insurance is breached, Mr. Tiffany has agreed to be responsible for any property damage or mental anguish that might be caused. Mr. Fisher said the staff report did not give the full history of this development and noted a few court cases and zoning inspector warrants about soil erosion permits. With no one else to speak for or against the request, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he has problems with people requesting special permits for a specific use, then selling that property and coming back for another permit. He feels this is essentially converting land from one use to another through the special permit process. Mr. Fisher said many of the people speaking tonight seem to feel that the Board will prevent Mrs. Tiffany from operating a store but that is not true. The choice of selling the existing store was Mrs. Tiffany's. Mr. Fisher also felt the staff and Planning Commission have been strong in their recommendations against continued commercial development of this particular property. Mr. Dorrier said it has been stated that the area could not be used for A-1 uses. Mr. Tucker noted that there are many permitted uses in the A-1 zone. Mr. Fisher said many places zoned A-1 are not suitable for growing crops, etc., but trees are crops and a good deal of the county is being used for agriculture in that sense. Mr. Roudabush said when the original special use permit was granted, he did not feel anyone assumed that the 31 acres was necessary to the operation of a countr~ store and some other use would be made of the property. He did not feel problems which had developed from the use of the site should be used as a basis for judging another special use permit. September 19, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) He felt manyj,~ite.s, in the County have the same problems which have been described. He alsQ did_ no~a~e~use someone has 11,000 ~quare feet which is .no longer usable to him,~~e~e~ the right to use a portmon of the property for an additional business of a similar nature. Mr. Roudabush said this site is not suitable for homes and he felt some sort of commercial activity was the only thing it could be used for. He noted that a country store is one of the least intensive commercial uses for which the property could be used. The request is not for a rezoning and therefore, the use is not fixed forever in a commercial pattern. He felt with the right conditions and cooperation from the neighbors, this could be an acceptable operation. If there were objections from the neighbors who had problems with the past operation, then he would have different feelings. He felt anyone having property should be allowed to use it for some productive activity. Mr. Roudabush said with the suggested conditions and a site plan addressing ways to ~andle past problems, the County would be able to regulate the use as though the property were zoned commercial. Mr. Henley said he cannot support the request because of the staff comment that this piece of property is being commercialized through the special permit procedure and he felt this will continue to happen. Mr. Henley then offered motion to deny SP-79-52. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and said he can sympathize with the applicant's request for a smaller store but he could not see having two country stor.es within yelling distance of each other. He felt if the owner wanted to commercialize the property, the proper procedure would be to rezone the tract to an appropriate business category as opposed to requesting a special permit. Mr. Dorrier agreed with Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Roudabush said he would agree, but if he owned 31 acres and wanted a smaller business, he would attempt to make the best use of his land rather than buying commercial property in the near vicinity. He did not see any distinction in commercially zoned land which the applicant has at the same location with probably the same terrain. Mr. Henley agreed but felt this was the wrong way to commercialize the subject property. If it is suitable for business, then it should be rezoned same. Mr. Dorrier felt .without the property being rezoned, he could not support the request. Mr. Fisher did not feel the staff would support a rez~ning. He noted that staff opinion is that commercial zoning in the area is excessive and he does not support increased ~ommercialization through the special use permit procedure. With no further discussion, the roll was called on the foregoing m~tion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-79-46. Central Telephone of ~irginia. To locate an unmanned telep~one~switching unit on 2.571 acres zoned A-1. Property located on the east side of Route $01 near Free Union. County Tax Map 29, Parcel 44B. White Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979.) Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Request: Unmanned telephone switching station (Section 2-1-25(36)) Acreage: Approximately 1000 square feet of a 2.571 acre parcel Zoning: A-1 Location: Property, described as Tax Map 29, Parcel 44B, part thereof, is located on the east side of Route 601 about 1Z4 mile south of its intersection with Route 665 near Free Union. Character of the Area: Shelter Associates (SP-76-99, S?-75-100) has a professional office and craft shop north of this property. Other properties in the immediate vicinity are sparsely developed. Staff Comment: Centel proposes to locate a cabinet-type switching unit six feet in height, mounted on an 8' x 8' concrete pad on this property. A variance was granted permitting location of the structure 3.5 feet from the right-of-way of Route 60~. Staff opinion is that this use would not be obtrusive in the area and recommends approval subject to: 1. Written agreement between Centel and the ~irginia Department of Highways and Transportation that VDH&T will bear no expense for relocation of switching station and appurtenances should such need be occasioned by road improvements. This agreement shall be approved by the County Attorney and VDH&T. 2. Staff approval of site plan to include: ~irginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance; and landscape screening, if necessary. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of SP-79-46 on September 11, 1979. The public hearing was opened. Speaking was Mr. Sandy Tucker, representing Centel. He said the reason for the switching unit is because of modern technology and the expense of pure copper which is used in all the cables for CENTEL. Mr. Tucker said this particular location was the only one in the area which was agreeable to the property owner. This is a pie shaped piece of land. The reason for being asked to place the station 3 1/2 feet within the right-of-way is to allow the property owner continued use of his land and it was a stipulation for the easement to be obtained from the property owner. He said the reason for the size of the pad is to allow expansion of the initial switch box which is very similar to a VEPCO transformer and about five feet high. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any objection to condition #1. Mr. Tucker said no. Since it will be close to the road, Mr. Fisher was concerned about cars running into it. Mr. Tucker said there is a slight curve in the road and it is about two feet above grade which hopefully will keep any vehicular traffic out of it. Dr. Iachetta was concerned about how something 3 1/2 feet from the road could be screened. Mr. Lindstrom was concerned Wit~ no one else to speak for or against the request, the public hearing was Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve SP-79~$6~.,~ihh~hhe~oondii~mms recommended by the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried b~ the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Mr. Lindstrom. Agehda Item No. 8. SP-79~. Central Telephone of ¥irginia. To locate an unmanned telephone switching unit on 10 acres zoned A-1. Property located on the south side of Route 664 just northwest of the intersection of Routes 66~3 and 664, and just west of Chestnut Grove Baptist Church in Earlysville. County Tax Map 19, Parc-el 16B. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979.) Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Request: Unmanned telephone switching station (Section 2-1-25(36)) Acreage: 625 square feet of a 10-acre parcel Zoning: A-1 Location: Property, described as Tax Map 19, Parcel 16B, part thereof, is located on the southwest side of Route 664 about 500 feet north of its intersection with Route 663. Character of the Area: The switching station is proposed to be located ina wooded area to the rear and adjacent to property of the Chestnut Grove Church. The area is rural in character with residential development to the south and scattered residential uses in the general area. Staff Comment: Staff opinion is that this use would not be obtrusive in the area and recommends approval subject to: 1. Switching station to be located in accordance with the attached sketch plan; 2. Only those trees necessary for switching station installation shall be removed; remainder of wooded area to be maintained in its natural state." Mr. Tucker said on September 11, 1979 the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to the above conditions. Mr. Tucker said all the switching stations are technically the same. Mr. Fisher asked if much power is associated with the stamtion. Mr. Tucker said no. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Sandy Tucker, representing Centel, was present. With no one else present to speak for or against the request, the.public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-79~9 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-79¥55. Central Telephone of Virginia. To locate an unmanned telephone switching unit on 0.99 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on a gravel road off the south side of Route 641 approximately 1/8 mile east of Route 29 North. County Tax Map 21, ParCel 28A. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979.) Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Request: Unmanned telephone switching station (Section 2-i-25(36)) Acreage: 0.99 acres Zoniag: A-1 Location:~ Property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 28A, is located along an easement about 300 feet-south of Route 641. The easement intersects Route 641 about 1/4 mile east of Route 29 North. C~a~ract'~er of the Area: A microwave tower is located on this property. Residential development is sparse. Staff Comment: Staff opinion is that this use would not be obtrusive in the area ~and recommends approval subject toi' 1. Switching station to be located in accordance with attached sketch plan; 2. Pine trees shall be maintained to provide screening." Mr. Tucker said on September 11, 1979, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended ~roval subject to the above conditions. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Sandy Tucker, representing the applicant, was e~'~~. With no one else present to speak for or against the matter, the public hearing ~losed. Motion' was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-79-55 wi ~he conditions of the Planning Commission. Roll was called 'and~the motion carried by the lowing recorded vote: : Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. : None. September' 19, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Age~da Item No. 10. ZMA-795~0. Windham, Inc. To rezone 0.65 acres from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business. Property located on west side of Route 240 in Crozet, Just south of the C and 0 Railway, County Tax M~p 56A(1), Parcels 58, 59, 60A and 62. White Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979). Mr. Roudabush abstained from discussion on this request since his firm has done some surveying for the applicant. Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: B-1 Business Acreage: 0.65 acres Current Zoning: R-2 Residential Location: Property, described as Tax Map 56A(1), parcels 58, 59, 60A, and 62, parts thereof, is located on the east side of High Street adjacent to the C and 0 Railroad in CroZet. Character of the Area: This property is a portion of the property recently submitted for site plan approval which is titled "Windham Place." Rezoning is requested to permit relocation of the businesses on the site away from Route 240. Single-family residences are located across High Street. A vacant single-family lot and barber shop are to the south. The C and 0 Railroad is to the north. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial usage in this area. Proposed amendment of the plan by the Commission recommends commercial usage and a governmental substation. A branch of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library is shown on the site plan. Staff Comment: Staff finds this request in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval. The staff would note that the relocation of these existing buildings will significantly change the character of Crozet's central business district." Mr.'Tucker said on September 4, 1979, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-79~30. Mr. Tucker said Crozet has a certain character because it is built close to the roads and this has created an atmosphere for the business district in the downtown area of Crozet. The proposal is to move all of the uses back from the road and provide parking in the front. Therefore, the current problems on Route 240 will be eliminated; on street parking is allowed in Crozet and is a problem. The Planning staff does not favor changing the character of Crozet. Mr. Tucker noted that the site plan was approved by the Planning Commission last night. Mr. Fisher noted letter dated August 21, 1979, supporting the request from Mr. Bernard'Haggerty, Regional Executive Director of the Crozet ¥irginia National Bank branch', He also noted recommendation from the Highway Department dated August 28, 1979 stating: "It would appear that the requested rezoning would bring the property into proper~ zoning for its existing use. That is, parking use for business." Mr. Henley said this rezoning will help the traffic and parking. The parking lot is now located between the bank and the hardware store which is only 40 feet from the exit of the parking lot where you drop over the hill at the underpass. Therefore, one pulling out cannot see anyone coming through and that is a dangerous situation. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Stan Tatum, the applicant, was present. He s'aid the existing uses on the property would be retained. Since existing, parking is not effective, this will move the businesses back into the property to allow more parking in the front but the major parking will still be in the rear. This relocation will make it easier and safer going in and out and allow the businesses to function more eff.ectively. Mr. Fisher asked if the uses now on the R-2 property are nonconforming. Mr. Tucker said the front portion is zoned B-1 and the rear where the parking is located is R-2. Mr. Tatum sa.id the two parcels have split zoning, residential up front and business in the back. Mr. Fisher asked if the intention was to tear down the existing~structures. Mr. Tatum said yes. Since Crozet has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as one of the growth centers of the County, Mr. Tatum felt this change will be a major stimulus in making Crozet a more attractive and desirable place to shop, work and live. With no one else present to speak for or against the request, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this land is within the South Rivanna Watershed. Mr. Tucker said yes and any construction will have to meet the regulations in the Runoff Ordinance. Dr. Iachetta asked if the buildings will be connected to the proposed home for the elderly. Mr. Tatum said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if the same square footage will be constructed. Mr. Tatum said this will be a reorganization of what exists. Mr. Fisher asked if the branch of the Library will be connected to the old Crozet Sewer Company System. Mr. E. E. Thompson, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, said yes. Mr. Thompson said the Crozet Hardware is to be relocated at the existing library site and the library will be moving into the new structure being built in the Shopping Complex. The bank is being relocated in the r.ear of the property. Mr. Henley noted that there will be no new businesses. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no problem with the application but would like some information on how the Runoff Ordinance has been applied to this project. Mr. Tatum: said he has not been directly involved with the Ordinance but Mr. Tucker menvioned that there are conditions attached to the approval of the site plan for such. Mr. Fisher ~hen requested that Mr. Agnor get a copy of the site plan to see how the Runoff Control Ordinance affects the property. Mr. Henley offered motion to approve ZMA-79~0. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush. O97 September 19, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 11. SP-79~54. Edward W. and Betty Knight Scripps. Petition for an ~xecut&ve office on 193+ acres zoned A-1. Property known as "Eagle Hill" (formerly "Lewi~fiel6") located on the east side of Route 601 approximately 1/2 mile north of intersection of Routes 676 and 601. County Tax Map 43, Parcel 40A. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Executive Office (Section 2-1-24(24.1)) Acreage: 193+ acres Zoning: A-1 Location: Property, described as Tax Map 40, Parcel 43A, is located on the east side of Route 601 approximately 1/2 mile north of its intersection with Route 676. Character of the Area: This property (Eagle Hill, formerly Lewisfield) is in agricultural usage as are other large tracts in the area. Smaller parcels exist to the south. Staff Comment: One secretary would be employed for the executive office operation (farm employees are not addressed in this repo.rt). An existing building would be converted for office usage. Due to the number of dwelling units, a site plan is required. Staff opinion is that this use would not be detrimental or obtrusive to the area and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: More than five employees related to the executive office use shall require amendment of this special use permit; Staff approval of site plan; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on September 4, 1979, recommended approval oy changing condition No. 1 to "two" employees and adding condition No. 4 to read: "No ~igns related to office use to be visible from any public road." Mr. Tucker said the ?eason for changing the number of employees was based on the following letter dated ~ugust 22, 1979 from Mr. and Mrs. Magruder Dent, adjacent property owners: -'!~n response to your notice of the above request dated August 20, we wish to advise that we have no objection to the granting of the request for an executive office on "Eagle Hill" owned by Mr. and Mrs. Edward W. Scripps, if the employees oT that office are limited in number to two and if no commercial sign is permitted at the driveway exit to State Route 601." Mr. Tucker said another letter was received today from Mr. and Mrs. Dent indicating ~hey would amend their objection to a limitation of four rather than two office employees. ~he reason being the possibility of the applicant and his wife being considered employees of their own corporation. Mr. Fisher said the recommendation from the Highway Department dated August 28, 1979, ~tated the following: "The existing entrance to "Eagle Hill" has adequate sight distance; nas adequate width for a commercial use entrance. Unless the property intensifies over ~hat has been described, additional entrance improvements would not be necessary other than clearing of minor vegetation to the east of the property." Mr. Tucker said a commercial ~ntrance already exists. Dr. Iachetta asked how an executive office in a home differs from a home occupation. ~r. Tucker said this could fit under Home Occupation, Class-B, but there is a specific orovision for an executive office on a large tract of A-1 land. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Doug Zirkle, representing the applicant, was oresent. He said the offices that were used for the Lewisfield operation have been ~onverted to an apartment for staff so one office has been eliminated. The building has oeen an office and a lounge and the only thing that has been done is painting and redecorating ~nd the lounge is being used with office furniture now. There has been no conversion, ust ~n extended use of the same rooms. He said this operation falls under the executive ffice cat~egory because of Zoning Ordinance Section 16-14.1 which applies to A-1 property ~here there is an office on a farm for noncommercial and nonretai! use. This is to be a ~rivate office. Mr. Zirkle said the Scripps' are senior stockholders, officers and ~irectors of the Scripps League Newspapers and the main executive office is in California. ~s for the number of employees, the applicant would prefer to have a limitation of four ~ecause some time in the future the Scripps may be considered employees since they derive .ncome from this operation and therefore could not have secretaries. As for the sign, ~r. Zirkle said no thought has been given to that. He said the Highway Department has iven clearance to use of the entrance but the applicant does plan to remove one section ~f the fence at the entrance in order to improve the visibility coming out of the property. ]n conclusion, Mr. Zirkle requested approval of the special permit. Mr-; Fisher asked if there are any plans to expand the existing building. ~irkle~ said there will no expansion or change. Mr. W~th no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing ~as closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to approve SP-79-54 with the conditions recommended ~y the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said although ~roperty owners are generally not classified employees, perhaps the number should be increased. Ir. Henley then amended his motion to increase the number of employees in condition No. 1 to "four." Mr. Dorrier accepted the amendment. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta felt the section in the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to home occupations September 19, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) 0-98 Agenda Item No. 12. SP-79-56. Northern Piedmont Electric Coop. To locate a power substation on 2.8854 acres zoned M-1. Property located on the east side of Route 606 approximately 8 miles north of Charlottesville near the intersection of Routes 606 and 29 North. County Tax Map 21, Parcel 14D. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Dail~Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Electrical power substation Acreage: 2.8854 acres Zoning: M-1 Industrial Location: Property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 14D, is located north and adjacent to General Electric with frontage on Routes 29 North and 606. History: SP-455 for Northern Piedmont Electric Coop. proposed to locate a power substation in proximity to Route 29 North. Planning Commission recommended approval with several conditions. Application was withdrawn and SP-476 submitted proposing location of substation in proximity to Route 606. Board of Supervisors approved SP-476 on May 14, 1975, subject to the following conditions: Site plan submitted to Planning Commission for approval; Sufficient berm on northern and eastern property line with evergreen trees planted on l0 foot centers on top of the finished berm in order to screen the substation from U.S. 29 North; Only the actual substation structures be fenced - not the entire site; Grading plans approved by Zoning Administrator. SP-476 has expired. None of the above cited conditions have been met. has been filed due to the expiration of SP-476. SP-79-56 Character of the Area: Route 606 is currently being reconstructed in this area. The General Electric plant is under construction to the south. A mobile home is to the west. Staff Comment: Staff finds no change in circumstances in the area which would alter the basic recommendation for approval as found in SP-476. Staff therefore recommends approval subject to the following revised conditions: 1. Site plan approval to include: a. sufficient berm on northern and eastern property line with evergreen trees (4 feet - 6 feet in height) on 15 foot centers on top of the berm in order to screen the substation from Route 29 North; b. Trespass fencing around substation structures; c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial access; 2. Grading permit; 3. Access limited to Route 606. No access shall be permitted from Route 29 North; 4. Structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height." Mr. Tucker said on September 4, 1979 the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to the above three conditions and changing condition #~ from "30 feet" to "40 feet." The public hearing was opened. Present was Mr. James W. Cubbage, Jr., representing Northern Piedmont Electric Cooperation. He stated that they have no objections to the recommended cond±tions.- Mr. Fisher asked if the substation was required for residential or commercial development. Mr. Cubbage said both; residential growth has increased in the area and cannot be fed with the substation now located at the Corner Store on Route 29 North. Mr. Fisher asked if the increase in the height of the structures was requested by the applicant. Mr. Cubbage said yes. The high volt structures in a substation need to be of sufficient height in order to have clearance because of the high voltage and it is a safety factor for the employees. Mr. Cubbage said Northern Piedmont has a one-hundred foot corridor.leading to Route 29 strictly for transmission lines but the substation site will be in an area on Route 606 and will occupy most of the three acre site. Mr. Roudabush asked the purpose of the berm. Mr. Cubbage said that was required for screening from Route 29. Actually a substation should be in the open where it can be cool but there is no objection to the condition. With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-79~56 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. ~P~79~51. Ronald H. Thompson. To locate health clinic on 2.1 acres zoned A-1. Property located southwest of Route 627 and approximately 0.5 mile south of Route 6 near Esmont. County Tax Map 128, Parcel 79B. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Health Clinic (Section 2-1-24(18.1)) Acreage: 2.1 acres Zoning: A-1 Location: Property, described as Tax Map 128, Parcel 79B, is located on the west side of Route 627 approximately 1/2 mile south of Route 6 in the Esmont area. Character of the Area: The vacant dwelling on this property is served by a shared 099 September 19, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Comprehensive Plan: Esmont has requested deletion as a village in the Comprehensive Plan. While provision of community facilities in non-growth areas is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan, this particular facility is intended to serve rural needs which already exist. Staff does not think this clinic woUld appreciably stimulate growth in this area. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission and Board find this request in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: The County has attempted for more than two years to find a suitable and acceptable location for this use. The intent of the project is to serve health needs of a remote rural area. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements for shared entrance. In this approval the County Attorney shall be mindful of the County's intent that maintenance costs shall be proportionate to usage; Site plan approval to include: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; b. Screening of facility for adjoining residence to the south; c. Determination of parking requirements by Director of Planning.'~ Mr. Tucker noted that the applicant is the County of Albemarle. He said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of SP-79-51 on September 11, 1979 with the following conditions: County to bear the costs of the installation and maintenance of the commercial entrance; Site plan approval to include: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; b. Screening of facility for adjoining residence to the south; c. Determination of parking requirements by Director of Planning; Special permit to terminate when the clinic is no longer operated by a public agency. Mr. Tucker said letters of support have been received from residents in the area. Dr. Iachetta noted the recommendation from the Highway Department stated that the private property on the north should be cleared of vegetation in order to have adequate sight distance and recommended that this possibility be examined prior to approval of the special p~rmit. Mr. Tucker said the problem has not been addressed. However, since a commercial entrance will be required, the entrance permit cannot be obtained until the clearing has been done nor approval of the site plan. Therefore, he felt the requirements of a commercial entrance in terms of sight distance would take care of this situation. The public hearing was opened. Speaking was Mr. Russell Otis, County Housing Coordinator He said the building will be used to extend the weekly clinic of the Children and Youth Program of the University of Virginia and add a minimum of two half-day clinics a week to provide preventive health services and screening programs for adults and elderly citizens of the Esmont area. Mr. Otis said in a letter dated September 8, 1978 from Dr. Richard Prindle of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Health Department statements were made that after operations begin at this facility, there will be an opportunity to better investigate the need~ of the population, redefine programs, and perhaps, expand activities. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the clinic will be used to serve the needs of the people right in the Esmont area and not have to transfer them somewhere else. Mr. Otis said hopefully this facility will prevent having to transport people all over the county and to the Universit HoSpital. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dorrier said the facility is badly needed in Esmont and the residents are in favor of s'ame. He then offered motion to approve SP-79-51 with the conditions of the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta seconded ~the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier asked when the clinic will be opened. is known'what the Highway Department is going to do. Mr. Otis hesitated to say until it Agenda Item No. 14. SP-79~57. Albemarle County Service Authority. To locate a sewage pump station (wastewater lift station) on 1225 square feet zoned A-1. Property located in the Albemarle High School Complex. County Tax Map 60, Parcel 78A. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Sewer lift station Acreage: 1225 square feet Zoning: A-1 Location: Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 78A, part thereof, is a portion of the Albemarle High School comPlex located near Georgetown Green. Staff Comment: This proposal is to relocate and replace a sewer lift station from its current location on a residential lot in Georgetown Green to a wooded area of the school property. Staff recommends approval subject to: 1. Staff approval of fencing and landscape buffering." Sep~tember 19~ 1979 (_Regular Night Meetin_ ~ .~ __ ~g)~_=__ ~ Planning Commission unanimously recommended Mrs. Tucker said on September 11, 1979 the approval subject to the above condition. Mr. E. E. Thompson, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was present. Mr. Thompson said the present lift station is about twenty-five to thirty feet from a house. The lift station has served its useful life and needs to be rebuilt. The first attempt was to replace it at the present location but new regulations of the Health Department require that this lot be served by a road and this lot is not. There was not enough room between the personal properties to build a road and also the two property owners raised objections to such. Therefore, the Service Authority looked for an alternative site and found this site. Mr. Thompson felt this meets the future plans for the entire drainage basin which will come all the way down from Barracks Road. Mr. Lindstrom asked the area to be served by the lift station. Mr. Thompson said at this time, only Georgetown Road. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-79~57 with the condition of the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if construction will begin while the old lift station is operating. Mr. Thompson said yes and noted they are trying to get the road in before winter so some preliminary work can be finished in the spring. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many feet of road is proposed. Mr. Brian Smith, temporary replacement for the Albemarle County Service Authority engineer, said over 1,000 feet. Mr. Thompson noted that the cost of the lift station will be somewhere around $13,000.00. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to delete review of subdivision plats by the Town of Gordonsville and the City of Charlottesville (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Resolution of intent: Amend Subdivision Ordinance to repeal: Provisions for concurrent jurisdiction between City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County; Provisions for subdivision review by Town of GordonsviIle. These proposed repealers result from recent amendment of the Code of Virginia which deleted the requirement of concurrent jurisdiction between localities. As has been stated in the past, staff opinion is that this process is burdensome to an applicant and at times, unnecessary. Staff would continue to refer subdivision plats to the City of Charlottesville for comment and recommendation. Staff recommends the following actions: Repeal Section 18-6 Concurrent jurisdiction of City of Charlottesville and county. Repeal of Section 18-6.1 Review by Town of Gordonsvitle." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on September 4, 1979, unanimously recommended that these sections be repealed. Mr. Tucker said the planning staff does not object to language being retained that the City of Charlottesville and the Town of Gordonsville have some knowledge of any petition within a mile of their corporate limits. He also noted a letter from the Town of Scottsville stating they would like the same acknowledgment. Mr. Tucker said this would be treating them as adjacent property owners as opposed to the usual procedure of signing the plat. Mr. St. John said that is the manner in which Gordonsville is presently handled. Mr. Fisher recommended approval of the amendments. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the amendments, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL SECTIONS 18-6 AND 18-6.1 OF THE ALBEM~RLE~N~YL~©~E~S~'~SE~T~N~.~EING A P~RT OF CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION OF LAND BE I~ ORDAINED by the .Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Sections 18-6 and 18-6.1 of the Albemarle County Code be repealed; said sections entitled as follows: Section 18-6 Concurrent jurisdiction of City of Charlottesville and county. Section 18-6.1 Review by Town of Gordonsville. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Resolution of Intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for family divisions· (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 5 and September 12, 1979. ) Mr. Tucker said t~ Pl~nn~n~ ~,~mm~.~.~ ~ ~. ~.~ ~ ~ ~,~.~ m~^~^~^ September 19, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) eff~t. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS~ None. · Agenda Item No. 17. Resolution of intent to amend Subdivision Ordinance to provide for frontage improvements on public roads. (Deferred from August 16, 1979.) M~. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Public Benefit: Currently, the County has about $60 million in road improvement needs with only $1.5 million available ahnually for improvements. In addition, J~traffic volume is increasing faster than funds become available. Proposed road frontage improvements are primarily intended to maintain the status quo by avoiding the additional burden on Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation of ~-relocating improvements within the right-of-way. Improvements such as driveway culverts under the proposal would be located to accommodate future road improvements. Nature of Improvements: Apparent confusion has arisen about the nature of these improvements. As stated above, frontage improvements are intended to prevent ~additional burden in making future road improvements. The ¥irginia Department of Highways and Transportation has opined that these improvements are the minimum which should be required of a developer. The safety aspect of frontage improvement is secondary. A wider shoulder is provided and sight distance-may be increased but no improvements are made to the travelway. Increased sight distance as a result of frontage improvements depends on existing horizontal road alignment and is therefore circumstantial. Cost of Improvement: At an estimated $3-5 per linear foot, frontage improvements for a rectangular 2-acre lot would range from $450-750. (150 feet of frontage) Proposed Amendment: The following amendment, as recommended by the road improvement committee, would require frontage improvements for all subdivision lots fronting on public roads. This provision would apply to both Commission and administrative approvals. Provision is made for waiver and for additional improvement." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on September 11, 1979 by a vote of 4-3 recommendc the Subdivision Ordinance be amended the include the following wording: "Section 18-39 (e) Graded Width. Unless otherwise recommended by the Highway Engineer, the roadway shall be graded to a minimum width in accordance with the current Virginia Department of Highways construction specifications and standards. In the case of any subdivision having frontage on a public road, the frontage shall be graded to provide a width of travelway of 10 feet from the centerline with 5 foot shoulder and 3 foot ditch; provided, however, that the Commission may waive such improvements or may require additional improvement in any case in which the Commission shall determine that: (1) because of unusual topographic or other conditions relating to such subdivision, the provision of such improvements is unreasonable in light of the additional traffic which may reasonably be expected to be generated by such subdivision; (2) such improvement is already in existence; (3) such improvement would serve no public need or would constitute a danger to public safety; or (4) additional improvement of such frontage will be necessary to accommodate the traffic and/or traffic conditions which may reasonably b~ expected to be generated by such subdivision." The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Section !8-39(e) of the Albemarle County Code, with wording as set out above and as by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. Roudabush asked if the recommendation of the off-site road improvement committee was unanimous. Mr. Tucker felt it was. Mr. Roudabush asked how this ordinance will be applied with administrative approval. Mr. Tucker said the only way is to require frontage improvements as set forth in the ordinance and noted that the Planning Staff does not have the authority to waive any of the provisions. If there are any objections, pla~s would go before the Planning Commission or the Board. Mr.~R~m~a~m~h~a~ke~'~h~imP~em~nts are going to be required at the time the plat is signed. Mr. Tucker said either then or they can be bonded. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley (preempted his vote by stating that he felt this would haunt him one day), Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Not Docketed. Mr. Roudabush asked the status of subdivision regulations for the Scottsville area. Mr. Dorrier said the Town Council is in the process of adopting a Zoning Ordinance and they already have a Planning Commission and Comprehensive Plan. The plan deals with the Town of Scottsville and does contain recommendations for the outside area. Mr. Dorrier said the Town and the County are trying to reconcile the two plans. Mr. Tucker said there is no zoning in the Town of Scottsville. Mr. St. John said the Town can request that the County's Zoning Ordinance apply to the Town but this has not been requested. The only County Ordinance which applies in the Town is the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Mr. Dorrier noted that the Town Council has to approve any building. September 19, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be appropriate to request Dr. Frank Browne to submit any data available on the statistics for quantitative or qualitative analysis which might have been done on phosphate or nitrate loadings in the watershed since the Runoff Control Ordinance has been in effect. Dr. Iachetta felt he should be requested to respond to same. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to request Dr. Browne~ to submit the above information. Roll was called and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and RoUdabush. None. Mr. Fisher expressed his concern about being behind on work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan. He did not feel the Board was moving fast enough to allow the Planning Staff to finish their work on the Zoning map. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to state for the record that he cannot give anymore time to the County than he is now giving. He strongly noted that he has to work every now and then and has scheduled his work around the regularly scheduled Board meetings. Mr. Fisher said everyone could make such a speech. He then requested a work session at 7:30 P.M. on September 26, 1979, in the Board Room of the County Office Building on the Comprehensive Plan for villages, Crozet and Hollymead. The Board concurred. Agenda Item No. 18. At 10:40 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn to September 26, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None.