Loading...
1978-02-15NFebruary 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 15, 1978 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. Officers present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman. Meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M., by Agenda Item No. 2. SP-77-61. Robert Sweeney. (Deferred from February 1, 1978.) Mr. Fisher read the following two letters from the law firm of Boyle g Bain, represent- ing Mr. Sweeney: "10 February 1978 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher Chairman, Board of Supervisors County Office Building East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Robert W. Sweeney Special Use Permit - 77-61 Dear Mr. Fisher: On behalf of my client, Mr. Robert W. Sweeney, I am withdrawing the application for Special Use Permit 77-61. Sincerely, Edward H. Bain, Jr. , Attorney for Robert W. Sweeney" "14 February 1978 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher Chairman, Board of Supervisors County Office Building East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Robert B. Sweeney Dear Mr. Fisher: Let me briefly state to you and the Board the reasons for Mr. Sweeney's withdrawal of his application for Special Use Permit ??-61. The estimate he has from Chisholm and Company for the installation of the deceleration lane and taper is $12,703.00; the estimate from Chisholm and Company for widening two existing entrances to thfrty feet' (not forty feet as required by the State Highway Department commercial entrance re- quirements) and to do necessary grading for the parking spaces with gravel is $8,825.00; the estimate from Snows Nursery and Garden Center for the purchase and installation of six to eight foot white pines is $32.50 a piece; the estimate from Sears, Roebuck and Company for the purchase and installation of the basket-weave fence is $925.00 per one hundred feet. You can see that the requirements in terms of cash outlay will run in the neighborhood of between $25,000 and $30,000. Mr. Sweeney would like to work with the County in attempting to im- prove the appearance of his business location on Route 53. However, he is in no position to expend the sums of money required for site plan approval tied to the Special Use Permit. I believe you can well understand his position in this matter. Sincerely, Edward H. Bain, Jr. Attorney for Robert B. Sweeney" Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to accept Mr. Sweeney's request for withdrawal without prejudice. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3. ZTA. Public hearing on resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Article 19, Residential Planned Neighborhood, Section 19-3, Uses Permitted. (Deferred from February 1, 1978.) (Readvertised on February 1 and February 9, 1978 in the Daily Progress.) Mr. Robert Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: February 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) "After several discussions, the Planning Commission on November 22, 1977, adopted a resolution of intent to amend Section 19-3~ USES PERMITTED, as follows: Current Section 19-3-1(b) Institutions to the extent that they are designed and intended to serve the residents of the RPN District. Planning Commission Proposal Section 19-3-1(b) Public schools.,~ churches. Current Section 19-3-1(c) Commercial convenience facilities designed and intended to serve the residenCs of the RPN DiStrict, subject to 19-4-3 of this ordinance. ~- Planning Commission Proposal Section 19-3-1(c) Food stores designed and intended to serve the residents of the RPN District subject to 19-4-3 of this ordinance. The staff does not endorse this amendment to commercial convenience uses aS it does not permit other uses which staff believes appropriate such as laundromats/ dry cleaning, restaurants, barber shop/beauty parlor, service station, and drug store/pharmacy. These uses would be appropriate when an RPN is developed at a neighborhood scale - that is, residential uses and social, cultural, recreational and commercial support uses. The RPN affords a mechanism to address all of these uses at one time and to make ~patial and locational allocations which are most appropriate to the area. Concern has been expressed by the Commission that the commercial convenience uses may be used by persons other than the RPN residents. Staff has previously made comment on this matter: The RPN was never presented as strictly residential designation. By providing for commercial use in the RPN, the CQunty has the opportunity to review a mix of uses as an area develops. Rather than arbitrarily raising acreage requirements (of an RPN before commercial uses are permitted), the County should review commercial requests within an RPN on the basis of the number of people served. Such an approach would provide a reasonable basis for determining whether or not a commercial use or mix of uses was of appropriate scale to the RPN: EXAMPLE - (1) (2) (3) A family can support 20 square feet of neighborhood retail area; (SOURCE: DeChiaron and Koppleman, Manual'~o'f Ho~s'i~g/'Pl~a'n'n'ing''~nd Design Criteria) An RPN has 300 families; Commercial use should not exceed 6000 square feet of retail area. Staff. recommends the following amendments: Proposed Section 19-3-1(c) Food stores; laundromats/dry cleaning; restaurants; barber shop/ beauty parlor; service station; drug store/pharmacy; all of which are physically oriented, designed, and intended to serve primarily the residents of the RPN District, subject to 19-4-3 of this 9rdinance. Existing Section 19-4-3 Commercial uses, including parking shall be permitted in develop- ments greater than 50 acres and shall be limited to 1.5% of the gross area of the development. It is the intent that commercial areas not be larger than required by the development. Proposed Section 19-4-3 Commercial uses shall not exceed an aggregate of twenty (20) square feet of floor area open to the public per dwelling unit LOcated within the RPN. No commercial development shall be approved in an RPN of less than 50 dwelling units. It is the intent that commercial areas Dot be larger than required by the development. The Commission has also expressed concern that the RPN has been used t© increase density by "jumping" from one zone to another of higher density. Staff has attempt- ed to translate this to policy: The Planning Commission shall not look favorably upon any RPN. application which seeks to increase the density beyond that which is outlined below: Zoning at Time of Application A-1 RS-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 Maximum g~o's's''de~s'i'ty 0.55 units/acre 1.10 units/acre 5.83 units/acre 9.24 units/acre 84.3 units/acre Staff is reluctant about this policy for two reasons: 1.- By providing for this 10% increase in policy, the Planning Commission may be encouraging such increases; Staff opinion is that the RPN is a more' desirable approach to "upzoning" than traditional zone requests. By ruling out the RPN, future requests for increas- February 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) "At its January 31, 1978, meeting, the Planning Commission directed the staff to refine proposed amendments to the RPN which-would: 1. Permit the handling of gasoline service stations separately from other uses; 2. Place an acreage limitation on commercial uses; 3. Provide for churches only under Section 19-3-1(b). Staff believes the following proposed amendments will satisfy these concer~s,how- ever, staff has not recommended any acreage limitation for commercial uses fOr the following reasons: 1. With service stations listed separately and the change' to sit-down restaurants, other uses would be governed by the square footage limitations; 2. The area requested for commercial use is required to be shown on the preliminary plan (Section 19-2-8(b)) which requires Commission and Board review and approval. Staff recommends the following amendments: Proposed 19-8-1(b) Churches Proposed 19-3-1(c) Food stores; laundromats/dry cleaning; sit-down restaurants; barber shop/beauty parlor; drug store/pharmacy; all of which are physically oriented, designed, and intended to serve primarily the residents of the RPN District, subject to 19-4-3 of this ordinance. Proposed 19-3-1(m) Establishments for the sale of petrole~ fuel products and/or minor repair and maintenance of motor vehicles, provided the same shall be shown on the preliminary plan. The size and location shall be determined by the Planning Commission in accordance with the intent of this ordinance. Existing 19-4-3 Commercial uses, including parking shall be permitted in developments greater than 50 acres and shall be limited to 1.5% of the gross area of the deveIopment. It is the intent that commercial areas not be larger than required by the development. Proposed 19-4-3 Commercial uses shall not exceed an aggregate of twenty (20) square feet of floor area open to the public per dwelling unit located within the RPN. No commercial development shall be approved in an RPN of less than 50 dwelling units. It is the intent that commercial areas not be larger than required by the development. Proposed 16-73.1 RESTAURANT, SIT-DOWN': Any building in which for compensation, food or food and beverages are dispensed for consumption on the premises. This shall not include such establishments where food is served over the counter in disposabIe containers designed to be carried from the premises." Mr. Tucker said, at their meeting on February 7, 1978, the Planning Commission recommended by a vote of 4-3, the adoption of the following amendments to Article 19, RPN: Proposed 19-3-1(b) Churches. Proposed 19-3-1(c) Food stores; laundromats/dry cleaning; barber shop/beauty parlor; drug store/pharmacy; all of which are physically oriented, designed, and intended to serve primarily the residents of the RPN District, subject to 19-4-3 of this ordinance. Mr. Tucker then read a letter received on February 15, 1978: "The Board of Citizens for Albemarle wishes to indicate the following concerns with regard to the proposed introduction of commercial uses by right into the existing RPN zone. While customers for the proposed commercial uses would be limited to residents of an RPN, enforcement of such limitations would seem difficult to maintain. As a result of such difficulties, problems for RPN residents are likely to develop. While in many areas an RPN would permit attractive land use for both its residents and neighboring property owners as well, the accompanying creation of what is essentially new business zoning with every RPN above a minimum size would turn this attractive planning technique into a threat for existing neighborhoods. A number of the business uses under consideration seem to_imply rather large markets if they are to succeed, considerably larger than minimum or even considerably larger size RPNs in which these businesses uses would be permitted. If the Board of Supervisors views any of these uses as appropriate for RPNs, we urge that they be permitted only by special use permit, retaining discretion by the Board and permitting conditioning to protect residents and neighbors of RPNs." Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing, and no O~e present wished to speak either for or against this proposal. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. February 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) After some brief discussion and an explanation by Mr. St. John as to exactly what these amendments would accomplish (specifically stating those uses which would be allowed in an RPN zone), motion to amend and~re-enact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 19-3-1(b) and 19-3-1(c) as recommended by the Planning Commission was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the follow:~ng recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, LindStrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-77-25. Thomas Lane. Public hearing on a request to rezone 2.88 acres ~rom R-2 to B-1. Property is located on the west side of Route 29 North next to the "Wonderbread" property. County Tax Map ~5, Parcel 105, partlthereof. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on-February 1 and February 8, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the'Planning Staff's report: "Requested Zoning: B-1 Business ~ Acreage: 2.88 acres Existing Zoning[ B-1 Business; R-2 Residential Location: Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 105, is located on the west side of Route 29 North across from Albemarle Square ShOpping Center. Character ~f the Area Wonderbread and Pizza Hut are to the south. Properties to the north are un- developed as zoned. Mel Dixon office building is to the southwest. Other properties to the west are undeveloped as zoned. Existing Zoning in the Area Property to the south is zoned B-i Business. Property immediately to the north and west are R-2 Residential. The frontage of this property and property to the north is zoned B-1 to a depth of 300 feet. A portion of the Property to the south was rezoned in July, 1977, from R-2 to B-1 (ZMA-77-11) and the large triangular parcel 800 feet to the north (Tax Map 45, Parcel 108) was rezoned from R-2 to B-1 in May, 1977 (ZMA-77-03). Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial use for this quadrant of the Route 29 North-Rio Road intersection. The plan states: --High intensity development is shown along the Route 29 North corridor to accommodate concentrated industrial, commercial, and major institutional uses. --The major existing and currently proposed commercial developments have been recognized on the plan, but much of the currently zoned land considered to be undesirably located and excessive has not been recognized. Staff recommends approval of this petition since this request complies with the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Tucker said the Planning CommiSsion, at their meeting on February 7,1978, recommend. ed unanimously appproval of this petition. Mr. Lane was present, but had no statement he wished to make to the 'Board. No one from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the Public hearing closed. There 'being no discussion bY Board members on this matter, motion was offered bY Mr. Dottier' to approve ZMA-77-25 .as recommended by the Planning Commission, Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-77-82. Thomas Lane. Public hearing on a request to locate a retail farm outlet store for sales' and service '(along wit~ machinery sa'les 'and service for farm tractors and equipment) on 2.88 acres on west Side Of Route ~29' 'North.' County Tax Map 45, Parcel 105, part thereof. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 1 and February 8, 1978.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning~Staff report: "Request: Sales and Service of tractors and farm machinery (Section ?-1-42(3)) Acreage: 2.88 acres Zoning: B-1 Business Location: Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 105, is located on the west side of Route 29 North across from Albemarle Square Shopping Center. Staff Comment The applicant proposes to locate an agriculturally related business on this property similar in nature to Southern States. Am 8,750 square foot retail/ warehouse building would be located near the front of the property with a 3,000 square foot repair shop and equipment storage area to the rear of the property. The applicant is seeking this permit in order to sell tractors and other farm machinery and to provide for service and repair of farm machinery. The applicant is pursuing a joint entrance a~rangement with the Wonderbread property to the south. Such arrangement in staff opinion would.provide safer access to the site by northbound or Albemarle Square traffic than would access at other locations on the site." February 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said at their meeting of February 7, 1978, the Planning Commission recommended Unanimously approval of this petition with the following conditions: 1. Site plan approval; 2. Outside storage of tractors and other farm equipment only; 3. Highway Department approval; 4. Ail loose bulk storage to be contained within an enclosed building. Mr. Lane said he wished to ppen a store which would handle feed, seed, and other farm oriented supplies. He also noted that he was in full agreement with the recommended condition set by the Planning Commission. No one else from the public wished to speak for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Following some discussion as to whether or not equipment should be allowed to be dis- played along the roadside, motion for approval was offered by Mr. Lindstrom with the following additional condition: "Screening shall be provided for repair and related equipment; but not for new equipment for display purposes". Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iaehetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-77-26. Leroy. R. Hamlett, Jr. and B~ian J. Donato. To rezone 10,400+ square feet from B-1 to M-1. Property is located on Berkmar Drive about 250 yards from its intersection with Route 29 North. County Tax Map 61 M-U, Section 12, Lot 1 (part thereof.) charlottesville District. (Advem~ised in the Daily Progress on February 1 and February 8,.1978.) Mr. Robert Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: "Requested Zoning: M-1 Industrial Limited Acreage: 10,400 square feet (0.24 acres) E~isting Zoning: B-1 General Business Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61M-U, SeCtion 12, lot 1 part thereof, is located on Berkmar Drive north and adjacent to Robertson Eleetric~ Character of the Area Properties to the north are undeveloped. Two contracting offices and a florist are to the south. Berkeley is to the west. Co~mprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan proposes commercial office and commercial oriented uses along Berkmar Drive. Staff Comment The applicant is requesting this rezoning for the stated purpose of expansion of Robertson Electric. Currently, this company,is using a met'al prefab shed for storage and desires to construct a 30' x 40' addition on' the north side of the building for storage and a small office. The 'storage Shed woUld be removed, improving the appearance of the premises. staff recommends approval of this petition for the 'fol'lowing reasons: 1. Staff opinion is that M-1 is more compatible to residential areas than B-i; 2. The request complies with the Comprehensive Plan since it will permit expansion of office use; 3. Properties to the south and east are zoned M-1 and approval of this petition would be in keeping with zoning in the. area; 4. While there is no guarantee as 'to the 'use of tkis property, the stated intent is to permit expansion of an eXisting business whfch St~ff feels is compatible to the area." Mr. Tucker also noted that the recommendation of the Planning Commission is unanimous approval of this rezoning. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and Mr. Bill Robertson, representing the applicant was present. Mr. Robertson said his electric company has been operated on this property since 1971, and that the main reason for requesting ~he rezoning is to consolidate storage sheds into the main building and combine the second lot. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion for approval was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:' Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-78-01. (Skipped temporarily.) Agenda Item No. 8. SP-78-02. Great Eastern Management Company, Inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate 395 multi-family apartments and 8,000+ square feet of professional office space on 21+ acres zoned R-3. Property is located j~st west of the city line between Georgetown an~ Hydraulic Roads adjacent to Westgate and Solomon Court Apartments. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 42A, Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 1 and February 8, 1978.) February 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said that the applicant has requested deferral of this petition. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. RoUdabush, to defer public hearing ~on this petition to April 19, 1978. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, LindStrom and Roudabush. N, one,~ Agenda Item No. 9. Appointments. A) Economic Development Commission: Dr. Iachetta offered the name of Mr. F. Alton Garrett of Route 1, Box 287, Earlysville; to be reappointed to a new term which will expire on December 31, 1981. Mr. Fisher offered the name of Mrs. Marjorie C. Jordan of Route 2, Box 228-A, Charlottesville; to be reappointed to a new term which will expire on December 31, 1981. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to reappoint these persons. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and RoudabUsh. None. B) Health Systems Agency: Subarea Council: Mr. Lindstrom reported he had not yet been able to contact his possible appointee, and this appointment was deferred. C) Industrial Development Authority: Dr, Iachetta reported that he was still trying to find a qualified appointee. This item was deferred. D) Jail Board: Mr. Dorrier recommended the name of Mr. John W. Burns, Sr. of Route 1, Box 174-C, Seottsville; term to expire on May 22, 1980. Motion to appoint was made by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. E) Mental Health g Retardation Services Board: Mr. Dorrier said he had someone in mind if the Board wished to conduct an interview. Motion was offered bY Mr. Lindstrom that Mr. Fisher and Mr. Dorrier meet with this~prospective 'appointee, and make their recommendation to the Board. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and RoudabUsh None. F) Watershed Management Plan: Mr. Agnor said Mr. Charles T. MizeI1, Jr. of the Valley Regional Office of the State Water Control Board in BridgeWater, Virginia, had been recommend- ed by his superior to serve as a technical advisor on water quality matters. MotionJfor approval of Mr. Mizell to this Committee was offered bY Mr. RoudabUsh, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. G) Mr. Fisher n°ted receipt of a letter from Dr. Lawrence R..Quarles of the Rivanna Water g Sewer Authority stating that at the 'end of his term he 'did not' wish 'to be reappointed Mr. Fisher said he spoke to the Mayor of CharlotteSville, and it was 'agreed that both jurisdictions would actively seek his replacement and discuss a final appointee together. Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: March 9, 1977: Mr. Dorrier' requested Clarification of the paragraph regarding the overcrowding of the 'AlbemarleHigh School''PhYsical Education facilities' April 7, 1977: Mr. HenleY reported .no .corrections were necessary. April 13, 1977: Mr. Henley reported no corrections were necessary. April 20, 1977: Mr. Henley reported a typographical error on page 145 in the spelling of Mr. Fisher's name on page 13, 4th paragraph. Also in the 4th paragraph of page 146, the word "hads" should be changed to "has". ~ April 25, 1977: Mr. Dorrier requested this be carried over. April 27, 1977: Mr. Fisher noted no corrections necessary. May 25, 1977: Mr. Henley said he could find no errors. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve all minutes With the exception of April 25, 1977 (which is to be carried over). Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vbte: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Report of County Executive for the Month of January, 1978. Mr. Agnor presented this report for informational purposes only. February 15, 1978 (RegularrNight Meeting) Agenda Item No. 12. Resolution: The Pines Subdivision. Mr. Agnor presented the follow- ing resolution to the Board for approval~ He noted that this resolution is to clarify a resolution adopted on March 18, 1976, bY adding one deed book reference. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of HighWays, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident HighWay Department, the following roads in The Pines Subdivision: Beginning at Station 0+00, a point common to the center intersection of Fence Road and State Route 764 as shown on the plan and profile for Fence Road as prepared.by B. Aubrey Huffman $ Associates revision dated November 24, 1975, (as-built); thence with Fence Road in a northwesterly direction 830.12 feet to station 8+30.12, the end of Fence Road in The Pines Subdivision. ~ Beginning at Station 5+80.12, a point common to the center-. line intersection of Fence Road and an unknown cul-de-sac; thence with the cul-de-sac in a southwesterly direction 285 feet to Station 2+85, the end of the unknown cul-de-sac in The Pines Subdivision. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby, guaranteed a 50-foot unobstructed right-of-way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 537, page 444 and Deed Book 641, pages 161 and 165. Motion for adoption of the resolution as Presented was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Lottery Permit Application. Mr. Agnor presented the application made by the Post Conviction Assistance ProjeCt .of' the University of Virginia Law School. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Rou'dabush,' to 'approve the lottery permit for the calendar year 1978~ in accordance with 'the ~Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. Motion carried by the following recorded vot'e:' ~ AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-78-01. Great Eastern Management Company, Inc. To amend Section 11-?-2(1) to increase the distance between parking space and its appurtenant dwelling unit from 100 feet to 2S0 feet; to amend parking requirements as they reIate to multi-family apartments according to number of bedrooms; and to amend the'size of parking spaces. (Advertised in the~Daily Progress on February 1 and February 8, 1978.) Mr. Robert Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: "Great Eastern Management Co., Inc. is requesting the 'Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to amend appropriate seCtionS of the' Zoning Ordinance to: (1) provide minimum'~parking ~pace dimensions of 9' x 20"; (2) mncrease from a maximum of 100 ft. to 250 ft. the 'distance permitted a dwelling unit to its appurtenant parking space; (3) provide for a "sliding scale" of parking spaces/dwelling uhit in apartment development based on the number of bedrooms. In development of this report, the staff has contacted several other localities. Books cited are considered basic references for standards. As can be seen in the information gathered, standards can vary. greatly both by locality and author. Amend to provide' a minimum p'arkingSPa'ce''Si'zeiiof '9'"'X'20' As can be seen below, localities contacted generally provide for 9' x 20' or 10' x 18' spaces or both. Reference texts'generally recommend smaller spaces. LOCALITIES Charlottesville Prince William Lynchburg (proposed) Henrico Fairfax Co. Fairfax City AISLE S I Z E WIDTH 9 x19 P-g 9 x 20 psrallel 9 x 20 --- 10 x 18 9 x 20 --- 9 x 20 --- 10 x 18 9 x 20 --- 9 x 18 w/overhand 9 x 20 --- TEXTS Lynch Seelye Oglesby Institute of Traffic Engineering 8~1/2-9 x 20 9 x18 9 x 18 1/2 9 x 19 February 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Compared to other localities and text recommendations, Albemarle's 10' x 20' spaces are ample. Staff opinion is that the adequ&ey of a parking space is governed more by aisle width than by space dimension. Providing for varying sizes of parking spaces would permit fiexibility in design, reduction of impervious land coverage, and reduced development costs. Other access-related conditions being equal, providing for smaller spaces would increase area available to landscape parking areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Amend Section 11-7-6(1) as follows: Each off-street parking space provided shall not be less than four hUndred square feet in area. The area of drives, aisles, p'ar'~in'g ~a~'ea landscaping and such other provisions ~eg~&~e~-fe~-a~e~a~e related to access shall be counted as part of the four hundred square feet, provided that' no Tand area is required parking setback except as otherwise p~ovided herein 'ab~ove', shall be counted. Section 11-7-6(3) The dimensions for eaeA-&~&~&4~a& parking spaces and access 'ai'sl'es in parking bays shall ~e~-~e-~ees-~a~-~we-~e~-~-eq~a~e-~ee~-4~G~ conform to the following regulations: Parking Space (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) MINIMUM WIDTH MINIMUM LENGTH AISLE MINIMUM WIDTH ~ 10 .,, 20 -~ 20~ 10 18 20 9 20 24 9 18 24 Where adequate planting islands or other such features, other than sidewalks, are employed to separate rows of parking spaces, not more than two feet may be deducted from the minimum length requirements stated above in order to compensate for overhang. Distance from Parking Space to Dwelling Unit The applicant has requested that the maximum distance between a dwelling and its appurtenant parking space be increased from 100 to 250 feet'. Charlottesville permits a maximum walking distance of 200 feet while most other localities contact- ed require parking to be provided on the same parcel but do not' specify distance to the dwelling. For townhouse development, Fairfax County t'imits walking distance to 100 feet and Prince William's limitation is 150 feet'. DeChiara and Koppleman re- commend a maximum of 200 feet. Lynch states that ,the maximum distance from the street to the door of a dwelling unit is often given as 150 feet' for' carrying convenience, but perhaps it should be 100 feet .... The street-to-door standard is also in dispute: some would restrict it to 50 feet; others would relax to 300. It has an important effect on cost and design freedom." Staff recommends amendment that would permit the Planning commission to increase the distance in certain cases, but not more than, 200.~fee.~. In this -fashion', the question of increased distance could be evaluated with 7otker considerations by the Planning Commission at time of site plan approval. Of course',' the' maximum distance of 200 feet would be subject to variance 'by the Board of' Zoning Appeals. Note ~that this provision (both current and proposed) applies only wh~en' parking is provided in bays and therefore generally would not apply to single'family, duplex, and mobile home dwellings. Applicant's Request 1. Amend to increase distance to 250 feet,, or 2. Reqmire only one of the',required parking spaces per unit .to. be Within 100 feet of the dwelling unit. Staff Recommendation Amend Section 11-7-2(1) to read as follows: In any residential area where parking spaces are accommodated in parking bays, no space .shall be further than one-hundred feet from its appurtenant dwelling unit, provided that such distance may be increased to not more than two-hundred feet in such cases where the Commission shall determine that the public interest or con- venience would be better served by such increased distance; that the requirement of a lesser distance would*be a departure from sound engineering and design pra"ctice; *no or that the requirement of a lesser distance would*otherwise be contrary to the *not purpose and intent of this ordinance. Parking Spaces per Dwelling Unit The required number of parking~ spaces per unit by type of unit vary greatly in the localities contacted. 0nly Prince William provides a "sliding scale" based on the number of bedrooms for multi-family development: Charlottesville Low income/elderly Prince William County UNIT TYPE *sf/duP/~nhse **mi sf/dup/twnhse mf sf/dup/twnhse mf no separate bedroom 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms PARKING SPACES/UNIT 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.25 1.50 February 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) Lynchburg UNIT TYPE residential uses mf for elderly ~PARKING S'P~iCE/UNIT 2.00 0.S0 Henrico County sf dup/mf twnhse 1.00 1.50 2.00 Fairfax City mf 1.25 Fairfax County sf/twnhse mf * (Single-family/duplex/townhouse ** (Multi-family) 2.00 1.50 In comparing Albemarlefs requirement of two spaces per unit to the requirements of these other localities, consider the University student population and relative lack of on-street parking in Albemarle. In student occupied units, staff would expect about a 1.1 parking-space-to bedroom ratio. Lack of on-street parking means that resident, visitor, and service parking must be accommodated on-site. Likewise, as indicated in previous reports, staff would expect lower parking demand ~n multi-family housing for the elderly. Applicant's Request: Amend parking requirements for apartment as follows: Number of bedrooms Efficiency (500 sq. ft. or less) 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 8 bedrooms or more Parking spaces/Unit 1.25 1.$0 1.75 2.00 Staff Recommendation: Amend Section 11-7-7(36) to read as follows: Townhouses, Patio houses, Duplexes, a~4-e~e~-M~-fam~y-Res~e~aA, Two spaces per unit. Multi-family dwellings 'for the eTderly: 'One'~nd one-quarter spaces per unit plus one space per empi6yee p'er 'shfft.' Parkfng requirements for other multi-family dwellings shall conform to th~ 'fOl'l'o~iKg: Efficiency 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms ~ bedrooms or more Parking Spaces/Unit 1.25 1.$0 2.00 2.50" Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at their meeting on February 7, 1978, recommend- ed the following amendments: "Section 11-7-6(1) Each off-street parking space provided shall not be less than four hundred (400) square feet in area. The area of drives, aisles, parking area landscaping and such other provisions related to access shall be counted as part of the four hundred (400) square feet, provided that no land area in required parking setback except as otherwise provided herein above, shall be counted." "Section 11-7-6(3) The dimensions for parking spaces and access aisles in parking bays shall conform to the following regulations: Parking Space MINIMUM WIDTH MINIMUM 'LENGTH 'KISLE MINIMUM WIDTH (a) 10 18 20 (b) 9 18 24 (c) Where adequate planting islands or other such features, other than sidewal~s, are employed to separate rows of parking spaces, not more than two (2) feet may be deducted from the minimum length requirements stated above in order to compensate for overhang." "Section 11-7-2(1) In any residential area, where parking spaces are accommodated in parking bays, no space shall be further than one-hundred (100) feet' from its appurtenant dwelling unit, provided that such distance may be increased to not more than two-hundred (200) feet in such cases where the commission shall determine that the public interest or convenience would be equally Or better served by such increased distance; that the allowance of a greater distance would not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice; and that the allowance of a greater distance would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this ordinance." "Section 11-7-7(36) Townhouses, Patio houses, Duplexes: Two (2) spaces per unit. Multi-family dwellings for the elderly: One and one-quarter (1 1/4) spaces per unit plus one (1) space per employee shift. Parking requirements for other multi-family dwellings shall conform to the following: Number of Bedrooms/Unit No separate bedroom or one bedroom (total area of unit 500 sq. ft. or less) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms or more Parking Spaces/Unit 1.25 1.50 2.00 2.50" Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Chuck Rotgin, representing the Great Eastern Management Company. He felt 1.75 spaces for a one bedroom and 2.0 spaces for a two bedroom apartment is adequate rather than the greater figures presented by the PlanninK Staff. He oresented stat~t{e~ ~nm ~ ~1~[[$'' ~ ~nn 11B~+ .... +~+ February 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) February 22, 1978 (Adjourned from February 15, 1978) Mr. Fisher noted that in the next few weeks there will be several other requests for ordinance changes in the R-3 zone, and asked if the Board felt all requests for changes should be handled simultaneously. It was the consensus of the Board that the requested ordinance changes from the Great Eastern Management Company on the agenda tonight were free standing, and would not effect decisions on other possible future ordinance changes. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. After a brief discussion among Board members, Mr. Roudabush offered motion to amend and re-enact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 11-7-6(1), Section 11-7-6(3) and Section 11-7-2(1) as recommended by the Planning Commission LSeetion ll-?-7(36),with the table in that section being changed to read: a±so "Number of Bedrooms/Unit No separate bedroom or one bedroom (total area of unit 500 sq. ft. or less) 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms or more Parking Spaces/Unit 1.25 1.50 2.00" Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item ~o. 14. Other Matters not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher reported that he and Mr. Roudabush would be in Richmond tomorrow to attend a meeting of the State Highway Commission on behalf of General Electric to try and obtain Industrial Access Roads funds. He also indicated that they would be going to the Capitol to discuss several pieces of legislation in which the County is interested. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt it was a duplication of work to make changes in the Albemarle County Service Authority's Jurisdictional areas now u~til~after the' neighborhood planning meetings are concluded. (Meetings to prepare nemghbor~ans for the Comprehensive Plan..) Mr. Fisher asked about the Biscuit Run area where there ms already a petition for rezonmng before the Planning Commission and on which a public hearing has been held. He suggested that the Board defer discussion of this matter until another date. Agenda Item No. 15. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to cancel the meeting of February 22 at 3:00 P.M., and to adjourn to February 22, 1978 at 7:30 P.M., in the County Courthouse to ~onduct the Annual Road Hearing. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M. ~--~ ~nazrman - February 22, 1978 (Adjourned from February 15, 1978) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 22, 1978, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottes- ville,-Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 15, 1978. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald Eh Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at ?:40 P.'M. by the'Chairm~an, Mr. Fisher, who requested a moment of silent meditation. Agenda Item No. la. Mike Gleason. Mr. Gleason noted that he had served on the Bicentennial Commission which was phased out in June of 1977. Recently two things have occurred which need the attention of the Board. First was a telephone call from the U. S. Department of State, in which they said delegates from Poggio A Caiano and Prato wished to make a visit to Charlottesville in April. Mr. Gleason said he appeared before City Council last night to request that the same committee that made plans for the Italian visit during 1976 be reactivated for this purpose. City Council accepted this recommendation. Mr. Fisher said it would be a good idea to have the committee also establish a budget. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to re-establish this committee and bring recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None.