HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 22 77 PC Minutesz�7
November 22, 1977
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
November 22, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members in attendance were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter
Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Paul Peatross; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Col. William R. Washington; Mr. Leslie Jones; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mrs. Opal
David, ex-Officio. Absent was Dr. James W. Moore.
County officials in attendance were Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of
Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County
Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
ZMA-77-06. Daniel and Lorene Robinson:
Mr. Keeler read a letter to the Commission from the applicant requesting
that the application be withdrawn without prejudice.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the request for withdrawal be accepted.
•Zr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously without any discussion.
RPD District:
At the staff's request, Mr. Jones moved that action be deferred until December
20, 1977. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Col. Washington said that there are some items he would like to discuss with the staff
at the end of the meeting.
Huntington Village revised site plan - located north side Old Ivy Road:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that the zoning is R-3. The
proposal shows an addition of private pool for use of unit #214 only. She briefly read
the history of the property for the Commission and public. The staff stated that the
recreation facilities for the complex will include a pool and clubhouse, which must be
completed or bonded when no more than two-thirds of the certificates of occupancy
have been issued for Phase II. Other recreation facilities approved to date include two
tot lots in Phase I. Staff stated that it has no problem with this request, and recommends
approval as shown.
Mr. Jones asked what type fence will be around the pool. Mr. Tom Wyant, architect,
stated that it will probably be masonry block and wood, 6 feet in height.
Mr. Jones moved for approval of the revised site plan as suggested by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
22- 9
Anne Nay Furr final plat - located west side Route 29 South at Covesville:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is
proposed for a division of an existing 7.9-acre parcel into two parcels, containing
2.0 and 5.9 acres. Each parcel presently contains a residence. Parcels A and B
will share the existing driveway. Waiver of frontage is needed for Parcel A, which has
74.8 feet frontage.
( Mrs. Graves and Mrs. David entered the meeting. )
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if a note regarding no further subdivision is necessary.
Mrs. Scala said that the land does not have the proper frontage, and would therefore
have to come back to the Commission for approval.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the following condition:
1. Waiver of frontage granted on Parcel A;
2. Owner's signature notarized.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
James A. Nunnally final plat - located south side Penn Park Lane:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the R-2 Residential
property is proposed for division of three lots, containing 1.113, 1.006, and 0.873 a4 .
Lots 2 contains a single-family residence, lot 3 contains a duplex. The duplex is
presently served by public sewer and water; the single family residence is served
by a well and septic system. Lot 1 inclues a pipestem to Penn Park Lane; lots 2 and
3 will have an easement over the pipestem and existing driveway. Mrs. Scala
stated that the preliminary plat was approved conditionally by the Planning Commission
on August 30, 1977, subject to several conditions. She stated that the staff previously
recommended upgrading Penn Park Lane as a condition of the preliminary. However, the
Commission did not include that condition in its approval. The waiver granted of one
utility on lot 2 is subject to Board of Supervisors' approval. Staff stated that it
cannot find justification for the waiver. Conditions of approval should be:
1. Lot 1 must be served by one utility and preferably both;
2. Waiver granted of requirement of one utility on lot 2;
3. Service Authority approval;
4. Maintenance agreement for joint easement.
Mr. Jones questioned the need for subdivision approval at this time.
Mr. Nunnally replied that the purpose is to have individual deeds of trust.
Mr. Carr asked how sewer could be required for lot #1.
Mr. Payne said that this could be achieved simply by not speaking to lot #1,
since the applicant could not secure a building permit until he had either public
water or public sewer.
( Mr. Peatross entered the meeting. )
zzp
Mr. Easter said that when all lots have a house, he feels that each lot should
have one utility.
Mr. Jones felt that a time period should be specified for the waiver of one
utility on lot 2.
Mr. Nunnally stated that he plans to hook both lots 1 and 2 to public sewer,
and that lot 2 will be served by public sewer in 6 months.
Mr. Easter asked that the minutes reflect this intent.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Lot 1 must be served by public sewer when built upon;
2. Lot 2 must be served by public sewer within six (6) months;
3. Service Authority approval;
4. Maintenance agreement for joint easement.
city.
For the record, Mrs. Scala noted that this plat must also be approved by the
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
City of Charlottesville Pistol Firing Range site plan - located west side
Route 742 Avon Street Extended:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the property is zoned A-1.
The proposal is for a temporary pistol firing range consisting of a 10' high earthen
berm about 300' long to be used as a backstop, and a gravel parking area for 32 cars.
She stated that SP-77-54 for this pistol firing range was approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. This permit to terminate on or before April 15, 1978;
2. Site plan approval;
3. County Engineer and Health Department review of grading;
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of site plan.
The Health Department had no comment on the plat. The Highway Department has
approved the location of the entrance but it must be improved to meet commercial
entrance standards. The Highway Department has also expressed concern about the
proximity of the pistol range to Route 742, and the possiblity of stray or ricochet
shots being directed toward Route 742. They are asking for a barrier along Route 742,
at least 10' higher than the pavement. Staff opinion is that this is a poor site for
a pistol range due to its urban location. The site is cleared with a berm along
Avon Street about 6' high. There is also a berm along I-64, from Avon Street about 400'
across the site. I-64 is depressed in this area about 20', although passing traffic is
visible beyond the berm. The proposed earthen backstop is located about 800' from the
I-64 right-of-way. The wooded Willoughby site is located to the west across Moore's
Creek. Scattered dwellings and vacant land are located to the north; several industrial
buildings are located across Avon Street to the east. Staff recommended that the
permanent firing range facility be reviewed by the NRA for safety. Staff contacted
representatives of both the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club and the NRA in Washington,
who without the benefit of a site plan, both expressed concern about the proximity of
I-64.
z30
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff also contacted the fire arms range officer for
the City who stated that the chances of shots reaching I-64, although possible,
were remote. He also stated that stray shots would not pose a danger to traffic
on Avon Street, since the existing berm would keep any shots above the height of
passing vehicles.
The staff recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval, including
commercial entrance and 10' high berm along Avon Street for a distrance of
60 yards from the backstop;
2. County Engineer approval of berm cross section;
3. Signs must meet Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Mr. Jones stated that he is concerned about the word "temporary" in view of
the possible expenditures. He asked if automatic weapons are to be used.
Mr. Bowen stated that there are no automatic weapons to be used. He said
that he is working on a time schedule in order for officers from the city, county,
and university to qualify per state requirements.
Mr. Shisler said that the facility is needed, and therefore it will be necessary
to spend the $800 to $1000 for the upgrading of the entrance.
Mr. Chuck Lebo, with R. D. Wade Construction Company, stated that construction
is about to begin on Willoughby. He expressed concern over the location, and hoped
that it would only be temporary; however, he pointed out that there is a lot of
money being spent for only a temporary use, and hopes that the city will not
ask for it later to become a permanent facility.
Mr. Bowen advised the Commission that this facility will be used only
by the city, county and university policemen.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the three conditions
recommended by the staff.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter asked if there is any reason the facility could not become
a permanent one at a later date, especially in view of the expenditure.
Mrs. David said that no one has ever thought that it would be permanent
because of safety reasons.
$5,000.Mr. Bowen said that Mrs. David is correct, though the entire capital outlay is
9
231
LEWIS HILL SECTION III - located east side of Route 678 just north of Meriwether North
and west of West Leigh:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is proposed
for nineteen lots, average size 2.21 acres. Individual well and septic systems are
proposed, as well as state standard roads. The preliminary plat of nineteen lots
was approved October 18, 1977, subject to several conditions. The plat has been
adjusted to provide at least 60,000 square feet of area on each lot, excluding the
200 foot septic system setback. The slopes have been checked in the field by the
surveyor, who has stated that each lot contains a building site with less that 25% slopes.
Staff recommended that public water be extended at the developer's expense to serve
these lots due to the ultimate number of lots, the proximity of public water and the
location within the Albemarle County Service Authority's jurisdictional area for water.
Lewis Hill will contain about 70 lots when completed. In addition, the applicant's
central well system is proposed to serve 102 lots. The County is presently holding
a bond to insure that the system will be approved by the State Health Department for
102 units by December, 1977.
Mrs. Scala explained that the nearest 6' line in West Leigh is at the intersection
of West Leigh Drive and Kingston Drive, a distance of about 1,000 feet from the Lewis
Hill property line. Easements would probably be necessary to connect to the existing
lines through West Leigh.
The staff recommended approval with the following conditions for approval:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Highway Department approval;
3. Grading and runoff control permits;
4. Public Water.
In the staff report, Mrs. Scala also noted the letter received from Ms. Monica
Baker and the schematic drawing of water lines in the area.
Mr. Walter Cushman, applicant, stated that he has a public water system for the
adjoining property, but if he is required to connect to the water lines through West
Leigh, the cost will be prohibitive. He suggested that he can drill another central
well if necessary, or will extend his own water system for these 19 lots. He said that
another alternative will be to have 2-acre lots with individual well and septic systems.
He stated that he has already received Health Department approval for the 19 lots.
Mr. Mike Boggs, representing Mr. Cushman, stated that due to the recently
adopted run-off control ordinance, the plans for the property will have to be changed.
He said that the number of lots possible will be cut from about 70 to 50. Therefore,
he stated that the conceptual drawing of the entire property is misleading.
Mr. Peatross said that if public water is reasonably accessible, that the County
can deny 2-acre lots with individual wells.
Mr. Keeler noted that there has been a change in circumstances with the change
in the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle Service Authority. He asked for guidance
from the Commission at a future date regarding the area required for a lot, if the
septic field is located within the 200 foot setback. He said that the staff needs
to know if 60,000 square feet in addition to the 200 foot setback is what will be necessary,
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that he feels this is the intent of the ordinance.
23a
Col. Washington said that he feels the 60,000 square feet should be over
and above the 200' setback.
Mr. Boggs advised the Commission that in some cases to meet the 60,000 square
feet over the required 200 foot setback, as much as 31j acres may be necessary.
Mr. Carr suggested to the staff that it study some existing 2-acre subdivisions
to see what happens with a 200 foot setback from streams.
Mr. Easter stated that he feels this should be clarified by the Board of Supervisors
to be part of the Zoning Ordinance if proper.
Mr. Peatross felt this was advisable.
Mr. Keeler also stated that with the change in the jurisdictional areas of
the Service Authority, any water lines within their jurisdictional areas must be
sized and built to their standards.
Mr. Fred Landess, attorney for Mr. Cushman, opposed the public water recommended
by the staff because of the potential cost of the lots, noting that it is the future
homebuyer who will have to pay the cost of the water line.
Mr. Jones asked if the County Engineer could give an estimate of the cost.
Mr. Cushman said that the mains are all 6' and there is fire hydrant protection
throught the subdivision. He said that he is willing to drill another central well
for the 19 lots, but is not willing to undertake the proposal to connect to the
West Leigh subdivison, due to the expense of road contruction and easements.
Mr. Barksdale suggested changing condition #4 as recommended by the staff
to a central water system with approval of the lines by the Albemarle County Service
Authority.
Mr. Barksdale recommended approval subject to the first three conditions recommended
by the staff plus the fourth condition being changed to read "central water system with
approval of lines by the Albemarle County Service Authority."
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Keeler again reminded the Commission that the Service Authority is opposed
to this sort of expansion ( private facilities ) within their jurisdictional area.
Mrs. David said that the Board of Supervisors supports the Service Authority
because of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Peatross felt that public water should be required here because of the
history of water problems there and because of the comments of the staff.
Mrs. Graves said that she could not support the motion, since the County is
not just looking at 19 lots.
Mr. Peatross said that if the cost is not prohibitive, he contends that
the public water should be part of the conditions of approval.
Mrs. David reminded the Commission that the Board of Supervisors has not
completed its work on the jurisdictional areas of the Service Authority.
233
Col. Washington agreed with Mr. Peatross, stating that the property will
eventually be developed in total. He also stated that public water is better for
fire protection.
Mr. Carr said that he feels the County's policy is somewhat unclear here.
Mr. Barksdale said that he wished to withdraw his motion. Mr. Gloeckner
agreed to this withdrawal.
Mr. Jones said that he wished to offer a substitute motion of deferral until
December 13, in order to give the Board of Supervisors time to complete its work
on the jurisdictional areas. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 6-2, with Mrs. Graves and Mr. Peatross dissenting.
Mr. Carr asked that the staff request the Board of Supervisors to clarify its
policy on this matter.
Oliver Heights Preliminary Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the property is located
on the west side of Rio Road East, Route 631, between Penn Park Lane and Penn Park
Road. The zoning is R-2 residential. The proposal is 46 lots, average size 13,849 sq.
ft. Public water and sewer are available. State standard roads are proposed.
The staff stated that the proposed extension of McIntire Road will cross the
rear of this property. An area containing 1.75+ acres has been reserved for this
purpose. The Highway Department has stated that the location is shown as well
as possible at this time although public hearings on the relocation are still several
years off. A grading permit will be required for the roads.
Lot 46 as shown requires a waiver since it is an odd -shaped lot.
The reason for the strip is to provide area for the radius at the entrance. Staff
suggested to the applicant that he attempt to sell the strip to the adjacent owner
and thereby permit them access to Oliver Drive. Lot 1 will enter onto Oliver Drive;
lots 33 and 46 will enter onto Merrill Court. Staff has received a request from the
owner of the 3.3 acre parcel to the north that Merrill Court be extended to serve his
property. The Subdivision Ordinance provides that adequate access shall be provided
to adjoining parcels where necessary for the orderly development of the County.
Topographically, such a connection would be feasible if the Commission decides that it
is necessary. It would be possible to place a duplex on 34 of the 46 lots, those
that contain at least 10,500 sq. ft. For this reason, staff has requested a note on
the plat regarding upgrading of roads. Staff recommended several conditions of approval.
Mr. Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, explained the applicant's agreements
and noted that he proposes tosell the strip with the drive to the Odesseys. He pointed
out that the Woods do have access to their property through other property.
Mr. Gene Wood stated that he owns the 3-acre parcel, and though he has access
through Irene Wood's property, it is not adequate according to Planning Commission
standards.
2314
Mr. Richard Odessey stated that he objects to this preliminary plat. He stated
that the decel lane is going to make exiting from his property dangerous.
Mr. Jim Burnley said that approval of this plat will increase traffic on
an already unsafe road.
Cornelia
Mrs. ANuckols pointed to the water drainage problems in the area, and fears
that this use will make the problems more severe. She said that traffic lights are
needed to insure safety on the road.
Mr. Burnley suggested letting this property exit onto the proposed McIntire
extension.
Mr. Odessey told the Commission that accidents occur on Rio Road weekly, therefore
illustrating that the road is currently unsafe, without adding any further problems.
Mrs. Donnally also was concerned about traffic safety.
Mr. Mike Boggs stated that the storm drainage will go diretly into pipes and into
the streams, and not into anyone's property.
Mr. Jones said that in his opinion lot 46 ( odd -shaped ) is not a policy of
the Commission.
Mr. Peatross asked if there are any deed restrictions on lot 46, such as a
nuisance restriction.
law. Mr. Helvin, representing the applicant, stated that this is required by
Mr. Boggs said that a 25' strip was dedicated at the time the Odessey tract
was platted.
Col. Washington suggested to Mr. Wood that if he wants access to his property
through the Stallings property, he needs to negotiate with Mr. Stallings regarding
this, since the matter cannot be decided by the Commission.
Mr. Keeler stated that the only way the Commission could require this is if
the access proposed by Mr. Wood provides for orderly development in the area.
Mr. Gloeckner said that in his opinion access through the Stallings property
to the Wood property is not good planning, since it would split the Wood property
into two long narrow sections. Therefore, he did not favor extension of Merrill Court.
Mr. Jones stated that the traffic on Rio Road is his concern and does not
feel that any more development from the city limits out to Route 29 should be permitted
until Rio Road is upgraded.
Mr. Peatross said that the Highway Department does not seem to be concerned
about this exit nor the traffic that will result. However, he did note that the
traffic situation on Rio Road is critical at certain peak hours.
Mrs. Graves said that a possible 580 vehicle tries per day can be
generated by this development. The Commission now knows that this road will
Al
not be upgraded and there is an even greater potential traffic problem with
this development.
Mr. Peatross asked if the staff is satisfied with the comments from the
Highway Department.
Mrs. Scala stated that the Highway Department has said that the sight
distance has been met; she did not think they look at the traffic count.
Mr. Peatross was concerned about the strip of lot 46. He asked that no
nuisance use be here, and suggested putting a clause in the deed or a note on the
plat.
Mrs. Graves asked if anything regarding the upgrading or Rio Road can
be accomplished through the recent amendment to the Zoning ordinance addressing
off -site road improvements.
Mr. Payne said that such off -site improvements can be required when the
development itself causes a hazard. However,in this case, the problem is existing
prior to approval of the development.
Mrs. Graves'.then questioned if the bad curve in the area of the subdivision
could be considered.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out that such an improvement is usually at the recommendation
of the Highway Department, and they have not make any such request or suggestion.
Mr. Payne said that the problem is certainly more than the width of the pavement.
Mr. Carr stated that the land is zoned for the use proposed. The Highway
Department says that the access/egress is safe. In his opinion, relief from the
traffic problems will come with McIntire Road extension.
Mr. Jones said that safety is the factor in his opinion.
Mr. Peatross moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval;
2. Service Authority approval;
3. Waiver granted for odd shape on lot 46, provided the nuisance restriction be
set out in the deed;
4. Fire Marshal approvalof hydrant layout;
5. Sidewalks along one side of all proposed roads.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with
Mr. Jones and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Wilco Revised Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the B-1 property is located
on the north side of Route 250 East near Route 20 North. The proposal is a revised
site plan for the gasoline sales. She presented the zoning history and the conditions
of approval on the site plan heard by the Commission June 28, 1977.
M
23,(,
The staff asked that the Commission review the Zoning Administrator's
report, which was part of their packet. Staff recommended compliance with the
original site plan, which was conditionally approved by the Commission on June
28, 1977. If the Commission chooses to accept the amended plan, staff would
recommend compliance with the original landscape plan, including number, type
and size of plantings. Approval of the revised plan should also be subject to
Highway Department approval and County Engineering Department approval of pavement
specs.
Mr. Dick presented the Zoning Administrator's report to the Commission,
noting all the inconsistencies and changes from the approved site plan. He noted
that at the time of approval, Mr. Williams, in attendance at the Commission meeting,
did not have any objections to all the requirements and conditions of his site plan,
which included an approved soil erosion plan. He stated that the major items
not in conformance to the site plan are: (1) Accessory storage building and
concession stand are relocated from the rear east side to the rear west side;
(2) Surface indentations at the rear property line that house parking bays,
storage building, and restrooms are not installed resulting in an overall larger
area being hard -surfaced; (3) The parking area has been relocated and properly
marked; (4) Lighting fixtures were not installed as shown; (5) Existing trees
were not saved or relocated as shown on the approved plan; (6) Approved landscaping
was not implemented fully by the inspector's count, less than 350 of the
shrubs or trees were planted or saved. The minor items not in compliance are
(1) Pump stations are on individual islands rather than single block islands;
(2) The center island is smaller than shown; (3) While the sign location approved
meets the required setback, Mr. Willimas has been informed that he has two signs
in violation of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Barksdale questioned issuing the temporary certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Dick replied that with bonding, the applicant can go on with his business under
a temporary certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Peatross asked when the problems were noticed, how far along the project
was.
Mr. Dick stated that all the construction, etc. were accomplished within
a five day period, and the inspector happened to be ill at the same time.
Mr. Williams said that he apologizes for his mistake, however, he did not
know that he could not reverse the building once the land was laid out. He said
that he intends to initiate the landscpae plan. Upon questioning by Mr. Gloeckner,
he stated that the pump station is in the same place as on the original proposal.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he feels the landscaping can be complied with, though
to avoid having to move the building, he feels the way it is built will be permissible.
He said that he feels all the other conditions of the site plan should be complied with -
parking spaces, location, same sized paved area, etc.
Mr. Williams said that he did not pave quite as much as on the site plan,
however, he can landscape as originally planed since he owns the property to the rear.
Mr. Easter said that a row of white pines will not achieve what was intended
and what was approved by the Commission. He said that in his opinion, the applicant
should have to comply with what he originally agreed to.
z3�
Mrs. Graves asked what would have been recommended if the site plan had
been brought to the staff.
Mrs. Scala said that the front island should be enlarged for landscaping,
that there should be four safe parking spaces not blocking the traffic flow.
Mr. Jones said that the same amount of pavement as originally approved should
be accomplished for traffic flow.
Mr. Williams said that he has sufficient paved area for traffic flow.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that with the exception of the position of the building,
the location of the signs, and the location of the septic tank, the applicant should
comply with the originally approved site plan.
Mr. Williams stated that if the pavement is enlarged as shown on the original
plan, the septic tank will be under the pavement. He further stated that it is not
located as shown on the plan.
Mr. Gloeckner said that four parking spaces are needed near the concession
stand out of the traffic pattern.
Mr. Carr said that in his opinion moving the curb is not essential.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission deny the revised site plan, thereby
the applicant must comply with the original plan except that the concession stand and
the signs which are approved may remain where they are now. The septic system may
also remain where it is now located. He also included in the motion that the original
planting plan, including number, type and size of planting, must be complied with,
adapting it to the site. The four parking spaces must be moved back as they
were originally shown. The front islands and the configuration of the paved area
must be made the same as shown on the original plan which was approved on June 28, 1977.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with Messrs.
Carr and Barksdale dissenting.
Mr. Williams stated that he has posted a bond through December, and asked
what will happen if the weather is not permissible for all the required items.
Mr. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, stated that this is a question for the
Zoning Administrator.
Gelletley Company Shop and Warehouse Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the M-2 property is
located in Northside Industrial Park. The proposal is a one storie shop and warehouse
containing 1,500 sq. ft. on 1.077 acres. The site is cleared and fairly level.
She briefly reviewed the zoning history for the Commission. The staff commented
that by omission, drainage easements were not shown on the approved subdivision plat.
Staff requested that they be recorded as a condition of this site plan approval. If
the future outdoor storage is used, staff is recommending that the east and south
sides be screened with a 6' high opaque fence. The staff recommended approval subject
to several conditions.
2 3,v
Mr. Easter asked if all requirements placed on other parts of the
industrial park have been complied with.
Mr. Keeler replied that they have been.
Mr. Jones moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Highway Department approval;
2. Health Department approval;
3. Drainage easements to be recorded on Parcels F-M.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gelletley said that he has a couple of comments to make to the Commission.
He questioned if developers might not try to stay away from areas that might have
requirements of public water due to the requirement of having to hook to them;
he felt that this might encourage random scattering of development throughout the
County, thus not complying with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. He also
stated that the Highway Department is not being encouraged to improve such roads
as Rio Road. He felt that the developer is having to do a lot regarding road upgrading
in the County that should be the responsibility of the Highway Department through
the dollars of the taxpayer.
Col. Washington asked the staff to forward to him any of the run-off
control ordinance equations that might be available for development on slopes of
10%, 15%, 25%, etc.
He also stated that it is a long established fact that if raw sewage is put
into a stream that it will eventually purify itself, provided that the stream is
not saturated in the first place. He wondered if the 200 foot setback from streams
approximately 15 miles from the reservoir is not a matter of "overkill".
DISCUSSION OF RPN:
Mr. Gloeckner stated that his biggest concern is commercial development
in the RPN, since he does not feel it was the original intent of the Commission.
He feels that the word "institutions" should be better defined to say churches, schools.
In his opinion, the RPN can be a very positive ordinance for developers and the county
to work with. He also expressed concern about a change in density request commensurate
with the request for clustering.
See attached sheets for comments and responses between Mrs. Graves and Mr. Keeler.
At the end of the discussion Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission take to
public hearings the clarification of "institutions" and commercial development in
the RPN, as well as an Chan y i d 't
ge n
ens i y
request over
what is permitted
in the zone.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the
motion,
which carried
unanimously.
With no further business, the meetin journed at mid ight.
�jj �
,�,4�d
IRnhart W _ Tnr-kcr _ .Tr Co ctary
rotes on Article 19. Residential Planned Neighborhood.
Z3�
Sept.25 1977
Joan Graves
"he R.P.N. zone was first proposed as an addition to the new zoning ordi-
'"W✓nance of 1975, which was not adopted. On June 20 1975 John Humphrey sent
a memo to the Commission recommending a new floating or overlay zone to
be known as a Residential Planned Neighborhood'. The R.P.N. zone would
provide for all types of residential dwelling units with no employment of
any kind other than a small percentage of the overal; development given
to convenience needs. By convenience needs he spoke in the commercial
term relative to such things as a„7-11 store, a convenient retail store
or possibly a chain grocery store. Such a zone would have similar aspects
of open space etc. as that of the proposed P.U.D. zone, which in turn is
similar to the existing Planned Community district of the current zoning
ordinance. He suggested that this zone be applicable in R-1 through R-i,;
(as proposed). Section 21-c-9a spoke to the procedure for establishment;
"to proceed with the proposed development according to regulations exist-
ing when the map amendment creating the R.P.N. district is passed, with
such modifications as are set by the Board of Supervisors and agreed to
by the applicant at the time of amendment. Section 21-c-9b read "to provide
bonds, dedications, guarantees, agreements, contracts and deed restrictions
acceptable to the Board of Supervisors for completion of such development
according to approved plans, and for continu?.:):Itg'.__ operation and mainten-
ance of such areas, facilities and functions as are not to be provided,
operated or maintained at general public expense; and such dedications,
contributions or guarantees as are required for provision of needed public
facilities or services." Section 21-c-9c continues, "to bind their
successors in title to any commitments made under a) or b).
'wises permitted by right contained the uses now permitted (with some addit-
ions) but with a different description:
(b) Non-residential uses of a religious, cultural, recreational
character to the extent they are designed and intended to serve the residents
of the R.P.N. development.
(c) Commercial convenience facilities designed and intended to serve
the residents of the R.P.N. subject to the restrictions of Section 21---
Section 21 --- (c) read "Total commercial convenience uses, including parking,
shall not exceed a standard of three per cent of the total land area of the
district, including, or appropriate to the scale of the development,
convenience establishments, and neighborhood shopping centers. No commercial
uses, nor any building devoted primarily to a commercial use, shall be
built or established prior to the residential buildings or uses it is
designed or intended to serve".
The Daily Progress account of this proposal explained "Under the planned
neighborhood concept, high density residential development would be allowed
in residential areas on a minimum of 10 acres. The residential development
could be varied between single family houses, apartments and townhouses with
a small area for recreational facilities, churches, schools or convenience
food stores." On 7,7ednesday, July 2nd, another articl-E explained that high
density cluster groups of apartments, townhouses and single family houses
,ould be built as long as adequate open space is provided.
0
.21A0
R.F.N. Page 2
Ey July 10, 1975 the Commission was presented with a proposed R.P.N.
ordinance dated June 30 with some substantial changes, one being the
.mission of Section 21-c-9-a,b 651.c ,(the agreement and the binder). Uses
,*swpormitted now referred to "Institutions to the extent that they are designed
and intended to serve the residents of the R.P.N. district" Section2l-lla-b
was modified to read "Total commercial uses, including parking shall not
exceed three percent of the total land area of the district."
A later proposal made more revisions and additions, one being 19-4-3,
(19 being the section under which the R.F.N. appears in the present ordinance)
"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
development. It is the intent that commercial areas not be larger than
required by the development."
At a December 9 1975 work session and public hearing the minutes show
that Tvir. Payne stated that some of the permitted uses needed defining, but
that could be done later. He explained that the commercial area would be
"convenience commercial"rather than B-1 zoning.
Since the R.P.N. district was approved by the supervisors in December 1975,
there have been 13- applications for R.P.N. zoning. At first glance 3 were
for A-1 to R.P.N. A-1; 1 for R-1 to R.F.N. R-1; 2 for A-1 to R.P.N. RS=1;
3 for A-1 to R.P.N.R-1; 1 for A-1 and B-1 to R.P.N. R-3,(which may be amend-
ed'to R-1) and 1 from R-2 to R.P.N.R-1. The 2 applications for life care
centers, Vuelund and Rivanna Estates,carry the commercial requests and are
still pending. The others were mostly approved,with somesdensity modificat-
nn by the Board; 1 was denied:l was dismissed, 1 was voided and 1 was
deferred until Sept 27.
Although the staff feels secure with it's interpretation of this ordinance,
I do believe the Commission should act in it's advisory capacity to the
Board of Supervisors and further study the implications of the R.P.N. district,
Questions I believe should be answered are;
1) Should the density -setting power of the Board be bolstered by
applying Section 21-c-9a,9b &9c ( modification, agreement &
binder) as originally proposed?
2) Is the commercial application as now proposed more suited to
a P.U.D. district, or should the acreage requirements of the
R.P.N. be raised to 100 before commercial development is allowed?
3) If indeed the word "ancillary" in the statement can mean almost
anything, should it be removed or qualified? Is it in fact
limited by the definitions of "commercial convenience" and
"institution", or could it cover another usage which would
not be limited by Section 19-4-3?
4) Can the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance or the Site
Plan Ordinance be waived when the R.P.N.Section 19-2-6 clearly
says they shall apply?
realise that the R.P.N. district as it exists today is the end result
of modifications by the staff, the county attorney, the Commission and
the Board at different times, but I do think that because of public and
o*ier concerns it should be re-evaluated before many more applications are made
Zyr
ONA
om
RO/tRT w. TUCK[R. in.
OIRRCTOR OF ►LAMMSMO
Page 1 of 2
�.vY OF AL m
®� ay or AL �4�
Planning Department
804/296•3823
414 EAST MARKET STRICT
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joan Graves
FROM: Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning
DATE: October 18, 1977
6I0MALO V. KF&Lrk
ASSIRTANT DIRECTOR OF FLANNWO
MARY JOY SCALA
SENIOR PLANNAR
CARLOS M. MONTENWdRO
ILANNS R
RE: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD
Please consider this as the staff's opinion in reference to the four questions
you setforth on page 2 of your memo dated Septeinber 25, 1977 on the above referenced
topic.
1. Should the density -setting power of the Board be bolstered by applying
Section 21-c-9a, 9b, and 9c (modification, agreement and binder) as
originally proposed?
The RPN is a rezoning, and as with any other zone, the applicant is limited by
the density of that zone. 'Unlike other zones, the density is specifically
established at time of approval. The density established at time of initial
Board approval can be increased only by affirmative vote of the Board. No
additional provisions are necessary since the Board is sovereign with respect
to density -setting powers.
2. Is the commercial application as now proposed more suited to a PUD district,
or should the acreage requirements of the RPN be raised to 100_before
commercial development is allowed?
The RPN was never presented as a strictly residential designation. By
providing for commercial use in the RPN, the County has the opportunity to
review a mix of uses as an area develops. Rather than arbitrarily raising
acreage requirements, the County should review commercial requests within an
RPN on the basis of the number of people served. Surely, an RPN/R-3 (20 units/
acre gross) on 50 acres would not only support but require commercial services.
Again, if the County determines that commercial use is inappropriate to a
specific RPN or to the area in which it is located, the petition can be denied.
Page 2 of 2
Joan Graves
Residential Planned Neighborhood
October 18, 1977
3. If indeed the word "ancillary" in the statement can mean almost anything,
should it be removed or qualified? Is it in fact limited by the definitions
of "commercial convenience" and "institution", or could it cover any other
usage which would not be limited by Section 19-4-3?
Section 19-4-3 limits the permissable scale of commercial development but not
uses specifically. Section 19-3-1 limits uses, and these limitations are
clear: "There shall be no special exceptions permitted in the RPN Districts.
The following uses shall be permitted by right." "Ancillary" in the statement
of intent is clearly dependent on -the uses specified in 19-3-1 and need not
be removed or qualified. Since there is not agreement as to the meaning of
"commercial convenience" and "institution", these uses shall be defined.
4. Can the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance or the Site Plan Ordinance
be waived when the RPN Section 19-2-6 clearly says they shall apply?
Section 19-2-6 does not say that these requirements shall apply. That is to
say, Section 19--2-6 does not limit the application of these ordinances to
the requirements; the entire ordinances apply, including provisions for
waiver or variance. (Since the Site Development Plan is an article of the
Zoning Ordinance, other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance such as variance
apply to it.) The applicant under the RPN is afforded the same opportunities
for waiver or variance as is the case with any other subdivision or site plan.
RSK/ j a
0