Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 19 79 PC MinutesIR November 19, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Monday, November 19, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Jack Jouett School, Charlottesville, Virginia, on the proposed zoning ordinance and map for the County of Albemarle. Those Commission members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice - Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. James Skove; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves. Absent was Mr. Charles Vest. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. - Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler - Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Douglas Eckel - Senior Planner; Miss Mason Caperton - Planner. Members of the Board of Supervisors present were Mr. W. S. Roudabush; Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Jr.; Dr. F. A. Iachetta; Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom; Mr. Gerald E. Fisher. Also present was Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. He welcomed those in attendance and thanked various individuals and groups for their participation, attendance at work sessions, and input into the ordinance. He turned the meeting over to Mr. Robert W. Tucker to explain the provisions in the ordinance. Mr. Tucker addressed the zoning text by explaining that there are 23 districts. The rural areas of the county are divided into Conservation, Rural -Residential, and Agricultural Forestry Districts. He noted that the criteria for developing the map divisions of RR and AF were the land use taxation map and the 1932 soils study. Other residential districts include Village Residential (VR), R-1, R-2, R-4, R-10, R-15, Planned Residential Development, and Planned Unit Development. The four commercial districts are C-1, Highway Commercial (HC), Commercial Office (CO), and Planned Development, Shopping Center (PDSC). The three industrial districts are Light Industry (LI), Heavy Industry (HI), and Planned Development, Industrial Park (PDIP). Overlay districts are the Airport Impact Area, Flood Hazard, and Natural Resource. The primary development concepts presented in the ordinance are the bonus factors (primarily for the growth areas ), the cluster provision, and the critical slopes concept. Col. Washington then advised the citizens present that he would allow three and one-half minutes for each speaker. Mr. Daley Craig addressed the fact that the proposed ordinance takes uses by right and makes these uses by special use permit. In his opinion, special use permits lead to favoritism, and often government corruption. He expressed concern about the 10-acre minimum lot size in the agricultural forestry district and advised the Commission of the probable negative economic impact. Mr. Craig stated that raw land in the county is approximately $2,500 per acre. Developed two lots cost approximately $25,000, five acre lots cost approximately $38,000, and ten acre lots cost approximately $59,000. These figures do not represent the additional cost of housing. He felt this would be disastrous for the average person attempting to own his own house, and noted that even the highway right-of-way requirements are increased with the increased lot size. Mr. Craig addressed the point that there is too much government regulation, and this is a proposal that will strip individuals of their property rights. IYS Mr. Charlie Smith, on behalf of the Charlottesville -Albemarle Chamber of Commerce and on behalf of himself, noted that he has attended meetings of a Chamber study committee twice weekly for the past year. He noted that there are many major issues still to be resolved. He felt that the county should do nothing that would have an adverse effect on the economy of the county. He made personal observations about how the county has changed since his boyhood and felt that some restrictions are necessary to maintain the existing beauty, however noted that the existing ordinance seems to have protected the beauty of the county thus far. He asked that the Commission give the rural areas further thought prior to forwarding the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Stan Tatum, a landscape architect and planner in the area, as well as a member of the Chamber of Commerce study committee said that there are still many issues in the text that he finds confusing. He questioned how the number "20" was arrived at as the maximum number of lots that could be developed in the AF district prior to application for a special use permit. He asked if 15, 30, or 35 might not be equally just, stating that 20 certainly seems to be arbitrary. He noted that the owner of 40 acres in the AF district will be affected quite differently from the owner of 400 acres with the maximum number of lots restriction . He also felt that the large lot provisions essentially means more land will be used for fewer people and the county will be used up much faster. Mr. Tatum felt that land is one of the resources that should not be wasted, and the AF District provides for wastefullness. Mrs. Missy Scott Faulconer discussed the critical slopes overlay, noting that 25% slopes criteria seems to be arbitrary. Such a requirement, in all cases, makes property development much too expensive, and her opinion was that even single-family residences would have the expense of site planning through Professionals. She pointed out that most of the county is rolling terrain. Mrs. Faulconer said that there are more than enough rules at the present time, if they are properly enforced. She felt that the existing subdivision ordinance, soil erosion ordinance, the runoff control ordinance as well as the existing zoning ordinance provide adequate protection as well as flexibility for the landowners. Mrs. Faulkner also noted that additional restrictions limit creativity in design and sufficient energy use - she felt that the 25% slopes criteria would totally eliminate the opportunity for use of underground housing if one chose that as a means of energy conservation. Mr. Joseph E. Gibson said that he is primarily concerned with the increased lot size in the rural areas to 5 and 10 acre lots. He said he himself lives on a five acre parcel, and finds it to be quite a waste of land, emphasizing that this can eliminate agricultural land which the Commission is attempting to preserve. With the proposed ordinance, he felt there is no possibility for diminished cost of government. He also questioned how much of the expense lost with the rezonings will be passed on to the new large lot owners and how much will be passed on to the taxpayers of the county. Mr. Gibson was also of the opinion that the ordinance would be costly to administer, requiring substantial government staff. Mr. Clifton McClure, on behalf of the Albemarle Property Owners Association, stated that the zoning ordinance is not the way to stop growth in the area, it is the means for promoting orderly development. He said that the state's Enabling Legislation does not permit locales to stop development. Mr. McClure strongly objected to the map, stating that the state laws say zoning may be changed only if there has been a change of circumstances or a mistake in the original zoning. He was of the opinion that neither of these had taken place. Mr. McClure advised the Commission that it is the landowners who make the property in this county beautiful, not additional restrictions. He suggested additional public meetings in the various districts of the county. Additionally, he urged that the Commission eliminate the 20 lot maximum subdivision by right, eliminate downzoning, extreme critical slopes provisions, and the 10-acre minimum lot size in the AF district. Mr. John Rogan, a local businessman and county resident for the past 40 years, addressed what he felt was good for the county. He enumerated the various civic groups and organizations on which he has served and the particular projects in which he has been involved in the county. He suggested that the objectives of Commission could be accomplished in another fashion, also noting that the Planning Commission itself is not given the freedom to do what it should be doing. He objected to all items going to the Board of Supervisors, and felt that the Board of Supervisors would have additional control with the proposed ordinance. Mr. Rogan noted that Ednam Forest would be impossible under the provisions of the ordinance, and felt that it and the Boar's Head Inn Complex have been assets to this community. He emphasized that the citizens of the county are already over -regulated and over -controlled and felt that the bureaucrats don't have the good of the county at heart. Mr. Edgar Garnett, an area farmer, expressed concern over the division of the existing A-1 zone into two separate districts. He observed the the Planning Department staff is uncomfortable with the Agricultural Forestry District due to the criteria that was used for the designation. He noted that there are many absentee owners who are unaware of the land use taxation program. Additionally, he did not feel the ordinance could be successfully defended in court. Having served on the Board of Supervisors at one time, he said that he understands the pressures of special use permits. Mr. Garnett felt that there will be unrest between the citizens of the county and the government if this ordinance and map are endorsed by the Commission. Mr. David Wood addressed downzoning in the commercial areas of the County with regard to three particular areas. He stated that the Berkmar Drive area has been zoned B-1 and at a cost of $50,000 the owners extended the road to Rio Road. He noted the various uses along Berkmar Drive at this time, and pointed out the growing commercial area. He felt that the C-1 designation on the proposal should be changed to Highway Commercial to reflect what exists. Secondly, he noted the Whitewood Road area, and the fact that the owners constructed a road through the area to the high school. He said that the proposed Commercial Office designation is a deprivation of the rights of the owners. Lastly he addressed a one acre parcel at the corner of Dominion Drive and Route 29 North that has been placed in PDSC. He felt that all the restrictions in this district are economically impossible for a one acre parcel and asked the. PDSC designation be changed to Highway Commercial. He asked the Commission to review the land on Route 29 North that has been downzoned and realize that the county is depriving the property owners without compensation. Dr. Herbert Jones addressed two areas of concern. He felt it is illegal to change the zoning on property without advising the landowner of the zoning change's impact. He also felt that the special permit process causes serious political problems and noted serious political problems in other areas of rapid growth where so many regulations have resulted. He felt that fewer issues should be political. Mr. Billy White, an area farmer, felt that the Commission's stated attempt to preserve the best agricultural lands is really an implied attempt to preserve the open space. He noted that the regulations proposed in the ordinance will decrease the value of land and the farmers' diminished borrowing power will cause them to stop farming altogether. /9 Mr. Bill Gentry said that because he is a resident and property owner in the county he is very concerned about the implications of the proposed ordinance and text. He said that his concern is long standing, noting that he served on the citizens advisory panel for the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1977. He told the Commission that in his opinion the citizens are attempting to defend their property. He himself did not see the necessity for the new ordinance and found little in it to agree with. Five and ten acre lots use up the county two to five times faster than two acre lots. The utilities that are the key to the proposed growth in Crozet don't exist and there are no plans for them. He said that he is unable to determine who really benefits from the proposed ordinance. Mr. Gentry noted that the citizens of the county are opposed to downzoning. Once again he pleaded that landowners be notified of proposed changes. He said that the citizens of the county did not overwhelmingly approve the adopted Comprehensive Plan - there were only 120 people, out of 50,000, present at the meeting at which it was adopted. Mr. Gentry said that the 120 included the Commission and Board members, as well as county planning staff. Mr. Gentry said that the existing ordinance is a more useful document, though it is certainly not perfect. However he emphasized that the existing ordinance protects the property owners and it protects the county. Mr. C. M. Garnett, Jr., found the Agricultural Forestry designation disagreeable. He said that he cannot farm his land forever and with the downzoning of the AF, his family has nothing to look forward to. Mr. Rolf Benzinger said that government regulation is density dependent - the more people there are, the more regulations that are necessary. He felt that developers should welcome the sound regulations proposed in the ordinance and urged that the Commission forward the ordiance to the Board of Supervisors because it balances common rights with individual rights. He also urged that the Commission save the area for the Buck Mountain Reservoir, noting there is no certainty that the Rivanna Reservoir will last. in Staunton regional area, Mr. Dick Reeves, manager of the Federal Land Bank ^ said that that bank has made 61 loans in excess of $7,000,000 in the past year; approximately 385 farms, representing 60,000 acres, are covered by $37,000,000 in loans from his bank. Mr. Reeves said that farms cannot stay in business if the value of farmland diminishes and he noted that downzoning will reduce the equity owners have in their farms. He asked that the Commission consider the value of land in the county in its zoning action. Mr. Sam Makasian, noting that he is a recent transplant to Albemarle County, said that he fears without such laws as the proposed zoning ordinance, the county could become another Los Angeles. He said that the county has no peers in beauty but it has the potential to develop to the point of unattractiveness like the area from which he came, Putnam County, New York. He said that growth should be where the utilities and employment are, and urged the citizens and the Commission to give the proposed ordinance a change. Mr. Robert Merrill suggested the Commission "scrap" the ordinance, that it is as impossible as the KDA draft of the previous year. He noted that there are existing soil erosion, subdivision, runoff control and zoning ordinances, as well as the building code, that are sufficient protection and government regulation. He felt that private property rights are of paramount interest in this country, as well as Albemarle County, and urged that the Commission work instead with a strong zoning administrator as opposed to a new ordinance which provides for more regulations. Mr. Roy Patterson, on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle, Inc., said that the county should not depend on real estate potential. Protection should be based on schools, roads, water and the general well-being of the county. He said that special use permits will give some control over the property for all county citizens, and not just the developers. He urged that the ordinance be passed on to the Board of Supervisors, noting that it can be amended at any time in the future if it is found to be unworkable. At this point, Col. Washington read into the record a letter of obj-ction from the Blue Ridge Homebuilders, with fifty-eight signatures, objecting to the reduced land values, resulting from downzoning with no compensation; large lot developments; lack of thought to the low and moderate income house. The petition also addressed the probably unconstitutionally of the special use permit provisions for subdivision approvals. Mr. Bill Walter noted that some people are fixed in their property, while younger people seem unaware of the housing situation. He noted the energy situation, the soaring cost of housing, the excessive land control with the 10-acre lots, and the wasteful use of land. Mr. Don Holden, representing the Montvue residents, objected to the density proposed for the few hundred acres that are behind Montvue and included in Urban Area Neigborhood Seven. He felt that the illogical reverse to R-1 is not compatible with the surrounding area and asked that the Commission reinstate the RS-1 district in the zoning ordinance and make it applicable to the area he addressed with a 0.5 dwelling unit/acre density, with no applicable bonus concept. Mrs. Pat Brown said that the property she owns on Route 29 North has been her residence for many years, and she has paid taxes on the property since she has been nine years old. She agreed with most of the speakers that evening, noting that it is the long-time residents of the area who have made the county what it is today. She said that she will fight the opposition and asked that anyone who wishes join in her effort to defeat the ordinance. She objected to4change of status of her property from B-1 to C-1. the Mr. Max Evans initiated his comments by noting that the wrong planning decision was made when the Rivanna Reservoir was located where it is. He felt another wrong planning decision would be made if the proposed ordinance is adopted. He felt that the outdated soils map and the land use taxation map are inappropriate as criteria for the AF district. He suggested a study of the inventory of the farms and the character of the land, taking note of the histography of the land, the geography, and the cultural characteristics. He felt that the size of the parcels, the ratio of population to open space, and the land values should all be used as determinants. He said that as much land as possible should be preserved, and 10-acre lots will preserve nothing; neither will the 5-acre cluster provision. He said that higher densities on those lands proposed for residential development should be considered. Upon request from Col. Washington, Mr. Tucker explained to the citizens the 5-acre cluster provision. He noted that the primary objective of this tool is to cluster residences on smaller lots, with the larger acreage left to common ownership. Mrs. Opal David noted all the thought that has been put into the proposed ordinance. Some concerns have been considered by the Planning Commission, but she noted that the Commission has chosen not to listen to those individuals and interest groups who are most widely represented at this public hearing. She noted that the /W citizens of the county have elected Board of Supervisors members who represent controlled growth, and that seems to be the general consensus of the county citizens as a whole. She asked that the Commission forward the ordinance to the Board with unanimous support, though she recognized that there has not been unanimous support on all items included in the text or map. She felt that the Commission has sufficiently weighed the concerns of those present, and felt it is time to adopt an ordinance that implements the County's comprehensive plan. Mr. Mike Hubona, describing himself as an ordinary county citizen, told the Commission that he owns 210 acres currently zoned A-1 on Tax Map 90. He questioned the unevenness of the application of the Agricultural Forestry District in his own area, noting that there are adjoining parcels, designated for Rural Residential, that have better soils than his own land. He emphasized that he has no appreciation of the application of the AF district. Mrs. Babs Huckle, on behalf of the League of Women Voters, agreed with the preservation of the rural ambience in the zoning ordinance, noting that it has achieved a great deal over the current ordinance. She requested that the Commission forward the ordinance to the Board with its support. Mr. Roy M. Godsey, Vice -President of Virginia National Bank, Agricultural Division, was concerned about the impact this will have on the farmers' borrowing power. He also expressed concern about the ordinance's effect on the tax base. Mr. David Carr said that this ordinance does not represent what the vast majority of the county landowners want. He acknowledged that the Commission was given the almost impossible task of sorting out the KDA text. He felt that the ordinance will affect not only the large landowner, but even the owners 114) of parcels 5-10 acres. He said that the method of dividing the rural land into the AF and RR designations is arbitrary, and even the County's Planning Director has acknowledged that. He asked that the Commission listen to those present that evening and rewrite the provisions for the rural lands. Mr. Carr felt that other portions of the text and map need additional work, as well. Mr. Harry Wellons stated his agreement with many of the previous speakers. He protested against the division of the rural lands and the restrictions that are proposed. He felt that the county is attempting to take away the rights of individual landowners and suggested that government be more supportive of the citizens of the county. He urged that utilities be provided to support the cluster development proposed, and said that the true test of support for the ordinance would be to put it to the vote of the people. Mr. Bob Walker said that he is offended that the elected and a oidnted officials of the county project themselves into adversary positions and, ee general attitude of arrogance of those appointed to the Planning Commission. He urged that the Commission rework the ordinance to make it more palatable to the landowners. Mr. Dick Nunnally addressed the downzoning of some business and apartment property in the county. He cited personal examples of the economic impact this will have on county property owners, noting that value of land will be diminished in some cases as much as 33-500. He said this is a clear case of taking property without just compensation. Mr. Nunnally felt that property owners should be notified of proposed changes. /90 Mr. Al Garrett noted for the record that most of the opposition to y' the proposed ordinance also favors planned growth. He said that planned growth is based on provision of utilities and is a product of demand. He noted that putting land in 10-acre lots does not conserve the resource and could mean economic disaster because of the loss of borrowing power to the landowner. Mr. Garrett reminded the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan urges that 350 of the housing should be low/moderate income housing; however more than 8000 households in the county have a yearly income of lessthan $15,000. The average cost of housing in the county is already over $80,000, and moderate income housing is defined as rentals beginning at $115 per month or a mortage of $30,100. He felt approval of this ordinance would mean economic disastor for the county and would provide poorly planned growth. Mr. Frank Smith felt that there should be more active participation before the ordinance and map are adopted. He felt extensive research should be accomplished on energy and energy usage - in his opinion the ordinance is already archaic in that sense. Additionally he urged the Commission to consider mix of unit type. Mr. Smith felt a step in the right direction would be to re -activate the citizens'advisory panel to construct various models of land uses on properties at random throughout the county. Mr. Richard Cogan said that he finds the cross-section of people speaking in opposition to the ordinance very interesting. He said that he hopes the Commission is flexible enough to realize it has taken a wrong turn and makes the decision to rework much of the ordinance. He disliked the feeling of opposition between the representatives of the government and the citizens as a whole. He felt that the 10-acre district is unrealistic and subdivisions by special use permit equally unrealistic. Mr. Cogan said that he agrees with the observation that special use permits lend themselves to arbitrary decisions. Mr. Cogan also observed that property owners need to know what they can and cannot do and perhaps a major and a minor subdivision ordinance should be considered. He felt that the zoning ordinance adopted in 1968 seems to be working rather well, just looking around the community. Mr. W. D. Maupin, a county farmer, opposed the ordinance, noting that there is nothing to protect the farmer when one destroys his borrowing power. He also pointed out that the farmers represent a big part of the employment base in Albemarle County. Mr. George Palmer noted the history of the county subdivision ordinance and the length of time it took to make it acceptable to the county citizens. He said that at the intital time of zoning in the county, every property owner was talked to and he sees no reason to hurry the process in 1979 when the citizens are obviously unhappy with the product of the Commission. He said that he agrees with many other comments made during the meeting. Col. Washington read into the record a letter from Mrs. Ellen Craddock supporting the proposed ordinance, especially the AF and RR districts which protect open space and the reservoir. She felt that wise regulations add to property values. Mr. Frank Woodard stated that he opposes the ordinance as presented at this time. Mr. Carroll Smith felt the Commission had heard from only three farmers that evening. He felt it important to consider the financial view of county government, and equally important to protect the health, safety and welfare of county citizens. He noted the erosion problems in years past the county had /i experienced and how that situation has been corrected to make Albemarle County the beautiful county it is today. He suggested the Commission forward the ordinance to the elected officials, however the Commission should select better critteoria for establishing the AF district. Mr. Smith also asked the Commission Aput utilities where they belong for orderly planned growth. Mr. Adrian Pols felt the ordinance is a force of disorder, driving the cost of housing out of reach of ordinary citizens. He felt that the ordinance as proposed is elitist legislation. Mr. Pols asked that the Commission consider the views of the farmers, and noted that those earning a living from real estate development have an equal right to be heard and recognized along with the environ- mentalists. Dr. Nicolle felt that something should be done to keep developers from ruining the county, and he stated that the proposed ordinance should be adopted. He said that the farmers and the farms should be protected - the farms must not be developed. Mr. Roy Ackerman said that the ordinance has no regard for schools, roads, or utilities and noted the recent Supreme Court case regarding road improvements. He also pointed out that in 1986 all EPA funding for sewer will stop and the ordinance will become a fairy tale. He urged that the zoning ordinance for Albemarle County reflect reality. Mr. Don Gaston noted that among the speakers that evening have been life-long residents and newcomers to the county. He said that both groups need the same capability as their forefathers, i.e., development and resources to stay here. He said that the new document adds one more layer of government to the county citizens as well as more direct and indirect taxes. He said that 140) the answer rests with those elected officials. Mr. Gaston said that the Commission should take as much pride in voting the ordinance down as it took in its year of preparation. Mr. Bernard Haggarty said it is difficult to believe that any zoning ordinance ever brought about open space. He said that he has watched, as a banker, the farmers struggle with many influences in the past years. Mr. Haggarty emphasized that open space is removed when the livelihood of the farmer is removed. He said that many farmers have borrowed up to 75% of their farm value, and as a result downzoning should be deleted from the concept. He felt that a few more months of deliberation would be time well spent. Additionally he expressed concern with the 25% slope regulation Mrs. Edna Anderson asked that the Commission advise the citizens what is mandated by the state and federal governments. She said that the 10-acre parcel size is a waste and 25% slopes should be opened for development so that the farms are left for farming uses. She asked that the County government not make it so hard that individuals cannot afford to keep their proeprty. Mrs. Rosenblum pointed to all the previous attempts to implement the Comprehensive Plan that have never been endorsed. She said that the 10-acre lot size was meant to help the farmer, and was not meant as a parcel size to be built upon. With no additional business, the Commission adjourned at 10:50 p.m. 4 ► rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Se 19� November 20, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, November 20, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Charles Vest. Members who were absent were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; and Dr. James Moore. Also absent was Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mrs. Idette Kimsey, Planner. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Minutes of July 9, 1979 were approved as submitted. Minutes of November 5, 1979 were approved as submitted. Mr. Keeler reported to the Commission that due to the holidays in December, and due to the fact there are so many cases on the agenda, it will be necessary to have two meetings and they have been scheduled for December 17 and December 18. Mr. Keeler said he would like approval of a list of names for the Piney Mountain Committee for the Comprehensive Plan. He reminded Col. Washington that at the last meeting Col. Washington had indicated that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to establish boundaries of the community and Mr. Keeler suggested that perhaps now would be the time to do this. Col. Washington said he did not think the Planning Commission and the County should be boxed in at this time to a single boundary. Mr. Skove suggested the Commission could go to the Committee with several options and let the Committee decide the boundaries. Mr. Keeler read the list of names of the Committee. They are: Mr. Heischman, Mr. W. Wood, Mr. Larry King, Mr. Bob Silcot, Rev. James Garrett, Mr. Keith Hammond, and Mr. James Neblett. Mrs. Graves said the Community committees were chosen by KDA but the urban area neighborhoods were chosen by 2 Planning Commission members and Mr. Tucker through their general knowledge of the people who were interested in the areas. Col. Washington suggested Mr. McCann should be nominated and a helper could be found. There was no further discussion. ASHCROFT FINAL PLAT - Located off the northeast side of Route 250 East, north of the I-64 interchange, tax map 78, parcel 55 (part of), in the Rivanna District. 193 Mr. Keeler reported that Mr. Cooper could not get the proper grade without realigning the main road, which he proposes to do. This would necessitate redrawing some lots but there will be no substantial changes. Mrs. Graves established that a swale which is shown on the plat will have to be filled. Mr. Skove established the road will have to be built to State standards. Mr. Payne informed Col. Washington that if the Commission approves the plat, the Commission is also evidencing their approval of the fact that the plat is in compliance with the approved RPN plan. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. Cooper, representing the applicant, said he still has a problem. He said the Highway Department will not approve his road going to Rt. 250. He said the development will generate 1,652 vehicle trips per day, using the State method of measuring and he is prepared to build a Class 4 road which accommodates 3,000 vehicle trips per day. However, the Highway Department is not satisfied with anything less than a Class 5 road which accommodates 8,000 vehicle trips per day. He said he can't do that. He said he would have no alternative, if the Highway Department persists in this matter, but to come back to the Commission and request private roads for the entire project. Col. Washington closed the public discussion.. Mrs. Graves established that Lots 1 and 2 have double frontage. Mr. Huffman asked that a new condition be added waiving the double frontage on Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Payne said he is not surprised at the Highway Department's stand as they are taking a harder stance of doing a job right the first time. He said the roads must be State roads as that is what the approved RPN plan shows. Mr. McCann asked what would happen if the applicant comes back with a request for private roads. Mr. Payne answered the Commission will have to amend the RPN plan. Mr. McCann said the applicant pointed out the applicant is agreeing to build a road that will handle twice the traffic his development is generating. Col. Washington agreed saying he was in favor of the project and he pointed out the fact that he knew of no other development of this scale in the County that has had so little opposition. Mr. McCann moved for approval with the recommendations made by staff and Mr. Huffman's addition of a new condition as follows: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Compliance with the private road provisions for lots 9 through 20 and lots 6 through 8, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement and homeowners' agreement; b. Health Department approval; /9� C. Central water system approval by the Virginia Department of Health and the County Engineer; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineer approval of North Pantops Boulevard road plans from the entrance of 250 East to the end of Phase I; e. Waive double frontage on Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. There was no discussion and the vote was unanimous for approval. Mr. Keeler left the meeting. CHARLES H. YOST FINAL PLAT - Located off the west side of Route 20 South, south of Route 742. Property is described as tax map 90, parcel 16A in the Scottsville Magisterial District. A request for a division of one 2-acre lot with an existing dwelling leaving 110+ acres as residue. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. John Greene, representing the applicant, said he had no comment but would be glad to answer questions. Mr. Charles Wilson explained that he has a deal with Mr. Yost that the house and two acres that he is buying cannot be sold to anyone but the owner of the residue (Mr. Yost), thereby insuring the continuation of open space. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Col. Washington said he was concerned that it would be a self-imposed hardship on the residue owner if the well is left where it is shown on the plat due to the fact that certain things cannot be put near wells and septic drainfields. Mr. Payne stated that it doesn't make any difference as the owner of the 2 acre lot can put the well where he wants it if the Health Department approves. Mr. Skove moved for approval with the staff's recommendations as follows: 1. Compliance with the private road provision, including: a. County Engineer approval of the road; b. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the vote was unanimous for approval. WOODCREEK PRELIMINARY PLAT - Located east of Route 616 and north of Route 250 East, near Boyd's Tavern. Property described as tax map 94 and 95, parcel 8 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Request for 31 lots with an average size of 2.8 acres. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report saying the applicant has dedicated the road but the Highway Department has not seen the plans. 1915 Mr. John Greene, representing the applicant, pointed out the access road from Rt. 250. He says the applicant believes it is too much to bring the road up to State standards in order to develop his land. Col. Washington stated that certainly people will have to use the road to get to Rt. 250 and asked if there will be offsite road improvements involved. Mr. Payne answered that yes, offsite to this property because Mechunk Road, regardless whether dedicated or not, still is not part of the Highway Department's secondary road system. standards. Mr. Curtis Munday stated he cannot bring the road up to State specifications. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mr. Skove moved for approval subject to staff's conditions as follows: 1. No Building Permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Compliance with the private road provision, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement; b. Grading permit; C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial entrance on Route 616; d. Health Department approval; e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans from the entrance of Route 616 to the junction of Harvest Ridge Way. DISCUSSION: Mr. McCann asked if this meant the road had to be brought up to State Mr. Payne answered yes. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion but expressed concern over the steepness of some of the lots and said she would like to add to condition "d" so that condition "d" would state: Health Department approval of 2 septic fields on each lot. Mr. Skove accepted. Mr. Huffman said he didn't think Mrs. Graves' request would impose a hard- ship but he did think Health Department approval should be good enough and he felt adding to the condition is telling them how to do their job. Mr. McCann said he agreed with Mr. Huffman but he would go along with the condition. He said he thinks the real problem is with the road which he believes should be brought up to at least maximum private road standards and therefore should be no hard- ship to bring it up to State standards. The vote was unanimous for approval. CROPP FINAL PLAT - Located off the north side of Route 728, west of Route 729. Property is described as tax map 105, parcel 8Q in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Division of one 10-acre parcel with 31.497 acres as residue. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report. Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, had no comment to make. Dr. Wilson, a neighbor of the applicant, spoke in opposition to the division, saying he wished to preserve the agricultural and rural nature of the area. He spoke of drainage problems. He questioned the legality of the division inasmuch as, he said, none of the neighboring property owners had received any letters informing them of previous subdivision of this same property. Col. Washington explained to Dr. Wilson that due to the fact that this property is zoned A-1, it can be subdivided into 2-acre parcels by right without notifi- cation of the neighboring parcels. He explained administrative approval and noted some of the legalities involved in subdividing land. Mr. Cropp spoke up saying a trip across the pasture by any one of his neighbors would have taken care of any questions they had face to face with him. But no one bothered to come and he could not believe some of the things he was hearing tonight. He said a trip to the courthouse would have answered their questions on the legality of any previous subdividing he had done. Dr. Wilson said the other concern he had was the area indicated as a proposed road or easement. He felt this devalued surrounding property. Col. Washington established the easement is approximately 75 days old, give or take 10 days. Mrs. Claudia Craig, also a neighbor, said when they bought their property they knew about the easement but she wished to express her concern about the wet conditions in the area approximately 50% of the year and she feels it is a poor place to build a road. Mrs. Karen Close and Dr. Nordstrum, also neighbors, spoke of their concern about the depreciation of property and the view, etc. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mrs. Graves established the parcel is part of 42 acres belonging to the applicant. She also established the applicant has other access to the property. Mrs. Craig pointed out that she did not receive a letter from the County notifying her of this subdivision and therefore she believes the tax maps are wrong. Mr. McCann said he would hope staff's recommendations would take care of the road concerns and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Health Department approval; b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a private entrance; C. Compliance with the private road provision, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road; 2. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement; d. Correct the residue to 31.497. /91- Mr. Huffman seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Skove asked is all abutting property owners must sign maintenance agreement. Mr. Payne answered no, that only the ones who have access. Also, not necessarily will the owner of the property with a deeded right-of-way have to sign a maintenance agreement. Col. Washington stated that there are some concerns here that are beyond the Commission's ability to react. houses. Dr. Wilson pointed out he doesn't think the land should be utilized for The vote was 5-1 with Mrs. Graves dissenting. WHITEWOOD ROAD, LOTS 1-10 FINAL PLAT - Located at the southwest corner of Greenbrier Drive and Whitewood Road. Property is described as tax map 61, parcel 29C in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Request division of 10 lots ranging in size from 10,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report, striking one of the staff's conditions, and pointing out that starting at Lot 6, there is 155 feet of road that is not maintained at all up to now. Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated the applicant wishes private entrances to each lot as he plans on building duplexes on each lot. He plans on selling Lot 10 to the residents and he would appreciate County Engineer approval of the driveway instead of Highway Department approval being required. The applicant, according to Mr. Sinclair, does not wish to construct sidewalks at all. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mrs. Kimsey said the reason the staff thought sidewalks should be constructed was because sidewalks were on the other side of the street. Mrs. Graves said she did not think the County could, in good conscience, allow that many curb cuts for the driveways. She said she didn't remember an entrance between Lots 4 or 5. Mr. Sinclair said the entrance pipe is there but is overgrown with grass. Mrs. Graves said she was not sure which would be the best location for a service driveway inasmuch as the lot has been completely graded. Mr. Sinclair said a service driveway would best be located in the front. Mrs. Kimsey reminded the Commission that a service driveway should have a maintenance agreement. Mr. McCann moved for approval of the application with the following I!d conditions: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Compliance with the Storm Water Detention Ordinance; b. Grading Permit; c. Fire Official approval of the pressure flow and hydrant location; d. Albemarle Service Authority approval of water plans; e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineer approval of the service drive with entrances; f. Sidewalks shall be built to meet Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval along both the Greenbrier Drive and Whitewood Road frontage at the applicant's expense; g. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation acceptance or bonding of Greenbrier Drive for maintenance in the State system; h. Maintenance Agreement and County Engineer approval of service road. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. There was no discussion and the vote was unanimous for approval. WHIPPOORWILL HOLLOW FINAL PLAT - Located west on Route 614 in Whippoor- will Hollow Subdivision. Property described as tax map 42, parcel 51 (part) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Request division of 31 lots with an average size of 2.8 acres. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report mentioning 2 or 3 lots may not be buildable lots. Mr. Sinclair, representing the applicant, said he had no problem with any of the conditions with the exception of condition "e" in which the words "Note on plat" should be struck. Mr. Payne agreed with Mr. Sinclair stating the applicant was liable to have tremendous title problems if the words "Note on plat" were not struck. Col. Washington closed the public hearing. Col. Washington stated he felt that two drainfields on each lot were called for in this case. Mrs. Graves asked if the roads fit in with the new load of lots. Mrs. Kimsey answered that the Highway Department had not seen them yet. Mr. Huffman moved for approval with the amended conditions and staff's recommendations as follows: 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of the road plans; b. Grading permit; C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the road plans; d. Health Department approval of two drainfields on each lot; e. Additional drainage easements, if any, to be shown on plat as required by the County Engineer. Mr. Vest seconded. /99 There was no discussion and the vote was unanimous for approval. BAKER CHEVROLET SALES INCORPORATED FINAL PLAT was withdrawn from consideration by the Planning Commission. Mr. Payne informed the Commission that his firm has represented Baker Chevrolet in several matters but that he has no knowledge of this application or the above application which was withdrawn and does not, therefore, intend to disqualify himself from the discussion. GEORGE A. DANSEY, INCORPORATED SITE PLAN - Located at the northwest quadrant of Route 737 and Route 726 near Scottsville. Property des- cribed as tax map 130A(l), parcel 64 (part) in Scottsville Magisterial District. A request to site a plumbing retail store. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report mentioning that the staff recommended to the applicant that shared entrance should be utilized since most of the development is proposed along Route 726 and that an entrance located on Route 6 may cause traffic congestion at the intersection. Mr. Robert Lum, representing the applicant, said the applicant thinks the entrance will be one of low useage and sees no need for curbs and gutters. He also wishes the entrance to be as shown on the site plan. Col. Washington closed the public discussion. Mr. McCann said he has no objection to shared entrances but if the applicant doesn't want it he doesn't think the applicant should be tied to one as the applicant may wind up with a business that is not compatible. Mr. Huffman said the whole corner, with the exception of the residue, from Route 20 to Route 6 on both sides has no curb and gutters on any of the developments. He stated he would like to see one entrance off Route 726. Mr. Huffman moved for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. No Building Permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Grading Permit; b. Runoff Control Permit; C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial entrance with no curb and gutter; d. Note on plan 60,000 square feet total in development or install connection to either public water or public sewer. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. There was no discussion and the vote was 5-1 with Mrs. Graves dissenting. OLD BUSINESS: THOMAS RENTAL CABINS SITE PLAN - Located on the south side of Rt. 7081 between Rts. 29 South and 20 South, tax map 101, parcel 58E in the Scottsville District. on, /i The Board of Supervisors referred this site plan back to the Planning Commission and requested the applicant to recast the site plan to show the area for 40,000 square feet per dwelling unit with public leechfields by siting it in the same manner that would be requested for an RPN and no final platting required. This does require that each location have a septic tank and drainfield sited but each lot does not have to be individually served which means that each cabin does not have to have its own septic tank and drainfield. Such a determination is to be left up to the Health Department. Mrs. Kimsey presented the staff report noting the above information. Mr. Leonard Wood, representing a neighbor,Mrs. Estes, said Mrs. Estes owns 100 acres near the property in question and she feels the rental cabins are not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. If each house were owned, then she would have no objection to the 16 units. Other lots in the neighborhood are maintained well. However, the roads are not up to State standards. Mr. Larry Hackenberg, representing the applicant, said the plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors but they were concerned with whether a septic tank was with each unit. If not, and the septic tanks or drainfields become inactive, would enough land be available for solving those problems. Mr. Wood reported he was at the same Board of Supervisors' meeting and got a different interpretation. He said there was no way the land could be subdivided so that each unit met the Subdivision Ordinance. He said this was simply a measure on the part of the applicant to circumvent the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Payne stated that theoretically the property could be subdivided with an RPN. Mr. Wood stated this will create chaos in the neighborhood. Mr. Hackenberg said he and his client are trying to obey all the laws. Mr. Skove said that he could, very reluctantly, vote for approval of this. Mr. McCann moved for approval saying the applicant had done what the Board of Supervisors asked him to do. Mr. Vest agreed and seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the vote was unanimous for approval. Mrs. Graves said she would like to make a comment about this particular situation because it used to be that a Special Permit was needed for 3 or more rental units. She has done research on this and she says she is consistently dismayed at what little control the Commission has over this. It was suggested in 1974 that the Board request Special Use Permits for anything over 3 rental units, but the Board, in its wisdom, knocked that portion out and made it "by right" except with a Site Plan. Mrs. Graves suggested that maybe the Commission should try to get rental units back under Special Use Permits. PEACOCK HILL Mrs. Kimsey stated the Staff would like permission to administratively approve lots in Peacock Hill by changing lot lines of lots already approved by the Planning Commission. 90/ Mr. Payne explained that there would be the same number of lots after the moving of the lines as there was before. Mr. McCann moved for approval of Staff's request. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. The Commission discussed the recent public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance and possible topics for the upcoming Work Session. With no further business to discuss, the Commission adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ob rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Secretary i 19