HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 102-1541DZ
February 24, 1976
%4W The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting and work session
on Tuesday, February 24, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Char-
lottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -
Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner; Mr. Paul Peatross and Dr. James Moore. Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio
was present.
Mr. Carr established a quorum and called the meeting to order.
Approval of minutes:
February 10, 1976
Mr. Easter moved approval of February 10, 1976 minutes subject to one correction
made by Mrs. Craddock.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
February 17, 1976
minutes
Mr. Easter moved approval of February 17, 1976/subject to his addition to
a sentence and Mrs. Craddock and Mrs Graves' corrections.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ernest Jr. Burton - one 4-acre parcel on proposed 30' easement. Route 631:
Mrs. Scala stated that this was deferred from January 27, 1976 meeting to clarify
the status of Old Route 631. She stated that the Highway Department had found that
this old road was abandoned; and the land reverted to the adjacent landowners. She
stated that the applicant has obtained an easement (50') from his neighbor to permit
him to cross his property out to new Route 631.
Mrs. Craddock asked when is a road considered legally abandoned.
Mr. Payne stated when the Board of Supervisors and State Highway Dept. say
that it is.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Note on plat: No further subdivision along this easement without Planning
Commission approval;
2. Residue acreage should be shown;
3. 30' right of way should be changed to 50' over existing driveway; and
4. New 50' easement across old Route 631 should be shown.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
/03
W. E. Bishop final plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant is requesting a two -lot subdivision on
a proposed 30' right of way which is connected to an existing right of way of
unspecified width and location. Subject property is situated on the west side of
Route 743 Hydraulic Road. She stated that the existing and proposed right of way
traverses property held in partnership by W. E. Bishop and J. E. Bishop. She stated
that there appears to be about 60' frontage remaining on Route 743. The existing
right of way appears to serve three small parcels at present. She stated that she
was not sure of this. There is a new house located on proposed parcel 1B-2.
Mr. Carr asked about how big this piece of land was.
Mr. Rick Richmond, representing the applicant, stated that he had a plat con-
sisting of an 87 acre farm. He stated that there is no plan to develop the farm
right at this time. He stated that there is no request that this be a dedicated
right of way. He requested that they omit the last sentence in the owner's block
on the plat in reference to dedication of roads.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Note on plat: No further subdivision along these easements without Planning
Commission approval;
2. The owner is put on notice that the next subdivision along this easement may
require that the road be made a 50' right of way and brought to state standards;
3. The width of the existing right of way should be specified as 30'. (It is not
necessary to specify it's location); and
4. Statement regarding dedication of roads in owner's block may be deleted.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.r
WORK SESSIONS
Planning Work Session on Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission:
Mr. Tucker presented staff recommendations with respect to the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission Land Use Plan. He stated that the recommendations
had been previously discussed with Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh and that she was in agreement
with them.
Mr. Tucker recommended to the Planning Commission that the plan be adopted in
principle rather than formally adopted because of the r.Pstrictions
of the state law. He further stated that the Planning District could determine the
services that the county could provide it's citizens and ultimately determine econo-
mic and population growth if the plan were formally adopted under current legislation.
Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh stated that the adoption of the plan would require adoption
by four member locality.
The questions arose could the plan be adopted strictly in principle by the
District locality and what are the legal ramifications for a member locality
adopting the plan in principle.
Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh suggested that these questions be brought up in the
forth coming Planning District public hearings.
THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION LAND USE PLAN 164-
TEXTUAL CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING STAFF
90 General Land Use Goal: Objective 2:
Existing
Objective 2: The role of Charlottesville -central Albemarle area as the regional center
should be continued; however, economic growth that tends to generate a sprawling land
use pattern around the regional center should be channeled into growth centers in every
County in the Planning District.
Staff Recommendation:
Objective 2: The role of Charlottesville -Albemarle urban area as the regional center
should be continued; however, economic growth should be encouraged in other growth
centers in every County in the Planning District.
4)2.512 Medium Density Residential Use:
Existing
Medium density residential uses including townhouses and low-rise apartment structures
will be accommodated in the above two centers (Urban area and Louisa) and in the fol-
lowing clusters:
Albemarle County:
Crozet
*AW North Rivanna
Scottsville
Staff Recommendation:
Medium density residential uses will be accommodated in the above two clusters and in
the following clusters:
Albemarle County:
Crozet
North Rivanna
Scottsville
on
lOx�
Population Projections
The District Land Use Plan projects a population of 87,800 for the year 2000, based
on an estimated 1975 population of .46,000 and average annual growth rates of 3.4
percent for the next five years declining to 2.0 percent in the last five years of the
century.
The Albemarle County Planning Department has projected a year 2000 population of 95,000
based on historical data, most specifically, data from the Virginia Department of High-
ways Charlottesville -Albemarle Transportation Restudy (CATS). The Planning Department's
projection is mid -range in reference to the CATS projections. The District and County
projections vary by 7,200 or about 8 percent.
Though the projection of 95,000 is more in keeping with the CATS findings, staff
opinion is that the difference of the two projections is not sufficient to
warrent revision of the District Plan. The staff, therefore, recommends approval
of the TJPDC projection of 87,000 population for the year 2000 as being within
acceptable limits.
Adoption of District Land Use Plan
As stated by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, "Once a regional plan
is adopted, local governing bodies which have approved the plan may not proceed with
public improvements or with acquisition or disposition of public land if in conflict
with the adopted plan." In staff opinion, if Albemarle County were to legally adopt
the plan, the Planning District Commission would have the review powers to determine
the services the County could provide it's citizenry and ultimately, to determine
population and economic growth. The staff therefore recommends adoption of the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission Land Use Plan in principle only to be used as
a policy quide for the Planning District Commission in its A-95 clearinghouse review
capacity.
ZM
OF ALBeM
pT A
O �
rI GI''A
Planning Department
411 EAST HIGH STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 _-!ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR.
JOHN L HUMPHREY ;*AS$TAKTOIRECTOR OF PUNNf+G
DWJMROF PUNNING WARY JOY SCALA
-.+p.A1rNER
December 19, 1975
Im
cm
Mr. Hugh Adams
Association Transportation Coordinator
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Adams:
This is to inform you that the year 2000 projection for population
in Albemarle County is estimated to
oibe 9da0ta0( 196is estimate was projected
arrived at after a review of
through the year 2000.
approximately 65% of the projected
Further, it is estimated that 95,000 persons willresidein the the cordon arearesadelineated
yourby the
Charlottesville -Albemarle, County study map p p
agency with our endorsement.
Sincerely,
hn L . Humphr y C/ '
Director of Planning
JLH:jc
cc: Wayne Harbaugh, Thomas Jefferson Planning District
/a%
Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh stated that the Planning District really needs this plan
as a single reference in their A-95 review process. She stated that currently
the Planning District Commission is working with several District single purpose
plans and with Comprehensive Plans of individual localities. In addition there
is no single document outlining Planning District goals, objectives and policies.
Mrs. Sally Thomas stated that HUD would accept an adoptable plan.
Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh stated that she wants the Planning Commission to review the
substantive portion of the plan and that adoption would be the responsibility of
the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Carr asked that a committee be formed to study this plan and report back
to the Commission on March 9. Mrs. Craves and Dr. Moore volunteered to study the
plan and report back to the Commission their findings.
Work Session on Comprehensive Plan around the South Rivanna River Reservoir:
Mr. Tucker presented a zoning proposal that would bring the zoning and Reservoir
River Study area in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker also presented
an analysis of the population potential of the proposed zoning and a list of the
parcels that would be made non -conforming by the proposal. (This information is
attached).
Mr. Easter was concerned about making Murray Manufacturing non -conforming.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he was concerned about making all properties on the
list non -conforming.
Mr. Easter stated that the major zoning change would be around the reservoir.
Mr. Tucker stated that subdivisions were given zoning comparable to their
average lot sizes and development characteristics.
Mr. Carr asked if the proposal was of interest to the Commission, and further
asked if there is any logic in not recognizing uses that already exist.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Commission should evaluate the Comprehensive Plan
in this area that would be made non -conforming to determine if the Commission
feels the plan is incorrect in these areas.
Mr. Carr asked for a description of the RS-2 zone.
Mr. Tucker stated that this zone was designed as the medium density zone
called for in the Comprehensive Plan with a density of two units per acre.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission should be prepared to act on this at the
public hearing on March 9.
Mr. Easter stated that he felt notification should be given to all the property
owners who are concerned.
Mr. Tucker stated that in order to notify all property owners by mail as was
done with the proposed zoning in January, that the public hearing would have to
be postponed and that special appropriations would have to be sought from the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Easter suggested putting a large advertisement of the proposed zoning
in the Daily Progress.
Mr. Peatross made a motion that the public hearing of March 9 be deferred,that
Mr. Tucker go to the Board about special appropriations, that the Planning Staff
notify all property owners and that the Planning Commission set up a public hearing
r within the 90 day limit.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion. No vote was taken.
Mr. Easter suggested leaving the zoning as it is. He stated that we should
wait until the Betz study is complete.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Mr. Easter. He stated that we should leave things the
way they are until they see the results of the study.
Mr. Carr stated we do one of three things:
1. Approve some affirmative plan.
2. Defer public hearing until Betz information is available.
3. Hold public hearing then take a position on this matter.
A vote was taken on the motion by Mr. Peatross. The vote was 2 - 5. It was
defeated with Messrs. Peatross, Easter, Gloeckner, Moore and -Mrs. Graves voting
against it.
Mr. Easter stated that he was against the motion because he feels there is a
great deal of work involved.
Mrs. Graves made a motion that Mr. Tucker discuss various concerns with the
Board.
With Mr. Easter's permission she withdrew the motion.
Mr. Carr stated that the public hearing on March 9 still stands and is to review
a resolution of the Board of Supervisors and any public input in relation to
that resolution.
Work Session on Mobile home and mobile home parks:
No discussion was heard on this matter. It will be discussed at a later date.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Se*e-taiy
/09
ZONING - STAFF RECOMMENDATION - RIVANNA RESERVOIR
STUDY AREA-FEBRUARY 24, 1976
ZONE
ACREAGE
PERCENT OF
TOTAL ACREAGE
CVN
5,319.2 acres
20.41%
A-1
19,232.7
73.81
RS-1
157.5
0.60
RS-2
365.5
1.40
R-1
29.8
0.11
R-2
---
---
R-3
69.6
0.27
B-1
60.2
0.23
RTM
---
M-l.
23.8
0.09
M-2
---
SUBTOTAL
25,258.3 acres
96.87%
Reservoir (normal pool)
439 acres
1.68%
Other impoundments
104
0.40%
Rivanna & Mechum Rivers
87
0.33
State roads & R/W
169
0.64
TOTAL
26,057.3 acres
100.0%
NOTE: Columns may not add to total due to rounding.
SATURATION POTENTIAL
.Population..........................37,371
.Population as % of
Existing Zoning Potential ........... 47 %
.Population Density...................1.43 persons/acre
.Employment...........................1,809
.Dwelling Units ......................12,058
.Auto trips/day (dwelling units) ..... 84,406
cm
//O
PARCELS THAT WOULD BE MADE NON -CONFORMING BY STAFF PROPOSAL
61-5 and 6 A United Parcel Service
61-5A R. E. Lee Construction Company
45-23A Mobile Home Court (16 units)
45-23 Office Building (Crown Construction Company)
45-25G Tacco Company
45-25C Centel
45-25C (1)i
31-10
31-10A
31-10B
31-10H Murray Manufacturing
31-19
31-21A
CM
em
March 2, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a series of public hearings on
March 2, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -
Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Paul Peatross; Dr. James Moore;
Mrs. Ellen Craddock; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Mrs. Opal David, Ex-Officio was absent.
Mr. Carr established a quorum and called the meeting to order.
Mr. Carr stated that the second item on the agenda under deferred items, Robert
L. Cross- final plat Route 250 West would not be heard this evening.
Stonehenge Phase 2 Final Plats:
Mrs. Scala stated that this plat was deferred from the February 17, 1976
meeting due to the clarification of the status of the recreation area -who will build
and when, resolution of erosion problem between Rotgin and Ferguson and evidence
of County Attorney's approval of Homeowners' Documents. She stated that the recreation
area site plan, including a tot lot and landscaping was approved by the Commission on
June 17, 1974. Mr. Ferguson plans to build the tot lot on or about May 1. She stated
that Mr. Rotgin is suppose to finish the tennis courts in mid April. She stated that
if he does not, then Mr. Ferguson will do the work. She further stated that Mr. Fergu-
son has received approval on an amended soil erosion plan. Only a grading bond is
needed before the grading permit can be issued. The soil erosion inspector has stated
that temporary measures as requested have been installed by Mr. Ferguson and are satis-
factory.
Mr. Easter asked about permanent measures. He stated that he had heard some very
bad complaints about this.
Mr. Carr stated that he had viewed the site. He stated that there is alot of
work to be done and that the land is bare except in some places where people had laid
sod.
Mr. Tom Sinclair represented the applicant.
Mrs. Craddock ascertained that Tot Lot r3 was to be at the ton of the hill, not
on the creek bottom.
Mr. Easter asked if the Commission could have Mr. Ferguson write a letter stating
that the tennis courts and the erosion controls will be maintained.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Documents.
2. Grading permit.
3. Approval of final plats does not guarantee availability of sewer.
4. A letter should be obtained from the developer (Ferguson) regarding the recre-
ation area and the soil erosion control plan in order to confirm his commitment,
and to clarify completion date.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ZMP-76-01 H. L. and Helen Baber, Roger L., James L. Baber have petitioned
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.25 acres from R-2 Re-
sidential to B-1 Business. Property is situated at the intersection of Route
240 and Route 691 in Crozet. Property is further described as County Tax
Map 56A-2, Parcel 11, White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. He stated that there is a service station
as well as a paint and body shop on this property. He stated that rezoning this
property would make the service station conforming.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. H. L. Baber if he had any questions or anything to add to
Mr. Tucker's report.
Mr. H. L. Baber stated that he felt Mr. Tucker had covered everything.
Mrs. Graves asked Mr. H. L. Baber what reason he had for making his property
conforming after such a long time.
Mr. H. L. Baber stated that if the place burned down he could not rebuilt
until he had the property rezoned.
Mrs. Graves asked if he was going to expand on the building.
time. Mr. H. L. Baber stated that he was not going to expand on the building at this
Mr. Page Foster, representing his mother, stated that his mother owned the
adjoining lot zoned Residential. He stated that he felt rezoning residential to
business would be detrimental to residential values. He stated that he had a few
pictures that he wanted to show the Commission of on site view's of Mr. Baber's
NOWO
property and his mother's. Mr. Foster stated that there was one picture in particular
that showed a shrub of his mother's which was covered with paint. He
stated that he was concerned about the pollution.
Mr. Roger Baber stated that this particular shrub has been there for 25 years.
Mr. William Washington, who represented his mother who owned the other adjoining
lot, stated that he had seen the shrub and was also concerned about the pollution.
He stated that the foliage which is painted can not live for 25 years. He stated that
this type of shrub sheds it's foliage every one or two years. He asked if the Commis-
sion rezones this property, could the applicant build within one foot of the property
line.
Mr. Carr stated that if the applicant rebuilds,the setback line would have to
be fifty feet.
Mrs. Brenda Martin, representing Mrs. Ruth Ballard Foster, asked if the applicant
could add an addition to the existing building. (Letter attached)
Mr. Tucker stated that he had discussed this with the Service Authority and
Mr. Payne and that they decided that the applicant cannot expand due to the property
lines.
Mr. Roger Baber stated that the only place they could build is the north
side of the service station and that they did not plan to build.
March 1, 1976
Mr. David Carr, Chairman
and Members of the
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Re: Lawson and Helen Baber
Rezoning Request
Ladies and Gentlemen:
With regard to the above mentioned rezoning request, all adjacent property
owners, except one, is separated from the property in question by either highways
or a creek. I am, therefore, of the opinion that your decision on this request,
will have a greater effect on this property, since this property is closer to the
noise, traffic, odors, etc.generated by the present operation. The property I am
speaking of is owned by my grandmother, Ruth Ballard Foster. The property was given
to her by her father, Sinclair Ballard, in 1923. Thus having lived on this property
practically all of her life, the rezoning of adjacent property increasing the
possibility of other property being rezoned B-1 in the area, will be of no benefit
in her lifetime as she does not wish to move. Therefore, I would like to request
that you consider each of the aspects below before making a decision on this
request:
1. Intent of B-1 zoning: "but which is not characterized either by constant
heavy trucking other than stocking and delivery of light retail goods or by any
nuisance factors other than occasioned by incidental light and noise of congregation
of people and passenger vehicles." Would rezoning to B-1 increase freedom for more
noise, paint odors, light, etc. I believe, there is in the present building a non-
conforming paint and body operation. If rezoned to B-1, could this particular operation
be expanded, as "painting and body and fender work" of automobiles is listed under
Section 9-1-23(4) Special Use Permit under the M-2 zone?
2. My uncle, Page Foster, who is representing my grandmother tonight, has
some pictures of the property in question. These pictures were taken three weeks
ago. He would like the opportunity to present them to you. If rezoned, would the
appearance of the property be improved, or would there be more freedom for it to
worsen?
3. While the master plan may designate the property in question and adjacent
properties for future B-1, the present zoning ordinance states that property in an
R-2 zone, (as my grandmother's) "is composed of certain quiet, medium density resi-
dential areas, etc. The regulations for this district are designed to protect the
essential characteristics of the district, to promote and encourage suitable
environment for family life where there are children and to prohibit all activities
of a commercial nature".
I realize that there is now an existing auto parts -service station, which has
built up since my grandmother moved to this property. However, I would like for you
to consider whether the rezoning to B-1 of the property in question will increase
the "obstruction of life and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation
or loss of life, health, or property" of adjacent property owners .
SipcerelRart-in
Brenda
for
Mrs. Ruth Ballard Foster
l
Mr. Roger Baber stated that a pollution man, Mr. Butler came out to the site
when he was painting a car at the request of Mr. Foster. He stated that Mr. Butler
said that the Baber's were not in violation and made one recommendation that they aim
their paint fumes down to the ground.
Mrs. Graves asked Mr. Payne if they could rezone and leave it a non -conforming
use.
Mr. Payne stated that they could.
Mr. Easter moved for approval.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mrs.
Graves voting against it.
Mr. Carr stated that he felt that it would be very desirable that the Baber's
have Mr. Butler's letter when they come before the Board of Supervisors.
ZMP-76-02 Virginia Dryden Kellogg has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to rezone 35.434 acres from R-1 Residential to R-1/RPN Resi-
dential Planned Neighborhood. Property is situated on the south side of Route
250 West. Property is further described as County Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A,
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he had a question on condition #7 of the Highway
Department. He stated that his main objection was the curb.
Mr. Tucker ar tate
of
he
oad
p Detmenttishrecommendingtthatttherbanklbenocutabacklandethehvegetation
the State Highway
be cleared somewhat to improve the site distance.
Mr. Gloeckner asked why the Highway Department did not want the island at the
entrance.
Mr. Tucker stated that the main problem of the island is the stacking space.
Mr. Peatross asked Mr. Tucker why he doesn't favor privately maintained roads.
Mr. Tucker stated that there is always a lot of opposition and problems from
the property owners that they are not properly kept up.
Mr. Peatross asked in regard to the schools, would it be a worse problem if
it was left R-1.
Mr. Tucker stated that it would be less of a problem as he sees it. He stated
that if the plan was developed as it is now it would be more of a burden on the
schools.
Dr. Moore asked when the capacity of the sewer line is to be increased.
Mr. Tucker stated that the applicant had requested recertification a while
y back and they are still waiting for the recertification.
Mr. Kellogg stated that he was representing his wife, Mrs. Virginia Dryden
Kellogg, and he had with him, Mr. Andrew Sullivan, Land Planner from Philadelphia,
PA.
Mr. Sullivan discussed some of the questions which had been brought up by
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Easter asked about the problem of the stack spaces at the entrance. He
asked if the applicant goes along with the Highway Department in cutting the bank
back.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the applicant does go along with the Highway Department.
Mr. Peatross asked what the purpose was for the island.
Mr. Sullivan stated that at the time it was more of a landscape element.
Mrs. Craddock asked Mr. Sullivan to point out some of the elements of the land-
scape plan.
Mr. Fritz Berry, the president of the Ednam Forest Homeowners' Association,
stated that the schools these residents would be going to are very overcrowded now,
the water supply is good in Ednam because Ednam Forest is going to lose all their's
because they are located on the hill. He further stated that the water pressure
is very bad and the traffic situation is very bad already without putting the entrance
to this RPN right across the road from Farmington.
Mr. Kellogg stated that there is a 10 inch pipe coming off the main of 250 where
you have problems. There is a 12 inch pipe in 250 which we are going to connect into.
Mrs. Dorothy Speidel asked if they could move the buildings a little further
back from 250 West.
Mr. Tewksberry, representing the Textile Industry, wanted to comment on the traffic
situation and the maintenance of the character of the area to the Commission.
Mrs. Dorothy Speidel asked if someone could show the plan which shows the
front view of the apartments.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the people of Ednam Village stated that he had a
list of questions from property owners. He stated that they were not against the
plan but rather what will the impact of the development have on the surrounding areas
and particularly what it's visual impact would be from 250 and surrounding areas. He
read the list of questions to the Commission. (The list is attached)
Mr. Oscar Smith stated that he was interested in the entrance now proposed across
from Farmington. He stated that he went to the Highway Department and talked to Mr.
Charles Perry and that it was his understanding from Mr. Perry that the property owners
should look toward future growth with the possibility of making 250 a four lane highway.
He also stated that he talked to Mr. Perry regarding a signal at this entrance. He
stated that Mr. Perry stated "that he did not see at this time where the projected
standards of the state would allow a signal at these entrances." Mr. Smith further
stated that he was also concerned about the water situation.
Mrs. Kellogg stated that she visualizes this development as an adult community,
not as a community for school age children,and is going along on that concept.
/41
AREAS OF CONCERN IN DEVELOPMENT OF "EDNAM"
1, What will be the visual impact of "Edna.m" from Route 250,
giving consideration that Route 250 is a major highway, and
a proposed "scenic highway"`'
2. What will be the visual impact of "Ednam" from neighboring areas,
such as: Farmingtoni, Ednam Forest, Ednam Village & Bellai.r.
A. "Ednam" is located on a prominent,knol]_ situated in a
curve of the road; within eye -level (as opposed to
Campbell ?Mountain, for example). As reported in the
submitted plan, the developers state that 33io of the
building density is in the two 7-story buildings.
B. What portion of this development has been allotted for
parking and walkways to service the buildings?
3. What would be the traffic count generated by this development
and the effect on safety for Route 250, entrances and adjoining
access areas such as at Boar's Head, Ednam Forest, Ednam Village
and Farmington? Has consideration been given to a traffic light
at the crossroads created at the Farmington and "Ednam" entrances,
and the possible need for a second one at the Boar's Head entrance
due to back-up?
4. How much of the site will be required to be graded and how much
will be graded in order to accomodate the development? Will the
amenities of this site, as presented, be preserved by:
open spaces, vegetation, ground covering and topo-
graphical configuration?
5. Will there be the possibility of drainage problems such as sedi-
mentation, erosion, excess run-o` on the lands below and
:Ldjoining this site?
o
F. What is the building coverage f this site and how much of the
architectural development of -the site is going to stand out and
above any site quality that would be preserved? What is the
proposed ratio of building coverage to the site? Is it an
adequate proportion of the site and its location? What portion
of the site will be used in parking, roads and walkways?
7. In the November 12, 1975 letter from the Albemarle County Service
Authority to Mr. Andrew T. Sullivan of Philadelphia, Pa., it
is reported that the sewerage discharge is estimated to be
approximately 4,050 GPD. Based on the accepted formula that
each person uses between 84 and 100 GPD, if you multiply this
amount by the minimum of one person per unit (84 x 132) this
gives a total of 9,888 GPD, opposed to the 1,050 cited above.
Is the estimate given to the Authority closely accurate?
8. What do ,you estimate the vehicle trips per date generated to be
and the congestion and danger potential at this location on
the curvature of Route 250? See attached diagrams of potential
traffic conflict points.
9. To what extent will the noise level of this area be increased
with a development of such density?
10. Is the density suggested compatible and harmonious with
surrounding neighborhoods; especially in this kind of physical
contour and conspicuous location?
l.l. Tw.i, (awi1.1 the school popul
o ha
ation be affected?
There was some concern that arose concerning the height of the buildings.
Mr. Kellogg stated "that something that cannot be brought out in these plans
and the presentation is what Mrs. Kellogg and I are planning for this community, that
is that we are planning a residential community of the highest quality that will
have privacy, security and service."
Mr. Peatross asked Mr. Tucker under the RPN Ordinance under 19-2-3, have all
of the points been satisfied that you have reviewed in the plan that the applicant
has submitted,such as general layout of water, the whole number of dwelling units, etc.
Mr. Tucker stated that he has reviewed this and those areas that are involved
with sewer and water have been discussed with the County Engineer and these have been
included in the staff report.
Mr. Peatross stated that there is a difference in opinion concerning the water
between what the County Engineer says and what the property owner says. He stated
that the County Engineer has reviewed it and states that there is adequate water
available.
Mr. Tucker stated that the County Engineer has reviewed it in terms of this
development that the water system proposed for this development is adequate to service
it. He stated that he did not know if the County Engineer reviewed the water pressure
situation.
Mrs. Graves asked about the passive and active recreation areas.
Mr. Tucker stated that the passive recreation is adequate and that the active
recreation is adequate due to the active recreation facilities nearby. However, it
was stated by the Commission that the Boars Head Sports Facilities were now oversubscribed.
lr. Easter moved for deferral subject to Mr. Tucker discussing the water situation
with Mr. Ashley Wi-lliams, County Engineer.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
It was decided by the Commission that ZMP-76-02 will be heard on March 23, 1976.
Mr. Barksdale requested that Mr. Perry, State Highway Department, and Ashley Williams,
County Engineer be present.
Mr. Gloeckner requested that someone from the Service Authority also be present.
Mr. Carr stated to Mr. Kellogg that the Commission wanted the Planner to take
another look at the RPN and address those requirements.
ZMP-76-03 David L. Hale has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to rezone 0.5 acres from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business. Property is situated
on the north side of Route 631 (Rio Road West). Property is further described
as County Tax Map 45H, Parcel 19. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff recommends
withdrawal without prejudice until the county can review and adopt a commercial office
zoning. He stated the reason for this is that the staff stated that before now while
commercial office is permitted in the B-1 zone, you have no guarantee that you can
nr condition zoning to be used for just commercial offices.
Mr. Hale, the applicant, asked if there is any way it can be conditioned, if
not, how long will it be before such is provided.
Mr. Tucker stated that you cannot condition zoning.
Mr. Gloeckner asked the applicant when he intended to build his office.
Mr. Hale stated that it actually wasn't his intent to build an office. He stated
that there was a residence there. He did state that he does plan to sell the property.
Mr. Faster asked if he just planned to renovate the house already on the property.
Mr. Hale stated that this was true.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt the Commission should start the ball rolling
on the commercial office zoning.
Mr. Peatross moved deferral until the CO can be arranged for it to happen or
not to happen.
Mr. Payne stated that Mr. Peatross could amend his motion to defer this item
until the CO zone can be established within a time not to exceed 90 days so that if
the Commission does defer the zoning request and get a CO zone within 90 days then
the Commission can see whether they get the CO zone. If you don't deal with the CO
zone in 90 days then you can deal with it again either denying it, withdrawing it,
or approving it.
Mr. Peatross amended the motion to defer the item for a period not to exceed
90 days to consider at such time a CO zoning being acted on one way or the other
and that the zoning request be reconsidered within the 90 days to either pass it,
deny it or allow the applicant to withdraw it.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner made the motion that the Commission recommend to the Board of
Supervisors to amend the Zoning Ordinance text to include CO designation as proposed
under last year's proposed Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Carr stated that he felt that he could not go along with this motion.
Mr. Gloeckner amended the motion "as presented by the staff for our review."
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-02-76 Phillips Building Supply, Inc. has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home sales lot on 24,693 square feet
zoned B-1 Business. Property is situated on the south side of Route 631
(Rio Road West). Property is further described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel
120R. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
(Mr. Peatross disqualified himself from the discussion by leaving the room).
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Mr. Tucker stated that back in 1971 the
Planning Commission issued a special permit for a mobile home to the previous owner Vigo
of this property. The property has now changed ownership and the owner is requesting
continuance of this special permit.
Mr. Barksdale asked if the special permit was transferable and if not it still
should not be back before the Commission. He stated that he felt the applicant should
be able to continue with the special permit.
Mr. Payne stated that this permit was issued back in 1971 for the same use
that the present owner plans to use it for.
Mr. Carr asked if this special permit should be before the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that in his personal opinion what ever the Commission did with
the special permit, it would not have any affect.
Mrs. Craddock asked if there was any screening required under the special permit
in 1971.
Mr. Tucker stated that there wasn't.
Mr. Barksdale moved that SP-02-76 bc. Void and that the applicant's $20.00
be refunded.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr stated that an original copy of the special permit should be sent to
Mr. Phillips, the applicant.
SP-03-76 North American Exploration, Inc., has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate professional offices on 4.5 acres
zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the southeast side of
Route 606. Property is further described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 57A, Char-
lottesville and Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Reback represented the applicant.
Mr. Carr asked if the owner was the applicant.
Mr. Reback stated that actually the owner was an officer of the applicant.
Mr. Gloeckner asked what the present right-of-way access is.
Mr. Reback stated that it is a right-of-way access that crosses the city/county
property.
Mrs. Craddock asked it the building was going to be screened.
Mr. Reback stated that this is a very wooded area.
Mr_. Easter moved for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Access road to be maintained in a dust -proof surface;
2. Site Plan approval by Planning Commission;
?. Only those trees necessary for removal during construction of office
building shall be removed.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-0. Mrs.
Graves did not vote because she was out of the room during the discussion.
SP-05-76 Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate an intercepting sewer in the general
location of Morey Creek; beginning at Moores Creek near Route 781 and ex-
tending in a northerly direction through Bellair, across Route 250 West and
ending at Route 601. Samuel Miller Magisterial. District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Payne asked Mr. Tucker if he reviewed this for substantial compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tucker stated that the sewer line done by A. C. Manner & Manner is in
substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as far as the sewer lines have
been projected in this area to be located in this area and the Crozet Interceptor
which has been changed to Plan B which would go through Ednam Forest and so forth.
He further stated that this has been changed from what the Comprehensive Plar, sub-
mitted.
Mr. Faster asked who made the change.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Service Authority made the change.
Mr. Marshall, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, stated that Plan B has not
come before the Authority to be approved.
Mr. John Pollack stated that a public hearing w3.11 !.e held by our board to decide
which route will be taken.
Mr. Easter asked if the Ri:ranna Water and Sewer Authority consults the Planning
Department on such matters as these so that there is coordination between the two
organizations.
Mr. Marshall stated that if you are speaking of the present line that is
before you tonight,this isapart of the four party agreement which is set up by
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Mr. Payne stated that the reason for his question previously is that the
statute requires that every public utility and facility whether publically or privately
owned be reviewed by the Commission for substantial compliance in terms of its general
location with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that if the Commission choses to
approve this special permit, that the Commission should make it a part of the record
that it has found this special permit in substantial compliance with the Compre-
hensive Plan.
The quesion was asked if this line was mainly to serve Bellair.
Mr. John Pollack stated that this, is an extension of the interceptor sewer
line serving the southern portion of the city and that the line will also serve
a portion of the county below the interstate and then it will also service Bucking-
ham Circle, Ednam Forest and Bellair and will act as an interim part of the Tvy•
Crozet area to serve those communities out there.
Mr. Easter asked if Mr. Marshall had any kind of map that shows a full plan
of the sewer syst,-tm that the County is involved with that he could send us sometime.
Mr. Marshall gave a brief rundown of the sewer system and stated that he
would send the Commission a map.
Mr. John Pollack stated that the Authority is preparing a small table with
a map for the Albemarle County Service Authority Board. He stated that he will
forward some copies to Mr. Tucker to pass onto the Commission.
Mrs. Craddock asked if anything has been done about Crozet.
Mr. John Pollack stated that it will be sometime before something can be put
in the ground.
Mr. Marshall stated that you have to recognize that there is a funding problem.
Mrs. Craddock asked if the Authority can foresee when they will start construction
in Crozet.
Mr. John Pollack stated that he felt they would start construction in Crozet
around July, 1977.
Mr. Carr asked who is responsible in deciding where these lines in fact will
be placed in Albemarle County.
Mr. Marshall stated that they have to go to the State Water Control Board for
approval,then,the Water Quality Management.
Mr. Carr asked "if they came through Ednam or up 250, who moves the line a mile,
500 feet, etc.,; who makes that decision."
Mr. Marshall stated that in regard to the Crozet Interceptor of which ultimate
plans have been developed by a consultant of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority,
it is John McNair and Associates of Waynesboro. They would submit to the Rivanna Water.'
and Sewer Authority those plans with the advantages and disadvantages of the plans and
the costs, then it would be up to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority which route
they choose to follow.
Mr. Carr stated then that final authority is invested in the Service Authority.
Mr. Marshall stated that that was true.
Mr. Pcatross asked if the manholes are level with the land.
Mr. Marshall stated that subject to flooding manholes are kept level with the
land and equiped with water tight lids. He stated that even if they are not subject
to flooding, they are still kept level with the land.
Mr. Easter asked if these contracts call for reseeding of the area.
Mr. Marshall stated that since the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority have been
operating the contracts, they have kept a very tight factor on that.
Mr. Barksdale recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
Reseeding of all disturbed areas immediately after the placement of the sewer
r
line; and
2. Grading permit obtained from the Zoning Department.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
*400
Resolution - Bicentennial Lodging
Mr. Tucker handed out to the Commission copies of the resolution pertaining
to bicentennial lodging. He stated that there are people requesting this in view
of the motel space unavailable during the bicentennial. People are requesting that
they stay over night in people's homes. He stated that this would have to be an
amendment to the zoning ordinance. He further stated that he sees it as a temporary
type means. It can be repealed; it doesn't have to be temporary.
Mr. Tucker stated that this will be coming back before the Commission at a
later date.
Mr. Tucker stated that he did not send the Ednam plats through the Site Plan
Review Committee because the staff has been so criticized for running this plats through
site review before coming to the Commission.
There was a brief discussion held about this matter and it was decided to discuss
this matter two weeks from tonight on March 16, 1976.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
Secretary, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
19
March 9, 1976
Due to snow, no meeting was held on this date, as was scheduled.
Items on this agenda were rescheduled for March 30, 1976.
4ert% ucker, Jr. - Secr ary
M
% 2 (_
cm
March 16, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting Tuesday, March 16,
1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia,
to consider a series of site plans and subdivision requests.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Ellen
Craddock; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Paul Peatross; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Clearview Knolls - dedication of 50' existing right-of-way:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report, pointing out that the plat of Clearview
Knolls was approved October 21, 1971, with a bond for $9,820.00 posted to insure
construction of the roads. There is a 200' section from the centerline of Route 660
which was never dedicated to public use, owned by the adjacent owners. The applicant
is now submitting a plat showing this section dedicated for public use as a roadway,
which will be eligible for state maintenance with the requested dedication.
The County Engineer has stated that the original road bond was calculated from
the centerline of Route 660.
The staff recommended approval subject to :
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval.
Mr. Carr asked what happens when road bonds become outdated.
Mrs. Scala explained that the policy now is to ask for a time limit.
Mrs. Graves said that there has been considerable soil erosion and this
point should be addressed before the plat is signed.
Mrs. Scala said that the Soil Erosion Inspector had informed her that work
has been done to correct this problem and she was informed by a member of the BETZ
team that the measures employed have been working quite well, as tested by the last
heavy rainfall.
Mrs. Graves reminded the Commission that the erosion problems have existed since
last October, which is a long time for such problems to be happening.
Mrs. Scala assured the Commission that there is no problem at this time.
There was no public comment on the plat.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the one condition recommended
by the staff.
�Wrr Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Georgetown Vet revised site plan - Georgetown Road:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report, noting that work has begun on the basis
of the first site plan that was approved. A de-cel lane has been constructed.
Mrs. Scala pointed out that the revised plan is very similar to the original
plan regarding parking, service drive and stable area. The addition to the main
building totals about 2700 square feet, and 1568 square feet to the stables, a total
of 4268 square feet of addition. The main difference requiring approval is the location
of a treatment room to the rear of the main building. She also gave a brief zoning
history of the property, pointing out that a variance for the extension of a non-
conforming use, subject to Planning Commission approval of a site plan had been
approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals in 1974. In 1974,the Planning Commission also
approved a site plan subject to screening along north and south boundaries, where
determined necessary by the planning staff. This site plan showed 6280 square feet
addition to the main building and to horse stables in the rear. In 1975, the Planning
Staff administratively approved a revised site plan which showed no addition to the
stable and approximately 1700 square feet addition to the main building. This plan
showed relocated shrubbery on the south side, and existing trees on the north side.
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff found no problem with the revised plan.
Mrs. Craddock asked how a part of a site plan could be administratively
approved.
Mrs. Scala stated that the changes had been primarily for the landscape plan
and that the other changes had been minor, especially since the square footage
had been considerably decreased from the original approval.
Mr. Carr offered the general comment that the work that has been done
there is very pleasing and that it sits well in a residential community. He expressed
the desire that the work continue in the same fashion.
Mrs. Graves questioned the plans for the sewer.
Dr. Flinn, representing Georgetown Vet, said that sewer would be provided by
the city.
Mr. Peatross asked if the plan showed any differences besides the treatment
room.
Mrs. Scala explained the differences in parking, treatment room, etc.
Mr. Carr noted that the service drive should be shown on the revised plan.
Dr. Flinn stated that the service drive would be only for private use.
Mrs. Scala said that any use of the service drive, whether private use or
otherwise, would require approval by the Highway Department.
Mr. Carr said that this service drive exists, but not in a formal manner.
Dr. Flinn stated that use of the service drive would be limited.
Mrs. Graves asked if this service drive would interfere with the de-cel lane.
Mrs. Scala said that it had been her understanding that the service drive was
not to be used after the de-cel lane had been installed. If it is to be used at all,
she said that Highway Dept. approval is necessary. The drive must also be shown on
the plan.
Mr. Carr asked if the site plan, except for the service drive, complies with
all the regulations.
*✓
Mrs. Scala said that it does.
Mrs. Craddock said that the drive should be shown on the site plan.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the site plan, subject to the service drive
being shown on the plan. He also moved that the plan be brought back to the Commission
if the staff and the Virginia Department of Highways cannot work out the problem of
the service drive.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-06-76. Frances H. Roberts has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 1.1 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural.
Property is located 14 mile west of Route 744 on the south side of Route
250 East. County Tax Map 80, Parcel 46B, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report, in which he pointed out that the applicant
had secured SP-409 in 1974 to locate a mobile home on Tax Map 80, Parcel 58,
approximatley 14 mile from the site of the current request. He noted that the
mobile home had never been placed there.
Mr. Peatross asked the reason for this.
Mr. Keeler stated that the staff had been unable to contact Mrs. Roberts
to establish the reason for this.
Mrs. Graves asked if the request is properly before the Comm.isison, since
the acreage is only 1.1 acres.
Mr. Carr said that this is one of the questions that needs to be addressed.
Mrs. Roberts explained to the Commission that she wishes to live in Albemarle
County near her sister.
Mr. Fennell, representing Mrs. Roberts, said that the applicant is a
native of Albemarle County and that she has purchased the property in question
from her niece. The mobile home is currently in Louisa County. Mrs. Roberts'
sister is one of the adjacent owners. A ravine and wooded area separate the
property from Magruder Subdiviision. He stated that the applicant wishes to live
near her family and this is the reason she did not take advantage of SP-409.
He noted that the property has been plated as 1.1 acres since 1958.
Mrs. Edward Campbell stated that there is not enough land for the mobile
home, and noted that the wooded area has been cleared to make room for the mobile
home. She stated that she does not object to a house being built there, but a
mobile home will decrease property values in the area.
Mrs. Margaret Bickers Wood stated opposition to the request. She feels
fir' this property should adhere to restrictions imposed on Royal Acres. She said that
if this permit is allowed, taxes in the area should be lowered. Mrs. Wood also
felt this would set a precedent for other mobile homes in the area.
/, 2 J
Mr. Edward Campbell felt that since Royal Acres is restricted for no mobile
homes, this request should not be permitted.
Mr. Fennell pointed out that it is the back yards, and not the front, that
join the property of Mrs. Roberts.
Mrs. Campbell stated that the back yards are "really the front yards."
Mrs. Dora Berkely, sister of the applicant, said that there is a mobile home
adjacent to her property. She said that she has lived on her property for 23 years
and that she has granted the forever easement if necessary.
Mr. Barksdale asked if 1.1 acres can be built on.
Mr. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, said that this was a lot of record when
zoning was adopted in Albemarle County. It can be used for building purposes if
front and side setbacks can be met. He said that the application is properly before
the Commission, though the size of the lot can be considered as a matter of concern
when the decision is made regarding the request.
Mr. Easter asked the size of Mrs. Berkeley's lot.
She told him that it is approximately 3.75 acres.
Mrs. Graves asked if the applicant owns the property on which the mobile
home is proposed to be located.
Mr. Fennell said that she does.
Mrs. Berkeley stated that the other mobile home is on her son's property.
Mr. Peatross again asked the reason for not taking advantage of SP-409.
Mrs. Roberts said that the location had been determined by the zoning
department and that it was not satisfactory.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Barksdale asked how many bedrooms are in the mobile home, since Health
Department approval had been granted for a one bedroom residence only.
Mrs. Roberts said that there are two, but that she intends to use one
of the bedrooms for storage.
Mrs. Graves wanted the drainage field addressed.
Mrs. Berkeley said that she wished to point out that other trailers in the
County are located on less than two acres.
Mr. Carr said that these were permitted before the zoning ordinance was
adopted.
Mr. Carr said that the Commission needs to consider the fact that the
request does not meet the requirements as far as acreage. He was concerned
about a well and septic system, therefore. On the other hand, he pointed out,
Mrs. Roberts' family has owned property for many years in Albemarle County, and
the Commission needs to decide if this overrides the basic issues.
fails.
Mrs. Craddock asked if there is an alternative drainfield if the first one
Mr. Fennell said that there would not be too many alternatives.
Mrs. Craddock explained that this is the reason for requiring two acres,
especially when land does not perc well to begin with.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the applicant is in her seventies.
Mr. Easter said that he hates to see someone in a pumping situation.
He felt the situation is not a good one for the county, and therefore suggested that
action be deferred until the site could be viewed.
Mrs. Craddock put this suggestion into the form of a motion, which Dr.
Moore seconded. The motion for deferral carried unanimously.
P. H. Faulconer preliminary plan - request for an easement from Barracks
Road to serve 11 existing parcels:
Mrs. Scala pointed out that this plat for "Madison Park" Subdivision ( part
of a larger subdivision ) was recorded in August, 1910 with a series of rights -of -way
to serve the 81 lots. Two of the rights -of -way, Farnum Place and Morris Avenue,
cross the Belfield School property. Belfield School, she said, would like these
rights -of -way abandoned, but P. H. Faulconer Estate is willing to do this only
if the Planning Commission will approve a new 50' easement to connect Morris Avenue
with Barracks Road. Morris Avenue serves 11 lots from 4.5 to 18.8 acres; average
size of 8.25 acres.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Old plat should be re -drawn and recorded with new 50' easement;
2. Approval of new easement should be conditioned upon the abondonment of the
two rights -of -way which cross Belfield property;
3. A note on the new plat: No further subdivision of the property served by this
new easement, along Morris Avenue, is permitted without Planning Commission
approval.
Mr. Peatross asked if this means substituting one right-of-way for the original
two.
Mrs. Scala confirmed this.
Mr. Easter asked if this is agreeable to Belfield School and P. H. Faulconer.
Mrs. Scala said that both parties are agreeable.
Mr. Carr asked why Highway Department approval had not been a condition.
Mrs. Scala said that this could be a condition.
Mr. David wood, representing both Belfield and the Faulconer Estate,
said the roads cross the property where Belfield hopes to develop athletic fields.
This is the reason for requesting the new 50' easement.
Mr. Carr asked where this will dead-end.
Mr. Wood said that it wLII dead-end before one gets to the school, and the easement
will not be used as an exit/entrance, thus Highway Department approval is not necessary.
Mrs. Craddock moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Holkham final plat - two 2-acre parcels on existing temporary easements off
Route 678. Waiver is required for the pipestem lot:
Mrs. Scala explained that the two proposed parcels are presently served by
existing easements over existing driveways. When the 4.57 acres was recorded in
1972, there was an agreement that the easements would cease at such time as a state
road was provided to serve the residences.
The 2.57 acre parcel includes a pipestem which will probably be dedicated for
road purposes when the Cushman tract is subdivided.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of this subdivision does not include approval of the location of any
future roads;
2. No further subdivisions along these easements without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Carr said that this appears to be a family matter.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
staff.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Citizens Bank and Trust site plan - renewal requested for two years - Route 29 North
and Airport Road:
Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the
room.
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report in which she pointed out that the site plan
for the office trailer was approved for 2� years. The applicant requests site plan
approval for two additional years.
Mrs. Craddock asked the reasons for the renewal.
Mr. Nottingham, representing the bank, stated that the holding company will
not at this time authorize any new construction.
Mrs. Graves asked if construction had been contingent upon growth in the
area which had not yet occurred.
Mr. Nottingham said that this is not the case, that construction depends
upon the growth of the bank itself.
Mrs. Craddock moved approval of the site plan for two additional years, noting
that if she were on the Commission in two years, she would be unwilling to approve
another renewal.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Peatross asked the number of times a renewal on a site plan can be granted
and the time limit that is used.
Mr. Payne explained that the matter is hazy as far as interpretation, but that
there seems to be no time limit for renewals and no set number of times that a renewal
can be granted.
Mrs. Craddock pointed out that this places hardships on other businesses in the
area, which have much more stringent site plans to adhere to.
The motion carried unanimously.
Sperry Marine site plan - additions to existing building for periscope
test stand and storage or extension of periscope manufacture operation:
Mrs. Scala explained in the staff report that the smaller addition is for
a periscope test stand. The larger addition connecting the main building with
the metal building to the rear will house either storage or be the extension of the
periscope manufacture operation. Parking requirements are not affected. There will
be a maximum of 20 additional employees. There will be no new grading.
The staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. County Engineer approval of storm drainage;
2. Fire Marshal approval.
Mr. Peatross asked if this would involve any new employees at the present time.
Mr. Dale Hamilton, representing the applicant, stated that the additions
are presently to releave overcrowding, and personnel will merely be shifted.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that adjacent owners are not shown on the site plan
as is required by the ordinance.
Mrs. Scala said that this is only a small part of the entire site plan,
and that all adjacent owners were notified.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the two conditions
recommended by the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
Hearn final plat - Route 759 - eight lots - average size 1.5 acres:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report, noting that this is the Pine Run
Subdivision final plat located on the south side of Route 759 near Boyd Tavern.
The property is zoned RS-1. There are individual well and septic systems.
The staff recommended approval subject to:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. Grading permit needed if two or more lots are developed at the same time.
She pointed out that the 50' pipestem will serve the 31 acre residue, which
will act as a buffer for owners of the property.
Overcrowdedness will be increases at Jouett and Albemarle if inhabitation
occurs before Western Albemarle is opened.
Mr. Carr asked the setback.
Mrs. Scala said that it is the required 50' for the RS-1 zone. Shared
entrances will be used.
Mrs. Craddock asked the source of information regarding school impact.
Mrs. Scala stated that this is supplied to the Planning Department by the
Department of Education.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that school impact should be considered, since
more students mean more teachers and administrators are needed. She felt the entire
parcel should be seen too.
Mr. Morris Foster said that the Health Department would not approve a
subdivision for more than eight (8) lots.
Mr. Carr said that Mrs. Graves' point should be addressed in the review of
the Comprehensive Plan.
staff.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gordon Wheeler reminded the Commission that not always do new subdivisions
mean more children, thus an impact on the schools. Many families move from rental
units into houses created by these subdivisions, and sometimes this means merely
a shift in schools. So even though school impact should be addressed, it should
be remembered that new houses do not necessarily mean more children for the schools
to absorb.
Rock Branch acres final plat ( Roy S. Clarke, Jr. ) - Route 710 and Route 779:
In the staff report, Mrs. Scala pointed out that the property is located on
the north side of Route 779. Zoned A-1, it contains 13 lots, with a minimum size of
2.0 acres and an average size of 2.0 acres. There are individual wells and septic
systems planned for the property.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. Grading permit needed if two or more lots developed at the same time;
3. Show centerline of Route 710.
vaid
Mrs. Scala noted that the 30' pipestem serves fourteen acre residue, of
which the applicant forsees no subdivision.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, asked for a clarification
on the Virginia Department of Highways approval condition, since these permits may
not be applied for)for 6-24 months.
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a condition due to the fact that the
Highway Department's comments are usually received by the Planning Department
several weeks after a Planning Commission meeting. This ensures proper exists and
entrances.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving the room.
Elizabeth Breeden final plat - Route 631 ( Old Lynchburg Road ) - 10 2-acre lots:
Mrs. Scala stated that the property is zoned A-1 Agricultural. There are
ten lots with a minimum size of 2.0 acres. There will be individual wells and septic
systems.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Grading permit needed if two or more lots developed at same time;
2. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval;
3. Staff recommends removal of as few trees as possible.
Mrs. Scala also pointed out that the 60' pipestem will serve the 84-acre residue.
Mr. Jim Baber, adjoining property owner, said that he had just recently
purchased one of the houses that the Breeden family had built in the area. He noted
that this particular 8-lot subdivision has deed restrictions. He told the Commission
that there is a small contemporary house being built, by the Breedens, that other
owners in the subdivision feel does not meet the deed restrictions. He said that
they fear the requested 10-lot subdivision will also have houses built that will
not comply with the deed restrictions.
Mr. Peatross asked if this problem addressed by Mr. Baber has anything to
do with the request before the Commission.
Mr. Baber said that he feels as though it does, since he does not want
the contemporary house to set a precedent for the 10 lots.
Mrs. Thomas Ramsey said that it is her feeling that smaller houses in the
area will devalue existing property values.
Mr. Carr said that the Commission does not have the tools to address this point.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Easter asked if the setback could be increased.
Mr. Tom Lincoln, representing the applicant, said that this would be
agreeable to the applicant; he suggested that the setback could be as large as
300'.
Mr. Breeden said that a 300' setback from the road as it now stands is agreeable.
Mr. Barksdale amended his motion to include a fourth condition to read:
4. Setback of 200' from the road.
The Commission unanimously voted on the motion to approve.
Albemarle Square Revised Site Plan - Route 29 North and Rio Road:
Mrs. Scala pointed out the engineer's and the architect's drawings for
Albemarle Square.
Mrs. Scala gave a brief zoning history of the property, in which she pointed
out that the property had been rezoned from R-2 to B-1 subject to 150' strip remaining
R-2 adjacent Woodbrook. The Planning Commission approved a site plan in 1973, subject
to satisfactory landscape plan worked out between the Director of Planning and the
developer. In October, 1973, the landscape plan was administratively approved.
In August, 1974, the Board of Sueprvisors approved a site plan limited to 115,000
square feet and adherence to minimum requirements for off-street parking ( 5.5 spaces
per 1,000 square feet gross floor area ). In February, 1976, building permits were
issued for Drug Fair, Safeway, and twelve retail stores, totaling 68,922 square feet.
At this time the applicant is requesting approval of the entire revised
site plan. Major revisions include building layout of department stores, a new
central space and separation of the two legs of the shopping center. Parking has
been revised to accomodate these changes. Four free-standing buildings are shown
on the plan. A new exist only"is proposed at the north end of the center for
service trucks northbound only. An amended landscape plan has been submitted.
Staff recommendations:
Approval of this revised plan must be conditioned upon:
1. Service Authority approval for the Shopping Center to connect to the Meadow Creek
plant via the Woodbrook interceptor;
2. The Board of Supervisors will also have to approve this change of plans because
their approval was for only 115,000 square feet.
Other conditions of approval are:
3. County En4ineer approval;
4. Fire Marshal approval;
5. Virginia Department of Highways approval ( the staff concurs with the Virginia
Department of Highways that the entrance from Route 29 North at Charlottesville
Savings and Loan should be one-way in only, and that the first entrance into the
Savings and Loan employees parking lot should be eliminated; the applicant agreed
to this );
6. The curb cut southwest of the restaurant should be eliminated. The curb cut
southwest of the 3,000 square feet freestanding building should be eliminated;
7. Adherence to minimum parking requirement of 5.5 spaces/1,000 square feet gross
floor area;
8. Approval does not include buildings in Phase 3, since sewer is not available at
this time;
19
19
Mrs. Scala said that the first phase is identical to the original plan.
The parking dimensions and number of spaces comply with the ordinance, except for
any expansions, such as Best, which might occur.
Mrs. Craddock questioned the landscape plan, noting that it is designated
for the entire project and thus would not be finished until the project is completed,
perhaps leaving a raw edge of exposure on one side.
Mrs. Scala agreed that the landscape plan should be addressed.
Mr. Heischman, owner of the project, said that there are currently no plans
for construction of Phase III. The entire parking lot, however, will be done at this
time. He agreed that this part of the project would be seeded, and that existing foliage
and trees will not be removed unless a revised site plan is submitted. He also
agreed that the landscape plan submitted for previous approval will be part of this
development.
Mr. Cain, adjacent owner, asked about the 150' strip of R-2 zoning.
Mrs. Scala explained this area to him, as well as the 50' buffer of trees.
Mrs. Craddock asked the height of the two buildings at one end of the
development.
Mr. Thornburg, architect, stated that they are 20' in height.
Mr. McFarland questioned the de-cel lane at the exit.
Mr. Huffman explained that this is currently in the hands of the Virginia
Department of Highways.
Mrs. Scala again stated that the staff is willing to accept the suggestions
regarding roads, exits and entrances, etc. of the Department of Highways.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the revised site plan subject to the eight
conditions recommended by the staff plus the two following conditions:
1. Existing foliage and trees to remain unless a revised site plan is presented;
2. Landscaping plan as previously approved will be part of the development.
The motion, which was seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
Huntington Village Site Plan - Route 754, 40 rental townhouse units:
Mrs. Scala said that this property, zoned R-3, has 40 rental townhouse
units on 13.5 acres. Future development planned for the 130 units yields an
ultimate density of 9.63 units/acre. There will be public water and sewer.
She pointed out that this plan was reviewed on rental unit requirements and
thus may not qualify for sale under the townhouse ordinance.
The staff feels the concept, layout and landscaping of this plan are well
done and recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
NW
1. Fire Marshal approval;
2. A plat must be recorded showing dedication of 25' strip along front of property
from centerline of Route 754.
3. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval;
4. Grading permit is needed;
5. Subject to Service Authority approval;
6. Subject to County Engineer's approval of plan, including retaining berms and
parking area pavement design.
Mrs. Craddock pointed out the need for tot lots even in the earliest stage.
Mr. Tom Wyant, architect for the project, pointed out several places that
this could be included, and stated that there would be no problem meeting this
requirement.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff, plus the following condition:
7. Tot lot requirement to be met for Phase I, requiring at least 2,000 square feet
of space.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion for approval, which carried unanimously.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Secretary
In
f 3p
March 23, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting Tuesday, March 23,
1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Ellen Craddock;
Mr. Paul Peatross; Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; and Mrs. Opal David,
ex-Officio.
order.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
SP-06-76. Frances H. Roberts - request for a mobile home:
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the staff had received a letter that
day from the applicant's attorney requesting withdrawal.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the request for withdrawal without prejudice
be accepted.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
Robert L. Cross final plat - 10 acre parcel and 2.5 acre lot served by
proposed 50' easement. Route 250 West near Mechums River:
Mrs. Scala reminded the Commission that this item had been deferred
in order that the status of old Route 250 shown on the plat could be clarified.
The Virginia Department of Highways has determined that this route has been
abandoned, and that Mr. Cross now owns to the centerline of this old road. The
easement has been shifted to the east to front on new Route 250.
The applicant is requesting approval of a 50' easement to serve a 10-acre
parcel, a 2.5-acre parcel and the 67.5 acre residue.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Note on the plat: No further subdivision permitted along this easement without
Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
M
ZMP-76-02. Virginia Dryden Kellogg - request rezoning from R-1 to R-1/RPN:
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that this item had been deferred in order
that certain questions could be answered, especially questions regarding sewer
and water. He passed out to the Commission supplemental information submitted
to the Planning Department by the applicant, the architect, and the planners
and engineers for the applicant. This supplemental information was drawn up
by the firm of Brown, Goldfarb, Sullivan and Associates. He reminded the
Commission that other parts of the application include the preliminary plat,
the original staff report. This request for rezoning includesthe preliminary
plan, and the final plan must also be submitted at a later date for approval.
Mr. Carr stated that a rezoning of this sort is contrary to the typical
rezoning, and that it is proper to discuss the utilization of that property.
Mr. Tucker confirmed that this is correct.
At this time, Mr. Tucker read into the record a letter from the office
of the County Attorney regarding the proposed sewer and water arrangements
( see attached ).
Mr. Marion Kellogg, husband of the applicant, stated that they realized
the location was of prime importance, and that plans are to have the development
an asset to the area. He stated that the area will be a high quality neighborhood.
The intent, he stated, is to fulfill the needs of those people who will sell the
larger estates by providing them with sizable quarters where there is less
maintenance. This will enable these individuals to remain in the area, since
no such quarters are at this time available. The four main objects of the
project will be 1.) top quality; 2.) security; 3.) service; and 4.) privacy.
Mr. Peter Brown, one of the applicant's representatives, stated that this
is a proposed change from a conventional zone to a neighborhood zone. This means
that the development can be more flexible than a single-family subdivision.
Via a series of illustations, he pointed out the plans for the development.
Mr. Andy Sullivan, another representative of the applicant, presented
the preliminary plan to the Commission, and elaborated on the supplemental
submission information via a series of drawings( see attached supplemental
submission information). He made use of an artist's comception to present
the visual impact. He explained the highway plans as agreed upon by the
Virginia Department of Highways and the applicant. He pointed out the left
and right turn lanes and addressed the reservation for the ultimate 4-Lane
highway along Route 250.
Mr. Charles Perry of the Virginia Department of Highways said that the
existing 2-lane highway will handle the increase in traffic that this project
Will generate. He pointed out that the need for such things as a traffic
light can be determined only after the development is complete.
Mrs. Helen Cohen asked who will pay for any upgrading of the road.
Mr. Perry said that the developer will absorb these expenses. He also
stated that a traffic study whould not be valid until the development is complete.
Hct
j,&j:-ch 23, 1976
X
-dna:i
i. C - . t ed
2
-, --? " -1 � �!
A'i "'E;
t
V1, SIQ�'I W
a 1-a �7' au" i
a I dt au
CIE; 6
0, K31 v 1C e UtIlor i Y �.A water 5"111 �D-L'Y*
-
3,
E.,6 el
o c, �-ie- L(-) rx" t - 3
atura, thei:e Will r -he de-ve'Loper shouid ��oiisLiact a teltiary
sewage, tile C`Uanty -LO serv(;!
s,-Itjsfac:'Lo-.'y
1�
c1 ,)iant-- I o-rl
-U.Id 1b. I-loted as a -La�(Ipura—'Y -i7aCiiitY 'c-J
�d �:"U I - - I(
I -' e di s
Y unt i')U')Iic sewag
L L be required to hc(,j,,- on to the facilities
'
of the Service Authority when the same are avallable dild, 31L
that time, discontinue and dismanCle t."Ie .�)rivuLe
tag -t.iary
trzatment plai1t r2he developer should an appro.,
�,
cyntiLy in accordance with Title 56 01 the Code of Virginia
11950), as amended, for the furnishing of sewer facilities
beioi:�� the same can be provided by t)"ie, 6e-" Vlce Authority.
This entity should be responsible for the :maintenance of
'-
-F he to t'he standard's
all. L;c--Nqaqe .acilitic�s within
of the 6rrvice t)rovisions should be made for
the ,airy -lent of al aPP-ical.)It�- fees tc, tile 6u-rvice Authority,
;�yL
r then current, when the development comes on line with
NI
march 23, 1976
rage 2
Ednarm Proposed 11%esidential 22fanned N(,iqhbo--Ilood
the Sox ice Authority's facilities. Pinally, all sewer lines
and aplurtenant facilities,, thy: treatment 1-)lant
itself, should be dedicatl��O by the developer at the present time
on tile following terms: Dedication shoald be irrevocable on the
part of the developer and his sucessors in the interest, but
subject to accentance by the Service Authority at such time as the
16 a L :i%all 6-aLer!J tnc acccrtance of the dedication to
J;J 11 c -1:rest. It should be maCe clear to the
in no way guarantees
U e,%o -7,at i,- of this rezoning
----ly public utility, this being a matter
emir :.1y withiii L'1( ctent of tale ervice Aut'4;J i Ly.
obviously should be shown
on they plat itself (e.C, the locatio-'). 11 treatillent plant').
fc.rnta.lizerl at the Lime
�an h
of fiYjai. sjt' but I thi-n-K it i, rt t t at the
e
' i
-se C�Xl'& -lease
qu �-it
t.:L 71 0
C=
em
March 18, 1976
1,42
Architects And Planners
2314 Market Street
Philadelphia Pennsylvania 19103
Peter H. Brown AIA
Lawrence A. Goldfarb AIA
Telephone 215 567-5097
Andrew T Sullivan AIP
1027 Hooper Avenue
Toms River, New Jersey 08650
Robert R. Heuser Assoc. AIP
Telephone 201 240-2480
OR 2 2 REn
Mr. Robert Tucker
County of Albemarle
Planning and Zoning Office
411 E. High Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
Dear Bob:
This probably won't reach you until Monday but please accept the
attached as a summary of what we've found since the last Planning
Commission hearing.
We'll review this again when I see you,juesday.morning.
Sincerely,
Andrew T.lSullivan
ATS:aek
Enclosure
Architecture • Planning • Environmental Studies • interiors • Graphics
M
M
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Ednam - Residential'Planned Neighborhood
ZMP-76-02
Application for Rezoning from R-1 to RPN R-1
The following supplemental information is submitted in support of the application for
rezoning of the Ednam property from R-1 to RPN and the accompanying preliminary plan,
as defined by Article 19, Residential Planned Neighborhood, of the Zoning ordinance
of the County of Albemarle.
This information is subject to any further standards and regulations which may be
applicable as part of the required final site development plan submission.
It is understood by the applicant that this preliminary plan and application for re-
zoning is intended to establish the general land use, density, general layout for
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, method of access, the general layout for utilities
including water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage, and the number of dwelling units by
type and area. Specific details regarding roadway design and geometrics, landscaping
and planting details, exact location and design of buildings, engineering design of
utility systems and other required information will be provided as part of the final
site development plan, in accordance with all applicable standards and regulations,
icle 17 of the Zoning ordinance and of the
and the administrative provisions of Art
County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
1. Highway Access
Highway access, right-of-way, intersections, construction and landscaping will
conform to the standards and requirements of the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation (VDH&T), including:
a. A 60 foot reserve setback along Route 250 for a future four -lane right-of-
way shall be set (measured from the present south edge of pavement of
Route 250).
b. A left turning taper for 200 feet with geometry acceptable to the VDH&T shall
be included in Route 250.
c. A deceleration lane (south side) shall be provided.
d. The island shown in the illustrative sketch will be deleted.
e. The length of pavement at the access
accommodate five cars (with a 50 foot
as requested by VDH&T).
2. Scenic Highway
road will be made of sufficient depth to
radius of curb and no acceleration lane
Provisions for the improvement of the applicant's frontage on Route 250 will con-
form to all applicable regulations and standards of Article 18, Scenic Highway:
EM
In
-2-
Designation, of the Zoning ordinance.
A setback of 150 feet shall be provided from the proposed right-of-way of the
four -lane Route 250 (measured as 210 feet from the edge of pavement). In
addition, full bank stabilization, erosion control and landscaping will be pro-
vided in'accordance with all applicable standards; detailed drawings will be
submitted prior to the final P,PN submission. Any signs will conform to all
sign and scenic highway provisions of Article 18.
3. Water Pressure
The supply (amount or flow) of water in the 12" and 10" lines, estimated at
1500 G.P.M. is adequate to service the 132 units or approximately 400 users
projected. We understand that any existing pressure and supply problems at the
end of the lines in Ednam Village and Ednam Forest are intended to be corrected
by plans and proposals now in the process of submission to the County Service
Authority Engineer, and that this solution, consisting of a standpipe at the
highest elevation in Ednam Forest, will satisfy the requirements of existing and
future residents.
Preliminary engineering studies for the proposed Ednam development indicate a
water service requirement of approximately 40,000 G.P.D. The system will be
engineered to provide:
- maintenance of adequate supply (flow) and pressure for Ednam, Ednam Village,
and Ednam Forest users as approved by the County Service Authority.
- maintenance of adequate supply and pressure for users on the other side of
the supply source on Route 250.
- if necessary, utilization of a standpipe on the Ednam property to insure no
measurable decrease in capacity or pressure for other users on the same
supply line.
The Ednam water system will be fully engineered prior to the final Site Develop-
ment Plan Review, so that all adjacent property owners will have ample opportun-
ity to review and discuss all engineering data.
4. Public Sewer Service
Sanitary sewer service for Ednam will be provided through the Albemarle Service
Authority by a direct collector connection to the Morey Creek interceptor
scheduled for completion in 1977-78. Upon preliminary rezoning, formal appli-
cation for this connection and the necessary allotment of approximately 40,000
G.P.D. will be submitted to the Service Authority. Should the development demand
service before the interceptor is completed or before Moore's Creek Treatment
Plant can insure adequate capacity, the owner shall not obligate the County
Authority to provide service. In this case, the owner would make application
for a special temporary use permit to provide "public sewer" in the form of a
package tertiary treatment facility at his own cost and meeting all applicable
design and discharge criteria of agencies having jurisdiction. In all likeli-
hood, the temporary treatment facility would be a joint undertaking of adjacent
property owners. "
19�
-3-
5. Dwelling Unit Types
The number and type of dwelling units proposed in the preliminary plan are as
follows:
Number
Single family detached: 12
Single family attached (including
semi-detached): 70
Multiple -family: 50
Total: 132 units
Single family detached dwellings would be free-standing structures on designated
lot areas, with private garages and walled yard areas.
Single family attached dwellings would be townhouse type structures, either two
adjacent (semi-detached units) or three to four in a row (attached units) with
common party walls, walled gardens and yards, and enclosed garages.
Multiple -family dwellings would be located in a maximum of two buildings, on the
higher land toward the interior of the tract.
The roofs of the multiple -family buildings would be limited to a height lower than
the tree foliage at the top of the hill. Alternative architectural studies for
this building type :•rhich are under consideration include:
- two five -story buildings containing 25 units each;
- one or two larger three-story buildings with an entrance courtyard and a
limited number of penthouse units on the fourth story.
All of the residential structures would be of traditional or colonial architec-
tural treatment.
6. Preliminary Plan and Rezoning Application Submission Documents
The application has submitted the information and materials required by Article
19 of the Zoning ordinance, which is shown on the following documents:
Official Preliminary Plan Submission Documents
Map No. Title
1 Context
and
Location Maps
2 Bo'undary
and
Topography
3 Slopes and
Soils
Analysis
4 Land Use
and
Dwelling Units by Type and Area
5 Existing
and
Proposed Roads, Easements and Utilities
6 General
Plan
- Recreation
In addition, although not specifically required by Article 19, the applicant
has submitted the following supporting illustrative materials in support of this
application for rezoning from R-1 to RPN R-1: '
- 4 -
Supporting Illustrative
Materials
Map No.
Title
7
Development Concept Plan
8
Single
Family Detached Unit, Type 1 (architectural sketch)
9
Single
Family Detached Unit, Type 2 (architectural sketch)
10
Single
Family Attached Unit (architectural sketch)
11
Single
Family Semi -Detached Unit (architectural sketch)
12
Multi -Family
Dwelling, alternative study (architectural
sketch)
13
Other
Illustrative Materials, including:
13A
Perspective Sketch from Ednam Forest
13B
Chart Comparing Land Uses Permitted in R-1, RPN - P.-1,
and proposed RPN - R-1 Ednam
13C
Chart Comparing Maximum Allowable Density and Number
of Units in R-1, RPN - R-1, and Proposed RPN - R-1
Ednam
13D
Site Plan Comparison of R-1 Subdivision and Proposed
RPN - R-1 Ednam
13E
Aerial Photograph Showing Superimposed Ednam Concept
Plan
13F
Comparison of Existing and Proposed Highway Access
Layout
13G
Sketch of Alternative Multiple Family Building
13H
Chart Showing Tentative Development Schedule
13I
Land Use Comparison Chart, R-1, RPIN - R-1, and Proposed
RPN - R-1.
These supporting
illustrative
materials are intended as conceptual and general
site plan information, to assist
in explaining the preliminary plan and are not
intended to represent in any way specific or final plans or designs.
7. Final Application Documents
Final application documents shall conform in all ways to the requirements set forth
in Article 17, pages lOOff. of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, for Site
Development Plan review.
In terms of procedure, this shall include notice to adjacent property owners of
Site Plan Review meeting (Sec. 17-3-2) and the opportunity on their part for
public review and discussion of the Site Development Plan well in advance of any
formal hearing or review of such final plans, as well as review by the Site Plan
Review Committee, the Director of Planning, the Planning Commission, and by the
governing body if required.
14► PHB:ATS:aek
3/18/76
l4-7
Mr. R. Rutland asked if a tertiary system for sewage is adaquate here
until that time when the development will connect to County Sewer.
Mr. Ashley Williams, County Engineer, stated that there is not a tertiary
system in the County, but that it is the most advanced treatment system available;
Off hand, he stated that he felt that it would be adequate - he stated that he had
not had sufficient time to review the plans. However, he pointed out, that when
the treatment is complete, that the water is potable.
Mr. Steve Phillips, an engineer representing Ednam Forest Corporation
and the Ednam Village Homeowners' Association, explained that he had done
an extensive water study of the area, and pointed out the static water pressure
in the area. He pointed out the plans for a pumping station within Ednam Forest .
He noted that such a pumping station might be considered for this development.
Mrs. Nolan, a homeowner in Ednam Forest, stated that there has been
a considerable decrease in water pressure there during the past five years.
Mr. Al Laberly also addresssed the water problem in the area and his concerns.
He questioned the height of the proposed structures.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the applicant wishes a multi -family use for the
site. He pointed out that the maximum height as limited by the ordinance is 65 feet.
Currently, studies are being made of a 3-4 story structure, or a 5 story structure.
Mrs. Dorothy Speidel, representing Citizens for Albemarle Scenic Road
Committee felt that buildings for the project had been located without looking to
the future and the possibility of Route 250 being designated "Scenic."
N
Dr. Berry,after stating concerns for water, sewer, traffic safety, stated
that because the density of this proposal is less than the density permitted by
existing zoning, the proposal might be the best of the bad alternatives.
He did state, however, that he hopes the character of the area will be maintained.
Mr. John Rogan, owner of Ednam Forest Corporation, supported the proposal
and noted that he does not feel it will be a detriment to the area.
A discussion on the particulars of the ordinance regarding density and
height of buildings ensued.
Mr. Silverstein, architect for the project, presented schematic drawings
of the types of structures that are planned, stating that the price range will
be $35-$55 per square foot.
Mrs. Godfrey Adams, a local real estate agent, supported the project as
a much -needed type of housing for the area.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Easter stated that this is one of the finest and best prepared plans
he has seen for the county. Though he is concerned about the water situation,
which the applicant has consented to work out before construction begins, he
supports the concept of the project.
Mr. Peatross asked for the staff's recommendation.
Mr. Tucker said that the staff supports the request - that this will
lower the density from what is currently allowable. It also provides for
open space. Such items as open space, landscaping, etc., will need to be
addressed at the site plan level.
-400
Mrs. Graves asked if all previous questions regarding the development
have been answered.
Mr. Tucker said that they have.
Mr. Barksdale asked if the Virginia Department of Highways is correct in
its assumption.
Mr. Tucker said that the staff feels they are correct, especially the
part that a four -Lane highway along Route 250 is not justified except at certain
peak hours.
Mr. Carr noted that he feels the internal road leading to Ednam Forest
is a desirable feature of the plan.
Mr. Sullivan pointed out that if this internal road is agreed upon, it
will be limited to the use of residents of the proposed development.
Dr. Moore asked if the roads will be private, built to state standards.
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff recommends that they be state maintained,
but that site plan level is the correct place to address this point.
Mrs. Craddock noted that they are obligated to solving the water and sewer
problems. The buildings with the greatest height are planned for the most lud
unobstructive place. However, she stated that she is quite concerned about
the Virginia Department of Highways seemingly lack of concern for preventive
measures. She pointed out that this occurs often, and there needs to be a
solution.
Mr. Carr said that the layout is more attractive than he thought possible
for this particular property. He said that the height of the buildings does
concern him.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the rezoning, and moved approval of the
the concept for development subject to the submissions of the applicant and his
representatives, and subject to the conditions set forth by the Office of the
County Attorney.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mrs. Graves stated that she was ready to support the request,
but that she wishes to address the height regulation as set forth by the zoning
ordinance at a latter date.
The motion for approval carried unanimously.
The Commission deferred discussion and vote on the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission's land use plan until the end of the meeting.
Real Estate III stie plan - discussion of conditions of approval:
W Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by
leaving the room.
Mr. Charles Perry, speaking on behalf of the Virginia Department of Highways,
stated that they support the third lane concept to the end of the property line
rather than the 18' dedicated strip. He stated that the time line for its
construction can be worked out with the developer.
Mrs. Scala said that the applicant is asking that the 18' dedication for
internal roads be deleted from the original approval, noting that the applicant
favors the Highway Department's recommendation.
Mr. Kessler, representing Real Estate III, asked that a decision be
reached that night.
Mr. Carr stated that if the Highway Department's recommendation is accepted,
the exit/entrance will have to be moved when the next lot is developed.
Dr. Moore asked if this would open Route 29 North to as many exit/entrances
as there are lots.
Mr. Perry explained that the Highway Department hopes to extend the third
lane to the river.
Mr. Peatross moved approval of the third lane concept, the Planning
Commission thus rejecting the 18' dedication on the original site plan.
He also included in the motion that the exit/entrance be moved at the time
the next lot is developed.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner re-entered the room.
Mrs. Graves temporarily left the meeting.
Cecil and Ruby Knight final plat - west side of Route 810:
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a request for approval of a 2.7-acre
lot served by an easement. There is a mobile home on the property which was approved
in May, 1974, to be occupied by Mr. Knight's nephew and his wife. Mr. Knight wishes
to leave this property to the daughter of this couple. There is a note on the plat
regarding no further subdivision. The width of the easement should be specified
on the plat. The applicant is requesting a 20' easement.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the condition recommended
by the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
Michael McAdoo preliminary plat - two 10-acre parcels on existing 50, easement -
Route 610:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request to divide 20.49 acres into two 10-
acre parcels served by the existing 50' right-of-way, which will be extended across
parcel "A" to serve parcel "B." The applicant proposes a road maintenance agreement
for the two property owners.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Note on plat: "No further subdivision permitted along this right-of-way
without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that this is an easement and not a right-of-way,
and should be specified as such be meets and bounds - otherwise a small tract is
cut off.
Adjacent owners stated that they wanted no subdivision unless the roads were
improved.
staff.
( Mrs. Graves re-entered the meeting. )
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
W. F. Fisher preliminary plat - one 3-acre parcel on proposed 30'
easement - Beagle Gap Road:
The applicant wishes to deed his property to his children. The 3.5+ acre
residue will be added to the existing 1-acre parcel which is owned by one of the
applicant's children. The nephew, owner of the 2-acre parcel is granting the
easement.
Mrs. Scala said that the staff recommends approval subject to a note
on the final plat: "No further subdivision along this easement without Planning
Commission approval."
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the condition
recommended by the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
Running Deer final plat - dedication of Running Deer Drive from station
13 + 44 to station 13 + 00 ( lot 11 to end of road ), and approval of lots
11, 12, 13, 22, 23 ( 2+ acre lots ):
Mrs. Scala located the property at the end of Route 808, off Route 250 East
near Boyd Tavern. The applicant wishes to dedicate Running Deer Drive from the end of moo
the present dedication to the turnaround. He also requests approval of five
additional lots. A $7,000 bond has been posted with the County to insure that the
road be constructed to state standards. Preliminary approval was granted in January,
1975.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the adjacent property owners on the major
boundaries should be listed.
Mr. Easter asked if shared entrances could be shown.
Mrs. Scala stated that Route 808 does not continue across the river and
a through road cannot be built.
Mr. Easter encouraged more than 50' setbacks, and moved approval subject
to the following condition:
1. Note on plat regarding the termporary turnaround.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
Western Sizzler landscape plan - Route 29 North:
Mrs. Scala pointed out that the applicant has made use of holly bushes and
dogwood trees.
Mr. Carr discouraged the use of dogwoods unless grouped with other trees.
Mr. Easter moved that the staff work with the developer for a compromise
on the plan.
,%OW The motion to approve was seconded by Mr. Barksdale. It carried unanimously.
Foster B. and Reva E. Harris - final plat - Route 732:
Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a new 50'
right-of-way to serve a 7.09-acre parcel. He will retain the 5.04 acres served
by the existing 50' right-of-way.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Note on plat: No further subdivision permitted along this right-of-way
without Planning Commission approval;
2. Health Department approval of the new lot.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to these conditions.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Thomas Jefferson Planning District - regional plan:
Mr. Carr stated that Dr. Moore and Mrs. Graves had been appointed to review
the plan and report their findings to the Commission. He asked for this report.
/J5
Dr. Moore stated that there are six governmental agencies affected by
this three-part plan. The overall goal is to enhance the region, encouraging
gowth via regional cluster. He stated that he and Mrs. Graves had been in
general agreement with the plan since it conforms with Albemarle County's
Master Plan. The major problem, if adopted, seems to be in the force of the law,
since everything in Albemarle County would have to comply with it and all
items would have to be passed by the regional planning commission. He passed
out to the Commission four alternatives ( see attached ) as presented by the
Thomas Jefferson District.
Mr. Easter noted the district's large staff, objecting to the plan on
the basis that it creates another tier of government. He felt that Albemarle's
"hands could be tied" in the region if other governmental agencies in the region
were in agreement to a proposal.
Mrs. Opal David stated that the existence of the district is a state
requirement.
Mr. Easter pointed to the long-term effects.
Mrs. David stated that this land use plan is a synthesis of the comprehensive
plans of the member counties.
Mr. Goode Love stated that the wording of the plan could make it dictatorial
and would lead only to more political bureaucracy.
Mr. Easter feels it to be a threatening situation.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Mr. Easter, pointing out that he feels as
though the region is just creating work for themselves by handcuffing the localities.
Mrs. David pointed out that Albemarle County does not use the services
of the regional office to the extent that other localities do.
Mr. Easter said that he did not like to have to subsidize the office,
and again said that he felt another tier of government is not necessary. He
asked the Commission to pass the alternative that will give the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission the least possible power.
Mrs. Graves said that she is not in favor of total rejection, since they
have gone so far with the plan.
Mr. Easter moved for rejection of the plan.
Mrs. David said that this is a forum for discussing problems across county lines,
and she suggested adopting alternative #2.
Dr. Moore moved alternative #2 be accepted by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Easter stated that he would accept the substitute motion, though he
would not vote for it.
Mrs. Graves seconded Dr. Moore's motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-3, with Messrs. Easter, Gloeckner, and
Barksdale voting against approval.
I.S�s
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS ON TJPDC LAND USE PLAN
1. As provisied for in Virginia Area Development Act:
a. approval by TJPDC and
b. submission to each local government for approval
c. upon approval by four of six governing bodies,
.Plan becomes an adopted Plan with legal effect
of Virginia Area Development Act.
2. As TJPDC guide with no legal effect but with some
usefulness for informational purposes:
a. approval by TJPDC as guide for its actions only
b. submission to local governments for approval as
TJPDC guide only, with disclaimer as to legal
effect on local government
c. acceptance by TJPDC as guide depending on extent
to which local governments have responded.
3. As TJPDC guide also with no legal effect and with less
informational usefulness than 2; approval by TJPDC as
guide for its action, no submission to local governments.
,,: 4. Rejection by TJPDC.
Due to the late hour, the following items were deferred by the
chairman until a later meeting:
1. Discussion of Residential Planned Nieghborhood and Planned Community
relative to Site Review Committee;
2. Review of Commerical Office Zone;
3. Discussion of mobile home issue.
The meeting adjourned at midnight.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Secretary
M