HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 155-222%55
March 30, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session Tuesday,
March 30, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, regarding
the South Rivanna River Reservoir.
Those members present were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Paul
Peatross; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Leslie Jones; and Mrs. Ellen Craddock.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Mr. Carr introduced Mr. Leslie Jones, newly appointed member of the
Commission, representing the Scottsville District, and Colonel William Washington,
newly appointed member to.begin serving the White Hall District the beginning of
April.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report concerning the Rivanna Reservoir
Study Area ( see attached sheets ). He used a series of maps to point out the
alternative proposals as presented to the Commission in February.
Mrs. Frances Martin, representing the Citizens for Albemarle, noting
that this is a group of approximately 300 citizens, urged action at the earliest
opportunity to create an adequate protective zone around the County's water supply
impoundments ( see attached sheets ).
Mrs. Ruth Wadlington, President -Elect of the League of Women Voters, urged
action that would take important steps in the effort to protect the water supply
of the County ( see attached sheets ).
Mr. James Fleming, stated that he supported the staff's recommendation
to the Commission, pointing out that more and more restrictions in that area
would prevent poor people and black people from living in the area.
Mr. Robin Lee questioned the effects that a rezoning of the area would
have on businesses that are located in that area. He felt that rezonings of these
businesses, which were not contributors to reservoir's problems, would devastate
their existing business status. He said that this economic devastation
could occur in a non -conforming situation. He questioned the compensation that
might be given if such businesses were destroyed. He urged the Commission to
carefully consider this point before downzoning.
Mr. Patterson, owner of 28 acres in the area, opposed downzoning in the
area. He cited the report of the "blue-ribbon" committee ( 1975, summer ) and
reminded the Commission that this committee's recommendation had been that development
could occur in the area with the observance of proper guidelines, as set
forth in an emergency ordinance adopted at that time.
Mr. Patterson further noted that downzoning property in the area would create
a loss of tax dollars, which would be detrimental to the County's economic situation.
Sally Thomas, a member of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, stated
that one of the reasons for downzoning the area is to put the property in zones
that complied with the Comprehensive Plan of the County. She asked the Commission
to consider how the pending comprehensive plan would be different in objectives
from the existing comprehensive plan. She asked if any policy changes would be
made in protecting water supplies. She felt that to be inactive on changing
zoning in the area at this time could be misleading to property owners at a later
date. Mrs. Thomas urged the Commission to at least give the citizens and property
owners a statement of intent at this time. She also pointed out that there has
been a change in knowledge since original zoning was adopted by the County in 1968.
to
Mr. M. Clifton McClure urged the Commission/delay action on this matter
until the results of the Betz Study have been received. He stated that not just
the affected landowners around the reservoir should pay the price of down zoning.
He further urged that all alternatives to downzoning should be explored, before
any down zoning is enacted.
Mr. Peatross asked the Office of the County Attorney for a clarification
of the resolutions from the Board regarding the reservoir. He said that he
had felt that these resolutions had been adopted by the Board in order to
further support their action in placing a moratorium in the five mile radius.
Mr. Payne stated that when zoning was adopted in 1968, the Commission
might consider the facts that a mistake had been made and there has been a change
in circumstances since that time. He did note, however, that there has probably
not been a recent change in circumstances. He said that the County Attorney
feels that the moratorium is sustainable without downzoning. He pointed out
that the moratorium is an interim measure, where rezoning is not an interim
measure.
Dr. Moore asked for specifics on the Occoquan studies.
Mr. Tucker explained that the Occoquan reservoir is still being monitored.
Mr. Payne said that two counties border this reservoir, and thus there
are two zoning ordinances that affect land. He said that it is his understanding
that there is no restrictive zoning on the Prince William County side.
Mr. Wendell Wood stated that there are all phases of zoning in the
Occoquan basin, as well as twelve advanced sewage treatment plants bordering the
reservoir.
Dr. Moore said that there are two sets of economics to consider when
looking at the issue. One is the economic effect on individual land owners
bordering the reservoir. The other is the economic effect on landowners in
general if a new reservoir is later needed. He asked if any studies have been
done on replacement costs.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has done
some work on replacement costs, but he is not aware of the figures.
Mr. Carr said that not much study has been done, since he has heard
a wide range of replacement prices.
09
STAFF REPORT
Rivanna Reservoir Study Area
March 30, 1976
Background
The issues of review of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan for the Rivanna
Reservoir Study Area come before the Planning Commission tonight due to action
by two resolutions of the Board of Supervisors on January 14, 1976. The first
of these resolutions directs the Planning Commission "to review the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan and to prepare an amendment thereto relating to that
portion of the County lying in the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir
bounded by an arc having a radius of five miles as measured from the water supply
intake pipe of the South Rivanna River Reservoir." The second of these two resolutions
was a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map "to provide
that only uses permitted in the A-1 Agricultural District shall be permitted in
that portion of the County" as described above and the resolution, further,
referred this matter to the Planning Commission for its recommendation.
On February 10, 1976, the Staff represented to the Planning Commission three
alternative zoning proposals for the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area. These alternative
proposals were:
1. Existing Zoning
2. Proposed zoning adapted to the existing zoning ordinance
3. Preliminary map based on resource protection guidelines as set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan
lv� The third proposal, based on the first stream valley concept in the Comprehensive
Plan, received further development and refinement following this initial presentation
and was presented a second time on February 24, 1976.
On February 25, 1976, the Board of Supervisors in public hearing, adopted the
current Ordinance for the Protection of the Quality of Water in the South Rivanna
River Reservoir.
Staff Recommendation
concerning the Comprehensive Plan for the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area
In the Staff's opinion, the Planning Department has not received sufficient information
to date from which the staff could determine appropriate measures which would
insure the palatability and potability of the South Rivanna River Reservoir as a
drinking supply. The Staff therefore recommends to the Planning Commission that
revision of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan for the Reservoir Study Area
not be made at this time. The Staff proposes that the appropriate time for revision
is after sufficient information has been received from Betz Environmental Engineer's
study of the Reservoir.
M
Staff Recommendation
concerning the Zoning for the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area
The Albemarle County Planning Department has consistently supported the principle
of a County zoning ordinance and map compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Since
the current staff recommendation concerning zoning in the Rivanna Reservoir Study
Area represents a divergence from this policy, the reasons for this divergence will
be discussed in detail by topic as follows:
Moratorium Ordinance
The current moratorium ordinance is effective for 7,400 acres in the study area
while the Comprehensive Plan measures translate to about 5,300 acres designated
for conservation. Additionally, the moratorium ordinance protects intermittent
and perennial streams not protected by the staff's interpretation of the Comprehensive
Plan. Combined with more stringent building regulations, the staff concluded that
the moratorium ordinance would provide greater protection than the Comprehensive
Plan interpretation.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan revision is scheduled for completion within the calendar
year. The revised plan may or may not be compatible with the existing plan in the
study area, and therefore, the staff's opinion is that revising zoning to the existing
plan at this time may prove unwise in light of the pending revision.
Betz Study
The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has retained the firm of Betz Environmental
Engineers, Incorporated, to study the eutrophication and siltation problems of the
Rivanna Reservoir and to make recommendations concerning methods for correcting
these problems. Staff opinion is that the Betz study will provide additional
information upon which appropriate measures may be based. These measures may or
may not be compatible with the measures called for in the existing Comprehensive
Plan.
Zoning Ordinance
A zoning ordinance is, by concept, intended to provide stability and to be enduring
in order to accomplish the statements of intent of its various zones. Frequent
revision of the zoning ordinance would be counterproductive to this stabilizing process.
If the zoning ordinance and map were revised now for the study area, and revised
again following the revision of the Comprehensive Plan and the completion of the
Betz study, public confidence in the zoning ordinance would be reduced and land
values could be negatively affected. While rezoning would have its advantages
at this time, the staff's opinion is that the zoning ordinance should not be subjected
to what may prove to be interim measures.
Application to entire South Rivanna Reservoir
The staff's opinion is that the entire South Riva-fina watershed must be addressed
as a unit in planning for reservoir protection. A piecemeal approach in this matter
could result in a piecemeal and ineffective effort. Additionally, a piecemeal
approach could add to public confusion as to the County's policies and intent in
the planning process. This confusion could be manifested as lack of receptiveness
to and confidence in future planning efforts, both for the resrvoir and in general.
M
AS conclusion to the presentation above, the staff recommends that existing
zoning in the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area be maintained at this time. The staff
proposes that the proper time for consideration of zoning change in this area is
after sufficient information has been received from the Betz Study and after
the revision of the Comprehensive Plan has sufficiently progressed so that the
staff may determine appropriate zoning measures for the protection of the reservoir
as outlined in the revised Comprehensive Plan.
If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors determine zoning change for
the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area is necessary at this time, the staff recommends
zoning in compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan.
RSK:sc
V9
M
Citizens for Albemarle
cm
Box 3751 University Station
Charlottesville, Va. 22903
STATEMENT TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON RESERVOIR ZONING, March 30, 1976
Citizens for Albemarle believes that action should be taken at the earliest opportunity
to create an adequate protective VaZ around the County's water supply impoundments. Further
indefinite delay until the z udy�i, completed or absolute scientific data to prove the
necessary extent and na of such a zo be comes available would in fact make such a
protective zone diff,,1,o t if not impossible achievement. We believe there is already
sufficient data av ilable in the Occoquan stu s to support this action.
fhi
e know tha egal expediency has been advanc as a reason for postponement. In a
l of his earlier position, Mr. St. John now sa that rezoning would be harder to
in cou than the present moratorium. While such vice is perfectly right and proper
part the County Attorney, we do not feel it shoul be the determining factor in
ecis The risk of additional law suits if such actin 's taken should be weighed
t t risk to the public water supply of another 9-12 month>.delay.
hen hat period has elapsed, the Betz study may have provided datL justifying a low
z. a adjacent to water supply reservoirs, but the greatly increase number of non-
i uses that will have been established in the interim will make su a zone
ve or even more productive of lawsuits and political opposition. You ow that
r of subdivisions adjacent to the Rivanna Reservoir with lots smaller than ive
have recently been approved. You know from last year's hearings on the revise
zoning ordinance that homeowners frequently refuse to accept "non -conforming" status in
a new zone. Each lot sold in one of those new subdivisions, and in others certain to be
created if rezoning is delayed, will produce another potential opponent to the protective
.one. Each house built on one of those lots will place a septic tank adjacent to the
water supply. In addition, others who unwittingly purchase larger tracts, intending tol
kbout
e them for purposes prohibited in a protective zone, will be unfairly confused or m
the.County's intentions. Their resentment in such cases will again create a
litical climate unfavorable to adoption of a zone twelve months hence, should the tg
udv recommend such land use restrictions.
Thus by further delay in rezoning the reservoir areas, the County will ti its own
ha ds. If the Betz study recommends only low density uses but delay has ma such uses
im ssible to establish, those who delayed will be responsible for the engrmous public
lia ility of a rapidly ruined reservoir. If past experience is repeate4t those now in
off ce will be retired when the bill comes due, but the citizens and taxpayers will have
to p y it anyway. There have been many harsh words in the last year`for those who
negl cted to purchase a buffer zone when the reservoir was built ut we have not yet
learn d the lesson, prevention is easier than cure.
In the unlikely event that a protective zone is deeme nnecessary at some future date,
it can always be removed. But if we wait until we have solute proof that it is necessary,
we may Ind that it is too late. True, there is some sk such a zone might be overturned
in cou , but that would leave us no worse off than are now. We believe that the court
would b receptive to creation of such a zone as in
measures after all, judges
drink wa er, too.
Plegfe consider the plight of the low a moderate income families in the County
whose tax s and water bills will reflect costs of replacing reservoirs if you delay
too long. At least set the wheels in m ion by acting on this matter and sending it on
+o the B rd of Supervisors.
_V00WN%,_ I Thank you.
LEAGUE OF
WOMIET-4-
•
79�
OF CIHIAIREOTTESVIEER & AEBEMAIRIAE COUNTY
March 30, 1976
TO: Albemarle County Planning, Commission
RE: Pecomraat n&A t ions regarding the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir iviori,-torium Area
The Ccmprehensive Flail 6t,`teS thAt there shall be con6erv&tion zoning
around pu
blic water 8upply itupouncimellts to nrotect our drinking; .rioter from
tf:e effects of commercial, industrial, and intessive reiiidential development.
This j-)olicy was not reflected for the South Fork Rivanna I'leservoir oil the
land use i7eap becau4uie the ti-jen was on future water sups lies for the
.outlty. . "t1owe'ver., for the severkr-I year,-,, i,.ie I.ave become iiierf:iakillgly
I*W aiare ti,at tine erphasis mint be on preserving tF,is invilt,iable water supply,
as evidenced by the Betz study now underway. Therefore, tine League of
4omen Voters urges you to begin an as-'es-.,nent of the problems that exi-t
in the watersheds of all our drinking water' impoundinents and make firm and
consisteiit recommendations for action necessary to protect the water supply.
tie believe that one es�-ential el(,,ment of such a -plan ic- long over -due:
the addition of a conservatica zone to our zoning; ordiniance. it should be
placed around :All -,°,ater supt�ly iio—oundments in the County, sand iritensive
uses of all should be proi).ibitecl- we ur,e tine ;..-'doption of the
Ucn-,(1rv,,tion or t e'oi-,r,ce r(jleckio!i /,one ass ter:I up I Dy ttie pl-itviii7ik, 6t--4f
A 4 t t-j I da, e 11 i a 9- u 11 1 t and ao inteii�--,ive a-iriculturctl, c0iltwercii:41,
or, residential Lipics allowed. Tbis action would be an import�.nt step in the
effort to protect our water supply. -4
Z
Ruth fipdliwi toil, Fresident-Elect
Kathrya H. Cilalan, 2nd Vice
President - County
l "- '?
Dr. Moore said that since public confidence could be affected, would
it be better to rezone the property now or at a later date4
Mr. Tucker stated that a greater area is protected by the moratorium,
as established by the Board, than would be protected if the land in the area
were rezoned to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Especially protected by
the moratoriums are the streams.
Mrs. Craddock questioned the number of houses that could be built in
the area if nothing is done for 1-1� years, if the land is developed to the
maximum.
Mr. Tucker stated that approximatley 12,000 houses could be built,
it the land is developed to its potential density, though this is most unlikely
to happen.
Mr. Keeler stated that the subdivision activity in the subject area has
been 145 lots in the past six years. He stated that this does not reflect building
activity, though.
Mrs. Graves stated that there are several questions that need to be answered.
Mr. Tucker said that hopefully the Betz Study will provide some answers.
Questions regarding the creeks and streams should also be addressed.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that the rezoning of this area would not delete
the moratorium. She asked if the review of the comprehensive plan can be completed
by the end of the year, and if not, the legal ramifications.
know
Mr. Tucker stated that he did not/the answers to these questions.
Mrs. Graves also asked if the original zoning ordinance, adopted in 1968,
were designated as temporary.
Mr. Payne stated that the County Attorney had never been able to establish
its permanence.
Mrs. Graves asked if a rezoning of the area would not be harder to accomplish
at a later date.
Mr. Tucker said that in the staff's opinion it would be easier, when all
the facts have been reviewed, especially those facts that would be presented by
the Betz Study.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Commission needed to consider the possible
economic devastation that could occur even in an interim period.
Mrs. Craddock made a statement regarding protection of areas around
all water impoundments in Albemarle County. She stated that she did not consider
this to be a downzoning, rather a rezoning. She pointed out that what is downzoning
to some is upzoning to others.. She emphasized that all water impoundments
need to be protected and the Betz Study should be used as a guide for this. It
is her feeling that during the iterim period, waiting for completion of the
Betz Study and reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, a great deal of damage can be
done. She fears that without changing the zoning of property in the area, people
will rush ahead to do what they fear they will not be able to do later. Therefore
she urged the Commission to support a rezoning in the area.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested the possibility that once the Betz Study is
completed, the County might discover through its data, that the reservoir
is dead or not savable.
Mrs. Martin told the Commission that Dr. Brown of the Betz Study team
had stated that the summer is the critical time for the reservoir, since this
is a low flow period. She said that he had made a statement that Morton
Frozen Food Plant in Crozet contributes 50-80% of the phosphorus input under
the present land use patterns.
Mr. Gloeckner said that in view of what Mrs. Craddock said about
preserving areas around water impoundments, one-third of the county would need
rezoning.
Mr. Easter said that he is counting on the Betz Study giving some
concrete answers. He felt that any changes before the study's completion
would be premature.
Mr. Peatross said that his concern has always been the terms of the
resolutions - was the rezoning to be done to support the Comprehensive Plan
or to support the moratoriums He stated that now the County Attorney's office
has clarified this. He said that in view of this, a rezoning at this time
would not be timely, especially since the study has not been completed.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he was in agreement with the staff's recommendation
and was ready to make a motion to that effect.
A long discussion regarding the wording of the motion proceeded.
The Commission asked the staff's opinion.
Mr. Tucker stated that two resolutions were to be considered and two
actions should be taken. He again stated that it is the staff's opinion that
there is no need to alter the Comprehensive Plan as it now exists in view
of the pending review.
Planning Commission
Mr. Barksdale moved that the / recommend to the Board of Supervisors not
to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map at this time as set forth in the
resolution of the Board of Supervisors to the Planning Commission on January 14,
1976.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Easter.
There was no further discussion on the motion.
VOTE:
"Ayes" - Barksdale; Jones; Gloeckner; Carr; Easter; Peatross
"No" - Moore; Graves; Craddock
Comprehensive Plan:
Mr. Easter stated that since serving on the Committee to Select the
Consultant to review the Comprehensive Plan, he has decided it would be premature
to make changes at this time. There will soon be a detailed reappraisal of the
plan. He moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors
not to take action to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan at this time
as set forth in the resolution of the Board of Supervisors to the Planning
Commission on January 14, 1976.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mrs. Craddock asked if one votes in favor of the motion, does the Planning
Commission impair the power of the Board to create a moratorium.
Mr. Payne said "no."
Dr. Moore asked if an affirmative vote on the motion would impair the power
to review the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Payne said "no."
The vote to approve the motion was 8-1, with Mrs. Graves voting "no."
Mrs. Graves stated that her negative vote meant that this was the place
to begin revisions on the comprehensive plan.
Discussion of private roads to serve large lot developments:
Mr. Tucker read a letter (,see attag"d sheets ) from Mr. Bill Clover
regarding this matter. He stated''that this,situat�ion:has come up several times.
Previously there have been restricted roads permitted in the County. These
restricted roads have had standards almost as stringent as state standards.
He stated that an example of this would be a 50' right-of-way. The designation
could be done at the time of subdivision plat approval, where maintenance plans
would be spelled out. In this case homeowners in the subdivision would also
own the road.
Mr. Clover stated that it seems unreasonable to have state roads where
such places as hillsides, even the countryside, would be destroyed. He stated
that he is speaking to those areas where state roads are not desired.
Mrs. Martin supported the concept presented by Mr. Clover. She stated
that most homeowners in such places can afford the road up -keep.
Karen Lelleleht stated that when the roads are built enough right-of-way
should be left so that if the state later assumes maintenance, the land will
.err be available without any condemnation.
Mr. Clover agreed that this should be built into the concept.
Mr. Tucker suggested that perhaps a 40' right-of-way could be provided for,
and then the road could be constructed as the owners wish.
Mrs. Lelleleht suggested putting money into an escrow account to provide
for later upgrading to state standards.
Mrs. Craddock questioned such a time when one owner along the road might
refuse to pay his share of maintenance expenses.
Mr. Payne explained that Homeowners' Agreements are such that an individual
or the Association itself can sue or be sued.
Mr. Payne also said that this should, if adopted at a later date by the
Commission, be an amendment to the subdivision ordinance.
Mrs. Martin pointed out that sometimes roads determine the value of houses.
Mr. Carr stated that when subdividing, more than four residences require
construction of a state road.
Mr. Tucker stated that this is the guide used by the Planning Department
and Commission.
Mr. Carr stated that some subdivisions are successful in maintaining
private roads, some are not. One of the reasons for stripping along state
roads is that buyers cannot afford to pay for the 50' road that goes in front
of the house if the road is private. He further pointed out that proper
right-of-way should exist if, and when, this matter of private roads is adopted
as part of the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Clover stated that the idea of private roads would eleminate unnecessary
surveying that sometimes occurs under current requirements.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that state roads mean more taxes and more land
that is dedicated to the state.
Mrs. Graves asked if the RPN zone could apply.
Mr. Payne stated that this is a subdivision question, not a rezoning question.
Mr. Carr agreed, pointing out that the maximum number of lots along such
a road should be restricted.
Mr. Carr asked the staff to bring recommendations on private roads
to serve large lot developments to the Commission at a later date.
Setbacks in the A-1 zone:
Mr. Tucker explained the cost of driveways in the Commission as figured
by the Engineering Department according to certain setbacks and presented actual
costs according to contractors in the area ( see attached sheets ).
/6
CLOVER
'REALTY COMPANY, INC.
Court Square - P. O. Box 65
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Since 1004
Telephone 293.8104
There are many who love and appreciate Albemarle County -
the beautiful. Virginia countryside and would like to live in the
country in peace and quiet in protected surroundings away from
traffic and noisy State roads.
Zoning; accomplishes some protection but building State roads
to reach these beautiful_ spots often ruins the countryside, costs
a fortune and demolishes the tranquility and privacy.
A way must be found to permit the building of lovely winding
roads for access to beautiful building sites of five acres or
more. These roads would be for the private use of the residents
only. Just as many beautiful farms have long, meandering drive-
ways from the highway to the manor house, these driveways or
private roads would be used and kept up by a few neighbors in-
stead of just one owner.
An example of one way that this can be accomplished and still
insure responsible continuing ownership and upkeep of roads is as
follows:
A corporation Is formed to buy 100 acres with 8 or. 10-Lovely
building sites .
The corporation Surveys and lays out these 8 to 10 sites
according to contours, views, etc. with an average size of about
5+ acres, keeping the balance of the land, including the roads,
in the name of the corporation. These 50 acres will be kept
permanently in farm land, woods, lakes, etc. for the benefit of
al.l of the homeowners who would also be the stockholders of the
corooraL on.
These building sites including an undivided interest in the
farm land, etc. would not be inexpensive - probably $1.5 to $25,000
which would indicate homes with a total value, including land, of
$90,000 to $150,000 and owners who would have the financial ability
to keep up the grounds, roads, farm, etc. in A -one shape.
An Affilwc „I. PAN (PK A M A INTERNATIONAL LTD.
rf�}
M
COST ESTIMATES: DRIVEWAYS OF VARIOUS LENGTHS
COST/LINEAL FOOT - DRIVEWAY OF 8' WIDTH
8" scraping with patrol grader @ $4.00/cu. yd. $80 0.
2-spray surface treatment @ $0.851sq. yd• 2.76
6" crushed stoned @ $2.251s d.
00
COST PER LINEAL FOOT $3.56
SETBACK
30'
50'
75'
100,
125'
150'
Driveway Cost Estimates
M
DRIVEWAY COST ESTIMATE
$106.80
178.00
267.00
356.00
445.00
534.00
The above cost estimates were developed in-house with assistance from the County
Engineer. The Planning Staff contacted several local excavating firms for their
estimates for 30-foot and 100-foot driveways as described in the above table. Four
firms replied as follows:
Cost Estimate
30-Foot Drive 100-Foot Drive
Firm A $135 $269
Firm B 140 350
Firm C 300 700
Firm D 650 1500
The estimates for Firm D are for a site located within a 5-mile radius. For a site
20 miles away, the costs rise to $950-1,100 and $1,700 respectively. In addition, Firm
D estimated the cost of a 15-inch culvert pipe in a public road drainage ditch to be
$300. This cost element should be added to the above estimates.
Acreage Available for Dwelling Location
11%W The 2 sketches and corresponding tables below illustrate areas available for building
sites on two -acre lots of different frontage. For a 100-foot setback, the maximum area
available for a building site is 1.02 acres or about 51% of the site. Additionally, as
frontage is increased available area for a building site is decreased.
ACREAGE AVAILABLE FOR DWELLING UNIT - VARIOUS SETBACK - 150' MINIMUM FRONTAGE
A-1 30' Setback
1.19 acres .buildable
59A % of site
A-1 50' Setback
1.14. acres .buildable
57.0 of site
,CJ 5"i"}�,AGK• A-1 75' Setback
.1.08 acres buildable
54.1 of site
Q
A-1 100` Setback
1_02' acres buildable
51.2 of site
r
IDa•W ''
i rt�1
ACREAGE AVAILABLE FOR DWELLING UNIT - VARIOUS SETBACKS
SQUARE 2-ACRE LOT
. A..
En
Cm
It
zgsl
A-1 30' Setback
1.29 acres buildable
6.46 % of site
A-1 50' Setback
1.18 acres buildable
59.06% of site
A-1 75' Setback
1.06 acres buildable
53.43 % of site
A-1 100' Setback
.899 acres buildable
44.76% of site
T Ou ILPA51-5-1 w j
100'S TOAC1
171
Ted Allen pointed out to the Commission that such provisions should be
carefully considered in order not to make single-family residences out of reach
to many people.
Mr. Carr acknowledged that these setbacks as presented do no account for
topography.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that in the proposed zoning ordinance that
150' setbacks had been recommended even in the R-1 zone.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that local topography should be considered,
and perhaps 50-100' would be more reasonable.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that the sketches in the staff report
assume that the right-of-way and the edge of the pavement are the same.
Mr. Jones pointed out that all lots require Health Department approval.
Mr. Easter reminded the Commission that an increase in setback has been
discussed by the Commission in hopes of not stripping the land along roads.
Colonel Washington stated that lots which have not been used should not
be made to be undevelopable.
Mrs. Lilleleht suggested that every 2-acre lot is not buildable.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that larger setbacks would encourage larger lots
throughout the County, especially from a surveying point of view.
Mr. Clover agreed that this would encourage better subdivision of land.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested making the setbacks a subdivision question,
not a zoning question.
Mr. Payne stated that this would have to be considered in terms of
the Enabling Legislation.
Mr. Carr thanked Mrs. Craddock for her service to the County, acknowledging
his respect for her point of view, and noting the attention that she has given
to matters that have come before the Commission during her service.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Secretary
April 6, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting April 6, 1976,
7:30 p.m., Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia, to consider a series of requests for special use permits and rezonings.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Leslie Jones; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James
Moore; Col. William Washington; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-officio.
Absent was Mr. Paul Peatross.
Mr. Carr called the meeting to order, after establishing that a quorum was
present.
The minutes of the following meetings were found to be in order by the
chairman:
February 24, 1976
March 2, 1976
March 16, 1976
March 23, 1976
March 30, 1976
Lake Hills Subdivision plat ( revised ):
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the changes from the original plat
are as follows:
1. Roadway has been shortened so that it no longer lies within the"immediate
drainage area" of the reservoir, as defined in the Ordinance for the Protection
of the Quality of Water in the South Rivanna River Reservoir.
2. Lots 5 and 6 have been combined into new lot 5.
3. Setback line on lot 4 has been moved 150' (as approved by Commission) to 200'
(as required by Ordinance), from the water's edge.
4. Common open area has been removed. New plat shows an easement for lot owners
for access to reservoir.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. Road bond;
3. Grading permit for revised road plan.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Easter, carried unanimously.
M
i7
SP-08-76. Marvin C. and Leda C. Gibson to locate a two-family
dwelling on 2.8 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property situated
on east side of Route 706, approximately 2.8 miles south of
intersection of Route 631, Old Lynchburg Road. County Tax Map 89,
Parcel 23B(11). Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Carr explained for the benefit of the new members of the Commission the
County's policy on duplexes.
Mr. Gibson told the Commission his reasons for wanting the duplex: to
supplement his income due to the fact that his wife's health will no longer permit
her to work. He gave a brief description of the 2.8 acre parcel and his house,
noting that he had added the kitchen to the basement facilities.
Mr. Jones asked if there were any objections from adjacent property owners
to this request, and Mr. Gibson told him that he has had no objections.
Mrs. Graves inquired about the original intent of use for the house and
asked about the septic facilities.
Mr. Gibson stated that it was built as a single-family residence and
that the septic field is sufficient for two families. He also pointed out that
there is enough space to provide parking for four vehicles.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that there is a mobile home park near the
residence. Most of the other lots in the area have houses on them.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jones suggested to the Commission that this be considered as an
extenuating circumstance, due to the wife's terminal health problem, and
grant the request.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the request based on hardship. He
stated that approval of this request would thus not set a precedent for duplexes
in the area.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion to approve, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval of appropriate state and county agencies;
2. Four off-street parking spaces to serve the two-family dwelling;
3. Health Department approval;
4. Health Statement from Mrs. Gibson's doctor to be made part of the official
county records.
SP-09-76. Carol Birckhead to locate a mobile home on 12.7 acres zoned
A-1. Property is situated on south side of Route 720, approximately �
mile from Route 20 near Carter's Bridge. County Tax Map 112, Parcel 32,
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that there had been an
objection to the request which prevented it from being administratively
approved.
Dr. Moore asked if the applicant meets the density requirement,
and the staff told him that the requirement is met.
Mr. E. H. Moore, grandfather of the applicant, and owner of the
property on which the mobile home is proposed to be located, stated that
he is giving her a place to live. In the future, he said that the acreage
he owns will be divided among his heirs, 3 children. If approved, he
said that he will fix the septic field. The mobile home will be placed
100 feet from the side property line.
Mr. Barksdale asked if the property seems to be compatible with the
request.
Affirming this, Mr. Tucker pointed out other mobile homes in the area.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Moore about the driveway to the property.
Mr. Moore stated that there are two, that one will be used by his son
and the applicant, and the other is to his own residence.
Mrs. Graves established from Mr. Moore that his son's mobile home had
been there before zoning came into existence in the county. She also asked
if the land is subdivided later, if it will come to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Tucker stated that any subdivision of three or more lots will come
to the Commission.
Mr. Wilson Cropp, Jr., the adjacent owner who had objected, stated that
his objection was based on the location that had been chosen, which was so close
to the entry of his own house. He stated that he might not be so opposed if
another location could be agreed upon. He also suggested that the young couple
look at other houses that might be available to them through government loans
that would be no more costly than the mobile home.
Mr. Moore told the Commission that the proposed location was approximately
400' uphill from the Cropp house, and in the summer there will be a tree buffer.
Mr. Cropp told the Commission that if the Commission permits the applicant
to use this location that his property will be devalued. He again asked that
it beplaced on a different part of the 12.7 acres.
Mr. Moore explained that this particular location had been chosen in order
to avoiding using any of his pastureland.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out to the applicant that only two residences can
be served by one well and an additional well may have to be drilled unless a
special permit for a central well is applied for.
Mr. Easter suggested that the Commission, Mr. Cropp, and the applicant
view the site.
Mr. Moore further explained to the Commission that his water is not
actually supplied by a well, rather a spring with a pumping and storage system.
Mrs. Graves asked if a test could be run on the spring similar to the
test that would be run on a well.
Mr. Tucker told her that the BOCA Code requires a well.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Moore if he would be willing to drill a well for
the mobile home.
Mr. Moore said that he is agreeable to this.
Mr. Easter moved action be deferred until a member of the Commission, Mr. Cropp,
the applicant, and a member of the staff could view the site.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-10-76. Junior Order United American Mechanics, Free Union Council
#166 has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate
an addition to a fraternal lodge on 2 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural.
Property is situated on the south side of Route 609, about � mile west
of Route 665. County Tax Map 29, Parcel 2B, White Hall Magistieral
District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, which recommended approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
2. Review of proposed addition and existing structure by Albemarle County
Fire Marshal;
3. Parking and access/egress to be approved by the staff;
4. Screening from single family uses to the west and Route 609 to be determined
by the staff..
Mr. Morris, representing the applicant, stated that there have been
no objections from adjacent owners.
Mr. Easter asked the current seating capacity.
Mr. Morris said that it is presently 150.
Dr. Moore moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
SP-11-76. Osborne S. Cosner has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to locate a two-family dwelling on 3.81 acres zoned
A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 53
just east of the intersection of Route 729. County Tax Map 93, Parcel 47A.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report in which he noted that the staff
recommended denial based on excessive density.
. Mr. Cosner stated that there is a garage next door to the property
which has a sizable parking lot. Next to that is a new house and two mobile homes.
Mr. Carr asked the proposed use of the duplex.
Mr. Cosner said that it is to be rental property. The land is a long
narrow strip and he did not feel there should be any objection since his use
would be better than some uses on the adjoining parcels.
Mrs. Graves asked who lives in the mobile home.
Mr. Cosner said that he rented it, and that it had been there before zoning
came into existence in, the county. He said that at that time 1.1 acres went
with the mobile home and the remainder of the acreage was another lot of record.
The Highway Department, he stated had taken part of the original four acres.
Mr. Jones pointed out that if the request is granted there will be three
residences on 3.81 acres, and that the ordinance requires two acres for a residence
in the A-1 zone.
Mr. Carr said that he is not ready for a duplex and a mobile home on 3.81
acres.
Mrs. Cosner asked the Planning Commission to view the site before making the
ikw decision since the property is quite conducive to this sort of use. She also
explained that she had secured a special exception for the use of the property
several years before.
Mr. Payne said that what that special exception actually was is a variance,
and it had been granted on the basis of two single-family dwellings. He stated
that if the Planning Commission grants this request ( SP-11-76 ) an amendment to
the variance would be needed.
Mr. Cosner said that he did not understand why the request could not be
granted since no neighbors had objected.
Mrs. Graves moved that the request be denied since the county has no
policy to allow rental mobile homes and she also said that the motion for denial
was made because the owner of the property would not be living there.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion; his reason for not approving the request
was excessive density.
The motion carried unanimously.
SP-13-76. ITT-USTS has petitioned the Albemarle County Board. of Supervisors
to amend Special Permit 530 to allow an existing tower to remain on 2.06
acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of Route
633 on Heard Mountain. County Tax Map 97, Parcel 4A. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report which recommended denial, due to the
fact that in the original application the applicant stated that the old tower
would be removed , and thu s the staff could find no reason for lermitting it to
remain.
Mr. Tucker also noted that he had received a letter of objection to
the request from Mrs. Louise W. Fisher because it does not afford adjacent
property owners a secure feeling that applications for special permits for
additional changes will not be requested by the applicant from yaar to year.
Mr. Edward Remington explained the reasons for asking that the tower
remain, especially due to the fact that ' moving the equipment from the old
tower onto the new tower would cost approximately half the cost of the new
toiler, around $40, 000.
Mr. Carr questioned the reason for originally agreeing to remove the old
tower.
Mr. Remington stated that he had been working with approximatley 120 sites,
and that he had hoped that later he would be allowed to amend the original special
use permit. He stated that he had been able to do this in all but three cases.
Mr. Carr asked if the new tower was built to full-strength in order to
receive the equipment from the existing tower.
Mr. Remington said that it was. He stated that there is no public safety
involved in the old tower remaining, though.
Mr. Barksdale asked if all the adjoining property owners were notified
again.
Mr. Tucker explained that this application had gone through the same
process that the original application had gone through, and that all adjoining
property owners had been notified.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that since the new tower Can handle the equipment
of both towers that the old tower should be removed as originally agreed to.
Mrs. Graves stated that she was not going to support the request, but
felt that the Planning Commission should forward to the Board the additional
condition that if they approve it, the request should have FAA approval of the
two towers.
Mr. Remington stated that since there was some feeling among the Commission
members that the request had been handled improperly, he wished to withdraw the
request.
Mrs. Graves moved that the Commission accept the request for withdrawal.
Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1.
Mr. Barksdale voted against the motion on the basis the he would support
the request only if the applicant did not know at the time of the original application
that there were plans for leaving the old tower.
rrr► SP-15-76. Albemarle County Bloodstock Company petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate professional offices on 0.351 acres
zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of Route
601 near the intersection of Route 676 at Woodson's Store. County Tax
Map 43, Parcel 29A. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker stated that the applicant is requesting deferral on this request
for sixty days.
Mr. Barksdale moved that action be deferred for this time period.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1.
Mr. Gloeckner did not participate in the vote.
SP-16-76. Mrs. Kinzd de Launey has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to locate a two-family dwelling on 2.09 acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is situated on the northeast side of Route 660 in
Arbor Park Subdivision. Property is further described as County Tax Map
44A, Parcel 11. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, in which he noted that the dwelling
presently owned by the applicant is in violation due to its use as a two-family
dwelling. He also pointed out that the deed restrictions for Arbor Park do not
permit apartments or duplexes. The staff recommended denial since the two-family
dwelling would not be in character with the subdivision and would set a precedent
in the area. He further pointed out that approval would not be in conformance with
the county's policy on these matters nor the deed restrictions of this subdivision.
He gave a history of the violations of this residence and pointed out the numerous
objections from adjoining property owners.
Mr. Don Holdorf, adjacent owner, stated that his objection is that the
duplex is not in conformance with the deed restrictions of the subdivision.
He felt that it is obvious that the original intent of the residence was as a
duplex. He explained the history of the adjoining property owners and residents
of the subdivision's contact with the applicant. He stated that he vehemently
opposed the request.
Mrs. Graves stated that it has been the policy of the Commission not to
hear a request without the applicant or his representative present.
The Commission agreed that they would hear the request due to the number
of adjoining property owners that were present, and due to the fact that the
certified notification sent the applicant had been received.
Mr. Cleveland, another adjacent owner, said that he objects on the basis
that the owner lives there only on week -ends.
Mr. Foster Voight, president of the homeowners' association for the
subdivision, stated that from the beginning the intent had been to use the residence
as a duplex. Mr. Voight said that there is a civil suit pending on this matter,
since the applicant is in violation of not only the county ordinance, but also
the deed restrictions of the subdivision.
Mr. Carr stated that the Planning Commission cannot enforce the subdivision
covenants but they do try to administer the various ordinances.
Mr. Fred Payne stated that if the civil suit is pending, the county
has the power to petition the court to intervene. He stated that since the
ordinance is being violated, the county also has the right to bring a separate
Voldaction against the applicant, but that it would be much easier for the County
to join the suit brought by the Homeowners' Association.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that the certified notification sent the applicant
had been received by the applicant's son.
Mr. Barksdale said that in view of all this, he moved that action on the
request be taken by the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed.
Mr. Cleveland said that there has been much personal contact with the applicant
by the subdivision owners.
Mrs. Voight stated that Mrs. de Launey had been forced to apply for the special
permit, that she had not done this on her own.
Mr. Barksdale moved the request be denied and also moved the the County
Attorney proceed with the necessary steps on behalf of the County.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves stated that the Planning Commission should do nothing to
circumvent the work of the Homeowners' Association.
The motion to deny carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter stated that it is not the policy of the Planning Commission to
proceed without the applicant but that this seemed to be an exception, due to
the flagrant violation.
SP-17-76. Albemarle County Service Authority has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to bring into conformance the existing,
non -conforming water treatment plant located on 4 acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 240
near the intersection of Route 680. County Tax Map 57, Parcel 29B.
White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker explained in the staff report that this special permit would make the
existing water treatment conforming with the Zoning Ordinance so that a vehicle shed
may be constructed to house the mobile equipment which is currently parked outside.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Screening from dwellings and from Route 240 with evergreen trees with a minimum
height of five (5) feet to be planted on ten foot centers;
2. Relocation of pipe and construction materials;
3. Site Plan approval. by Planning Staff.
staff. Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-0.
Mrs. Graves did not participate in the vote.
/r'a
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to include "Article
7.1 Commercial Office District CO." This proposed amendment would provide
for flexibility in commercial zoning.
The Commission unanimously deferred action on this request to another
date.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Section 18-3-1
of the Scenic Highway Designation - Article 18. This amendment deals
with permitted parking along a designated scenic highway.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report in which he stated that as the ordinance
now reads, parking could be within fifty feet of the highway.
Mr. Payne made a wording suggestion on the amendment.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the amendment to read as follows:
(A) In order to permit adequate screening, no parking shall be allowed within
fifty feet of the right-of-way of any designated scenic highway or Virginia
byway on land zoned Commercial.
`+ (B) On land zoned Industrial, no parking except visitor parking, shall be
allowed closer to the right-of-way of any designated scenic highway or
Virginia byway than the side of any building facing any such highway.
Visitor parking shall not be allowed within fifty feet of the right-of-way.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to amend the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for the inclusion in the A-1, RS-1, R-1,
R-2, and R-3 districts, as Sections 2-1-27, 3-1-15, 4-1-14, 5-1-17, and
6-1-22 respectively, a use reading: "accessory tourist lodging by
permit issued by the Zoning Administrator for successive periods of 6
months pursuant to fire and safety regulations promulgated by the Albemarle
County Fire Marshal and for the inclusion in Article 16 of a new section
16-2.1 reading: ACCESSORY TOURIST LODGING: One or more rooms, located
within a single-family dwelling which is actually used as such, which
rooms are used, secondarily to such single-family use, for the temporary
accommodation of transients in return for compensation, whether or not
such rooms are used in conjunction with other portions of such dwelling."
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, in which the staff recommended that
since the Zoning Ordinance is, by nature, intended to provide stability and to be
enduring in order to accomplish the statements of intent of its zones, not to
amend the ordinance. He stated that if they support the amendments, the staff
recommends that "accessory tourist lodging" would be appropriate to the R-3
Residential Zone only.
i y/
Mrs. Mary Redenbaugh told the Commission that the reason for the
request is to try to find room in the Bicentennial Year for many of the
tourists who would be in the area without a place to stay. She pointed out
that all the motels and hotels have been booked through October. She stated
that her organization does not wish this to be a permanent part of the ordinance,
rather a temporary part. She stated that most homes that are being considered
are remote homes in the A-1 zone.
Mr. Barksdale asked if homes are already lined up in the County.
Mrs. Redenbagh said that there are five homes lined up in the County,
but that most of the homes are in Charlottesville.
Mrs. Sally Reger said that most of the homes that have shown interest
have grown children.
Dr. Moore asked the status of their work with the city.
Mrs. Redenbaugh said that the City's ordinance provides for this in
the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones.
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that there will be no citizen
control over this in the respect that adjacent property owners will have no
recourse. Anyone with a house could do this, and they would not have to be
associated with the organization that these women represent.
Mr. Steven Reger said that the important point is that anyone who does
not provide good service to tourists will go out of business.
Mrs. Opal David asked if the organization would be required to secure a
business license.
Mrs. Reger said that they did have to secure this sort of license.
Mr. Carr suggested that there should be some way that the Board could
provide for this as a temporary use without amending the zoning ordinance. He
said that he felt the county should be kept out of this.
Mr. Payne said that it cannot be done without amending the zoning
ordinance and noted that he did not feel that it will become a bureaucratic
nightmare. He said that the principal person to police this will be the Fire
Marshal. He pointed out that if the request is not granted, there will be a
number of violations. Uses, by the terms of the amendment, will expire six
months after they are granted. He said that this is a special situation, but
that the Fire Marshal feels that it is workable.
Mr. Easter said that he is concerned about the time that the County will
have to spend on this in enforcing it and also he said that he would need input
from the local law enforcement officers before he could make any decision.
Mr. Jones said that in his opinion there will have to be many restrictions
problems will arise.
Mrs. Davidson said that they viewed the request for the amendment as
temporary, but that at present there are other week -ends in Charlottesville
( Dogwood Festival, Graduation, Garden Week ) when extra housing facilities
are needed. She said that if permission is given for six months, applicants
will probably request remewal in six months. She said that if it is allowed
indefinitely, it will become an intolerable situation.
Mrs. Davidson also cited such areas as traffic and noise as items to consider. She
said that she could support it for just the Bicentennial Year.
Dr. Moore asked how this will affect the deed restrictions in areas where
people would open their homes to tourists.
Mr. Payne said that the Zoning Ordinance will prevail.
Mr. Jones suggested people who wished to do this should do this through
the special permit process.
Mr. Carr said that it appeared that there should be some sort of provision
for this, but he did not think amending the ordinance is the proper way to handle
the situation. He voiced concern about the time the amendment would be
repealed. Perhaps someone would make enough money to object to its repeal.
Mr. Easter said that people's investments will be used against the County
when it comes time for repeal as well as the money that has been taken in during
the time accommodations are permitted.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested a special work session in order that facts
could be gathered: legal ramifications, enforcement plans, figures on
accomodations needed in the area during the Bicentennial Year, inspection time,
approximate number of tourists expected to the in the area.
Mrs. Edmundson said that her organization had hoped that the amendment
would automatically end December 31, 1976.
Mrs. Graves said that she was willing to support the staff's recommendation,
but that she would defer to another motion.
Mr. Gloeckner moved action be deferred in order that all the facts could
be gathered to be presented at a work session.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion; he asked that the Fire Marshal and
the Executor Director of the Bicentennial Commission be present.
The motion for deferral carried by a vote of %-1, with Mr. Jones
voting against the motion.
Monticello additional parking site plan:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report stating that the proposal is for 259 new
parking spaces to toal 515 spaces. The application is in the process of obtaining
a grading permit. Most of the proposed parking area is fairly level and
in lawn area. Proposed trees will be moved from other parts of the site.
The staff recommended approval subject to a grading permit.
a
Mr. Floyd Johnson, representing the applicant, stated that the parking
lot on the lower plateau of the mountain has been expanded, hopefully to
releave traffic on the mountain. The Soil Erosion Committee has approved the
plan.
Mr. Jim Bear said that in an average day Monticello accomodates
3500 tourists.
Mr. Jones asked if there will be any upgrading of Route 53.
Mr. Johnson said that this will have to be dealt with by the Virginia
Department of Highways.
Mrs. Graves asked if it will be visible from the highway.
Mr. Johnson said that it will not be visible at all.
Mrs. Graves questioned if the request has been through the normal
process of Site Plan Review Committee.
Mr. Tucker said that it had not been that route, since it was considered
to be an emergency.
Mrs. Graves said that all applicants should follow the same procedures.
Mr. Jones said that the facility is definitely needed.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to a grading permit.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion since it is of a very important
nature. He said that he feels that it deserves special treatment.
The vote was 6-1 to approve with Mrs. Graves voting against the motion.
Due to the late hour, the meeting adj rned.
Rob t W. Tucker, Jr., Secr tary
April 13, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting Tuesday, April 13,
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. Joan Graves; Mr. Paul Peatross;
Mr. Leslie Jones; Dr. James Moore; Col. William Washington; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-
Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
ACCESSORY TOURIST LODGING - consideration to amend County Zoning Ordinance:
Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission that this item had been deferred
in order that the staff could collect data requested at the previous meeting. He
stated that he had talked to the County Sheriff's Department, and the sheriff's
only recommendation had been that any tourist staying at a home in Albemarle
County should furnish his car's license tag number to the sponsoring group and
to the resident of the house in which he stayed. The sheriff also recommended
that the landowner remain at home at all times in which he had guests in his home.
Mr. Mike Gleason, Executor Director of the Regional Bicentennial Commission,
located in Charlottesville, pointed out the increased travel development. He
said that there are five peak tourist seasons in Charlottesville -Albemarle, and
that due to the Dogwood Festival, there were no rooms available in the area that
particular night. He said that there are approximately 1,400 first class rooms
out of the 1,600 rooms available to tourists in the area. With the twenty-five
events scheduled between April and October, there will be approximately 2,000,000
visitors to the area compared to the previous 1,000,000 per year. He stated that
his office has been concerned about the impact of these visitors upon the community,
and that lodging is a concern, but not just for this Bicentennial Year. He pointed
out that the tourist industry is the second largest industry in the area. At this
time there are no plans, that he is aware of, for any motels or hotels to be built.
He said that even though the number of tourists will increase, the situation
is not alarming.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the staff's recommendation regarding this request
to amend the ordinance.
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff recommends that if amended, that only the
R-3 zone include the amendment. He stated also that the staff preferred this to
be a separate ordinance, though it did not seem to be possible.
Mr. Peatross asked about the additional tourist facilities that will be
needed this year.
Mr. Gleason suggested that any motels, hotels, camping facilities, etc.
would be helpful this year and in the years to come. He said that since events
in the area are advertised across the country, lodging facilities should be
available to these people when they arrive.
Mr. Peatross asked the approximate number of units that would be needed.
Mr. Gleason said that the area can handle only one-third of the tourists that
will be here. There are 1,600 units in the area.
Mr. Gleason stated that during the peak tourist season that 2000 rooms
could be made use of.
Mr. Easter questioned the possibility of 1977 being as much a Bicentennial
Year as 1976.
Mr. Gleason stated that there will probably be approximately the same number
of tourists in the area for the next four -five years, till 1980 or 1981 and then
the tourists will be more concentrated in the Yorktown area.
Mr. Easter asked if the community is set up commercially to handle food,
traffic, and bathroom needs.
Mr. Gleason responded that he can endorse this request to amend the ordinance
as far as saying that these people are trying to meet an existing need. He said
that he had not talked to the applicants regarding the time limit they wanted. He
also pointed out that their request is the successful and popular way of traveling in
Europe.
Col. Washington mentioned the fact that the 2,000,000 travelers does not
even include local traffic.
Mr. Gleason said that the area anticipates 2,000,000 travelers, but this
does not mean they will be overnight guests. Due to lack of facilities, some would
like to stay who will not be able to stay. He said that 400 extra rooms per night
were needed for the peak five months.
Mr. Carr questioned the Fire Marshal, Kelly Reynolds, about his concerns
for this.
Mr. Reynolds explained the minimum fire safety criteria for accessory tourist
lodging ( see attached ).
The Commission discussed inspections time, location of smoke detectors, etc.
with the Fire Marshal. He stated that he would inspect the houses at least once
a year, that a minimum of one smoke detector per house would be required, which
would be located in the bedroom area. He said that most houses are designed such
that occupants are limited to a 45-minute escape time in case of fire. He further
pointed out that he recommended guests be limited to 1-2 people per residence.
The Fire Marshal also stated that each homeowner who had guests under this amendment
should check with his individual insurance company, since most homeowners have a disclaimer
in policy that won't permit their house to be used for commercial purposes.
Mr. Carr said that he feared that too much of a burden would be placed on the
Fire Marshal's office for inspections, and that the County could probably afford
no additional expense for this purpose.
Mrs. Graves asked if the County would be worse off if this amendment were
not included in the ordinance.
Mr. Reynolds said that the County certainly did not want anyone to die in a fire.
Mr. Easter acknowledged that this insured at least minimum safety requirements. *404
Mrs. Harold Karen said that her group is only trying to take care of people;
also tourists who are sent to other areas deprive this community of revenue. Her
group has purchased smoke detectors to install in homes that will be used for accessory
tourist lodging.
OF ALSeftj
C
G
Fire Marshal's Office
TELEPHONE 404 EAST MARKET STREET KELLY P. REYNOLOS
(804) 296-5832 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901 FIRE MARSHAL
MINIMUM FIRE SAFETY CRITERIA FOR ACCESSORY TOURIST LODGING
WAW The following minimum fire safety standards must be completed
before the County Fire Marshal's Office will approve the
public occupancy of an accessory tourist lodging:
M
1. HOUSEKEEPING HAZARDS: Check for storage of combustibles,
paints, and ru ish in basements, closets, under stair-
ways and next to furnaces.
2. FIRE EXITWAYS: Bedroom windows must open a minimum of
16". The exitway from the bedroom to the direct out-
side exit must be clear, safe and unobstructed.
3. ELECTRICAL HAZARDS: Check for excessive use of extension
cords, sa a electrical receptacles and fixtures, over
fusing and unsafe electrical wiring that is a direct
fire safety hazard.
4. HEATING EQUIPMENT AND APPLIANCES: All furnaces, heaters,
and boilers must be in safe operating condition free
of defects and hazards. Non -vented kerosene, wood and
fuel stoves are prohibited. Portable electric heaters
must be approved by the County Fire Marshal..
5. STRUCTURAL.HAZARDS: Check for loose handrails, unsafe
stairways and general structureal safety of floors,
ceilings and walls.
6. OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS: The Countv Fire Marshal shall
limit the occupancy of sleeping quarters taking into
consideration area of the room and exitway capacity.
7. SMOKE DETECTOR REQUIREMENT: Install a minimum of one (1)
approved and listed smoke detector_ capable of warnir:g
the occupants in the event of fire.
April 13, 1976
FIRE PREVENTION THROUGH 0 EDUCATION 0 ENGINEERING • ENFORCFJWENT
Mr. Reynolds asked the group if their list will be approved, and Mr. Carr
explained that the Commission had been instructed that applicants for accessory
tourist lodging will be screened.
Mrs. Churchill supported the request to amend the ordinance. She seemed
to feel that the more affluent would be the ones desirous of this sort of lodging.
She said that she could see no difference in housing tourists from housing students.
Mrs. Karen Lilleleht asked the question that since it can't be temporary,
does Albemarle County want this a part of the ordinance now and in the future.
Mr. Easter said that he views it as temporary only and will not support
the amendment if it is permanent. He pointed out that the motel business has
not always been a lucrative business in this area, and that the, -..operators of these
establishments might need future protection. He also questioned if any of these businessmen
had been contacted.
Mrs. David said that tourists wishing to stay in local homes will not be
limited to the services of this group.
Mr. Easter said that he felt this problem should be faced head-on and that
he was ready to make some sort of temporary provision for it in the ordinance.
The Commission then discussed the method for handling it in the ordinance --
whether it should be a request for a special use permit handled in the same manner
as special permits for mobile homes, whether it should be under Home Occupations,
Class B, which also required a special permit, or whether it should be a general
use all over the county. They also discussed the possibility of a license fee.
They pointed out that they did not want to discourage the use, but they did wish
it to be a good, working situation. The possibility of fee inspections was also
discussed. Methods of repealing the amendment after one year were addressed.
Mr. Carr told the Commission that the Chamber of Commerce heartily supports
the amendment.
Mrs. David suggested that a terminal date is sticky, and that the Commission
should adopt a resolution of intent to review and probably terminate it in one year.
Mr. Barksdale made the following motion:
To include in the A-1, RS-1, R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts ( as Section 2-1-27,
3-1-15, 4-1-14, 5-1-17, and 6-1-22, respectively, uses permitted by right ) a use
reading:
"accessory tourist lodging by permit issued by the Zoning Administrator for successive
periods of twelve months pursuant to fire and safety regulations
promulgated
the Bureauthe
Albemarle County Fire Marshal and subsequent to approval by permit
of
Tourist Establishment Sanitation of the Virginia Department of Health.
To include in Article 16 the new section 16-2-1 reading:
"Accessory Tourist Lodging: One or more rooms, located within a single-family
dwelling which is actually used as such, which rooms are used, secondarily to such
single-family use, for the temporary accomodation of transients in return for
NOW compensation, whether or not such rooms are used in conjunction with other portions
of such dwelling."
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-3.
Messrs. Jones and Washington and Mrs. Graves voted against the motion.
Mr. Peatross moved that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to review these
amendments during the month of January, 1977, for possible repeal.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr suggested that this resolution be placed on all permits issued
by the Zoning Administrator of Accessory Tourist Lodging. The Commission unanimously
agreed.
Mr. Barksdale also suggested that there be a reasonable license fee for
accessory tourist lodging permits. The Commission also unanimously agreed to this.
They asked that these suggestions be taken to the Board of Supervisors by
the staff.
Article 7.1 Commercial Office District CO:
Mr. Tucker said that this had been brought about through discussion by
the Planning Commission at a previous meeting because of a pending special use
permit. He said that the request for the special permit had been deferred for
a period of ninety days in order that the Commission could take action on this
amendment to the ordinance.
Mr. Tucker presented several staff recommendations regarding this request.
The Commission discussed at length the height of buildings. They unanimously
agreed that buildings whose height is in excess of forty feet but to a maximum height o
sixty feet be permitted by special permit. 11*0
Mr. Easter moved approval of the CO as amended by the staff and Commission
and asked that it be brought back to the Commission for final review at the next
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
( Attached is a copy of the Commercial Office District as passed by the Commission.
Items deleted from the amendment have been marked through, and additions to the
amendment have been underscored. )
Also unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Barksdale were the definitions
attached to the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Peatross.
Mobile Home Work Session:
matter. The Commission, due to the late hour, deferred discussion and action on this
Michie Tavern Discussion:
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that a little over three years ago
a special permit for a country store and craft shops had been approved. A site
plan came up with parking layout, which cites May 31, 1976, as the deadline for
planting to be completed. The right-of-way cannot be cleared at this time, and
ARTICLE 7.1 Commercial Office District CO
For state law as to authority of board of supervisors
to establish commercial zoning districts, see Code
of Va., Section 15.1-486(a).
Section 7.1-1 PURPOSE
This district is designed primarily to accommodate transitional
land uses between commercial activities and residential land uses,
and shall be limited to offices for business and professional usa
and other similar uses which are not characterized by heavy trucking
or by other nuisance factors.
Section 7.1-2 USES --Permitted by right
The following uses shall be permitted by right:
(_-) Banks and savings and loan institutions.
(b) Churches.
(c) Medical centers.
(d) Ein3�s;-asei-}ee�e�es;-civic;-€�etea3i-ane�-patietie.
(e) Libraries.
(f) Off-street parking as required by this ordinance.
(g) Offices for business and professional use.
(h) Underground public utilities: Poles, lines, transformers, pipes,
meters, and related or similar facilities; water and sewerage
distribution lines; telephone exchange and dial centers, offices.
(i) Fire and rescue stations.
(j) Establishments limited to the filing of prescriptions and the sale
of pharmaceutical and similar supplies, not exceeding two
thousand square feet in gross sales floor area.
(k) Educational institutions.
(1) Se3�eeis-ef-special-iasttz�etierc.
(m) Nursery schools.
(n) Day nursery.
0
Section 7.1-3. USES --Permitted by special use permit
The following uses may be permitted by special use permit:
(a) Construction facilities, temporary, in accordance with the definition
of construction facilities contained in Section 16-21.
(b) Hospitals.
(c) Funeral homes.
(d) Public utilities: Public water and sewer transmission mains or trunk
lines and treatment facilities, pumping stations; electrical power
transmission lines and towers, oil and gas transmission pipelines and
pumping stations, unmanned telephone exchange centers, microwave and
radio wave transmission and relay towers and substations.
(e) Clubs and lodges, civic, fraternal_ and patriotic.
(f) Buildings whose height is in excess of forty feet but to a maximum
height of sixty feet.
Section 7.1-4 AREA REQUIREMENTS
(a) Minimum lot size: No regulation except setback,. yard and height
regulations and for those uses not served by a public sewer system
and a public water supply. The required area for such use shall be
approved by the health officer. The administrator may require a
greater area if considered necessary by the health officer.
(b) Maximum percent lot coverage: Eighty percent.
Section 7.1-5 SETBACKS
All structures, except signs advertising sale or rent of the property,
shall be located fifty feet or more from any street right of way or one
foot for each one foot of building height, whichever is greater.
Section 7.1-6 YARDS
(a) Side. The minimum side yard adjoining or adjacent to a residential
or agriculture er-•eeneervatien district shall be fifty feet.
(b) Rear. The minimum rear yard adjoining or adjacent to a residential
or agriculture district shall be fifty feet.
Section 7.1-7 HEIGHTS
(a) There shall be a maximum height limit for permitted buildings of
sixty forty feet.
(b) Cupolas, monuments, water towers, chimneys, flues, flagpoles, television
antennas, radio aerials and electrical transmission may be permitted
I% up to thirty feet above the permitted maximum height of the building.
Parapet wails may be up to four feet above the height of the building
on which the walls rest.
(c) No accessory structures which is within ten feet of any lot line
shall be more than one story hign. All accessory structures shall
be less than the main structure in height.
W
Section 7.1-8 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
(a) Accessory buildings' aggregate area shall not exceed twenty-five
percent of the site which is not occupied by the primary building.
(b) Accessory buildings shall not be located closer than twenty-five
feet to any side or rear property line when adjoining or adjacent
to a residential or agricultural district.
Section 7.1-9 MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING
Minimum off-street parking requirements shall be as set forth in Section 11-7.
Section 7.1-10 SIGNS
Requirements for signs shall be as set forth in Article 15A.
Section 7.1-11 SCREENING; LANDSCAPING
(a) Permitted uses shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed
building or within an area enclosed by such fencing or screening as
the planning commission shall recommend in order to effect the
purposes of this ordinance.
(b) Landscaping may be required within an established or required front
setback area. The plans and execution must take into consideration
traffic hazards. Landscaping may be permitted up to a height of
three feet within fifty feet from the corner of any intersecting streets.
(c) Sufficient area shall be provided to adequately screen permitted
uses from adjacent residential districts and for off-street parking
of vehicles incidental to the business, its employees and clients.
Section 7.1-12 SITE PLAN APPROVAL
Site plan approval requirements shall be as set forth in Article 17.
-------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-30.1 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUT1ON. A place for systematic instruction in any branch or
branches of knowledge; a school.
16-58.1 MEDICAL CENTER. Establishment wherein medical care is provided on an out -patient
basis, as distinguished from a hospital or a professional office.
16-64.1 NURSERY SCHOOL. A school designed to provide daytime instruction for two or more
children from 2-5 years of age inclusive, and operated on a regular basis.
)r-23.1 DAY NURSERY. An agency, organization, or individual providing daytime care of six
or more children not related by blood or marriage to, or not the legal wards or
• foster children of, the attendant adult.
the applicant needs a renewal on the special permit. The agenda for the next
Planning Commission has already been completed, due to the Commission policy
regarding the number of items per agenda. Mr. Tucker stated that the applicant
requests a waiver of this policy and asks permission to be on the May 4, 1976,
agenda.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, presented to the commission
a letter which contained all the facts regarding the delay of the planting plan, etc.
( see attached letter from M. Joseph Conte, and other correspondence relating
to the approval of special permit 228. )
Mr. Carr asked for an explanation on the condition that 50% of the articles
to be sold in the country were to be handcrafted in the shops on the property.
Mr. Evans explained the layout of the property. stating that visitors to
Michie Tavern could stroll from the ordinary through the shops and on to the country
store. That had been the plan. Due to complications regarding the right-of-way
and finances, completion of the craft shops was impossible. At this time the
craft shops are planned for the second phase of the development.
Mr. Easter stated that it had been his understanding that the parking lot
had been the major concern, due to the coming biecentennial tourist season.
Mr. Evans said that the 15' right-of-way was supposed to be moved behind
Michie Tavern, but that negotiations with the adjacent landowners had bogged down.
He explained that as things are now, no certificate of occupancy for the country
store can be obtained. He suggested that an interim plan be presented to the
Commission on the existing lot, and that plans for the original approval could be
proceeded with in the fall.
Mr. Payne stated that time limitations on special permits are not enforceable.
Mrs. Graves questioned the fact that the entire concept of the SP-228 had
been gotten away from. She also inquired about soil erosion ordinance compliance.
Mr. Carr established from the applicant that approximately 80-90% of the
parking lot had been built, and that there are now two entrances. The lower
entrance is very safe.
Mr. Jones expressed concern about the traffic situation that will result
at peak tourist seasons and asked for Virginia Department of Highways input.
He also suggested no left-hand turns when coming down the mountain to avoid further
traffic problems.
Mrs. Graves moved that the request be considered by the Commission at its
meeting May 4, 1976, subject to the County Attorney's review of the legality of
the conditions imposed on SP-228 and enforceability of these conditions, latest
information from the Highway Department regarding this location, and minutes
of all previous Planning Commission meetings dealing with this special use permit
being furnished to members of the Commission prior to May 4.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter asked that the Virginia Department of Highways have a representative
present at that meeting. He also stated that he hoped any proposed interim solution
will make the parking lot presentable.
Mr. Tucker stated that the applicant cannot comply with the requirements set
4,__+-i, i,w +-ha u;ahwav Department until the right-of-way problem is settled.
Xe-
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Secretary
AlaAio 9a, Ve"
7%9j
M
Mr. David, W. Carr
Barra.ck_Ade Garth Road
Charlottesville, Va.
Dear Sir:
22901
I will greatly appreciate the opportunity to present
my case on Wednesday, April 14, 1976.
The delay in opening the General Store will be a
tremendous financial burden to us and to the many other
people who have supplied us with hundreds of handcrafted
items. The construction cost for.•the Mill and General
Store, at this time, is $2870347,86. This amount does not
include walks, landscaping, parking lot, or any supplies
and merchandise. It is conceivable the total price will
be over $400,000.00 for this phase of our project. Const-
ruction costs have almost doubled the estimated cost at
the start of the project. Some extra cost was anticipated
due to hidden problems in carefully dismantling and reconst-
ructing an eighteenth century mill, piece by pieces but not
the amount we are faced with now. Repayment schedules,
with banks and other lenders, were set to start on April
15, 1976. All repayments were based on a pro forma cash '
flow statement for each month.
Since we were unable to open on April 10, the loss has
already been felt financially in many perishable items that
we were unable to save. Our craftsmen are hard working
people who are not financially able to wait for their money,
and since most of the items are on consignment, we are already
feeling the effect of this problem. Due to reclaiming of
their merchandise it will be very difficult to deal with
these people again.
I, personally, nor the Michie Tavern Corp. is in a
position to carry the heavy interest and principal payments
that will be due within the next few days. I am not in a
position to borrow any additional funds, and therefore,
find myself in a very dangerous financial position. I will
appreciate any help this Board can give me. I am hopeful
I will be able to open the General Store on April 17, 1976.
xlo~i Arc.&. ✓wuexn
Mae& in 779
cm
PARKING LOT
Due to circumstances beyond my control I have not
been able to complete the parking lot. (See attached
letter) I realize this ds a very important part of our
overall projecty but since I was unable to obtain the
proper right -a -ways, it will be delayed until Fall. The
completion date should be early Spring. We will do all
we can, at this timer not to make it an eye -sore for our
many visitors.
CRAFT HOUSES
The Craft Houses have not been completed due to the
lack of mortgage funds. I have tried for the past six
years to obtain a mortgage on the total project, without
success. I feel confident now, with the General Store
completed, I will be able to do so. We have been working
with craftsmen, for sometime, to make crafts for us. We
are very fortunate in this respect, and can proudly say
90% of all the items that we will sell are handcrafted
items made in their own Virginia homes. This practice
will continue, after our own craft houses are completed.
We feel sure, our craftsmen alone, would not be able to
supply the volume needed. We will be happy to supply
the Board with names and addresses of our craftsmen, or
you are welcome to inspect the merchandise at any time.
REVIEW AND RENEWAL
I am confu, on the three year renewal clause. I
was under the impression the starting day would be from
the day the building permit was issued. (Item 8, see
attached).
I am sorry for any inconvenience I have caused
the Board and am hopeful these problems can be solved
as soon as possible.
MJC/ j g
R
1105, c..-nTua
2-28-73 443,
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on February 28, 1973 at 7:30 P-M- in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville
Virginia. an
Present were: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, William C. Thacker, Jr./
Gordon L. Wheeler.
Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. and Mr. Lloyd F- Wood, Jr.
Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney.
At 7:30 P.M., the Chairman called for a public hearing on a zoning matter as
advertised in The Daily Progress on February 7 and February 14, 1973:
(1) SP-228. Michie Tavern Corporation has petitioned the Board of Supervisors•t.Q allc ,
gift, craft, and antique shoos on land zoned n-1 Agricultural centain_rg"2.is J2 ac es.
Property is situated on Route 53 adjacent 1t+o411lic JeeTaverncok 304 PageJ57 , Ses swell
n t�
as County Tax Map 77, e. eck 3 g 9 -
Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey gave the staff report and stated that the Planning Commission reco -ends
approval with the following conditiolns: -
1. Health Department approval for proper sanitary facilities.
2. All structures are to be designed to fit into the 18th century period.
3- No sale of any product within the individual craft shops. Sales restricted
to the building housing the country sores.
4. No overhead utilities will be installed.
5. A deceleration lane to be provided at the new entrance to the satisfaction
of the Virginia Department of Highways.
6. All proposed exterior lighting to be shown and reviewed on site plan.
7. No advertisements other than to locate entrances and to identify the facility,
limited to the minimum requirements of the A-1 Agricultural zone with reference
to business signs. All signs are to be in character with the 18th century.
8. Approval conditioned upon review of contract documents (working drawines and
specifications) by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of �1i'_dY
permits for conformity with intent of this facility in the proposed historic
district. Certificate of Occupancy to be issued only when all conditions
(1-10) have been met.
9. Fifty percent of the inventory value in the store be made in the craft shops.
10. Subject to review and renewal every three years.
Mr. Brown was present on behalf of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or
against the petition. Following a short discussion, motion was offered by Mr. acker
to approve this special permit with the conditions -posed by the Planning Ce=:..ss.on mad;
with the further request that the site plan come to th_s Board before fina: approval.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwi'_e and carried by tie following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Wood.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Batchelor to check with nudge Berry and the Sheriff before
hiring guards for the Airport.
Mr. Carwile stated that the committee working for the Levy Opera House renovation
had met with the architect and had asked for alternatives on the proposed renovation and
costs of such alternatives.
Mr. Wheeler stated that the Board had now received a report from the architect and
the expansion co: ittee. It was decided that a heaa•ing date on this report would be set
at a meeting to be held on next Thursday, March 81 A'973-
Mr. Wheeler stated that the Board had now been furnished with a proposed s _^.rY
cchedolc. He =kca "" Cicr • to invite nil ^^sttt7gri�ral officers mad depar:r_e t nar?s
to discuss this schedule with the Board, beginning alit 3:30 P.M- in the Board Roc^ on
U—$, R 1 0'; L
CM
Mr. Jobn Hmphrey
County Planner
M. 400 Co. Caffic® Bldg.
Charlottesville, Va. 22001
Door Pir. HUMphroys
In reference to our tolepboft
on Historic Plichio Tavern• s Canard
thIs latter vAll advise you of our
ruction.
sation last week
and Craft houco,
for future conot-
The existing cement block building (F.O.P.) will be
converted into a General Store. (Plans to b3 approved by
your Eoard.) After cormpbetion, 501,14 of the merchandico will
b3 nand crafted reproductions of 18th. century itcM3. Those
Ate %All be produced in Charlottesville and Rich^mnd until
vur craft houses are complatcd. As tho General Etora is
being constructed® playas for our craft bourns should ba
near co plotion and cent to your office for approval. On
a.^,p oval of each craft houaa va plan on starting conot-
raction.
Wa will bo vorking with the Work shop for tho Blind
In Rlcl=ord and Charlottesville to train and prepare crafts- .
m^n for us. They will produce as many of tho hand crafts
es peaalbbe for our General Store. As the craft houcos are
cc loted our pooplo will bo trained and ready for production.
Leo eft to have all tbo craft houses into operation
by tho £p:ing of 1075.
Wo we looking forv=d to tho start of our exciting
project with great anticipation and you can rest acaurcd
It vill bo dono with featidioua planning and taro.
sincerely,
M. Joseph Conte, Pros.
Michie Tavern Corp.
MJC/ j g
OF ALBEAI
G
R
Planning Department
JOHN L. HUMPHREY COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
COUNTY PLANNER CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
January 30, 1973
Mr. Henry Browne Mr. Joseph Conte
404 8th Street NE Michie Tavern Musuem
Charlottesville, Va. Route 53
Charlottesville, Va.
Gentlemen:
On January 29th, 1973,.the Planning Commission approved SP-228 with the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval for proper sanitary facilities.
2. All structures are to be designed to fit into the 18th century period.
3. No sale of any product within the individual craft shops. Sales restricted to the building
housing the country store.
4. No overhead utilities will be installed.
5. A deceleration lane be provided at the new entrance to the satisfaction of the Va.
Department of Highways.
6. All proposed exterior lighting to be shown and reviewed on site plan.
7. No advertisements other than to locate entrances and to identify the facility, limited
to the minimum requirements of the A-1 Agricultural zone with reference to Business signs
All signs are to be in character with the 18th century.
8. Approval conditioned upon review of contract documents (working drawings and specificatioi
by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits for conformity with inte!
of this facility in the proposed historic district.
9. Not less than 50% of retail inventory value in country store is to be articles produced
in craft shops.
10. Special Permit is to reviewed and renewed every three (3) years./ -
You will be notified as soon as a date for the Board of Supervisors meeting is set.
As per item #8, contract documents will go back before the Planning Commission prior to
final approval.
nc ,
J L.Humphrey
unty Planner
`%w JLH:bfj
Note: Board of Supervisors meeting will be held on February 28, 1973 at 7:30
P.M.
MAX EVANS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT March 26, 1976
REGIONAL PLANNER
t/ir. Hobert W. Tucker, Jr.
Director of Planning
County PlanninN, Epartment
414 :. Market Street
Charlottesville, Va.
Dear Er. Tucker:
OFFICE: 2007 EARHART ST. 296-5246
HOME: 1306 OXFORD PLACE 203 7644
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22903
'this letter is to inform you that the parking facilities d.es1 ned'
for PAchie Tavern} and the New Country Store cannot b�: constructed
to meet site plan conditions and the 'late for completion as approved
by they. commission.
Mr. Conte has recently informed. me that negotiations to close a
15 ft- right-of-way near the Tavern has failed. This right -of -:Tay
must be closed permanently to accommodate an 8 ft. cut at the existing
lo`. A new right-of-tTay access west of the Country store and behind
the proposed Craft shops and thence to the existing; right-of-vra,y
behind_ the Tavern would have allowed for the above mentioned closing.
Mr. Conte's attorney started ncer;otiations concerning this ri_;ht-of-way
over a year ago but more demanding conditions for provildin g the new
right -of -:ray were continously added such that both cost and time has
made it prohibitive.
The result is that time has run out and the parking facilities as
we have. designed and the commission has approved including the land-
scaping so carefully rbviewed cannot be constructed. fhe right -of -,,ray
agreements will have to be reached and the new roadway from west of
Country store and behind of Craft shops will have to be constructed_
before the parkins and landscaping can be completed.
Please advise us the best approach to take so that our clients current
needs and the counties site plan conditions can be met.
WSi erely,
l-
p: :'IV I s
M
April 20, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting to consider a series
of site plans and subdivision plats on Tuesday, April 20, 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; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan
Graves; Co. William Washington; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent were
Mr. Paul Peatross and Mr. Leslie Jones.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Minutes: April 6, 1976 - Since there were no additions or corrections to
these minutes, the chairman approved them.
April 13, 1976, minutes were deferred until a later date.
SP-09-76. Carol Birckhead - request to locate a mobile home:
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that this action on this request had been
deferred in order that a committee composed of the Director of Planning, the applicant,
Mr. Easter, and Mr. Wilson Cropp, objecting adjoining owner could view the site
to agree on the location of the mobile home. He stated that an agreeable solution
had been reached and that Mr.'Cropp had withdrawn his objection to the request.
Mr. Easter stated that a new well has to be drilled in order to solve the water
problem.
this.
Mr. Keeler said that it would be necessary to check the BOCA Code to determine
Mr. Easter moved approval'of the request subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval by appropriate state and county agencies;
2. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile home;
3. Setback of 100 feet from Route 720;
4. Screening from Route 720 to be determined by Zoning Staff;
5. Mobile home to be located as agreed upon by applicant and adjoining property owner.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
Berkmar Development Corporation Site Plan - Berkmar Drive:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a proposed contractors office. The staff
recommends deferral of this plan until a grading permit is obtained and the site
plan is revised to show the site more accurately.
The staff recommended a shared entrance with lot 10A, and rearrangement of
the front parking spaces.
When approved, it should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Grading permit;
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
3. Service Authority approval;
4. Fire Marshal approval;
5. Evergreen screening of the rear parking and protection of the existing large trees.
Mr. Skip Gelletley stated that his grading had been done in phases and
never had more than 10,000 square feet of dirt been moved without stabilizing
what had already been done. He stated that he had previously discussed this with
the staff. He stated that he needs the 45 feet for turning distance and this is
the reason for the parking arrangement in the front. Mr. Gelletley felt that
children playing in the area had caused some of the problems with the dirt running
into the stream.
Mr. Carr questioned the possibility of ivy on the bank.
Mrs. Scala felt this could be addressed when the plans were reviewed
by the Soil Erosion Committee. A grading permit would be issued at this time if
everything is in order.
Mr. Carr felt that the suggestion of a shared entrance with lot 10A could
not be addressed since the applicant does not own that parcel.
Mrs. Graves expressed concern over the storage area, pointing out that if
there is to be outside storage, more planting should occur.
Mr. Gelletley said that there will not be storage for more than a 2-day
period. He said that there is 700 feet of storage area inside the building.
A discussion regarding the planting and screening near the creek occurred.
Mr. Gelletley asked to be able to view the creek from his offices.
Dr. Moore said that the screening should be as effective as possible.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff and a sixth condition to be as follows:
6. Applicant must present a revised site plan to accurately show the site
and the screening is to be worked out at the pleasure of the staff. Any
questions regarding this screening should be brought back to the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hall and Taylor Site Plan - Route 29 North - Hardtimes Estate:
Mrs. Scala stated that the subdivision plat had just been received at the
beginning of the meeting. The staff recommended approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Grading permit;
2. Detailed landscape plan to be approved by the staff. Retention of as many trees as
Possible within setbacks. Total screening of main use including disabled vehicles;
3. Proposed additions will require additional site plan approval;
4. Health Department written approval;
5. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
6. Fire Marshal approval;
7. County Engineer approval of entrance road and water system, which will be
tied in with public water.
Mrs. Scala stated that this is in line with the special use permit
approved last month.
Mr. Carr questioned the ultimate grading plan adjoining Route 29.
Mr. Gelletly, applicant, stated that the grading will plateau about 600 feet
up the hill.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff plus the following condition:
8. De-cel lane.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the subdivision plat along
with the site plan subject to Highway Department approval.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Doctor's Court Office Buidling - new entrance on Whitewood Road:
Mrs. Scala stated that this site plan has been approved and that the
only change is this entrance onto Whitewood Road. That has been requested
because an easement hs been secured.
Mrs. Graves asked about sidewalks along the road.
Mr. Carr said that a sidewalk here would be premature until the county
is sure where the road will go.
Mrs. Graves said that in the original approval she thought that there was
to be a dedication for this.
Mrs. Scala said that there is a 25 foot dedication from the centerline of the
highway. She explained that she had not inquired about the current road plans
for Hydraulic because this plan had already received approval.
Mr. Forloines, one of the owners, stated that there has to be some sort
of reservation for sidewalks to be built before they can receive bids for the
development. Thus the question raised by Mrs. Graves will be taken care of.
Mrs. Scala stated that at the time of original approval the applicant
complied with the plans for Route 743.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Grading permit will have to be amended;
2. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval. ( Entrances on adjacent
properties must be kept minimum 25 feet from this shared entrance. )
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hurd -Manning Land Trust, Inc., final plat - Hydraulic and Whitewood Roads:
Mrs. Scala pointed out that this is the subdivision of the land just
discussed. There are three parcels, with a minimum 30,000 square feet each, served
by existing easements from Hydraulic and Whitewood Roads. The plat also shows
a dedication of 25 feet from the centerline of Route 743 as required.
The staff recommended approval subject to the centerline of Route 743 being labeled.
This releases a deed of trust.
staff. Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the condition recommended by the
The motion, seconded by Mr. Easter, carried unanimously.
Coggins Used Auto Sales site plat - Route 29 North near Woodbrook:
Mrs. Scala said that this has previously been occupied by a mobile home
sales, but that the property will have half this use and half mobile home sales. y
A de-cel lane is being provided and landscaping and screening plans have been
submitted.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. County Engineer and Service Authority approval of waterline;
3. Fire Marshall approval.
Mrs. Scala noted that though banners or pennants are not prohibited by the
ordinance, the staff discourages possible use of them.
Mrs. Cathy Tompkins asked how the entrance/exit relates to the crest of the
hill on Route 29.
Mr. Anderson, representing the applicant, explained where it will be moved.
Pointing out that there have been three non -conforming uses on this property,
Mrs. Graves statea Lhat she would like the trailers removed, since a conforming
use should take precedence over the non -conforming trailer sales use.
Mr. Payne said that there is no legality in this and that the Commission
cannot require him to remove the trailers. He said that a non -conforming use
can even be expanded, though this is not the case here.
Mrs. Tompkins asked the distance from the entrance to the turnaround.
there
Mr. Gloeckner stated that / appears to be about 300' allowed for acceleration
and de-cel lane, but it is impossible to know the distance she inquires about from
the plat.
Mrs. Scala said that the applicant cannot be denied an entrance onto Route 29
and that the plans submitted for the entrance/exit are a vast improvement over the
existing situation.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
staff and that he wants the applicant to note that the Woodbrook Citizens Association
is concerned about the crossover.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Christian Mission addition site plan - Route 250 West:
Mr. Gloeckner stated for the record that he did the topographic survey
only on this property and that his office did not do this site plan.
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report which recommended approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. 25 feet from centerline of Route 677 should be dedicated if it has not been;
2. Staff would recommend against smaller parking lot if not needed. If needed,
the landscaping should be spelled out as to height and type, and to be approved
by the planning staff;
3. No persons to reside on site in this Business zone except night watchman.
Dr. Moore questioned if the Virginia Department of Highways has any
plans for a de-cel lane on Route 677.
Mrs. Scala said that they did not address this.
Mr. Keith Loftin, representing the applicant, said that this has not been
discussed with the highway department.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that there is adequate land for this de-cel lane.
Mr. Easter asked if the smaller parking lot is necessary.
Mr. Loftin has that it has been requested to serve as the parking lot for
the staff of the mission. The applicant later plans to extend it to the east as
the 9-acre parcel is developed.
The de-cel lane is necessary and now seems to be the time to get it, especially
since no dedication is required. This was a general consensus of the Commission.
Dr. Moore pointed out that the applicant has no entrance onto Route 250.
Mr. Payne said that there is some question if the de-cel lane would be the
responsibility of the applicant.
Mr. Carr said that the staff should check with the highway department to see
why the de-cel lane has not been built. He suggested deferring action until this
matter is resolved.
Mrs. Graves said that the setback for parking lots along Scenic Highways
should also be considered.
Dr. Moore moved action be deferred until these matters could be addressed.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Westridge final plat - Route 676 - 6 lots:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, pointing out that the average size
of the lots is 3.0 acres and that the minimum size lot is 2.0 acres.
Any approval of the plat should be conditional upon the following:
1. Grading permit needed if two or more lots developed at the same time, or
if grading exceeds 10,000 square feet;
2. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrances;
3. Source of title;
4. Pipestems to lots two and three require waiver of frontage which must be justified.
Mr. David Wood, attorney for the applicant, stated that this is probably
the best way to develop this property.
Mike Boggs explained the location of each house site.
Mr. Easter asked if lots 5 and 6 could have shared entrances.
Mr. Boggs said that this is not possible due to the slopes. The Health
Department granted a blanket approval. Itad
Mrs. Peggy Hancock said that there is no place for a drainfield with the lateral
field that is required.
Mr. David Lewis felt that approval of this plat meant that a crisis is on the
way. He stated that residents of this area want the 5-acre zoning as proposed in
the ordinance last year, not this type of development. He presented a petition
of 16 landowners in the area stating opposition to this, and he said that they felt
the applicant had paid no attention to adjoining owners'desires. He said that in
that area there is an unwritten rule that lots should be 5-acre minimum. Shortly
there are two more subdivisions along Route 676 that will come to the Commission.
He felt that law and right -and -wrong are not necessarily on the same side of the
street. He feared that the developer will put on the books whatever he can get
away with before another proposal for countywide zoning is proposed. He read
from a section in the Subdivision Ordinance which states that land development
should take place in an orderly manner.
Mr. Larry Meem said that he had 50 acres that he could have divided into
2-acre lots, but he chose to divide it into only five lots. He feared approval
of this subdivision would pollute the streams because of the proposed drainfields.
He also questioned the legality of the plat being considered that evening, since
it was not the plat that had been sent to adjoining property owners and they had
not had a chance to review it.
Mr. George Bailey said that this subdivision must be viewed from a
safety point as far as the roads are concerned. He felt that the land is not
suitable for as many lots as are proposed.
Margaret Trench said that the property is steep and she felt the lots
are very oddly shaped. The septic tank and well will be below road level
and she did not think this would be good. It was feared that this sort of development
would set a precedent in the area and she said that she would be forced to then
subdivide her own property.
Mr. David Morris asked that land in that area be zoned with a 5-acre minimum
lot size. The immediate adjoining landowner to him has 5 rental cottages and in heavy
rains he finds it necessary to clean his culvert. The erosion ordinances do not
seem to be effective in this area and he feared that erosion will occur on slopes
like on the applicant's land.
Mr. Frank Hereford, III, applicant, said that the Health Department had
carefully checked the property and the septic systems will fit as proposed.
Mr. Carr questioned the rules regarding grade for septic field.
Mr. Boggs said that septic field grades can be on 25% slope or greater.
He also pointed out that the applicant plans to reside on one of these lots.
Mr. Lewis asked the Commission to defer action on the request until they
could view the site.
Mr. Keeler said that the odd shape of the lots resulted from an attempt
to provide adequate building sites.
He also explained to the members of the public that they could apply to amend
the zoning ordinance to include a 5-acre zone, and then they could apply for
a rezoning of their own particular property to 5-acre zoning.
Messrs. Carr and Easter reminded the public at the time of the proposed
zoning ordinance the Commission's stand on 5-acre zoning was not supported throughout
sted parties attend the upcoming public
the County and both suggested that intere
hearings on the comprehensive plan.
Mrs. Graves stated that she wished to view the site to see the reasons for
the pipestem lots.
Mr. David Wood stated that the reason for this was that only two properties
will front the road. The applicant waived his right to subdivide into nine 2-acre parcels.
Mrs. Graves moved that action be deferred until questions regarding potential
pollution of surface and subsurface water could be answered and until the Commission
could view the site.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion and asked that the staff determine if septic
fields and wells could operate independently. He also asked that soil porosity on
each individual lot be determined.
The motion to defer carried unanimously.
Bill Edwards Oldsmobile site plan - Route 29 North at Carrsbrook:
Mrs. Scala stated that approval should be subject to the following conditions:
1. 30' setback should be from proposed right-of-way line - including signs
( Section 17-5-4.);
2. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval;
3. Subject to County Engineer and Service Authority approval of water connection;
4. Health Department approval needed;
5. Proposed trees should be moved from within easement;
6. Grading permit needed if grading exceeds 10,000 square feet. Staff urges that
display cars be kept behind setback line.
Mrs. Scala also said that there had been a discussion as to whether the
dogwood trees should be in the easement.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the applicant could lose the trees if the land
in the easement is bulldozed by the Virginia Department of Highways.
stated
Mrs. Graves/the possibility that perhaps the land should be subject to
the soil erosion ordinance even if it has been previously graded.
Mr. Boggs stated that a grading plan is being prepared.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
Franklin preliminary plat - Route 20 North - 44 lots: 4
The staff stated that the 44 lots with a minimum size of 2.0 acres and
an average size of 2.61 acres should be approved subject conditional to the following:
1. "Cason Farm Road" must be formally vacated on final plat ( to be added to lots
26 and 27 );
2. Grading permit;
3. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval;
4. Cannot use Franklin Drive as road name ( Section 6-1-7 ).
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff questions building sites on lots 17, 25, and
26 since there are steep slopes in excess of 200.
Mr. Cason, the applicant stated that he was not willing to give up lots 17, 25,
and 26 since they are some of the best lots. He also stated that he wished to delete
condition #4 if possible.
Mr. Boggs stated that septic fields can be put on steep slopes with good soil.
Mr. Haskell question the plans for road construction.
Mrs. Scala explained the County's policies regarding road construction.
Mrs. Jack Vermillion asked that the Health Department give individual
approval on all the lots in the subdivision.
Mrs. Scala said that the Health Department had given preliminary approval
based on a soil analysis.
She also stated that she had addressed condition #4 in terms of the
ordinance and in view of the Post Office requests.
Mr. Cason told the Commission that he intended to further investigate this
condition and that he might at a later date provide them with further information
regarding this. The Commission agreed, but told him the condition must stand
at this time.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff plus the following condition:
5. Waiver for pipestems.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Bonanza Sirloin Pit site plan - Rio Road East:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report noting that this is located next
to the Putt -Putt Golf Course. The staff recommended a sidewalk along Rio Road across
the frontage and noted that the Virginia Department of Highways has stated that
details of the proposed plan can be worked out at this point.
Approval of the plat should be conditional upon the following:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. Subject to County Engineer and Service Authority approval;
3. Subject to Fire Marshal approval;
4. Flagpole must meet 30 foot setback;
5. Grading permit needed.
Mr. Gloeckner asked what the sidewalk will tie into.
Mrs. Graves stated that the sidewalks are needed and that the County
has to begin somewhere.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the highway department proposes to develop the
sidewalk back to the east.
Mr. Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that the sidewalk is
agreeable after the road is completed, otherwise construction would ruin it.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the additional condition:
6. Sidewalks to be constructed at the time the Virginia Department of Highways
upgrades the northbound lane of the highway.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
pq
Commercial Office District:
Mr. Keeler Presented the amendment to the Commission as aunroved
by the Commission the previous week.
Mr. Payne suggested two editorial changes which included the listing
of section numbers in the amendment.
Mrs. Graves moved that the previous action to approve this amendment
be reaffirmed subject to Mr. Paynes changes.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
19
19
zro
April 27, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
April 27, 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; Col.
William Washington; Mr. Paul Peatross; Mr. Leslie Jones; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio.
Absent was Mrs. Joan Graves.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
E. P. Bickers - request for a waiver of lot size:
Mrs. Scala stated that this had been deferred from a meeting in January
in order for the applicant to submit a plat of his adjacent property. The applicant
wishes to subdivide 2.59 acres into 3 parcels. The average lot size following dedication
of 25' on Route 631 would be approximately 36,731 square feet. The Subdivision
Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 60,000 square feet when no central water
or sewer is available. Such a division will require Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors approval of a waiver of water and sewer requirements.
The 2.59 acres is presently divided into 2 parcels of 1 acre and 1.59 acres.
There is a house on the l acre parcel. Mr, Bickers also owns an adjacent parcel
containing approximately 0.37 acres, with a house in which he resides.
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that they would also have to approve the use
of an easement to serve the back two lots, Mr. Bickers wishes to give the back
lots to his daughters to build on. The Health Department has given approval for two
additional dwellings served by two septic systems and a common well.
If approved as requested, it should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Board of Supervisors approval of the waiver of water and sewer requirements;
2. Final plat to show 25' dedication from centerline of Route 631;
3. No further subdivision along easement without Planning Commission approval.
The staff suggested to Mr. Bickers the alternative of giving the entire
1.59 acre parcel to one daughter at this time, with the understanding that she
would build to one side of the parcel. In the future, when sewer and water became
available, the parcel could then be subdivided in half for his other daughter.
However, there is no guarantee that the zoning would remain as is, and no way of
knowing when the public utilities could be expected.
Mrs. Scala also stated that the Health Department has given approval for a
septic field and well.
Mr. Easter questioned if the proposal is not against county policy.
Mr. Carr stated that if the request is approved, there would have to be some
Z/I
justification for doing so. He pointed out that such matters where families are
involved are hard to deal with. He pointed out, also, that over a period of time,
due to the small lot size, there will no doubt be a problem with a well and septic
system on a lot this size.
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommended the alternative, and not the
applicant's proposal.
Mr. Bickers said that he would accept the staff's alternative.
Mr. Easter moved approval of this alternative, noting that this is no promise
that public water and sewer will ever be available.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Christian Mission addition site plan - Route 250 West:
Mrs. Scala reminded the Commission that this had been deferred for the
Highway Department recommendation on a decel lane on Route 250, and to check the
parking lot requirements along scenic highways.
The recent amendment prohibits parking within 50' of the right-of-way of
any designated scenic highway of Virginia byway on land zoned commercial, and
thus the smaller parking lot, if retained, should be moved back 50' from the
right-of-way.
She stated that Route 677 has a 50' right-of-way along this property, so
this previous condition need not be a matter of concern.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. If smaller parking lot is retained, it should be moved back 50' from right-
of-way and landscaping should be spelled out as to height and type, to be approved
by staff;
2. No persons to reside on site in this business zone except night watchman;
3. Deceleration lane on Route 250 if Commission requires.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that it is not fair to have the applicant build a de-cel
along Route 250 since he does not have an entrance onto this road. He also stated
that the Highway Department should build a fourth lane along Route 250.
Mr. Barksdale agreed.
Mr. Easter felt the smaller parking lot should be removed. He said that with
previous uses, this property has been a troublesome piece of property for the county,
but hoped that with this use, there will be no problems. If property landscaped,
he felt it would be an asset to the area.
Mr. Finley, the applicant, said that he needs a driveway around one side of
the building and the small amount of parking space afforded by the smaller parking lot.
He stated that the part that Mr. Easter wishes to landscape is nothing but rock.
2 /Z.
Mr. Carr directed the staff to notify the Virginia Department of Highways
of the Commission's idea that a de-cel lane was needed at this point on Route 250
and asked that a copy of this letter be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Peatross asked if the applicant is financially able to afford this de-cel
lane.
Mr. Finley stated that he does wish to have a de-cel lane at a later date
when the 9-acre parcel is developed. This de-cel lane would be for the entrance
they would construct at the top of the hill.
Mr. Peatross asked if this use will generate any increased traffic.
Mr. Finley said it would be minimum.
Mrs. Scala presented to the Commission a statement from the Citizens for
Albemarle regarding their concern for the safety and efficiency of traffic patterns
at this intersection. They also asked for adequate setback and screening, especially
in the new parking area.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. If smaller parking lot is retained, it should be moved back 50' from right-of-way
and landscaping should be spelled out as to height and type, to be approved by
staff;
2. No persons to reside on site in this business zone except night watchman.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Mr. Easter again reminded the staff of the letter to be sent to the Virginia
Department of Highways and Board of Supervisors regarding a de-cel lane.
The motion carried unanimously.
Westridge final plat - Route 676:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report stating that action had been deferred in
order to have Health Department comments on the septic systems and possible pollution
of wells or stream.
The Health Department made the following comments:
1. The septic tank drainfield systems are considered on an individual basis, but
the impact to the entire subdivision and surrounding adjoining property is kept
in mind as to location distances from streams, adjacent wells, ponds, etc. An
overall soil study was done on all six lots to determine soil suitability in
regard to subsurface absorption. In addition to this, percolation rates were
established by digging test holes on each lot and measuring the rate of drop of
a column of water in each hole.
2. With the rate that subsurface absorption was taking place on these lots, there
should be no possible chance of surface water pollution.
It is not possible to predict the run-off of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers,
etc. This depends somewhat on area that will be grassed, cultivated, etc., and on
how much each individual gets involved with his own land treatment.
Z13
The -representative from the Health Department stated that he had no
reason to believe that a geologic fault exists in the area.
It was also noted in the letter that all septic drainfields are required
by law to be at least fifty feet from any body of water or stream and that in this
case, more than the fifty feet will be maintained on each one of the lots.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Grading permit needed if two or more lots developed at the same time, or if
grading exceeds 10,000 square feet;
2. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrances;
3. Need source of title;
4. Pipestems to lots two and three require waiver of frontage which must be
justified;
5. No building on slopes of 25% or greater.
Mr. Meem, adjacent owner, questioned the conclusions of the Health Department.
He acknowledged concern for the lake on his property. He stated that later there will
probably be suits because of this development. He asked the legal status of the
Planning Commission when so many adjacent owners are in opposition.
Mr. Payne stated that the Planning Commission is not liable.
Mr. David Wood, representing the applicant, stated that the request is to
subdivide the property as presented to the Commission.
Mr. D. Lewis said that he would like to raise some legal questions.
He felt that the request should not be approved because of the following:
1. the topographic map presented to the Commission is incorrect - he felt that
he could point out at least three places where this is true;
2. land in the watershed may be developed except on slopes of 25% or, greater, and
he questioned the slopes of lots 4, 5, and 6;
3. land is to be developed in line with the Comprehensive Plan ( he alluded to
conservation zoning as 5-acre zoning in the existing comprehensive plan );
4. he stated that one of the environmental engineers who had spoken at the previous
meeting had been concerned about subsurface water and surface water pollution;
5. he said that in the AGR-5 zone that frontage is 250 feet and that there should
not be peculiar elongations.
Mr. Lewis asked that the County Attorney address the pipestems. He also
presented the Commission with a topographic map with the 25% slopes colored in.
Mr. Mike Boggs, speaking for the applicant, stated that the topographic map
was taken from highway aerial topographic maps and that the error is only 2.5 feet.
No houses or septic fields are shown on 25% slope and an erosion plan will be submitted.
Mr. Ron Hancock said that the grade is greater than 25%.
Mr. Payne said that it is possible to subdivide a lot with 25% slope or greater
whether it is a buildable lot or not. He said that the Planning Commission can consid--
the extent of the 25% slopes as existing with potential problems for the public.
He stated that the 25% slopes do not prevent action by the Commission, though.
If by the applicant's proposal, he creates an unbuildable lot, that is his problem.
Mr. Carr explained to the public that there is no zone on the books that
z&
is AGR-5. This zone was attempted in the proposed zoning ordinance, but that
ordinance was never passed. The largest acreage zone existing now is A-1, which
provides for two acre lots. He also stated that the Planning Commission relies
on the Health Department for input regarding drainfields and septic tanks and
wells - and the Health Department is the proper authority to address these matters,
He said that the roads are bad, but that all have the right to travel county roads.
Mr. Barksdale said that this request could be turned down because of the
pipestems, but that the applicant is legally capable of subdividing the property
into nine 2-acre lots.
Mr. Peatross agreed that nine lots would be much worse.
Dr. Moore asked who enforces building on slopes no greater than 25%.
Mr. Carr told him that the Zoning Administrator enforces this.
Dr. Moore questioned grading at all on slopes of 25% or greater.
Col. Washington stated that roads could be constructed on this slope.
Mr. Carr stated that a road can be built with a grading permit.
Mrs. Meem questioned the recourse if the lake is polluted at some future date.
Mr. Payne stated that the law of nuisance covers this. The suit would
actually be brought against the person who is doing the polluting.
Mr. Meem asked if this request goes before the Board of Supervisors.
waiver.
Mr. Payne stated that if approved, the Board would review this due to the
Mr. Jones questioned the entrances.
Mrs. Scala stated that lots 1-4 will have shared entrances, and that lots
5 and 6 will each have separate entrances.
Mr. Peatross moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Grading permit needed if two or more lots developed at the same time, or if
grading exceeds 10,000 square feet;
2. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrances;
3. Need source of title;
4. Pipestems to lots two and three - waive frontage due to the topography and
shape of all lots;
5. No building on slopes of 25% or greater;
6. Lots 1-4 to have shared entrances; lots 5 and 6 to have individual entrances.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Carr said that to oppose this request would be without. reason.
The motion carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mr. Jones voting against the motion.
Z15'
Hardtimes Estate final plat - Parcel E:
Mrs. Scala stated that this plat had been approved the previous week
by the Commission subject to Highway Department approval. When the plat for
parcels A, B, and C was approved on 2-17-76, one of the conditions of approval was that the
next entrance be kept 600' away. The Highway Department has stated that this location
is satisfactory, and that both proposed entrances have good site distance. Also
further south there is a box culvert that may be a problem. The staff feels that
the location is acceptable, and the entrances will be approximately 425 feet
apart, center to center.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the entrances approximately 425 feet apart.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
James B. Murray plat - request for proposed easement to serve 37 acres - Route 661:
This request is for approval of a 50' easement to serve 37.04 acres from end of Route
661. Easement will be located along Old Rays Ford Road from end of state maintenance
to property line of Parcel "C". There should be a note on the plat regarding no
further subdivision along this easement without Planning Commission approval.
Mrs. Scala further stated that there is no problem with this request.
Mrs. Murray said that when the road was abandoned, the easement was eleminated.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the 50' easement.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Lochridge revised plat - redivision of lots 8 and 9 - Route 743:
Mrs. Scala stated that this had been deferred from a February meeting for
Highway Department recommendation regarding a deceleration lane at entrance to Lochridge.
The final plat was signed 12/1/75 with lot 8 containing 3.994 acres; lot 9 contains
7.445 acres. The redivision proposes lot 8 to contain 3.585 acres and lot 9 to contain
5.0 acres. Lot 10 will contain 2.853 acres. When the plan was approved by the
Commission there were two conditions of approval:
1. Lots 9 and 10 must be combined; or the entire plat brought back to the Commission if
desired after it has been reworked;
2. All building and septic systems must be setback at least 200' from the reservoir
except lot 9, in which case setback shall be 150 feet, due to the topography.
The applicant agreed to construct a decel lane at the entrance, and post a bond
to insure its construction. Unless lot 9 has a building permit, it must meet the
recently imposed 200' setback. The ordinance also requires a 200' setback on lot from
the stream.
Mr. Payne stated that even though the Commission had waived the 200
setback for 150 feet, the ordinance of 2-25-76 takes precedence and 200' must be
observed.
21,,6
Mr. Gloeckner asked if this ordinance could be waived.
Mr. Payne said that it could not.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Bond for decel lane;
2. Waiver of frontage on lot 9;
3. Show 200' setbacks on lots 9 and 10.
Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Briarwood final plat - Lots 1 and 2 - intersection of Route 759 and 616:
Mrs. Scala stated that this plat requires Commission approva' because there
are over three lots in Briarwood Subdivision. No conditions are recommended.
Mr. Barksdale asked exactly what the policy regarding this required approval
is.
Mrs. Scala stated that it has never been clear, but that administrative
approval cannot be given for more than 3 lots in a subdivision, according to
the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Easter, carried unanimously.
D & N Development Corporation final plat - west side of Route 604:
is
Mrs. Scala said that the existing 89.7 acre tract/served by the existing
right-of-way.The applicant wishes to retain 23.7 acres and sell the back 66 acres
to be served by a proposed 50' easement.
Any future development of either parcel would be limited by the existing
right-of-way and only 20' + frontage of the front parcel of 10 acres on Route 604.
If possible, the width and location of this existing right-of-way should be
spelled out, and a note put on the plat regarding no further subdivision along
this 50' easement without Planning Commission approval. Mrs. Scala reminded
the applicant that he should be aware that he is limited as far as future development
is concerned because of the 20 feet.
Mr. Prendergast, an adjacent owner, stated that he had tried to negotiate
with the owner regarding the purchase of a small strip in order to avoid having
a road put so near his house, and noted that this road would greatly disturb his
privacy. He asked that the road be moved over.
Mr. Easter asked it the easement could be run through the middle of the
property.
Mr. Foster explained that the road is located the best way, because of
the terrain. He stated that there is no desire to subdivide the 23.7 acres.
217
Mr. Carr explained that the Commission cannot direct where a right-of-way exists.
The applicant stated that he is willing to talk to Mr. Prendergast regarding
the possibility of selling him some land near his house.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that action be deferred until this could be done.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
West Woods final plat - south side of Route 677 - 10 lots zoned A-1:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report, noting that there is a central well and
individual septic systems for the lots. The preliminary plat has to be renewed,
since it has expired. The only condition of approval which should be amended
is condition #3, since County Water is not available. This section will not
drain into Blue Ridge Pool, which was a matter of original concern.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Renewal of preliminary approval;
2. County Engineer approval of location and size of water lines;
3. Road bond;
4. Driveway on lot #3 must be removed from Route 677 and made to come out on West
Woods Drive.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that there is no
feasible way to have County water extended this far.
Mr. Jim Hill said that another central well will have to be drilled for
the next phase of development. He Mated, though, that the back tract might be
developed in larger lots
Mrs. Scala stated that preliminary approval for the 10 lots has been
given by the Health Department,
Mrs. Manson questioned the dangerous conditions of Ballard Road.
Mr. Carr reminded her of a previous matter discussed that evening, stating
that all people have the right to travel county roads.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Whittington preliminary plat west side of Route 631 South;
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by
leaving the room.
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that these 35 lots have a minimum size of
2.0 acres.
z1P
The lots have individual wells and septic systems. The Health Department
gave preliminary approval with reservations.
Mrs. Scala said that if approval is granted, it should be conditioned
upon the following:
1. Road plans approved by Highway Department and bond posted. Highway Department
is requiring a decel lane. The temporary turnaround should be worked out with
the Highway Department to meet their approval;
2. Grading permit;
3. Lot 10 should enter off Whittington Drive, not Route 631.
Mr. Barksdale stated that in subdividing the land, all the lots should be
buildable.
Mr. Tom Lincoln, representing the applicant, stated that if there would
be a problem at all, it would be with lot 3 and 4 only.
Mr. Barksdale suggested that the plat be reworked on the basis of Health
Department approval.
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff could work with the developer and the
Health Department.
Mr. Jones stated that he wished the spite strip removed from the plat.
Mr. Carr suggested that the Highway Department should be consulted regarding
the cul-de-sac and the de-cel lane.
Mr. Barksdale moved deferral until the suggestions of the members of the
Commission could be addressed by the proper authorities.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner returned to the meeting.
Madison Park final plat ( P.H. Faulconer Estate ) - easement from Barracks
Road to serve 11 existing parcels:
Concept of the easement from the end of existing Morris Avenue to Barracks
Road was approved by the Commission on May 16, 1976. The easement would serve
11 existing parcels, from 4.5 to 18.8 acres; average size of 8.25 acres. Approval
was subject to three conditions:
1. Old plat re -drawn and recorded with new 50' easement;
2. Conditioned upon abandonment of the two rights -of -way which cross Belfield
property ( Morris Avenue and Farnum Place );
3. No further subdivision of the property served by this new easement is permitted
without Planning Commission approval.
Mrs. Scala further stated that there are presently two parcels which could
217
possibly be divided under present conditions ( into parcels 5 acres or greater on an
existing easement ) without further approval.
Lot 65 contains 10.2 acres and lot 79 contains 18.8 acres.
The Faulconer Estate objects to this restriction of no further subdivision,
since they would like to maintain the status quo. However, the staff feels that if the
Commission approves this new easement, it should be only with this condition. It
seems highly unlikely that the applicant could make use of his existing easements
through Belfield. It is not the intent of the staff for the Commission to give
approval to a substandard road but only to ease a difficult situation.
The staff recommended approval of Madison Park Final Plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval of new easement is conditioned upon abandonment of the two rights -of -way
which cross Belfield property ( Morris Avenue and Farnum Place );
2. Easement should terminate at the turnaround, rather than at the Belfield property line.
Mr. McGee, representing the Faulconer estate, stated that the property is held in
trust, that it is the desire to maintain the status quo.
Mr. Payne stated that it is highly questionable that the Faulconer Estate
is giving up anything since it is questionable that the old easements even exist.
He reminded the Commission that they needed to consider if they wanted to allow further
subdivision without approval.
Mr. David Wood, representing Belfield, stated that the school is attempting
to build a $4 million school. A 3-acre parcel is needed from the Faulconer Estate
to accomplish this, and the contract for this is subject to several conditions.
He stated that Belfield has agreed to the request by Faulconer because of its
plans for expansion and asked that the Commission approve the plat as requested
by Faulconer.
Mrs. Scala pointed out to the Commission that the representative for Faulconer
Estate signed the plat before the note regarding no further subdivision was added.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he saw no problem with the request since it
was not the desire to subdivide into less than 5-acre parcels.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he saw no reasons for the conditions of approval.
He said that if the property were to be divided into 2-acre parcels, that would be
different.
Messrs. Easter and Barksdale agreed.
Dr. Moore suggested that standards for private roads are needed.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the following condition:
1. Approval of new easement is conditioned upon abandonment of the two rights -of -way
which cross Belfield property ( Morris Avenue and farnum Place),
Mr. Peatross said that he could not support the motion, since he feels the
County is giving up more than it is getting.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion to approve.
z u0
The motion to approve the plat carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mr. Peatross
voting against the motion.
OLD BUSINESS:
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Land Use Plan:
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that when they had addressed this plan, that
their motion had not spoken to the text. He stated that the staff had two
recommendations regarding the text that they wished the Commission to review.
Objective 2 of the General Land Use Goal reads as follows:
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.
The staff recommended that this Objective 2 read as follows:
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.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Planning Commission recommend the objective 2 to
read as recommended by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Under section 2.512 Medium Density Residential Use, the plan reads as follows:
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 follow-
ing clusters:
Albemarle County:
Crozet
North Rivanna
Scottsville
The staff recommended this section to read as follows:
Medium density residential uses will be accommodated in the above two clusters and in
the following clusters:
Albemarle County:
Crozet
North Rivanna
Scottsville
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Planning Commission recommend that section 2.512
read as recommended by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Commission also unanimously approved the inclusion of Keswick and Ivy as commun-
ity clusters as indicated in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan.
ZL!
The Commission unanimously approved 95,000 as a population projection for the
year 2000 rather than 85,200 persons.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he would like to discuss the letter that had been
mailed by the chairman of the Commission to each member, regarding the review
of site plans, subdivisions, and easements. Mr. Gloeckner felt that items such
as these could be reviewed by the staff and the site plan review committee and then
they could be approved administratively. He stated that the public could have input
at the site plan review level, where all the technical people could address questions
they might have. It was also his opinion that any matters that seemed to have problem
areas could be brought by the staff to the Commission for action. The Commission could
also act as an appeal board to the public.
Mr. Carr explained his letter to the public and the Commission. He stated
that in view of all the work that has to be done by the Commission and all the work
that needs to be done,for which there is no time, that a possible solution would
be administrative approval for routine site plans, subdivision requests, and easements.
Mr. Easter agreed, and said that he had heard citizens express the same
desire. He pointed out that the staff has the expertise to review these items,
along with input from the technical committee, and approve or appeal to the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner said that one of the problems with the Planning Commission reviewing
these matters is that the technical people are never at these meetings, and items
are deferred for their input; this input could be received at the site plan review
committee meeting.
Mr. Carr said that if site plans, subdivision requests, and easements are
ever turned over to the staff for administrative approval and if the site plan
review committee is used as a place for public questions, then that site plan
review meeting will have to become highly structured and all technical persons
will have to be there. He also pointed out that it adds cost to the developer
or applicant to have representing experts at night Planning Commission meetings.
For instance, if an applicant has a representative speak for him and this representative
has to be present for two hours to discuss a matter that lasts ten minutes, the
representative still charges the developer or applicant for the two hours he has
Spent at the meeting. Administrative approval would save the citizens anguish and
expense. If there is a controversy over a request, the Planning Commission could
review the request, and should review the request. Mr. Carr said that it concerns
him for the Planning Commission to re -address professional work. He pointed out that
in August, 1975, the County adopted a very positive site plan ordinance, which is
the guideline for all development, and it must be followed by each applicant.
Col. Washington asked when the public could speak to a request.
Messrs. Gloeckner and Carr pointed out that this would be at the site plan
review meeting instead of the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Gloeckner also pointed out that most questions from the public need to
be answered by a professional anyway.
Col. Washington said that he felt that the Planning Commission served its
place as a sounding board for the public, that even though the Commission might not
be able to require a citizen's request, that many times they "feel better" after telling
the Commission their point.
Mrs. David said that she felt that the staff needs more specific instructions
on what they have to require. If the review is placed solely in the hands of the
staff and the site plan review committee, Planning Commission members MUST attend
these meetings. Sometimes there are problems for people with daytime meetings.
She stated that the Board will want to be safeguarded when it comes to adjacent
property owner input. She also pointed out that matters are not always solved
by the technical people.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the technical people will have to do their homework
before they come to the site plan review meeting.
Mrs. David said that the site plan review meeting would need more structure.
Mr. Carr said that one way to do this would be for the staff to mail a report
to members of that committee just as it does to the Planning Commission. At this
point he read a letter from Mrs. Graves which stated her opposition to administrative
approval. Her concerns dealt primarily with the concerns of adjoining property owners.
Mr. Carr felt that the Commission should review the importance of this review against
other items that need Commission review.
Mr. Peatross said that the site plan review meeting would have to be handled
properly and then administrative approval could probably be possible.
Mrs. David suggested that the Commission ask Mr. Agnor, the County Executive
some general regarding this, and receive his input.
There was no further discussion on this item.
Since there was no further business, t meeting Id3ourned at 11: P.M.
.Robe t W. Tucker, Jr., Sec ar
N