HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 1-571
CMI
January 6, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held its regular meeting to
consider a series of special use permit and rezoning requests on Tuesday,
January 6, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Peter Easter;
and Mr. Jack Rinehart. Absent was Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio member.
Mr. Carr called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was
present.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the minutes of previous meetings be deferred until
the next meeting date.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
UP-75-11. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution
of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit fire
stations and rescue squad stations with a special use permit within all
zoning districts.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mrs. Craddock clarified that the county will attach the conditions when
the special permit comes before the Planning Commission.
Since there was no public comment, Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Graves moved approval of UP-75-11 as presented by the staff.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
UP-75-12. The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a
resolution of intent to amend Article 17 ( Site Development Plan )
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to require site plan approval
for all development involving the installation of gasoline pumps or
tanks for retail sales; and to amend Section 16-35 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance ( definition of General Store, Country ) to
include gasoline pumps in the definition only when given specific
approval by special use permit.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that gasoline pumps for a general
store, country must have specific approval.
Mr. Easter asked if one specific case had prompted this Use Permit, and was
informed that several cases had prompted this resolution.
2
Mr. Easter asked if the site plans mentioned would have to be done by
professional engineers.
a
Mr. Tucker explained that the same site plan process will be followed, *4100
and that the main purpose of this action is to notify adjacent property owners when
the situation arises.
room.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of UP-75-12 as presented by the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Easter, carried unanimously.
ZMP-340. Dr. Charles W. Hurt has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to rezone 1.25 acres from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business.
Property is situated on the east side cf Route 743 and the south side of
bwhitewood Road. Property is further described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel
25. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Carr disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the
Mr. Rinehart assumed the chairmanship in Mr. Carr's absence.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Rinehart asked how long a site plan is good for.
Mr. Tucker :stated that since the adoption of the Site Plan Ordinance a
site plan is good for 18 months. Prior to Site Plan Ordinance, one was good
indefinitley.
The applicant nor his representative was present.
Mr.. Rinehart not-d that there was no public comment and said that he saw
no problem with the rezoning.
Mrs. Graves suggested that ZMP-340 be deferred to the end of the meeting in
order to give the applicant an opportunity to arrive at the meeting.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr returned to the meeting.
ZMP-341. Richard H. deButts, etal., have petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to rezone 15.6 acres from R-2 Residential to B-1
Business. Property is situated on the west side of Route 29 North, about
1500 feet north of Rio Road. Property is further described as County Tax
Map 45, Parcel 108. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
3
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Ed Bain represented the applicant. He located the property for the
Planning Commission and stated that the applicant wishes it to be zoned B-1 in
order to make it conforming with the remainder of the property in the area.
Mr. Bain said that the property cannot logically be developed as R-2. He
acknowledged that there is considerable property zoned B-1 in the area, yet it
does not belong to the applicant. He stated that there is no traffic problem.
Mr. Bain said that this rezoning would not be strip zoning.
Mr. Easter asked the use of the property to the north.
Mr. Bain said that this property is vacant.
Mrs. Graves asked if the applicant has a specific use in mind.
Mr. Bain said that there is not a contract purchaser and that for the moment,
there is no use.
Mrs. Craddock pointed out that in the proposed zoning ordinance the property
had been designated RT.
Mr. Rinehart said that when a real pattern of development is seen for an
area is the time for rezoning, and felt that at this time rezoning would be premature.
r✓ Mrs. Craddock agreed and stated that the Planning Commission should follow
the recommendation of the staff.
Mr. Easter disagreed, pointing out that that corner is already committed
to commercial development. He said that a residence would probably never be seen
there.
Mr. Tucker said that within one-half mile fo the subject property there is
approximately 36 acres zoned commercially, but undeveloped and also approximately
22 acres zoned B-1 but non -conforming, i.e., being used for purposes other than
business.
Mr. Barksdale said that even so, this property mentioned by Mr. Tucker is
not owned by this applicant.
Mrs. Craddock still felt the rezoning to be premature.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing since there was not public comment.
Mr. Easter supported therezoning, pointing out that there was no public
opposition and noting that that corner is already committed to commercial
development.
Mrs. Graves said that the problem should not be compounded.
yam, Mr. Carr said that he is always concerned when a rezoning is refuted because
of existing zoning in the area. He said that this particular rezoning could have
one advantage in that these thirty acres could accommodate a sizeable development
that would be off the road.
4
At this point, Mrs. Craddock asked Mr. Carr if he would support a rezoning
on property to the north if it came before the County.
Mr. Carr said that Mrs. Craddock had a point, but that in this particular
case he was impressed with the depth of the property.
Mr. Bain said that in the future there are some development plans, but
not at the moment.
Mr. Easter said that though he does put a lot of faith in the staff's
recommendations, he moved approval of the rezoning since he feels the corner is
committed.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
There was no further discussion on the motion.
The vote was 3-4, with Messrs. Carr and Rinehart, and Mesdames Craddock and
Graves voting against the motion.
zMP-342. John W. Gibbs, etal., have petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to rezone 5.29 acres from R-2 Residential to B-1
Business and R-3 Residential. Property is situated on the south side
of Route 631 ( Rio Road ) near Route 659. Property is further described
as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 26C. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Frederick Payne of the County Attorney's Office stated that he
was disqualifing himself from any discussion on this request because his firm
represents Mr. Gibbs on other non -related matters.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Ed Bain, representing Mr. Gibbs, located the property for the
Planning Commission. He said that there is no contract/purchaser for the
property. He pointed out that the nature of the area would not be changed
by this request and that this is not strip zoning - the stripping has already
occurred.
Mr. Shelton B. Fife, an adjacent property owner, read a letter of opposition
and presented the Commission with a petition from adjacent owners in the area
against the request.
Mrs. Graves asked the zoning of the "Garden Spot."
Mr. Tucker stated that it was zoned B-1 in 1972 or 1973.
Mr. Rinehart said that the "Garden Spot" is compatible to residential use,
and feels that this rezoning is premature.
Mrs. Graves stated that she is more opposed to the R-3 zoning in the
back than the B-1 in the front, since this could set a precedent for the
Becka property to be zoned R-3. She said that she is opposed to high density
in this area.
5
Mr. Gibbs said that Mrs. Nuttycombe sold the "Garden Spot" subject to
its being zoned commercial, and could therefore see no reason for her to object to
his request. He also noted that others who had voiced objection had M-1 land
in the area - he said that he did understand, though, why residential users might
have objections.
Mr. Carr noted that the Commission needs to look to the future and he closed the
public hearing.
Mrs. Craddock said that if B-1 is granted on the front of the property, it
would be 400 feet deep on one side and 250 feet deep on the other.
Mr. Easter felt the zoning to be premature.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed with him, again noting the objections of adjacent owners.
Mr. Bain argued that these owners purchased their land when the character of
the area had already been changed.
Mr. Rinehart moved the request for ZMP-342 be denied.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion, and it carried unanimously.
,. ZMP-343. Double C Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to rezone a lot from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business. Property
is situated on the north side of Route 631 ( Rio Road ) in Greenfield Sub-
division. Property is further described as County Tax Map 45H, Parcel 14.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Since there was no public comment, Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the lot will be for parking only, and Mr. Carter -
representing Double C Corporation - confirmed this.
Mrs. Craddock moved approval because of the use.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves said that she could not support the motion, since a variance would
be needed.
The vote was 6-1, with Mrs. Graves voting against the motion.
SP-538. A. P. Williams Building Company has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate a central well system on 12 acres
zoned R-1 Residential. Property is situated on the northeast side of Route
743 at Earlysville. Property is described as County Tax Map 31A, Parcel 1.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
0
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that the staff recommends approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. County Engineering Department approval of well system and utility plan
( Mr. Tucker noted that this approval has already been given );
2. Health Department approval of bacteriological testing;
3. Service of well shall be limited to 14 units only in Section 4 of Earlysville
Heights Subdivision.
Mr. Tucker also stated that the water system will have to be approved by
the SCC and that it will have to be incorporated. He suggested making this a
condition of approval.
Mr. Morris Foster stated that up to 14 lots covered by a central well is
a private water system and asked the Commission not to make Mr. Tucker's suggestion
a condition of approval.
Mr. Tucker stated that if the system is not under the SCC, it would need
approval when made a part of the Homeowner's Agreement by the County Attorney's
Office.
Mrs. Craddock moved approval of SP-538 subject to the three conditions
recommended by the staff and one additional condition:
4. If turned over to the homeowners, the County Planning Office shall review those
agreements with the assistance of the County Attorney's Office.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-0.
Mrs. Graves did not participate in the vote.
rN
SP-539. George A. Cason has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to locate a sanitary landfill on 126.374 acres zoned
A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route
29 North about 1 mile from Route 250 East. Property is further described
as County Tax Map 62, Parcels 24, 24C, 28, 28B, 28C, and 28D, part thereof.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Easter asked the legal status of the resolution passed by the Board
of Supervisors on May 24, 1973, which stated their intent to permit only the
governing bodies of the County of Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville, or both,
to operate a sanitary landfill. ( It was further the intent of the Board to
prohibit the operation of sanitary landfills by an individual or entity other
than these specified governing bodies. )
Mr. Fred Payne, representing the office of the County Attorney, stated
that the matter was in litigation and that he preferred not to go into a detailed
analysis of the legal effects of it. This is a matter that the Board has mandated
and has the power to retract and it is not, and does not purport to be, an amendment
to the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission has the power to consider it on
its merits. It is a statement that the Board of Supervisors does not consider that
it is in the public interest to permit privately operated landfills in the County
of Albemarle. "I would suggest that the Planning Commission consider the resolution
and its rationale along with other evidence presented in making a determination of
this matter on its merits. If the Commission decides that this permit should
be granted it should recommend that the Board rescind its resolution. If the
Commission does not want to permit it, the denial should be based on the merits
of the application including, but not limited to,the intent of the Board of Supervisors."
Mr. Gloeckner - "In other words, the resolution does not bind us to make a
decision here?"
Mr. Payne agreed.
Mr. Robert Huff, representing Mr. Cason, stated that with respect to the
resolution, a petition has been filed with the courts regarding the resolution.
Mr. Huff stated that the location is correct and pointed out that Key West is
the subdivision referred to in the staff report. ( Mr. Huff pointed out to the
Commission that this subdivision is about 1 mile from the Cason site. ) He said
that there is commercial development approximately 1 mile south of the site at
the intersection of Route 250 East. Mr. Huff further stated that FRANKLIN and
BUENA VISTA are not designated by the state as historic landmarks. The site cannot
be viewed since it is in a valley. He further noted that only sixty acres will
be used as a landfill.
Mr. Huff also pointed out that he did not feel this should be refused on
the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. Senate Bill #436 says that this is a
potentially critical environmental area, not a critical area.
Mr. Huff read a letter from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey written to E. 0. Gooch
employing his services for the county to do soil borings on the property. He read
%aw„ Mr. Gooch's reply to Mr. Bailey after the borings had been accomplished and Mr.
Huff also read another letter stating that borings were made on the property,
and that the property could be developed so that it could be used as a landfill.
Mr. Huff pointed out that the staff report has ignored Mr. Gooch's credability
with the county.
9
Mr. Huff emphasized to the Commission that all evidence points to the fact
that the land could be developed so that it is suitable for landfill uses.
Mr. Huff also asked for a recount on the traffic on Route 20 North.
He also said that this will be a landfill with no odor, smoke, or dust;
it will not be seen by surrounding areas, and it can later be used as a park when
filled.
Mr. Main asked that the following issues as setforth by 11-13-3 of the
current zoning ordinance be considered when making a decision on this property:
1. Will the proposed use change the character of the area: (In this case, Mr. Main
felt that it would not, since the adjacent owners cannot see the property, and
the use of only the applicant's property will be changed.)
2. Will it be in :harmony with other uses in the surrounding area?
3. Any structures and landscaping should not hinder the uses on adjacent properties
( Mr. Main also felt this condition was met.)
Mr. McMurte.r stated that he used to own the land that overlooked this property
and that the landfill would be visible from this property.
Mr. Vermillion, owner of FRANKLIN, stated that the historical significance
of his property is documented in many volumes. He asked that all evidence that has
been submitted by owners of property in the area as well as other groups be reviewed -
( he was referring to that information when special use permits for a landfill had
been previously applied for ), and urged the Commission to deny the request.
Mrs. Mary Wheeler, owner of BUENA VISTA, stated her opposition to this request.
Mrs. Allen, representing the Stony Point Road Association, reminded the Commission
that this request had been twice denied, and stated opposition on the grounds of
traffic safety and ecological reasons.
Mr. Pascall, retired transportation economist and adjacent owner, stated
opposition to the request, especially becuase of the poisonous vapors that often
come up from landfills.
Mr. John Dorrier, an adjacent owner, stated that his property is up on a ravine
and that he would be able to see the landfill. He thought that proper maintenance
of a landfill would be prohibitive in cost to an individual, and did not wish this
request to set a precedent.
Mr. Rogers, a resident of Key West, opposed the request on the basis that
environmental problems would occur.
Mr. Clinton Parker said that methane gas can be a problem at landfills and
that it will have _limited uses later. He said that he was under the impression
that public utilities were provided by individuals only when the public cannot
provide the services.
Mr. Pascall said that this might be for Mr. Cason's financial gain, but that
it will depreciate other land values in the area.
Mr. Ryland Moore, Mrs. Angelica Miller, and Mrs. Clay Huff also opposed the
reuqest.
Mr. Vermillion stated that the applicant has sold three lots near the site
and that these people may later wish to build a residence on them.
9
Mr. Huff asked that the merits of the case be considered and pointed out that
the landfill will be one-half mile from Stony Point Road and that a surfaced road
will lead to the site.
Mr. Rinehart said that he is opposed to any landfill in the county other than
the landfill that is existing in Ivy. He felt this request, if approved, would set
a precedent for other private landfills. He suggested disturbing only one piece of
land at a time for such operations.
Mr. Easter agreed with Mr. Rinehart and further pointed out that property values
can be damaged. He cited the Ivy Landfill for proposition that trash escapes and
that landfills tend to downgrade property values.
Mr. Barksdale also noted his opposition to the request and said that conditions
around the Ivy Landfill is one reason for denying this request.
Mrs. Graves said that she is opposed to the request since most individuals
do not have the resources to maintain a private landfill. If this site were sold,
someone might not be as responsible as this applicant. Mrs. Graves also noted the
Ivy landfill's problems as what might later exist at this site.
Mr. Carr noted Mr. Payne's advice to the Planning Commission, stated that
the Planning Commission had been receptive to the advice, and noted that the
matter is correctly before the Commission. Mr. Carr thought the location bad for
a landfill, even if the soil is suitable. He also pointed out that there is
considerable residential development along Stony Point Road.
In view of all the reasons cited above, Mr. Rinehart moved SP-539 be denied.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion, and it carried unanimously ( 7-0 ).
SP-540. Junior Lee and Doris M. Morris have petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate a sawmill on 21 acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 668.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 15, Parcel 32, part thereof.
White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that the staff recommended
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval by all state and local agencies;
2. Sawmill shall not be visible from Route 668 or from any adjacent dwelling;
3. Planning staff approval of site plan;
4. Limit of one free standing sign not to exceed eight (8) square feet.
Mr. Tucker also stated that he had had conversations with Mrs. Guy Via and
Mr. Cecil Maupin, who had no objections to this request.
Mr. Morris explained that the sawmill will be small and will be used on a
part time basis as a two -man operation. He stated that he will be selling fencing
lumber and a limited amount of timber will be cut.
M E ster said that this would be a good addition to Albemarle County
r. a
since there is no one who sells fencing boards in the county.
10
Mr. Morris said that he could not guarantee that the operation would
be completely hidden.
Mr. Craddock said that she was in favor of the petition , and does not
find it visually offensive.
Mr. William Perkins, representing several adjacent owners, especially
Mr. Caplan, asked deferral in order that the Planning Commission could view the
site. He said that what is appropriate today may not be appropriate for the
future.
Mr. Caplan said that he was objecting on the basis of the noise factor and
noted that he would not object if the sawmill were temporary.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that it appeared that 21 acres could accommodate this use.
Mr. Barksdale moved deferral until the Commission could view the site.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-541. Page J. Flinn has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to locate an antique shop on 748.22 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property
is situated on the west side of Route 601 near Free Union. Property is
further described as County Tax Map 29, Parcels 7, 8, 13, and 14. White
Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that the staff recommends approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval by appropriate state and local agencies;
2. Signing to be limited to two free standing signs and one wall sign, each
sign shall not exceed eight (8) square feet; it is the intent of the staff to
permit one free standing sign at the entrance to Route 601 and one free standing
sign at the driveway to the shop, and one wall sign on the garage;
3. Any addition to this antique shop will require an additional special use permit;
4. Staff approval of a site plan.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the special permit subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ZMP-340. deferred from earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Barksdale moved deferral until the applicant or his representative
could be present.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Since there was no further business, he meetiryg adjourned.
e64� 41
Sec tary, Robert W. Tu ker, Ar.
EMI
January 13, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
January 13, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mrs. Ellen Craddock;
Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mrs.Opal David, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that at the next meeting it would
be necessary to hold an election for a Vice -Chairman.
Minutes:
�ftw July 15, 1974 - Mr. Easter made a motion to approve these minutes;
the motion was seconded by Mrs. Craddock. It carried unanimously.
July 22, 1974 ( two meetings ) - Mr. Easter moved that both sets of
minutes for this date be approved. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
September 16, 1974 - Mr. Barksdale moved approval of these minutes
subject to "Western Albemarle County" being changed to "Westfield" on page 8.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
December 2, 1975 - Mr. Easter moved action on these minutes be deferred;
the motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, passed unanimously.
December 3, 1975 - The chair deferred action on these minutes until the
end of the meeting.
The remaining sets of minutes were deferred until the end of the meeting.
SP-537 Evergreen Planned Community ( James Fleming ):
Mr. Tucker passed out to the Commission an addendum to the staff
report.
Mr. Tucker read to the Commission a letter dated January 13, 1976,
,,401, from Mr. Guy Agnor, Jr., Director of Public Works, regarding the city gas
lines relationship to this requested special use permit.
Mr. Tucker suggested to the Commission that the two following
points from that letter should be made conditions of approval:
1. Grading plans must be available for review and approval by the City prior
to commencement of the work ( the contours on the plan indicate some
grading and excavation on the easement, the plans for which have not been
completed.
2. Ingress and egress of equipment along the full length of the forty foot
easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must be assured. The site
plan shows building property lines within the easement which, if fenced or
landscaped, could obstruct this access.
Mr. Tucker also read the letter from the Virginia Department of
Highways reviewing the rights -of -way required within the project.
The staff also noted that the Engineering Department had reviewed the
preliminary design for the sanitary sewer and water systems for Evergreen,
and that the preliminary design layout for both systems appears to serve
all lots with water and sewer and approval was given only for the basic design
layouts. The County Engineer had stated that the next step for approval is
to submit construction plans for review. The County Engineer had also stated
that the plans for the sedimentation control plan for Evergreen should be
reviewed in conjunction with an application for a grading permit.
Mr. Tucker said that all of the items requested by the Commission have
been received from the applicant except information concerning the homeowners
agreements with reference to the maintenance of the recreation areas and water
VAr impoundments.
Mr. Tucker said that approval should be conditional upon the following items:
1. Maintain the proposed density of 2.498 dwelling units per acre ( gross );
2. Comply with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommendations
for internal street standards; dedicate land along Route 743 for future widening
and no entrance onto Route 657, except for bicycle path;
3. This approval is contingent upon the recertification for increased capacity to
Meadowcreek Sewage Treatment Plant;
4. Suhmit to the Albemarle County Service Authority an estimate, by stages, of the
capacities that will be expected on an annual basis;
5. Comply with conditions submitted by the City of Charlottesville concerning the gas
pipeline easement;
6. Areas designated for tot lots including Planning Staff additional lots, as shown
on the master plan marked "Received 12/12/75," to be equipped with recreation
facilities such as: swings, see -saws, etc. An area also to be shown for turf
recreation activity and to include football, softball, soccer, etc.
7. Dedication of water and sewer lines to Albemarle County Service Authority and the
Authority's approval on maintenance and operation of sewage pumps station;
8. This approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's final approval;
9. Bike trails to be constructed of asphalt or concrete to the County Engineer's
specification;
10. Sidewalk along Route 743 to be constructed according to location and standards
developed by the Virginia Department of Highways. Sidewalks to be constructed in
conjunction with the internal road system;
11. County Attorney's review of any deed restrictions or homeowners' association agree-
ments;
12. No site plan or subdivsion plat approval shall be given until the grading plan for
this property has been approved;
fy3
LIM
13. A 100 foot tree buffer to be maintained along the property line of Shack
Mountain and no development to take place within that buffer;
14. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation
areas, nature and bike trails, parking areas, and debris basins shall be
disturbed, all other land shall remain in a natural state;
15. The Commercial area is to be no greater in area than one (1) acre of land,
exclusive of internal access roads ( The area proposed by the applicant, 3.15
acres, has the capability of serving 5000 persons or 1600 families and would
not serve the intent of the Planned Unit Development Concept );
16. The land uses, rights -of -way, bike and pedestrian ways, and general lot
layout as indicated on the Master Plan of "Evergreen" dated received 12/12/75,
by the Planning Department and prepared by William S. Roudabush, Inc., under
file #4340, as amended by Board of Supervisors action, recorded in the minutes
of subject meeting, shall be adhered to by all parties involved. Follow-up
final site plans and subdivision plats shall be generally in compliance with the
approved Master Plan;
17. Dedicate, as recommended by the County School Board, 2.6 acres to the Albemarle
County School Board to be used in conjunction with property to be acquired in
Georgetown Woods. This property should be located, after approval by the Planning Staff
and School Board, between Laurel Drive and Spruce Court. Density credit for
the 2.6 acres shall be given but that density shall not exceed 2.5 du's per acre.
Dedication of this property should be made in conjunction with the subdivision
approval of subject property;
18. Submit two (2) copies of revised Evergreen plan indicating the conditions of
approval outlined in items 2, 6, 10, 13, 15 and 17 listed above.
Mr. Tucker said that in regard to Condition #3, that Meadowcreek Treatment
Plant has been updated 500 thousand gallons. However, the plant still operates on
a first -come, first -served basis.
asked
Mr. Easter/if all the capacity has been reserved.
Mr. Tucker said that he does not know.
Mr. Carr said that there has been much discussion on this request
and the Planning Commission welcomes any input that citizens have. Yet he
urged that in the interest of time that speakers try to limit themselves to
new information.
Mr. Fleming, the applicant, stated that he has attended many meetings
in the county regarding development. He said that Georgetown Woods, Berkeley,
and other developments have residences built over the pipelines. He said that
the next thing that the county would be asking for is a 50 foot fence around
the development.
Mr. Steve Phillips, engineer for the project, stated that a slope
,analysis of the project and that the residences do not infringe on the 25%
slope. He said that perhaps the driveways do in some few places. The roads
for the project are basically the same. Mr. Phillips said that he had presented
to the County Engineer the plans for drainage, and that everything will be
handled underground. No property lines will infringe on the rights -of -way.
He said that the natural drainage ways are undisturbed - they are all woodlands.
He said, also that he has not laid out the profiles for the roads.
Mr. Easter questioned the 90' right-of-way, asking if it is a requirement
of the Virginia Department of Highways.
Mr. Tucker said that it is a requirement of the Highway Department.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the 100' buffer adjacent Shack Mountain.
Mr. Phillips said that this buffer exists in about two-thirds of the
boundary.
Mrs. Graves asked how much commercial area is shown on the plan.
Mr. Phillips told her that there is still three acres, but that he
was not prepared to discuss that point.
Mr. Gerald Poindexter, attorney for Mr. Fleming, asked how the 100 foot
buffer was arrived at and why.
Mr. Tucker said that it was suggested due to the historical significance
of Shack Mountain.
Mr. Humphrey said that there have been other buffers next to residential
development in other areas, not just in this case.
Mr. Fleming asked the Commission to approve or disapprove the plan
as submitted to them that evening.
Ms. Elizabeth B. Conant, representing Nature Conservancy, an adjacent
property owner, read a statement regarding the request ( see attached sheets ).
Kathy Gilman cited the Comprehensive Plan noting that this area should
be protected, due to the precarious condition of the reservoir. She said that the
Comprehensive Plan recommends conservation districts around water supplies for
county residents. She urged denial.
Mr. Steve Phillips pointed out to the Commission that in this case
one is speaking of less than 2% of the entire watershed area. He urged the
Commission to stop thinking of the immediate area of the watershed as the whole
source of pollutants.
Mr. Carr felt the Commission should address each condition individually.
The Commission felt the first three conditions recommended by the
staff were in order.
Mr. Easter felt that condition #4 should have the addition that "dual
sewage pumping stations will be required."
The Commission unanimously agreed to this condition.
IM
f -/
nronry 11, 191
1D: noMrs of the I lanning commission, Albemarle lounn
As a lira! Yrmbir an supporter of M; Nature Consorvanvy, 1 have,
been asked by them tD sp(ak an thtir Whalf at this mvPtinq. As You 1110w, 4—
ram �aturc COnscrvarcy is a prw neighbor of the projos(c EvergxVn DPWOYMCK.
MWough the Conservancy's cclslnn to buy thr Greer Property was Wc in ctntcr
o& Or =tract signed TovpKer 6, 1975, the Vc lays Mordant on thr MY oe arr,,',
aU the canveissing of Wirs has mtart that the artual acquisition of the proptrty
vill arly take place this verk.
In purchasing the property, the Conservancy% aim is to prcourvc
Lhat MrtapC in its naturnl state as as 014 prcsrrvr for the animals ana plants
rmt5p to the watershed. Mhou ' ph a full biological survey roquirps a ll fuyear
or morn of wonitoring, an onvironmertal. ,ass essmc-nt of thr 2ann 1reservc has Wr
Startco, as the attached sheets testify. Lnce the proprrty is fully acquireO,
Muntrers will be solicINO from the caTmunity to effect a full -Mown st;Vy,
the rcsults of which will be available, to you in a year's Mt.
Since the prcsorvation of habitats is thr basis of The Natury Cons-rVapey's
rhartor, the respOnsc of the Conservancy to the proposed Ovvelopment hinges an i-i
roperru to protuct the Hann Preserve from excessive impact Of PrOP10, vehicular
Uaffin pollmion, W eamesticatud animals. 1pecifirally, 1 have been aske(',
c- vatic thp following questions-
1.1 Unerally, Lonsrrvancy projects art opcp to the public an a general jr.
spi,cific basis, but Pxcrssivc human traffic or usc of all-arrain Wirlts nl�
quicKly Ccstroy a natural area. Arc there provisions in the plan to prrvcn-c
urrwrollO accuss from tht Development onto the abutting property? Also,
agimals (cats and dogs) could br activu predators an thr Trcscrvc;
My Phould W cortalnrO within the 1rVrl0pmcnt- erhaps a frincr nr to buffor
znrc shnu!O br requireseparating the two properties.
7.) lust measures are being to Or Z vis Xartir!s --ranrh to prev(rit crosioral
viltirp W pollution by fertilizers, ipsecticiors, W animal wastcs in cht lnwtr
mment of Lartin's Branch which runs through the Aann Preserve W into Me
Arnruvoir? Clearly, the life-support of the hatural Area is erppnecnt upop thr
tun struams running through the property aid upnn the quality of the Nxrvolr
watcr 1 Lot 12. fhrr< is is possibility that thin might W to Ugal consiMP&Q,
n1rcm Phu Yature Conscrvarcy has cprtain riparian rights.
historically, the Conservancy has found that high dcnslty humar
Vabitatinn in not compatible with Froserve hAnagement; this is not tO say that
it ran'L N Cone, only that as a general observation the best intorests of fh,
:wture Wscr=cy ham Wn fulfilled by dealing with deve-lopmencs of UMW
OWL>
Q summary, if thcrn arc proper control rxercised lu the plannin,,
W waragcgent of the proposed Evergreen SWOPment such Chat US impact on
the Conservancy property will be minimal, Me, inture Conservancy has no objuction
to the 7v(r&rrPn Planned Community. If such coptrals art absent or cannot W
AMr worW out bmwcen the intcrestre partips to th( mutual benefit of cach property,
Wn Yhr laturr Corscivnncy is appoguO to the Evrrgrern FlannpO Community nr�
Prr st rtl Y r0incel vc C -
1ha-P you.
frees
C-1 j-,,l'-'Tj:iLj"2 6,�K a er CU S j: r,� Ila s
CK 6 K uercus veiut-',11,--
"j L)
ieaitscu triLc,-:IiLIia-,
ise-Lkclu -C,-C-,Lt
--A-zziu Juilul.is., -Ll
8 Suiras V-I" -i-tu- LliYl
-,'i ul -
i"-ka - -LIr.LC) '16.11 "-r Uri Lu-Li,-)iiecu
tis Ucci.-
-i rl t s
i C C r.y LL
C) ii
�,.n t ii u s al
n;ianciiier
J.
1.)JuLarius occidLi �m,.i s
L Y ilex o..,,aca
7,
1 1- inns viroo,'-inialla
I t e
Jun �-, ije�ru\Iir iniun�-
ulnus
M c.la:..
ti. s tj r C I i iu s
FLU - -.Coi, ruulu-'I
,\i)pc.n(,!,ix 2
Wildflowers and Shrubs
J at c a ,a q e i i c a n zA
iL a il'v Ci { - r1S -r 1i:1 C un; CAE r15 -. S
11 s ae iiu troi-)oens
i-) Lu u -j. 6 - ;;«rl�_aiunaria C sis
?UiYL")n-,tUl,, L)iliuruifl
raceinisa
Ueralliula ..,iacuiat-afrl
Canicula inar 1 an c 1 c a
E L
c a Iv iDIll 0 N
() I) S� Ili FraE-,,uria vesca
ra.Y, ;Ddo:)n ilum poit.�tu,,,,i
- - '..L - �J." -
y�cnA �i
I �J
A; j i ar e i i a cu r ul I C) a
,A 0 C---UI,LLlrj-a
C,ioriu"Li irlty S
'Jo, jy e:t a
\Tis
P, IY
kS
iiLl� Zj
C i�
,\ppcn('.Ix 3
Birds, rammals, and Snakes
,,ed-Lrc,c-,t(-:a n,AtIiL:tcn
'Lnu
Blue ti rd
Ao,�in
11r Uqh
V Cs r- r y
,rovin tnyasP-er
-
t -L - � r d a
0 c I n, ire
r J X, 11n
ou c e wr gn
vrcn
,i�r -1r.r s
r a c e
t " _-link
Grow
lu e 1] ay
tunaner
Scuriet tanun`er
r 11i j c- L e
tic,,,in creej(r
rur,-)le I-Liacii,
C,i c,inui
ve
�io it -'n (., h
indigo bunting
Fox ( r E, d r eY
C- c; 'r
a C U orl
U-Irl
kunx
i t
(;u ir f i s -a
u _, C 11 L'i C �
m
.glue i1.iY'on
1 0 C) C
ci,, L), C i�
.good :a 0ik
i3Ord
i,od-t«iied naw.i
S-:),arrow
-L LA ey
e aE.1 c)w a r z-
r - -vi i L
ocreceni uwl
'Aubj uiiroated
yy 1-7 -L 1 k-�
low be lied sa-
c Zi t-" r rigid i i io d
i o a t , d
or
v ter thrush
j
r ") X St.) 0
vYl S,)arro-W
1 0 S OVI
6111 J11"i- iiz S
uzi (D S
vV e 1, S C L, v
i -USC 'd 1 at
ueu,\I�;r i1ou"SeL y
2/
Regarding condition #5 as recommended by the staff, Mr. Tucker stated
that the staff would like to make the two additions recommended by Mr. Guy
Agnor to this condition.
Mr. Easter said that when the lines are located he would like as little
foliage as possible to be removed.
Mr. Tucker said that there is a question if the residences near the
pipeline will be protected.
Mr. Humphrey said that there are some residences in the county that
are very close to the pipeline and he said that Expresso International Restaurant
is especially close to the pipeline.
Mr. Tucker said that the easement does not prohibit utilities near it,
but cites a safety problem and urges that this be considered in the approval.
Mr. Humphrey said that there is a precedent set for building over the easement.
The Commission unanimously agreed to include the two suggestions from
the City concerning the gas pipeline easement into condition #5.
Mr. Poindexter asked the commission to clarify the playing fields,
asking if they are to be several separate fields.
The Commission explained that this was to be one field for such turf
activities.
Mr. Humphrey stated that it was felt that such a field was necessary
in order that children would have a place to play.
Mr. Carr told the applicant that they would define the size of the playing
f ield .
( Mr. Rinehart entered the meeting. )
Mr. Humphrey said that the exact size and location had been left open
in order that the field could be properly located.
Mr. Poindexter asked if this constituted another unique condition.
Mr. Carr said that it does not. He suggested locating the field near
the school, if that land is dedicated.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the dam could be constructed such that the barrow
bit could be used for a recreation area.
Mr. Phillips stated that that was one alternative, but that he had not
considered it.
Mr. Tucker assured the applicant that this field would not take away
any of the density.
The Commission stated that it had no questions regarding conditions 7 and 8
as recommended by the staff.
In regard to condition 9, Mr. Tucker explained that the sidewalks would
be used for bike trails and pedestrian trails. He said that asphalt is recommended
for maintenance reasons.
Mr. Carr said that he has reservations about this because of the cost
involved.
Mr. Tucker said that this could be discussed at the site plan level.
Mr. Humphrey said that this condition was self.. -imposed by the applicant.
Mr. Rinehart said that it is difficult for bikes to travel on gravel roads.
Mr. Easter was also concerned about asphalt roads due to the cost.
Mr. Phillips suggested this condition be put in abeyance until a bike
plan is adopted for the County. Then the bike trails in this development
could be in conformity to that plan.
Mr. Humphrey said that all final plans for the bike trails could be
done at subdivision approval level.
Therefore, Mr. Carr pointed out that the developer is not committed to any
bike layout at this stage.
The Commission had no input regarding condition #10.
Mr. Poindexter asked the reason for condition #11 - County Attorney's
review of any deed restrictions or homeowners' association agreements.
Mr. Carr said that the homeowners' agreements are always approved
by the County Attorney to ascertain that items assured are actually assured
to the purchaser.
There was no discussion on condition 12.
Mr. Fleming stated that the 100 foot buffer recommended along the
property line of Shack Mountain is unreasonable. He said that the backs
of the houses are to abut the adjoining property. He asked that the buffer
be 25' instead, with the assurance of no tree trimming.
Mr. Easter suggested making the common space in this area, and it could
act as a buffer.
Mr. Fleming said that this suggestion would necessitate extensive grading in
other places.
Mr. Phillips said that other places would not be suitable for houses due
to the slopes.
Mrs. Craddock suggested 150'-175' from the outbuildings of Shack Mountain
if the 100' buffer is not observed. However, she noted that the ice storm
had demolished many of the large pines in that area.
No changes were made in the buffer after a discussion regarding the
different possibilities.
At this time, no changes were made in condition 13.
Condition #14 had no input from the Commission.
In discussing condition #15, Mr. Carr said that one acre of commercial
zoning may not be adequate. He said that he did not want this area so restricted
that there will be a future problem with even a small convenience store.
Mr. Tucker explained that this acreage was determined on the basis
of 1 acre of commercial zoning per 1,000 persons.
Mr. Humphrey assured the Commission that 1 acre was enough to cater to
the convenience needs of the development's population.
Mr. Barksdale said that he felt that 1� acres seemed more reasonable.
Mr. Rinehart said that he would like the commercial area conveniently
located for all residents.
Mr. Easter said that this would not be a reasonable condition, because
such a location would be impossible.
Mr. Rinehart said that the development should not be stripped, and that
if the commercial area is not centrally located, he would not support it.
Mr. Carr suggested to the applicant that he have no commercial zoning.
Mr. Fleming said that there is commercial zoning in the area that
can be acquired at a premium price. He asked the Commission not to battle
over the size of the commercial area.
Mr. Rinehart suggested that it be limited to one acre.
The Commission decided that bike trails should be eliminated from any
conditions suggested by the staff.
Mr. Fleming said that he was bewildered by the increased number of
conditions. He felt that the conditions repeated themselves in many places.
Mr. Poindexter told the Commission that the development had been taken
away from the applicant due to the numerous conditions. He said that these conditions
have changed the whole concept of Evergreen. The applicant feels that he is left
with uncertainties with what is to come next and fears trouble negotiating with the
staff on the conditions. He said that it may not be economically feasible to have
the development, and suggested that perhaps this is the intent.
;NOW Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
The chairman pointed out that conditions 9 and 6 have not been settled.
Mr. Poindexter asked the staff if the 90' right-of-way is due to the
access to the property at the rear.
Mr. Tucker stated that was a Department of Highways and Transportation recommend-
ation, but it appears that this was their intent.
Mr. Humphrey said that he wished to note for the record that the staff
did feel that the 90' was too rigorous.
The Commission revised condition #6 to read:
"Areas designated for tot lots including Planning Staff additional lots, as shown
on the master plan marked "Received 12/12/75" to be equipped with recreation
facilities such as: swings, see -saws, etc. An area of 1.5 acres to be shown
for turf recreation and activity."
The Commission decided to strike condition #9: "Bike trails to be
constructed of asphalt or concrete to the County Engineer's specification."
Mr. Easter again asked that the buffer be clarified. He said that
it is possible that a 100' buffer is not necessary if the property is 300'
from the house at Shack Mountain.
Mr. Barksdale said that at least a 25' buffer is needed.
Mrs. Graves said that this was insufficient buffer.
The Commission after further discussion, decided to leave the condition
as suggested by the staff.
Mr. Tucker said that the intent of condition #14 is not to even cut
the sapplings and this should be part of the homeowners' agreements.
Mr. Rinehart said that he would like condition #14 in the deed restrictions
and methods for enforcing it as well.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed to this.
Mr. Easter asked if this is realistic asking how this requirement would
be policed.
Mr. Rinehart said that he would be in favor of reducing the buffer to 50'
if it is made part of the deed restrictions.
Mr. Carr said that neither will provide it with the protection that it needs.
Mr. Rinehart said that what is important is the manner in which the buffer
is maintained, not so much the amount of buffer.
Mr. Carr asked the staff if the special use permit meets the County
ordinances and if the staff recommends approval subject to the conditions.
Mr. Tucker said that yes it does meet county ordinances and the staff
recommends approval.
11.
Mr. Rinehart said that perhaps condition 14 should be addressed in condition
Mr. Carr said that it will take a lot of faith to make condition 14 work.
Mr. Payne sai-d that deed restrictions are private instruments. He
said that putting this requirement in the deed restrictions has two ramifications.
The first is that this is not enforceable by the county since any violation would
be between two private parties, and the second is that deed restrictions can be
removed by all owners in the development from the homeowners' agreements, if it
does not meet the needs of the owners.
Mr. Payne said that the other conditions are enforceable, just as is
the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Rinehart said that nevertheless, he would like this to be in the
deed restrictions.
Mr. Humphrey said that the buffer should be the open space, though
it may not be enforceable.
Mrs. Craddock, said that in view of the time that Shack Mountain has
been there and because of its historical significance, the 100 foot buffer is a
farce. The Comprehensive Plan says that at least 4 mile should be used as a
buffer when next to an historic place.
Mr. Humphrey reminded the Commission that regardless of the buffer assigned
at this level, the final decision will be made at the subdivision level.
Mr. Rinehart suggested that in view of this, the 100' should be left as is.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the 100' buffer will delete 12 units.
The 12 units could be salvaged if the commercial area is diminished.
Mrs. Graves inquired about Nature Conservancy as a neighbor.
Mr. Gloeckner said that it will have to be their responsibility to buffer
their own land, that Mr. Fleming was here as a property owner first.
Mr. Carr said that Nature Conservancy's property is a buffer.
Mr. Barksdale said that he has a lot of faith in the staff and
recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Maintain the proposed density of 2.498 dwelling units per acre (gross);
2. Compliance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's recommendations
for internal street standards; dedicate land along Route 743 for future widening
and no entrance onto Route 657;
3. This approval is contingent upon the recertification for increased capacity to
Meadowcreek Sewage Treatment Plan;
4. Submit to the Albemarle County Service Authority an estimate, by stages, of the
capacities that will be expected on an annual basis; dual sewage pumping stations
will be required;
5. Comply with the following conditions submitted by the City of Charlottesville
concerning the gas pipeline easement:
(a) The contours on the plan indicate some grading and excavation on the
easement, the plans for which have not been completed. These grading
plans must be available for review and approval by the City of Charlottesville
prior to commencement of the work;
(b) Ingress and egress of equipment along the full length of the forty
foot easement for maintenance and repair of the lines must be assured.
The site plan shows building property lines within the easement which,
if fenced or landscaped, could obstruct this access;
6. Areas designated for tot lots including Planning Staff additional lots, as
shown on the master plan marked "Received 12/12/75", to be equipped with
recreation facilities such as: swings, see -saws, etc. An area of 1.5 acres to
be shown for turf recreation and activity;
7. Dedication of water and sewer lines and sewage pump station to Albemarle
County Service Authority and the Authority's approval on maintenance and
operation.
8. This approval is contingent upon the County Engineer's final approval;
9. Sidewalk along Route 743 to be constructed according to location and standards
developed by the Virginia Department of Highways. Sidewalks to be constructed
in conjunction with the internal road system at 4' minimum width;
10. County Attorney's review of any deed restrictions or homeowners' association
agreements;
11. No site plan or subdivision plat approval shall be given until the grading
plan for this property has been approved;
12. A 100 foot tree buffer of common open space to be maintained along the property
line of Shack Mountain and no development to take place within that buffer;
13. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation
areas, pedestrian trails, parking areas, and debris basins shall be disturbed;
all other land shall remain in a natural state;
14. The Commerical area is to be no greater than one (1) acre of land, exclusive of
internal access roads ( the area originally proposed by the applicant, 3.15
acres, has the capability of serving 5000 persons or 1600 families and would not
serve the intent of the Planned Unit Development Concept;
15. The Land Uses, rights -of -way, pedestrian ways, and general lot layout as indicated
on the Master Plan of "Evergreen" dated "Received 12/12/75", by the Planning
Department and prepared by William S. Roudabush, Inc., under file #4340, as amended
by the Board of Supervisors action, recorded in the minutes of subject meeting,
shall be adhered to by all parties involved. Follow up final site plans
and subdivision plats shall be generally in compliance with the approved Master
Plan;
16. Dedicate, as recommended by County School Board, 2.6 acres to the Albemarle County
School Board to be used in conjunction with property to be acquired in Georgetown
Woods. This property should be located, after approval by the Planning Staff
and School Board, between Laurel Drive and Spruce Court. Density credit for
the 2.6 acres shall be given but that density shall not exceed 2.5 du's per
acre. Dedication of this property should be made in conjunction with the subdivision
approval of subject property;
17. Submit two (2) copies of revised Evergreen plan indicating the conditions of
approval outlined in item numbers 2, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 16 listed above;
18. No property line or dwelling unit to be located within the pipeline easement.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion for approval.
Mrs. Craddock said that until the city and county phase out the reservoir
as a source of drinking water for the citizens of both areas, she could not support
a development of this density; also she noted that another reason for her disapproval
is that the BETZ study has not been completed to compile data regarding development
in the watershed area.
Mrs. Graves said that she could not support this motion because of the increased
density in the area.
' /
f
Mr. Carr said that all ordinances have been met and the county, citizens,
and reservoir seem to be protected by the conditions placed on the permit.
motion.
The vote was 5-2, with Mrs. Graves and Mrs. Craddock voting against the
Minutes of December 3, 1975:
The Commission unanimously agreed that these summarized and subject to
staff approval. On this basis, there was unanimous approval.
December 9, 1975 - Mr. Rinehart moved approval of these minutes. The
motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
December 16, 1975 - Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve, seconded by
Mr. Gloeckner, to approve these minutes. The motion carried unanimously.
January 6, 1976 - The Commission deferred action on these minutes until
a later date.
`w► At this point, Mr. Easter made a motion that the Planning Commission
go into executive session on a personnel matter. The motion seconded by Mr.
Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
10-46 .
",a--
SevAetary, Robert W. Tuc er, if
qw ✓
January 20, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
January 20, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. Roy Barksdale, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner,
Dr. James Moore, Mr. Peter Easter, Mr. Paul Peatross, Mrs. Joan Graves,
Mrs. Ellen Craddock, and Mr. David Carr, Chairman.
In Mr. Carr's initial absence, Mr. Easter called the meeting to order
and established that a quorum was present.
Mr. Easter welcomed the new members to the Planning Commission:
Dr. Moore, representing the Charlottesville District,and Mr. Peatross,
representing the Rivanna Distirct.
SP-540. Junior Lee and Doris M. Morris - request for a sawmill on 21
acres zoned A-1:
=' Mr. Tucker explained that this request had been deferred from an earlier
meeting in order that the Planning Commission could view the site.
He read the staff recommendations.
Mr. Easter opened the floor for discussion.
The applicant stated that he had nothing to add.
Mr. Earl Davis, on behalf of the church in Free Union, many members
who are adjacent property owners, support this business in that area.
Since there was no further public comment, Mr. Easter closed the
public hearing.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that the road is narrow and graveled. There
are steep slopes in the area. She stated her concern about the traffic if this
is permitted to become a permanent business. She also noted that this is a
conservation zone. She said that she would like to see the use as temporary
initially.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested the permit be semi -permanent ( perhaps a three
year period ). Then it could be reviewed yearly, and perhaps eventually the
condition regarding time limit could be removed.
W Mr. Easter asked if the hogs are on the applicant's property.
Mr. Morris said that the hogs are not on his property; he explained to the
Commission that the red ribbons represent the new survey of his property.
( Mrs. Craddock arrived at the meeting. )
It was also established that the wrecked cars are not on the applicant's
property.
Mr. Easter said that he wished the Planning Department would clean up that
area - that the mess is atrocious.
Mr. Easter noted to the applicant that it is important that the area be
kept neat. He pointed out the need for a sawmill in Albemarle County, but also
noted that these areas can become "poor looking."
Mrs. Craddock said that she had visited the site and the location for the
sawmill is well screened with natural vegetation. There is a need for independent
saw ills in the county, and if the area is kept neat and no foliage is removed,
she would be in favor of granting the special permit.
The Commission decided that it would be impossible to screen the site in
the winter since it is on the plateau.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval by all state and local agencies;
2. Sawmill to be located in an area of least visibility with only those trees
to be removed which are necessary for location of the sawmill;
3. Planning Staff approval of site plan;
4. Limited to one free standing sign not to exceed eight (8) square feet;
5. Special permit approval for three (3) years with annual approval thereafter,
and to be brought back to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
if deemed necessary.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote 6-0; Mr. Peatross
did not participate in the vote.
ZMP-340. Dr. Charles W. Hurt - rezone 1.25 acres from R-2 to B-1:
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report and noted that the item had been
deferred since the applicant had not been present at the first Tuesday meeting.
Mr. Easter asked if there would be an entrance onto Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, said that there is no way to get
onto Hydraulic Road because of the decel land there.
Mr. Tucker also pointed out that there was a letter of support from
David J. Wood, an adjoining property owner.
Since there was no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Graves asked the location of the property recently proposed for B-1,
which had been denied.
Mr. Tucker said that this property was a much larger parcel, and that
the reason for denial had been that there was access from Hydraulic Road only.
cm
Mrs. Graves said that not knowing the use could cause problems for the
school. She also said that she would like to see an office complex in the
area, but she did not feel the area to be appropriate for stores.
Mr. Barksdale said that he did not find any problems with the proposed
zoning, and would recommend approval.
Mrs. Craddock said that she could not vote for the proposal unless
it could be tied to the office building. She also noted that this was impossible,
since it would be conditional zoning.
Mrs. Graves said that she felt the proposal to be premature.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the request,- he suggested putting the
applicant on notice that there will be no entrance onto Hydraulic Road, though
he said that this is not a condition.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The vote was 3-3, with Mrs. Craddock, Mrs. Graves, and Dr. Moore opposing
the motion. Mr. Peatross abstained.
Mrs. Graves moved the request be denied.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion.
The applicant's representative asked that the public hearing be re -opened.
Mr. Easter re -opened the discussion.
Mr. Hill stated that the sewer cuts across the front 25 feet and down
25' on the side, and that the property cannot be used for R-2 development.
Mr. Peatross said that he realized that the applicant cannot be bound
by his question, but he asked if an office will be put on the property.
Mr. Hill said that at this time there is no contract purchaser,
but that one entrance would not be conducive to a fast-food store.
The public hearing was again closed.
The vote on the motion was 3-4, with Mrs. Craddock, Mrs. Graves, and
Dr. Moore voting against the rezoning.
Mr. Peatross moved approval.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-3.
Mrs. Craddock, Mrs. Graves, and Dr. Moore voted against the motion.
Four Seasons Lucky Seven Gasoline Pumps Site Plan:
�1
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report, reminded the Commission that the
item had been deferred to obtain a revised plan of the parking area for the
market which shows how circulation through the pump island would affect the
existing parking spaces and how stacking space for three cars ( in each direction )
would affect the throught-traffic driveway and people trying to park next to
the building. The plan was also to show existing contours for the parking lot.
Mrs. Scala said that the staff recommends approval subject to
the following conditions:
1. Fire Marshal approval;
2. Islands with landscaping to be installed as shown on the site plan ( two next
to pumps and one adjacent spaces 23 and 15 );
3. All parking spaces to be marked with white lines on site.
Mr. Crafaik stated that he would answer any questions.
Mr. Russell and Mr. Gaylord spoke in opposition to the request.
Mr. Bowen spoke as landlord and urged approval.
Mrs. Craddock stated that she felt this would be an appropriate use of
the property.
Mrs. Graves questioned the location of the parking spaces.
The applicant stated that he intended to have a concrete slab anyway.
Mrs. Craddock moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Fire Marshal approval;
2. Islands with landscpaing to be installed as shown on site plan and on
rendering and with approval of planning staff ( two next to pumps and one
adjacent spaces 23 and 15 );
3. All parking spaces to be marked with white lines on site;
4. Pump to be located on concrete slab.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
The vote for approval was 3-1, Mrs. Graves voting against the motion, and
Messrs. Moore and Peatross abstaining.
Bentivar Section 2 final plat - 10 lots. Route 743. Average size 14.4
acres; minimum size of 6.43 acres:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report, noting that the preliminary plat with restricted
road was approved June 11, 1975, subject to the following conditions:
0
1. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Agreements;
2. County Engineer's approval of restricted road plans;
3. Virginia Department of Highways approval.
Mrs. Scala said that the preliminary approval expired. Under the current road
standards, this road will be eligible for state maintenance. Thus, the only conditions
still applicable are:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. Grading permit.
She also said that the Department of Education notes that the impact of
this development will be slight.
Mrs. Craddock questioned further subdivision of lots without Planning
Commission approval. She was told that this item was covered on the plat.
Mrs. Scala said that the plat is in order.
Mr. Barksdale, noting that the Site Plan Review Committee had approved this,
moved approval of the plat, subject to the conditions recommended by the staff
and adding 3) Title "Bentivar" be on each sheet of the plat.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Double C Corporation Office Buildings site plan - Route 631 ( Rio Road ):
Mrs. Scala explained to the Commission that the two office buildings are
to be on the north side of Route 631 in Greenfields Subdivision, which is the
site of the existing Double C Office Building. She said that the site plan shows
alternate plans for office building #1, should a variance be granted - it was
noted that this approval does not require a variance.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Site plan approval is subject to rezoning of lot 14 by Board of Supervisors
( this item will be on the January 28, 1976, Board agenda };
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
3. Health Department approval of well and septic system;
4. A grading permit must be obtained.
Mrs. Scala told Mr. Barksdale that the parking spaces are adequate.
Mrs. Graves said she was opposed to considering the site plan until the
rezoning had been heard by the Board.
Mr. Tucker noted that this was a condition of approval.
Mr. Payne said that approval subject to that particular condition was
legal.
Mr. Easter said that he did not wish to hold up the approval.
Mrs. Graves insisted that the site plan should not have been presented to
the Commission until the Board of Supervisors had acted on the rezoning request.
The architect for Double C, Mr. Payne, said that such a delay would
delay construction at least one week.
Mr. Gloeckner moved action be deferred until the Board had heard the
rezoning request.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion.
Mrs. Craddock said she would vote for deferral to avoid setting a precedent.
The vote was 6-1, Mr. Barksdale voting against the motion.
Mr. Easter said that the procedure of Site Plan Review Committee needs review.
Ivy Farms Section 2 final plat - Route 658:
Mrs. Scala pointed out to the Commission that this property is located
at the end of Route 658 off Barracks Road. There are eight lots which average
in size to 6.88 acres. The minimum lot size is 3.403 acres. Mrs. Scala also
pointed out that the preliminary plat was approved December 16, 1975, with the
following conditions:
1. Roads constructed to state standards based on traffic generated by lots as
shown on preliminary plan;
2. Performance bond to be held by County until State accepts the roads;
3. Drainage easements to be approved by County Engineer and Virginia Department of
Highways;
4. Note on plat: No further subdivision without Planning Commission approval.
It was noted that the preliminary plat of Stillhouse Road area showed
8 lots with an average size of 6.775 acres. The grading permit for this road
was issued on June 27, 1975.
Mrs. Scala said that the staff recommended approval for Section 2 final
plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval of road plans;
2. Bond posted to cover construction of road if necessary and maintenance of road
until it is accepted by the State ( Maintenance bond for 14-1z mile of road is
$5,000 );
3. Drainage easements to be approved by County Engineer.
The staff said that the Department of Education notes that the impact of
this development will be slight.
Mr. Easter asked if the road is adequate to handle the traffic from the
additional lots.
Mrs. Scala said that the road is adequate.
cm
Mrs. Graves questioned the new excavation in the area.
Mr. Jim Hill said that the new excavation is a waste pile being seeded.
Mrs. Craddock said that the lot lines go through the lakes.
Mr. Hill said that this is taken care of in the deed restrictions.
Mr. Easter asked if the public is protected regarding these particular
lot lines.
Mr. Payne said that the extent of the County's proper role regarding
the relationship to lot lines is public notice.
Mr. Stuart Carwile, attorney for the applicant, said that the lot lines
are addressed in the deed restrictions.
staff .
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr arrived at the meeting and assumed the chairmanship.
John Massey Teel and Margaret Massey - Route 696:
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that the applicant had withdrawn the
final plat prior to the meeting and that it had been omitted from the agenda.
Panorama final plat - Phase I. Route 631 ( Rio Road ):
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by
leaving the room.
Mrs. Scala located the property at the north side of Route 631. This
phase is for 94 townhouse lots ( 145 lots total project ). This is the final
approval needed for this project, following approvals of a site development plan
on September 18, 1975, and preliminary subdivision plat approval on November 18,
1975.
This property is located within the recently adopted moratorium area and
therefore, no building permits nor grading permits may be issued. However, the
applicant may proceed with subdivision submittal and the Commission may act on the
final plat. Final signatures will be withheld until a grading permit and all other
conditions have been met.
The final plat must be acted upon by the Commission no later than
February 13, 1976, which is 45 days from the filing date.
One letter of opposition to the final plats has been received from
Fredson T. and Nancy Bowers.
The final plats must conform to the Albemarle County Land Subdivision
Ordinance, including the Townhouse Ordinance; they must also comply with all
conditions of site development plan approval and preliminary subdivision approval.
The applicant is requestinrapproval at this time for Phase I, in other
words 94 lots.
The following drawings have been submitted to obtain final plat approval:
1. Entrance road plan and profile;
2. Phase I Erosion Control and Sediment Basin;
3. Grading Plan Phase I;
4. Composite Townhouse Subdivision Plat, Phases I and II ( 145 lots );
5. Drawings 1-9; Plats of Phase I, Blocks A-H; J-N. ( 94 lots );
6. Composite utility Plat, Phases I and II.
Mrs. Scala then went through the original conditions of approval
of the Site Development Plan and commented on each one:
1. Approval of site plan does not guarantee the availability of sewer.
Mrs. Scala said that this condition will remain. Sewer taps are not
granted until after building permits have been issued,but prior to
certificate of occupancy approval.
2. The privacy fence requirement - Section H.(2) of Townhouse Ordinance -
was waived due to the type of dwelling proposed. No further action was
necessary on this condition.
3. A sidewalk from this development out to the state road ( Route 631 ) shall be
constructed at the time the front property is developed. No further action
on this condition was necessary.
4. The Commission determined that the 34' public access easement with minimum
24' width of travelway shall be used for interior streets, as prescribed in the
Townhouse Ordinance. Mrs. Scala said that no further action was necessary.
The County Engineer made the comment that this road standard within the Townhouse
Ordinance is not up to the recently adopted townhouse road standard. However,
a change in standard at this time would require extensive changes to the
development plan.
*5. A barrier shall be provided to prevent the use of the steep slopes adjacent the
reservoir by inhabitants or other visitors to the site. Plans for such barrier
shall be submitted to the Planning Staff for approval. The staff commented that
plans for the barrier are needed, including extent of barrier for Phase I.
6. Final subdivision approval shall be obtained, including the following
items:
(a.) Final landscape plans. The staff noted that the applicantproposes Po
grading plan to leave the site in its natural state where possible. No additional
landscaping is proposed.
(b.) Engineering final approval of water, sewer, storm drainage and road design.
Construction drawings for sewer and water will be submitted prior to plats
receiving signatures. They would receive Health Dept., Service Authority,
*,,,, and County Engineer approval.
*Storm drainage plans are needed in more detail.
*Engineering approval of interior roads cross section, including parking areas
is needed - cross sections have been submitted.
(c.) Road plans have been submitted. Prior to the plats receiving signatures,
the planning dept. needs a letter of approval from the Va. Dept. of Highways and
A nrnnPr bond for the road.
These were done in compliance to the condition that Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation approve the entrance and access road.
(d.) Grading permit issued in accordance with the Albemarle County Soil Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. Mrs. Scala said that the grading plan was
reviewed by the Soil Erosion Advisory Committee on December 19, 1975, and
prior to the plats receiving signatures, the grading permit would have to be
issued and grading bond posted.
*(e.) Approval of Homeowners' documents by the County Attorney. Homeowners'
documents should include, but not be limited to, provision for the maintenance
costs of roads, common open space, and monitoring of the runoff. Mrs. Scala
said that this is needed. The documents were submitted to the County Attorney's
office on December 3, 1975.
*(f.) Sidewalks design proposal to be submitted for approval ( minimal impervious
cover ). The staff also needs this. This should include the type of sidewalks
proposed; and it should include sidewalks shown along Panorama Drive and Pinebrook
Lane to the property line.
(g.) Street lighting design submitted for approval. Mrs. Scala said that
the lighting plan is shown on the plats.
*7. Developer will make provision to pay for the monitoring as outlined in a report
by Hittman Associates entitled "Proposed Water Quality Criteria and Sampling
Schedule for Stormwater Runoff from the Panorama Townhouse Development." Mrs.
Scala said that this should be covered in the Homeowners' Documents.
*8. Developer will also make Provisions to pay for any additional monitoring required
by the Board of Supervisors following the Betz study. Mrs. Scala said that this
should be covered in the Homeowner's Documents.
Conditions of Preliminary Subdivision Approval:
1. Two copies of a revised preliminary plat submitted which include the following
items ( see below ). Mrs. Scala said that since the final plat was to vary
somewhat from the preliminary, it was determined that the needed revisions
could be shown on the final plat.
*2. Fire Marshal requirements met, including: fire access road to be constructed
to Fire Marshal's specifications ( 20' lane with 4" base, prime and seal, chained
at both ends, labelled "fire lane only") and hydrants installed prior to framing.
The staff still needs the Fire Marshal approval.
3. Corrcet lot lines on lots N8 and 01 where they overlap and buildings kept 30'
apart. This item has been corrected on the final.
4. Show pedestrian paths on at least one side of access easement from lots H5,
Al, P9, and T7 to traffic circle, and on one side of traffic circle ( Sidewalk
from traffic circle out to Route 631 to be constructed when front property is
developed ). Mrs. Scala said that the sidewalks ( pedestrian paths ) need to
be clarified - included under site development plan items.
*5. Phasing of project to be coordinated with utilities and soil erosion control.
Mrs. Scala said that this item needs discussion and clarification. The grading
plans for Phase I did not include Block E nor the recreation area. These areas
cannot be included in the approval at this time unless the grading plan is
amended. All the units in Phase I will be served by gravity sewer to the lift
station located between Blocks L and K, and from there a force main will carry it
off -site.
Other Items Required Under the Subdivision and Townhouse Ordinance:
*1. Drawing No. 6, Block H - only 3 lots may have same front and back setbacks.
*2. Utility plats to correspond with Drawings 1-9 are needed.
*3. Final plats must show the boundary of all the open space which is to be platted
along the Phase I lots. These plats would likewise include utility easements.
*4. Match lines are needed on plats.
°%ww *5. Show Pinebrook Lane and Panorama Drive dedication to property line where they
connect with proposed state roads.
Miscellaneous - Clarification:
*1. Parking plan clarification - where spaces are located and parking area
connections to access easement.
*2. Note on each plat: Minimum 30' distance between building groups.
Mrs. Scala said that the staff recommends deferral until the items noted with an
asterisk have been completed.
Mrs. Scala said that the only items which should be conditions of approval,if and
when the Commission approves the final plats,are:
1. Approval does not guarantee availability of sewer;
2. Construction drawings and proper approvals for sewer and water lines to be
received before plats are signed;
3. Virginia Department of Highways approval; and state road bond posted prior to
plat being signed;
4. Grading permit issued prior to plat being signed.
5. County Attorney approval of documents.
Mr. Carr said that the Commission accepts the conditions that Mrs. Scala
has presented and feels them to be in order. He said that these items would be
open to discussion later.
Mr. Wood expressed the desire to be on the next week's agenda.
Mr. Tucker stated that that agenda is already filled.
Mr. Carr said that he had reviewed the agenda and that it is not a difficult
one.
on th
Mrs. Scala said that if the item is to be^agenda, she needs time to review
the material, which should be submitted by Friday morning, 1/23/76.
Mr. Payne expressed the desire for an extra week in order to complete
his review of the Homeowners' Agreements.
Messrs. Easter and Carr said that they wished to hear the item at the
next meeting.
Mr. Carr said that the item would be included on the agenda I_F the
applicant has submitted all information to the Planning Office by noon on
Friday, January 23, 1976. Mr. Carr also asked the applicant if he had
any questions regarding the asterisked items.
Mr. Wood said "no."
Mr. Barksdale noted that the applicant said that the Fire Marshal had given
preliminary verbal approval.
Mr. Carr suggested pine bark for the pedestrian walks.
Mrs. Graves questioned the storm drainage plans, and Mrs. Scala said that
these are not spelled out.
Mr. Wood said that these are covered in the soil erosion approval.
Mrs. Scala said the erosion committee's recommendations regarding this
are too vague.
Mr- Easter wanted assurance that erosion controls will be adequate when
needed.. He wants a delineation of responsibility.
Mr. Carr said that there sould be a barrier between the development and the reservoir,.
Mrs. Scala asked where the barrier will run.
Mr. Wood said it will be a green thorny bush. Some units are less than 200'
from the reservoir and five units are about 164'.
Mr. Barksdale said that this barrier should be drawn on the plan.
Mrs. Scala said that the barrier is to be berm.
Dr. Moore said that there should be a barrier for small children.
Mr. Carr suggested that the staff resolve the question of the barrier.
Mr. Easter moved action be deferred.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carrier unanimously.
Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance regarding bonding procedure:
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that the Board of Supervisors
had approved a resolution of intent to amend the subdivision ordinance to provide
for the reduction of construction bonds and the provision for a maintenance bond
until the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has accepted a road
into the State Highway System.
Mrs. Graves questioned the procedure if a portion of the road deteriorates.
Mr. Tucker said that this will be covered by a performance bond.
Mr. Payne presented a few additions and corrections to the amendment as
presented by the staff, noting that this proposal favors the developer.
Since there was no public discussion, Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Easter moved approval of Section 3-8-1 to read as follows:
Section 3-8-1. All required improvements shall be installed at the cost of
the subdivider. Where cost sharing or reimbursement agree-
ments between the County of Albemarle and the subdivider are
appropriate, the same shall be entered into by formal agreement
prior to final plat approval and shall be subject to Virginia
Highway Department inspection and acceptance. Easements and
lines for water and sewer services sahll be subject to approval
by the Albemarle County Service Authority and drainage easements
shall be subject to approval by the Albemarle County Engineer.
In cases where specifications have been established, either by the
Virginia Department of Highways for streets, etc., or by this ordinance,
such specifications shall be followed. Portions of the subdivider's
performance bond may be released, by the Agent for the governing
body, after the completed construction or improvements have been inspected
and accepted as being in compliance with approved plans by the
(''01inty prgi»Per, the agent for the Bcard of Super�.'isorc,
by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, as
required by law. After final completion of a road constructed
for inclusion into the State Highway System, the Agent for the
governing body may release the total construction bond provided the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has approved
final construction of such road and provided further that bond
in favor of the County of Albemarle with security sufficient to
ensure that such road shall be maintained to the Standards of the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation until such road
shall have been accepted into the. State Highway System. The amount
of the maintenance bond shall be determined by the following
criteria:
For two lanes: 0 to 0.25 mile = $ 2,500
0.25 to 0.5 mile = $ 5,000
0.5 mile and above = $10,000 per mile
For four lanes: 0 to 0.25 mile = $ 5,000
0.25 to 0.5 mile = $10,000
0.5 mile and above = $20,000 per mile
All improvements shall be in accordance with the requirements
setforth in this ordinance.
M
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Election of Vice -Chairman:
Mr. Carr opened the floor for nominations for Vice -Chairman of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Barksdale nominated Peter Easter.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the nomination.
Since there were no further nominations, Mr. Easter was unanimously
elected to the office.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Fred Payne to interpret the communications from the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Payne explained the three resolutions adopted by the Board of
Supervisors at its meeting on January 14, 1976.
He said that one resolution dealt with the intent of the Board to
�rwr amend the County Zoning Map to provide only uses permitted in the A-1
Agricultural District in that portion of the County lying in the watershed
of the South Rivanna River and bounded by an arc having a radius of five (5)
miles as measured from the water supply intake pipe of the South Rivanna River
Reservoir, and it was their intent for the Planning Commission to review this
matter and make its recommendations to the Board in order that public hearings
may be held in accordance with law.
Mr. Payne said that a second resolution of the Board directed 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 and bounded by an arc
having a radius of five (5) miles as measured from the water supply intake
pipe of the South Rivanna River Reservoir.
The third resolution of intent passed by the Board was their intent to
amend Section 3-12 of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development
ordinance which deals with erosion control. This amendment is to be reviewed
by the Commission, which is to make its recommendations to the Board, in order
that public hearings may be held in accordance with law.
Mr. Carr informed the Planning Commission that the Board will discuss
the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting the next night and that the Board was
„r requesting the Planning Commission to attend.
41
n
Mr. Tucker discussed the review process for the Comprehensive Plan
with the Planning Commission, noting that the staff recommends that in view
of its existing workload, that a consultant be employed to accomplish this
review. He noted that this would be the staff's recommendation to the Board
at the meeting on 1/21/76.
Discuss approach to amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance
in the reservoir area:
It was decided that the staff would do the ground work, making land
use surveys, existing zoning of property involved in the moratorium, and would
then present this information to the Planning Commission at the earliest
possible date in order that they could make a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors.
It was pointed out to the Commission by the staff that additional
temporary employees would be necessary to accomplishlat the earliest possible
datelinformation that was needed for review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Easter moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board that
such employees were necessary to the Planning Department.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Since there was no further business, t e meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
4
Sec etary, Robert W. Tucker Jr.
Em
r/Z
January 27, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
January 27, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia, to consider a series of site plan and subdivision requests.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Ellen Craddock;
Mr. Paul Peatross; Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent was Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Scenic Highways designation:
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that this item has been on the
agenda for the past few weeks. He said that the staff has spelled out the
sign regulations for highways with scenic designation. He said that types
of signs, areas, locations, etc. had been addressed in the ordinance. He
noted that the staff recommends that the signs erected be harmonious
architecturally with the surrounding area. He further pointed out that
the Office of the County Attorney has submitted some suggestions to further
clarify the regulations.
Mr. Carr said that the public hearing on this matter had been closed
and told the Commission that action on the ordinance had been deferred in
order that it could be submitted in final form. He asked the staff if the
ordinance complied with state regulations regarding scenic highway designation.
Mr. Tucker said that it does, in fact it goes further thasA the state
requirements.
Mr. Payne said that he had submitted recommendations regarding the
ordinance that date tc the Planning Staff.
Mr. Tucker said that the staff is in agreement with all these suggestions.
Mr. Payne noted that one suggestion was deleting 18-3-4 ( a & b ).
( Mrs. Craddock and Mrs. David entered the meeting. )
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the Planning Commission wanted to review the
signs. He suggested that the staff review them with the applicant and his
aign architect.
( Mr. Peatross entered the meeting. )
Mr. Barksdale said that he, too, felt that the staff was better qualified
to review the signs.
Mrs. Graves expressed the desire that the Planning Commission do this review.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he felt Planning Commission review was
necessary only when there was an exception to the ordinance. In other
words, the Commission could be used as an appeal board for signs if the
applicant did not agree with the recommendations of the staff.
Mr. Carr agreed with Mr. Gloeckner.
Mrs. Craddock suggested that Planning Commission review may have
been made part of the ordinance in order that signs comply with the surrounding
area.
Mrs. Selden said that the Scenic Highway Committee of the League
of Women Voters would like to have the opportunity to appeal any decision
made by the staff to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission agreed with Mrs. Selden.
Mrs. Selden submitted further suggestions to the staff regarding the
ordinance.
The Planning Commission deferred action on the ordinance until the
suggestion of the Committee and the County Attorney could be incorporated
into the ordinance and it could be submitted in final form to the Commission.
Mr. Carr expressed his appreciation to Mrs. Selden and her committee
for the work they had done on this ordinance and noted that the concepts
of the ordinance were unanimously approved by the Commission.
Lawrence Wood Estate final plat - Routes 743 and 764:
Mrs. Scala located the property for the Commission, pointing out
that it is at the intersection of the road in Earlysville. She said that action
had been deferred from December in order to have a representative present to
justify the required waiver of frontage on lots 3 and 4. She reminded the
Commission that they had also requested to review the administratively approved
lots 1 and 2. It was also noted that the house and driveway are on lot #2.
Mr. Carr said that the situation was that lots 1 and 2 had been
approved administratively and then lots 3 and 4 come in for approval, and
they are found to be non -conforming. He suggested to the applicant that
had the Commission reviewed the entire parcel before it was divided in such
manner, that possibly another subdivision of the land could have been arrived
at.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that both plats are dated the same day.
Mrs. Scala said that this does not necessarily mean that the staff
*Moo". received then the same day.
Mr.Boggs, representing the applicant, said that this division had
been done because of the desirable building sites on lots 3 and 4. He said
that as a matter of fact, this is the only way the property could have been
divided in order to have building sites on these two lots.
+
Mr. Carr said that it is his understanding that the well is on lot 2
and that lots 3 and 4 grow out of the swale.
Mr.Boggs said that Mr. Carr was correct.
Mrs. Craddock asked the frontage that was lacking for lot #3.
Mr. Tucker said that 13 feet is lacking.
Mr. Peatross inquired about the right-of-way to lots 3 and 4.
Mr.Boggs said that it is from Route 633.
Mrs. Craddock asked if the frontage could be waived for hardship reasons.
Mr. Pavne said that this is a justifable reason.
Mr.Boggs said that one of the reasons for dividing the property in
such a manner was that one of the children wants to build on the non -conforming
lot.
Mr. Peatross asked if the estate is insolvent.
Mr.Boggs said that this is not the case.
Mr. Carr asked the staff's position on the plat.
Mrs. Scala said that the staff had objected on the basis that the plats
were brought in for two lots at a time.
Mr.Boggs said that he was not familiar with the property until that day.
Mr. Gloeckner said that with the total frontage, it would be difficult
to get four lots any other way.
Mrs. Craddock said that she did not wish such a division to set a precedent.
Mr. Peatross said that he did not wish to set a precedent for waiving
frontage on the basis of hardship.
Mr.Boggs said that the reason for not showing joint entrances was due
to the existing circular drive on lot #1.
Mrs. Craddock moved approval of all four lots on the basis of hardship,
since an estate is being settled subject to the following conditions:
1. Waiver of frontage on lots 3 and 4;
2. Health Department approval.
rrr
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-2,
with Mr. Peatross and Mrs. Graves voting against the motion.
Panorama final plat - Phase I - Route 631:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by
leaving the room.
Mr. Wendell Wood, applicant, asked the chair if he could make a slide
presentation before the matter was discussed. He said that this presentation
would be a project in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, done by the same architect
as employed to do Panorama, where there is a stream in the back of the property
that the citizens and governing boards of the area wished to protect, as
in the case of the Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. Carr said that this would be in order, and invited Mr. Gloeckner
back into the room to view the slides.
After the slide presentation, Mr. Gloeckner again left the roan.
Mrs. Scala said that the engineer for the project had submitted all
the data required at the previous meeting:
Revised drawings:
'VOW 1. Composite plat - Phase I and II ( 145 lots );
2 Composite utility plat - Phase I and II;
3. Drawings 1-12, plats of Phase I ( 8.5 Lots );
4. Drawings 1A-13A, utility plats of Phase I.
Mrs. Scala said that she had several points to discuss with the Commission
and wished to address them individually.
The Commission agreed to this.
Mrs. Scala said that the first point she wished to discuss is the plans
for the barrier. She said that they have been shown as a 300' pyracantha hedge
at either end of the development ( where access may be more of a problem ). She
said that after a field inspection, the staff feels this will not satisfy any of
the problems posed by the Commission regarding access to the reservoir, access
to steep slopes and danger of falling, and interference with drainage ditch
children playing or debris collecting there ).
She said that the possible solutions are:
a. Access to the reservoir via adjacent properties cannot be prevented. A possible
solution is a 6' chain link fence at the water's edge to be required also
as adjacent lands develop.
b. Access to steep slopes would require a barrier to be placed where this is
a problem. It would be impossible to keep children off the slopes completely
„%fiW if they wanted to go there.
C. Interference with drainage ditch could possibly be resolved by placing the
hedge above the ditch the full length of the ditch. This may present problems
in maintenance of the ditch.
141
The staff noted that if the Commission wishes to prevent access to the
reservoir, the only effective method would be the chain link fence. It would
have to be required for every future development on the reservoir.
The staff would not recommend a hedge adjacent the drainage ditch because
it would inhibit maintenance. The ditch would have to be cleaned periodically
to be effective.
The staff questioned the desirability or effectiveness of a fence to
prevent accidents on the steep slopes. Perhaps the developer could post signs
warning initially, and the problem could be left to the discretion of the
Homeowners' Association, if they desire further protection.
Discussion on this point:
Mr. Barksdale said that he has viewed the site and does not feel a
barrier is necessary, He said that it will be impossible to build a chain
link fence there, since it is so difficult to get to the water's edge, much
less carry the necessary equipment for building such fence to the water.
In addition, he felt the fence to be too expensive. He suggested leaving
the problem to the Homeowner's Association.
Dr. Moore said that the problem can be thought about in two ways:
1. The barrier problem won't mean too much to the homeowners;
2. A fence would protect the reservoir ( in fact, perhaps it should be built
all around the reservoir ).
Dr. Moore also asked if the city had wished to have any input regarding
this matter.
Mrs. Scala said that a city representative was at the early site plan
review meetings, and they had had no input.
Mrs. Graves said that Mr. Smart, President of the Farm Bureau, had
recommended that a fence be built around the back of the development following
the contour lines. This would give the developer the option of locating the
fence at the back of the development near the units or at the water's edge.
She also noted that a fence may not serve the purpose that is desired.
Mrs. Craddock suggested that the fence, though, might be sufficient
to protect the reservoir.
Mr. Carr said that he is not in favor of a fence here, because that
would mean that other activities along the reservoir would also be required
to build fences and other activities such as University skulling, would have
to be terminated. He said that he is looking at more than just the problem
of a fence; he is trying to consider the scope of the matter.
Mrs. Graves suggested limiting construction of fences to high density
development.
Mr. Carr said that there can be no discrimination against high density
development.
'I I
Mrs. Graves said that the fence would protect the children. She
asked the Commission if they would require it if they were convinced that
it would significantly protect the reservoir.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out that BETZ the consultants doing the
study on the reservoir, said that there is no proof that high density
development pollutes the reservoir.
Mrs. Graves said that there is no proof that it doesn't.
Mr. Barksdale said that at this time the study reveals that it appears
to be pollution caused by agriculture.
Mrs. Craddock suggested putting a fence where it will protect the
reservoir, where the developer feels it to be appropriate. She put this
into the form of a motion that the 6' chain fence be erected where the
developer and the staff feel it to be necessary, noting that this requirement
would be made for other high density development areas. She said that she
made this motion in the effort to satisfy the concerns of the Planning
Commission regarding access to the reservoir, access to the steep slopes ( where
there was danger of falling ), and interference with drainage ditches.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
There was no further discussion on the motion, and the vote was
3-3, with Messrs. Carr, Peatross, and Barksdale voting against the motion.
Mr. Carr noted that due to the tie vote, the motion died, and there
will be no recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding the chain
link fence for the development for this particular site plan.
Mrs. Scala said that the second point she would like to discuss
is the staff's recommendation that if it is found that certain townhouses on
the perimeter would require cut and fill, rather than being constructed
on pilings, the Soil Erosion Committee should review those grading plans
in detail.
Mrs. Scala said that this had been brought to her attention by Mrs.
Graves.
Mr. Wendell Wood said that on the reservoir side, there will be
no cutting and filling, that the units will be built on pilings. He
said that farther up, there will be basements in the units.
Mrs. Graves explained her concern noting that she had called the Soil
Conservation District. She said that they had made no recommendations since they
had received no complete plans for the project. She said that the plan should show
final contour lines.
Mr. Douglas Zerkel said that the term "basement" is a misnomer, that
these are really concrete slabs that would be used for parking a car, to
®""" avoid the three story units.
MrsGraves wished to address the ravine's sedimentation basin.
Mr. Zerkel said that there will be no basement living, and the intent
.
is to have the periphery units built on pilings.
Mr. Carr stated his concern, since he said that it was his an
the Commission's understanding from the beginning that all units will be
built on pilings* He asked for clarification.
Ted Allen said that there is no conflict in previous plans and plans
at this time.
Mr. Carr said that he wanted to know if there will be any excavation
for any units, other than the excavation that would be done for the utility lines.
Mr. Jim Hill, who noted that he has no interest in this project,
said that the basement is like a slab, where there is just a skimming of the
ground. He said that this is what is done in the project in Chapel Hill that
was cited by the applicant earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Zerkel said that there is no intent of anything but pilings.
Mr. Peatross said that he felt the suggestion of this condition of
approval is important.
Mrs. Craddock said that she is concerned that the Soil Erosion Committee
would never have given approval had they knownthere was any question regarding
grading.
Mr. Carr asked if the suggestion made by the staff met with Commission
approval.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the suggestion be made a condition of approval.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mrs. Graves said that any questions of grading should already have
been settled. She wanted the grading clarified.
Mr. Peatross said that the condition merely meant that if any units
are built on anything but pilings and if any cut and fill is required, the
Soil Erosion Committee will have to review the grading plans.
The vote on the motion was 3-3, with Mrs. Graves, Mrs. Craddock, and
Dr. Moore voting against the motion.
Mr. Carr disagreed with Mrs. Craddock's suggestion that there be
a complete re -submission to the Soil Erosion Committee, noting that the Commission
has tried to bring this to a reasonable conclusion.
Mr. Wood reminded the Commission that he can do only that grading which
had been approved by the Soil Erosion Committee.
Mr. Tom Lincoln, representing the engineering firm for the project,
pointed out the finished contour lines to the Commission, noting that the
only ones that are not finished are those directly up from the reservoir.
He said that they had not been finished since it was the engineer's understanding
from the architect that these units would be built on pilings.
Mr. Carr called for a substitute motion.
Mr. Barksdale moved that no units on the perimeter of the reservoir
have any excavation during construction, that they be built on pilings, thus
elwminating any grading for the:perimeter near the reservoir.
Mrs. Graves asked that this motion be amended to say the periphery
of the entire development.
Mr. Barksdale accepted this amendment.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion.
Mrs. Scala stated that she would designate the units in the periphery
by block numbers.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Scala said that the last point of concern related to the engineering dept.'s
comments of the site plan and revised plan.
She said that the typical road section for Panorama Drive should have
a 10" base with prime and double seal surface. The other internal roads are
adequate and meet the base and pavement design standards for subdivision streets
within Albemarle County. The Engineering Department also stated that with
the addition of sidewalks, concrete swales and drainage swales to the site plan,
the engineering dept. recommended the developer submit these items to the Soil
Erosion Committee, since they were not shown on the erosion plan. She stated that
this is covered by condition #9 as recommended by the staff.
Mrs. Scala further noted that the Engineering Department approved the design
of the parking and the sidewalks.
The staff said that everything is in order, and the staff recommends approval
of Phase I for 85 lots subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the final plat does not guarantee availability of sewer;
2. The privacy fence requirement ( section H (2) of the Townhouse Ordinance )
was waived due to the type of dwelling proposed - with rear deck;
3. A sidewalk from the development property line out to Route 631 shall be
constructed by the developer of the front property when it is developed;
4. Construction drawings and proper approvals for sewer and water lines to be
received before plats are signed;
5. Virginia Department of Highways approval; and state road bond posted prior to
plat being signed;
6. Grading permit issued prior to plat being signed;
7. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' documents including provision to pay for
the monitoring outlined in a report by Hittman Associates entitled "Proposed
Water Quality Criteria and Sampling Schedule for Stormwater Runoff from the
Panorama Townhouse DeveloFm ent," and provision to pay for any additional monitoring
required by the Board of Supervisors following the BETZ study;
ww� 8. Interior road base and pavement design for Panorama Drive to be improved as
recommended by the County Engineer;
9. Storm drainage plans as suhm itted to be reviewed by Soil Erosion Committee
before grading permit is issued, as recommended by County Engineer. If any
additional storm drainage installations become necessary to the proper drainage of the
site, as determined by the County Engineer on inspection, then the Soil Erosion
10. No cut and fill in the periphery of the development ( all units must be
built on pilings in Blocks D, G, H, J, K, L, M, and N.
Mrs. Graves and Mrs. Craddock stated that they were interested in the
permanent stabilization of the soil.
Mrs. Graves asked if the property will be seeded or if pine bark mulch
and pine needles will be used.
Mr. Tucker said that this will be left up to the Soil Erosion Committee.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of Phase I, Panorama final plat.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion.
The vote was 4-2, with Mrs. Graves and Dr. Moore voting against the motion
to approve.
Mr. Carr thanked the staff and the developer for all the time that had
been put into this phase of the project.
Mr. Wood thanked the Commission for its time and noted that he hoped
that Panorama will be a model development.
Ivy Farm Section I - redivision of lots 11 and 12 - Ivy Farm Drive:
Mrs. Scala said that this is a redivision of lots 11 and 12 on Ivy Farm
Drive. She said that section 1 did have 19 lots with an average size of 5.702 acres.
With this revision, there will be 20 lots with an average size of 5.417 acres.
Mrs. Scala said that the staff finds no problem with this request.
Mr. Barksdale said that in view of the fact that the road is sufficient
to handle the increased traffic, he moved approval of the plat as presented.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
( Mrs. Graves left the room. )
E. P. Bickers - preliminary plat - Route 631:
Mrs. Scala said that the property is zoned R-3. The applicant is
requesting approval to subdivide 2.59 acres into three parcels. The average
lot size following the road dedication of 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. She said that
this will require Planning commission and Board of Supervisors approval of a waiver
of water and sewer requirements.
..
Mrs. Scala said that the Commission would also have to approve the use
of an easement proposed to serve the back two lots. There is an existing
house on the front lot. Mr. Bickers wishes to give the back lots to his two
daughters. The Health Department has given approval for two (2) additional houses
with one well to serve the two dwellings.
If the plat is approved, it should have the following conditions:
1. Final plat to show 25' dedication of property from centerline of Route 631;
2. No further subdivision along this easement without Planning Commission approval;
3. Board of Supervisors approval of the waiver of sewer and water requirements.
Mr. Bickers said that there seemed to be some confusion, that he had
just divided the back parcels, not the front, and he did not need to dedicate 25'.
Mr. Tucker said that this is a resubdivision of the property.
Mrs. Scala read a letter from the Health Department to Mr. Bickers
approving two additional houses to be served by the one well.
Mr. Barksdale established that it is not legal to include the clause
on the plat that the property be deeded to family only.
Mr. Carr said that usually the Health Department does not recommend
approval for such small lots.
There was a discussion as to sewer problems that usually result from
small acreage lots.
Mrs. Craddock suggested approving when sewer becomes available.
Mr. Barksdale recommended approval subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff plus the fourth condition that when sewer becomes available, the
applicant must hook onto it.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he would second the motion since the Health
Department had already given approval. He asked the staff to direct the Health
Department not to give approval until a plat has been reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Carr said that he felt this fourth condition to be unreasonable.
Mr. Barksdale said that the motion be amended so that the intent is
the applicant hooks to the sewer when it comes in front of his property.
Dr. Moore questioned the connection for the two back lots.
Mr. Barksdale said that he was moving for approval of all three lots
for the sewer connection.
Mr. Gloeckner again seconded the motion.
There was no discussion.
The vote was as follows:
"yes" - Messrs. Gloeckner and Barksdale;
"no" - Mr. Peatross and Mrs. Craddock;
Abstaining - Mrs. Graves and Dr. Moore.
Mr. Carr said that he would have to consider the Health Department's
approval when he voted.
Mr. Peatross asked if the Commission is bound by the Health Department.
Mr. Payne said "no."
Mr. Carr said that if they had not approved the plat beforehand, the
Commission would have made any approval subject to Health Department approval.
Mr. Gloeckner said that the request is really for variance of lot size.
Mrs. Scala said that the plat still has to go before the Board of Supervisors.
At this point, Mr. Bickers told the Commission that he owns an adjoining
parcel. Yet when the chairman of the Commission asked him the size of the parcel
and the location of his house, Mr. Bickers could not definitely tell the lot size
or the exact location of the house.
Mr. Carr told Mr. Bickers that the Commission needed to know exactly how
much land belonged to him.
Mr. Barksdale withdrew his motion, with Mr. Gloeckner's approval,
and offered the substitute motion that action be deferred.
Mrs. Craddock seconded this motion. The vote was 6-1, with Mr. Peatross
voting against the motion for deferral.
C. C. Kirtley - Route 729:
Mrs. Scala located the property for the Commission stating that the applicant
proposes a 50' right-of-way to serve approximately 100 acres. There is a note
on the plat regarding no further subdivision without Planning Commission approval. The
right-of-way follows an existing farm road. She stated that the residue acreage
should also be shown on the plat.
Mr. Chris Collins, representing the applicant, said that he wished to point
out that there is an occupied dwelling on the property.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
staff, but also noted that if the property is further subdivided, the road dedication
and road frontage should be checked. He also suggested to the applicant that the
total description for the right-of-way should be clarified.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
M
Ernest J. Burton final plat - Route 631, near South Garden:
Mrs. Scala said that the applicant proposes a 30' easement to serve a 4-acre
parcel. This is part of a division of a 25-acre estate.
The staff recommended that if approved, it should be subject to the following
conditions:
1. Note on the plat that no further subdivision along this easement without
Planning Commission approval;
2. Residue acreage should be shown;
3. Staff recommends a 50' right-of-way, rather than the normal 30', since
there will probably be further subdivision of the property.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the right-of-way fallsshort of access
to Route 631, stating that the adjacent owner could shurt off the right-of-way
all the way to the corner.
Mr. Barksdale moved that action be deferred until this could be clarified.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Robert L. Cross final plat - Route 250 West:
Mrs. Scala said that the property is near Mechums River. The applicant
requests approval of a 50' easement to serve a 2.5 acre parcel,a 10-acre parcel,
and the 67.5 acre residue. Mr. Cross is purchasing the 10-acre piece from a
neighbor. There is a note regarding no further division.
If approved, conditions of approval should be:
1. Health Department approval of the 2.5 acre piece;
2. Highway Department clarification of the status of Old Route 250.
Mr. Gloeckner moved action be deferred until the status of Old Route 250
could be established.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Whitt and Company preliminary plat - Route 250 ( Ivy Road ):
Mrs. Scala said that the applicant is proposing a subdivison of the
existing office building on approximately 37,000 square feet. It is served
by public sewer and water. The existing access is a 21' common right-of-way
which serves several other parcels. The applicant is planning to sell the
existing offices as condominiums.
Mrs. Scala stated that the conditions of approval recommended by the
staff are:
1. County Attorney must approve the condominium subdivision documents;
2. Prior to final plat approval the applicant must sulm it to the Planning
staff for approval a site plan which shows existing parking - location and
number of spaces for each of the three buildings, and also the proposed number
of offices and net office area in the building to be subdivided.
Mrs. Scala said that there appears to be some question regarding the
maintenance of the common right-of-way.
Mr. Gloeckner asked the zoning of the property.
Mrs. Scala - "B-1."
Mr. Wallace, the individual living at the end of the 21' right-of-way,
stated that he had no objections to the applicant's plan, but he does want
the 21' right-of-way clarified as to maintenance and who would be using it.
Mr. Wallace said that the road is not properly maintained, and that he had
a written agreement with Mr. Whitt that Mr. Whitt is responsible for the maintenance.
There are drainage problems in the area, and more people than are entitled to
use the right-of-way do so.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that the preliminary
plat is asking for approval of the subdivision of the property, not for
condominium approval - this would be done with the site plan.
Mr. Payne agreed, stating that condition #1 is not necessary at this time.
Mrs. Scala asked the Commission if they would like to see a parking plan.
Mr. Carr said "yes," but that the right-of-way needs to be addressed.
A discussion followed regarding the right-of-way.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Site Plan review by the Planning Commission;
2. The 21' right-of-way cannot be used by the 37,000 square feet parcel;
No written obligations regarding this right-of-way are removed;
3. The location of the common right-of-way is approved now and subject to
the County Attorney's scrutiny.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Realignment of Old Lynchburg Road:
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the Virginia Department of Highways
is planning to accomplish a study on this realignment, and would like to have
the county's approval.
Mr. Carr said that the Planning Commission should endorse this study, and
hopes that the Board of Supervisors will likewise endorse the study.
Mrs. Graves moved that the Virginia Department of Highways be notified
that The Planning Commission approves of this study.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Policy on reviewing site plans and subdivision plats with pending rezonings:
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that this question has arisen recently
and the staff would like a directive from the Commission regarding this.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that no site plans, subdivisions, special permits
be accepted for review by the Commission or the Site Plan Review Committee until
the zoning is established by the Board of Supervisors or the Board of Zoning Appeals.
There was a unanimous consensus.
Mr. Carr welcomed Mrs. Opal David as the ex-Officio to the Planning
Commission. He asked that all input considered by the Planning Commission
in its approvals or denials be passed on to the Board. He welcomed any
assistance, on behalf of the Commission, that she might have.
Election of Officers:
Mr. Fred Payne opened the floor for nominations for Chairman.
Mr. Barksdale made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, that David
Carr be chairman for another year.
The motion passed unanimously.
Vice Chairman:
Mr. Gloeckner nominated Peter Easter for the position of Vice Chairman.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale , passed unanimously.
Secretary:
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, that Mr. Robert
W. Tucker, Jr., be elected Secretary.
The motion passed unanimously.
Recording Secretary:
The Commission appointed Miss Carter to serve in this capacity.
Since there was no further business, th Commission adjourned its meeting
at 11:00 p.m.
Secr tary, Robert W. ucker,
February 3, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on
Tuesday, February 3, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
These members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Mr.
Paul Peatross; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mrs. Opal David, ex -Off icio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Double C Corporation office Building Site Plan - Route 631:
Mr. Tucker stated that this lot was rezoned in January, 1976, by the
Board of Supervisors. He said that there are two office buildings on the property.
All requirements of the site plan ordinance have been met as well as the requirements
set forth by the Site Revicw Committee.
Mr. Tucker said that the stuff recommended approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. Health Department approval of well and septic system;
3 A grading permit must be obtained.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the plan shows the existing or the proposed pavement
edge..
Mr. Tucker said that the plan shows the existing pavement edge, though the
future widening of the road is provided for.
The applicant had no statement to make, to the Ccx missions
Mr. C-arr �-losed the public hearing.
( Mrs. Graves entered the meeting. )
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Easter, passed by a vote of 6-0, with Mrs.
Graves abstaining.
Scenic Highways Ordinance:
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that this ordinance has been before them
several times. He pointed out the additions to the ordinance since its last presentation
( these included additions recommended by the Commission and the County Attorney ).
Mr. Easter asked if there needed to be signs for industrial parks in order
that truckers could identify businesses in the complex.
Mr. Tucker said that this had been considered by the staff, but hopefully the
truckers would know where they are going.
Mr. Carr said that hopefully the complex will have sectional signs.
Mr. Gloeckner said that there needed be only one sign on the highway
and that individual signs or sectional signs could be placed within the industrial
development.
Mrs. Selden said that she was concerned about how the public would know
that there was a sign being considered by the Director of Planning.
Mr. Tucker said that the Director of Planning would have only ten days
to act on a sign, but perhaps notice could be published in the paper.
Mr. Carr suggested making this a twenty day review period.
Dr. Moore asked if conforming and non -conforming signs should be differentiated.
Mr. Tucker said that signs are given across the counter, and if they are
non -conforming, they can be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mrs. Speidel suggested placing signs that are being considered on the
Planning Commission agenda.
The discussion continued, with the Commission deciding that the ordinance
should be left as presented regarding the ten day review; it could be amended
at a later date if this appeared to be necessary. It was also agreed by the
staff that a list of signs being reviewed would be posted on the bulletin board
in the Planning Office.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Carr commented on the article in the Daily Progress regarding signs
along highways, noting how the picture illustrated how awful the situation can
be.
Mr. Easter also commented on the article, pointing out that most of the
signs in the picture were fcr federal and state agencies. He suggested that the
Scenic Highways Committee approach these agencies to see if something could be
done about these particular signs.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the Scenic Highway Designation, Article 18,
as presented with a few editorial changes ( see attached sheets ).
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, passed unanimously.
UP-75-13. The Tros-Dale Home for Boys has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
to permit by right "Boys Home" in the A-1 Agricultural Zone; and to
include a definition for "Boys Home."
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting the staff had changed
the request to read "Group Home", which is a classification between a foster
home and an institution. He pointed out that the staff recommends the ordinance
be amended to permit "Group Home" with a special use permit in the A-1
Agricultural District. The staff also recommended that Article 16 Definitions
be amended to include the following definition: