HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 305-3913C�5
June 15, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday,
June 15, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia, to consider a series of site plans and subdivision requests.
Those members in attendance were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Paul Peatross; Mrs. Joan
Graves; Mr. Leslie Jones; Col. William Washington; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio.
Absent was Dr. James Moore.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Mr. Carr announced at the beginning of the meeting that several items that
had appeared on the original agenda had been deferred and he also stated that item
(b) Westridge final plat - Route 676 - on the revised agenda had been deferred by
the staff at the request of the applicant, until June 22, 1976.
Ivy Brook final plat - Route 676:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that the plat had been deferred
due to the condition of Rotue 676 in that area, to request that applicant consider
larger lots in the whole development with special concern for lots 1, 5, and 6 in
the reorgainization of the lots. Also, the Highway Department was requested to see
if driveways could safely be brought out on Route 676 in this area, and Mr.
Jones had requested percolation tests from the Health Department.
She stated that the applicant has chosen to resubmit the same plat for consider-
ation. The Highway Department has approved the proposed entrance connections. Staff
has received a letter of preliminary approval from the Health Department. Perc tests
are not normally run unless the Health Department finds some problem with the soil and
feels that further study is necessary - and in this case, they did not feel perc tests
necessary.
The staff made the following comments:
1. Grading permit may be needed if two adjacent lots are developed at the same time;
2. Owner's signature notarized on plat needs to be accomplished;
3. Staff suggested combining lot 6 with another lot due to steep slopes.
Mrs. Scala said that in the letter of preliminary approval form the Highway
Department that in order to provide maximum site distance, they required grading the
existing banks and removal of vegetation.
Mr. Fred Coleman, attorney, and Mr. Morris Foster, surveyor, were present to
represent the applicant.
Mr. Foster stated that in regard to lots 5 and 6, he asked that lot 6 be
approved subject to a detailed site plan for development and subject to a grading
permit being acquired. He stated that the plat is drawn according to the subdivision
ordinance, and asked that it be approved.
Mr. Coleman stated that the conditions requested by the Planning Commission
at its last meeting have been met, the subdivision meets the ordinance, and he
asked approval.
Mr. Herbert Tull, adjoining property owner, asked that each lot meet the
ideas set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and asked that each lot also be buildable.
He stated that if there is ever a problem with erosion on lot #6, that the debris
will go directly to the Rivanna Reservoir. He stated that according to information
received from the Lexington Office, the largest lot of the subdivision is in the flood
plain. Lot 5 is bad topographically, since over half exceeds the 25% slope. He
stated that land in that area is subject to flooding, that the creek backs up, and
that it would seem that septic fields would be practically impossible. He suggested
that the applicant combine lots 4, 5, and 6 into one lot. He also asked the reason
that a public hearing was not held on the other parcel that had been cut off.
Mr. Carr addressed the last issue raised by Mr. Tull stating that administrative
approval of three or less lots fronting a state road is permitted without notification.
Mr. Tull questioned the route of appeal that adjacent property owners have in
regard to this.
Mr. Keeler stated that the appeal to this would be to the Board of Supervisors.
Mrs. Susan Harrison spoke on behalf of herself and Mr. and Mrs. David Lewis.
She questioned the soils in the area as far as feasibility of wells and septic systems.
She pointed out that the area periodically floods, the road situation is dangerous,
and asked the Commission to deny the subdivision. She read a letter addressed
to the Commission from Mr. Lewis, asked that the Commission consider the geologic
double fault in the area, the extremes of permiability and imperviousness, and
asked that an unbiased report of the soils be requested from the experts.
Mr. Cory Trench again questioned the soils in the area in regard to septic
fields and wells. He suggested an alternative site be chosen on each lot in case
the first septic system fails.
Dr. Ramsey Martin made the following comments;
1. Land is very steep, which will make steep roads, unsuitable for access drives.
North slopes always: cause problems with ice and water;
2. Such development is unharmouious to this area;
3. He asked denial or at least deferral until the Board of Supervisors makes a
decision on rezonina the entire area to 5-acre zoning.
Mr. Carr stated that the application to which he was referring was to put
5-acre zoning into the ordinance text, not to amend the map at this time. He also
pointed out that any such action to rezone the area would not be retroactive.
Mr. Payne also emphasized that the application being considered by the Board
in the next few days is for a textual change, not for a change in the map. He stated
that this application will not be affected by that action, and thus this was not grounds
for deferral.
Mrs. Meem addressed the safety of the roads and asked this be considered
in the approval of the subdivision.
Mrs. Selden asked that the plat be considered on the basis of combined driveways.
Mr. Lemoine, owner of the property, stated that he had purchased the property
because he loved the area and hopes to one day live on part of this land himself.
Mr. Carr asked how the 100 Year Flood Projection addresses lot 5.
Mr. Morris Foster stated that there has been no flood plain study accomplisehd
on this leg of the river.
Mr. Carr asked if lot 6 can be served by a road that would be approved by the
Highway Department and in regard to a maintenance contract.
Mr. Tull stated that there is no maintenance agreement on this right-of-way.
Mrs. Scala stated that she has a letter of preliminary approval from the
Highway Department for shared entrances for lots 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and lot 5 will
have its own driveway.
Mr. Easter asked if the applicant is aware of the mutual effort of residents
in the area to have the entire area bounded by Route 676 and Route 250 West rezoned
to 5-acre zoning.
Mr. Lemoine stated that he became aware of this situation approximately two
weeks ago.
Mrs. Peggy Hancock stated that she had not been able to notify him of the
community effort because she did not have his address.
Mr. Fred Payne, addressing the maintenance of the right-of-way said that
Section 18-30 of the County Code says that the right of easement to this road does
not supercede the ordinance. He said that if lot 6 is approved, that the purchaser
has the right to use the easement. However, approval of lot 6 means that a waiver
has been granted.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he views the subdivision from the following points:
1. He believes that lot 6 is buildable becuase it has been so stated by the surveyor;
2. The highway department has'approved the entrances, preliminarily;
3. Lot 6 needs to be considered specifically, hopefully from the standpoint of
combining it with lot 5.
Mr. Foster stated that the applicant will accept the condition of combining lots
5 and 6 into one lot.
he
Mr. Carr asked the attorney of the applicant if/understands the effort of
residents of the area in regard to changing the zoning of the entire area.
Mr. Coleman said that the applicant has no desire to spoil that area and that
his requests for subdivision are within the bounds of the ordinance.
Mr. Peatross questioned how the soil erosion ordinance affects lot 6.
Mr, Payne said that a buildable site not or,, ;15% slope will have to be found.
Mr. Carr said that if lots 5 and 6 are combined, he sees no reason not to
approve the subdivision, though some questions regarding the soil have not been
answered.
Mr. Easter stated that it is not the responsibility of the Commission
to handle the septic fields, that it is the sole responsibility of the Health
Department.
Mrs. Graves stated that she did not understand why the Health Department
ran perc tests on the Westridge property and not on this property.
Mrs. Scala responded that they felt the soils of Westridge to be questionable,
but not these.
Col. Washington asked if the Commission can require the proper agency to
run certain tests, or if that oversteps Commission authority. He also asked if
the Commission can require a grading permit for each lot in this development.
Mr. Payne said that.according to the state statute, single family residences
are exempt from grading permits, as well as areas where there will be less than
10,000 square feet of grading.
Mrs. Graves said that she would not support the request for subdivision
since sufficient safeguards cannot be placed on the property. She said that she
could not support for other reasons of possible pollution and soil erosion.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Owner's signature to be notarized;
2. Lots 5 and 6 to be combined.
He stated that this motion to approve was based on the staff's recommendation
and to get the matter on the floor.
Mr. Easter said that he seconded the motion to move the matter along.
He also asked the applicant to investigate the community effort to rezone the entire
area to five acres and suggested that the applicant consider requesting deferral
until this has been done.
Mr. Peatross-said that he would like to amend the motion to approve to be
subject to the following third condition:
3. No futher subdivision of the combination of lots 5 and 6 without Planning Commission
approval.
Mr. Jones asked who will be responsible if there becomes a grading problem
or a soil erosion problem.
Mrs. Scala said that if such problems occur, then it is the owner who is
notified, so she supposed he would be the one responsible.
The vote to approve the subdivision plat carried by a vote of 5-3, with
Messrs. Jones and Washington, and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Mr. Carr said that he shares the concern of the residents of the area
but that he finds no justification for deferral or denial on the basis that
the subdivision consists of lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and combination of 5 and 6.
Coggins Motor Company Site Plan - appeal of conditions of Highway Department
approval:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report stating that the applicant is
asking that condition #1 of the site plan for the office trailer and garage as
approved on April 20, 1976, be removed:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. County Engineer and Service Authority approval of water line;
3. Fire Marshal approval.
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that when Mr. Coggins requested his certificate
of occupancy for the office, he was told he would have to post bond for site work not
yet accomplished ( entrance improvements, landscaping, fire hydrant ). The County
Engineering Department estimated the entrance work to cost $20,000 to construct a
third lane with curb and gutter the entire length of the property, including
the mobile home sales site ( 575 feet ). The Highway Department has amended their
requirement to include a third lane only in front of the auto sales lot, and a
de-cel lane to the north of the entrance. The revised estimated cost is $15,000.
The staff feels that the Highway Department's amended recommendations are
consistent with past approvals for new construction along Route 29 North.
Mr. Perry showed the Commission a sketch of what the Highway Department is
requiring.
Mr. Joseph Richmond, representing the applicant, presented a plat of the property.
He stated that the south end is an old right-of-way and that the applicant is not
planning a big operation, since this will be an "in -retirement" operation. There
will never be more than 25 cars on the lot at one time and to spend $15,000 on this
is an unreasonable condition. He stated that the applicant is agreeable to this
condition if he expands the business. He stated that the main objection is to improving
the land and entrance to the south, when this will not profit the applicant's
operation, rather the adjoining land owner's property. He stated that the applicant
does agree to construct the de-cel lane.
Mr. Coggins said that he hopes to be able to pay the taxes on the property
through this operation, have a little money, and to have a place to go. He further
stated that he anticipates selling a maximum of 10 cars per month, with probably
a maximum of 25 customers per month.
Mr. Perry stated that the reasons for requiring such items as this is to
develop Route 29 as property fronting the road develops. He stated that he sees
the hardship, but these requirements are in regard to safety and it has been required
of other developers along this road.
Mr. Jones asked if the property changes hands could it again be subject to
Highway Department approval.
Mr. Perry said that the Highway Department would address the road situation
only if the matter comes back through site review.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the property is zoned B-1, and that if it is
sold, it can be expanded to the maximum without again going through site review.
It would be impossible to condition the number of cars that can be on the lot
at one time, since the use is permitted by right.
Mr. Calvin Mawyer, representing the Woodbrook Homeowners Association said
that without the applicant meeting the requirements of the Highway Department,
a traffic hazard could be created. He said that the left turn lane in the north
bound lane has already been closed by the Virginia Department of Highways. He
urged the third lane concept approved remain as a condition for safety reasons.
Mr. Bill Edwards said that from his understanding this operation would be
a relatively non-agressive operation. He said that it looks as if something that
would be agreeable to the county, the applicant, and the highway department could
be worked out. He said that the highest and best use for the B-1 Zoned property
is not being taken advantage of. He stated that this operation is a holding action
for the property, in view of land costs along Route 29.
Mr. Coggins said that the animal hospital causes much more traffic than
his operation will cause, and they have not had been subject to these conditions
by the highway department.
Mr. Mawyer suggested that this is a chance to stop a traffic hazard before
it occurs.
Mr. Jones asked if there is any sign that can be placed at the top of the
hill to slow the traffic.
Mr. Perry said that the only effective way to slow traffic is to change
the speed limit. He stated that in the future it is possible with all the develop-
ment that is occuring to move back the speed limit. He stated that it is not the
policy of the Highway Department to sign for commercial uses, except heavy truck
traffic.
Mr. Mawyer said that signs do not make this much difference.
Mr. Gloeckner said that what the Highway Department has required is fair,
maybe not for this applicant, but for possible expansion and other potential uses.
He said that this is probably the only chance the county and Highway Department
will have to handle the road situation fronting this property.
Mr. Carr agreed.
Mr. Peatross asked if expansion can be restricted by the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that if there is any authority regarding this, it is in
the other direction.
Mr. Edwards asked if it could be subject to some sort of time element.
Mr. Carr pointed out that this is not a zoning matter or a special use permit.
Mr. Richmond asked if the ordinance can be amended to meet this applicant's
needs.
Mr. Payne stated that any amendment requested would have to be to
the Site Plan Ordinance.
_311
Mr. Brown stated that there must be a legal way a man can use his land,
even if the deed is restricted and recorded accordingly in the County Clerk's
office. Then at the time of sale a new site plan would have to be presented.
Mr. Coggins said that the third lane might become a problem when cars
come three abreast down to the bridge.
Mr. Easter said that he still considers the Highway Department's
recommendation a safer situation.
Mr. Perry agreed.
Mr. Payne asked if this arrangement provides safety for community developments.
Mr. Perry said that it does.
Col. Washington said that when the third lane is eventually completed
it will become just another lane of the Route 29 highway.
Mr. Perry said that the third lane is only for, and will be only for,
turning vehicles.
is
Mr. Jones said that he feels if this/approved according to requirements
of the Highway Department, that a public issue of road construction is becoming
a personal responsibility, when taxes should cover such requirements.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the problem is that this new business will create
a traffic problem, and that it is this applicant's fault, and not the highway
departments.
Mrs. Graves moved that the Commission deny the appeal, noting that the
applicant does have income from the mobile home phase of development. She stated
that to deny the appeal would be in line with the staff recommendation.
Mr. Easter said that there has already been a precedent for making the
developer responsible for upgrading the roads and that this is in line with
past actions of the Commission.
The motion to deny the appeal carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mr. Jones
dissenting.
Mrs. Graves left the room.
West Woods lot #3 - Route 677 - request to permit entrance of private driveway
on Route 677:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request to permit entrance of a private
driveway on Route 677. The Planning Commission approved 4 lots on Route 677 in
October, 1974, subject to lots 3 and 49 having entrance onto West Woods Drive
rather than Route 677. Applicant is requesting that temporary entrance for lot 3
on Route 677 be made permanent. The Highway Department made the following
recommendation:
"The connection appears to be adequate and since the grading required to construct
the entrance to West Woods Dirve is considerable, I have no object to leaving
the connection as is. However, I would like to point out that by having so
many entrances off the subdivision road, it would minimize the turning movement."
Mr. O'Neill showed pictures of his house to illustrate the reasons for
his request.
Mr. Barksdale stated that it appears fine as it is and moved approval.
Mr. Easter said that it appears that the present driveway is safer than
going though the bank.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Warren L. Coates, Jr. - 3.27-acre parcel and 5-acre residue - Route 641 -
requests a waiver of frontage:
Mrs. Scala stated that the 3.27-acre parcel is a pipestem lot. The
property is located on the south side of Route 641 near Advance Mills. The applicant
wishes to convey the residence and retain ownership of the 3.27 acres. The staff
found no problem with the request.
Mr. Gloeckner asked that a vicinity sketch be shown on the plat.
Mr. Mike Boggs stated that there has been a revised plat to show the
vicinity sketch that will be presented at the time signatures are needed.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
Mrs. Graves returned to the meeting.
Earlysville Green site plan for restaurnat, office additional parking -
Route 743;
Mrs. Scala stated that the beauty shop was approved in October, 1973.
The staff suggested the addition of a deceleration lane at the entrance and also
a landscape plan.
Conditions of approval should be as follows:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. Health Department approval of well and septic system;
3. Trash dumpster screen must be approved by Fire Marshal ( non-combustible );
4. Landscape plan;
5. Deceleration lane;
6. Future expansion subject to Planning Commission and Health Department approval;
7. County Engineer is requiring that entire parking area be paved as
proposed in specs ( and not just the new section ).
'3/3
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the right-of-way has been dedicated.
Mrs. Graves stated that at the site plan review committee level the use of
a sign on the property had been questioned.
Mr. Henry Browne, representing the applicant, stated that this sign will be
removed and that there will be no proliferation of signs on the property.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Bill Edwards Oldsmobile site plan - Route 29 North between Berkmar and Rio Road:
Mrs. Scala stated in the staff report that this site will be served by County
water and septic system. The site that had previously been approved by the Commission
opposite Carrsbrook was denied entrance permit by the Virginia Department of Highways.
This is the reason for another application.
Mrs. Scala said that the staff recommended display cars be kept behind
the setback line.
Conditions of approval should be as follows:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. Health Department approval;
3. Grading permit;
4. Proposed joing entrance with Sunny Hill subject to Planning Commission and
Virginia Department of Highways approval;
5. County Engineer is requiring surface treatment to be noted as prime and double
seal. Also the sizing of the storm drainage lines are subject to his approval.
Mr. Bill Edwards presented to Mrs. Scala the Health Department's approval
of the site. He stated that the requirements of the Highway Department will be
very expensive and that individual property owners are being taken advantage of
in order to provide for future development along Route 29 North. He explained
the reasons for the center entrance.
Mr. Barksdale asked if the applicant had any comments regarding the setback
suggested by the staff.
Mr. Edwards said that if that setback is observed, that everything on the
site will have to be moved back.
Mr. Easter asked if the Commission has any control over the tapering of the road.
Mr. Carr said the Commission has always had the policy of following the
Highway Department's recommendation, otherwise it is not necessary to ask its input.
He pointed out that they are the experts in highway safety.
914
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the joint entrance should be opposite the
turnaro=d. He said that he questioned the idea of this applicant building
a stack lane for future development.
Mr. Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that the Virginia Department
of Highways is currently reviewing the center entrance. He stated that with
the other recommendation of the Highway Department that the applicant would
be helping only the owners down the road.
Mr. Gloeckner remarked that if the crossover remains, then the stack lane
will be necessary.
Mrs. Graves said that she did not want the Planning Commission to take
any action that would prevent the Virginia Department of Highways from closing
the cross -over if they needed to.
Mr. Barksdale stated that in order to close the cross -over, the Highway
Department would have to prove that it is a safety hazard.
Mr. Gloeckner asked to what width is the proposed widening of the southbound
lane. He stated that if there is ever a proposed fourth lane, the display curb
will abut the right-of-way. He stated that if this is the case, he would like
to have a 10' cushion against the proposed right-of-way.
Mr. Boggs said that it is unfair to require such of this applicant
when it has not been required of any other owner. A 190' right-of-way is
proposed for the third lane, and if the Highway Department proposed a fourth lane,
then the right-of-way width would be 210', according to Charlie Perry of the
Highway Department.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the de-cel lane be built at the expense
of the Highway Department and that they allow the shared entrance opposite
the turnaround.
Mrs. Graves said that there are too many other potential stack lanes,
supposing that the Highway Department pays for this.one, that won't be built.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that to require 400 feet of blacktop is unreasonable.
He also said that that a common drive is safer without stack space.
Mr. Boggs asked that the site plan be approved as submitted with the center
entrance so that construction can begin. He stated that if this is changed at a
later date, that a revised site plan will be submitted.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the 30' setback recommended by the staff is excessive.
However, he still maintained that there should be at least a 10' setback to provide
for the possibility of the fourth lane.
Mrs. Scala said that the reasons for the suggested 30' setback were mostly
aesthetic.
Mr. Edwards said that he feels that even the 10 feet is excessive since
it requires that everything else be moved back 10 feet.
Mr. Harvey Spanger asked that the Commission address the drainage and setback.
He said that he is concerned about the back of the property becoming a junk pile.
3/S
Mr. Edwards said that what"rec. vehicles',as show on the site plan refers
to is recreational vehicles, not junk cars.
Mr. Keeler reminded the commission that nowhere in the ordinance is
recreational vehicles defined or provided for by right or by special permit.
Mr. Boggs explained the storm drainage plan for the site.
Mrs. Scala said that this plan will be considered shortly by the soil erosion
committee.
Mrs. Graves said that travel trailers on property require a special permit
in the B-1 zone.
Mr. Boggs said that these recreational vehicles will be stored in a building
at the back of the lot.
Mrs. Graves asked that the sizing of the storm drainage system be approved
by the County Engineer.
Messrs. Easter and Barksdale stated that the 30 foot setback is excessive.
Mr. Peatross said that he favors the 10' setback suggested by Mr. Gloeckner
for aesthetic reasons.
Mr. Carr asked that the staff notify the Virginia Department of Highways
that the Commission favors the shared entrance rather than the center entrance,
that the stacking lane should be constructed by the Highway Department rather than
by the applicant, and that if the center entrance is approved, the U-turn at Rio
Road is not pratical.
Mr. Peatross said that he would like to approve the site plan subject to
changing the entrance to a shared entrance.
Mr. Elw,_.rds said that if this site plan is denied and he is forced to
build the shared entrance subject to Highway Department approval - which means
that the stack space will be required - he will take the matter to court.
Col. Washington moved that action be deferred until the Virginia Department
could have sufficient input.
Mr.Jones seconded the motion, also asking that the question regarding
recreational vehicles be resolved.
Mr. Easter also asked that the Highway Department inform the staff of
plans for a potential fourth lane.
The motion to defer carried unanimously.
Peacock Hill amendment to final plat:
Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving the room.
Mrs. Scala said that this involves Parcels 2 and 3, Section 1, Turkey Ridge
Road. The applicant proposes division of each parcel into three lots in order to convey
each townhouse on a small lot rather than as condominiums. This is similar to the present
townhouse -for -sale concept, except that in this case the requirements of lot width,
setbacks and yards are waived because it is a Planned Community. The staff found
no problem with the request. The matter was discussed with the County Attorney's
Office, who also thought there would be no problems.
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff anticipates similar submittals for the town-
houses in Section 1 ( a total of 12 parcels ) and would like to approve them
administratively with the County Attorney's approval. The number of units originally
approved would not be changed. She stated that if this is approved, land will
go with the townhouse. Any such action to approve this request will not affect Section 2.
Mr. Payne reminded the Commission that the applicant had stated at the time
the plat was approved that he anticipated doing this in the future.
Mrs. Graves questioned the location of the septic fields.
Mrs. Scala said that there will be a group septic sytem, located in the common
ground.
Mr. Frank Smith, representing Peacock Hill, said that this idea is no
different from the original concept. There has been one change from the original
plan in that the limited common ground has been abandoned. The septic system has
been approved by the Health Department, and will be part of the common ground
owned by eventual owners of Homeowners' Association.
Mr. Peatross moved this be approved for Parcels 2 and 3 of Section 1.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Mr. Gloeckner asked that the motion be amended to include administrative
approval for other townhouses in Section 1.
Mr. Peatross accepted this amendment.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter returned to the room.
Black Industries site plan - Route 250 East at Route 794:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
Mrs. Scala presented the following staff report:
Black Industries was granted a variance to continue operating as a non-
conforming use, subject to getting site plan approval. In July, 1973, the Planning
Commission approved a site plan with commerical entrance on Route 250 East and screening.
This was never accomplished, and the former Zoning Administrator revoked the variance and
obtained a criminal warrant. This was nol-prossed, and Black Industries filed suit
against the County in civil court to establish their non -conformity. In order to Ifto
terminate the litigation, the issue was compromised of whether the variance was revoked.
The variance would still be considered in effect if an amended site plan were approved
and accomplished.
_;�17
r• The revised site plan shows a new commerical entrance on Route 794 and shows the two
previous entrances into the parking area screened and closed with white pines.
The staff made the following recommendations:
1. If the existing chain link fence is to be retained, it should be put in a state
of repair;
2. The woven material should extend the full length of the fence along Route 250 ( north
side ), the west side and Route 794 ( south side ).
3. The height and number of white pine trees should be spelled out. Suggest 6'
high white pines approximately 15 feet off -center. This would be 10 trees on the
south side and 6 on the north side. If lieu of the white pines, it has been
suggested by adjacent owners that the woven screen fence be extended to completely
enclose the parking area. This would be to eliminate maintenance problems with
the trees, also to eliminate trespassing on adjacent property.
Mr. Payne stated that this is not a non -conforming use, and the variance stands.
Mr. Carr asked if this should be reviewed under the current site plan ordinance.
Mr. Payne said that it should not be reviewed under this ordinance, but that
the Planning Commission should keep this ordinance in mind when providing for screening.
Mr. Easter said that adjacent property owners should be notified.
Mr. Payne said that this site plan is a substantial improvement over the previous
site plan.
Mr. Barksdale felt that it might be better to use fencing rather than trees
for screening, in order to protect adjacent owners.
Mr. Payne stated that this fence will be very expensive, and might prove to
be a financial burden to the applicant. However, he pointed out that this is a
settlement and there should be some improvements.
Mr. Lanahan, an adjacent owner, stated that this property has deteriorated
since the current owner took possession. He said that nothing substantial has taken
place in the last three years regarding the suit.
Mr. Carr said that if the site plan is approved, the applicant can be forced
to comply with it.
Mr. Richard Jones, an adjacent owner to the east, said that junk from the
site has been pushed over onto his property, thus making his property a dumping ground.
Mr. Easter said that this company is in the business of burying utility lines.
He felt that the Commission should ask them to be better neighbors.
Mr. Richard Jones asked that there be some sort of buffer in order to keep
the applicant from crossing the property line onto his property.
Mr. Lanahan said that trees might not solve this problem, where a fence would.
Mrs. Graves said that she did not feel that any action should be taken by
the Commission until the applicant or his representative is present.
Mr. Barksdale felt that under the circumstances the Commission should review
the situation as soon as possible.
Mr. Payne stated that under the circumstances, since this is a settlement,
that he felt it proper to proceed without the applicant or his representative
present.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission continue with its discussion and
act on the request at that meeting.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Peatross asked the County Attorney's position on this matter and what
the Coun.ty's bargaining powers are.
Mr. Payne stated that the County takes the position that anything will be
an improvement.
Mr. Peatross asked what is reached in the compromise.
Mr. Payne stated that with no compromise, the applicant can continue using
the property without improving the site.
Mr. Carr said that unless the Commission discusses these matters with the
applicant, enforcement of the site plan might not be possible without legal action.
Mrs. Graves moved that action be deferred until the applicant or his
representative is present and until members of the Commission could view the site.
The motion to continue discussion and act on that night lost by a vote
of 0-8. The Commission unanimously voted to defer action on the request.
As Mr. Lanahan was leaving the meeting, he thanked the Commission for its
concern over the situation on Route 29 North. He stated that he works for the
Highway Safety Council and they are continually attempting to improve the safety
factor along that route.
Mr. Carr stated that Mr. Tucker has almost completed some suggestions for
the Commission in regard to streamlining Planning Commission meetings.
Mr. Carr also addressed the matter of denying a request simply on the basis
of dislike. He stated that in such an instance, the County Attorney might later have
to react to the situation. He stated also, that he as chairman, does not ever try
to override anyone on the Commission's opinion, but that he feels that all votes
to deny a request should be based information rather than emotion. He said that he
also stands firm on the point that some of the problems mentioned regarding the Ivy
Brook need to be dealt with.
Mr. Peatross said that a vote to deny a request should perhaps be explained
with reasons for the dissenting vote, rather than simply saying that one doesn't like
the request or that they feel soil erosion will occur, when no supportative data has
been presented. He said that a vote based on mere dislike would be arbitrary and capricious.
-5i9
Col. Washington stated that he feels that the soil erosion ordinance
needs to be reviewed, since 25% slopes cannot be arbitrarily used as a guide
for a building site. He also stated that north slopes should have less than the
25% slope as a guide.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that there are techniques of construction that
make building feasible on mountainsides.
Col. Washington said that he feels that a grading permit is needed for
construction on north slopes, especially due to the quick freezing and thawing on
these slopes.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed that tools are needed for soil erosion for
single family dwellings.
Mr. Payne said that if north slopes are specific problem areas, then
different regulations are needed.
Mr. Carr asked if these different regulations could be defended by the
County Attorney.
Mr. Payne said that he did not feel this would be a problem.
Mr. Carr then asked how rigid these regulations need to be defined.
Mr. Payne said that it might be possible to control development on north
slopes through the soil erosion committee.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that perhaps with problem lots that a detailed
site plan might be submitted, with the erosion control methods shown.
Mr. Payne stated that the only way to enforce this, because of the Code
of Virginia exempting single family residences from grading permits, might be in
applying the soil erosion ordinance. He stated that with site plans, the problem
would be when to require them. The standards for this would have to be carefully
defined.
Mr. Gloeckner also suggested that if this is adopted, that the public would
need to be put on notice. He stated that he does not feel it to be fair to reject
a lot for development simply on the basis of the slope being greater than 25%.
Col. Washington asked that the staff review this matter, and make some
sort of presentation to the Commission on its findings.
Mr. Carr asked that this be accomplished in thirty days. He also noted
that the depth of information sometimes needed by the Commission is not available
and sometimes the cost for obtaining it is prohibitive.
Mr. Easter intorduced Carlos Montenegro, newest member of the Planning Staff,
to the Commission.
Mr. Carr also asked that members of the Commission and the Planning
Staff refrain from references to the "proposed zoning ordinance" since this
particular document has no standing. He stated that it is not a resource document.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
o ert W. Tucker, Jr. - ecret y
19
13 1
OR
June 22, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning CoamLi.ssion held a meeting Tuesday, June 22, 1,976,
7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider a series of
site plans, subdivisions and rezoning requests.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Ur. Roy Barksdale; TIr. Leslie Jones; Mrs.
Joan Graves; Col. William Washington; Mr. Paul Peatross; and Mrs. Opal David,
ex-officio. Dr. James Moore was absent.
Mr. Carr established that a quorLxn was present and called the meeting to
order.
Mr. Carr asked for corrections or additions to the minutes of June 1.
With no corrections, the minutes of the June 1, 1976, meeting stood approved.
The minutes of the June 8, 1976, meeting were also approved with no corrections
or additions. Mr. Carr called for corrections of the minutes of June 15, 1976.
mr. Jones stated that he wished the word "serve" to be included on page
9 of the June 15 minutes. The correction was recorded.
rs. Graves moved deferral of the minutes until she could look them over.
Mr. Faster moved approval of the three sets of minutes subject to any corrections
that Mrs. Graves might wish to make.
The motion was seconded b y Mr. Gloeckner, and carried unanimously.
Westridge final plat.
Mrs. Scala stated that the plat had been deferred from the June 8 meeting to
allow the applicant to meet with representatives of the area and to finalize
the plat in the best interests of all concerned. She stated that approval would
be conditional upon Highway Department approval of entrances.
A representative of the Route 676 area stated that citizens in his area
were satisfied with the final plat.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion to approve.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Bill Edwards Oldsmobile site plan.
Mrs. Scala stated that the item had been deferred from the June 15 meeting
in order to confer with the Highway Department on the entrance and on the possibility
(2)
of four lanes on Route 29 in the future, as to the effect the possibility might
have on the setback requirements. She stated that the Zoning Administrator had
been requested to give his opinion on the question of storage of recreational
vehicles, and that he had replied in a memo which stated that a Special Use
Permit would be required for storage of recreational vehicles. She stated that
Mr. Charles Perry of the Highway Department was present to speak to the conditions
of the entrance. She read the conditions of approval from the Staff Report.
One condition, of proposed joint entrance, was refuted by the applicant, who
wished to place the entrance at the center of the property rather than at the
crossover.
Mr. Carr clarified that it was the position of the staff that a joint entrance
be the one approved. He circulated the letter of objection from Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards stated that he had stated his case in the letter, the original
of which was to Mr. Charles Perry of the Highway Department, that he felt it
to be unfair for he as the first developer to build the stacking lane in the
northbound lane. His business's traffic generation would not be great enough
to warrant such costs as would be involved in building the decel lane and the
widening of the crossover by 10 feet. Although he would prefer the joint entrance
as proposed by the Highway Department, he could not manage the additional
requirements which would be placed upon him if the joint entrance were built.
Mr. Perry stated that the Highway Department had gone over the site plan
with the applicant and that the community entrance and the third lane concept
had been found to be the best plan.
Mr. Carr asked whether Mr. Perry was following the same reasoning as the
County had previously in this type of development.
Mr. Perry stated that he was, that the Highway Department would approve the
joint entrance on the basis of the left turn lane being installed at the
crossover. He added that the proposed shopping center, Blue Ridge Mall,
in the area of this site plan, could have some future effect on the crossover.
This would make it questionable whether thecrossover would remain once the joint
entrance had been established.
Mr. Gloeckner asked whether the four -lane concept might be used in the future.
Mr. Perry stated that this was unknown at this time.
Mr. Gloeckner asked whether a fourth lane would be cut from the median strip
or from the right-of-way. If the widening was in the right-of-way, then the
display vehicles as shown on the site plan would end up on the right-of-way,
and the setback would not be sufficient.
Mr. Perry stated that a fourth lane would probably be cut on the outside.
Mr. Peatross asked whether the Highway Department had considered the
problem of northbound traffic having to cut across two lanes to make a left turn
out of Bill Edwards.
Mr. Perry stated that it had been considered, and that some difficulty in
transition was anticipated, but that it would not pose an insurmountable problem.
12r. Jones stated that he would not approve a decel lane and joint entrance
unless someone was required to share in the cost of the left turn lane with the
(3)
applicant. He agreed that the Highway Department's basic reccmuendations were good.
11r. Easter asked whether there were Highway Department funds available to
aid the applicant in the cost (estimated at $30,000 or mare) of the third lane
and the left -turn lane construction. He too felt it an unreasonable request to
require the applicant to handle the entire cost.
Mr. Perry stated that Mr. Edwards would benefit from the planned construction.
Mr. Easter stated that even if Mr. Edwards built the lane, that the Highway
Department might find it necessary to close it down as traffic developed in the
area.
Mr. Perry stated that that was a possibility, but that he couldn't predict what
would happen.
Mr. Easter stated that there was already a dangerous traffic situation
going south toward Shoppers World, and that this problem would be increased
by the proposed site plan.
Mr. Perry stated that the Highway Department did have funds for using
where there was a safety hazard, but that the funds were limited to situations
already existing. That was the reason for pushing the construction of the
left turn lane before a problem developed. He stated that there was precedent
for a problem occurring if the left turn lane were not constructed.
Mr. Jones asked Mr. Perry whether he thought the central entrance would
be safer than the joint entrance.
Mr. Perry stated that he would recommend the joint entrance with a left turn
lane because it would provide easier and safer access and would eliminate the dangers of the
crossover. On the other hand the central entrance would provide adequate sight
distance and the stop light at Rio Road would slow the traffic somewhat.
vir. Carr outlined the two choices before the Planning Commission, (1)that
the central entrance be approved , or (2) that the joint entrance be approved
requiring a decel in the northbound lane and following the third lane concept.
lie stated that the Cormission should consider that the choice made now could
be altered later by an increase in traffic, which was as yet unpredictable.
Mr. Perry stated that he has some reservations about the location of this central
entrance. He asked if the Planning Commission and Mr. Edwards were agreeable, -to
go back and re -review the location. He stated that the joint entrance had been
proposed because the property owner to the south was agreeable to establishing
a joint entrance.
Mr. Edwards stated that he would continue to try to work out something
with the decel lane, and asked to be granted at least some entrance from the
highway at this time. He stated that there was an existing utility lane on the south of
the property for access, and that he would go along with Mr. Perry's suggestion
to re -review the location.
Mr. Carr stated that the county would understand that the entrance would not
be built until negotiations were complete.
Mr. Peatross asked Mr. Edwards to clarify the reason for declining to build
(4)
the joint entrance.
Mr. Edwards stated that the reason was solely the $30,000 cost.
Mrs. Graves asked whether the Highway Department was giving up the requirement
for a left turn lane.
Mr. Perry stated that this was not likely.
Mrs. Graves stated that it would be more desirable to make the crossing
at Berkmar Drive.
M- Perry stated that it would be better to get the new shopping center's
(Blue Ridge Mall) plans before any concrete decisions could be made.
Mr. Jones moved to accept Mr. Perry's suggestion for negotiation between
the Highway Department and Mr. Edwards and the southern adjoining property
owner, with the entrance granted as proposed to be used until further
agreen*:nts could be reached.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Mr. Peatross stated that he felt it an unwise proposal, but if the Highway
Department was willing to make such an agreement, that he could go along
with it.
Mr. Carr stated that he could go with the motion, that he did not believe
that the cost of the left turn lane should be incurred by a single parcel owner.
T,k. Easter stated that he agreed with Mr. Peatross and Mr. Carr.
Mr. Carr stated that if the negotiations failed, -that the center entrance would be
approved.
The motion made by Mr. Jones was carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that having looked at the site plan, that the placement
of the display area as shown by Mr. Edwards would be sufficient, and that it
would not be necessary to move the display area behind the setback line.
I1r. Boggs stated that they now had a 25' setback .
Mr. Carr stated that with a maximum of 12' taken up, that would still leave
12' or 13' setback.
Ur. Peatross stated that he did not think that the display vehicles should
be right on the highway, but if there would be a 13' setback, he would have no
problem with the plan.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the setback would actually be about 25', and there
would still be about 13' if the road was widened into another lane.
lArs. Graves stated that the Planning Commission had discussed the septic
versus the sewer system at their last meeting.
Mrs. Scala stated that this was not a problem, that the Health Department
(5)
had already granted a permit for a septic system, and that there were not
sewer lines nearby.
Mrs. Graves stated that she wondered whether more than a septic system would
by required by the Special Permit for storing display vehicles.
Mr. Boggs stated the distance at which the nearest sewer hookup was.
Mr. Easter suggested that their approval be worded so that a septic system
would be permissible, but not mandatory.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat with the conditions as outlined by the
staff, with elimination of condition # 4 of keeping display cars behind setback
lines, and changing condition # 3 to approval of the central entrance and
including Mr. Jones's motion for negotiation to take place between Mr. Edwards
and the Highway Department as to the entrance. No entrance would be constructed
until such negotiations were complete.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
ZMP-04-76. Double C Corporation.
Pbr. Tucker gave the Staff Report, stating that this item had been deferred
from the June 8 meeting. He gave the ccaparative impact statistics, and read
the memos from the Fire Marshal and from Ashley Williams of the Engineering
Department.
Col. Washington asked that Mr. Tucker elaborate on the recommendation of
"multiple channels" which was included in the Staff Report.
Mr. Tucker stated that he was suggesting that the runoff water be dispersed,
and that he realized that this would not reduce the total runoff, but simply
spread it out over a larger area.
�' . Carter, representative of Double C Corporation, stated that the density
of the project had been reduced from 3.7 units per acre to 2.5 units per acre.
He added that the density of Woodbrook was 2.44 units per acre, and of Westmoreland
2.02 units per acre. He stated that his new density of 2.5 would be more compatible
with these neighboring subdivisions. More wooded areas would be left to shield
Westmoreland from the new development, and the reduced density would lessen the
impact on schools and roads. He had moved the recreational area to the opposite
side of the development, and reduced its size, but he did not want to eliminate
it. He stated that the recreational area was to be well shielded from neighboring
p Swale in the land. He had gotten in touch with Mr.
areas by roads and a dee
Thompson of the Albemarle County Service Authority about running an 8" water line
from Rio Road to the development, but had gotten no cooperation. He stated that
there were possibly several good things happening for the residents of the neigh-
boring subdivisions, including notifying the County of improvements needed in
the school and road systems in the area, and in alerting the County to the septic
k problems in Westmoreland. Ile stated that John McNair and Associates were doing a
study about connecting the sewer to the area and replacing the much -complained -
about septic system. Speaking to the issue of fire protection, he stated that
townhouses were designed with fire protection between units.
(6)
Mr. Carr asked whether Double C planned to put 8" water lines in the project
and the recommended two fire hydrants.
Mr. Carter stated that this was the plan. *400
Mr. Wallace, a representative of the Westmoreland community, stated that they
supported the RPN/RSl zone that the staff had recommended. He suggested that
interested community groups should join with Carter in trying to get water lines
from Rio Road through the area, and to provide fire protection by the builder.
He thought that fire protection should be a requirement for approval. -tie was
pleased that the swimming pool and tennis court area had been moved to the opposite
side of the development, but asked that making the recreation area into a public
club be forbidden, as that would be a commercial operation. He asked about the
increase of traffic in the area. He stated that the Planning Commission had
asked Carter to reduce the density to 2 dwelling units per acre, but that it
had only been reduced to 2.5 units per acre. He still stood with the staff on
recommending the RPN/RSl zoning.
Mr. Carr stated that the Site Plan Ordinance required that the County provide
fire protection only if adequate water was available.
Mr. Tucker supported this statement, and added that it was questionable
whether .8 mile, the distance from Rio Road and the nearest 8" line to the dev-
elopment, was considered "adequate water."
Mr. Wallace stated that some members of his community had talked with Mr.
Iachetta, who had told them that the water connection would be required.
Charles Dunkle, and adjoining property owner, pointed to article 17-5-18
of the Zoning Ordinance, and outlined his reasons for objection to the proposed
plan. The first reason was due to the need for fire protection, that for reasons
of public health and safety, that a water system without adequate fire protection
should not be perpetuated as it already was present in Westmoreland.
The second was that the density of 2.5 units per acre was too great; he quoted
one Planning Commission member as stating that the density should be "certainly
not more than 2." Thirdly, he stated that the proposed townhouse development would
not be compatible with the area, as all developments around the proposed site
were single-family hones whose occupants were the owners. Particularly he
stated that rental of the townhouses would be inharmonious with the area. Fourthly,
he stated that splitting the runoff would not change it from filling the same
creek, and that the culvert under Carrsbrook Drive was already overflowing.
Mr. Ii. I. Taylor of Northfield Road affirmed the Northfield community's
petition against the proposed development. He quoted the purpose- of intent of
the RPN zone, and gave three points to show that the proposed development did
not comply with this purpose of intent. First, that that there was no demonstration
of necessity that this development be built. Secondly, he did not think the
development to be in the best interest of the community. Thirdly, such rezoning
would not improve the pleasantness of the area, as townhouses were neither
appropriate or harmonious in this area. He concluded therefore that the proposal
was not in keeping with the purpose of intent of the RPN zone.
Mike Foster of Northfield Road stated that the fire walls to be put in the
townhouses would not hold a fire from one unit to another.
�,Irs.Kathy Tompkins of Woodbrook stated that she was concerned about the
runoff problem. She could not see how the staff's proposal would help unless
(7)
the pipe carrying the runoff were to stop at the top of the slope, and then it
would cause erosion problems. She would like to hear Planning Commission views on
his and the issue on ccopatibility. She stated that the maximum. density in
V%hw_he RPN/R-1 zone was 5.3 units per acre, and asked what would prevent this
density from being realized in the future. She suggested reviewing the entire
RPN zoning category and perhaps creating another zone more in keeping with the
intent of this proposal.
Air. Carr stated that one feature of the RPN zone was that the density could
be set.
Mr. Tucker stated that any differing site plan would have to go through the
Planning Commission again.
half.
Mrs. Tompkins asked whether the courts would uphold cutting the density in
Mr. Carr stated that the County Attorney had stated that they would.
Mr. Tucker stated the RPN zone was under review.
t1r. John Becker of Northfield Road stated that the whole key to the issue was
that of the proposed development not being "harmonious" with the area.
Mr. Lewis Nick stated that he wished to know what would happen to the open land
in the proposed development at a later date.
Mr. Carr stated that under this site plan, the open land would remain as open
land, and any change from that would require site plan approval.
1,1Ir. Nick asked what assurance they had against further development.
Mr. Carr stated that the County would enforce following of the proposed site plan.
Mr. Frank Dorrity stated that he wished to know who owned title to the open land.
Mr. Carter stated that all the people who buy the townhouses would share
joint ownership , that this would be included in the deed of ownership.
Mr. Dorrity stated that in contrast to pride found in owning one's own
single-family home, he could see no pride possible in owning a townhouse or in
joint ownership of land.
Mr. Mike Ryan stated that the density in the area actually developed . would
be much greater than 2.5 units per acre, because the figure included the open
land as well. In contrast the adjoining areas of single-family dwellings had
an actual density of 2-2.5 units per acre, the contrast between the two areas
would be more marked than the figures would indicate.
Mr. Carter stated that 2.5 acres was not really considered a high density
area. In R-1 zoning, the same zoning as Westmoreland, the allowed density was
5 units per acre.
Mrs. Graves stated that she had a problem with the RPN/Rl zoning. That
if the proposal were granted under a Special Permit instead, that more special
conditions could be put upon the plat which could not be put upon a rezoning
request. She asked whether a subsequent owner could come in and ask for the
(8)
UN designation to be. xexwved, This question was unanswered in the courts. There
was a discrepancy in density between the proposed and the actual legal maximum,
which the Commission was being asked to maintain. While the Al zoning protected
the area and was in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, the RPN zone did not.
With the Planned Community concept , the developer was required to rezone
an area as A-1. Instead, the Planning Commission was granting in effect a larger
possible density, and she stated that she did not feel this to be a good idea.
She also asked about the proposed swim club.
Mr. Carter stated that he had thought they would offer outside memberships
to the swim club, but that this did not have to happen.
Mrs. Graves asked whether the swim club would be a commercial venture.
Mr. Carter stated that if the commercial nature presented a problem, that he
would accept the restriction of limiting the membership to residents of the
townhouses.
Mr. Carr stated that he questioned whether a development was compatible, but
he did not agree that townhouses were undesirable. The County had approved
Ednam, a similar townhouse development in a single-family area.
11r. Jones asked whether the County could absorb the impact of the development.
He felt that this was a major consideration.
Mr. Payne stated that both the Site Plan and the Subdivision Ordinances
required fire hydrants. In the case of this development, public water was.
available in 6" lines which would have to be enlarged to 8" lines. There was evidence
before Commission that the 6" lines were inadequate. If public'facilites were not adequate
to meet the needs of the development, the Planning Commission could deny the
proposal on legal grounds. They might go ahead with the 6" lines hooked to
8" lines in the development with the understanding that there would be inadequate
water supply available for a time only.
Mr. Barksdale stated that Mr. Carter had said that the Service Authority would
not extend the line at the present time, so that was not an option.
Mrs. Graves asked whether Double C could hook up to the 6" line if the Fire
Marshal said that it did not supply adequate protection.
Mr. Carr stated that this was a technical question he could not answer at the
present.
Mr. Easter asked what Mute 864 as referred to in the Fire Marshal's memo
re this proposal was.
Mr. Keeler stated that it was Carrsbrook Drive.
Mr. Easter stated that the Fire Marshal's memo stated that the fire protection
was adequate for single-family dwelling but not for a proposal such as Westmoreland
Manor.
Mr. Tucker stated that according to the Fire Marshal, there was a possibility
that 1300 rather than just 1000 gallons per minute would probably be necessary
for adequate fire protection.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Fire Marshal was in contact with the state Fire 1
(9)
Marshal's office on this matter.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that according to the Staff Report, there was adequate
`'water pressure and supply, a contradiction.
Mr. Taylor stated that in consultation with the Fire Marshal, he had found that
there was adequate pressure until both hydrants were used, in which case the
pressure would drop to 11 pounds. In this situation, the pressure would not
be adequate.
Col. Washington stated that he did not think sthe cost
the of $63,000er was
with
exorbitant for 65 dwelling units, the proposed
an 8" water line constructed from Rio Road to the development. It would be
absorbed by the townhouse buyers.
Mr. Keeler stated that the $63,000 figure was a rough estimate, based on
a $15 per foot cost, a low estimate for an 8" main, and that in addition there
would be tap -on fees, etc.
Mr. Peatross stated that adequate fire protection was a great concern, a
greater one than the cost to the developer.
Mr. Carter stated that there had been a change in the building code that
now required fire alarms in all single-family dwellings, and that this would
protect lives if not property.
Mr. Carr stated that they indeed had a duty to protect the citizens, but
he still was not sure whether .8 mile was considered "close enough" to
„r require fire protection.
Mr. Iachetta stated that he had discovered in his experience on the Board
of Supervisors that there was no legal mechanism for correcting mistakes, and
that was why he was urging that this fire protection be mandatory at this time.
He did not want to repeat the errors of the past. He added that the compatibility
of the rezoning request should be the uppermost concern, and that the only
RPN so far approved was Ednam, where fire protection was made a requirement.
Mr. Easter stated that he would like to see the developer put in tines
in his development.
Mr. Iachetta stated that to hook 8" lines to a too -shall connector line would
not solve the problem.
I,ir. Carr stated that he was trying to establish whether the general approach
of this proposal was right before the technicalities were dealt with.
Mr. Carter stated that he had spoken to the Service Authority and had given
them that very opportunity to extend the water lines jointly.
Mrs. Graves stated that there was a precedent for the Planning Commission to
deny this request because of imminent problem of higher density zoning. She made
a motion to deny the request for RPN/Rl.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion.
Mr. Easter stated that he could not support the motion as stated. They had not
(10)
had an opportunity to work out the problems with the proposal. Although he was not
pleased with the density, he felt that the motion was premature.
Mr. Peatross-called. for the question.
The motion did not carry. 'There were two ayes: Mrs. Graves,
and Mr. Jones; and mix .:cos: k1r. Carr, Mr. Easter, Mr. Gloeckner, Col. Washington,
Mr. Barksdale, and Mr. Peatross.
Mr. Gloeckner asked why Carter came back to the Commission with a 2.5 units
per acre density when the Planning Commission had requested a 2.0 units per acre
density.
Mr. Carter stated that the 2.5 units per acre density was in line with
Woodbrook, and that he needed a greater density to cover his costs.
TIr. Barksdale stated that he could go with the 2.5 units per acre.
Mr. Easter stated that he agreed that the higher density was necessary for
making the project feasible for Mr. Carter, but he felt that the difference
between the surrounding areas' single-family dwellings and the townhouses was
a problem.
Mr. Jones stated that he felt that the density was too high because of the
impact on the schools and the highways.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that any density from 2.0 to 2.5 units per acre would fit
the area.
Mr. Easter asked whether the public hearing was closed.
1>1r. Carr stated that it was closed, unless there were any other essential
comments.
1�1r. Peatross stated that he would prefer to reduce the density to 2.0 units
per acre for impact reasons.
Mr. Easter stated that he had been brought around to Mr. Peatross's point
of view.
Mr. Carr stated that the problems with the recreation area had been resolved.
Mr. Barksdale agreed that it had.
Yx. Carr spoke to the issue of the sewer. He stated that the Woodbrook Interceptor
could be used when completed.
Mrs. Graves asked whethezthere was any question as to the capacity of the
plant. She felt that Westmoreland should precede Westmoreland Manor in being
serviced by the plant.
Mr. Tucker stated that there was an additional 500,000 gallons in the Meadow
Creek. The Planning Commission would have to decide whether the decision was
premature. It would be another three to four rmonths until the feasibility study
on the sewer system was completed.
Mr. Carr stated that it would be a requirement that the 2 buildings on
25% slopes be omitted, as Mr. Tucker had recommended in the Staff Report.
Mr. Tucker agreed. He added that this policy was consistent throughout the
county. Frc yer,, it was only in the watershed that building WE(s forbidden by
the'Soil Erosion Ordinance on slopes of 25% or greater.
I]t. Gloeckner stated that this should be no problem for the developer.
He agreed with Mr. Tucker's recommendation.
Mr. Carr asked whether the drainage on Carrsbrook Drive was adequate for
taking the additional flow.
Mr. Easter asked what would be done to protect the slopes from erosion.
I,�rs. Graves stated that they should make the developer enlarge the storm
culvert.
Mr. Tucker stated that if this were done the ponds on the other side would be
flooded, causing another problem.
NIrs. Graves stated that the Subdivision Ordinance called for any developer
causing an erosion problem to help solve it.
Mr. Jones stated that putting an 8" water line in would not solve the problem.
Col.Washington stated that it was inconceivable to force the developer to
build the entire line and to allow- adjacent- property owners to get a free ride.
Mr. Tucker expressed his agreement with Col. Washington.
Mr. Barksdale stated that they should get the property owners to help pay
since they will be the beneficiaries.
Mr. Carter stated that he has not yet worked out such a discussion with these
other property owners.
Mr. Easter stated that he too felt it unreasonable for Double C to incur the
cost if the developer could not get a reimbursement.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that it might be possible for the County to establish
a fee for connection to the water line which would reimburse Carter's expense.
Dir. Payne stated that such a situation would be novel in this County, but
not without possibility. He stated that it would be necessary to draw up an
agreement between the Service Authority and the developer, not the County and the
developer. He stated that it had never been a practice in the County to require
the individual to pay for fire protection, but should be a cost to the developer
in the future.
Dr. Gloeckner stated that he felt Mr. Carter would build the 8" water line
if he had some hope of being reimbursed in the next 5 to 10 years.
Mr. Peatross stated that he did not think it unreasonable for Carter to
incur the entire cost. He added that the issue of overcrowding the schools
went along with the question of density.
Mr. Jones stated that the proposed density would add to the already over-
crowded schools.
NirN . Carr stated that they needed to discuss the compatibility issue.
(12)
Mr. Peatross stated that the proposal was compatible when one considered
the open space being created as opposed to the entire space being used for
one -family dwellings.
Mrs. Graves stated that the proposal would be compatible if the townhouses
were to be guaranteed to be sold rather than rented.
Mr. Easter asked whether such a condition could be put upon the developer.
Mr. Payne stated that he did not think it would be a defendable cause in court.
Mr. Jones stated that unless an upkeep fee were paid , that the open land
owned jointly by all the residents of the townhouses would get rundown. Whereas
an individual owner could be faced with a violation of a code, with joint ownership
this would be difficult.
Mr. Easter asked whether a Homeowners' Association would be established.
Mr. Carter answered that it would, for the protection of the owners as
well as the property. He added that this would be a gradual project, stretched
over five years, and the entire 65 units would not suddenly be filled.
Col -Washington stated that he thought the adjoining subdivision owners should
have no objection to this development since the area in between was heavily
wooded.
Mrs. Graves stated that if the developer were unable to meet all the
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, that they would be left with an
R1/RPN zone subject to amendment.
Mr. Carr stated that if the developer could not comply with the site plan
requirements, he could not implement his project.
Mr. Payne stated that this was correct.
1,1r. CArr stated that he was in favor of the townhouse arrangement, but was not
sure he could support this density on this land.
Mr. Easter suggested that the density be reduced to 2.9 units per acre.
'�Ir. Carr stated that he supported Mr. Peatross's view on the need for fire
protection, but that he couldn't make Mr. Carter pay for a water line for the
neighbors to use.
Mr. Easter made a motion to approve the proposal with the following conditions:
1) Gross residential density be reduced to a maximum of two(2.0) dwelling units
Per acre in compliance with other densities in the immediate area;
2) There be no dwelling units placed on slopes in excess of 250.
3) The recreation facilities be allowed to serve only the residents of the
Planned development.
4) The runoff be dispersed by routing to multiple outfalls parallel to the stream
channel in order to mitigate the impact on the culvert under Carrsbrook Drive.
5) A drainage easement of 20' width along stream to run full length of the property
6) Road alignment to be kept as shown on the site plan marked "Received 6/16/76."
7) Fire hydrants and 8-inch water mains be provided by the developer within the
development, and all necessary fire protection standards be met.
(13)
Mr. Gloeckner stated that a cost-sharingq agreement with the Service Authority
on the basis -of'a linear rate per foot should be attested by Mr: Carter,, end
If the- i`ce AutTt9 itY` did not agree to cooperate, then to require Mr. Carter
to build the 8" water line the .8 mile from Rio Road to the development. An alternative
plan could be worked out by Carter and he could return then to the Commission with the
plan to be approved. At any rate, the 8" water line must be built from Rio Road
to the development before development could begin. He asked that Mr. Tucker write
a letter to the Service Authority on behalf of Mr. Carter and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner's suggestion was incorporated into the motion of approval.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Mr. Jones asked that the Commission contact the Service Authority before
making a motion involving their cooperation.
Mr. Carr stated that if the Service Authority would not cooperate, they would
simply have to work out another way to get the 8"water line built.
The motion was carried. Ayes: Carr, Easter, Gloeckner, Peatross, Barksdale,
Washington. Nos: Graves. Abstaining: Jones.
rr. Carr stated that this matter will be heard by the Board of Supervisors
on Wednesday, July 7, 1976.
ZMP-07-76. Elizabeth L. Breeden.
Mr. Tucker gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Breeden stated that the comparative impact statistics as given in the
Staff Report were about 30% off by her calculations. She added that they
were willing to hold the deed for part of the proposal for land for schools,
church, and other institutional facilities.
Mr. Tucker stated that approval of the plan wouldn't state that she was
tied to that agreement.
Mrs. Breeden stated that they were attempting to take the Comprehensive Plan
into consideration. She asked if the staff would only accept the PUD or the RPN
approach rather than the rezoning request.
Mr. Tucker stated that yes, that approach would be the better one.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission had some hesitancy in plunging into
a rezoning of 1600 acres.
t1r. Charles Beagle stated that the area in which this development was
proposed was one of many fine farm ham es, and of Scenic Highways Routes 6 & 20.
This area would not be compatible with the proposal.
Dr. Easter asked whether approval of this would be considered urban sprawl.
rr. Tucker stated that it would involve expansion of the urban area.
Mr. Paul Hill stated that the subdivision Hillcrest had been refused because
it did not have adequate water and sewage facilities. He stated that this
(14)
too should be refused until adequate water and sewage facilities could be brought
in.
Marian Ross stated that the burden should be on the developer to act in
the best interests of the County, and stating that the area would "be developed
anyway" was a false assumption.
Dorothy Speidel stated that she urged the Planning Commission to keep the
Board's decision in mind.
Mr. Carr stated he and Mr. Tucker had met privately with Mr. Breeden in an
effort to arrest some problemswhich were being discussed at this meeting.
Mrs. Graves asked how large Barracks Road Shopping Center was.
Mr. Carr answered that it was 40 acres.
1,,7rs. Graves stated that then this development would be larger, an exorbitant
amount of commercial property.
AIr. Carr stated he was not prepared to rezone to Bl, that he had reservations
about rezoning to Rl.
Mr. Easter stated there was not a demand for this much business in this area.
The consensus of the Commission was that they would not support this application.
He moved denial of the petition with the recommendation that they come back with
an RPN or PUD request. An alternative he offered to Breeden was of allowing
him to withdraw without prejudice.
Mr. Breeden stated that his attorney had recommended that he reapply with
an RPN request, and therefore requested withdrawal without prejudice.
Mr. Easter moved that the Commission accept the request for withdrawal
without prejudice.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
. Richard and Mattie Green final plat
Mrs. Scala read the Staff Report.
Mx. Richard Green was present.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat, subject to no further subdivision
without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
19
Guntrop final plat:
I,Irs. Scala gave the Staff Report.
-_ J
(15)
Mike Boggs represented the applicant.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat, subject to no further subdivision without
`Manning Commission approval, and the location of the easement to be surveyed.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Spradlin final plat.
Mrs. Scala gave the Staff Report.
Mr. Boggs represented the applicant. He stated that they intended to retain
the acres in the rear of the property, and to sell the pipestem to Robert Coles
Mr. Smith, who was to buy some property, could not get an immediate loan, but
has entered an agreement to purchase it within the next two years.
Mr. Gloeckner asked why there was so much concern over the small strip.
Mrs. Graves stated that the Ordinance states that they may not create
unbuildable lots.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval, including conditions 2 and 3 of the Staff Report,
but omitting the first condition that the 100' strip should be added to and
become a part of either the Coles property of the 15-acre parcel.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The motion was carried with five Ayes: Carr, Easter, Gloeckner, Barksdale,
Washington. Nos: Graves, Peatross, Jones.
Alwood redivision final plat:
Mrs. Scala gave the Staff Report.
Mr. Dalgliesh stated that he has a one -family residence on Parcel C, and
intends to put one -family dwelling on the existing parcels by division of
the parcels. He owns Parcels A and B with a partnership. They are zoned R-2.
Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant would like to put another house on
Parcel A.
Mx. Dalgliesh stated that he wanted PS1 zoning for Bl and B2, and wanted to
leave Parcels A and C zoned R2.
Mrs. Graves stated that RS1 zoning would be reasonable due to the terrain.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to approve the redivision of Parcel B into Bl and B2,
and that a 20' right-of-way be maintained by the 5 owners using the driveway
at a standard acceptable to all parties. Uso subject to no further sii�i_vision
without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
(16)
Fowler Subdivision:
Mrs. Scala gave the Staff Report. She stated that one house was built
on the first lot.
Mr. Easter asked that the applicant make an effort at using a joint entrance
which would be safer.
Mr. Easter stated that he had no problem with approving this plat. He
moved approval with a recommendation for use of joint entrances, sublect to front
setback and correct zoning shown.
Mr. Carr recommended that the maximum possible setback be imposed..
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
W. Tucker, Jr.,
Ern
337
June 29, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on
Tuesday, June 29, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building.
Those members present at the beginning of the meeting were Mr. David Carr,
Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Col.william Washington; Mr. Leslie Jones; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Paul Peatross.
Those arriving after the meeting began were Mrs. Joan Graves and Mrs. Opal
David, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Minutes of June 22:
The Chairman approved the minutes of this meeting subject to the corrections
of Mr. Payne, Mr. Peatross, Mr. Jones, and Col. Washington.
Black Industries Site Plan - Route 250 East at Route 794:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving
the room.
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that action had been deferred
from June 15, 1976, until the applicant could be present. She repeated the
background information on the site plan, stating that the variance would still
be considered in effect if an amended site plan were approved and accomplished
( this is the site plan before the Commission ).
The revised site plan shows a new commercial entrance on Route 794 and
shows the two previous entrances into the parking area screened and closed with
white pines.
Staff made the following recommendations:
1. If the existing chain link fence is to be retained, it should be repaired so
that it is not falling down;
2. The woven material should extend the full length of the fence along Route 250
( north side ), the west side and Route 794 ( south side );
3. The height and number of white pine trees should be spelled out. Staff suggested
4' high white pines approximately 15' o.c. This would be 10 trees on the
south side and 6 on the north side. In lieu of the white pines, it has been
suggested by adjacent owners that the woven screen fence be extended to completely
enclose the parking area. This would be to eliminate maintenance problems with
the trees, also to eliminate trespassing on adjacent property.
( Mrs. David entered the meeting. )
338
Mr. Bo Puryear, representing the applicant, stated that Black Industries
is ready to comply with all the recommendations of the staff.
Mr. Jones asked if the woven fence will surround the property.
( Mrs. Graves entered the meeting. )
Mr. Puryear stated that to extend the fence around the property in lieu
of the pines would be very expensive.
Mr. Bickers of Black Industries said that he would be willing to fence the
entire site, but preferred the pine trees.
Mr. Easter stated that he had recently viewed the site and that he is
concerned with this particular piece of property. He observed a lot of clean-up
work on the site when compared to the pictures presented to the Commission at the
previous meeting. If the fence is repaired, the pines planted, and manager
keeps trash from being dumped on the property, he was in favor of approving the
site plan. He noted that the manager had stated that he would be willing to
maintain the site in the future.
Mr. Jones, one of the adjacent property owners to the northeast of the
site said that he has been concerned about the machinery that has been dumped
on his property. He stated that he does not want this to happen in the future.
Mr. Carr asked if there is still considerable debris on the property.
Mr. Bickers said that this would not happen in the future and he apologized
for trash being dumped on the Jones property.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Existing chain link fence should be repaired so that it is not falling down;
2. The woven material should extend the full length of the fence along Route 250
( north side ), the west side, and Route 794 ( south side);
3. Height and Number of white pine trees should be specified as 4' high and 15'
on center. This would be ten (10) trees on the south side and six (6) trees
on the north side;
4. Any trash or abandonned machinery should be removed from the adjacent property to
the reasonable satisfaction of the present owner, Mr. Richard Jones.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Carr asked the applicant to remove the debris from Mr. Jones' property
and also not to move it back onto the property owned by Black Industries.
The motion to approve the site plan carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner returned to the meeting.
9
339
Mildred Anderson - I-64 Service Road at Route 250 East. One 3.256-acre
parcel on existing right-of-way:
The applicant requested approval of existing rights -of -way to serve one
3.256-acre parcel. One right-of-way is 50' in width beginning at the service
road. The second right-of-way which serves the WCHV radio towers is unspecified
in width. There is a note on the plat regarding no further division. Mrs. Scala,
in this report, also stated that the surveyor's seal is needed.
The staff made the following additional comments:
1. Plat should be approved subject to Health Department approval;
2. Width of right-of-way ( log road ) should be specified.
Mr. Forbes Reback, representing the applicant, stated that the owner
wishes to give this 3 plus acres to a cousin - it is designated on the plat as
Parcel Z. No further subdivision of this property is planned. He also explained
that the right-of-way is used by Mrs. Livers to get to her house.
Johnny Livers, representing his mother, stated that he has no objection
to the request, but asked that anyone else using the road should have to share in
the maintenance of the right-of-way.
Mr. Carr told Mr. Livers that under the circumstances he did not feel
that the Planning Commission could address this problem.
Mr. Reback said that he is almost positive that such maintenance is provided
for in the deed; however, in order to determine this, he would need to go to his
office to check the deed.
Mr. Carr told him that this is not necessary.
Mr. Payne said that he did not necessarily agree that the Commission could
not require the maintenance agreement. He said that this request requires a waiver
of the subdivision ordinance, and such maintenance could be addressed at this point.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the right-of-way be specified as 30 feet.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Width of right-of-way to be specified as thirty (30) feet;
3. Surveyor's seal to be added to the plat;
4. Satisfactory maintenance agreement of right-of-way to be reached among the
applicant, Mrs. Livers and Clay Broadcasting Corporation.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Michael R. McAdoo final plat - Route 610 - division of 20 acres into two
10-acre parcels served by 50' access easement:
In the staff report, Mrs. Scala pointed out to the Commission that the
preliminary plat had been approved in March, 1976. She stated that there is a note
on the plat regarding no further subdivision.
340
Conditions of approval recommended by the staff were:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Plat must have surveyor's seal.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to these recommendations.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously with no discussion.
D and N Development Corporation - request appeal of condition of approval
of previously approved subdivision plat:
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that the final plat was approved on May 18
subject to several conditions. One condition was that the width and location of
the existing right-of-way be spelled out on the plat ( from Route 604 to the Shifflett
property ). The applicant requested appeal of this condition. The staff did not,
however, recommend lifting this condition.
Mr. Gloeckner asked what the problem actually is.
Mr. Ken Montero, attorney representing the applicant, stated that the applicant
as well as the purchasers have tried to negotiate with the Shiffletts regarding
the width and location of the right-of-way, but to no avail. He pointed out that
the easement is not a "straight shot" to Route 604. The applicant and purchaser
suggested moving the right-of-way to the side of the property; they also suggested
other alternatives to the Shiffletts but they are not agreeable to moving it or to
specifying its width.
Mr. Jones asked why they did not wish to move it.
Mr. Montero explained that the land is currently in cultivation and they
did not feel that under these circumstances it would be to their advantage to move it.
Mrs. Graves asked if all adjoining property owners, including the Shiffletts,
had been notified of the meeting, since none were present.
Mrs. Scala stated that all parties had been properly notified.
Mr. Carr asked if there is any way to create the easement on paper and•then
use as it is.
Mr. Payne stated that the Shiffletts would not agree to this either.
Mr. Easter stated that if the condition is waived, the problem will arise
at a later date. He said that he felt that it should be specified.
Mr. Payne said that the Planning Commission has a legitimate interest in knowing
the size of the easement width. He said that it is possible to establish the width
and location, even though it might be litigated in the future. He emphasized that
it can be established. He said that legally there is an easement, but the point I�Id
is to decide if from a planning standpoint it needs to be wider.
Mr. Barksdale suggested the condition of no further subdivision without Commission
approval.
341
Col. Washington asked how the easement exists.
Mr. Montero gave a history of the deeds including the facts of the right-of-way.
He also pointed out that a fair amount of property is fairly steep and not developable.
Mr. Jones asked if the matter could be deferred until there is input from
the Shiffletts.
Mr. Montero assured the Commission that this would be an exercise of futility.
He reminded the Commission that they have been notified of the request. He stated
that he needed Commission action in order to proceed with the closing for the purchasers.
Mr. Peatross asked if the existing right-of-way is passable.
Mr. Montero stated that it is, but grass will have to be cut.
Mrs. Graves asked if the Shiffletts could eventually litigate against parties
who moved to the back property.
Mr. Montero said that this is possible, but perhaps that once the Shiffletts
became acquainted with their new neighbors, a settlement might be reached.
Mr. Peatross emphasized that the question is the width of the right-of-way.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if for planning purposes the width, position, or both
are needed.
He was informed that both are needed.
Dr. Moore asked if the easement will be improved if the property is further
subdivided.
Mr. Carr pointed out that there has been an effort to resolve the problem
with the Shiffletts, but that the problem should be defined as requested by the
staff. He asked what the status would be if the Commission decided to deny waiving
the condition.
Mr. Montero stated that the matter would again be at the negotiation stage.
Mr. Payne said that the court can define the rights of both D and N and the
Shiffletts and the court can specify the width of the easement.
Mr. Gloeckner said that it appeared to him to be a difficult matter to specify
the width of a right-of-way over which the Commission has no control. The problem
is getting with the third party.
Mr. Carr stated that the width of this right-of-way should have been specified
at a previous sale, rather than at this time.
Mr. Montero stated that this condition is beyond the control of D and N,
sellers and purchasers have tried to negotiate , and he felt that this should be
kept in mind when a decision was made.
Mr. Carr said that he felt every member of the Commission understood that
negotiations had taken place.
342
Mr. Montero again reminded the Commission that he is not arguing the
location of the easement.
Mr. Easter asked if it is approved contingent to the location of the
easement, can it be placed on the plat.
Mr. Montero said that it could.
Mr. Easter suggested deferring action until there could be a meeting
with the staff, Planning Commission members, the applicant, and the Shiffletts.
Mr. Peatross stated that it is not the responsibility of the Commission
to do such negotiations.
Mr. Easter then asked if the staff's recommendations remained the same
after the input of the evening.
Mr. Tucker said that it is still the staff's opinion that the width and
location should be specified, since it will have to be done sometime, and this
is a better time than when there are houses on the back property.
Mr. Gleockner moved that the request to waive the condition of specifying
the width and location of the existing right-of-way be denied.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Mr. Montero asked that since the request was denied, if the Commission
would recommend a width for the right-of-way, thus making his negotiations
somewhat less difficult.
Mrs. Scala said that it would need to be wide enough for a car to pass.
Mr. Tucker said that the staff would recommend 25-30 feet.
Mr. Carr agreed, stating that 25 feet would be absolute minimum.
Mr. Easter also pointed out for the applicant that a precedent regarding
this has already been established.
At Mr. Carr's request, Mr. Tucker reviewed for the Commission the progress
the County has made in choosing a consultant to review the Comprehensive Plan.
He stated that Mr. Agnor has been authorized to enter into a contract with the
firm of KDA, Reston, Virginia. He stated that for all intents and purposes, a
tentative agreement has been reached, and the firm has begun work. The staff has
mailed KDA all the input received at the nine public hearings regarding the
Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the County hopes, in the next two weeks,
to have a contract signed - the County Attorney is currently reviewing the KDA
contract. He stated that the County has applied for 701 funds, and it appears
that approximately two-thirds of the reviewing costs will be covered by these
funds. He felt that the County is on schedule regarding this matter.
Tt,C
343
Mr. Tucker then presented to the Commission a memo regarding streamlining
Commission meetings, which suggested administrative approval of site plans,
subject to stringent review lines. He asked the Commission to carefully review
the memo, make suggestions, and discuss at a later date.
Mrs. Graves asked when this item would be on the Planning Commission's agenda.
Mr. Tucker suggested the second meeting in July.
Mrs. Graves stated that this matter is very important to her and she will
be out of town from the llth to the 25th.
A discussion followed and the Commission members were agreeable to setting
a special meeting at 4:30 p.m., Thursday, July 8, 1976, County Executive's
Conference Room.
Mr. Carr stated that since the Commission already has several hours invested
in this particular topic, that the meeting should be over by the dinner hour.
Mrs. Graves asked that all the individuals and citizen groups on the mailing
list be mailed a copy of the agenda for the July 8th meeting.
Mobile Home Work Session:
Mr. Tucker called the Commission's attention to his memo of February
regarding this particular issue, stating that the staff supports mobile homes
in mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions. He stated that the staff
does not consider this an unreasonable suggestion, especially since it is
being done in adjoining counties and all over the country. He stated that
the staff feels this suggestion should be done via an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance, and that even though it needs refining, the article from the
Proposed Zoning Ordinance of approximately one year ago is a good starting place.
He also reminded the Commission of the letter from the County Attorney's Office
stating the certain conditions placed on special permits, especially mobile
homes, are not legal - thus making the special permit process unsuitable for
mobile home placement. He stated that a viable ordinance needs to be provided
to cover the mobile home issue.
Mr. Jones stated that assuming this ordinance is adopted, it should provide
sufficient space between the units, especially to make the parks as safe as
possible.
Mrs. Graves asked if Mr. Wendell Wood were notified about this work session,
since he is particularly interested in this matter.
Mr. Tucker stated that Mr. Wood is on the Planning Department's mailing list.
Mr. Easter asked if the staff has heard from other localities where there
is a mobile home ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said that there has been no input from such as to effectiveness
in those areas.
Mr. Easter then asked if this ordinance, if adopted, would pose any special
hardships.
344
Mr. Tucker responded that this, as with the initial stages of anything,
will pose some problems. However, as citizens become accustomed to the
new requirements, and the newness wears off, the ordinance will probably work.
Mr. Payne emphasized to the Commission that there is a difference in the
emergency use from the current special permit process for a mobile home. He
stated that there should be some sort of provision for the emergency clause,
since this is considered to be a hardship case on a temporary basis.
Mr. Barksdale stated that the problem he has with this proposal is what
is fair and reasonable. It is his opinion that this is the way that many
young people use to purchase a conventional home. He stated that he is not even
sure the emergency use is possible, because an individual can rent on a temporary
basis usually cheaper than he can purchase a mobile home.
Mr. Gloeckner expressed concern over the depreciation of mobile homes,
and asked if the life -span of a mobile home is approximately 10 years.,
Mrs. Virginia Bukrim, an individual in the mobile home business,
presented two pamphlets on different types of mobile homes. She pointed out that
not many mobile homes, unles "used", sell for $5,000 today. She stated that
as of June 15, 1976, HUD has established new guidelines for mobile home
builders and manufacturers. She stated that the condition regarding time limits
for mobile home placement will soon be tested. She is of the opinion that when a mobile
home is attached to a well and septic system, and has the utilities such as
electricity provided, that it becomes fixed real estate.
Mr. Carr stated that in this county it is not taxed to real estate,
rather comes under the heading "personal property."
Mrs. Bukrim said that in the past values of mobile homes have been governed
by wholesale and retail books, just like automobiles, but not anymore. She stated
that henceforth there will be a 3 percent tax that will come into the locality
as a real estate tax. With a permanent foundation, mobile homes are even now
taxed as real estate ( these were double -wide units to which she was referring ).
She said that this type of housing is attractive to not only the young, but
also the middle-aged and retired. She said that by 1980, the government predicts
that 99 percent of the housing will be prefabricated ( this will be more than just
mobile homes, and will include modulars, sectionals, etc. ). She also presented
to the Commission brochures on other low cost housing. Some of the houses are
constructed under the ANSI Code, while others are constructed under the BOCA
Code.
Mr. Carr felt that there are many sides to the mobile home issue, but
stated that spotting of mobile homes in a county that is 95 percent rural is
undesirable.
Mrs. Bukrim suggested mobile home subdivisions adhere to the same
restrictions as conventional sinlge-family dwelling subdivisions, where there
would be streets, signs, sidewalks, etc.
Mr. Easter asked if among the individual mobile home dealers there
is strong opposition to this sort of zoning.
She stated that there is.
345
Mr. Easter then asked if the state association of mobile home dealers has
taken a stand on this issue.
She said that they, too, oppo
se such legislation.
Mr. Easter felt that this type of ordinance would encourage upgrading
parks, subdivisons, etc.
Mrs. Bukrim suggested to the Commission that it would be desirable to
have a package deal where one could purchase the land as well as the mobile home.
Mr. Goode Love said that potential buyers should be given the option of
purchasing the site as well as the mobile home. He suggested such subdivisions
with public water and sewer and open space in approximately four outlying areas
of the county.
Mr. Gloeckner said that if they were taxed as real estate, public utilities
would be covered in the taxes. He reminded the Commission that the special permits
for mobile homes have always been emotional, with adjacent owners usually objecting.
Mrs. Graves asked if there is a mobile home subdivision in the county.
Mr. Tucker said "no," but there is one park that has central well with
individual septic systems.
Mr. Carr said that if the ordinance is amended, that it will mean private
systems for sewer and water. The Commission and Board will then have to look more
favorably on such private systems.
Mr. Tucker suggested that central drain systems and central wells in such
subdivisions and parks might be desirable.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that in view of the statistics regarding current
mobile home parks in the county, perhaps the answer is to keep
them small.
Mr. Tucker agreed that the bigger the court, the bigger the turnover.
Mr. Love said that in his own personal survey, that the major complaint
of residents of such parks is the management.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that if such mobile home subdivisions were created,
that they should observe the same density requirements as conventional subdivisions
or cluster subdivisions. He suggested that the Commission begin working with the
staff's proposal and take the matter to public hearing.
Mr. Easter moved the Commission adopt the following resolution of intent:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission intends to recommend to the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors that:
ty Zoning Ordinance be amended;
(1) Section 11-9 of the Albemarle Coun
d to
(2) Section 11-14 of the
AlbemarleCounty
homesonly
placement of individual as armeans cofbinterimehousing during
construction of conventional single-family dwellings; and
(3) the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance provide for mobile home subdivisons
in all residential zones.
346
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves questioned if the intent is to repeal mobile home placement
in the A-1 zone.
Mr. Tucker said that this was covered by the motion.
With no further discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to adopt
the above resolution of intent.
Height regulations in the RPN Zone:
Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission that through a resolution of intent
the Board has asked the Commission to examine the question of height by right in
the RPN zone and to provide such recommendation to the Board at the earliest possible
date. In the staff report it was noted that the staff supports the current 65 foot
height limitation for the following reasons:
1. Height is controlled by site review in the application process. Appropriateness
of proposed heights can be evaluated by the staff, Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors in this process.
2. Fire Marshal regulations will restrict taller buildings to locations where
water for required fire flows would be available.
3. Combined with item number 2, density limitations would make taller buildings
impractical in the A-1 zone and rural areas of the County.
4. Fivrastoreys is most economical for provision of elevators. Elevators are appro-
priate in structures for the elderly and handicapped.
5. Staff views taller structures as a trade-off for open space.
6. Market conditions will control the number of tall building proposals.
7. Staff maintains the provisions of the RPN zone should be liberal and that the
applications and review process should be as uncomplicated as possible. The
RPN was designed for flexibility and variety in residential design. In staff
opinion, reducing the height limitations could: increase development costs and
consequently housing costs; increase adverse environmental impact, during and after
development; reduce open space; and reduce the desirability of the RPN designation.
To alleviate any fears that anyone might have of seeing the rural areas of the
County developed in medium -rise buildings, the staff suggested the following wording
for Section 19-7-1:
The height of buildings shall be in accordance with the zone applied for, except
in those areas or instances deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission or Board
of Superviosrs, the height of buildings may be permitted to a maximum of sixty-five
feet.
Mrs. Graves asked how the height could be controlled at the site plan level, if the
concept has already been approved, and the RPN permits 65 feet.
347
Mr. Tucker stated that the Commission and Board would have to state,
65 feet is not appropriate, and it could not be an arbitrary matter.
Mrs. Dorothy Speidel, speaking on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle,
reminded the Commission that RPN's are provided for in all residential zones,
including those now allowing only single family dwellings. She asked that the
Commission and the Board reduce the maximum height allowed by right to 35 feet
in the A-1, RS-1, R-1 zones, and perhaps in the R-2 zone. She also requested
that a maximum height of 50 feet be allowed through the special permit process when
it is felt by the governing body that a height greater than 35 feet is desirable
due to special circumstances, such as adjoining land that is R-3 of B-1.
Mr. Easter asked if cutting the height from 65 feet to 50 feet will impose
any hardship on the developer.
There was no discussion on this matter.
Mr. Peatross stated that he has no problem with the 65 feet and then it
can be limited by the special permit process.
Mr. Gloeckner and Mr. Jones agreed that there is no need to provide for
a height that cannot be adequately covered by fire protection.
Mr. Payne stated that perhaps the wording might be as follows:
"No building shall exceed 35 feet in height; provided, that the Board of Supervisors
may permit one or more buildings within any district established hereunder to exceed
thirty-five (35) feet, but not more than sixty-five feet, upon a finding by the
Board that such additionWheight
characbercandadebelopmentthe
of phelic health, neighborhoodsafety
and general welfare and ith
Mrs. Graves moved that this wording be adopted as a resolution of intent
to amend the RPN zone and be brought to public hearing at the earliest possible
date.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Tucker stated that if this wording is adopted that the A-1 zone is
covered without amendment.
There was no discussion on the motion, which carried unanimously.
Frontage setback in the A-1 Zone:
After the staff report was presented, Mr. Easter suggested that the
setback be 75 feet from the pavement.
Mr. Carr said that would be too hard to describe.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested it be 75 feet from the centerline of the highway.
Mr. Easter stated that his suggestion was really 75 feet from the right-of-way.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that if the 75 feet from the right-of-way is
observed that the 100 foot driveway that will result from the setback will cost
$375.
Mrs. Selden reminded the Commission that a greater setback means more
valuable property, and also more attractive property.
Col. Washington said that he does not feel that the motoring public
and aesthetics should be accommodated if the greater setback means less usable
property for the owner. He said that he does not want to take away land that
is not to be used. This unusable land land becomes more expensive. He said
that he supported the setback of 75 feet from the centerline of the highway.
Mr. Easter moved that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to
amend the A-1 zone to provide for a frontage setback of 75 feet from the right-of-way
and take the matter to public hearings.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion, and it carried by a vote of 8-1,
with Mr. Gloeckner dissenting.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
o ert W. Tucker, Jr. - S retar
9
349
July 6, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on
Tuesday, July 6, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present at the beginning of the meeting were Mr. David
Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Paul Peatross; and Mr. Leslie Jones. Those members arriving
after the meeting began were Col. William Washington and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio.
Absent was Dr. James W. Moore.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Minutes of June 29, 1976:
Mr. Jones noted that he had been the first to address the question of fire
protection in the RPN height regulation discussion and asked that the minutes be
more specific in the future.
Mr. Carr told him that he would have another opportunity to address this
matter when it came to public hearing. The chairman stated that the minutes stood
approved as presented.
Mr. Easter stated that he had reviewed the minutes of the June 22 meeting
and asked that the statement regarding water lines from Westmoreland to Rio Road,
suggesting that the County absorb this expense, be struck. He stated that this
was not his intent at all.
zMA-11-76. W. F. Paulett and Son, Inc., request to rezone 2.186 acres
from B-1 and R-1 to M-1. South Side of Route 6. County Tax Map 130-A-1,
Parcels 64 and 65, both parts thereof. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
( Col. Washington arrived at the meeting. )
Mr. Keeler stated that the staff, since the staff report was mailed out,
has received a letter of support from Mr. Ambrose Payne and one letter of oppostion
from Mrs. Pauline P. Mayo. There was also a petition of 18 signatures in opposition
to the request submitted to the Planning Department. Mr. Keeler also pointed out
to the Commission that Route 6 and Route 20 will be considered by the Board of
Supervisors for scenic designation.
( Mrs. David arrived at the meeting. )
Mr. Ed Mahony briefly explained the Scottsville on the James Plan to the
Commission - this is a plan explaining the plans for flood control. He said that
he holds a neutral position on this application, but wanted to make sure that
the Commission is aware there is a plan and that the plan is underway.
350
Mr. David Wood, attorney representing the applicant, told the Commission
that the applicant has been a long and faithful citizen of the Scottsville
44)
community ( since 1914 ). He gave a brief history of the business, pointing
out that it has been flooded many times, and that the biggest disaster was in
February, 1976, when the business was destroyed by fire. He stated that the
business wants to re -locate away from the flood area. He noted such uses
as a paving company and a shopping center on surrounding property to the proposed
rezoning site. He stated that the business is a small rural, hardware/building
supply business. Mr. Wood told the Commission that it is difficult to find such
a use described in the Zoning Ordinance. It is possible, he pointed out, that B-1
zoning would satisfy this use. The Zoning Department, he said, had recommended
the application be for M-1 zoning. Two sketches of the property showing plans
for its use were presented to the Commission. He stated that the building will
be a metal building
,on the eastern end of the property. The shed is to be used
for storage of lumber. The western end of the property is for storage of culvert,
brick, and cinderblock. An opaque fence is planned for the perimeter of the property.
He acknowledged the objections, noting that it is really nine couples, rather than
18 individual signatures. He stated that of these nine, only three can see the
applicant's property from their residences. He presented a petition of approximately
200 signatures in support of the request. He stated that it appears that the citizens
Of Scottsville would need this business for the community. Mr. Wood reminded the
Commission that the adjoining property is zoned B-1. He stated that the adjacent
property owner to the south, Mr. Payner,supports the request; the property owner to
the west, Mrs. Marshal, had voiced opposition, but since that time has viewed
the site and learned of the fence and storage plans - he said that he understands
she no longer opposes the request, but asked that she speak for herself since she
is a member of the audience. On behalf of the applicant, he asked that the
Commission recommend approval of the request to the Board, expecially due to
past hardships of the applicant and their desire to relocate immediately. He stated
that this is the area that the Board had designated for commercial use.
Mr. Hayden Anderson said that the business is desperate to relocate and can
see no reasons for the property being objectionable. At this time the business is
operating out of seven different locations. He stated that the business has made
a down payment on the property, which might not be refundable and there has also
been a considerable investment in attorney's fees.
Mr. Chester Baker, an owner of a large farm adjacent the Scottsville city
limits, recognized the historical significance of Scottsville, but stated that he
felt the town should still be permitted to grow. He stated that this applicant
has already played a large part in the community's growth and has been an asset
to the community. He stated that they can better serve the community if they are
allowed to relocate. He stated that the business has been a satisfactory neighbor
to the Methodist Church for many years as well as to the whole neighborhood. He
urged that the Commission approve the request.
Mr. James Gladwin, the general contractor for the building, said that he is
available for any questions concerning the structure that will be built on the property.
The rector of the Episcopal Church, located down the road from subject property,
stated that a great portion of the parcel is already zoned business. He pointed
out the fact that this is a local business and that it would be a better neighbor
than an out of town business. He said that he has no objection to the proposal as
long as it is properly landscaped and as long as the fence is built, as proposed.
351
Mr. Carr stated that the applicant would have to submit a site plan and
that landscaping would have to be addressed at that time.
Mr. Edward Payne, original owner of the land in question, stated that he
had sold the land to the shopping center. He felt that since this land is practically
in his back door, that if it is used properly by the applicant, that it will be an
asset to the community. He felt that if anyone would have an objection, it would be
he, but that he is in favor of the proposal.
Mr. David Wood stated that to rezone the land in two different zones would
deprive the applicant use of it.
Mrs. Cleveland said that the business will be coming into a residential
area and that it will change the character of the neighborhood. She said, however,
she does not object to the applicant, only his proposed use of it. She said that
she is further concerned about the traffic situation. The shopping center area
is currently being abused at late hours.
Mr. H. H. Paul said that this is a very conspicuous use of the property,
and there is really no effective way to screen the use from nearby residential
areas. He said that the owners of the operation are fine people, but he wished
they would choose a different location.
Mr. Gilbert Summers said that he does not want this area to turn into
a manufacturing area and that the proposed use is not in keeping with a rural
historic area.
Mrs. Stone objected to a business in a residential area.
Mrs. Selden said that she recognizes the hardships of the applicant in
trying to relocate. She asked that the Commission consider this use's impact
on Route 6 which will be considered soon for scenic designation.
Mrs. Ruth Marshal said that her concern is the type of uses that will
follow, though she is not particularly concerned about this particular use.
She said that since the fire was due to an arsonist, she is concerned that he
will strike again. She wishes the land in that area could maintain a residential
character.
Mr. Jones asked if there are any specific plans for light manufacturing
in the Scottsville on the James Plan.
Mr. Mahoney said that there are no specific plans.
Mr. Keeler pointed out to the Commission and the public the land proposed
in the comprehensive plan for such uses.
Mrs. Graves asked which of the permitted uses in the M-1 zone covers this
proposal.
Mr. Keeler said that the application was submitted under Section 8-1-15
of the Zoning Ordinance, which calls for outside storage. He stated that the
Zoning Administrator had initialed approval of the application.
Mr. Carr suggested that it might fit in the B-1 zone with a special use
permit.
352
Mr. Keeler said that Section 7-1-14 or Section 7-1-42.5 could cover
the request, except for the outside storage.
Mr. Easter asked if there is a mill -workshop.
Mr. Anderson stated that one day he hopes to have one in the large building
that is proposed, but that the noise factor will be no greater than an air -conditioner,
for the type that is proposed.
Mr. Peatross questioned the effect Riverside Drive would have on this property.
Mr. Mahoney said that since Riverside Drive would pull the traffic out of
the town area, that it would probably enhance the value of this property.
Mr. Jones asked if when the shopping center was planned that room for this
particular use was set aside.
One of the owners stated that the business could not plan on this move after
the flood.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that only one business from the flood area moved to
the shopping center.
Mrs. Graves questioned what use in the urban area of Albemarle County is
comparable to this business.
Mr. Anderson said that his is a very small business and that he was flattered
to be asked what it could be compared to - on a very small scale, Phillips Building
Supply, though he has never visited this business.
Mr. Keeler said that Phillip's has M-1 zoning, and that Lowe's has B-1 zoning.
Mr. Wood stated that there are reasons that they were told to apply for the
M-1, rather than the B-1 zoning.
in comparison to
Mr. Peatross asked / the original business, before the fire, how much
the applicant intends to expand.
Mr. Anderson said that it will be on a much smaller scale than the original
business, since he had three floors in the old business. He said that such square
footage for the new business was prohibited because of cost. He said that any
future expansion will depend on his profits.
Mr. Peatross questioned if just the B-1 zoned area could be used.
Mr. Wood said that the applicant cannot use just that area, since it is
not large enough to accommodate the use.
Mr. Payne stated that the Zoning Administrator is correct in his interpretation
of the ordinance in that the applicant needs M-1 zoning for its use in order to
be conforming. He/that "yard" implies outside storage.
said
Mrs. Graves asked about section 8-2-2 of the Ordinance in regard to this
request.
Mr. Payne said that he thought this section had been repealed. He said that
if it has not been, that Article 17 takes over anyway.
353
Mr. Keeler said that Section 8-2-2 has been repealed.
Mr. Carr said that there or 5 basic issues in considering this request:
1. fact that Scottsville business district is on the move;
2. area proposed is primarily a residential area;
3. the effect the proposed business will have on Routes 6 and 20, which may
be considered for scenic designation; - this
4. perhaps there should be a buffer on the Willis side of the property
concerns him because the applicant stated that he needs the use of all the property;
5. effect of the future road on this property.
Col. Washington stated that he supports the request as submitted.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he too supports the request, especially in view
of the hardships that the business has experienced. He pointed out that there seems
to be a trend in business moving to that area.
Mr. Jones expressed opposition to the request, especially since it may
set a precedent for more objectionable rezoning requests in the future. He said
that he would support a request for a special use permit in the B-1 zone.
Mr. Peatross said that he, too, supports the request as submitted. He said
that he feels it conforms to the intent of the M-1 zone. He stated that the business
has to go somewhere, and this is a business community, with the shopping center across
the street.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the land that is currently zoned R-1 and B-1 be
rezoned to M-1 as submitted.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion to approve.
Mrs. Graves said that she cannot support the request because a buffer to
the residential area needs to be retained.
Mr. Payne stated that such a buffer, with landscaping or whatever, will be
addressed at the site plan level under Section 17-5-20 of the ordinance.
Mrs. Graves agreed that this is correct.
Mr. Easter said that he supports the request, but at site plan level, he
hopes the applicant will come forth with a great deal of screening, planting. He
also hopes that the applicant will be a good neighbor and will keep the storage
area immaculate. He stated that he was swayed to vote for the request because of
previous hardships and that he sympathizes with the concerns of the adjoining property
owners.
The vote to approve was by a 6-2 vote, with Mrs. Graves and Mr. Jones dissenting.
SP-36-76. Wakefield Fennel, Inc., and Barry G. Doff lemyer request expansion
of existing corcuaercial kennel on 16.87 acres zoned A-1. Northwest side of
Route 660, 4 mile northwest of the intersection at Earlysville. County Tax
Map 31, Parcel 47A, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
354
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the staff recommended
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Expansion limited to 26 runs as proposed on the site sketch;
2. A minimum of nine (9) parking spaces to be provided;
3. Dogs shall be enclosed within the building for specified hours at night.
Mr. Carr asked the applicant if he felt there was a conflict of interests
on the part of the chairman.
Mr. Dofflemyer stated that he would leave that wholly up to the chairman.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not feel he had a conflict.
Mr. Dofflemyer stated that he is seeking to expand his kennel by 50 percent.
Mr. Ken Montero, representing the Woods, stated that his clients are
concerned with the manner that the kennel is operated and they are also concerned
about the traffic the expansion will generate. They expressed concern about
the easement Mr. Dofflemyer has, since it is used by their children and their
horses. He stated that the Woods have observed that customers of the kennel
come in at high speeds, pass the well -screened kennel, and go all the way
to their residence to turn around to return to the kennel. They expressed
concern about the dogs near their horses . If the application is approved,
they request some sort of noise abatement. They also ask that the applicant
be responsible for upkeep of his signs and place signs such that customers
will avoid trespassing on their property.
Mr. Dan Winter, a client of the kennel, stated that the applicant cannot
be blamed for the condition of the road. He stated that there is adequate
signing to the kennel as well as "slow" signs, which should keep people from
traveling on to the Wood property. He stated that he has also observed the
applicant maintaining the road. He supported the application.
Mr. Montero stated that the road situation could be corrected with compacting.
Mr. Jones stated that he has been to the site and that it would be ridiculous
for a vehicle to travel at high speeds on the road. He ascertained that the property
and business are adequately signed, and that it is well kept. He said that with
a few additional specifications and more POSTED signs that he supported the request,
especially since it is in a good location.
Mr. Carr asked who owns the road.
Mr. Montero stated that the Woods own it, and that there are four easements,
including Mr. Woods, along it.
Mr. Carr asked if all who have easements live along it.
Mr. Montero stated that this is correct.
Mr. Barksdale asked if all these people share in the road's maintenance.
Mr. Dofflemyer stated that he has requested a joint maintenance agreement
on several occasions, but that he himself does a great deal of the maintenance
work at his own expense. He stated that he pays for 100 percent of the road
maintenance at the kennel.
355
Mrs. Graves asked the applicant if he considered condition #3 suggested by
the staff to be reasonable.
Mr. Dofflemyer stated that he always confines the dogs at night, but that
no dog should be confined for 12 hours without exercise.
Mrs. Graves suggested that the hours could be from 10:00 p.m, to 7:00 a.m.
Mr. Dofflemyer said that 6:00 a.m. would be agreeable to him. He said that
he also wished to point out to the Commission that the Woods purchased their property
the
after his kennel was there, and
Heafeltethatrtheyare weref aware atttheatimegofwpurchase
be somewhat near their horses
of all the pros and cons of being located near a kennel.
Mr. Carr asked if there are any rules regarding the road maintenance.
Mr. Payne stated that with no road maintenance agreement, that whoever wished
to maintain the road could, without assistance from others.
Col. Washington asked how many parking spaces are there now.
Mr. Dofflemyer stated that he has room for eight vehicles.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the request, stating that condition #3 recommended
by the staff should include the hours 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. He also stated that
his motion was conditioned upon the other two conditions recommended by the staff_.
Col. Washington seconded the motion. There was no discussion on the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr stated that he feels that it is reasonable to have a joint maintenance
agreement for the road and he asked that Mr. Montero be the catalyst of this agreement.
( Mr. Gloeckner returned to the meeting. )
ZTA-06-76. James E. Brewer requests amending the Zoning Ordinance to provide
for Home Occupation - Class A by right in the R-1 Zone and amending the state-
ment of intent of the R-1 Zone.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
reason
MCarr toold htheCommission
zone.that
He also askedsthatbeing
examplesdiscussed
of Homehoccupation
for omitting
from
this fr
Class A be given.
Mr. Keeler stated that this is merely a definition and read from the ordinance.
He stated that this definition was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in March, 1975.
o be a restrictive definition and sees no
Mr. Carr stated that this seems t
reason that it was omitted from the R-1 zone.
Mr. Easter felt that it was merely an oversight.
356
Mr. Payne stated that the reason that it was omitted is that it has never
been before the Commission and Board before.
Mrs. Graves stated that she could support the request as long as the
applicant is a resident of the dwelling.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the request ( which would read as follows ):
1. Amendment of the Statement of Intent of Article 4 Residential Limited (R-1)
zone by the deletion of the wording, "No home occupations and," from the
final sentence. The amended sentence would read: "No maintaining of poultry
or livestock are permitted in this district, except that pleasure horses
and ponies may be permitted with a special use permit."
2. Amendment of Article 4, Residential Limited ( R-1 ) zone to provide for
Home Occupation, Class A as a use by right as follows:
ARTICLE 4-1-15 Home Occupation, Class A.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion to approve, which carried unanimously
with no discussion.
SP-40-76. James E. Brewer requests a Home Occupation - Class A in an
R-1 Zone under Article 4-1-12(7). Property at 214 Brentwood Road in
Woodbrook subdivision, off Route 29 North. County Tax Map 45C, Parcel
1-D-78, Charlottesville, Virginia.
The Staff suggested to the Commission that they defer this request
indefinitely until the Board of Supervisors reacted to ZTA-06-76. If that
request is approved, the applicant can withdraw this request.
Mr. Barksdale moved that action on SP-40-76 be deferred until such time.
Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The chairman noted to the members of the Commission that according to
the time schedule on the agenda that the meeting was running ahead of time.
He asked the staff to note on future agendas that the time schedules are merely
a guide and that upon completion of one item the Commission will proceed to
the next, even if ahead of the schedule.
SP-41-76. Cecil Gardner requests to locate a public garage for storage
of "antique automobiles" on 16 acres zoned A-1. Property located on
Route 600 approximately 1� miles from Cismont. County Tax Map 65, Parcel
20, Rivanna Magisterial District.
357
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting for the Commission that
the applicant currently has the ability to have seven inoperable vehicles
on this property, as long as only two are exposed.
Mr. Payne stated that this figure was arrived at because the barn can
house five of the seven. He stated, however, that this does not permit a used
car lot on the inside of the building.
Mr. Jones said that he realizes that it is difficult to get the parts
for old cars and it cannot be done in a hurry.
Mr. Gardner stated that he does not plan to keep that many cars.
Mr. Carr stated that he had tried to find the property that day but
had not been able to find the sign which stated that a special use permit has
been requested from the County.
Mrs. Gardner tried to explain to the Commission the locationo f he property,
and stated that the sign has been posted. She stated that the applicant
eds
this request granted in order to support his family since he has no other occupation
that he can engage in due to his health.
Mr. Barksdale asked the applicant if the conditions recommended by the
staff are reasonable and if they can abide by them.
Mrs. Gardner answered "yes."
Mr. Gary McGee, representing Mrs. Cameron and Mrs. Mitchell, strongly
objected to the request stating that this is not in keeping with the area.
He pointed out that it would devalue the property in the area and asked that the
Commission deny the request. He said that if approved, even more than the recommended
conditions need to be placed on the special permit. He asked that ANTIQUE AUTO
be defined in the ordinance. Mr. McGee also asked that the Planning Commission
require a site plan.
Mr. Gordon Wheeler spoke on behalf of his sister, stating that he is
familiar with the area. He said that this property is full of junk cars, not
antique cars. He said that it is detrimental to the property values in that
area by at least 50 percent.
Mrs. James Sansell stated that she owns an adjacent 10-acre parcel and she objects
to the request.
Mr. Keeler stated that this application was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator
and that he suggested that the application be presented under this section of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Sansell asked if the cars will be taken to another place to be sold
after they are restored.
Mr. Keeler stated that this is what the applicant had indicated.
Mrs. Sansell reminded the Planning Commission of the case inthe
E smfat
area where the antique car dealer had stated that he could not support
mily
from this business and had requested that his operation be turned into a public
garage. She pointed out all the problems that this request had caused.
358
Mr. Beaseley stated that in his opinion an antique car is at least 25 years
old and a classic is 35 years old. He told the Commission that property owners
in this area want to build on their property, but that this will devalue their
land. He strongly objected to the request.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing, since there was no further comment.
Mr. Easter asked how the vehicles will be sold.
Mr. Gardner said that they will be hauled away; he said that he might not
sell any cars and after they are fixed up, he may not want to. He said that he
wants something to do.
Mrs. Graves asked if they would be agreeable to the seven they could have
by right, as long as five of them were enclosed in the barn.
Mr. Carr stated that he could not support the request, though he is sympathetic
to the applicant's health problem. He did not feel this was the sort of area that
would accommodate such a use.
Mr. Peatross stated that the first problem with the application is that
it is not a "public garage." He said that he does not like the fact that the
applicant is permitted to define "antique car."
Mrs. Graves questioned condition #8 suggested in the staff report, in
view of advise of -the County Attorney - "Violation of any of the above conditions
shall result in revocation of this special permit by the Zoning Administrator."
Mr. Jones asked how the Commission would feel about the request if the
applicant agreed to house all the vehicles.
Mr. Carr said that he did not think that this was the purpose of the request.
Mr. Keeler encouraged the applicant to discuss the application with the
new Zoning Administrator before the request is considered by the Board of Supervisors.
He said that the Zoning Administrator could help him to determine if there is
a better way to file the request.
Mr. Payne also encouraged the applicant to do this and suggested to the
Commission that it defer action until this has been accomplished.
Mr. Peatross said that he cannot support the request in this form and that
deferring will not accomplish anything. He suggested that the applicant withdraw
the request without prejudice.
Mrs. Graves said that it is not a matter of opinion, rather a matter of the
ordinance.
Col. Washington said that it appears to him that on 16 acres that is wooded
there is some place for 15 antique cars.
Mr. Gloeckner said that such approval would set a precedent for antique junk cars
being placed on other land in the county.
Mr. Easter agreed with Mr. Peatross.
Mrs. Graves moved denial of the request.
Mr. G1oeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1, with
Col. Washington dissenting.
359
Mr. Carr suggested to the applicant that he contact the Planning Department
and the Zoning Administrator prior to the Board meeting in order to clarify the
application.
SP-45-76.
James E. Woods and Frank Lane Hereford, III, request to locate a
wholesale and retail tile distributorship on 30,384 square feet
zoned B-1. Rio Road area, just off U. S. Route 29 North, between
Phillips Lumber Co., and Charlottesville Hardware. County Tax Map
61, Parcel 120I, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Payne told the Commission that there were two errors in the
advertisement for this request, but that since the advertisement had said
that the land is zoned M-1, which is actually more intensive than B-1, and that
all adjacent owners have been properly notified, that it is the opinion of
counsel that the Commission can hear the request.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the map is incorrect
since it was prepared from the incorrect application. He noted, however, that
parcels 120B and 120 I are adjacent properties, and that all adjacent owners have
been properly notified.
Mr. Woods stated that he is the contract/purchaser of the property and
that he will construct the building.
WNW Mr. Sandy Lambert pointed out to the Commission that Charlottesville
Hardware exists with a special permit as does another business in the area.
Mr. Phillips wondered about the maintenance of the right-of-way.
Mr. Lambert stated that the applicant is aware of this.
Mr. Carr stated that this will be taken care of at the site plan level.
Mr. Payne stated that there should be a maintenance agreement on the right-
of-way.
Mrs. Graves said that Section 7-1-42.5 does not address retail sales.
Mr. Keeler said that retailing is permitted by right, but that the
applicant 's request for a special permit is for wholesaling. He said that
approval of this does not affect his ability to retail.
Mrs. Graves asked about the effect of the ordinance on City News.
Mr. Carr stated that the problem with that application was with delivery.
Mr. Jones felt that this is compatible with businesses in the area and
moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff:
1. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
2. All storage to be enclosed;
3. Site plan approval.
360
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with
Mr. Peatross abstaining.
19
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution
of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning and Land Subdivision
Development Ordinance to provide for development of clustered
residential subdivision by right in all residential districts.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report stating that in these clustered
subdivisions the over-all density is maintained. He explained with a diagram
that though the lots are smaller, the density is the same.
Mrs. Karen Lilleheldt asked if this allows for duplexes and townhouses.
Mr. Keeler stated that this particular resolution applies only to
single-family residences and mobile homes, where applicable.
Mr. H. I. Taylor stated that he wished to register a complaint on this
hearing: he stated that when the application was advertised in the paper that
he had visited the Planning Department and asked to view the file on this matter,
but was informed that nothing had been officially prepared by the staff.
Mr. Payne cited section 15-1-431 of the Code of Virginia which addresses
times for advertising for public hearings, noting that many times this is several
days before the public hearings.
Mr. Taylor stated that the zoning ordinance as it stands is good, but
that to approve this clustering will have a diluting effect on the ordinance.
He stated that he sees no reason for the change, especially since it gives the
developer a chance to pick up a few acres and put several houses in a small area
that might be detrimental to a larger subdivision nearby. He said that he does
not feel that this will benefit the county.
Mr. Davidson stated that he is disturbed by the general language of the
resolution of the Board. At most, the advantages are plausible He said that
he is bothered that if passed,/tie �ffect it will have on communities who oppose
such growth. He said that the character of a subdivision needs to be considered.
He said that clustering would open the door to exploitation of the existing subdivisions.
He maintained that clustering could destroy the character of an area.
Mr. Whittenable supported the comments of Mr. Davidson; he also noted
that if the clustering idea is superimposed on an existing subdivision, the
homeowners association will have to address the open space.
Mr. Carr said that these comments are very interesting.
Mr. Taylor said that this could lead to a greater concentration in one develop-
ment than was originally planned.
Mr. Payne said that it would not be possible to have a greater number of
houses than is permitted under the zoning ordinance for a particular zone.
Mr. Taylor said that he is also concerned how this will affect the deed
restrictions of existing cmMi%ric;_ro
361
Mr. Payne stated that the County does not enforce deed restrictions, though
it cannot impair them.
Mr. Whittenable stated that the clustering will many
roblemsanother
thatassociation
arise
to maintain the common area. The only way to settle many p
is in court. He warned the Commission that if this is incorporated into the ordinance
that problems are being invited.
Mr. Davidson said that the character of subdivisions will be changed, and
that there will be a patchwork in each subdivision.
Mrs. Lillenheldt asked if this could apply only to newly platted subdivisions.
Mr. Taylor asked to have it explained how this will help the ordinance.
Mrs. David said that the Board is trying to offer an alternative to stripping
of land.
Mr. Easter stated that he has always been under the understanding that it is
good planning to have clustering with common green space. He stated that the word
"clustering" is used with so many connotations that it is misunderstood.
Mr. Carr said that all the public comments are well taken. He
stated that
ally
the idea is progressive in that it will help curb the stripping
of land, since the county has some difficult land to deeal with.
ticallyHowever,
changethe charhe said acter of
that
he is disturbed to think that clustering would
existing subdivisions.
Mr. Jones stated that many times open space becomes a problem with maintenance.
Mr. Taylor asked how open space will be taxed.
Mr. Payne said that there will be an undivided interest in the common land
and that owners will be taxed proportionately. He stated that to value property
is difficult, especially since it is not useable except in open space.
Mrs. Lilleheldt stated that open space makes such designated land practically
unusable.
Mrs. Graves asked what will happen if there are not utilities.
Mr. Keeler stated that the subdivision ordinance will take precedence.
Mrs. Graves said that she always felt that the clustering would take place
in the center of the piece of land.
Mr. Barksdale said that he feels that the clustering will entice stripping
and that the open space will be a difficult problem.
Messrs. Jones and Gloeckner agreed with Mr. Barksdale.
Mr. Gloeckner said that if clustering is adopted the county will be creating
a monster and that what the county will get is a cluster, in the middle of an
existing subdivision. He said that problems will even /created for the attorneys
since there will be two overlapping homeowners associations.
Mrs. David said that the diagram on the board shows volume and is not
intended as a layout diagram.
362
Mr. Gloeckner said that he fears that the diagram is what will actually
occur and the county will have cul-de-sacs with clustering in existing subdivisions.
Mrs. Graves said that she would like the Commission to defer action on
this request in order that she could consider some of the points that had been
discussed tit the meeting.
Mr. Barksdale moved that any action on the resolution of intent be deferred
until a later date.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr asked that before it is again brought to the Commission that it be
readvertised.
Mr. Carr presented a brief explanation of the proposed contract that
is to be signed between the County of Albemarle and the consulting firm KDA.
He stated that this had been mailed to the Commission to get any reaction,
to keep them informed of the progress on this matter, and to get a motion to
recommend that this contract be signed.
There was a brief discussion in which the Commission was informed about
the contract, how it was drawn up, etc. There were several suggestions,
one being that the metric conversion factor should be included. Questions
regarding cost of copies were answered by the chairman.
Mr. Carr said he finds the document to have the blessing of the Commission
and that the Commission endorses the form of the contract and its substance.
The Commission unanimously agreed to this.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
V
Secr tary, Robert W. Tucker, .
IR
363
July 8, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Thursday,
July 8, 1976, 4:30 p.m., County Executive's Conference Room, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia , concerning improving Planning Commission
meeting time and scheduling and possible administrative approval of site plans.
Those members present at the beginning of the meeting were Mr. David Carr,
Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James W. Moore;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Paul Peatross; Col. William Washington. Members to
arrive after the meeting began were Mr. Roy Barksdale and Mr. Leslie Jones.
Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio member, was also present.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order. He told the Commission that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss
possibly recommending to the Board of Supervisors administrative approval of
certain site plans - those which have no opposition. He asked that the staff
make any recommendations regarding meeting time and scheduling.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff's recommendations ( see attached memo ).
He stated that the staff recommends administrative approval in certain cases,
especially now, in order to allow more Planning Commission time for reviewing
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Carr stated that he has talked to the County Executive about the need
for the members on the Technical Review Committee to be under the county's authority.
He stated that he had been assured this would be the case if the Board adopts
this policy and the chairman feels comfortable with this.
There was a brief discussion on how to get agencies not under the county's
authority to attend these meetings. It was pointed out that approval of such
bodies ( such as the Virginia Department of Highways approval ) will be the
burden of the applicant rather than the burden of the County. However, it was
noted that their presence is needed at the technical review meeting. It was
suggested that an item should be deferred at the technical review meeting if
the applicant or his representative is not present just as is the policy of the
Commission at this time.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that the provisions for site plans are already
outlined in the ordinance and the developers are not following them. She said
that she thought it was the consensus of the Commission not to change the policy
until it is determined that these rule$ gill be followed. She does not want to
speci
accommodate the developer in any/way ana wants him to follow the existing rules
before they are changed in his favor.
Mr. Carr told Mrs. Graves that he does not, and never has, favored the developer.
He stated that he is fair to everyone and that his conscience is clear in regard
to any partiality.
Mr. Easter said that he favors administrative approval of site plans that
does not have any objections in order to speed up the approval process. He stated
that the Commission has some very important work coming up in its review of the
Comprehensive plan and that it will also be very time consuming. If this approval
is put at the proper level, as long as public input is permitted at this level,
364
and as long as the appeal process remains intact, then he favors administrative
approval. '440)
Col. Washington felt that if the existing rules and regulations are
observed and complied with at the Planning Department level, the time spent by the
Commission on -site plans would be considerably diminished.
Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission is not doing any long range
planning , rather day-to-day work. He said that the staff feels that where
there are objections to a site plan from adjacent owners that the site plan
should go to the Commission. Mr. Tucker said that the staff is in no way trying
to cut out public input.
There was a consensus that public input should definitely not be cut off,
whether it is input from citizen groups or adjacent owners. However, there were
two schools of thought: (1) that the proper place for public input is at the technical
review level;and (2) that the proper place for public input is at the Commission
level.
Mr. Carr said that short of one member, no member on the Planning Commission
is professionally capable of picking apart the work of a professional. He said
that he has never felt competent doing this and does not feel qualified to do this.
He feels that the public can get a better response from professionals. He stated
that this is another reason that he favors administrative approval, in addition
to the time element. He felt that the ordinance should spell out the exact specifications
for a site plan. Mr. Jones pointed out that the professional is employed by the
developer and sometimes his preparation is actually 180 degrees from the ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that by the Freedom of' Infoxmation`Act that anyone
seeking knowledge of public meetings is entitled to know of these matters in advance
Mrs. Scala stated that in the initial stages of site plan approval, she
is now submitting a check list to the people who prepare site plans. She stated
that if the items on this list are not followed, that she will follow this with a
letter stating that it must be followed.
Mr. Gloeckner proposed that the staff go over the check list with the
professional preparing the plan at the time of submission.
There was a discussion again regarding the proper place for public input.
Mr. Carr observed that there seemed to be/a such of opinion that if
the policy is changed/lt ght tear up a working body, which he certainly does not
want to do.
The staff was instructed by the Commission in the next sixty days to keep
a careful time record of how much time the Commission spends on site plans and
at the end of this period the Commission would again evaluate the situation.
A decision would be made at that time as to whether to recommend any change in
the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.
Since there was no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
r
Rob rt W. Tuc er, Jr. - cretar
3�, 3A
CP
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
MEMORANDUN111
DATE: June 25, 1976
TO: Albemarle County Planning Ccrr�issioners
FROM: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning
SUBJE(-T: Improving Planning Cannission. Meeting Time and Scheduling
After our meeting of May 18, concerning she above referenced subject,
I offer the following caments and recomn&ndations for your consideration:
1. The staff will begin, in July, setting an approximate time schedule
for each item on the Planning am-nl scion's agenda. This will not
only aid the public in structuring their_ time schedule and ix coming
more aware of the importance of your time but will assist you in
insuring that all items on the agenda are adequately heard.
2. The staff will begin, in July, requesting, in notification letters
to adjacent property owners, that the adjacent property U',anar s Lmi-t
in writing, in advance of the meeting, any connents, questions or ob-
servations they may have concerning a particular matter on your
agenda. This will serve two primaYy purposes. rirst, it will give
the staff time to react and answer tha questions raised which will
hopefully prevent deferrals or delays in public hearings. Second,
it will hopefully save tiny-- at the public hearing, since the catnents
having been made in writing may negate the need for verbal c=ent.
This is not suggested to prevent public ccxrment but simply to improve on
the amount of time spent on each item of the agenda.
.
3. The staff will note on each agenda, an asterisk(*) next to items
which are suggested for site inspection prior to the meeting. This
is done as an effort to again prevent a delay or deferral of an i-tem
and to inform you of itclms which may have develoj-niental problems
or may k controversial.
4. The staff recom7,�nds the following rules of procedure for each item
on the agenda:
a) staff report is given
b) appli_cant comwN-it
c) public conyne_nt, tlx> -c, in favor-
d) public connnent, those opposed
e) applicant rebuttal and final cormi-nt
3l1 3 6
(2)
I would suggest that each member of the public be given one chance
to c'orlent and that they be informed of this at the beginning of
the hearing. This may be very difficult to control and the ChaIrmJan
will need to use his discretion at times when he deems appropriate,
to permit further public con-ments.
5. rj'he staff reccxmends the following proposed amendment to Article 17
Site Developm--nt Plan for your consideration.
Changes required in Article 17:
1. Remove Section 17-3-2.
2. Amend Section 17-7 Procedure to read as f_ollovas:
17-7 PROCEDURE
17-7-1 Applications for site development plan
approval shall be sulairi_tted to the Albemarle
County Planning Department-
17-7-2 There is hereby created a site plan.
review committee corjposed of a representative
of the virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, the Alb-emarle County Planning
Department, the Albemarle County Fngineer's
Office, the Albe-marl.e County Service Authority,
and the Albemarle County Fire Marshal's
Office. In addition, two mamYers of the
Albemarle County Planning Colynassion, to Y
designated by the Chairman thereof shall
serve as ex-officio members of this c(xmmittee.
The committee shall have the power to make
rules for the regulation of its business,
subject to the approval of the Planning
Commission.
17-7-3 The Albemarle County Planning Department
shall transmit all applications for site
develop-ment plan approval to the committee
for its review. The ccmni_ttee shall review
all such applications for technical conq-)li.ance
with the provisions hereof. Upon completion
of its review, the committee shall_ make
recammendations to the agent of the governing
body.
17-7-4 Upon receipt of the final site plan
and the Camdttee' s reconmlendaLions, the
agent shall determine if the plan is in com-
pliance with the Site Development Plan
Ordinance. If he determines that it is not
in ccanpliance, he shall notify the ov;ner or
developer of his reasons, and attcanpt to
resolve the matter. If such attempt fails, he
shall transmit the plan, along with his coruiY-,nts
343C
(3)
and recommendations to the Planning Ca=u.ssion
for action.
17-7-5 If the agent determines that the plan
is in compliance, and if the o.nor or developer
is in agreement, and if there is no written
objection to the plan from any adjacent
owner, Planning Commission or Board of Supervisor_
member, as outlined in Section 17-7-6, then
the agent may give administrative approval
to the plan.
If, ho%,ever, there is any written
objection to the plan as outlined in Section
17-7-6, then the agent shall transmit the
plan to the Planning Commission for action,
whether or not he himself considers it to
be in compliance.
17-7-6 Notice of a site plan subEdttal shall
be sent by registered or certified rail
to the last known address of all owners
of property adjacent to the developmment.
In any case in which the property so adjacent
is owned by t_ne applicant, notice shall be
given to the owners of the next adjoining
property not owned by the applicant. I•`ailing
to the address shown on the current real estate
tax assessment books of Albemarle County shall
be deemed adequate compliance with this
requirement. Notice . shall also be sent to
all members of the Planning Comni_ssion and
the Board of Supervisors.
Tl-le notice shall state that unless
written objection is received by the Planning
staff within 1]_ days of the date the notice
is mailed, then the plan may receive admin-
istrative approval. Zine notice shall also
state the type of use proposed, specific
location of the development, appropriate
county office where the site plan may be
viewed, and date of the Planning Conrlission
meeting to be held if written objection is
received.
17-7-7 If the site plan is carried to the
Commission for action, the Comnissi_on shall_
approve or disapprove the application within
sixty(6J) calendar days from the date of
the application. In so doing, the Ccxtlnissi.on
shall give due consideration to the reco:,, i-ficIndations
of the site plan revi.cw conmi_tt(--Eo and UK� a.gent
of the governing body. Tn addition, it may
3<,3 D
(4)
consider such other evidence as it deems
necessary for a proper_ review of the application.
17-7-8 Any person aggrieved by any decisionof
the Planning Cm<,cission in the administration
of this article may demand a review of the
application by the Albe^7arle County Board of
Supervisors. Such demand shall be made by
filing a .request therefor in writing with
the Albei[arle County Plan -ring Deparlient within
ten (1.0) calendar days of the date of such
decision. The Board may affirm, reverse or modify,
in whole or in part, the decision of the
Com::nission. In so doing, the Board
shall give due consideration to the recomendati.ons
of the site plan review cc,-LmitLce and the Planning
cay fission. In addition, it may
consider such other evidence as it deems
necessary for a proper review of the application.
For purposes of this section, the tern "person aggrieved"
shall be limited to the applicant,
persons required to be notified pursuant to
Section 17-7-G of this Article and any interested
goverrmtental agency or officer thereof.
The governing body reserves unto itself
the right to review all decisions of the
Ccumissi.on made in the administration of this
Article which, in its discretion, it shall
deem necessary to the proper administration
hereof.
�et*��ei:xt�:9e�e�:*�etE;Fic3::1•**:'.�exkk�:x�e��e�:Y�e:r� �k�c;k�*Fic�e;:t*h�:k�:i;�:�:fir*�e�:�:
This procedure will_ be very similar to our present
site plan procedure with these exceptions:
1. If a site plan is satisfactory to the agent, and we
receive no ecinplaints on it, it can be approved
administratively by the third Tuesday instead of
having to go to the Ccaruni_ssion.
2. If we receive complaints on a site plan, whether or
not it is satisfactory to the agent, the Co:��ti.ssion
will hear the plan on the third 'Tuesday as it dogs
now.
3. If a site plan is not satisfactory to the agent,
of if the owner is in disagreement with the agent,
the plan will }-:e heard by the Commission on the
fourth Tuesday. i_his is a week: longer thaiz the present
procedures however it can he considered a penalty
for non-ccar,pliance.
4. Subdivision procedure will not be affected - same
deadline and hearing date (third Tuesday) as we
have na a .
34,3 E
(5)
Time table for review:
Kxst Tuesda - Deadline for submittal.
Followinq Friday - .lotices sent to adjacent owners, Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisor ntemhers.
izursday followinj first Tuesday - site plan review meeting
Second Tuesday - Deadline for complaints (Public has 11 calendar days
from when notice was sent to reply.)
Followi� Friday - Deadline for revised plan sent. to agent.
Third Tluesday - agent approves or denies plan. Planning
Com-lission meeting for plans which had complaints
also for subdivisions.
Fourth Tuesday - Planning Commission Meeting for plans denied by agent
or appealed by owner/developer.
All plans would be approved mini rnxn three weeks - maximum four
weeks following submittal.
If the Commission. objects to the length of tir!e in which the
public has to to respond, we will have to hear plans with complaints
on the fourth Tuesday. (The altennan.tive of moving back: the dea,-31ine
for submittal one week would delay _every plait (4-5 weeks nevi time)
and is therefore not a good idea.) In order to allow the public an
extra week, only plans which the agent found satisfactory and �riich
had no complaints could be approved by the third T'ucsday.
Alternate Time table for review (more time to public to respond):
Last Tuesday - Deadline for sulanittal.
FollaA=ing Friday - notices sent to adjacent owners, Planning Con:Mission
and Board of Supervisors ineidbers.
Thursday following first Tuesday_ - site plan review meeting
Friday fo.11awirci second Tuesday - Deadline for revised plans sent to
agent.
Third 'Tuesday - Agent approves or denies plans. Deadline for complaints.
(Public has 18 calendar days from when notice was seize
to reply.) Planning CD-na-ni_ssion meeting for subdivisions
only. Agent gives a(iministr_ative approval to plans
he has found satisfactory and with no complaints.
Fourth Tuesday - Planning COmmission Meeting for plans with c&q-?laint5
and plans which agent has denied.
The disadvantage of this scheme_ is that it extends the length of approval
tim for plans with complaints.
(6)
.31o3 F
SUGCESTED PT-M- - 11 DAYS NOTICE
ca pj,7�,'m s
APPRWES
DEFIES
PLAN
PLAN
PLANRIU111_11G cal:11ISSION
3RD rmi sDAY
NO CCINTLAINNTS
AGENT AMN% T
APPRO` 7ES DF-1TIFS
PLA�7 PLAN
PLAN IS PL,- r 1T�NC:
APPR(; JFD C0KIUSSION
ADMINISTRATIVELY 4111 TUESDAY
BY 3RD TUESDAY
ALTERNATE PLAlQ - 18 DAYS NOTICE
Ca IPLAINTS
ACTIl 'I' AGENT
APPPOVES DUTIES
PLAN PLAN
PLANNING CoN'MTSSIU4'
41rl TUESDiAY
i\To
campi T�-T i s
AMT.[
APPP.OVES
DENIES
PLA'\T
PLAN
PLAN IS
PLAiNNING
APPRO`M 0
CorulTISS ION,
ADi�'LINIS`PRATIVT=
4TlH TUES111'�Y
BY 3RD l`UESDAY
(7)
3G3G_
Suggested format for legal notice:
Dear_ Sir or Madam,
This letter is to notify you, as an adjacent property (7�7ner,
that a site plan has been submitted for the develorment of property
located
for the proposed use -
Unless written objection is received by the Planning D--partment
within 1.1 days of the date of this letter, the plan may receive aculli.nistrative
approval by the Agent for the Board of Supervisors. if written objection
is received, then this site plan will be heard by the Albemarle County
Planning Co.mission on Tuesday, _
7:30 p.m., Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
The site plan is available for your review in the Albemarle County
Planning Office, 414 East Market Street, Charlottesville, Virginia..
(Carbon copies to be sent to all members of the Planning Cc -I-. ssion.
and the Board of Supervisors.)
M
364
July 20, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on
Tuesday, July 20, 1976, 7:30 p.m., County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present at the beginning of the meeting were
Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James W. Moore;
Col. William Washington; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Paul Peatross; and Mrs. Opal
David, ex-Officio. Mr. Jones arrived after the meeting began. Absent from
the meeting were Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman, and Mrs. Graves. Other
officials present were Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning;
Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Minutes:
Since there were no corrections or additions to the minutes of the
July 6 and July 8 meetings, the chairman approved them.
Mr. Keeler introduced the newly appointed zoning administrator, Mr.
Benjamin Dick, to the Commission.
The chairman welcomed his presence and stated that his assistance in the
future, when he has made a specific ruling, would be greatly appreciated.
It was noted for the behalf of citizens who might be interested, that
Brookside final plat and Sugar Hollow Antique site plan had been removed from
the Commission's agenda for this particular meeting. These items will be considered
at the Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 1976.
SP-46-76. Donald L. Reid to locate a mobile home on 11.3 acres zoned
A-1. Property located on the west side of Route 649, approximately
1.5 miles north of Proffit, near Jefferson Village Subdivision. County
Tax Map 46, Parcel 30A, Charlottesville and Rivanna Magisterial Districts.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He noted for the Commission's benefit
that the tax map illustration was incorrect and drew in the parcel in question.
Any approval should be conditional upon the following:
1. Minimum setback from Route 649 right-of-way of 100 feet;
2. Minimum side and rear yard setback of thirty-five (35) feet;
3. Only the land needed for the location of the mobile home, septic drainfield,
and driveway shall be disturbed;
�rr+� 4. Skirting around mobile home from base of mobile home to ground level;
5. Approval by appropriate state and local agencies;
365
area. Mr. Barksdale asked if there are currently any other mobile homes in the
Mr. Keeler stated that there are none.
Mr. Reid stated that they are hardly visible in places, but he pointed out,
through the use of the map, where these mobile homes are located. He stated that
there is also a mobile home park in that area. The existing roadway for this parcel
is to serve as the entrance. The mobile home will not be visible from Jefferson Village
and he felt it to be a legitimate use of the land, since his son will be living there
while a student at University of Virginia.
( Mr. Jones arrived at the meeting. )
Mr. Carr noted that there were no citizens appearing in opposition to the request,
though the staff had received a letter from Dr. Charles Hurt's agent pointing out
that such a use of the property is not in line with the residential uses in that area.
Mr. Reid had hoped to hear the opposition, since he stated he would withdraw
the request if the objection were very strenuous. He did point out that the property
owned by North Corporation is at least 2300 feet from the property in question.
Mr. Barksdale asked why there was no time limit suggested by the staff.
Mr. Keeler said that this condition had been omitted at the advice of the
County Attorney.
Mr. Carr advised the applicant's father, who is owner of the property,
that the County has a policy that such mobile homes, if approved, cannot be rented they are to be resided in only by the applicant or his relative.
Mr. Keeler stated that the County Attorney has likewise advised that this
condition is not enforceable.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the request subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff plus a sixth condition that the mobile home cannot be rented.
Mr. Reid suggested that the Commission follow the advice of the County Attorney.
He also stated that his son is involved in a work/study program through the University,
and that he will be residing in the mobile home onlyn approximately six months of the
o
year. A friend of his is in the same program but/an opposite schedule, and he hopes
to use the mobile home the remaining six months. Mr. Reid stated that he wishes the
Commission to permit this.
Mr. Peatross questioned if the applicant has considered placing this mobile
home in a mobile home park.
Mr. Reid stated that this has not been considered, since he has this available
piece of land.
Mr. Dick, Zoning Administrator, cited Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning
Ordinance for the Commission.
Mr. Carr stated that this is one of the sections of the ordinance that the
County Attorney feels is not enforceable.
366
willing
Mr. Reid stated that he is / to abide by the terms "non -transferable."
Mr. Barksdale stated that he withdrew his condition #6 and asked that
the SP-46-76 be approved subject to the five conditions recommended by the staff
plus the following condition:
Mobile home shall be located on the property only for the duration of the
son's educational endeavors at University of Virginia.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion.
Mr. Peatross opposed the request on the basis that it is contrary to the
policy that he would like to see the county establish regarding mobile homes.
The vote on the motion was 6-1, Mr. Peatross dissenting.
SP-47-76. Willoughby Corp. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
amend SP-534 to provide for a tertiary package treatment plant on 141.415
acres zoned A-1. Property located on the east side of 5th Street near I-64.
County Tax Map 76M(1), Parcels 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C-1; and Tax Map
76M(2), Parcels 5A, 5B, 5B-1, 6B, and 7. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report stating that this would be an amendment
to SP-534 to provide for tertiary package sewage treatment plant and to delete condition
#4 of SP-534. The staff suggested that any approval should be conditional upon the
following:
1. Corps of Engineers review and approval of any development within the flood plain of
Moore's Creek;
2. Site plan approval;
3. Approval of County Engineer, State Water Control Board, and other appropriate
federal, state, and local agencies;
4. Package treatment plant and all water and sewer lines to be dedicated to Albemarle
County Service Authority and access easements provided to all said utilities to
be adequate in the opinion of the Albemarle County Service Authority;
5. The applicant shall provide a written statement from the Zoning Administrator stating
that the erosion problems indicated in the staff report for SP-534 have been
corrected and that no current erosion problems exist on the Willoughby property
prior to approval of this application ( SP-534, condition #15 ).
Mr. Jones asked if this sort of package treatment plant means that a Number 2
Engineer has to be present at all times to oversee the facility - If this is the case,
then the County has no one to police such an operation.
Mr. Bob Leighton stated that Rivanna Water and Sewer have stated that they
will be able to maintain the facility.
Mr. Payne said that there is a question with condition #4 since in the
case of Ednam, the RPN, the Albemarle County Service Authority would not accept
dedication of the plant, only the lines. He said that unless this agency has
changed its policy on such matters, the condition, if placed on the special permit,
would be impossible to fulfill. He suggested to the Commission that it have input
from the Service Authority before taking any such action.
367
Mr. Leighton said that in his discussions wi h George Williams of the
Rivanna Water and Sewer, that they had no problem a cepting its maintenance.
Dr. Moore suggested that the County should have something official from
the Rivanna Water and Sewer.
Mr. Leighton stated that he needs approval from the county and city before
he can really have anything definite.
Mr. Keeler said that the state won't set sta dards for the plant until it
is approved at the local level, and that the localities won't approve until they
know the standards of the State Water Control Board This presents the applicant
with somewhat of a problem.
Mr. Payne stated that it would be unwise for the Commission to act on this
request until it has heard from the two public agen�ies which are unrepresented.
Mr. Jones suggested that the Commission defer action on this request until
such information has been obtained.
Mr. Joe Ryan stated that this would be the second delay in this matter,
and that the bondholders are anxious for something to be started.
Mr. Barksdale suggested that the staff and the deputy county attorney
rework condition #4.
Mr. Payne said that this would be shooting for a condition on which there
are no facts.
Mrs. Opal David said that it is her understa ding that the tertiary
plant will not be operated after the AWT plant is r -certified. The situation
with Ednam is that they wanted to keep control of the plan. She said that in
this case only the lines, not the plant, need to be dedicated. She stated that
what the applicant needs is an indication that if Willoughby meets the rules that
the Planning Commission is ready to go ahead.
Mr. Jones asked if information is not neededi,from Albemarle County Service
Authority and Rivanna Water and Sewer.
Mr. Joe Ryan said that Willoughby cannot have a contractual agreement
until they get through the initial stages.
Mr. Carr felt that the Planning Commission should be assured of a maintenance
agreement.
At this point, Mr. Dick addressed the erosion problem at this site.
The applicant has spent considerable time and moneyl,to correct the erosion problem
( he presented pictures to show what has been done �. The applicant inherited
most of the erosion problems, but they have been im roved.
Mr. Ryan stated that approximately $9000 has
erosion problem.
been spent to remedy the
9
9-
M
Mr. Barksdale suggested amending condition number 5 to read that the
Zoning Administrator is satisfied with the remedies for soil erosion. He moved
approval of SP-47-76, to provide for a tertiary package sewage treatment plant and
to delete condition #4 of SP-534. He asked that the staff read the revised conditions.
Mr. Keeler stated that the first three conditions wind be as recommendedtions brought
by the staff. In order to incorporate into the app
roval otherforth by the Commission, other conditions might be:
4. Package treatment plan is to be operated and maintained by Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority pursuant to contract approval by the County Attorney and the
County Engineer. All water and sewer lines are to be dedicated to the Albemarle
County Service Authority, and access easements to be provided to all said utilities
to be adequate in the opinion of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
5. Applicant shall provide a written statement from the Zoning Administrator stating
that soil erosion.is controLlecl to -the Satisfagtion of the Zoning Administrator,
and that continuing efforts are being made to control soil erosion;
6. Package treatment plant is to be phased out when adequate sewage capacity is
available.
Mr. Barksdale said that this is his intent and said he would add these
three conditions to the first three suggested by the staff.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion to approve.
The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
SP-48-76. August Schwarzenboeck, Jr. to locate a mobile home on 182 acres zoned
A-1. Property located on southwest side of Route 620, approximately 2 miles
east of Route 795. County Tax Map 104, Parcel 15, Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Schwarzenboeck said that his son had contacted the adjoining property
owner who had presented the Planning Department a letter of objection to the request,
and had understood that this letter of objection would be withdrawn. Also withdrawn
was the objection to SP-49-76.
r had been received by the Planning Department.
It was established that this lette
Mr. Carr said that it is not necessary for the Commission to act on these
two items.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission not hear SP-48-76 and SP-49-76
(a request to locate a mobile home on 182 acreoRoteTax Mapacres zone
u1. Property
County located n southwest
side of Route 620, approximately 2 miles ea
st Parcel 15, Scottsville Magisterial District), and that they be approved administratively.
Mr. Peatross stated that the motion should read that the Planning Commission
remands SP-48-76 and SP-49-76 back to the staff to be handled administratively.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that this was his intent.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion
It carried unanimously, with no further
discussion.
369
Franklin final plat - Route 20 North:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that this is a subdivision
of 44 lots, with an average size of 2.49 acres, and a minimum size of 2.0 acres.
Lots have individual wells and septic systems. The preliminary plat was approved
in April, 1976, subject to several conditions. Any approval of the final plat
should be subject to the following:
1. Grading permit;
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
3. Waiver granted to use "Franklin Drive" as a road name;
4. Owner's signature needed, and reduced original.
Mr. Keeler stated that the staff has received a letter from the postmaster
stating that he has no objection to the applicant's using "Franklin Drive" as
a road name.
Mr. Jones stated that he does not approve of the duplication of road names
that this would bring about. He said that in the site review meeting that the
fire marshal said that this could be confusing.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that if Cason Farm Road is not vacated, there
will be some lots that have double frontage. He said that this should be a condition.
Mr. Boggs told Mr. Jones that the fire marshal had said at the site review
meeting only that the road had to be named, not that it could not be named "Franklin
Drive."
Mr. Carr asked who wrote the letter stating that "Franklin Drive" is permissible.
Mr. Keeler said that it was the postmaster in Charlottesville.
There was a discussion on lots having double frontage, and it was established
that the applicant could cut off 5-acre lots without bringing them to the Commission.
These too would have double frontage, and it is perhaps better to approve what the
applicant has presented and grant the waiver.
Mr. Carr also said that this is a good idea because the County does not
want an unknown road with lots on it.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that lots 26 and 27 could use the state road with an
easement.
Mr. Keeler stated that other conditions of approval should be as follows:
5. Waiver for Cason Road;
6. Lots 26, 27, 34, 37, 38 should show the building setback;
7. Lots 34, 37, 38 should have a note on the plat stating NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION
WITHOUT PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL.
Mr. Jones moved that action be deferred until the name for "Franklin Drive"
has been changed.
The motion died, for lack of a second.
370
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the four conditions recommended
by the staff, plus the additional conditions ( 5, 6, and 7 ).
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1, Mr. Jones
dissenting.
S. L. Wynne final plat - Route 743 near Earlysville:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that this is a subdivision of
7 lots with an average size of 3.6 acres and a minimum size of 2.04 acres. Lots have
individual wells and septic systems. The staff recommended approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approva
2. Lots 4 and 5 have frontage waiver. Approval of joint driveway easement to serve
lots 3, 4, 5, and 6;
3. Note on plat that lots 4 and 5 cannot be further subdivided without Planning
Commission approval in order to put a purchaser on notice.
Mr. Foster, representing the applicant, stated that Virginia Department of
Highways and Health Department approvals have already been secured.
Mr. Carr said that before the Commission can remove this condition from
the approval, the staff must have a letter from the highway department stating that
they have given approval.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the three conditions recommended
by the staff.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Hardware Baptist Church addition site plan - Route 708 near Route 631:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report stating that the addition will
contain bathrooms, kitchen and fellowship hall. There is a well and septic system.
Approval should be conditional upon the following:
1. Health Department approval;
2. waive requirement of marking parking spaces;
3. Keeping the new well as far as possible from the cemetery and the old outhouse
location.
Mr. Peatross inquired about the condition of waiving the marked parking
spaces.
Mr. Keeler stated that the church is in a rural area and that it is used
massively only once a week.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Jones moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
371
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with
no discussion.
Linda Ann Jurlando day care center site plan - Route 747:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that there is a new well
and septic system. The proposal includes two (2) employees and twenty-five (25)
children. There is no new entrance onto Route 747. The center will have the appearance
of a single family dwelling. Approval should be conditional upon the following:
1. Health Department approval;
2. 25 foot strip from the centerline of Route 747 of Parcel B-2 to be dedicated
on a separate plat.
3. Grading permit.
Mr. Keeler told Mr. Barksdale that over 10,000 square feet of grading
will be done, thus the need for the grading permit.
Mr. Peatross inquired about the traffic situation.
Mr. Keeler said that the width of the road is over 20 feet and that it
should certainly accommodate the approximate 30 extra trips per day.
Mr. Peatross asked if this is a school or a day care center.
Mr. Jurlando stated that it is a school for 3, 4, and 5 year olds.
Mr. Payne stated that the Zoning Administrator has determined that this is
a permitted educational use.
Mr. Keeler noted that Mr. Roudabush has noted his concern over the increased
traffic for this road.
area. Mr. Peatross asked if there are plans for any additional subdivisions in that
The staff is not aware of any.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the site plan subject to the three conditions
recommended by the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Jones, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Covey's Radio and TV Service site plan - Westfield Road West:
In the staff report, Mr. Keeler stated that this is served by county sewer and
water. In the technical review meeting, Mr. Easter had expressed concern over the
parking spaces ( 2 ) in the front, but the delivery will be in the rear.
Any approval should be conditional upon the following:
1. Grading permit if needed;
2. Virginia Department of Hghways approval;
3. Staff has recommended the rear bank be seeded;
372
4. Sign directing service traffic to the rear of the building.
Mr. Barksdale asked if there will be sales out of this building.
It was established that there will be 200 square feet of sales, and the two
parking spaces in the front of the building is enough, according to the ordinance,
to cover this square footage. Employees will be parking in the rear of the building.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Evalyn Galban final plat - Route 601:
The staff reported that this is a subdivision of 7 lots with an average size
of 2.2 acres and a minimum size of 2.0 acres. These lots are served by county water and
individual septic systems. The staff questioned lots 6 and 7, due to topography.
Lot 7 does not have a building site outside the 200 foot setback line from Ivy Creek.
Lots 6 and 7 contain mostly 25 plus% slopes, and are therefore not buildable under
the Soil Erosion Ordinance, Appendix A. Staff suggested combining these two lots.
There is an existing driveway which enters Route 601 between lots 1 and 2, which
serves the Burnhart residence on an existing 5+ acre lot behind lots 6 and 7.
It may be possible to use this driveway as access for all the lots. The Commission
should consider a maintenance agreement for this easement. There should be a note
on the plat regarding no further subdivision without Planning Commission approval.
Topography dictates large front setbacks from Route 601. Upon the field inspection,
the staff found that it would be extremely dangerous and extremely costly for
entrances to the lots from Route 601. Preliminary approval has been secured from
the Health Department.
Mr. Joe Richmond, representing Mrs. Galban, said that the applicant has no
objection to private driveway at the back to be used as the entrance to all the lots
and the a maintenance agreement for this driveway.
Mr. Carr explained the topography to the Commission and felt the staff
suggestion regarding the location of entrances to be very reasonable.
Mrs. Galban said that this one entrance has been her intent all along.
Mr. Jack Rinehart said that he has no objection to the subdivision if this
is her plan. He favors further development along Route 601.
Mr. Cleveland Leaman said that he is the adjoining property owner to the
east and he asked the location of the house for lots 6 and 7, when combined.
Mr. Carr pointed this out to him on the plat.
Mr. Gloeckner felt it essential to combine lots 6 and 7, since the 200 foot
setback deletes the use of lot 7 by itself. Besides, lot 6 has only a small area
which can be used for a house site, where part of the road must go.
Mr. Carr said that the subdivision could occur over Farmington Road.
Mr. Richmond said that this is correct.
373
Mr. Carr asked about plans for future subdivision.
Mr. Richmond said that any further subdivision will be from Farmington Road.
Mr. Carr said that there should be a condition stating that there can be
no other lots subdivided onto this road.
Dr. L. Simpson said that he is confused about the water service.
Mr. Richmond said that in 1973 the applicant reserved water from the
Albemarle County Service Authority.
Dr. Simpson said that there is no water line up Route 601.
Mr. Carr said that she granted an easement to get the rights for a water line.
Dr. Simpson said that he is concerned that the agreement might be fruitless
because of a personal involvement with the service authority. He also pointed out
that he does not feel that wells would be appropriate for this area.
Mr. Carr felt it fair to warn Dr. Simpson that each individual has the
right to seek water on his own individual lot. ide also asked, in regard to the road,
that there be a homeowners agreement for its maintenance.
Mr. Payne said that it would be wise to show such an agreement on the plat.
Col. Washington said that there is a brown line on the old plat that is not on the
new one.
Mr. Gloeckner said that this brown line is the easement and that the 50' ease-
ment should be shown on the plat. He also stated that the plat should show the meets
and bounds.
Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Lots 6 and 7 to be combined;
2. All seven lots to use the existing driveway which enters Route 601 between
lots 1 and 2 ( which serves the Burnhart residence ) as an entrance, and that
there be a joint maintenance agreement for this road. This joint maintenance
is to appear on the plat;
3. Meets and bounds to be specified, as well the the 50' easement;
4. No further subdivision without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion to approve; the motion carried unanimously,
with no discussion.
Mr. Jones asked that the Commission again address the situation that no
school site be reserved on the Willoughby tract, since there is additional space
needed in county schools.
Mr. Keeler said that the School Board, in a resolution December, 1975, stated
that this reservation is no longer necessary.
Mr. Jones asked that the School Board update this.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that this matter has already been addressed by
the Commission, and that it passed the PUD on to the Board of Supervisors for action.
Mr. Jones asked that Mr. Keeler call the Dept. of Education to clarify this
before the Board acts on the special use permit.
374
Mrs. David agreed that the Department of Education could advise the following
day, before the Board acts on SP-534, if a school reservation is needed, and Mr.
Tucker could present this to the Board of Supervisors on July 21, when they would
be considering SP-534.
Mr. Payne told the Commission that Mr. Charles Perry, Assistant Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Highways will be moving August 1 to another
office. He will be replaced by Mr. Dan Roosevelt.
Mr. Carr suggested that the Planning Commission write Mr. Perry a letter and
express thanks for his cooperation with the Commission. He said that such a letter
might encourage the replacement for Mr. Perry to be as helpful.
Col. Washington suggested that this letter be written to Mr. Perry's
supervisors and that a copy be sent to Mr. Perry.
Mr. Carr said that input from the highway department is vital and he
hopes to have their continued cooperation.
Mrs. Karen Lilleleht asked the Commission to consider name plates to distinguish
themselves to citizens attending meetings.
Mr. Carr felt this to be an appropriate suggestion and asked that the staff
investigate this.
Mr. Gloeckner asked that the Commission expedite the matter of the mobile
home issue as soon as possible and asked the staff's cooperation.
Mr. Keeler said that the Commission will be holding a public hearing on
the mobile home issue August 24, 1976.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
;W4 A /. -, � ��A r 0',
R b rt W. Tucker, Jr. - ecret y
M
375
July 27, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday,
July 27, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present at the beginning of the meeting were Mr. Peter
Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington;
Dr. James Moore; Mr. Paul Peatross. Arriving after the meeting began were Mrs. Joan
Graves and Mr. Leslie Jones. Absent was Mr. David Carr, Chairman. Other officials
present were Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of
Planning; Mr. Ron Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala,
Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
In Mr. Carr's absence, Mr. Easter called the meeting to order, after
establishing that a quorum was present.
Minutes of July 20 were approved by the Vice -Chairman subject to a change
requested by Col. Washington.
Brookside final plat - West side of Route 680:
In the staff report Mr. Keeler stated that this is a subdivision of 5 lots
with an average size of 2.09 acres and a minimum size of 2.0 acres. The property
is zoned A-1.
The staff recommended approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department written preliminary approval ( verbal approval had already
been received );
2. Shared entrances;
3. Entrances subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval.
Mr. Easter said that he saw no other way that the property could be divided.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the three conditions recommended by
the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously with no further
discussion.
Sugar Hollow site plan for antique shop - Route 250 West near Yancey Mills:
Mr. Keeler said that the property is zoned B-1 and is adjacent Crozet Moose
Lodge, and opposite Ridge Mini -Market.
Conditions of approval should be as follows:
1. Health Department approval of well and septic system;
2. Large equipment should be removed from property;
3. Building inspection approval;
4. Shrubbery should be specified.
376
There were questions directed to the applicant concerning the equipment
on the site and he informed the Commission that some of it has been removed,
though not all.
Mr. Keeler told Mr. Easter that the concrete has been removed and corrected
to the staff's satisfaction in order that two cars can pass on old Route 250.
Mr. Jones asked that the site plan be subject to Highway Department approval.
Mr. Keeler explained that this is not necessary since the applicant will
be making use of the two existing entrances.
Col. Washington expressed concern about a well on the property.
Mr. Welsh, applicant, said that he is to meet the Health Department on
this and will put one in if they think it can be done.
Col. Washington asked why the applicant is not using the public water which
is available there.
Mr. Welsh said that he will make the decision concerning the water after
he has talked to the Health Department.
Mr. Peatross questioned the condition which addressed shrubbery, asking
if the staff had any particular shrubbery in mind for the site.
Mrs. Scala said that the shrubbery would have to be appropriate for
screening the parking lot.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
Col. Washington seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Dr. Moore pointed out that there is an area circled on the plat "area leased"
He asked what this meant.
Mr. Welsh said that he is leasing the building, not the four acre parcel. He
said that his lease covers just enough property to operate the business.
Mr. Payne stated that if there are any objections to the conditions placed on
the site plan, that probably the applicant will not be obligated to fulfill the lease.
Mr. Gloeckner asked that the motion be amended so that condition #4 read as
follows:
4. Shrubbery should be specified to the satisfaction of the Planning Staff.
The motion to approve the site plan carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter cautioned the applicant that any outside display should take
into consideration that Route 250 West has been designated as a scenic highway.
377
James Gill final plat - Near Route 660:
Mr. Keeler stated that this is the division of 6.63 acres into 4.23-acre and
2.40-acre parcels. It is served by a 25' access easement over the existing driveway
to Route 660. Property is zoned A-1. There is presently a house on each proposed
parcel. A note is on the plat regarding no further subdivision. The staff had
no other recommended conditions of approval. The plat is before the Commission
because of the pipestem.
Mr. Boggs said the joint driveway is to be between parcel 22B and the Proffit
property.
Mr. Richard Proffit asked who will be responsible for the road maintenance.
He felt there should be some sort of maintenance agreement between him and
the owners of the two parcels.
Mr. Joe Hearn stated that when Mr. Proffit sold the property to the Gills that
the deed included a joint maintenance for the road.
Mr. Proffit said that when he sold the property he had decreased the width
of the easement from 50' to 25' hoping this would prohibit further subdivision of
the property he had sold.
Mr. Easter said that the road maintenance is a civil matter between the
property owners, and that if one is not living up to the agreement there is some
recourse. However, the county is not responsible for this contractual matter.
Mr. Payne said that the Commission has the right to deny or approve the
subdivision, based on what is in the County's best interests.
Mr. Barksdale asked about Mr. Proffit's assumption that there could be no
further subdivision of the property he had sold.
Mr. Hearn said that there was not a note on the plat regarding no further
subdivision.
Mr. Easter said that in that case the matter is rather straightforward.
Mr. Peatross said that the Commission needs to determine if the 25' easement
can adequately serve the proposed two parcels. The joint maintenance agreement
is a civil matter between the two parties and/df?Pceh the county has no authority over.
He said that he sees no problem with the plat.
It was established that the road could have better maintenance; it is hoped
that once the cottages are under contract that the road situation will be corrected.
Col. Washington asked if the road is an easement or a pipestem lot.
He pointed out that the plat says that it is an easement.
Mr. Easter said that the easement is for Mr. Proffit.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
378
Wieboldt preliminary plat - west side of Route 29 South, 2 miles northeast
of Covesville:
6
Mr. Keeler pointed out that this A-1 zoned property has a proposed 4.0-acre
parcel and a 3.75-acre parcel on existing 30 foot paved right-of-way. Parcel C,
containing the 3.5 acres, is to remain part of the residue; however, it is
physically divided by the existing road. Approval requires two waivers: the use
of the easement for access, and waiver of frontage on the residue which contains
approximately 65 acres. The residue will retain about 90' frontage on Route 29.
Note that Wieboldt also owns the adjacent parcels 15C and 15B. Final approval should
also be subject to Health Department approval.
Mr. Wieboldt stated that there will be no additional uses created on the
30 right-of-way due to current uses of the property.
Mr. Peatross asked about a waiver for the easement for access, and Mrs.
Scala told him that any easement needs a waiver.
Mr. Payne explained that all lots have to front on public or state roads.
Mr. Jones asked how this will affect the 65-acre residue.
Mr. Barksdale said that any further subdivision along the easement would require
Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Easter said that this needs to be a condition placed on the plat.
Dr. Moore stated that the county does not want to be boxed in on providing
adequate road frontage.
Mr. Tucker said that this plat, if the applicant requests further subdivision,
will come back to the commission unless tracts 5 acres or larger are requested.
Mr. Gloeckner said that it is not necessary to show parcel C on the plat, since
it is part of the residue.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Waiver granted for using the easement for access;
2. Waiver of the frontage on the residue ( which contains approximately 65 acres );
3. Health Department approval;
4. No further subdivision along the easement without Planning Commission approval;
5. Delete Parcel C from the final plat.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion to approve. It carried unanimously, with
no further discussion.
Excess Baggage site plan for mini -warehouses - Northeast side of Route 631
( Rio Road East ), and northwest side of Route 651:
Mr. Keeler stated that the property is zoned B-1.
379
Any approval of the site plan should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Grading permit;
r� 2. Engineering approval of pavement specs , water and sewer lines, retaining walls;
3. Plan does not show connection to sewer line; staff would recommend a connection
to the public sewer rather than a septic system;
4. Fire Marshal approval ( Fire Marshal has requested a turnaround at the southeast
corner of the site );
5. Topo lines are duplicated at the south end of the building ;
6. Highway Department approval;
7. Staff recommends a sidewalk along Rio Road across frontage of this property.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that at the onset of the meeting the staff
had received from the applicant a revised site plan showing connection to the sewer
line. However, the staff has not had time to review the revised site plan and
does not know how it compares to the one the staff was ready to discuss at the
meeting.
Mr. Jones asked how the entrance could accommodate a fire truck.
Mr. Keeler said that this plan has not been reviewed by the Fire Marshal.
Mr. Easter asked if the Commission could act on the plat, in view of the
fact that the plan had just been presented to the staff. He did point out, however,
that it is the intention of the staff, Commission, to expedite items as soon as
possible for all parties concerned.
Mr. Keeler said that the staff is prepared to present the site plan that
it reviewed July 23.
Mr. Rotgin said that there have been some changes on the plat and he addressed
each condition recommended by the staff. He objected to the sidewalks proposed
by the staff.
Mr. Jones felt it necessary to have input from the Highway Department
and Fire Marshal before any action by the Commission.
Mrs. Graves suggested deferring until the next Planning Commission meeting,
when the applicant has two other requests on the agenda.
Mr. Jones asked that the Fire Marshal be present at the next meeting.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that any discussion and action on the site plan be deferred
until the next week and that/to meeting Engineering approval,
Fire Marshal approval, and Highway Department approval be secured.
The applicant asked that he not be required to have approval of
the retaining walls until he was assured the plan would be approved, because of
expense.
Mr. Gloeckner then agreed to amend the motion to include Engineering approval
of only the pavement specs and the water and sewer lines, in addition to the two
other approvals.
Mr. Jones questioned the retaining wall.
Mr. Easter said that the County Engineering is qualified to approve the retaining
walls after Planning Commission review.
380
Mr. Rotgin said that he is still concerned about a sidewalk along Rio Road.
Mr. Tucker explained that it is the Commission's policy to require sidewalks
in the urban area; he stated that the Commission does have the option of waiving
this policy though.
Mrs. Graves asked that the staff investigate businesses in the urban area
having their own septic systems, when the Service Authority oftens counts on their
having public sewer.
Mr. Jones asked the possibility of the road being widened in that area.
Mr. Tucker said that it will certainly not be in the immediate future, since
they have commitments for other areas; also they recently did work in the Rio Road
area.
Mr. Easter asked that the Highway Department be present at the next meeting
to discuss the sidewalk situation.
Mr. Rotgin asked that the Commission view the site before the next meeting.
He also felt that the sidewalk is unreasonable, since it would lead to nowhere.
Mr. Peatross did not feel it reasonable to require sidewalks here because
all the surrounding property is in commercial use. There is no residential use around.
Mr. Graves suggesting a dedication for a sidewalk.
Mr. Tucker explained that it would be in the right-of-way.
Mr. Gloeckner said that if the Highway Department were expecting any foot
traffic that they would have put sidewalks on the bridge.
Mr. Barksdale moved that condition V , addressing requirement of sidewalk,
be struck from the recommendations.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion.
effect
Mrs. Graves said that she supported the staff; she feared what /such a motion
would have on further development in the urban area.
Mr. Payne said that in order to waive the sidewalk, the Commission would have
to determine that this request is distinguishable from other requests where sidewalks
have been required.
Mr. Tucker agreed that any deviation from policy would have to be justified.
Mr. Jones thought that it would be better to decide the sidewalk question
when a representative from the Highway Department is present.
Mr. Tucker said that the Highway Department won't recommend one way or the
other on this. He said that they will tell the Commission that it is up to the
County to determine where it wants sidewalks.
Dr. Moore said that he supported Mrs. Graves, since the sidewalks must
begin somewhere.
Mr. Gloeckner said that the Commission needs to know the Highway Department's
policy on sidewalks in commercial areas and in residential areas.
381
Mr. Barksdale said that he would withdraw his motion to delete this condition
until there is input from the Highway Department.
Mr. Easter also stated that when the applicant considers moving the building
that he should consider turning space for the heavy trucks.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion to defer action until the next week.
The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
The Oaks preliminary plat - Located south side of Whitewood Road:
Mr. Keeler located the property for the Commission, stating that the 71 lots
have an average size of approximately 1/3 acre. Property is zoned R-2. There is
a density about 2.78 units per acre. There are state roads, county sewer and water.
Approval should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Grading permit;
2. Water and sewer plans require Engineering and Service Authority approval;
3. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval;
4. Setbacks on corner and cul-de-sac lots must be corrected;
5. Commission must approve easement to serve sewer lift station;
6. Waiver of frontage needed on cul-de-sac lots; A-13, B-13, B-14, B-15;
7. If the Highway Department will not accept 60' right-of-way at the entrance, then
a waiver for 10' planting strip will be needed;
8. Commission should require sidewalks on both sides of all roads.
NOTE: Residue acreages of 2.335 acres and 0.779 acres are created on Route 743 by this
subdivision.
Mr. Boggs, representing the applicant, objected to the sidewalks on both sides of
the road, stating that they had been provided for on one side.
Mr. Landess felt that sidewalks on one side is sufficient.
Mrs: Graves said that Fire Marshal approval is needed.
Mrs. Scala said that the Fire Marshal required two hydrants and they are
shown on the plan. There is also an 8" water main inside the development.
Mr. Easter asked the policy on sidewalks in developments with this type of
density.
Mr. Tucker said that in a residential development there is a trend to have
them on one side of the property. He said that the staff suggested outside, but
as long as they are provided on one side the staff is agreeable to this. A sidewalk
is needed to Whitewood Road.
Mr. Jones said that there is only one entrance/exit; he felt that because
of the number of dwelling units that another is needed, and suggested Peyton Drive.
Mr. Peatross said that Peyton Drive is a private drive.
382
Mr. Easter pointed out that there are many subdivisions in the county
with only one entrance ( Bellair, Ednam Forest, Meriwether Hills, and others
were cited as examples ).
Mr. Jones asked about an exit onto Route 743.
Mr. Keeler said that the sight distance is poor.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed that another entrance is needed in cases of emergency
or fire and suggested a fire truck easement near lots 27 and 28.
Mr. Easter inquired about a fire lane on Peyton Drive.
Mr. Gloeckner reminded the Commission that there were easements onto Route
743 from Four Seasons for fire trucks.
Mrs. Graves suggested widening the entrance.
Mr. Landess, attorney for the applicant, said that only one entrance had
been provided in order to protect the development from adjoining high density
development and commercial development in this area.
Mr. Boggs said that any such easements would be used for pedestrians,
bikes, motor bikes, etc., which would not be agreeable.
Mr. Keeler said that the Fire Marshal did not make any of these requirements
in his recommendations. He had requested only the two hydrants.
Mrs. Graves suggested the larger entrance with one-way traffic within.
Mrs. Scala said that the state won't take into the system any one-way
interior streets.
Mr. Easter suggested that perhaps the interior road should be widened.
Mr. Boggs said that it is more than the required width for the number of
vechicle trips per day, which is figured by multiplying the number of dwelling
units by seven.
Mrs. Graves said that if the school buses travel the interior of the
development that sidewalks are needed on all the roads and cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Tucker said that buses serve only state roads.
Mrs. Graves said that she had forgotten that schools don't have to provide
buses to residences within one mile radius of the school.
Dr. Moore said that sidewalks are needed on both sides - that all developments
in the county should be that modern. There is no need to have them one place and not
the other.
Mr. Barksdale said that the problem with this is that the consumer realizes
this in the purchase price of the dwelling units.
Mr. Easter said that this would be a difference of $600-700 dollars per unit.
Mrs. Graves said that sidewalks on each side of the entrance is not unreasonable.
19"W
Mr. Landess said that the Highway Department does not want to maintain
plantings or extra width of the road.
Mr. Easter said that the Planning Commission can waive the spite strip
but that the Highway Department won't maintain it.
Mr. Jones said that the owner can do as he wishes with the trees once
the property is purchased.
Mr. Easter said that he is willing to waive the spite strip if maintenance
of the strip is included in the deed of the property and the trees remain.
Mr. Jones said that there will be better visibility without the trees.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he still favored an alternate access - only an
easement is needed at lot 8. He said that it could be provided that it never
be dedicated for public use.
Mrs. Graves said that recreational areas even in a single-family development
should be considered. She suggested this use for the residue.
Mr. Boggs asked that the applicant be permitted to work out an emergency
exit with the staff.
The sidewalks were again discussed and most members of the Commission felt
that sidewalks on one side in the interior of the development were sufficient and
that there be sidewalks on each side of the entrance.
Mr. Landess said that a recreational area is not needed in a single-family
development.
Mrs. Graves told him that children still need a place to play.
Mr. Landess said that any recreational area provided here would also
be used by surrounding development. He feared it would be like community recreation.
Mr. Easter asked if the recreational area would be effective if it is provided.
Mr. Boggs said that such recreational areas provide a maintenance problem,
especially in a single-family development.
#7
Col. Washington suggested deleting condition/from the conditions.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the preliminary plat subject to the first
six conditions recommended by the staff plus the following:
7. Sidewalks on both sides of the entrance and on one side of the interior roads.
8. Fire Marshal approval.
Discussion:
Mrs. Graves asked if the Comprehensive Plan addresses parks and recreational
areas in this area.
Mr. Tucker said that it doesn't because schools are near here and there
are recreation areas at the schools.
jd
The motion to approve the plat was seconded by Col. Washington.
It carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Stillfield preliminary plat - Located north side of Route 654 near Montvue.
Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by turning
the chairmanship over to Mr. Barksdale and leaving the room. He stated that he
has no legal conflict, but that he has had many dealings with the University of
Virginia and he feels he has a moral conflict.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote for the
same reasons.
Mr. Barksdale assumed the chairmanship.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that this is a subdivision
of 18 lots with an average size of 1.46 acres and a minimum size of 1.00 acres.
Zoned R-1, the property has county water and individual septic systems. There
is a proposed state road and existing privately maintained roads.
Approval should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Grading permit;
2. Waterline plans must be approved by Engineering Department and Service
Authority;
3. Lots 17 and 18 require waiver of frontage;
4. Subject to Virginia Department of Highways approval;
5. Subject to Health Department approval.
Mr. Jones asked how short the frontage is of meeting the requirement.
Mr. Keeler said that it is two feet short for one lot and twenty-two feet
on the other.
Dr. Moore asked about Highway Department approval.
Mr. Keeler said that the staff has as yet received no comments from the
Highway Department.
Mr. Boggs said that he talked to the Highway Department that day and
that they had not completed their review of the plat. He did say that there
is adequate sight distance.
Mr. Barksdale asked about lots entering onto private roads.
Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission must determine if this is the
proper thing to do.
Mr. Barksdale suggested a maintenance agreement with Magnolia Drive.
Mr. Jack Kegley, President of the Montvue Homeowner's Association,
stated that they have reviewed the plans and have worked out a joint maintenance
agreement for three lots. He said that the plan is quite acceptable with this
joint maintenance.
385
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Humphries, owners and residentsain Colthurst,
opposed the plat because of the entrance. They felt that/entrance as proposed
wr► would be a tragic spot.
Dr. Moore suggested it be served by single entrance/exit and internal roads.
Mr. Boggs said that this would create lots with double frontage . This
would also mean that the lot sizes would have to be increased.
Mr. Peatross said that there has been no comment from the Highway Department
and they they need to advise the Commission about the safety factor.
Mrs. David stated that traffic does accelerate at the curve.
Mr. Peatross moved deferral until there is Highway Department input.
Mrs. Scala said that the staff expects to receive this input this week.
Mr. Jack Kegley said that the Montvue entrance, when used as an entrance
toward town, is very dangerous.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion to defer action, which carried unanimously.
Messrs -Easter and Gloeckner returned to the meeting.
Mr. Easter resumed the chairmanship.
Windrift final plat - West side of Route 664 near Route 666:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that this is a subdivision
of 15 lots with an average size of 4.11 acres and a minimum lot size of 2.0 acres.
Property is zoned A-1 and has individual well and septic systems. There is
a proposed state road.
Conditions of approval recommended by the staff were:
1. Grading permit;
2. Health Department approval;
3. Subject to Highway Department approval;
4. Lot 12 requires a waiver of frontage;
5. Reduced original needed.
Mr. Boggs presented the Health Department approval to Mr. Easter.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the maintenance of the pond's dam.
Mr. Boggs said that there is to be joint maintenance, as recorded in the deed
restrictions, of landowners adjacent to the pond.
Mrs. Graves said that if the unmarked lot is subdivided at a later date
that she wants it brought to the Commission.
being
Mr. Jim Hahn asked what is to preclude lots from/ further subdivided into
two -acre lots.
Mr. Gloeckner said that once the road becomes a state road that this can
be done administratively.
m.
Mr. Easter said that the owner could agree to a note on the plat regarding
no further subdivision.
Dr. Helm stated that he is interested in maintaining large lots in the
subdivision.
Mr. Jones said that if he intends to have 2-acre lots the County needs to
see this plan now.
Mr. Keeler said that by the way that it is laid out that the intent is NOT
to further subdivide, since lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13 cannot be further
subdivided. On other lots he suggested the note: No further subdivision without
Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Payne said that this cannot be done because of state road frontage. He
said that it would be contrary to the ordinance to require this note.
Mr. Easter asked that the staff be on notice that if any of these other
lots come to the County for further subdivision to bring them to the Commission.
Mr. Downing, a professional engineer, said that the applicant's surveyor
has spent much time preparing this plat for best sites, locations;, slopes have
also been considered in the plan.
Mr. Boggs stated that he had just been informed by the owner that he will
put a note ,on the plat regarding no further subdivision.
Mr. Jones moved approval of the plat subject to conditions 1, 3, and 5
as recommended by the staff. He moved that the waiver be granted.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Peatross, carried unanimously.
Route 29 South - Land Use Capabilities:
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report ( see attached sheets ).
The Commission discussed items such as the tax situation along this
road - whether it was for A-1 zoning or for frontage on Route 29 South.
There was a discussion whether to consider the use of the entire strip along
Route 29 south or whether to consider individual uses as they were proposed.
Some felt that industrial uses would be appropriate here ( due to the proximity
to I-64, the railroad, and a major state route ) while some members felt that
the land was appropriate for conservation uses ( because of slopes, soil limitations,
and building feasibility ). It was pointed out that there are business uses
permitted in A-1 zone ( such as professional offices, craft shops, general stores,
etc. .), which if A-1 zoning remains, that owners could apply for in order to use
their land. A member felt that land should not be downzoned. Also discussed
was the fact that there is business zoning near I-64 that is not being used.
Mrs. David pointed out that there is no need to rush ahead with this
since it probably won't be developed within the next six months. She suggested
waiting until the review of the area for the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Easter called attention to the fact that the area has problems -
topography, soils, building feasibility - and asked that these be pointed out
to the Consultant. He also asked that it be pointed out that the County does not
want this area stripped like Route 29 North is.
387
It was agreed that the Commission should give the staff sufficient input
to carry to the Board when they heard a rezoning case that has been deferred
' for two months in order that this land use capability study could be completed.
Mrs. Graves moved that the Commission follow the staff's recommendation, noting
that there already exists approximately 67 acres of vacant commercially zoned land in
the immediate area, and that to rezone any additional land to commercial in this area
would be overzoning. She also asked that the consultant be advised of the important
points discussed during the work session, stating they might want to consider this entire
strip in their review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mr. Gloeckner voting against
the motion on the basis that this means leaving the status quo. He said that
he wished to establish the intent for the entire area and not handle it on a
case -to -case basis.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at midnight.
Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr. -4ecre ary
MR
En
LAND USE CAPABILITIES
U. S. 29 South
On June 1, 1976, the Albemarle County Planning Commission requested the staff
to review the land along 29 South, specifically that area lying between the
Southern Railway and right-of-way of U. S. 29, to determine what the best use
of that land might be. The study area boundaries are formed by Interstate 64
to the north; the east and west boundaries are parallel to U. S. 29 and measured
approximately 1200 feet from the centerline of U. S. 29; and the southern
boundary terminates the study area in the Red Hill vicinity where the distance
between U. S. 29 and the Southern Railway increases substantially.
The staff has analyzed three major physical characteristics in the area, i.e.,
the existing land use, soils, and the topography as it relates to building
suitability.
LAND USE
The existing land use in the area is made up primarily in forest and grassland.
Single-family detached units and farm complexes are sparce but encompass the
majority of physical development along 29 South. There is one industry ( Gleco
Mills ) and three commercial establishments within the study area. ( SEE EXISTING
LAND USE MAP )
SOILS
The majority of the soils located in the study area are not well suited for intense
development. These soils are best suited for forestry and orchards primarily.
The depth to bedrock in most of these soils is shallow and therefore, the limitations
for septic tank and drainfields are moderate. The basic reason for the shallow soils
is the mountains and steep relief of the area.
Alluvial soils are found along the stream valleys which have very poor draining soils
since they remain saturated much of the time. ( See SOIL TYPES )
SUITABILITY FOR BUILDING
Very Steep/Rocky
The land rises steeply away from the highway and may be solid rock, which has been
blasted to allow for the construction of the road. In these areas access and
development would be very difficult to impossible.
Moderate slope
The terrain does not easily lend itself to development due to slope. Access and
development would require extensive grading. The land generally rises away from
the highway.
Buildable
These areas are gently sloping to level; access and development would require
moderate amount of site preparation. Generally there is not a large grade
change between these buildable areas and Route 29 or another access road. ,
Lowland/Floodplain
Route 29 South runs parallel to Moores Creek and other branches almost the entire
length of the study area. This creates grade changes which make access from
Route 29 nearly impossible. In some cases, development could occur with extensive
filling. The most extreme areas are near Hickory Hill, where Moores Creek runs along
a narrow strip between Route 29 and the railraod; south of Route 745 and also
near Gleco Mills where construction of Route 29 has created a severe grade change
on the east side.
Narrow shape
Due to the close proximity of Route 29 and the railroad, the land is physically
divided into a long narrow strip, which coupled with extreme topography makes
development and access difficult. ( see SUITABILITY FOR BUILDING map ).
SOIL TYPES AND DESCRIPTIONS
Ce Cecil loam, steep phase - steep relief and depth to bedrock is shallow;
this soil has moderate limitations for septic
tank; the best use for this land is forestry.
Cf Cecil fine sandy loan - good internal and surface drainage; roderate limitations
for septic tank; good for agriculture, especially
truck crops.
Po Porters stony loan - depth to bedrock is shallow; moderate limitations for
septic tank; moderate erosion hazard; not suited to
cultivated crops; well suited to forestry and orchards.
A Alluvial soils ( Congaree soil material ) - this soil represents material
deposited by streams and washed from
adjoining stream slopes; drainage is
poor and soil remains saturated much
of the time.
Pl Porters loam - steep relief; thorough drainage; medium available water capacity;
excellent for orchards.
Rs Rough Stony land ( Porters soil material ) - extreme steepness; soil depth is
shallow; high percentage of loose
rock fragments and boulders; best
use for land is forestry.
Cs Congaree silt loam - found primarily along stream beds; limited potential for
many urban uses because of depth to bedrock; available water
capacity is low.
SOURCE: Soil Survey: Albemarle County, United States Department of Agriculture.
Soil Conservation Service.
STAFF COMMENT
The staff has analyzed the strip between Route 29 South and the Southern Rail-
road as to the appropriateness of uses in the A-1 Agricultural zone. In staff
opinion, this strip has a potential for the following uses:
Use by Right
Single-family detached dwellings
Conservation and preservation
Home Occupation, Class A
Mobile homes
Single-family detached dwellings - rental
Use by Special Permit
Animal hospitals
Fire stations and rescue squads
Public garage
General stores
Gift, craft, and antique shops
Horse trailer sales, limited
Commercial kennels
Professional offices
Two-family dwellings
Agricultural service occupation
By listing the above uses, the staff is not indicating that any of these uses would
be appropriate to a specific parcel. As outlined in this report, consideration of
soils, topography and access -egress may further limit use of individual parcels, both
in terms of the economic feasibility of development and in terms of the general
health, safety, and welfare of the public. The staff would emphasize the following:
1. Of the potential uses listed, several are generally high -value commercial uses;
2. Site development costs for the study area will generally be extensive due to
topographic features including grade differential, steepness of slope, presence
of streams, presence of rock. Soil conditions may prohibit septic systems. The
Health Department requires septic fields to be a minimum of fifty feet from a
stream. The Highway Department may require deceleration and acceleration lanes
for commercial type uses. Combined with parking requirements, these factors will
limit uses regardless of zoning;
3. U. S. Route 29 South, excepting Interstate 64, is the only major_ access to
Charlottesville which remains uncompromised by development. Extending development
beyond the Bypass would reduce the effectiveness of both the Bypass and Route 29 S
as major volume movers and could reduce the safety of these routes. Since the
study area is physically defined as a narrow strip, development could occur only in
strip fashion which is clearly in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
In conclusion, several of the potential uses presently provided for in the A-1 zone
are of a commercial nature and are comparable to uses provided for in the B-1 Business
Zone. Since there already exists approximately 67 acres of vacant commercially zoned
land in the immediate area, it is still the staff's opinion that to rezone any additional
land to commercial in this area would be overzoning.