HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 392-502392
August 3, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting Tuesday,
August 3, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Paul Peatross; Mrs. Joan
Graves; Dr. James Moore; Col. William Washington; Mr. Leslie Jones. Absent was Mrs.
Opal David, ex-Officio. Other officers present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., Director
of Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Planner; Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County
Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Minutes of July 27, 1976:
Mr. Easter, who had presided at the July 27th meeting, stated that the minutes
were in order as far as he is concerned. Mrs. Graves told the Commission that she
had requested that her motion regarding the Route 29 South land use be reworded to
state that she wanted the staff's recommendation followed - this had been discussed
with the recording secretary and had been changed prior to the meeting. She read the
revised wording to the Commission. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the minutes.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Peatross, who noted that the minutes were of July 27, 1976,
carried unanimously.
Excess Baggage Site Plan - a deferred item:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that Fire Marshal approval has
been received, and that verbal approval from the Health Department for a septic system
has been received. The Engineering Department approved the pavement specs and water
line ( a sewer line will not be utilized, since a septic system has been approved.
The plat shows an area for a turnaround for a fire truck at the southeast corner;
there is adequate space at the northeast corner for automobiles or U-haul trucks to
turn around. Also shown is space near the entrance for a tractor trailer to turn
around without having to back out onto Rio Road. The plat should be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. Grading permit, including approval of storm drainage;
2. Engineering approval of retaining walls;
3. Highway Department approval;
4. Sidewalk along Rio Road.
Mr. Easter presided, since the chairman had not been present for the previous
discussion of the site plan.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, the applicant, stated that sidewalks are still a concern,
but he is ready to comply with other staff recommended conditions.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, resident engineer for the Virginia Department of Highways,
stated that the right-of-way on the frontage totals 90 feet. He said that the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plans calls for 90 feet with curb and gutter and sidewalks along
Rio Road. He pointed out that it is the policy of the County to require sidewalks in
the urban area. If these sidewalks are desired, most of the funding will have to come
910a3
from the county or the developer. He said that the Highway Department does not
advise sidewalks at this time since they would be torn out at the time the
highway is up -graded. If they are needed he suggested some sort of provision,
such as a bond, in order that they could be built at a later date. Mr. Tucker
told the Commission that the Highway Department cannot determine if sidewalks
go here. He said that the road is proposed for a major collector, so the plan
for sidewalks is a tough matter. He suggested that if they are not built now that
some sort of provision be made for them in the future. Mr. Roosevelt informed the
Commission the sidewalks, if in line and grade, will be taken over by the Highway
Department for maintenance.
Mr. Peatross asked if sidewalks across the bridge will ever be put in
on the line and grade Mr. Roosevelt referred to. Mr. Roosevelt responded that
it was doubtful, unless the bridge is widened, which will probably never happen
Dr. Moore asked if the other two lanes were not planned at the same time that the
bridge was built. Mr. Roosevelt said that they were.
Mr. Reynolds, the Fire Marshal, stated that he had approved the site plan
as submitted that morning. Mrs. Graves asked if the approval would change if he
considered there might be a residence there. Mr. Reynolds said that it would not,
only the building specifications would change, which would not affect the site plan.
Mr. Rotgin said that he would like to again discuss the sidewalk requirement.
There is no walkway on the bridge, and if a sidewalk is required it will line up on
one end with the Exxon pumps and on the other end with the oil tanks. There is no
foot traffic for the sidewalk. He said that the centerline of the highway is known,
but unless the grade is known, it will be shortsighted to put in the walk. He asked
that the Commission consider that the owners of this property were the only ones
not to contest road construction a few years ago, simply since they felt the road
would make the property more valuable in the long run.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the Board of Supervisors can make
assessments on property when improvements, including services, sidewalks, etc., are
needed. He stated that the Board, in the future, could decide that sidewalks are
necessary. Mr. Payne explained that by a 2/3 vote the Board could do such. He said
that in such a circumstance as this, it is not the last look that the County has at the
site. He suggested that any long-term bonding would be cumbersome.
Mr. Easter said that since the law provides for future assessment, sidewalks
are not necessary.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to conditions 1, 2, and 3
as recommended by the staff, omitting the condition regarding sidewalks.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Discussion: Dr. Moore asked if there will be final approval of septic system.
Mrs. Scala told him that the Health Department will furnish written approval.
The motion to approve the site plan carried by a vote of 8-0, with Mr. Carr
abstaining.
9
Stillfield preliminary plat - deferred item: 394
Messrs. Easter and Gloeckner disqualified themselves from the dicussion and vote
by leaving the room. Mr. Barksdale assumed the chairmanship, since Mr. Carr had been absent
from the previous meeting.
Mrs. Scala reminded the Commission that this plat had been deferred in order
to have input from the Highway Department. As a review, it was stated that this is
a proposed subdivision of 18 lots, property zoned R-1. The average lot size is 1.46 acres.
There is County water and individual septic systems. There is a proposed state road
and existing privately maintained roads. The plat proposes a new state road connection
and two additional shared entrances onto Barracks Road. Approval should be conditioned
upon the following:
1. Grading permit;
2. Engineering and Service Authority approval of the waterline plans;
3. Lots 17 and 18 require waiver of frontage;
4. Highway Department approval;
5. Health Department approval.
Mr. Barksdale questioned Mr. Roosevelt about the safety of the entrances.
Mr. Roosevelt said that sight distances to subdivision entrances are based on the speed
limit of the state road. He said that a 550' sight distance would be required to
Stillfield Road and that the shared entrances onto Barracks Road would require
275' sight distance. In this case, he doubted that there is 550 feet sight distance
to Stillfield Road, but felt that there is some place along the frontage where the
requirement can be met. Mr. Barksdale asked if the proposed roads are any more dangerous
than the existing road, and Mr. Roosevelt said "no."
Mr. Peatross asked if there are any studies on speed limits that have been
accomplished on Garth Road. Mr. Roosevelt said that it really makes no difference what
the speed limits for a road are unless there is rigid enforcement of the speed limit.
Mr. Peatross then asked if the speed limit there takes into consideration this proposed
subdivision. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the speed limit could not be changed until the
subdivision is a reality.
Dr. Moore asked if a greater than 50' right-of-way is needed on Barracks Road.
Mr. Roosevelt said that Barracks Road is a major collector and that 90-100 feet right-of-
way is needed. Once the lots are developed, the extra width will be obtained only by
purchasing land for the right-of-way from the owners - highway fund dollars would be
used for the purchase.
Dr. Moore pointed out that as Albemarle County grows more single entrances
to subdivisions are needed, rather than several private entrances onto state roads.
He stated that this is especially true here because of the high speed hill.
Mr. Roosevelt told the Commission that the fewer entrances onto a major
collector the safer the major collector. He said, however, that he has to enforce
the requirements of the Highway Department as they exist now, and that basically,
once the sight distances are met, he will have to approve the plat.
Mr. Jessup said that there needs to be one main entrance to the subdivision,
mainly because of safety. He told the Commission that he will develop his property
across the street in the same fashion that this property is being developed. He
pointed out, though, that if more than one entrance is permitted, it will be
an extension of city -type streets into the country.
Mrs. Charlotte Humphries, a Colthurst resident, discussed the safety conditions
along Barracks Road, pointing out that the speed limit here is not observed. The
curve at the Montvue entrance is a safety hazard. She asked that special consideration
be given to the entrances to this subdivision, since the entrances could be a safety
hazard if not properly planned.
WOO
Mr. Marshall, representing Mr. Robinson, said that if this applicant
dedicates 30 feet to widen the right-of-way, that Mr. Robinson will dedicate
20 feet.
Dr. Moore stated that he could not approve the plat as submitted because
of the unsafe roads. He said that the dedication of a right-of-way also needs
consideration.
Mr. Tucker said that an additional reservation can be required, but that
more than a 50 foot right-of-way cannot be required. He stated that there is
adequate room shown on the plat for pavement without encroaching on planned residences.
Mr. Jones agreed with Dr. Moore, stating that the Commission should consider
the possible future widening of Barracks Road.
Mr. Peatross said that he is not convinced that the Virginia Department of
Highways' requirement of 550 feet sight distance can be met.
Mr. Boggs said that if the plan does not meet the 550 feet requirement, that it
will be changed at the final plan stage.
Dr. Moore questioned the double frontage lots. Mr. Tucker explained that
even though the subdivision ordinance prohibits double frontage lots, the Commission
can waive this, if justified.
Dr. Moore also asked if the plat comes under the moratorium area.
Mr. Tucker said that it does not. He also explained how easements for four
lots could prevent double frontage lots. Dr. Moore said that in this particular
case, he does not find double frontage lots to be any problem.
Mrs. Graves said that she wishes the master plan for Barracks Road to be
followed.
Mr. Jones suggested deferring action until the next week at which time
he would like to see one entrance to the subdivision as well as Highway Department
approval.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the
motion carried by a 6-0 vote, with Mr. Carr abstaining.
Messrs. Easter and Gloeckner returned to the meeting.
ZMP-178. Wendell W. Wood has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to rezone 1.5 acres from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business and
9.25 acres from R-2 Residential to R-3 Residential. Property is located
on the south side of Route 743 ( Hydraulic Road ) near its intersection
with Route 631. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 12, Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
AND
396
ZMP-10-76. Wendell W. Wood has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to rezone 8.74 acres form R-2 Residential to R-3
Residential. Property is located on the south side of Route 743
( Hydraulic Road ) near its intersection with Route 631, and abuts the Four Seasons
Property on the southwest side. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 9, Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
It was decided by the Commission to discuss the above two requests jointly,
but to take two separate actions.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, and he cited the letters of opposition
received by the staff.
Mr. Carr asked if this request is new business before the Commission.
Mr. Payne replied that it is unclear whether this is old or new business. He said
that for all practical purposes, what had happened is that the court vacated the
action the Board of Supervisors had taken on the rezoning request, due to the fact
that the Court had found that the applicant and someone else in the area had been
treated differently. This has the effect of no action ever having been taken.
Mr. Payne said that he has reservations about the Commission reviewing the application
and not considering current circumstances. He said that the staff report must
be considered as current evidence. He did point out that ZMP-178 has been considered
in the past. He advised the Commission to review the two applications on their merits.
Mr. Wood, the applicant, stated that he has no objection to the requests
being considered under existing circumstances. He did point out that it was the
staff's suggestion that the rezoning requests be presented as two separate applications
rather than one.
Mr. Kudravetz, representing Mr. Wood, stated that there had been a reason
for the delay of re -application. Mr. Wood was originally the contract purchaser,
and is now the owner. Mr. Kudravetz read from Judge Berry's order, stating that
the application, unless referred back from the Board, did not need to go to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Kudravetz stated that it appeared to be clear that the
application ( ZMP-178 ) should be considered in view of the circumstances at the
time of the original application. He pointed out that the current circumstances
further support this application - there is already water and sewer available.
The gas pipeline is already through the property. The County's Comprehensive Plan
calls for high density development in that area. He stated that Four Seasons and
Four Seasons West properties are in the surrounding area, schools are close, and
Whitewood Road has been opened up to give direct access to Route 29 North.
Mr. Peatross questioned the date of the judge's reading.
Mr. Kudravetz stated that it was April 11, 1972.
Mr. Peatross asked if the delay is due to the date of the Supreme Court decision.
Mr. Kudravetz said that it was.
Mr. Wendell Wood said that the Supreme Court decision had been received only
this past March. He said that the land had been proposed for R-3 zoning under the
proposed zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan suggests high density development
for this area. He said that he does not understand the opposition from Berkeley
and Four Seasons Patio Association, since they are not even close to the property.
The original concern had been Route 743's lack of access to Route 29 North - but
this problem has been solved by Whitewood Road leading into Greenbrier Drive.
The sewer line was sized at 14" for high density development. There is natural drainage
on this property to the sewerline.
397
He stated that he does not intend to develop this at a density of 34 dwelling units
per acre, and that 20 units per acre would be quite satisfactory. He pointed out
that theJ'adjacentproperty owners have not opposed the requests. Schools and road
situations support the high density development. wad
Mr. Fleming stated that he supports this rezoning request because it is the
best use of the land.
Mr. Robert Wood, resident of Georgetown Green, and member of the Church
of Latter Day Saints, whose church is located in the area of the proposed rezoning,
opposed the requests since he felt that such development would downgrade the character
of the area. There is already considerable density in the area and there is a
dangerous intersection at the 7-Day Junior food market.
Mr. Leroy Snow stated when this area was chosen as the site for the church
the members wanted to upgrade the community. He felt such a rezoning would be
inappropriate for the area.
Mr. Dale Jones said that he could not see the advantage to having all one
zone in this area. The master plan, he said,is good and it should be followed.
He opposedthe requests. Mrs. Jones also opposed the requests stating that there
is already existing zoning in the area for a neighborhood shopping center. She
said that she hopes the residential character of the neighborhood will be retained
and the requests denied, especially since the church had chosen to locate in the area.
Mr. Dawson and Mr. Baker, also members of the church, opposed the requests.
Mr. Hereford Greenstead and Mr. Carl Rainey also opposed the requests citing
traffic problems on Route 743 as reasons.
Mr. Wood pointed out the commercial areas in the area between Union Ridge
and the 7-Eleven Store.
Mrs. Graves asked if ZMP-178 is properly before the Commission if the applicant
proposes only 0.74 acres of commercial land. She stated that this would leave the
remainder R-3 zoning and it was not advertised this way.
Mr. Payne said that when property is advertised for a more intensive use
that is proposed, it does not affect the ability of the Commission to hear the
request. He said that it is recognized that B-1 zoning is more intensive than
R- 3 .
Mr. Kudravetz said that when the area was surveyed, it was found that there
are 9.84 acres of property, rather than 10.75 acres.
Mr. Jones asked at what rate it is expected that property in that area will
be developed. Mr. Wood said that in 1973, 1100 building permits will issued for
the entire county as compared to 500 building permits issued in 1975.
Mr. Easter asked the zoning of specific areas in the County. Mr. Tucker
told him that Crenshaw's is zoned R-3, Parcels 1, 15, 16, and 17 are zoned R-2,
Parcel 20 is R-3, Parcels 18A and 19 are R-2, and Parcels 29 and Georgetown Woods
is zoned R-3.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that there are also several single-family residences
in the area. Mr. Wood said that there are three single-family dwellings and one
mobile home.
Mrs. Graves asked if the Highway Department has any plans to improve the
intersection.
398
Mr. Roosevelt stated that there are funds allocated to improve Route 743
from its intersection at Route 29 North to this intersection. The funds are
supposed to be available in July, 1977. However, if will be at least two years
before any construction could possibly begin.
Mr. Gloeckner asked why the Board denied ZMP-178 when it was originally
presented to them.
Mr. Wood said that they turned it down based on the fact that there was
no connection from Route 743 ( Hydraulic Road ) to Route 29 North.
Mr. Graves said that under the present Comprehensive Plan that medium
density residential is considered to be 2.5 dwelling units per acre with high
density development at 15 dwelling units per acre. She said that if this property
is rezoned as requested that it had the potential of being developed at 35 dwelling
units per acre. She also said that the Comprehensive Plan calls for mixed residential
use in the area, and not just high density development.
Dr. Moore said that the area is coming close to the density recommended
by the Comprehensive Plan and it is important that it not exceed that density. He
suggested leaving the property as it is currently ( R-2 ).
Mr. Barksdale asked the applicant if he had considered an R-3/RPN designation.
Mr. Wood said that he had not, but that he did not want to develop the property at
over 17-18 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Barksdale pointed out to him that the County
could not hold him to this density if it is rezoned R-3.
Mr. Wood said that the previous County Attorney recommended to him that
he hold off on re -submitting the request since the County intended to rezone the
area to R-3.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of ZMP-178.
Mr. Carr said that he could not support R-3 zoning for this property, though
he could support a lesser density for multi -family residences.
Mr. Tucker said that if the whole picture for the area is looked at, that
a multi -family density, rather than R-3 density would come more in line with the
Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that the proposed zoning ordinance can no
longer be considered and that it cannot even be used as a guide.
Mrs. Graves said that she supported the creation of another residential
zone, as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which would permit 15 dwelling units/acre.
Mr. Easter said that he supported the ideas of the chairman.
Mr. Tucker said that it is not the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to have
a strip of high density development in that area. He said that the density of the
area is an average of the densities in the area.
Mr. Peatross said that the County is no bound by the decision of 1972. Today's
circumstances can be considered. He said that he concurred with the chair.
Mr. Tucker said that the staff feels that the current zone is appropriate, and
that to change it would be overzoning. He said that the staff would not necessarily
support an R-3/RPN zone.
399
Mr. Jones asked about the sewer line and the applicant's possible use of it.
Mr. Tucker responded that he did not think that the Engineers designed the sewer
line for high density development.
Mr. Barksdale withdrew his motion to approve and asked that action be deferred
until the applicant discussed with the staff the possibility of R-3/RPN zoning
with a possible density of 18-20 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion.
Mr. Payne said that when this motion is voted on, it must be understood that
the Commission is not stating that it will approve or disapprove any certain density.
Mr. Carr said that he accepted the motion as long as it is understood that
what Mr. Payne said is his feeling - that he is not committing approval of any certain
density. He asked Mrs. Graves if she accepted the motion, and she said that she did.
The motion to defer action on ZMP-178 carried unanimously.
Mr. Barksdale said that he made the same motion to defer action on ZMA-10-76.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ZMA-12-76. Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Martin have petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to rezone 10.07+ acres from A-1 Agricultural to
CVN Conservation. Property is located at the west end of Forest Ridge
Road in Ardwood Subdivision. County Tax Map 45G, Parcels 4, 5, and 4A,
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, stating that the staff supported
the requested rezoning.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the request. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the
motion, which carried by a vote of 8-0 ( Dr. Moore was absent at the time of the
vote ) .
ZMA-13-76. William H. Faulconer has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to rezone 3.84 acres from R-1 Residential to CO, Commercial
Office. Property is located at the entrance to Bellair Estates and has
fronatage along U. S. Route 250 West. County Tax Map 76C, Parcel B-1-A,
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, emphasizing that approval of this petition
would not restrict that this property be used as proposed. The staff did recommend
approval, however they pointed out that the porposal for this siteisambitious
considering the physical and legal restrictions to development.
Col. Washington questioned the legal restrictions. Mr. Tucker said that
he was referring to the scenic designation of Route 250 West and the setback
required by the Scenic Highway Ordinance. .1100
Mr. Easter asked is Parcel 1-A is a residential use at this time. Mr. Tucker
said "no."
Ctall]
Mr. Jones said that even though the applicant could not be restricted to the
proposed use, that CO is supposed to be compatible to residential areas.
Mr. McCue, representing the applicant, Mr. William Faluconer, said that the
applicant is concerned about the neighborhood, its character, its well-being. He
was proposing this use to serve as a buffer. Mr. McCue felt the request to be
appropriate and not degrading to the property in that area. He stated that the
applicant lives in Bellair. He stated that he does not feel that this property is
subject to the deed restrictions placed on the other Bellair lots, though some of
the property owners in that area do. He stated that he was aware that some of the
owners in the area would address the traffic situation. He stated that Mr. Max
Evans has twice spoken to the Virginia Department of Highways regarding this, but
more input from them is necessary. He asked that the public hearing be held, but
that any action be deferred until there is further Highway Department input and until
a few other questions are resolved.
Mr. Max Evans gave the Commission a presentation based on several diagrams
he had drawn. He showed a map of the existing conditions, pointing out the
the low land in front, with the drainage swale. He stated that the site is separate,
through topography and screening, from Bellair. He stated that the applicant
proposes three traditional buildings that would be residential in character. Only
one building will be built initially. He explained the proposed parking.
He also diagramatically pointed out that the setback from a scenic highway would
not affect the use of the property.
Dr. Moore asked the shortest depth of the property. Mr. Evans stated
that it is approximately 250 feet. He proposed shifting the drainage swale to the
front of the property along Route 250 and that the three buildings be in the center
of the property. He said that he had met with the Highway Department and that they
do have some plans for improving the road conditions in that area. Again he showed
the Commission the plan illustrating setback, building design, parking layout,
plantings, sight distances, etc.
Mr. Stephens, an adjacent property owner, said that he supported the
request and much preferred this plan to vacant land and the "unknown."
Messrs. Leideg and Hutton also supported the request on this basis.
Mr. Landess, representing the Bellair Home Owners' Association, told the
Commission that he did not think that it is possible to present all the facts
to the Commission, especially since it is currently being decided if this property
has to adhere to the Bellair deed restrictions.
Mr. Carr said that the deed restrictions are a legal matter and that they
will be dealt with other places.
Mr. Landess said that the citizens in that area are concerned with the traffic,
the character of the area - especially any portion of the area going commercial.
Mr. Charles Flora, President of the Homeowners' Association, presented a
petition of 102 signatures opposed to the request. He said that one of the major
concerns is the traffic problem. He did not want all the traffic going to the
proposed development coming into Bellair. He also pointed out that the property
around the lake often floods.
Mr. Larry Gardner also stated that the residents of the area are not assured
that if the property is rezoned that it will be used as proposed, especially since
the current owner is a nonagenarian.
401
Mr. Carr emphasized to the citizens of the Bellair area that if the
property is approved for CO zoning, there could be several uses and the
applicant would not be bound by this proposal.
Mr. Gardner said that the existing six or seven entrances in this area
already cause problems. He said that when the property is viewed it appears
to be part of Bellair. He opposed using residential roads for commercial traffic.
Mr. Landess said that Bellair and Liberty Hill have only one entrance/exit
and that there are already many traffic congestions there. He said that the character
of Bellair should be preserved and he also reminded the Commission of Route 250's
scenic designation.
Mr. Hutton said that he is the closest adjacent owner - his house will overlook
the development - and he feels this is less offensive than other uses that could occur
there.
Mr. Edmund Berkeley said that he had always understood that this property
was also to be in residential use.
Mrs. Dorothy Speidel, representing the Scenic Highway Committee for the Citizens
for Albemarle, asked if the plan conforms to the Scenic Ordinance.
Mr. Evans said that it is possible to have the three proposed buildings and
maintain the setback.
Mr. Tucker said that it is the staff's opinion that it may be necessary
to secure a variance since the right-of-way width here is 55 feet and the scenic
highway setback is 150 feet.
Mr. Preston reminded the Commission that Birdwood is adjacent of Belliar
and that it is slated for future development. He stated that the traffic situation
is going to get worse all the time.
Mr. Jack Martin said that he opposed the request, especially since it will
generate more traffic into the Bellair subdivision.
Mr. Evans said that the office space will be used for doctors, dentists, insur-
ance agents, real estate agents, etc. However, some of these uses generate more traffic
than others. Less than one-third of the traffic will be using Old Farm Road, though.
Mr. Hutton asked for a description of the buildings proposed. Mr. Evans
said that the largest will be seventy feet in length. All will have pitched roofs
and will be two -storey buildings..
Mr. Carr told the citizens that questions such as signs, lighting, etc.
will be discussed at site plan level, if the request is approved for CO zoning.
Mrs. Peggy Marshall said that she is appalled at the number of parking spaces
(197) that will have to be provided. Mr. Carr explained to her that parking is
determined by the square footage of a building.
Mr. Flora asked that the Commission give serious thought to the traffic
before making a decision.
402
Mr. Gardner stated that this ( Bellair ) is an established subdivision
and that to take an area next to such an established subdivision and zone it CO
would set a bad precedent for land near other established subdivisions.
Mr. McCue asked that the Commission defer action until there was further
input from the Highway Department.
Mr. Peatross asked if it is possiblethat litigation may be necessary
to solve the problem of the deed restrictions.
Mr. Payne stated that he has reviewed the matter and that it is not
clear-cut. He reminded the Commission that the deed restrictions don't affect
the validity of zoning. He told the Commission that action should be deferred
until it is established if the attorneys can resolve the problem.
Col. Washington said that before the Commission acts on the request
that he wants specifics from the Highway Department on what they plan with the
area around Piedmont Tractor, and the entrance/exit at Bellair. Mrs. Graves
stated that she would like to know more about the problem with the deed restrictions
before making any decision on this request.
Mr. Easter moved action be deferred until the Highway Department had
had more input, since he did not think that the Commission could become involved
in the problem with the deed restrictions.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mrs. Graves said that she wants the people of Bellair to know what is permitted
in the R-1 zone.
ZTA-76-08. Eric Heiner has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to allow residential use in the B-1 Business Zone by special
permit only.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, stating that this has been requested
in connection with the site plan for Excess Baggage. He stated that the staff
recommended amending the ordinance to establish this use in the B-1 zone by special
use permit with the following wording:
7-1-42(11) Accessory dwelling accommodation
16-28.1 Dwelling Accommodation, Accessory: One or more rooms designed to provide
living and sleeping accommodations in a structure used primarily for commercial
purposes, the inhabitation of which shall be limited to the proprietor and
his family or an employee of the proprietor and his family.
Mr. Heiner stated that the reason for this request is that it affords security to
customers who will be storing items there.
Mr. Payne reminded the Commission that some zoning ordinances are accumulative,
though Albemarle's isn't. He stated that this problem of residential uses in business
zoning has arisen several times and that Mr. Clarke, as Zoning Administrator, had
suggested something of this sort be provided by the ordinance.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the staff would not object to its being
a use by right.
403
Mr. Jones felt that small children could cause problems in certain businesses,
especially something like the chemical business.
Mr. Payne said that these potential problem areas could be controlled
at the site plan level.
Col. Washington agreed that it should be a use by right, especially since
the Commission needs more time to address other items. Besides, the Commission
could review at the site plan level.
Dr. Moore felt that there would be better control if it is a use by special
permit. Mrs. Graves said that she too prefers to consider it by special permit.
Mr. Easter said that he does not feel it is a good idea to have apartments
over commercial development.
Mr. Jones moved that the ordinance be amended to include the use by special
permit ( adding 7-1-42(11) ). Mr. Peatross seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Easter said that he wants to make certain that the wording ties it to one
family.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that the use should be handled by right with a strong
definition. He suggested that the wording be changed to read "one employee."
Dr. Moore said that his objection is to multiple businesses in one area,
such as in a shopping center, where there could be multiple families.
Mr. Peatross said that since there is no definition of employee, he favored
the use by special permit.
Mrs. Graves asked what happened to the Christian Mission. Mr. Payne
told her that that was an accessory use.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that if the Commission favored the use by special
permit, that perhaps they would consider a special permit handled in much the
same way that mobile home special permits are currently handled - public hearings
only if there is objection from adjacent owners.
Mr. Easter said that if it became a problem by right, that the Planning Commission
could always ask that the Board of Supervisors amend the ordinance to have it a use
by special permit.
Mr. Tucker said that the only place he could envision any problems would be
in shopping centers.
Mrs. Graves called for the question.
Mr. Jones asked that the motion be amended to have the definition of "employee".
Mr. Payne suggested the wording "...the proprietor and his family or a
bona fide employee of the proprietor and his family." Mr. Jones said that this was
his intent.
Mr. Peatross accepted the amended motion.
404
The motion carried by a vote of 5-3, with Messrs. Washington, Gloeckner,
and Easter dissenting.
SP-76-50. Eric Heiner has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to have a residential use in the B-1 Business Zone at property
located on the north side of Route 631, approximately 1200 feet from its
intersection with the railraod. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 147,
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting that the staff recommended
approval conditioned upon the following:
1. Staff approval of amended site plan;
2. Two (2) parking spaces required for accessory dwelling accommodation;
3. Fire Marshal approval;
4. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to these conditions.
Mrs. Graves questioned the number of rooms that will be provided by the
residential use. Mr. Heiner told her that it will be like a one bedroom apartment.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion; there was no further discussion, and
the motion carried unanimously.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the frontage setback in the
A-1 Agricultural Zone be changed from thirty (30) feet from the right-of-way
to seventy-five (75) feet from the right-of-way.
Mr. Tucker said that the Commission should be aware of all the facts of this
issue, since they had had several work sessions on this.
Mr. Jones said that he had received calls of opposition from farmers who
said that this would restrict them, especially if they needed the property for
pastureland. He said that he would like to restrict this setback to residences.
Mr. Easter took exception to this stating that 45 feet is not that important
to the farmer and that if there were any problems that he could appear before the
BZA to show a hardship and procure a variance if it is established that a hardship
exists.
could
Mrs. Graves said that those who objected / appear before the Board and
state their reasons of objection. She questioned how this would affect the signs.
Mr. Jones suggested showing in the definition where they could secure
the variance. Mr. Tucker said that it is not normal to point out where variances from
the ordinances can be secured.
Col. Washington said that there will still be a variance problem.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the 75 foot setback as written.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
405
Discussion:
Mr. Carr said that he felt that varia.aces should be granted where justified.
Mr. Peatross said that he has reservations about the 75 feet setback since
the County would be helping a man decide where he will build his house on his own
property.
The motion to approve carried by a vote of 6-2, with Messrs. Peatross and
Jones dissenting.
The chairman asked that Mr. Tucker bring up the variance problem to the Board,
stating that the Commission feels that some will take place.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to recommend to the Board of Supervisors the following wording regarding
the height regulation in the RPN Zone:
"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 (65) feet,
upon a finding by the Board that such additional height will be compatible
with the public health, safety and general welfare and with the character and
development of the neighborhood."
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that this definition was formulated at a
recent work session and was left open for flexibility where areas call for
highrise buildings, elevators for the handicapped. He stated that the developer
would have to justify the need for a building higher than 35 feet.
Mr. Easter moved the Commission approve the definition as presented.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mrs. Dorothy Speidel said that on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle she
supported this height since it puts the burden of proof on the developer.
The vote was unanimous to approve this height regulation in the RPN zone.
New Business:
Mr. Tucker pointed out to the Commission the letter addressed to Mr. Sampson,
Director of Parks for Albemarle County, concerning the needs and general site locations
for parks in the urban area of the County. He noted that Planning Commission input
would be necessary prior to any final decision on site location, etc. He asked
that the Commission review the summary and be prepared to direct the staff at a
later date.
Since there was no further business, e meeting adjourned at midnight.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. lirector of Planning
M
August 10, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting Tuesday, August 10,
1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -
Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Paul Peatross; Col. William Washington; Dr. James
Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Leslie Jones. Absent were Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner and
Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Other County officials present were Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning;
Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Mr. Carr told the Commission that in recent rezoning cases, the Commission
has spent too much time on matters that dealt with the site plan. Some discussion
of such is good but the chairman reminded the Commission that once the rezoning
is granted, that the County cannot hold him to any plans that he had presented
during the approval stage of the rezoning.
Mr. Jones moved that minutes of August 3, 1976, be deferred until August 17.
The Commission unanimously agreed.
Stillfield Preliminary Plat:
Mr. Carr turned the chair over to Mr. Barksdale since he had presided at
the previous two meetings on this requested subdivision. Mr. Carr said that he
had not participated at the other meetings but that he will take part in this
discussion. Mr. Payne said that he saw no problem.
Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that Highway Department approval had been
granted, since the entrance has been moved to have adequate sight distance.
The plat shows a setback of 75 feet from the centerline with 25 feet dedicated
from the centerline, as required by the subdivision ordinance. Therefore, the
proposed 50 foot setback from the right-of-way is in compliance with the transportation
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and also is in compliance with the proposed
right-of-way as shown in the functional plans. He said that the Highway Department
could not deny joint entrances but felt that an internal road system would be better.
Mr. Tucker did note that this internal road system would mean double frontage lots
and owners would have the right to enter Barracks Road. According to the County
Attorney anyone living on a state road cannot be denied entrance onto that state road.
Mr. Tucker said that the question for the Commission to consider is if it will be
better to have the easement along the back or the internal road system. He said
that entry onto Barracks Road cannot be denied, though. Additional right-of-way
will be taken from Mr. Jessup's land, not this land, as Mr. Jessup had told the
Commission at the previous meeting.
Mr. Jones asked why there is not a de-cel lane at lot V . Mr. Tucker pointed
407
out that there is a small de-cel lane to lot V .
Mrs. Graves asked if the 20 foot access to the left had been discussed
with the Highway Department and Mr. Tucker said no, it is an exisiting easement
and right-of-way.
Mr. Jones said that if there is a problem of joint drive for lots 3 and 4,
what about lot #2. Mr. Tucker said that there would be that problem with any lot.
Mr. Barksdale said that any 2-acre lot in the county can enter a state road.
Mr. Payne said that this is correct.
Mr. Carr said that joint entrances are most appropriate, especially with 1-acre
lots. He did point out, though, that there could be as many as six lots with backs
of houses facing Barracks Road. He said that since there is only so much land on which
a house can be built on a 1-acre lot, this would be something to consider when thinking
of the roads.
Mr. Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, presented an alternative plan
of 35 lots rather than the 18 lot proposal. In the alternative plan larger
lots are adjacent to Montvue, but the small lots front Barracks Road. This plan
would have an internal road system. However, Mr. Boggs felt that the plan with
the larger lots is a better use of the land.
Mr. Peatross asked if all the entrances now comply with the Highway Department's
plans. Mr. Boggs said that they do.
Mrs. Virginia Rotenat, stated that the number of accidents occuring along
this road would depend upon the number of lots. She said that if there must be
a subidivision there, she supported the smaller subdivision of 18 lots.
Mr. Barksdaled stated that the matter was before the Commission since there
was no further public comment.
Mr. Keeler read the following conditions recommended by the staff:
1. Grading permit;
2. Waterline plans need Engineering and Service Authority approval;
3. Lots 17 and 18 require waiver of frontage;
4. Highway Department approval;
5. Health Department approval.
Dr. Moore said that he still favors the central entrance to the subdivision
since only one car could exit at a time. He did recognize that the backs of the
houses fronting Barracks could present some sort of visual problem. But he felt
that all county subdivisions should have a central entrance.
Mr. Jones asked about the alternative of easements in the rear of the property.
Mr. Tucker said that this could be done, but the applicant is not agreeable to it.
Col. Washington suggested that lots having double frontage could have main-
tenance problems.
Dr. Moore said that there are other subdivisions in the county with internal
street systems. He said that he saw no hardship case here, and that probably this
subdivision would also fall under the sidewalk proposal.
W ;,
Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission could approve an easement
to serve five lots, but there will have to be a joint maintenance agreement on the
easement. Mr. Boggs responded to this that the applicant is objecting to use of
easements.
Mr. Carr said that the central entrance for the subdivision is the proper
thing, but that an increase in density to achieve this central entrance is not
satisfactory. He said that he would vote to approve the subdivision with the
smaller density ( 18 lots ) and compromise the central entrance.
Mrs. Graves questioned the entrance to Stillfield Subdivision being so
close to the 20 foot easement which serves a ninety plus acre residue.
Mr. Tucker said that for any future development on this ninety acres the
Planning Commission would have to decide how much traffic could use the easement.
Dr. Moore asked how much land further out Barracks Road could be developed
into smaller lots. Mr. Tucker told him that there is no R-1 land west of this
property.
Dr. Moore said that he would vote against this subdivision request since
he fears that the area will become one long city street. He said that he has no
faith that the land further west will remain A-1.
Mr. Peatross spoke favorably of the subdivision, pointing out that the applicant
has worked out the best plan with the Highway Department regarding entrances. He also
pointed out that with 35 lots instead of 18, fewer entrances onto Barracks Road is
not prevented, since no one can be denied entrance onto a state road.
Mr. Barksdale agreed with Mr. Peatross.
Col. Washington moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff, noting that he would waive the frontage of lots 17 and 18.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion. There was no further discussion, and the
motion carried by a vote of 5-2, with Mrs. Graves and Dr. Moore dissenting.
Mr. Jones said that he had voted for the plat because he felt it to be the
best plan, though he would like to see one entrance with easements.
Mr. Easter returned to the meeting.
Resolution of intent:
Mr. Keeler asked that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to
recommend to the Board that Article 18 Scenic Highway Designation be amended
to provide of signs in the CVN Conservation District and the CO Commercial Office
District. The staff proposed the following amendments:
Section 18-3-5(A) Conservation (CVN) District, Agricultural ( A-1 ) District
and Residential ( RS-1, R-1, R-2, and R-3 ) districts.
409
Section 18-3-5(B) Commercial Office ( CO ) District and General Business
( B-1 ) District.
Mrs. Graves asked what the setbacks would be. Mr. Tucker told her that
it would be the same provisions for signs in all districts.
Mr. Easter moved that the above resolution recommended by the staff be
taken to public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
John A. McGowan - application for a Public Entertainment Business under
Article 7-1-26 of the Zoning Ordinance:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report , pointing out that the Board of
Supervisors referred this application to the Planning Commission for their review
and comments without public hearing. The staff stated that they found the proposal
acceptable as described, though they would suggest restructuring the applicant's
description into special regulations as provided in the ordinance:
1. Hours of operation shall be from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.;
2. Attendant on duty at all times during hours of operation.
Mrs. Graves questioned the exact location and was told by the applicant,
Mr. McGowan, that it is to be located in the Sidney's wing of Shoppers World.
Mr. Carr said that he had been under the impression that this article
had been included .in the zoning ordinance to govern transient entertainment,
such as carnivals. He stated that he viewed this particular application as
belonging in the business zone because he does not see it as a transient business.
Mr. Easter said that he too was surprised to see it presented in this form.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Zoning Administrator had ruled that this fit
the public entertainment category. He said that he, too, had been under the impression
that Article 7-1-26 had been incorporated into the ordinance to accommodate transient
businesses.
Mr. Jones asked if any approval of this particular request would set a precedent.
Mr. Keeler said that this is a use by right in the B-1 zone.
Mr. McGowan stated that he owns Carvel Ice Cream Parlor and decided that
such a business as this application next to the ice cream parlor would be good.
He stated that he has discussed this use with other owners there and there have
been no objections.
Mr. Easter told the applicant that he was restricting himself by not at
least serving beverages such as Vokes.
Mr. McGowan stated such a business as this in other localities has
been successful because of the small locations and because there is no loitering
allowed.
Mr. Peatross asked the hours of operation of the other businesses in the shopping
center.
410
Mr. McGowan said that McDonalds is open until midnight, Dart Drug is open
until 10:00 p.m., Carvel is open until 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Peatross said that since this is a place for families that he feels
that 11:00 p.m. is too late for closing; he felt that the time should be 10:00 p.m.
Mrs. Graves said that this was brought in for information only and pointed
out that the Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing. Adjacent property
owners will be notified for that meeting. She stated that she does not want this
use struck from the ordinance, but does want adjacent owners notified.
Mr. Barksdale said that he favors the request and moved approval subject to the
restrictions suggested by the staff. He also suggested a third condition -
No food or drink on the premises - after the applicant stated that he was agreeable
to this third condition.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion to approve.
Mr. Peatross said that he will oppose the request since 11:00 p.m.
on a week night is too late for family entertainment.
Mr. Carr stated that this Article needs to be studied, since it was originally
set up for only transient entertainment.
Dr. Moore stated that he hesitates to make a recommendation to the Board
because there might be input from adjacent owners that he does not have the benefit
of.
�r Mr. Jones agreed that by recommending approval the Planning Commission would
be sanctioning the use without public hearing.
Mr. Barksdale said that perhaps the Commission should recommend that it
be advertised for public hearing for the Commission and the Board with these three
conditions.
Mrs. Graves said that she does not support the times recommended for the
hours of operation. She stated that she feels that there should be input from the
Berkeley citizens.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission cannot deny this use. He pointed
out that this is like the old conditional use permit. He said that this application
is before the Commission only on the Board's request.
Mr. Easter said that in that case all that is needed is a list of suggestions
from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance contemplates a recommendation from the
Planning Commission, and that in this case the Board requested it.
Mr. Peatross read from the file and said that in their directive, the Board
asked for review and comments from the Commission.
Mr. Carr asked that Mr. Barksdale withdraw his motion.
Mr. Barksdale retracted the motion, and Mr. Easter the second.
411
Mr. Easter said that in the comments to the Board it should be pointed
out that the Commission feels the need for the Board to hold a public hearing.
He addressed the hours of operation stating that he did not understand why the
applicant did not request later week -end hours.
Mr. Peatross stated that he felt the hours should be 10:00 p.m. for week
days and 11:00 p.m. for Friday and Saturday.
Mr. Carr asked for a special vote on the hours of operation.
Mr. Easter moved that the hours of operation be from 11:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m., except on Friday and Saturday, when the hours of operation shall be 11:00 a.m.
to 11:00 P.M.
Mr. Keeler suggested the following wording for the recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors:
"Pursuant to your request of April 16, 1976, the Planning Commission has reviewed
this application without the input of public hearing process and makes the following
recommendations for special requirements of this business:
1. Hours of operation shall be from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., except on Friday
and Saturday, when the hours of operation shall be 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.;
2. An attendant shall be on duty at all times during hours of operation;
3. No food or drink shall be allowed on the premises."
Mr. Easter moved that the wording recommended by Mr. Keeler be adopted by
the Commission and recommended to the Board.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The Commission also unanimously agreed that the staff should point out to the
Board that the applicant was present at the time of discussion and that the Commission
urged that adjacent property owners be notified.
Discussion of sidewalks in the urban area:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that Routes 29 and 250 were
omitted from the recommendation. The staff proposed the following policy concerning
sidewalks:
(a) In the Urban Area, sidewalks be required in compliance with recommendations
of the Comprehensive Plan;
(b) In community clusters, sidewalks be required in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan at the discretion of the Planning Commission;
(c) Sidewalks be required in all residential developments of a density of 2 units/
acre or greater;
(d) Where required, sidewalks should be on both sides of the public right-of-way.
Mr. Jones stated that except for (b), he felt that the Commission should
adopt this policy. He felt that (b) should be revised such that clusters
should meet the same requirements as the urban area. *404
Dr. Moore agreed with the staff recommendations since he said that sidewalks
have many advantages.
!JVa
Col. Washington stated that there are times when he does not feel that
sidewalks on both sides of the public right-of-way are necessary. He cited the
example of the recently approved subdivision on Whitewood Road.
Dr. Moore stated that children will cross the street to play on the sidewalk,
and it will be safer for all concerned if the walkways are on both sides.
Mrs. Graves questioned plans, such asPanorama, where the applicant does not
want so much impervious material.
Mr. Tucker explained that this would be just policy, and that the Commission
could waive its own policy with justifications.
Mr. Payne stated that if this is adopted as policy that the subdivision
ordinance should be amended in order that the policy be reflected in the ordinance.
He pointed out that the handbook was never adopted. He also pointed out that the
current wording of the subdivision ordinance, where the handbook is cited, does not
give the Commission any power.
Mr. Tucker concurred with Mr. Payne, stating that policies of the county
should be provided for in the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Carr agreed that the sidewalk policy should be clarified. He stated that
he has hesitated to iequire sidewalks in every case, since there are cases where
sidewalks are not appropriate. He also pointed out that currently the County does
not know the future of the clusters.
Mr. Barksdale said that clusters aren't defined.
Mr. Tucker said that the staff is just saying that the Planning Commission should
consider subdivisions which are in the clusters.
Mr. Jones said that if sidewalks are required in the urban area they should
also be required in the clusters.
Mr. Keeler said that in clusters the Commission will mostly deal with
commercial property.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out that the clusters don't have water and sewer and thus
there won't be lots less than 1 acre.
Mrs. Graves commended the staff for its good work, stating that the Commission
has an opportunity for planning.
Mr. Carr stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not state exactly where sidewalks
should go, and he hopes the revised Comprehensive Plan is not a set of rules either. .
He felt that the Plan gives the County a guide where sidewalks should go in certain places.
Col. Washington asked if the Commission adopted (c) of the staff recommendation
if everything won't be covered.
Mr. Tucker said "no"; part (a) addressed existing major collectors and arterials.
The Plan speaks to certain areas.
Mrs. Graves asked if the sidewalk problem is with the bonding procedure or
with immediate construction of sidewalks. She said that it is her understanding that
if the developer goes with the Highway Department to build the sidewalks, that he
pays only half the cost of construction.
413
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that in a recent ruling, the Attorney
General of the Commonwealth stated that localities cannot require money (bonding)
in place of sidewalk construction or any other physical improvements. He stated
that bonding is clumsy over a period of time, and he advised the County to think
in terms of building sidewalks as property in an area is developed.
Mrs. Graves asked if this would also include reservations and bonding
for school sites, parks, etc.
Mr. Payne stated that money cannot be required for this sort of improvement,
only a dedication. He also reminded the Commission that there is a statue that
provides for assessment of adjoining landowners for physical improvements. These
landowners would have to contribure to the funds for improvements, in this case
sidewalks.
Mr. Carr asked if it is necessary that people be on notice at the time of
purchase of possible assessment.
Mr. Payne said that no it is not necessary, that there must be a public
hearing before anyone can be assessed and that the Board must agree by a 2/3 vote
that a certain area will be assessed for such physical improvements.
Mrs. Graves asked if this recent ruling is only the policy of the current
Attorney General.
Mr. Payne stated that this is an advisory opinion.
Col. Washington said that he has been using the Comprehensive Plan as
a guide, not as a set of rules. He asked if such policy regarding sidewalks
would make the Plan more than just a guide - he also asked if the ordinance can
stand alone.
Mr. Tucker said that these ideas are already in the plan and that the County
will just be following the Plan.
Mr. Jones stated, as a reminder, that policy can be waived when merits
of a particular case are considered.
Mr. Peatross agreed that this would be a guide, not a rule.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that policy allows the Commission to be more
consistent.
Mr. Peatross and Col. Washington stated they they had problems with part
(d) of the staff recommendation. Mr. Peatross stated that omitting this section
would give the Commission more flexibility.
Dr. Moore said that he viewed this section of the staff recommendation
as making the rules consistent.
At this point Mr. Keeler suggested the following preface to recommendations
(a-d) of the staff:
"Sidewalks shall be required by the Planning Commission in the following cases,
except when the Planning Commission determines that such requirements would not
be in the best interest of the County or when the Planning Commission finds, due
to the nature of the topography or other physical factors, sidewalks are not
appropriate."
414
as a preface
Mr. Jones moved that this be added/to (a-d) of the staff's recommedations.
Mrs. Graves seconded this motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Carr asked if this would be as a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Tucker said that it could be done that way or the Commission could recommend
amending the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Peatross asked if this meant making policy part of the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Payne said "yes" if the Commission wants to implement the policy.
He suggested amending Seciton 6-1-13.
Mr. Peatross said that he needed to consider if this is general enough.
Mr. Carr called for the question.
Mr. Peatross again suggested omitting (d) for reasons of flexibility.
Col. Washington and Mr. Barksdale agreed.
Mr. Keeler stated that part (d) of the staff recommendation is intended for
existing state and county roads.
Dr. Moore said that this is a disclaimer which gives flexibility, whether
the Commission requires the sidewalks on both sides of the right-of-way or not.
Mr. Tucker suggested rewording (c) to read as follows:
Sidewalks be required on both sides of the street in all residential developments of a
density of 2 units/acre or greater.
Mrs. Graves stated that the word "should" in part (d) is discretionary.
She called for the question.
The motion to approve carried by a vote of 5-3, with Messrs. Carr, Peatross,
and Washington dissenting. Those dissenting stated that their dissenting vote
was not lack of support to the issue, only to section (d) (Where required, sidewalks
should be on both sides of the public right-of-way).
Mr. Carr asked if the Commission wanted to incorporate this policy into the
subdivision.
Mrs. Graves stated that when the Commission considers amending 6-1-13 of the
ordinance, it should also consider amending 3-15 and 3-16, or at least making sure
that they work.
Mr. Payne agreed that this is a good idea.
Mr. Peatross stated that on the advise of the deputy attorney that the
Commission needs to take some sort of action in order that the policy can be implemented.
Mr. Carr asked for a motion.
Mr. Faster moved that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to amend
Section 6-1-13 to contemplate the wording of the policy just adopted
by the Planning Commission.
415
Col. Washington seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
19
Mr. Carr said that the point made by Mrs. Graves needed to be addressed,
but the point is if it should be addressed now or at the time of Comprehensive Plan
review.
Mr. Tucker said that the language of the Zoning Ordinance needs to be revised.
Mr. Payne agreed that these would not be substantive changes.
Mr. Easter said that it would be a waste of Commission time to make any
substantive changes.
Mr. Carr asked that the staff bring to the attention of the Commission any necessary
revisions of language for the ordinance, and in this to include Section 3-15 and
3-16.
Mrs. Graves said that she would like to address 3-15 and 3-16 at the time
sidewalks are reviewed. The Commission unanimously agreed.
Mr. Payne said that there was one other matter the Commission needed to
address before adjourning and that is the need for the Planning Department to
be established as a part of the County rather than as an agency of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Carr stated that it has always been his opinion that the Planning
Commission is not prepared to hire and fire and supervise the members of the
Planning Staff. Nor does he feel it appropriate for the Commission to recommend
salaries for the Director and his assistants.
Mr. Easter said that his sentiments are the same but that he does not
want to jeopardize anything that would ever endanger having the staff prepare
matters of planning for the Commission.
Mr. Tucker explained that while the code states that the Planning Commission
hires its own staff, it has never worked this way in Albemarle County, that the
Director of Planning and his assistants have always been appointed by the Board
of Supervisors and County Executive. He stated that any change would merely be
implementing the method that has always been used.
Mr. Easter felt that the County Executive does need his own staff responsible
to him. He also pointed out that the Commission has little power, yet it has a great
deal of work to do.
Mr. Carr asked that members of the Commission think about this and be
prepared to discuss it at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Since there was no further business, e meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
q/jt�r
A,bert W. Tucker, Jr. - Se retary
416
August 17, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting Tuesday, August 17,
1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -
Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington; Mr. Leslie
Jones; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Paul Peatross. Absent were Dr. James Moore and
Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald S. Keeler,
Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Assistant Planner; and
Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Minutes of August 3, 1976:
Mr. Jones moved approval of these minutes, as corrected prior to the meeting.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-56-76. Mamie Dunbar to locate a mobile home on 5.0 acres zoned A-1.
Property located on the west side of Route 631 adjoining Rivanna Rifle
Range. County Tax Map 89, Parcels 56 and 58. Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, suggesting that if the permit is
approved it be conditioned upon the following:
1. Approval from all appropriate state and local agencies;
2. Minimum setback from Route 631 of 100 feet;
3. Minimum side and rear yard setback of 35 feet;
4. Only the land needed for the location of the mobile home, septic drainfield and
driveway shall be disturbed;
5. Skirting around mobile home from base of mobile home to ground level.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that this request was before them due to the
objection from an adjoining property owner.
Mr. Payne stated that even though he is a member of the Rivanna Rifle
Range that he feels as though he has no conflict of interests in this matter.
Mr. Carr agreed, pointing out that Mr. Payne serves in an advisory capacity to
the Commi s s ion .
Mr. Keeler stated that if this mobile home is located on the property, it
will not be visible from Old Lynchburg Road. He also noted that the applicant is
present for the discussion.
Mr. Easter asked if the applicant will be living in the mobile home.
Mrs. Dunbar stated that she will live in the mobile home with her son.
Mr. Easter asked who lives in the house located on parcel 57.
Mrs. Dunbar stated that she and her husband live there.
417
Mr. Carr explained to the applicant that the County does not look
favorably upon mobile homes for rental purposes and that he was trying to
establish if there is a need for this mobile home.
Mrs. Britton asked the County's policy on placing mobile homes at random
throughout the county. She pointed out that one can travel for miles along
Old Lynchburg without seeing a mobile home. (She is the adjoining property owner opposing
the request.
Mr. Carr explained the special use permit process for mobile homes in the
A-1 zone, noting that these applications, if they meet the requirements of the
ordinance, are approved administratively unless there is an objection from an adjoining
property owner.
Mrs. Britton stated that she and her husband have a considerable interest
in that road since they own many acres there. There are three houses on their
property that they maintain, even though they have not lived there for many years.
Mr. Carr asked her if the mobile home will be visible from her property.
Mrs. Britton responded that she did not see how it could help being visible, since
the land rises.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that the applicant has not advised the staff
where the mobile home will be placed.
Mr. Carr asked if there is a septic field for the existing residence.
Mr. Dunbar said that there is only a well.
Mr. Easter asked if this is to be a permanent mobile home.
Mr. Dunbar stated that he is asking for the permit, though the mobile home
may never be placed there since the trailer they had intended to purchase is now
being rented in Crozet. He said that he is currently trying to find a mobile home
to purchase.
Mrs. Marcinko asked why the permit is being requested if there is the possibility
that no mobile home will be placed there.
The chairman asked who owns the 5 acres on which the mobile home is to be located.
Mrs. Dunbar said that she owns this, that it was purchased from Chestnut Grove Church.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jones asked when the special permit will expire if no mobile home is placed
there. Mr. Keeler stated that there is no expiration date. Special use permits run
with the land.
Mr. Carr said that if he felt the mobile home were needed, he would be willing
to give it careful consideration. However, he was not able to establish that there
is a need at this time.
Mr. Easter agreed and suggested that the applicant withdraw the request without
prejudice rather than the Commission voting denial. That way the applicant would
have no time restrictions for another application.
Mr. Jones said that since the applicant had stated that she and her son
would live there that there seems to be a need and in this case he favors the request.
However, if the applicant intended to rent the mobile home, he would be opposed.
418
The chairman spent a great deal of time trying to establish the intent of
the applicant. She stated that part of the time she would stay with her son ( a
student at Albemarle High ) in the mobile home, and part of the time she would stay
in the house located on parcel 57. Mr. Dunbar told the chairman that since he owns
the land he felt that he should be able to do with it what he wanted.
Mrs. Graves said that if the mobile home were located where it is not visible from
the highway, she felt it would raise the standard of living of the family and that
she would favor the request. The permit would require a septic field for the mobile
home, aiding the applicant as well as adjoining properties.
Mr. Carr asked the staff if it would be possible to locate it as proposed by
Mrs. Graves. Mr. Keeler felt this is possible.
Mr. Dunbar at this point told the Commission that he felt that he could get
a mobile home somewhere, though he doesn't own one at the moment.
Mr. Easter said that he was not pleased with the discussion since it does
not establish the intent of the applicant. However he did agree with Mrs. Graves that
it would be good to raise the standard of living for these people.
Mr. Dunbar said that if he had the permit he would not have to use it or place
the mobile home on the property.
M:r. Carr said that it would not be economical to purchase a mobile home and
not use it, and that mobile homes cannot be rented.
Mr. Peatross voiced opposition to the request due to the vagueness of the applicant.
Mr. Easter said that he felt that as undecided as the applicant is that he
suggested withdrawal without prejudice.
Col. Washington stated that he does not feel that it is unusual that they,
do not as yet own a mobile home. He felt that the mother and son would live in the mobile
home and that it was not the intent of the applicant to rent it to others.
Mr. Carr said that the point here is that the County does not look favorAbly
on mobile homes for rental purposes.
Mrs. Graves moved approval of the request subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff plus the sixth condition that:
6. Staff locate mobile home where it is not visible from the road.
Mr. Jones said that he would second the motion if a time limit is placed on
the request, to see if the applicant intends to rent it or live in it himself. The
seventh condition is as follows:
7. Time limit of 5 years.
Mr. Barksdale asked that an eighth condition read as follows:
8. Mobile home not to be rented.
Mrs. Graves and Mr. Jones accepted this condition as part of the motion.
The vote was 5-3 to approve the request, with Messrs. Easter, Peatross, and
Gloeckner dissenting.
419
Mr. Carr read the memo to the Commission from the Clerk to the Board
regarding the third lane concept on Route 29 North in which the Board asked
that any interested Commissioners attend the Board meeting on this subject on
September 15, 1976, 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Easter asked that the staff, at the earliest possible date, give
comments to the Commission regarding this.
Citizens Bank and Trust final plat - proposed 25' access easement to
serve 5-acre and 13-acre parcel:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that this division needs
Commission approval only due to the proposed 25-foot easement to serve parcels "C"
and "B" over an existing road. There are houses on these parcels presently served
by this road. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Note on the plat regarding no further subdivision along this easement without
Planning Commission approval;
2. Written Health Department approval.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom, applying as a trustee for Claude Cotton, stated that
it is planned that these lots will be sold. He asked that the plat be changed
to C. Timothy Lindstrom, Trustee for Claude Cotton.
Mr. Payne stated that the bankruptcy court has approved this division.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff and subject to the name being changed on the plat.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner returned to the room.
James Wood Commercial Building site plan - located on 30' right-of-way
off Rio Road West. Office space and ceramic tile wholesale ( Zoned B-1 ):
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the building will be
used for wholesaling and for office space. It is on the opposite side of the
partially paved drive put in by Phillips Hardware. He read to the Commission a letter
from Mr. Phillips asking that Mr. Wood have joint maintenance of the road. The
site is completely wooded and covers approximately seven tenths of an acre. If the
applicant does not wish to bring the road into the state system, the entrance will
have to be in conformance to commercial entrance standards as setforth by the county.
If the road is to be brought into the state system, it will have to be approved by
the Highway Department. The Highway Department stated that they have no plans to bring this
road into the system.
420
Mr. Barksdale stated that the matter of the entrances could be solved
by making the entrance subject to Highway Department approval.
The staff recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Approval of sewage connections by Albemarle County Service Authority;
2. Grading permit required;
3. Technical requirements of Article 17-2.0 be met.
Mr. Lambert stated that if a de-cel lane is required that the applicant
will be making an improvement that leads to several lots, only one of which is the
applicant's. He stated that the applicant is agreeable to a joint maintenance
agreement for the road.
on Route 631
Mr. Gloeckner stated that a de-cel lane/cannot be required of this applicant.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff plus the following condition:
4. Approval by Highway Department
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Payne stated that the Highway Department has the power to condition an
entrance permit, with or without Planning Commission input. The County cannot stop
a requiremeent after the Highway Department makes a ruling.
Mr. Carr suggested that perhaps this should not be a condition of approval.
Mr. Barksdale agreed since this is not on a private road.
Mr. Easter amended the motion to have condition #4 read as follows:
4. Approval by Highway Department if necessary.
He also suggested the following fifth condition:
5. Satisfactory maintenance agreement for the roads between Mr. Wood and Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Barksdale accepted the amended motion, which carried unanimously.
Buck Mountain final plat - 16 lots, average size of 4.2 acres,
minimum size of 3.1 acres. Route 671 ( Zoned A-1, Planned Community ):
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that any approval should
be conditioned upon the following:
1. Developer record enough open space in this plat so that Phase II and Phase I
combined will have an overall density of one unit per five acres as is required
by SP-450;
2. Grading permit for construction of required roads;
3. Written Health Department approval;
4. All technical points be complied with as setforth in Article 17-2.0;
5. Highway Department approval.
421
Mr. Keeler stated that there is a note on the plat regarding the
density.
Mr. Payne stated that this note does not show any specific property
designated as open space.
Mr. Jones stated that the requirements set forth at the site plan reivew
meeting have not been complied with. Mr. Montenegro confirmed this, stating
that the plat is inadequate under the requirement that the density be 1 unit/5 acres.
He stated that the staff had requested that this be shown on the plat.
Mr. Evans told the Commission that he had talked to the surveyor who had
called the planning office, at which time he was told that a note regarding the
open space would be sufficient.
Mr. Montenegro also pointed out that the sight distance for Evans Drive
is inadequate and that Culpeper turned the road down.
Mr. Keeler stated that the plat can be approved assuming that the density will
be maintained, or the Commission can require the open space be delineated at the approval
time of each phase.
Mr. Easter asked how the County is protected and if the applicant has
to maintain the density.
Mr. Keeler stated that any change in density would require an amendment to
the special use permit, since Buck Mountain was approved as a PUD.
Mr. Carr stated that if the plan has been approved, the development can Nod
be considered in phases with the understanding that the overall density will be
maintained at completion. In that case a note on the plat is sufficient. He asked
Mr. Keeler if that is correct. Mr. Keeler stated that this is an accurate assumption.
Mr. Payne stated that the only problem is that if lots are sold without the
common area, there will be an unplatted mountaintop.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the open space should be platted in an equitable
manner.
Mr. Jones moved deferral until the applicant could submit a plat to the
Planning Department which meets all the requirements set forth at the Site Plan Review
Committee meeting. He stated that discussion at the Planning Commission level without
these requirements met is a waste of time.
Mr. Keeler stated that the open space should be provided at the approval time
of each phase.
Mr. Gloeckne>_r seconded the motion to defer action on the plat.
Discussion:
Mr. Carr asked the Commission if it agreed with the staff. He said that he
feels that the technical committee did not have all the data.
Mr. Easter said that he is always concerned when the applicant is penalized Nod
by a mistake of the Commission or the staff. He asked if the applicant was made
aware that this was a condition of approval.
Mr. Montenegro stated that comments from the technical meeting were mailed to
the surveyor.
422
Mrs. Graves read from that section of the ordinance which addressed deed
restrictions. She asked if the'deed restrictions have been formulated for Phase I
as well as for this phase. She stated that if the applicant has followed the ordinance,
this would already have been done.
Mr. Gloeckner called for the question.
The vote on the motion to defer carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mr. Easter
dissenting.
Mr. Carr stated that the open space must be shown as the development proceeds
in phases.
Mr. Evans stated that this is agreeable.
Mr. Easter stated that he opposed the motion on the basis that a mistake
has been made and that he did riot want to penalize the applicant.
Mr. Carr again told the staff that an appropriate amount of open space should
be dedicated as the plan is submitted in phases.
United Air Hanger site plan - west side of Route 606. Commercial
airlines hanger and office space ( Zoned A-1 ):
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, pointing out to the Commission
that this property will be leased to United Air Services and United Health Services.
An air ambulance service is currently using the facilities and will continue to do
SO. Other uses of the site include: sales and repair of aircraft, flight lessons,
and the use of space for offices and observation areas. Any approval should be
conditioned upon the following:
1. Approval form County Fire Marshal;
2. Compliance with technical requirements setforth in Article 17-2.0 of Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler stated that work was begun on this site prior to the County's
adopting a site plan ordinance. It was established at the time of application for
a building permit that a site plan is necessary.
Mr. Carr asked if the technical committee found this site plan to be in order.
Mr. Jones said that they did, and moved approval, subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff. Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
George W. Bailey final plat - two 4-acre parcels and one 2-acre parcel served
by proposed and existing access easements. North side of Route 676. Zoned A-1.
The four rental units are presently served by a gravel drive located along
a pipestem 15 feet in width and connecting to the 30-foot right-of-way.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Note on plat regarding no further subdivision of these properties without Planning
Commission approval;
2. Written Health Department approval.
423
Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff found no problem with this.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommende(
by the staff. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
John Rhodes final plat - located on west side of Route 631 South, south
of intersection with Route 708:
Mr. Montenegro stated that the applicant proposes two 2-acre lots located on
an old county road. Since this is a public road, the plat could receive administrative
approval except that lot "A" has less than the required frontage. The applicant
has stated that the purpose of the division is to give his sons the lots sometime
in the future. Conditions of approval shoudl be as follows:
1. Frontage requirement for lot "A" be waived;
2. Written Health Depratment approval.
Mr. Jones asked show short the frontage is. Mr. Montenegro stated that it is
approximately 50 feet short. Mr. Keeler said that 120 feet is the minimum in the A-1
zone.
Mr. Montenegro stated that Mr. Rhodes maintains the entire road.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the frontage is 31.25 feet, shown on the plat.
Mr. Keeler suggested to the Commission that the following condition of
approval be added:
3. Residue acreage to be shown.
Mrs. Graves asked if the right-of-way will make any difference to the 2-acre
lots. Mr. Keeler stated that it will not.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the three conditions
suggested by the staff.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to recommend to the Board of Superviosrs that
(1) Section 11-9 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be amended;
(2) Section 11-14 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be amended to provide place-
ment of individual mobile homes only as a means of interim housing during construct-
ion of conventional single-family dwellings; and
(3) the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance provide for mobile home subdivisions in a17.
residential zones.
9
424
Mr. Carr told those citizens attending the meeting that this has been a matter
of consideration for the County for some time and that the purpose of the public hearing
is to have input from interested citizens. He stated that the Commission would like
to have views on where mobile homes should be located and how they should be located.
He stated that several neighboring counties have taken various steps regarding this matter.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report stating that June 29, 1976, was the
most recent of several work sessions by the Commission concerning zoning provisions for
individual mobile homes, mobile home parks, and mobile home subdivisions in Albemarle
County. Subsequent to that meeting, the staff prepared repealers and amendments
designed to reestablish the zoning status of mobile homes and to provide suitable
living environs for those occupying mobile homes.
Currently, individual mobile homes are permitted by special use permit in the
A-1 Agricultural zone. Likewise, mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions are
by special use permit in the A-1 Agricultural zone only.
The proposed revisions contained in the staff report would prohibit the location
of individual mobile homes except as an interim means of housing during construction
of a conventional dwelling. While mobile homes are currently permitted in the A-1
zone only, the proposal would provide for mobile home subidvisions by special use
permit in the CVN, A-1, RS-1, R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones.
Mr. Walt Bukrim, an owner of a mobile home business, stated that he hopes the
county will not approve this since many people in the area cannot afford conventional
dwellings at the cost of things today, but are able to afford modular or double -wide
mobile homes.
Mr. Carr asked that Mrs. Bukrim define double -wide mobile home.
Mrs. Bukrim stated that a double -wide is classifeid the same as a mobile
home. Formerly it was built under the ANSI Code and now built under HUD specifications.
A double -wide unit, just as a modular, can be built on a permanent foundation.
Modular's are taxed as real estate, but double-wides are not.
Mr. Peatross asked if this sort of unit can be moved again. She said that
they can be, just as a modular can be moved again.
Mr. Payne read the statutory definition of a mobile home, Section 36-71(4)
of the Code of Virginia:
"Mobile Home" means an industrialized building unit constructed on a chassis
for towing to the point of use and designed to be used, without a permanent foundation
for continuous year-round occupancy as a dwelling; or two or more such units separately
towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single
dwelling, and which is designed for removal to, and installation or erection on other
sites."
Mr. John DePrease asked the Commission if adoption of this amendment would
mean that people could not buy land in Albemarle County and apply for a special permit
to locate a mobile home on this land. He told the Commission that many people do not
have enough money to buy or rent a house.
Mr. Carr stated that that is one of the matters being considered by the Commission.
425
Mr. Tom Watson told the Commission that when many of the owners purchased
these mobile homes, they were purchased with the understanding that they are homes
and most people have a 5-10 year loan commitment.
Mr. Carr stated that anything that the Commission would approve regarding
this amendment would not have the grandfather clause - that what exists, exists.
Mrs. Edna Anderson asked where it would be possible to place mobile homes
under this proposed amendment.
Mr. Keeler stated that they could be used as temporary housing while a permanent
residence is being built, spaces could be rented in a mobile home park to locate the
mobile home, or individuals could purchase a lot in a mobile home subdivision ( similar
to subdivisions for single-family dwellings) and locate the mobile home.
Mrs. Anderson stated that the citizens of the county are being"ordinanced
to death". She suggested an alternative to the proposed amendment were regulations
for locating the mobile homes would be updated with proper screening, permanent foundations,
landscaping, etc. There should be places in the county where mobile homes could be located
on 2-acre lots as permanent dwellings. She felt this proposed amendment to be discrim-
ination in the greatest form. She said that neither she nor any of her family live
in mobile homes, but she felt that it is one of the answers to low-cost housing.
She also felt it important for the Commission to know that she is a native of the county.
Mrs. Marcinko stated that she owns 4-acres, and has a special permit for a
mobile home while a permanent residence is being constructed. She did not feel that
it is fair for an individual to be denied the right to locate a mobile home on a lot
that is not in a park or subdivision. She did feel that the regulations should
be enlarged providing landscaping, permanent foundations, etc.
Mrs. Crenshw stated that mobile homes are one way that families can provide
space for children to care for aging parents. It is much less expensive than purchasing
houses or renting apartments.
Mrs. Ellen C. Stoll stated that mobile home owners are respectable taxpayers,
even though some feel that they are less responsible and a lower segment of the population.
She stated that it is her feeling that money and success do not make a person's character.
Some people are proud to be able to own a mobile home and take just as much pride in
its upkeep as the owners of single-family residences. She encouraged helping the lower
income people to have property and pride of ownership. Mrs. Stoll also suggested that
the County tighten the restrictions for mobile home locations by providing proper
landscaping, underpining, etc. to improve the appearance.
Mrs. Campbell agreed with Mrs. Anderson and stated that if the County adopts
this proposal, many young and middle-aged people will be forced out of the county.
If means of low income housing are not available for these people, much of the work
force of the county will be forced to move. She felt that aesthetics is the only
reason the amendment is being considered.
Mrs. Kathy Gilman asked if there were reasons other than aesthetics that the
amendment is being considered.
Mr. Keeler stated that mobile homes would be permitted in more places than
townhouses, duplexes, and apartments.
Mr. Carr stated that this particular type of housing is not being singled out.
He agreed that there are many rules in effect in 1976, but in order that there be
orderly growth and development a minimum of the best rules is necessary.
426
Mr. Bukrim stated that when the County originally passed mobile home legislation
that double -wide units were excluded. He stated that this legislation was enacted in
May, 1974 by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Payne stated that he does not know the intent of the Board at that time.
He did state that double -wide units are not enumerated in the ordinance, thus anything
that is not enumerated is not permitted at all. He stated that he does not think
that it was the Board's intent to exclude the double -wide from the special use permit
process.
Mr. Bukrim asked what he is forced to comply with the code for single-family
dwellings if a double -wide unit is not a single-family residence.
Mrs. Marcinko questioned why mobile homes would have to be located in mobile
home subdivisions.
Mrs. Crenshaw told the Commission that double -wide units are very nice and
they offer the purchaser much more for his money than modular units.
Mr. William Dean opposed the part of the amendment which would prohibit locating
mobile homes on individual lots throughout the county.
Mrs. Anderson asked if it is the Planning Department who proposed this amendment.
Mr. Carr stated that this matter came up through the normal process, that it
has been fermenting over a period of time. He stated that the facts had to be organized,
and that it is the staff who did this part of the presentation. He also stated that
the language has to comply with what exists in the ordinance.
Mrs. Edna Steed felt that individuals should be permitted to locate mobile
homes on lots in the county with certain specifications.
Mrs. Campbell told the Commission that everything in the County is growing
and asked if the County expects all people to purchase homes in subdivisions. She
stated that many cannot rent or buy what exists now, and prices increase all the time.
Low income people need some place to go and working people need some place to live.
Mr. Dean asked the Commission why the people who had suggested this amendment
were not present for their side.
Mr. Carr stated that individuals opposing the amendment have the right to seek
out the people who favor it.
Mr. Watson said that in his opinion, only the people who opposed the amendment
were interested enough to show up for the meeting.
Mr. Carter asked what will be allowed in the proposed subdivisions. If
modulars and double-wides are practically the same, what will be permitted.
Mr. Carr stated that all persons involved as well as the Commission need
to understand the definition that Mr. Payne read from the Code of Virginia.
Mrs. Stoll emphasized that suitable places are needed for low income families.
The farther out individuals live, the more expensive it is to commute to work. She
stated that with so many new rules and regulations it is difficult for individuals to
make a change.
427
Mr. Carr said that Greene, Madison, and Fluvanna Counties all have ordinances
comparable to this proposal.
Mr. Bukrim disagreed with the chairman, stating that only Madison County has
such an ordinance.
Mr. Carr told the citizens that the County and the Planning Commission are
concerned about the needs for low income housing. Mobile homes may not be the
answer to low income housing, especially if an individual does not own real estate.
He urged that interested citizens discuss the problem of low income housing with their
supervisors, since it is also a matter of concern to them.
Mrs. Bukrim stated that the FHA helps low income families and that double -wide
units are now being financed by FHA.
Mr. Carter stated that individuals renting apartments must either furnish them
or pay high prices for renting furnished apartments.
Mrs. Crenshaw stated that mobile homes could be the answer in the future to
low income housing, according to recent federal government publications.
Mr. Carr stated that the best way to manage the mobile home situation in
the county is for the county to consider the input of the evening and of the past
and adopt whatever legislation is proper.
Mr. Carr stated that he would entertain a motion to defer any action on this
matter.
Mr. Jones moved to defer the public hearing to a later date ( September 21, 1976 ).
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
On Mr. Payne's advice, the chairman instructed the staff to re -advertise
the amendment for that meeting.
Mr. Keeler briefly explained to the Commission the packet for the next
Planning Commission meeting on the proposed 5-acre zoning for the Tilman Road area.
He also stated that the attorney representing Mr. Paulett has asked that
the area around the Scottsville Shopping center be given careful consideration in the
review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Graves asked if interested citizens could attend the meetings of the
Citizens Advisory Panel. Mr. Carr told her this would be possible.
Mr. Carr instructed the staff to contact either Mr. Thatch or Dr. Meem
regarding the staff report for the upcoming Tilman Road Area question the following
day.
EM
Since there was no further business, the Planning Commission meeting
adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
M
Ro rt W. Tucker, Jr. - cret y
429
August 24, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting Tuesday, August 24,
1976, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Roy Barksdale; Col. William Washington; Mr. Leslie Jones; Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner;
Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; and Mr. Paul Peatross. Other County officials
present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr.. Ronald S. Keeler,
Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and
Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Minutes:
August 17, 1976: Col. Washington stated that on page 408 he wished the fact
he believed the mobile home would not be rented, rather occupied by the applicant and
her son, included in his comments.
Mr. Carr asked that this addition be included in the minutes. Since there
were no further corrections or additions, the chairman approved the minutes of the
August 17 meeting.
August 10, 1976: The chairman approved these minutes as submitted.
PUBLIC HEARING:
At its meeting of June 16, 1976, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
by resolution requested the Albemarle County Planning Commission to consider
rezoning that area shown on Exhibit B from A-1 Agriculture to CVN Conservation
as provided by Article 1.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The
general description of the boundaries of that area as delineated on Exhibit
B, noted as being received by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at
its meeting of June 16, 1976, is as follows:
Bounded on the south side by Meriwether Hills Subdivision, Route 250 West,
Route 676, and Glenaire Subdivision; Western boundary generally follows and
traverses the Mechum River in a northeasterly fashion to a point approximately
5400 feet southeast of Decca, Virginia; from that point proceeds erratically
in a southeasterly fashion to Route 676, just south of the intersection of
Route 676 and 678; from there the boundary proceeds in a southerly fashion
along Route 678 to Route 250 at Ivy, Virginia. This land is located on County
Tax Maps 41, 42, 57, and 58, Samuel Miller and White Hall Magisterial Districts.
I
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report in which he made the following comments.
Existing development, parcel sizes, and land uses are generally reflective of the
provisions of the Conservation District. Though population density exceeds that of
%taw, the County in general, the study area is rural in character. The staff observed that
physiological characteristics vary as to drainage area. The soil and slope character-
istics are generally more restrictive to development in the Mechum River drainage
area, reflecting underlying geologic formations and geologic history.
430
In evaluating appropriateness for the Conservation District, staff employed
the following criteria:
1. The 100-year flood plain as determined by the Army Corps of Engineers;
2. Land areas contiguous to the flood plain in slopes of 15 percent or greater;
3. Areas dominated by soils of severe restrictions to development;
4. Areas dominated by slopes of 25 percent or more.
Upon this evaluation, the staff recommended the area so indicated on the
map entitled "Staff Proposal" as appropriate to the Conservation District. The
staff recommended the following actions:
1. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors direct the staff to foreward
this report to Kamstra, Dickerson, and Associates and to Betz Environmental
Engineers for review as to their respective studies. The Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors should clarify that this referral is for informational
purposes only and not as a recommendation as to the disposition of this area
in either firm's study;
2. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors make no statement as to the
appropriateness of this area to the Conservation District, and take no initiative
action to rezone this area at this time. The reasons for this are as follows:
(a) The rate of development in this area approximates that of the County in
general. The staff finds no extraordinary activity in this area to warrant
special consideration at this time;
(b) In staff opinion, the boundaries of the Tilman Road study area are arbitrary.
Staff can determine no physical aspect which would characterize this
area as unique from surrounding areas;
(c) For the County to initiate rezoning in any area at this time may predispose
that area to such designation in the revised Comprehensive Plan. Such
preferential and premature consideration is polar to the term "comprehensive"
and could result in a patch -work, illogical, and ineffective Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Map.
Mr. Easter complimented the staff on the thorough job in its presentation.
Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission that the Planning Department has received
two letters of opposition to this proposal, one from Mrs. Kathryn Bailey and one
from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Bailey.
Mr. Keeler stated that in the staff review, the entire area had been considered,
but not on a parcel -to -parcel basis. He said that on the map entitled "Staff
Proposal" there are areas that as a whole are not appropriate for conservation
zoning because they do not meet the criteria. However, it would be possible that
if each parcel were individually considered some could meet the definition for
CVN. Each parcel would have to be considered on its individual merits.
Mr. Tucker stated that those areas not suggested by the staff just do not contain
poor soils, steepness of slopes, or flood plain areas.
Dr. Moore asked exactly the criteria used for the staff's recommendation.
19
CA911
Mr. Tucker responded that all four criteria mentioned in the staff report
were used ( 100-year flood plain; slopes of 15 percent or greater, contiguous to
the flood plain; soils of severe restrictions to development; areas dominated by
slopes of 25 percent or more ). Mr. Tucker also stated that the staff cannot
justify rezoning this whole area at this time. The staff felt that the delineation
was arbitrary, since there are probably areas adjacent to this, or in the same area,
that would meet the conservation definition as well.
Mrs. Graves asked the staff where the County intends to use the CVN zone,
what areas are appropriate.
Mr. Tucker responded that such an area as the watershed could be addressed
for CVN zoning. He again stated that the line delineating the area requested for
rezoning is arbitrary. At this time the staff cannot justify recommending approval
of the request.
Mr. Peatross asked the identity of the applicants.
Mr. Tucker told him that the applicants are a group of property owners in that
area.
Mr. Carr asked if the County is in receipt of a list of all the owners in the
area and their position on this matter.
Mr. Tucker said that the County Planning Department has determined from the
most recent real estate records owners of property in the area. However, the staff
does not have a recorded position of each property owner.
Mr. Carr asked who, in the green area, represented in the "Staff Proposal"
map, besides the Baileys, do not concur with the request.
Mr. Peatross asked who was notified of this requested rezoning.
Mr. Tucker stated that all properties within the area requested, as well as the
adjacent owners, were notified.
Mrs. Collett Thatch stated that she did not receive a letter and that
she had owned property there for seventeen years. Mr. Tucker explained that letters
were sent out according to the tax records in the real estate office.
Mr. Carr reminded everyone that the study area was being reviewed at the
request of owners in that area.
Mrs. Manson asked the Commission and the staff that if the land meets
the criteria for conservation zoning, why had the staff not recommended it.
Mr. Corey Trench asked if there is a future land use plan for the county.
Mr. Tucker explained that the land use plan is one of the three segments of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Dr. Wallen stated that he understood that the boundary set forth in the
citizen proposal is arbitrary, but the reason is that it represents most properties
in that area whose owners wish the conservation designation. He did state that
this land fits the logical definition of conservation and he feared the wait of
completion and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Ramsey Martin pointed out that if the land meets the criteria, if the
owners by and large want it, then the conservation designation for this area should
be made part of the new Comprehensive Plan. This area meets the standards and the
432
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff feels as though they have presented the
facts, and the citizens' wishes will have to be wrestled with by the Commission and
the Board of Supervisors.
Mrs. Susan Harrison stated that she was appalled by the recommendation to delay
any action until the completion of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that nothing has
come of the old Comprehensive Plan, and that here is one opportunity to follow that
old plan. The County also has almost complete support of the property owners in that
area. She felt that the Commission and the Board had already indicated to the property
owners of that area that they were willing to entertain conservation zoning for the area.
She pointed to the development that had recently occurred in that area, stating that
in 1976, eleven new parcels have been created within one -quarter mile of each other.
She stated that in her opinion the County could afford to wait no longer.
David Lewis told the Commission that approximately one year ago the County
had attempted to adopt a new zoning ordinance and map, and that at that time 5-acre
zoning had been recommended by the Commission to the Board for that particular area
in Ivy. He could not understand the current recommendation of the staff in view
of this. He asked if representative government could prevail and why the land
should remain A-1 if the majority of the citizens wanted conservation. He stated that
conservation zoning was desired as soon as possible.
Mr. Colony stated that the staff report points out the percent of the parcels
in the area request for rezoning that exhibit the characteristics necessary for
conservation zoning. He asked if the Commission knows what percent of the people
in the area have signed the petition in favor of the rezoning.
Mr. Tucker explained that the wishes of the people is not part of the
planning process, and it is not one of the criteria used to determine if the
land is suitable for a special zone.
Mr. Colony then asked if the County has holding policy on all rezoning
requests until the review and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that
if such a policy exists, and if it is equitably applied, this zoning request stands
on a weak foundation. He found it interesting to see that the County is concerned
about taking property rights from owners, yet at the time of adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance, it was overwhelming to see how much land was put into
the A-1 zone, the largest acreage zone at that time. He stated that much land at
that time should have been designated conservation.
Mr. Carr stated that the County has no policy that he is aware of holding
zoning applications until the review of the master plan is completed and further
stated that he hopes the County does not move in that extreme fashion.
Mrs. Frances Martin said that she feels as though the staff is consistent in
its recommendation, but pointed out that at the time of review of the proposed zoning
ordinance, property owner desires were considered higher priority than the Comprehensive
Plan. She asked that the Commission think twice before using the review of the master
plan as an excuse to deny this request. She asked if it is fair to deny this request
in view of past actions of the Commission.
Mr. Herbert Tull asked why it was stated that there has been no unusual
activity in that area. He stated that it is the citizens, not the County, who
initiated this rezoning request. Furthermore, the citizens and property owners
of that area do not like spot subdivisions in that area, and resulting compromises
from subdivision proposals are not nearly as agreeable as the conservation designation.
He asked if the Commission would feel it more appropriate for the citizens to come
in on an individual basis for rezoning. He pointed out that this would take considerable
Commission time.
433
Mr. Cory Trench stated that it seems impossible that the Comprehensive Plan
currently under review will be completed by March, 1977. He also stated that the
soil study for Albemarle County will not be complete until 1979-1981. He stated
that it would be difficult to deny this request since there is such strong public
sentiment in that area. The exact opposition to the request is unknown. He suggested
that if at time it is necessary, the land can be changed back to A-1 zoning. He
pointed out that the zoning of an area should not violate the Comprehensive Plan,
and the existing Comprehensive Plan recommends that this area be designated conservation.
Mr. Cornelius Means stated that in his opinion when one is planning, one
should look ahead. The County should be planned the way that the people want it to
go.
Mr. Jim Dunstan stated that the staff analysis is very good but in his opinion
the recommendations were inconsistent with analysis.He felt that if this rezoning
is not considered, other rezoning requests should not be considered. Many citizens
want conservation zoning for that area and the request was initiated by a majority
of the citizens.
Mr. Carr stated that he feels that the staff approached the request in the
proper fashion and the recommendations were based on sound planning principles.
He stated that he did support the request if it is approached correctly.
Mr. Edward Smith, Jr., stated his opposition to the request, though he said
that he is opposed to cutting up the area in small lots. However, he said that he
does not want his neighbors telling him what he can or cannot do with his own property.
Mr. Larry Meem told the Commission that the majority wants the 5-acre zoning.
The distinguishing factor is that the citizens in that area have asked for it. He
said that such a rezoning would not damage other parts of the county.
Mrs. Meem asked that the Commission give careful consideration to this request.
Mr. F. L. W. Richardson said that he lives in the adjoining area and that
many citizens in that area will soon come before the County with a request for
5-acre and 10-acre zoning. He stated that it is unfortunate logic which applies
the term conservation to an area that is really residential rural. He said that
soils and slopes are not the basis for conservation zoning, since in the western
part of the country many houses are built on mountainsides. Conservation zoning
should be applied to those areas a certain distance from the urban center in
consideration of the property owners' wishes. He felt it very important that citizens
be able to determine what they want in an area. He also stated that he felt the citizens
in the county should develop the comprehensive plan for the county.
Mr. Carr pointed out that it would be almost impossible for 45,000 citizens
to make a decision on the overall plan for the county. He stated that when the
consultants to review the master plan were chosen, one of the criteria for selection
was willingness to work with the citizens of the County. Mr. Carr stated that
citizen input in the review is welcomed and encouraged. He stated that in the
revision of the master plan, it is hoped that this time the job will be done.
Mrs. Nancy Manson said that the policy should be to hold to a minimum the
number of changes that could occur in the County, prior to the revision of the plan.
Mr. Carr stated that all rezoning cases should be considered on the merits
and that there is no plan to put anything in a holding pattern until the plan is
completed.
434
David Lang supported the zoning proposal for the area stating that the
County needed to take this single step to implement the Conservation Zone.
Mrs. Baker stated that many years ago there was a straw vote taken in
the Ivy area that citizens there did not wish the area to grow. She asked the
Commission what steps, if not this rezoning, the owners in that area could take
to prevent further growth.
Mrs. Meem urged the Commission to listen to the wishes of the citizens,
who elect the Board of Supervisors, who in turn appoint the Planning Commission.
Mr. Smith again stated his opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Walter Hauser said that he does not feel that the staff and the
Planning Commission are overpaid bureaucrats, as was suggested by Mr. Richardson.
He felt that the services afforded the citizens of the county are meeting the needs
of the citizens. Nor did he feel that the tax structure is too high. However,
he did ask that the Commission support the request of the area citizens.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Easter stated that there are 131 parcels involved in the study area.
He asked how many parcels are part to this petition.
Mr. Meem stated that it is not possible to answer this question, but in
the correspondence with neighbors, he knows of only three definite oppositions -
the two Bailey parcels and the Smith parcels. Others in the area are non -committal.
Mr. Easter said that he feels it is important the Commission know it is
not forcing people to do something they oppose.
Mrs. Meem stated that she is aware of Mrs. Bruce's opposition.
Mr. Carr asked about Glenaire.
Mr. Tucker stated that is an adjoining subdivision to the study area, and
is shown only on the general land use map.
Mr. Jones asked if Mr. Smith is aware of any other owners in the area who
are opposed to the rezoning.
Mr. Carr stated that he has talked to Mr. Wood and Mr. Rinehart who are
aware of the request, but they have voiced no support or opposition.
Mr. Jones asked about the statement included in the staff report which
stated that "this Board shall follow the policy of considering requests for rezoning
made by owners or contract purchasers only and shall not look with favor on any
petitions submitted by other parties."
Mr. Carr stated that it is a tribute to Mr. Gibson, who served eight years
ago on the Board, to be quoted in such fashion. However, he said that he is not
aware that this is a current policy.
Mr. Keeler stated.that this part of the staff report had been included
as information only. ,as to how the zoning ordinance is currently constructed.
435
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he supports the rezoning request on the basis
that the majority of the property owners in the area favor it, and the land
conforms by physical definition.
Mr. Barksdale also supported the request. He stated that in the map
illustration belonging to Dr. Meem that he would like to see more of the red
area ( those parcels whose owners support the request ) colored in.
Mr. Carr stated that he wanted to consider the staff proposal, which
delineated the-axeassuitablefor conservation zoning. Smaller lot owners could
come in for rezonings on an individual basis and individual merits could be considered
at that time.
Mr. Jones stated that if the staff proposal is adopted that Mr. Smith's
problem would be'solved.
Mr. Carr suggested that the Turner Mountain boundary might be a logical
boundary.
Dr. Moore pointed out that along Route 676 all the property ownerq according
to Dr. Meem's map, want conservation zoning.
Mr. Easter stated that he is inclined to omit the Smith property from the zoning.
He also asked if any certified letters of notification had been returned to the planning
office.
Mr. Keeler handed the returned letter to Mr. Easter, pointing out that the
letter to the Thatchs had been returned to the Planning Office because of expiration
date for forwarding mail to a new address.
Mr. Easter read the names and addresses of the letters that had been returned
from the post office, inquiring if anyone knew about these people.
Mrs. Harrison went through specific properties and explained, to her knowledge,
of the wishes of property owners. She stated that the Whitt property is currently
in bankruptcy and the land has been turned over to the father of the bankrupt owner.
Mrs. Harrison stated that it was unable to establish the wishes of this family.
Mr. Peatross asked the legal position on this requested rezoning, if it is
defensible.
Mr. Fred Payne stated that the Office of the County Attorney would have to
support the staff recommendation, especially since approval would constitute
piecemeal downzoning. He reminded the Commission that there are special grounds
for downzoning property. But a piecemeal downzoning would be one or more parcels
being changed from a more intensive use to a less intensive use. There is no logical
delineation for this area, other than the fact that several owners in that area
wish the conservation designation. Before rezoning property without a landowners
support, one must establish that the original zoning was wrong or mistaken, there
has been a significant change in circumstances since the original zoning, or there
was fraud in the original zoning. He stated that in his opinion, none of these cases
exist, and he would have to consider it piecemeal zoning, probably not defensible.
If land is now rezoned and the current owner agrees with the rezoning, a future
owner could challenge the action. If the entire county were rezoned, as was
proposed approximately one year ago, it would be more defensible. Logical divisions
are needed and then it would be necessary to prove they are arguably valid.
436
Mr. Easter thought that it should make a difference to the court,
if the decision were challenged, that the property owners of the area requested it.
Mr. Payne stated that zoning is a legislative matter, not a popularity matter.
Zoning by referendum does not exist in Virginia.
Mr. Easter asked if they could accomplish what they want by writing a 5-acre
limitation deed restriction for their properties.
Mr.Payne stated they could, but such would not necessarily hold.
Mr. Gloeckner said that this rezoning request is a step toward the use of
the new 5-acre ( conservation ) zone adopted as part of the zoning ordinance.
The land fits the CVN definition and the majority of the property owners are requesting
this designation.
Dr. Moore also pointed out that before, at the original time of zoning, such
a 5-acre zone did not exist.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested setting as the boundaries for the 5-acre zoning those
imposed by the citizens themselves.
Col. Washington stated that he could think of six reasons for supporting the
request:
1. The CVN zone has been created, and included in the zoning ordinance, much at
the request of these very citizens; it is a new tool and it should be used when
possible;
2. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors encouraged these citizens
to petition the County for the 5-acre zoning;
3. Though it is not necessarily a parallel to the sidewalks in the urban area the use of this zone has to begin somewhere, just as do the sidewalks;
4. The consensus of the owners in the area is for 5-acre zoning, but this does
not preclude someone in the area from petitioning the county for 2-acre zoning,
at which time the request would have to be considered on its merits;
5. Much of the land in that area is north slope land, which drains into the Mechum
River which in turn drains into the Reservoir. Development in such an area
should be minimized;
6. There is no policy for holding rezoning requests until the review of the compre-
hensive plan is completed.
Mr. Easter stated that he wished to frame a motion for approving the area
for the 5-acre zoning, exluding certain properties - the parcels owned by Mr.
and Mrs. Richard Bailey, Mrs. Kathryn Bailey, the Bruce property, the Brooks property,
and the Smith property.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion to approve.
Mr. Peatross, stated that such a motion is not legally wise, and thus
he is opposed. He further pointed out that now, in the motion, the area is
being addressed in a piecemeal fashion, speaking of excluding those properties
whose owners oppose the rezoning. He stated that it is not the right of an individual
to request rezoning of a neighbor's property. The Conservation zone was created by
the Board of Supervisors as part of the ordinance, and any individual interested
in changing the zone for his particular property can petition the county to do so
through the normal rezoning process. The Attorney is not telling these petitioners
who are acting as a group that they cannot rezone their property, merely that they
should do it on an individual basis. He also pointed out to the Commission that many
people are not represented at this meeting. If approved, this action could set the
precedent for block zoning all over the county.
437
Mr. Peatross stated that he is against block zoning where individuals
can, by majority appeal, request the rezoning of theirs and their neighbors'
land. Approval will set the precedent for this, he fears. Mr. Peatross
supports an individual's property rights. "The County must control growth
and the County must protect this area, but the County must respect people's
private rights, too, and approval would not do this."
Mrs. Graves agreed with Mr. Peatross to a degree. "In as much as the
Planning Commission has picked and chosen which parts of this property it feels
it can make conservation zoning stick, and which parts the Planning Commission
can't, there are areas here which the Planning Commission can prove should be
designated conservation - the master plan describes it." She had no problem with
rezoning Mr. Smith's land, if it meets the criteria. "I am also prepared to look
at a larger area because the present comprehensive plan describes where the
conservation zoning should be. In preparation of the zoning ordinance last
year, this Planning Commission spoke to conservation zoning for this area. I have
no problem speaking to a larger area, if that is what it takes to get this area
rezoned. If individual property rights are considered, as Mr. Peatross suggested,
appropriate zoning will come to defeat again. There is no use in revising the
comprehensive plan if the Planning Commission can't come up with a zoning ordinance
which complements it. But everyone relinquished some property rights when they
accepted zoning for the county, and that is something that has to be accepted."
She wanted to support Mr. Easter's motion but she did want it to follow the staff's
recommendation, and not exclude people who wish to be excluded. Even though it is
their land, if it is appropriate for conservation zoning, it should be designated
Conservation.
Mr. Easter said he would still like to stick to the motion. Points had
been well spoken to by Mr. Peatross and Mrs. Graves. He was also concerned about the
legal aspects, but at the same time "all these people have discussed it, not only
at Planning Commission meetings, but at Comprehensive Plan meetings." He felt a
strong effort had been made to "sound people out" - it is almost as if they are coming
in on an individual basis. "There is some land where people haven't committed one
way or the other; this bothers me some, but a decision like this is important enough that
they should take a position on it. This will do a great deal for Albemarle County."
He knows and respects the staff's position, feels it to be the only position they
could take, and feels the same about Mr. Payne's position. "But the Planning
Commission works for the citizens' desires, and this rezoning will make for a nicer
county. If they were requesting industrial zoning, that would be an entirely different
matter."
Mr. Jones felt that "calling it the conservation zone is really unimportant
because one can build a house on it; in California one can build a house on very
steep slopes. It is more or less the request of the people - so it is a matter of
whether or not the Planning Commission represents the people or not, and if we
can do that without hurting the property rights of other land owners in the area.
If that is the case, I would be agreeable. I have mixed emotions; I agree with
Mr. Peatross, as long as we respect owners who don't want to be rezoned."
Mr. Peatross: "People's rights and their voice should certainly be respected
but there are laws on the books that also have to be followed. It is what the people
want versus what the laws permit. In my opinion, the law just does not permit this,
and that's why I am opposed to it. This should be weighed according to what is
y lawful . "
438
Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Mr. Peatross, but stated that "in this
particular case, their request is for zoning their property as defined by
our conservation zone. The majority of this area is conservation defined.
If it is done the other way, we are leaving out people who oppose this zoning.
Either do it as a block or don't do it at all."
Mr. Easter: "Then we should do the whole county at one time, not just
this one piece. There are other areas that need to be rezoned."
Mr. Gloeckner: "We can get to that in good time."
Mr. Carr: "I am very much concerned about what Mr. Peatross has said.
One of the reasons I am concerned about it is that I find it highly desirable that
the citizens of Albemarle County want to proceed in this manner - this is a test
run - to get certain parts of this county properly zoned." He hopes to see this
as a successful venture. If taken to court, it will take a long time to settle the
matter; and for this reason, he had listened to Mr. Payne and Mr. Peatross. While
he fears it to be poor planning, stating that he would vote to exclude the Bailey,
Bruce, Brooks and Smith properties, he hoped this would set aside any immediate
court cases. Mr. Carr felt this to be good, practical judgement. "It may be poor
planning, and legally it may be unsound, but I find it to be an acceptable approach.
I have a problem with this: when people come to the County and try to rezone others,
that provides me with no small concern, and when the County makes a move, when the
elected make a move, to rezone the whole county under a comprehensive plan, in the
interest of the whole ( since individual interests and small group interests can be
entirely different from the interests of the whole ). I am not willing to rezone
Mr. Smith's land on the wishes of his neighbors. Now, on the motion of the elected,
after being properly advised, if Mr. Smith's land should be rezoned as part of a
package, I support that as the basis of zoning and land use. But for my neighbors
to rush in, and I have four neighbors, and rezone my land, is not the democratic
process."
Mr. Easter called for the question.
Mr. Carr said that "those parcels to be excluded should be properly defined
according to tax map and parcel number and according to owners name."
He asked that the staff do this when it forwarded the information and recommendation
of the Planning Commission on to the Board.
The motion was as follows:
The area described below, with the exception of:
Tax Map 42, Parcel 12D ( owned by Richard E. and Dorothy H. Bailey )
Tax Map 58, Parcel 55 ( owned by Ernest H. and Edna F. Bruce )
Tax Map 58, Parcel 47 ( owned by Geneva B. Brooks, etal. )
Tax Map 58, Parcel 79A ( owned by Katherine E. Smith )
Tax Map 58, Parcel 79C ( Right -of -Way ) - ( owned by Edward Lumsden Smith and
Anne Lyons, c/o J. Howard Smith; property known as TALLASSEE )
Tax Map 58, Parcel 82B ( owned by Edward Lumsden Smith and Anne Lyons, c/o J. Howard
Smith; property known as TALLASSEE )
Tax Map 58, Parcel 44 ( owned by W. L. Bailey Estate )
Tax Map 58, Parcel 82 ( Owned by Edward Lumsden Smith and Anne Lyons )
Tax Map 58, Parcel 82C ( Owned by Edward Lumsden Smith and Anne Lyons )
be rezoned to Conservation District. With the exception of the above, the description
of the area is as follows:
439
Bounded on the south side by Meriwether Hills Subdivision, Route 250 West,
Route 676, and Glenaire Subdivision; Western boundary generally follows and traverses
the Mechum River in a northeasterly fashion to a point approximatley 5,400 feet
southeast of Decca,Virginia; from that point proceeds erratically in a southeasterly
fashion to Route 676, just south of the intersection of Routes 676 and 678; from there
the boundary proceeds in a southerly fashion along Route 678 to Route 250 at Ivy,
Virginia. This land is located on County Tax Maps 41, 42, 57, and 58, Smmuel Miller
and White Hall Magisterial Districts, as delineated on Exhibit B, as presented to
the Board of Supervisors at its meeting June 16, 1976.
The motion carried by a vote of 7-2, with Messrs. Peatross and Jones dissenting.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
/i � al -
Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Se reta
OR
440
August 31, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting Tuesday, August 31,
1976, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves; Col. William Washington. Absent were Mr.
Leslie Jones; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Paul Peatross. Other officials present were Mrs.
Opal David, ex-Officio; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald
S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr.
Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Minutes of August 24, 1976:
Mr. Carr stated that the minutes stood approved, subject to the addition by
Mr. Barksdale.
Mr. Carr reminded the members of the Commission of the meeting with the
Board of Supervisors, September 15, 1976, 3:00 p.m., Board Room, regarding highway
matters. He urged as many members of the Commission who could to attend that meeting.
Buck Mountain final plat - deferred item:
Mr. Montenegro reminded the Commission that action on this plat had been
deferred in order that the open space could be platted according to the special
permit provision for the PUD. He said that this condition has been met. The
Virginia Department of Highways has approved Buck Ridge Road; the County Engineer
concurred and said that if the Planning Commission is convinced that the local
topographic conditions warrant departure from the stated minimum standard, the
Engineering Department recommends that the superelevation of the curves be required
as provided for by the Virginia Department of Highways. The open space has also
been platted for Phase I, and the Commission will need to approve this platting,
even though the plat for Phase I was administratively approved, in order that the
plat can be signed and redated.
Mr. Tucker explained that the Commission could grant the waiver on the these
roads to save cut and fill and further landscaping.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the metes and bounds specify this as open space or
common area - this space should be noted as such on the plat.
Mr. Tucker stated that the plat does follow the master plan of the Buck
Mountain Special Use Permit.
Mr. Evans stated that everything has been brought up to date by platting this
open space for Phase I.
Mr. Montenegro said that approval should be conditioned upon
1. Highway Department approval of entrance;
2. Grading permit;
3. Health Department approval;
4. Dedicated open space be marked as such.
MAIN
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to these four conditions.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
E. C. Lawson Subdivision - located on South side of Route 676 on existing
right-of-way.
Mr. Montenegro stated that this is a subdivision of two lots, one ll+ acres
and one 22+ acres, and a 50' extension of the existing right-of-way. Staff recommended
the following condition of approval:
1. Written Health Department approval.
Mr. Carr established that Dr. Lawson owns that property on both sides of
the right-of-way on Route 676.
Mr. Barksdale stated that the right-of-way maintenance needs to be discussed,
since he had been questioned by Mr. Burmeister on the maintenance of it. He stated
that it is unclear who will maintain the road.
Mr. Burmeister stated that the plat in the Planning Department differs from
his own deed, especially in the maintenance of this road.
Mr. Carr said that the question is if, in the original approval, the County
said that this road ( where it enters the state road ) is to be maintained by the
owners of property along this road. He said that he feels this was the intent of
the County. 44)
Mr. Barksdale stated that he feels there should be a maintenance agreement on
this road.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed.
Mr. Easter stated that neither the applicant nor his representative is present
and moved that any action be deferred until the applicant is represented. He moved
for deferral.
Mr. Barksdale agreed, but asked that the applicant be advised of the Commission's
concern for the maintenance agreement, so that it could be addressed prior to the
next meeting. He seconded the motion.
At that moment Mr. Snow, surveyor for the applicant, arrived at the meeting
and the motion, and second, for deferral were withdrawn.
Mr. Tull stated that as one of the joint owners of a parcel on that road,
he does not want to enter the maintenance agreement since he wants no further
subdivision to occur along that road. The maintenance has been agreed upon on an
informal basis, and there have been no problems.
There was a rather lengthy discussion regarding other technical points of the
plat, at the end of which Mr. Snow agreed to move point "D" on the plat to the end
of the extension of the right-of-way, on the revised plat. This was to be a conditi
of approval. It was also noted that the wording on the new plat should be the
same wording as on. the recorded plat of Mr. Burmeister ( a plat dated several years
ago ).
442
Mrs. Graves asked if the County can make the existing residences enter into
the maintenance agreement.
Mr. Payne stated that this subdivision can be made to enter into the agreement,
since this subdivision is not permitted by right because there is no state frontage.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Commission also needs to consider where subdivision
along this road will end, meaning that either there will be no more subdivision as long
as the road conditions exist as they are now, the road will have to be brought up
to state standards, or people living along this road will have to enter the maintenance
agreement.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he feels a maintenance agreement is necessary at this
time.
Mr. Carr asked if there need be a dedication in order to have a maintenance agree-
ment, and Mr. Payne said "no."
Mr. Payne also stated that the maintenance agreement should be reviewed by
the County Attorney and should be recorded, in order to bind the front lots.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Legal maintenance agreement, duly recorded after approval by County Attorney;
2. Note on plat to conform to the note on the plat of 10/29/69;
3. Health Department approval;
4. Point "D" to be moved to the end of the extension of the right-of-way on the plat.
Mr. Payne stated that it would be possible to exclude the people to the front
of the road, if that is acceptable to other property owners along the road. However,
it does not seem to be necessary to pay maintenance on the road until a lot has access
to this road.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion to approve; the motion carried unanimously.
James C. Joyner plat - located on the east side of Route 719 north of
Alberene on an existing right-of-way. One 10.917 acre lot:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
Mr. Montenegro stated that this was before the Commission because there
is a note on the plat which prohibits nay further subdivision that would involve
additional use of the 50' right-of-way without Planning Commission approval.
Staff recommended the following condition of approval:
1. Written Health Department approval.
Mr. Easter questioned the reason for the right-of-way as shown on the plat.
Mr. Carr explained that when Georgia Marble cut off the 10 lots that these
lots had no frontage and road between them was inadequate.
Mr. Easter moved approval of plat subject to the one condition recommended by
the staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Barksdale.
443
Mrs. Graves established to her satisfaction that the wording on the plat is
adequate in regard to the adjacent owners.
The motion to approve carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner returned to the meeting.
Albemarle Square Site Plan ( amendment ):
Mr. Montenegro stated that this amendment would provide for Cedric's Fish and
Chips in the shopping center in place of a 3,000 square foot building of undisclosed use.
The shopping center is located on B-1 zoned land, in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of Route 29 North and Rio Road ( Route 631 ). The staff recommended
the following conditions of approval:
1. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
2. Landscaping in compliance with overall landscaping plan to be approved by staff;
3. In approving this sheet to replace sheet SD-1 of the overall site plan, the
Commission is not giving approval to:
(a) the expansion of Safeway and/or Best Products ( marked by dotted lines );
(b) Site plans for sites A and D;
(c) Phase III;
(d) this decision does not speak to Phase III.
Mr. Montenegro also stated that as presented to date, the overall development
plan lacks 98 parking spaces based on the requirement of 5.5 parking spaces per
1,000 square feet gross floor area. The staff intends to notify the applicant of this
situation.
Mrs. Graves asked the square footage involved.
Mr. Montenegro stated it is 2,048 square feet.
Mr. Easter reminded the Commission that fast food places cause intensive traffic
and asked if this use will cause problems in the traffic flow.
Mr. Tucker explained that the site is the same, except the exact location
of the building has been changed. Mr. Easter asked if the traffic flow will be all
right. Mr. Tucker explained that the traffic flow has not changed, and that this
arrangement is better than having an unknown use.
Mr. Dean Jacobs, representing the applicant, stated that he had spoken
with the State Highway Department and it has informed him there is no problem with
the traffic.
Mr. Tom Sinclair, surveyor for the applicant, stated that he was under the
impression that everything regarding the square footage has been approved except for
Phase III.
Mrs. Graves questioned the parking situation. Mr. Carr said that the County
would not approve completion of Phase III, and it could not be fully developed until
the parking requirement is met.
444
Mrs. Graves said that she wants to be certain that the contractor.is, doing
everything possible to prevent soil erosion at the site, and that the trees at the
rear of the sii:e will be saved. Mr. Tucker explained that at the beginning of grading
the site was being monitored daily; monitoring has tapered off some, but proper measures
by the contractor are being taken..
Mr. Easter moved approval of the amendment to the site plan subject to the
conditions,recommended by the staff.
Mr. Carr stated that the.condition regarding this does not in any way grant
approval to Phase III should he.made very clear to the applicant.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Kenneth Thomas plat`
sketch:
Mr. Keeler stated that this was being submitted to the Commission for its
review becuase of the odd shaped lot, which the ordinance does not permit. He explained
the approximate 2-acre building site as proposed by the applicant, noting that a variance
from setback requirement has been secured, because of the scenic designation for the road.
The staff feels this proposal is the proper location for the house.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the location of the septic system. to determine if there
were possible alternatives.
Mr. Keeler stated that this particular division gives,the prime building site,
though odd shaped lots are not permitted by the ordinance. He stated that he and
Mr. Tucker had viewed the site.
Col. Washington stated that it is very difficult to tell anything from the sketch,
since it is not a topographic map.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he favored the sketch as done by Mr. Blue's office,
which is the concept supported by the staff.
Mr. Keeler stated that if the Commission grants the waiver of the odd shaped
restriction, the staff will approve the plat administratively.
Col. Washington noted that the property is highly irregular and moved that
the Commission approve the concept of the longer lot, in order that the staff could
approve the plat administratively ( thus waiving the odd -shaped lot restriction ).
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mrs. Graves stated that she does not favor administrative approval of odd
shaped lots without input from the Commission.
Bonanza - Sidewalk requirement:
Mr. Easter moved deferral, since neither the applicant nor his representative
was present. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr told the Commission that the matter deals with sidewalks - where they
should be located on this site.
445
Mr. Tucker stated that he had told the applicant that it was not necessarily
mandatory that he be present, and perhaps this was the reason the applicant was
nor represented.
Mr. Barksdale suggested that in that case the item be deferred until the end
of the meeting. The Commission unanimously agreed to defer action until then.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that Article 18 Scenic Highway
Designation be amended to provide for signs in the CVN Conservation District and
the CO Commercial Office District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that these amendments would
provide for signing for the newly adopted CVN and CO districts. The signing provided
for the CVN along a scenic highway would be subject to the same provisions as signs
for the agricultural and residential districts and the signing provided for CO would
be subject to the same provisions as signs in the B-1 Business District. He also
explained that each zone has three types of signing provided. The purpose for these
amendments is to provide signing along the scenic highway, since the zones were
made part of the ordinance after provisions for signing along scenic scenic was adopted.
Mr. Holdren questioned the meaning of the amendments. Mr. Tucker explained.
Since there was no further public comment, Mr. Carr closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the amendments to read as follows:
Section 18-3-5(A) Conservation (CVN) District, Agricultural (A-1) District and
Residential (RS-1, R-1, R-2, and R-3) Districts;
Section 18-3-5(B) Commerical Office (CO) District and General Business (B-1) Distirct.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Easter asked the staff to again explain. Mr. Tucker stated that these
amendments will provide for signing for these two zones along scenic highways, since
the two zones were adopted after scenic designation.
The motion to approve carried unanimously.
Mrs. Graves asked for a clarification of advertisements for variances, since
the current policy for advertising does not adequately serve the public. She
asked that the Commission request the Planning Staff to bring this to the attention of
the Zoning Administrator. The Commission agreed unanimously to this request.
The Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent to amend section
18-2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Section 18-2 Public Hearings by State Highway Commission
The Board of Supervisors may, from time to time, request that the Virginia
State Highway Commission hold public hearings, accordance with Section 33.1-62
of the Code prior to the designation of any scenic highway or Virginia Byway in
the county, whether or not such designation be at the request of the Board of
Supervisors_
446
Mr. Payne explained the proposed amendment to the Commission noting that if
adopted, the Highway Commission would hold public hearings on possible scenic designations
only if requested to do so by the Board of Supervisors. This would accomplish quicker
scenic designations.
Mr. Paul Holdren cautioned the Commission about recommending this amendment to
the Board, noting that much highway funding is from the taxpayer. This amendment could
give to local government the power to desigate any road scenic, even business highways.
He feared that special interest groups would pressure the Board into such action, without
input from other interested parties. He did not feel that the deciding factor for
scenic designation should solely be local government. He felt that the Highway Commission
could act as a balancing factor.
Mr. Payne explained that the amendment had been misconstrued.
If the designation rises from the County, the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors have to hold public hearings.
The Highway Commission will be required to hold a public hearing if the Board requests
such, but only on the request of the Board. In the cases of Routes 6 and 20, scenic
designation was slowed because the Highway Commission was slow about holding the public
hearings. Mr. Payne stated that this changes it to a case -to -case basis rather than
a standard basis.
Mr. Edward Jackson questioned the effect that this will have on signs.
Mr. Payne stated that this amendment does not address the sign question.
Mr. Carr stated that the question is if the County can act on its own motion
without a public hearing by the state Commission.
Mrs. Graves stated that the Highway Commission will have to hold public
hearings if requested to do so.
Mrs. Speidel stated that it is her understanding that signs over a certain size
are the only ones in question when it comes to having a road designated as scenic.
Mr. Carr said that it would seem possible that interested parties could petition
the Highway Commission to hold a public hearing before any scenic designation.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the criteria for state scenic designation.
The Commission discussed other items of concern - if the state could designate
a road as scenic without any sanctioning from the local government or citizens.
In this discussion it was discovered that it might be possible for the Highway Commission
to designate a road as scenic if they so choose, if requested by the Board of Supervisors,
or if petitioned by some interested third party.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he favored the Highway Commission being held accountable
to the public, to find out if the public wants roads designated or not.
Mr. Easter said that since the position of the Highway Commission is uncertain,
he wished the planning staff to write the Commission for input on the proposed amendment
and specifically ask its policy on scenic highway designation and public hearings.
He also suggested that a member of that Commission be present at the next Planning
Commission meeting to discuss this matter. He moved action be deferred until that
time, when he also asked that the staff make a formal presentation on this matter.
447
Mr. Payne stated that since this is policy, he does not see how the presentation
can be any more clear.
Col. Washington seconded the motion for deferral.
The motion carried unanimously, with the chairman directing the staff to
carry out the requests covered in the motion. He also directed the staff to
use the end of September as a target date for further discussion.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend the Albemarle County Zoning and Land Subdivision Development Ordinances
to provide for development of clustered residential subdivision by right in all
residential districts.
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that the staff has no new proposals regarding
this. At the last discussion, concerns arose regarding further subdivision of open
space. However, he noted that the Board had considered this resolution as possible
protection against stripping. At this time the staff is not prepared to go forth
with the discussion and asked that the Commission indefinitely defer action, since
the. staff is currently seeking information from other counties.
There was no public comment on the resolution.
Mr. Barksdale moved action be deferred indefinitely. Mr. Payne advised the
Commission to recommend to the Board that the resolution of intent to amend the
ordinance be withdrawn, otherwise, the resolution will go to the Board as "Recommende"
by the Commission" if not acted on within ninety days.
Mr. Barksdale revised his motion to state that the Commission recommends that
the Board withdraw the resolution. Col. Washington seconded this motion, which
carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter left the meeting.
Rezoning request by County Director of Finance:
Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance,
had requested rezoning one lot designated as parcel 61M(2) in Berkeley from the
existing B-1 zone to R-1. The lot is accessible only through the residential area
of Berkeley and is adjacent to and across from residential units. It cannot be reached
through Shopper's World or otherwise. The Director of Finance has stated that he does
not feel that it is in the best interests of the County to sell this particular lot
with B-1 zoning and is asking the Commission to adopt a resolution of intent to take
this to public hearing in order that the zoning of the lot can be made compatible to
adjacent residential units.
The staff suggested rezoning two other parcels in that area as well.
Mrs. Graves stated that it was her impression that the other two lots had
been rezoned to R-1, and the zoning descriptions had been changed, but not through
the Planning Commission.
09
Mr. Tucker stated that the information the staff was relying upon was taken
from the official zoning map, and that it had not been changed for the other two lots,
but the staff would further investigate this matter.
Mr. Keeler stated that what the staff needs is a resolution of intent to hold
a public hearing on this rezoning request.
Mr. Carr stated that it is also necessary that the staff further investigate
the other two lots in question.
Mrs. Graves moved that the Commission adopt the resolution of intent to rezone
this parcel 61M(2) from B-1 to R-1, as well as the other two lots, if they have not
already been designated as R-1.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Bonanza site plan:
This item had been deferred from earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant is willing to build the sidewalks,
but if they are located at the wrong elevation, the Highway Department will not maintain
them. In fact, the County is now holding a bond for these sidewalks, and he prefers
to build the sidewalks, rather than the County hold this bond.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that if the Highway Department cannot tell the applicant
the vertical alignment, the sidewalks will not be useful.
Mr. Carr stated that such is the case unless the highway will not be constructed
for many years, in which case the sidewalks are desirable.
Mr. Tucker stated that the required sidewalk goes nowhere, and connects to nothing.
The County Attorney has also recently informed the Commission and Board that if it is
determined at a later date ( when the road is built ) that sidewalks are necessary,
the property owner can be assessed for them.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the sidewalk requirement be struck from the site plan.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he would like the owner to be on notice that when
the road is constructed that he can be assessed for sidewalks at that later date.
Mrs. Graves asked if there had been a sidewalk requirement for Albemarle Square
Shopping Center. Mr. Tucker stated that this site plan had been approved in 1973,
and that there was no sidewalk policy at that time.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion to waive the sidewalk condition, provided
the owner is put on notice.
The motion carried unanimously.
Since there was no further business, Ult meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Rob rt W. Tucker. Jr. - SeCr tart'
449
September 7, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
September 7, 1976, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia,
to consider a series of rezoning and special use permit requests.
Those members present were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves;
Mr. Paul Peatross; Col. William Washington; Dr. James Moore; and Mr. Leslie
Jones. Other officials present were Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio; Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of
Planning; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order. He told the public that SP-64-76 would be considered at a later date, because
of incorrect information submitted to the Zoning Department at the time of application.
Minutes of August 31, 1976, were deferred by the Chairman until the next
Planning Commission meeting.
ZMA-13-76. William H. Faulconer - request to rezone 3.84 acres from
R-1 Residential to CO Commercial Office:
Mr. Tucker explained that this item had been deferred in order that the
Virginia Department of Highways could have input and in order to clarify the
problem of the deed restrictions --if this property comes under the same deed
restrictions as Bellair.
The Highway Department made the following comments:
"The Department has funds available for the improvement of Route 250 in the vicinity
of Route 809, the entrance to Bellair Subdivision. The funds available will
allow for channelization of the turning movements at this intersection and at
the roadway which functions as a ramp from the Route 29 By -Pass. This is the ramp
which passes under the railroad track. The Department's plan is to basically channelize the
left turn movements at these two intersections. In addition, a right turn lane will
be constructed along Route 250 East to allow traffic turning right into the Bellair
Subdivision to be protected as they turn into the street.
Concerning the Faulconer development, the Department feels that left turns from the
development onto Route 250 should be strictly controlled. It is the abundance of left
turns being made in this area which is currently complicating the traffic movement.
Therefore, if commercial development of the Faulconer property is approved, the
Department will require exists to be placed along Route 250 which will allow right
turns only. The entrance to the property from Route 250 may be placed directly
opposite the proposed cross -over adjacent to the ramp which passes under the railroad
tracks. Because the entrance and exit from the property along Route 250 will be one
way only, the Department will certainly strongly consider waiving minimum commercial
entrance width requirements of 30 feet. The requirements listed above will make
necessary another access to the property. Traffic desiring to go west on Route 250
would use this exit to reach the intersection of Routes 809 and 250.
Retarding the entrance plan noted above, the Department feels this will give the safest
450
access for the public to the property. Certainly the development of the Faulconer
property as a commercial enterprise will further complicate the traffic problems
in this area. As to whether this will "overburden" the roadway, I can only say the
answer to such a question is subjective. The Department currently has many
miles of primary road only two lanes wide on very poor vertical alignment which is carry-
ing half again to twice as much traffic as Route 250 currently carries. Although the
traffic problems along these highways are severe during certain periods of the day,
traffic does continue to move in relative safety.
The Department's plan for the channelization of the turning movements in this vicinity
should considerably relieve the traffic problems being experienced there. Once
the improvements proposed are completed, the Department will continue to observe
this intersection. If additional improvements are necessary at a later date, we will
attempt to finance such improvements as soon as possible after the need is recognized."
(from letter of D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, to Robert W. Tucker, dated
September 7, 1976)
Someone asked if this improvement plan was in motion prior to this rezoning
petition, and Mr. Roosevelt stated that it most definitely was.
Others were concerned that the development EDNAM would also have a severe
impact on the highway problems.
Mr. Peatross stated that at the previous meeting, the applicant's representative
had talked of using this property, if rezoned, for medical office space. Even though
he realized that the applicant could not be held to this use, it was noted at that
time that the plan called for entry from the rear of the buildings. He asked if
the Virginia Department of Highways had considered this rear entry.
Mr. Tucker responed that it is possible to get to any building proposed
from Route 250 with this highway proposal.
It was established that the plan will only permit exit from Old Farm Road, but
not entrance. Mr. Carr felt it only fair to state that if a road is there, it is
likely to be used for ingress as well as egress.
Mr. Landess stated that in his opinion the deed restrictions of Bellair pertain
to this property.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Payne if discussion of the deed restrictions can be waived.
Mr. Payne said that there is definitely a question of the deed restrictions, but the
Commission need consider them only if they feel it necessary.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, stated that his client intends to
do a certain thing with the property if it is rezoned, and that use is to be for
medical office buildings. This would be an optimum use for the property. The Highway
Department plans will alleviate further traffic problems. Mr. Evans felt that this
use would be as good for the property as the existing vacant land, especially since
the property might be designated for a more intensive use at a later date. Medical
office buildings will retain the quality environment existing. As compared to the
50,000 square feet of commercial office space at the Boar's Head, this will have
only 18,000 square feet. The nearest residence, belonging to the applicant is 500
feet away. He felt this to be a reasonable request. Mr. Evans further pointed out
that this property .is topographically separated from the remainder of the area.
Furthermore, there are other business uses in the area. There is a need in the
area for this kind of office space and for this location.
451
Mr. Landess reminded the Commission that if this property is rezoned,
it can be used for any permitted uses in the CO zone.
Mrs. Huttner said that if it can be used for medical offices, it can
certainly accommodate houses, which would be a much more desirable use.
Mrs. Judy Bratton was concerned about the rezoning because the resulting
traffic would be dangerous for school children. A revision in the bus schedule
has already been made this year because of the early morning traffic.
Other comments on the request were brought out: the Boar's Head was
designed for commercial use in the front--Bellair was not. This rezoning would
set a precedent for other commercial zonings in front of expensive subdivisions.
Birdwood, owned by the University of Virginia, will be developed at a later date,
further increasing traffic problems in this area --thus major highway improvements
should be accomplished before there is any further development along this route.
Mr. Patterson stated that the owner of this property had previously considered
using the land for a park.
Mrs. 011iver stated that any commercial development here will decrease
Bellair property values.
Mr. Howard Bowen pointed out that the Virginia Department of Highways
has only a limited amount of money to spend on improvements here. He asked
if the improvement plans would be different if there were more funds available.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that hundreds of thousands of dollars would be
needed to make the proper improvements. The Highway Department does own 110 feet
of right-of-way here which would permit the construction of a forth lane.
Mr. Hutton stated that the great majority of the people residing in Bellair
oppose this application, and asked that the Commission consider this when acting
on the request.
Mr. McCue suggested to the Commission deferral might be appropriate since
the Highway Department's recommendation became available only that day.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing and asked if the Commission were ready
to consider the request.
Mr. Easter pointed out that the president of the homeowners association was
familiar with the Highway Department's recommendation. In his opinion, the Highway
Department's recommendation was simple and straightforward. Mr. Easter stated that
he was prepared to act on the matter.
Dr. Moore asked if the questionable deed restrictions limit lot size as opposed
to the now zoning of R-1.
Mr. McCue stated that 1-acre lot size is provided in the deed restrictions mentioned.
Mr. Payne further explained that there is a deed restrction requiring lot
sizes of at least one acre in Bellair--there is some question if these deed restrictions
apply to this property in question.
Mr. Barksdale asked if with available funds traffic could be kept out of
Bellair. Mr. Roosevelt said "no", that to allow any left turns to the west from this
property is not advisable.
452
Mr. Roosevelt further explained to Mrs. Graves that any left turns are
not advisable, whether in or out of Bellair. The proposed channelization is
an attempt to protect drivers and residents of the area.
Mrs. Graves opposed the request on the basis of the low density residential
use recommended for this area in the Comprehensive Plan. She also feared that it
would set a precedent for other commercial zonings near major residential areas.
She moved the request be denied.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, for safety reasons.
Mr. Easter stated that this is one of the most dangerous intersections
in the County, and the future development of Birdwood will make it even worse.
Col. Washington stated that there is a need for medical offices in that
area, to meet the needs of the rural areas west of town. He felt that approval
of the request would alleviate serious traffic problems in other places.
He supported the request on this basis.
Mr. Carr stated that he supported the motion, noting, though, that a traffic
problem is not solved by denying this rezoning request. Bellair is a long established
subdivision in Albemarle County. He does not feel that the property owned by this
applicant is intended for this use and it is not wise to slice off the front of Bellair
for a commercial use. However, there might be a more intensive use at which the property
will later be developed. He said that he has thought about this. He hopes that this
property can be reserved as frontage of Bellair.
The motion carried by a vote of 8-1, with Col. Washington dissenting.
SP-58-76. Linda Rheuby has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate
a dog kennel on 206.7 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is located
on the east side of Route 20 South, approximately 3 miles south of Keene.
County Tax Map 122, Parcel 7, Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, stating that the staff recommends
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Staff approval of sketch plan showing adequate parking;
2. Operation to be limited to 30 runs;
3. Dogs to be enclosed from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
4. Approval by appropriate state and local agencies.
Mr. Tucker also stated that there has been one letter of opposition addressed
to the staff from Mr. and Mrs. M. A. Wilson.
There was no public comment on the request.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
It was established that there were no problems limiting the operation to 30 runs.
Mr. Jones suggested changing the hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m. Col. Washington stated that the Commission had approved a request for
a kennel a few weeks ago, and that the hours of operation for the Rheuby kennel should
be consistent with the hours placed on that kennel. Mr. Tucker stated that was limited
to 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Mr. Carr agreed with Col. Washington that the hours should
be consistent.
453
Mr. Barksdale moved that the request be approved subject to the four conditions
recommended by the staff. Mrs. Graves seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-60-76. Adolph 0. Krisch and Eldercare Limited Partnership have petitioned
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a nursing home on 4.65
acres zoned R-3. Property is located on the north side of Route 743 (Hydraulic
Road) approximatley one mile southeast of Albemarle High School. County Tax
Map 61, Parcel 45, part thereof. Charlottesville and Jack Jouett Magisterial
Districts.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, suggesting that the request be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. Site Plan approval;
2. Approvals of appropriate state and local agencies;
3. Nursing home facility shall be limtied to 180 beds. Future expansion shall
require amendment to this special use permit;
4. Access for this proposal shall be through Northwest Drive as shown on a preliminary
site plan by Thomas R. Wyant, Jr., No. 7609.
Mr. Tom Hancock, representing the applicant, stated that there are several
reasons for this application: population concentrations in this area; need for 189
bed nursing home in this area; great percentage of doctors here, along with two
hospitals; the need for an adult day-care out -patient clinic pilot program, providing
30 beds ( which hopefully will be included in the approval ); many people from this area
are placed in nursing homes located in other areas. He pointed out that only a portion
of the property will be used for the nursing facility.
Dr. Tompkins, a local doctor, spoke favorably of the application, stating that
there is a local medical society which studied the need for such a nursing home facility
in this area. He stated that their study indicates that there is a great need, more
than as indicated by the State Health Department. He stated that this proposal has
been well thought out and this is a sound organization. He stated that local doctors
and the local medical society support this request, and will work closely as an
advisory board if the request is approved.
Mr. Logan asked about the road requirements if the facility ever expands,
or if the owners ever decide that a more adequate road is needed.
Mr. Carr explained that to change the road (exit/entrance) other than is
shown on this proposal, will require approval by the County, with notification of
adjoining property owners.
Dr. Tompkins also stated that a quiet street is necessary for a nursing home.
Mr. Scott questioned the type of construction for the facility, and also asked
if this will meet the needs of low and middle income families.
Mr. Hancock explained that the facility will cost approximately $2.5 million,
it will reflect a residential character , and will be lavishly landscaped. He felt
that it will be a credit to the neighborhood. Regarding costs for all incomes:
better than 70% of the patients will be Medicaid patients. Patients will be accepted
on a first -come, first -served basis. The bulk of the patients will be drawn from this
planning district.
454
Mr. Scott stated that the Hydraulic Neighborhood Group does not oppose
this use of the property, as long as they are assured that the structure will
be attractive, and preferably a masonry structure. He stated that in 1971, this
neighborhood group had reached an agreement with Northwest Partnership that a 40 foot
buffer of trees will remain on this property as a buffer to residential use. If
the applicant follows this agreement, they favor the request. He also asked
that the facility not encroach on the roads.
Mr. Logan specifically asked the building materials to be used. Mr. Jones
stated that the state code will require that it be a masonry building. Mr. Carr
also pointed out that the building will cost approximately $15,000 per bed.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Jones supported the application, including the request for day-care
facilities, but asked that one of the neighbors be notified of the site plan review
meeting, in order that adjoining property owners be aware of the structure, landscaping,
etc.
Mrs. Graves stated that she is concerned about access onto Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Tucker explained that access shall be through Northwest Drive to Commonwealth
Drive.
Mrs. Graves asked if there will be any grading of the single-family residences.
Mr. Tucker stated that he cannot speak to any grading plans. He also stated that
the staff recommends that the only access be through Northwest Drive.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the request, subject to the following conditions:
1. Site plan approval;
2. Approvals of appropriate state and local agencies;
3. Nursing home facility shall be limited to 180 beds, plus 30 day-care beds.
Future expansion shall require amendment to this special use permit;
4. Access for this proposal shall be through Northwest Drive to Commonwealth Drive to
Hydraulic Road as shown on a preliminary site plan by Thomas R. Wyant, Jr., Number 7609.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion to approve.
Mr. Carr stated his only concern is his reservation on proper care for the aged
when they are placed in nursing homes. He hoped this will be supervised to avoid problems
that exist in other parts of the country.
Mr. Easter stated that his motion to approve is based on the fact that there will
be a local advisory board who will provide continued service to this nursing care
facility.
Dr. Tompkins stated that local physicians have supported this request because
of the requested input from local medical society.
The vote to approve the request carried unanimously.
SP-63-76. Dock B. and Mary S. Mills have petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to locate a two-family dwelling on 0.61 acres zoned
A-1 Agricultural. Property is located on the north side of Route 53,
approximately 3/4 mile from Simeon. County Tax Map 92, Parcel 51,
Rivanna and Scottsville Magisterial Districts.
455
Mr. Peatross left the room.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting that the staff recommends
denial of the petition for the following reasons:
1. Upon recommendation of the Health Department, the Planning Commission has
established a minimum lot size of 60,000 square feet for a single-family
dwelling where public water and sewer are not available. This request is for
two units on approximately 4.5 times the recommended density;
2. The Zoning Ordinance explicitly requires a minimum of 2-acres for a two-family
dwelling;
3. On February 4, 1976, the Health Department approved this site for a single-
family dwelling requiring a subsurface field of 1,000 square feet. Inspection
of August 4, 1976, indicates a drainfield of 600 square feet in area;
4. It has been the policy of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
to permit two-family dwellings only in cluster areas. This property is not in an
area designated as a cluster in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tucker further explained that on February 5, 1976, the applicant obtained
a building permit to relocate a single-family dwelling from Monticello to the subject
property. The applicant proceeded to convert the basement into an apartment without
the proper county permits. On August 5, 1976, the Building Inspections Department
issued a Stop Work Order, and subsequently, the applicant applied for a special use
permit for a two-family dwelling.
Mr. Mills explained to the Commission that there has been considerable work
accomplished on the septic field, which the Health Department has already approved.
He stated that he was unaware that he was violating any ordinances.
Mr. Carr asked the applicant what is on the property.
Mr. Mills explained that there is one other rental unit, plus the mobile
home which houses his in-laws. Also, he is currently renting the upstairs of the
property in question.
Messrs. Armstrong and Barnett, both adjoining property owners, stated that
they did not object to the duplex.
Mr. Carr explained that the problem is that duplexes are not permitted in the
A-1 zone, unles they are in a designated cluster.
Mr. Mills told the chairman that the mobile home has been on the property
approximately 10 years and that this house was moved to the property in February, 1976.
Mr. Carr asked how many other residences are on the applicant's property.
Mr. Mills said there are three, plus the one being discussed.
Mr. Barksdale asked if the Health Department approved this dwelling for two
units. Mr. Mills said that they did.
Mrs. Graves asked if the other dwellings have septic fields. Mr. Mills said "yes."
Mr. Barksdale expressed concern that the Health Department had recommended
to the cclunty that 60,000 square feet are needed for a residence ( single-family )
that has to provide its own septic system and well, since the well and septic system
have to be located 100 feet apart. Then granting approval of such a request as this
is inconsistent with their recommendation to the County.
456
Mrs. Graves reminded the Commission that recently a request for a duplex
had been turned down in that same area, because it was not located in a designated
cluster. This was the Cosner request. A `
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff is concerned about the inconsistency in
Health Department approval and policy recommended to the County. He stated that the
County's subdivision ordinance is based on the Health Department recommendation of
60,000 square feet.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out that since two septic fields have been placed on
the property, that denial of the request will mean a loss in an investment for the
applicant.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he feels that Mr. Mills made an honest mistake,
but that the County should not set a precedent for random scattered duplexes.
Mr. Easter agreed, again citing the Cosner request, which had been denied.
Duplex should be permitted only in cluster areas. Approval of this would set a
precedent that the County could not live with.
Mr. Kedd stated that since the applicant cares for his in-laws ( the reason
for the mobile home ) perhaps the County should be helpful to the applicant and
approve the duplex so that it can be rented.
Mr. Carr stated that the precedent for denying such requests has already been set.
Mr. Barnett asked if the Health Department knew they were approving septic
fields for a duplex. He pointed out that if they knew the dwelling was to be used
as a duplex they should have advised Mr. Mills that this is against Albemarle
County policy, and not have granted approval.
Mr. Pillar told the Commission that different soils perc at different rates,
and this should be an item of Consideration.
Mr. Carr pointed but that the A-1 zone, established by the people of Albemarle
County, has restrictions of no duplexes in the A-1 zone, unless they are to be located
in a designated cluster.
Mrs. Graves asked if a single-family residence would be permitted here,
since the acreage is only 0.61 acres. Mr. Tucker told her that a single-family
residence can be located on any lot of record, which this lot is.
Mr. Carr noted the incongruity.
Mr. Easter moved denial for reasons presented in the staff report.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The vote on the motion was 7-1, with Mr. Barksdale dissenting. Mr. Peatross
did not participate in the vote since he was out of the room during part of the
discussion.
Mr. Carr explained to the applicant why the Planning Commission had voted
to deny the request, since it did not wish to set a precedent for duplex development
in the A-1 zone. He noted that it is unfortunate that the Health Department had
given approval for the extra septic field.
Mr. Easter stated that he wished the staff to investigate why the Health
Department is inconsistent with its own recommendation. He also asked the staff
457
to determine if it is possible that the applicant be reimbursed for
"damages." He pointed out that the Health Department has been inconsistent in the
past . He moved that the Planning Commission, through either Mr. Payne of Mr. Tucker,
memoralize the Board of Supervisors of this situation. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this
motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Payne stated that it is not necessarily inconsistent to have two septic
fields for one house.
Mr. Easter wanted to establish the reason for Health Department approval in
this particular case. He thought the County had made a mistake.
County.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that the Health Department is not employed by the
SP-67-76. Mariann S. de Tejeda has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to locate permanent horseshow grounds on 178.592 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture.
Property is located on the southside of State Route 601 near Owensville.
County Tax Map 43, Parcels 21 and 21A, Samuel Miller and Jack Jouett
Magisterial Districts.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualfied himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing
a permanent horse shown ground basically for showing and training. A mile -long
steeplechase is proposed along with renovation and construction of stables and
other ancilliary structures. The applicant proposes an annual steeplechase event
designed to accommodate approximately 15,000 visitors. Proceeds from this event
are to be donated to charity. The staff recommended approval subject to a series
of conditions:
1. Site Plan approval;
2. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
3. Major steeplechase event to be held not more than once a calendar year;
4. Sixty (60) days prior to steeplechase event, applicant shall notify the
Albemarle County Sheriff so that appropriate traffic measures may be arranged;
5. Sixty (60) days prior to steeplechase event, applicant shall notify Charlottesville -
Albemarle Health Department for approval of temporary restroom facilities.
Mr. Tucker noted that there is a letter of support for the request from
Tom Craven, a resident of the area.
Mr. Jones asked about the overflow parking in the center of the steeplechase.
Mr. Tom Lincoln, representing the applicant, stated that there will be a
permanent wooden rail on the inside of the course. The main event is proposed
for 15,000 spectators, but the site ( parking facilities ) will accommodate 25,000
spectators. Parking will be front to back, and there will be emergency parking.
A de-cel lane is provided. He also further explained the site to the Commission and
public.
Mr. Lang, a resident of the area, stated that he heartily supports the request.
458
Mr. Phillips stated that he basically supports the request, though he questioned
the plans for handling the influx of visitors.
Mr. Carr said that should the County look favorably on this request, the
County will have to keep traffic flowing and lanes open for emergency use.
Mr. Phillips asked if any de-cel lanes are provided. Mr. Lincoln said that
one de-cel lane is provided.
Then Mr. Phillips questioned if there will be any grandstands, billboards, and
floodlights. Mr. Ashcom that there would be none of these three.
When questioned about other activities there, Mr. Ashcom said that no other
congregational acre planned. People will be boarding horses there, and there will
be a training program, just as it has always been.
Mr. Whitley asked if there are any other money -raising activities planned,
such as a full time veterinary, or kennels. Mr. Ashcom answered "no."
Someone asked if it has been determined that the highway can handle 15,000
vehicles. Mr. Carr responded that since it is an annual event, this would not justify
a study.
Mr. Hamilton stated that he does not opposed the request, he is just seeking
information on the plan, to ascertain that nothing will be placed across from his
private drive, especially grandstands.
Mr. Easter explained to Mr. Hamilton that this special use permit will not
affect existing building.
Mr. Jones felt that condition #5 will work only if there are no conflicting
activities in the County or City.
Mr. Easter pointed out that since this is part of a set of races, the date
will be known quite in advance. He did point out that it would be helpful if the
applicant would notify the Health Department at least ninety days ahead of the event.
Mr. Ashcom said that next year's steeplechase will be held April 30.
Mr. Easter suggested that it would be even more helpful if the County were
notified six months ahead. He noted that the proposal is a good use of the land,
that he is impressed with the plan ( pointing out that work to clear the hedgerows
has already begun ). He moved approval, subject to conditions 1-3, as recommended
by the staff; Conditions 4 and 5 should be amended to read Ninety days (90) rather
than sixty. He also moved approval should be conditioned upon the following two
additional conditions:
6. No billboards, grandstands, or flood lights.
7. Signing to follow the scenic highway designation regulations for the A-1 zone.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion to approve.
Mr. Easter asked Mr. Payne, if because of no definition of permanent horse
show grounds in the ordinance, if condition #3 is sufficient to cover only one
major event per calendar year. He also stated that horseshows should not be
a problem, but he is concerned about the major event. He asked if there is any
area where the people are not protected.
Mr. Payne stated that this land can be used for anything permitted in the A-1
zone, plus the request covered in this special permit if it is approved,
459
Mrs. David suggested that one of the problems might be with loud speakers.
People living in that area, because of the numerous horse shows, are often able
to hear the loud speakers.
Mr. Ashcom said that residents of the area would be plagued by this only once
per year.
Mrs. Graves said that if this special permit is granted for the 178 acres,
will it preclude any other uses by right in that zone.
Mr. Payne said "no."
Mr. Peatross said that this special permit would be in addition to those
uses permitted by right.
Mr. Easter said that his motion did not intend to tie the use of the land
strictly to this special use permit, that it was intended to be in addition to
the permitted uses.
Mr. Payne said that the only way the land would be tied to only this use
would be if such were addressed in the motion.
Dr. Moore said that what Mrs. Graves wanted to know is if there will be
multiple uses plus this.
Mr. Tucker stated that unless the land is limited to this use, through a
condition on the special permit, the owner can do whatever else is permitted by right.
Mr. Carr said that as long as they don't change the use of the special use
permit, the applicant will be in compliance.
Mrs. Graves said that she wants to reserve large acreage properties only to
the uses of the special permits.
Mr. Easter read the uses permitted by right in the A-1 zone. He found none
to be offensive, and stated that there seems to be no reason for tying down large
acreages to only one use.
Mr. Barksdale called for the question.
Mr. Carr emphasized to the Commission that the motion being voted on does
not restrict any uses by right in the A-1 zone on this property.
The vote to approve the request carried unanimously.
SP-21-76. Harold A. Pillar has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate
a mobile home park to include a special use permit for two (2) central wells
and one (1) central septic tank and drainfield system. Property is located
west of Rotue 618, approximatley 600 feet west of Rotue 618 on a 20' right-of-way.
The right-of-way intersects with Route 618 approximately � mile south of the
intersection of Routes 618 and 622, near the Fluvanna County line. County Tax
Map 123, Parcel 31, Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting that the staff recommends deferral
of this petition until the applicant obtains written comment from the State Water
Control Board and/or Health Department comment concerning sewage disposal,
460
Mr. Tucker also noted that the staff has received a letter of opposition
from Hoyt Spradlin, an adjoining property owner.
Mr. Jones moved that action be deferred until the applicant had received
the comments as suggested in the staff report, and until the County acts on the
upcoming mobile home issue.
Mr. Easter suggested receiving public comment and comment from the applicant
before taking any action.
Mr. Pillar agreed with the staff, that it would be inappropriate to act on
the request until this information is received. He also stated that he would pursue
the request only if it is favored by his neighbors. The land is well isolated,
and wooded. Initially, he plans only three mobile homes.
Mr. Spradlin said that the land is off state maintained roads, and there
will be problems securing a right-of-way. He felt that the applicant could find
a more suitable place for the location of the mobile home park. He also pointed
out that there is no fire protection facility in that area.
Mr. Clemens and several adjoining property owners opposed the request.
Mr. Pillar stated that he currently does not own the land, but if the
request for the mobile home is approved, he will purchase the property.
Mrs. McCall opposed the request on the behalf of her children.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out that the applicant had stated no desire to pursue
the matter if it is opposed. He asked Mr. Pillar if he wished to withdraw his
request.
Mr. Pillar said that he will request withdrawal without prejudice. However,
he did note that approximately 400 of new homes in the future will have to be mobile
homes, because of cost of housing.
Mr. Easter moved that the Commission accept the applicant's request for withdrawal
without prejudice.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter said that he wonders if developers will ever find a place to
locate mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions that surrounding property
owners will not oppose.
Mr. Carr said that if the County adopts the policy under consideration
regarding mobile homes, that the proper conditions will have to placed.
Col. Washington pointed out problems with the mail that have delayed
staff reports. He asked that the staff investigate the problems with the ITT
special use permit, since the applicant had stated ( and it was part of the special
permit ) that the old tower would be removed. He also asked the procedure for
investigating what appears to be improper location of a mobile home in the County.
Mr. Tucker stated that it would be necessary to know the tax map and parcel number
of the land in question, to determine if it is properly and legally located.
Col. Washington asked if there is a condensed form of Virginia Department
of Highway rules that is available to the public. Mr. Gloeckner told him of two
technical books available.
M.
Col. Washington also expressed concern about the conduct of the tax
assessors. It was suggested that this be reported to the County Executive.
The meeting adjourned, with no furthe old or new business.
o ert W. Tucker, Jr. - Se etary
M
462
September 21, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting
on Tuesday, September 21, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Leslie Jones;
Col. William Washington; Mr. Paul Peatross; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves;
and Mrs. Opal David,.ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning;
Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Minutes:
The minutes of August 31, 1976, were approved as submitted
The minutes of September 7, 1976, were approved subject to the correction
of a gentleman's name from Whittier to Whitley.
Kenneth 0. and Eunice B. Smith Final plat - located on west side of
Route 20 South, about 1.0 miles southwest of Carter's Bridge:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that this was a request
to divide one 2-acre parcel from an existing 8-acre parcel. An easement had been
granted by Mr. Walter Young for ingress and egress from the 2-acre parcel on an
existing 50' easement which is on his property. Originally, the applicant's
father wished to build a residence on the rear portion of the existing 8-acre
parcel. However, in order to qualify for financing, the lending institution is
requiring that the residence be constructed on a separate parcel. Therefore, the
applicant is proposing the 2-acre parcel so his father may obtain financing.
The staff recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Note on plat stating "No further division to be served by this easement
without Planning Commission approval.";
2. Written Health Department approval.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
W. F. Fisher Final plat - located on Beagle Gap Road, off Route 691 near
Greenwood:
Mr. Montenegro stated that this is a proposal to divide one 3-acre parcel
on a 30' right-of-way from & 15+ acre parcel.
463
He also stated that the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat for this
subdivision on March 23, 1976. While the final plat is different from the pre-
liminary, staff opinion is that spirit of the proposal has been maintained.
W. F. Fisher wished to deed his property to his children. The proposed 3-acre
parcel (Parcel X) would go to his son. The 0.605-acre parcel (Parcel Y) would
be added to the property of Harry G. Fisher, Jr., to result in a 2.605-acre
parcel. The existing 1.0-acre parcel in the name of Phyllis Marsh would be
added to the residue acreage, which belongs to Ms. Marsh, to create parcel Z
(12.724 acres). Harry G. Fisher, Jr., is granting an easement across his property
to Parcel X.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Note on plat "No further division without Planning Commission approval."
2. Written Health Department approval for parcel X.
Miss Nash, representing the applicant, stated that there is an existing
house on Parcel X. She gave the history of the parcel, stating that this division
will actually plat how the property has been used for the past 10 years.
Since there is a house on Parcel X, it was determined that condition #2
is not necessary.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the plat be approved subject to condition #1
as presented by the staff. Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously,
Farmington final plat - located on Farmington Drive opposite Brook Road.
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that this is a proposal
to add a 1.101-acre lot to be known as Lot 16, Block K, from proeprty belonging to
Farmington, Inc. The lot would be served by Farmington Drive.
Staff recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Note on plat "No further division without Planning Commission approval."
2. Lot to be served by public water;
3. Written Health Department approval.
Mr. Jones asked the zoning of the property. Mr. Carr told him it is R-1.
Mr. Blue, surveyor for the applicant, objected to condition #1 on the basis
that it is redundant. He said that he realizes that the reason for this condition
to subdivision in the ordinance is when a new right-of-way is created.
Mr. Keeler stated that in many cases this clause is added to put the purchaser
on notice.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he does not feel that #1 is necessary, since the
zoning is R-1, and this would be a minimum lot size anyway.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to conditions # 2 and 3
as recommended by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
464
Mr. Loving of Farmington stated that he had received Health Department approval.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that since this is a private road,
any further subdivision would have to come before the Commission anyway, even
if two utilities became available.
The vote to approve the plat was unanimous.
Peacock Hill final plat - "Gate House Subdivision" final plat -
located on west side of Route 708 approximately 3i miles south of Ivy
in Peacock Hill Subdivision.
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the applicant is request-
ing the division of two existing 3+ acre parcels into three 2+ acre parcels. The
parcels are located in the west side of Route 708 and are adjacent to the Peacock
Hill Planned Community. Two of the proposed parcels (A & B) have adequate road
frontage. These alsohave dwellings on them. Parcel "C" is a pipestem lot and
requires a waiver of the frontage requirement. There is preliminary Health Department
approval.
Mr. Carr pointed out that there is additional land owned by Peacock Hill
on both sides of the road and asked how it will be used.
Mr. Frank Smith stated that that land is part of the PUD.
Mr. Jones asked if there is any possibility of a spite strip at the pipestem.
Mr. Carr said that this would not be possible since the plat has gond to record.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat, waiving the frontage requirement
for Parcel "C".
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DMV Site Plan - located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection
of Westfield Road and Commonwealth Drive.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the applicant is requesting deferral of this
item until a later date.
Mr. Easter moved that the Commission accept the request of the applicant
and defer the site plan. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
Mr. Frank Smith asked for a few minutes to address the Commission regarding
some future plans for the Peacock Hill Community. His questions involved the
platting of some of the old buildings on the Peacock Hill property ( the farmhouse,
log cabin, etc. ). He wished to address the access to these, and the possibility
of using the old drive that currently leads to them, with either a pipestem
or an easement.
IR
465
Mr. Tucker stated,that he would have to check the special permit for
the PUD, but that it would probably be possible to view this as the Commission
would any application for a pipestem or easement.
Mr. Jones asked if the road would have to be upgraded because of an increase
in traffic.
Mr. Smith stated that these buildings would be used for the farm manager,
and not as lots of a subdivision.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned road service to other parts of the unplatted property,
and asked if this road would be used to those properties. Mr. Smith said that other
roads are planned for that section of the property, not this road, since it would have
to be widened if it would used for more than the existing structures.
The Commission advised Mr. Smith that it would be willing to consider his
proposal if submitted on a formal basis at a later date.
Mr. Smith also asked the Commission to consider another proposal. He
addressed the village center that had been planned at the time of approval of the
special permit, which included 18 acres of road frontage. Originally this had been
intended for use as a small business area. However, the Board of Supervisors had
not approved the concept, feeling that it was premature. He stated that the developers
of Peacock Hill now feel this plan to be inappropriate for the area, and are considering
developing the 18 acres as residential area. He asked the Commission's feelings on
further residential development here.
Mr. Carr said that the staff would have to carefully review any such
proposal, however, on the surface it would seem to be more appropriate for residential
use than for a commercial area. He asked if the Commission objected to the applicant
moving forward with a residential proposal for the 18 acres to be brought to the
Commission at a later date for its review. There was no objection. Mr. Carr also
advised that the applicant would have to carefully consider this use, since it would
front on the road. He asked that the applicant carefully plan the road to the
existing dwellings.
David Breeden - discussion of access easement in Whittington Subdivision:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is requesting
an easement across the back of lots 1-8 and lots 9 and 10. A de-cel lane is required
for lots 9 and 10. The staff suggested a series of conditions to be placed on the
plat, if the Commission approved the concept.
Mr. Easter asked if this meant that there would be no entrances along the
road ( Route 631 ), rather along the private easement.
Mr. Carr pointed out that this would create a double frontage lot.
( Mrs. Graves arrived at the meeting. )
466
Mr. Jones asked what would prevent the owners of lots 1-10 from using
Route 631.
Mr. Keeler stated that if a clause is written into the deeds that the easements
shall be the only means of ingress -egress for lots 1-10, and if a house is setback
400 feet from Route 631 ( meaning it would be very expensive to construct a driveway
to this route ) it would not be very practical to use a road other than the easement
for ingress/egress. However, if the easement is approved for eight lots, it is
not desirable to permit it to serve the five lots in the rear.
Dr. Moore asked why not build the easement to state standards, if the remaining
roads in the development will be built to state standards.
Mr. Keeler said that this probably was not desirable to the applicant because
of costs.
Mr. Carr questioned the condition regarding deed restrictions that prohibit
entrance onto state roads, when a lot fronts on a state road.
Mr. Payne stated that such a condition is not illegal, but the question
is if it is reasonable. Normally, it is not favored to restrict the use of land,
but it does not seem to be a County problem in this case. At this time there seems
to be insufficient evidence that exiting onto Route 631 is hazardous. Mr. Payne
said that it would seem that most owners would want access onto the easement, since
this would be the easy way out - as opposed to building private driveways to the state
road. However, unless there is some sort of physical barrier -.such as a fence -
to prevent it, it would be difficult to prevent Phase II from using the easement.
Furthermore, these people would not share in the maintenance of the easement.
- Mr. Carr remarked that it seens to be a reasonable condition to limit
the ingress/egress to the private easement, but he does not want the condition to
be wiped out.
Mr. Easter said that the applicant's request for the private easement
seems reasonable, and probably a favour to the County. This would prevent
the idea of stripping along this road. However, it would not be desirable for
five additional lots to be served by the easement.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that the safety factor does not affect the other
five lots.
Mr. Jones pointed out that the solution may not be as simple as it appears,
since it does not have to work the way it is planned. He feared people would want
to take shortcuts to save time, and exit onto Route 631, and this cannot be prevented
since lots front on this road.
Mrs. David stated that the Board had been instructed to review the Galban plat,
which also had double frontage, in view of the fact entrance/exit could be limited
as long as owners were not denied reasonable access to another road. This way access
to a state road could be denied.
Mr. Easter said that any approval to the easement would be viewed as reasonable
entrance for lots 1-8 and 9 and 10. Any problems over use of the easement would
be between neighbors, because of maintenance. He said that he finds this proposal
to be agreeable.
Mr. Breeden pointed out to the Commission that for lots 1-10 to exit
onto Route 631, bridges would have to be constructed, which would be costly. He
felt this factor would encourage use strictly of the easement.
467
Mr. Barksdale said that the easement will have to be moved from what
is shown on the plat, otherwise, the back lots will also use the entrance. Since
this would not be the primary road for these lots, it would be difficult to get
them to enter into any sort of maintenance agreement.
Mr. Tucker said that a 50 foot easement is not really needed.
Mr. Breeden said that utilities require fifty feet, but the road will
actually be less than 24 feet.
Mr. Keeler noted that it is possible to permit the homeowners to set the
standards for the private easement.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the amendment to Whittington Subdivision plat
to serve lots 1-8 and 9 and 10 of Section 1 by private access easement subject to
the following conditions:
1. The easements shall be located entirely in Section 1 and lots in Section 2 shall
be excluded from using these easements;
2. Note on the plat and written into the deeds that these easements shall be the
only means of ingress -egress for lots 1-10;
3. Homeowners' agreements for maintenance to be approved by the County Attorney.
These agreements should indicate specifications of construction and
maintenance, if any;
4. If Whittington is to be developed in sections, Whittington Drive and other roads
must be bonded by appropriate section;
5. A grading permit may be required for the development of these easements;
6. Approval of these easements was based on considerations of highway safety.
The Planning Commission does not intend for these easements to be dedicated
for public use.
Mr. Easter seconded this motion.
Mr. Carr emphasized that this approval means that the easement is to serve only
lots 1-10, and it is to be moved onto lots 1-10.
The vote on the motion was 7-0, with Mrs. Graves not participating in the vote.
Mr. Gloeckner returned to the meeting.
ZMP-178 and ZMA-10-76. Wendell Wood - requests for rezoning:
Mr. Tucker stated that these two requests had been deferred in order that
the applicant could discuss with the staff any alternatives to his requests.
The staff had objected to his proposals on the basis that the density would not be
in line with what is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The suggestion for
an RPN application had been made to the applicant, but he was not agreeable to this,
since he desired to have a density of at least 20 units per acre. He explained that
the staff had been preparing recommendations to bring to the Commission regarding
density in the R-3 zoning, suggesting that the density be amended to permit 20 units
by right, and up to 34 units/acre with a special use permit. It had also considered
recommending one or two new zones to the ordinance, since the density provided by
the ordinance jumps from 8 units/acre up to 34 units/acre in the next zone. If the
zone were amended to provide a lower denisty, it would provide flexibility and would
Em
provide a density that would meet the comprehensive plan, since all land in the
County zoned R-3, would be affected. The possible impact of totally developed R-3
land would be diminished by 1800 dwelling units.
Mr. Payne told the Commission that this amendment comes to the Commission
in the context of these rezoning requests, though the amendment would affect all
R-3 land in the County. Such an amendment would definitely provide flexibility for
the County.
Mr. Barksdale said that it had been his understanding that the County
might consider adding another zone to the ordinance to provide for less density.
Mr. Tucker explained that amending the density of the R-3 zone would be more
simple than working with each provision of a new zone.
Mr. Payne said that an amendment to the density of the R-3 zone would eliminate
the need for amending the map.
Mr. Jones asked why the staff would consider favorably a request for
rezoning this property up to 20 dwelling units/acre now when the original recommendation
was for 11 dwelling units/acre.
Mr. Tucker said that at the time of the original recommendation, the staff
was considering all the remaining R-3 land in the area and the possible impact of
development at 34 units per acre.
Mr. Jones said that he would still like to consider 11 du/acre for this particular
property.
Mr. Barksdale suggested that the applicant withdraw without prejudice his
applications for ZMP-178 and ZMA-10-76.
Mr. Kudravetz said that the applicant is agreeable to withdrawing the applications
at this time to see the County's intent on the amendment.
Mrs. Graves said that she would like to discuss the possible amendment
further to know something of its mechanics, especially how the density would be
determined.
Mr. Carr said that it is currently a proposal, and it would have to be considered
on its merits. If the amendment is approved as it is being discussed by the staff,
it would mean that any existing R-3 land in the County could be developed at a density
of up to 20 units/acre, and that any higher density, up to 34 units per acre, would
have to be with special permit approved by the County.
Mr. Payne pointed out to the Commission, that Mr. Wood, owner of considerable
R-3 land in the County, is agreeable to this density recommendation.
Mrs. Graves asked what is the difference in downznning in this fashion and
assinging CO designation to B-1 zoned land in the county.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he feels the difference is that assigning CO to B-1
zoned land would be doing it on a piecemeal basis, and would thus be arbitrary and
capricious.
Mr. Tucker said that Mrs. Graves proposal for commercial office zoning
469
is
could be accomplished if it/done to bring zoning into comformance with the
comprehensive plan.
Mr. Jones felt that any intent to amend the density requirements for
the R-3 zone should be in separate action from Mr. Wood's requests.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent
to amend the ordinance to provide for a density of 20 dwelling units per acre
in the R-3 zone and up to a density of 34 dwellings units per acre in the R-3
zone with a special use permit.
Mrs. Graves suggested that the Commission first act on Mr. Wood's requests.
Mr. Payne stated that this is not necessary, since it might be helpful for
Mr. Wood to know the intent of the County.
Mrs. Graves offered as a substitute motion that the Commission act on
ZMP-178 and ZMA-10-76.
This motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion made by Mr. Barksdale.
Mr. Carr stated that he wants to ascertain that this request is handled properly.
Mr. Tucker stated that the proper step is to bring the density of the zone into
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that this resolution, if approved, be considered
by the Commission at a work session.
Mrs. Graves said that if she supports this motion to amend the ordinance,
she does not want to be bound by it for Mr. Wood's property.
The motion to adopt the resolution of intent carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr established that Mr. Kudravetz is the proper agent for Mr. Wood.
Mr. Kudravetz, as agent for the applicant, asked that the Commission accept
Mr. Wood's request for withdrawal without prejudice ZMP-178 and ZMA-10-76.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission take this action. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Easter, and carried unanimously.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that
(1) Section 11-9 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be amended;
(2) Section 11-14 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be amended to provide
placement of individual mobile homes only as a means of interim housing during
construction of conventional single-family dwellings; and
(3) The Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance provide for mobile home subdivisions in
all residential zones.
Nod
Mr. Keeler read into the record the following staff recommendations:
470
MOBILE HOME PARKS:
In order to update and revise the provisions for mobile home parks and to
provide a suitable living environment for those renting a space in a mobile home
park, the staff made the following recommendations:
1. Amend Section 16-60(definition to read as follows:
Section 16-60 MOBILE HOME PARK: One or more parcels of land in which rental
lots are provided for mobile homes.
2. Adopt Section 16-60.1 to read as follows:
Section 16-60.1 MOBILE HOME LOT: An area of land for the placement of a single
mobile home and for the exclusive use of its occupants.
3. Adopt Section 16-65.1 to read as follows:
Section 16.65.1 OPEN SPACE: Water or land left in undisturbed open condition or
developed as landscaped area, unoccupied by structures, streets, or
parking lots, or occupied by recreational facilities in accordance
with all applicable law and as approved by Planning Commission,
Board of Supervisors, and/or their respective designated agents.
4. Amend Section 11-9 to read as follows:
Section 11-9 MOBILE HOME PARKS: This provision is designed to accommodate mobile
homes in a planned neighborhood setting with open space and recreation
requirements in order to encourage a suitable living environment
where rental lots are provided for mobile home habitation. A mobile
home park may be established by the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors by special use permit obtained pursuant to Section 11-13
of this ordinance.
Section 11-9-1 Minimum Size of Mobile Home Parks
A mobile home park shall consist of ten (10) acres or more.
Section 11-8-2 Area and Width Requirements
Each mobile home lot shall comply with the following area and width
requirements:
(a) Mobile home lots served by both a public water supply, and a
public sewer system shall consist of four -thousand (4,000) square
feet or more and shall have a width of forty (40) feet or
more, exclusive of off-street parking requirements;
(b) Mobile home lots served by either a public water supply or a
public sewer system shall consist of forty -thousand (40,000)
square feet or more and shall have a width of one -hundred
thirty (130) feet or more;
(c) Mobile home lots served by neither a public water supply nor a
public sewer system shall consist of sixty -thousand (60,000)
square feet or more and shall have a width of one -hundred fifty
(150) feet or more.
Section 11-9-3 Location of Mobile Homes
(a) Each mobile home shall be located on a mobile home lot;
(b) The minimum distances between mobile homes shall be:
1. Twenty (20) feet end -to -end;
2. Twenty (20) feet side -to -side or side -to -end;
3. Fire Marshal may require greater spacing between mobile
home and other structures where adequate fire protection is
not available.
(c) No mobile home shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any
central service or recreational structure;
471
(d) Each mobile home lot shall front on an internal street;
(e) No mobile home shall be located closer than five (5) feet
from any mobile home space lot line.
Section 11-9-4 Setbacks
(a) Mobile homes and other structures shall be setback seventy-five
(75) feet or more from the right-of-way of any public street;
(b) Mobile homes and other structures shall be setback fifty (50)
feet or more from the mobile home park property line;
(c) Mobile homes and other structures shall be setback fifteen
(15) feet or more from interior streets, common walkways, and
open space areas.
Section 11-9-5 Utility Connections
(a) Each mobile home lot shall be provided with an individual connect-
ion to a public sewer system or other approved sanitary sewage
disposal system;
(b) Each mobile home lot shall be provided with an individual connect-
ion to a public water supply or other approved potable water supply
(c) Each mobile home lot shall be provided with electrical service
installed in accordance with the National Electrical Code.
Section 11-9-6 Off -Street Parking
Each mobile home lot shall be provided with two off-street parking space
in accordance with Section 11-7 of this ordinance.
Section 11-9-7 Open Space
For each mobile home lot in a mobile home park, there shall be a
minimum four -hundred (400) square feet of open space. Within the
total required open space, there shall be no less than two -hundred
(200) square feet per mobile home lot of developed play and recreation
area. Each mobile home park shall provide not less than one (1)
playground of an area of no less than two -thousand five -hundred
(2,500) square feet. Open space requirements shall apply when the net
density is four (4) units/acre or greater.
SPECIAL MOBILE HOME PERMIT - Repealer
TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME PERMIT - Amendment
The staff also prepared the following proposed repealers and amendments which would:
1. Repeal provisions for the Special Mobile Home Permit which currently allows the
location of individual mobile homes;
2. Up -date and revise provisions for the Temporary Mobile Home Permit which would
provide for administrative approval of a mobile home to be used only as an
interim means of housing during construction of a permanent conventional dwelling.
Recommended Action
1. Repeal Section 11-14-1 Procedure
2. Repeal Section 11-14-2 Conditions of Approval
3. Amend Section 11-14-3 Temporary Mobile Home Permit to Read as follows:
472
Section 11-14-3 Temporary Mobile Home Permit
Temporary Mobile Home Permits may be authorized by the Zoning
Administrator provided the mobile home is used only as an interim
means of housing during construction of a permanent dwelling.
The mobile home shall be removed within thirty (30) days of issuance
of an certificiate of occupancy for the permanent dwelling. Temporary
Mobile Home Permits shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. The applicant and/or owner of the subject property shall certify as
to the intent for locating the mobile home at the time of application;
3. Minimum frontage setback and side and rear yard setbacks shall be
determined by the Zoning Administrator;
4. Adequate screening from roadways and adjacent residential uses shall
be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the Zoning Admin-
istrator;
5. Skirting shall be provided around the mobile home from ground level
to the base or floor of the mobile home.
Section 11-14-3.1 Any permit issued pursuant to Section 11-14-3 shall expire 18 months
after the date of issuance unless actual construction shall have
commenced and is thereafter prosecuted in good faith. The Zoning
Administrator may revoke any such permit, after 10 days written notice,
at any time upon a finding that construction activities have been
suspended for an unreasonable time or in bad faith.
4. Repeal Section 2-1-25(32)
5. Amend Section 2-1-23, adding "c" Temporary Mobile Home Permit issued pursuant to
Section 11-14-3.
MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION:
The staff prepared the following amendments in order to update provisions for mobile
home subdivisions and to provide for mobile home subdivisions in all zones which
provide for single-family residential use.
Recommended Action
1. Amend the Articles below to provide for mobile home subdivisions as a use by
special use permit as follows:
Article 1.1 Conservation District (CVN)
Section 1.1-1-2(4) Mobile home subdivision in accordance with Section 11-12
of this ordinance.
Article 3. Residential Suburban District (RS-1)
Section 3-1-12(8) Mobile home subdivision in accordance with Section 11-12
of this ordinance.
Article 4. Residential, Limited, District (R-1)
Section 3-1-12(8) Mobile home subdivision in accordance with Section 11-12
of this ordinance.
Article 5. Residential, Limited, District (R-2)
Section 5-1-15(4) Mobile home subdivision in accordance with Section 11-12 of
this ordinance.
473
Article 6. Residential, General, District (R-3)
Section 6-1-21(9) Mobile home subdivision in accordance with Section 11-12
of this ordinance.
2. Amend Section 16-61 (definition):
Section 16-61. MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION: A subdivision of land for the
purpose of providing salable lots for mobile homes as provided
in Section 11-12 of this ordinance.
3. Amend Section 11-12 Mobile Home Subdivision Provisions:
Section 11-12 MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION:
This provision is designed primarily to benefit those who wish
to acquire ownership or equity in a lot and occupy the premises
themselves, but who may find it undesirable or difficult to
construct a conventional signle-family dwelling. It is intended
that owners of mobile homes in these subdivisions may improve,
convert, or change thier residences from mobile homes to convent-
ional dwellings.
These regulations shall supplement and be in addition to the
regulations of the district in which any such subdivision shall
be located; except, that no regulation which is by its nature
inapplicable to mobile homes shall apply hereto.
A mobile home subdivision may be established by the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors by special use permit
obtained pursuant to Section 11-13 of this ordinance.
Section 11-12-1 Minimum Size of Mobile Home Subdivisions
A mobile home subdivision shall consist of ten (10) lots
or more.
Section 11-12-2 Subdivision Control
All mobile home subdivisions shall adhere to the requirements
of the Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance of Albemarle
County, Virginia; Chapter 7, Code of Albemarle, Erosion and
Sedimentation Control; and all other applicable law.
Mr. Keeler also presented the following addition information regarding mobile homes:
Mobile Home Permits
The following table outlines the dispostion of special permits for mobile homes
processed since June, 1974, when administrative approval was initiated:
Administratively approved ( no objection ) 61 69
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approval( objection ) 26 30
Permit denied 1 1
TOTAL 88 100%
This represents an average of 39 applications per year of which about 12 would be heard
by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. In 1976, 16 applications have been
made and 5 applications have gone to public hearing.
Mobile Homes in the County
The 1976 Land Use Survey indicates a total of 1551 mobile homes in the County
474
(The survey assumes total occupancy of 1029 spaces in mobile home parks). This
represents 9.5% of the occupied dwelling units in the County. Of the total number
of mobile homes, 522 are located outside mobile home parks. The Zoning Department
has recorded on a map all non -conforming and permits issued for mobile homes outside
parks. This map indicates about 900 units compared to 522 units of the Land Use
Survey. Doubtless, some units were missed in the survey, but this vast difference
indicates that a large number of mobile homes have not been placed and/or have
been moved out of the County.
Mr. Carr stated that due to the fact that this matter has been to the
Commission several times, he hoped that the public and the staff would limit
there input to new information.
Mr. Easter noted that only one permit has been denied since June, 1974.
Mrs. David stated that some requests that have received objections have been withdrawn.
Others have been approved because of negotiations and compromises by the applicants
and objecting citizens.
Mr. Tucker stated that those approved in spite of objections from citizens
have often had stringent conditions placed upon them.
David Breeden asked if this legislation is approved its power over existing
mobile home parks. Mr. Payne stated that any mobile home parks which do not meet
the requirements set forth in the ordinance would be non -conforming, and that
any additions to the existing mobile home parks would have to abide by this ordinance.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that if this is passed, it addresses temporary mobile
homes, that agricultural mobile homes and emergency permit will still be issued.
Mr. Bill Little asked if this will permit mobile homes strictly while a permanent
dwelling is being constructed. Mr. Keeler said "yes."
Mr. Carr explained that mobile homes are now permitted in the Agricultral Zone
with a special use permit. If this legislation is approved by the County, it will
repeal the current provision, but mobile homes will still be permitted for
emergency and agricultural uses. Mobile homes will be permitted on a temporary basis
while a permanent dwelling is under construction. This suggested legislation will
also permit mobile homes in mobile home parks ( where the space is rented ) and
in mobile home subdivisions in every residential zone, which is currently not permitted.
Mr. Little said that he strongly opposes this recommendation; FHA is now financing
mobile homes, with costs ranging from $6,000-$10,000. They must be built according to
certain state and federal standards, just like other housing. He feels that this
proposal would take away one of the few low cost housing alternatives and be a big
injustice to the local industry.
Mrs. Karen Lillehelt stated that one of the reasons this recommendation
is not being supported by the League of Women Voters or Citizens for Albemarle
is that these groups are interested in low income housing. In this county, mobile
homes are the only housing available to some people. Though they may not be the
best use of the land, it affords individuals with a residence of their own, when
they may not be able to rent a space in a mobile home park or purchase a place for
a residence in a mobile home subdivision. Many times the land for a mobile home
is acquired from a parent or grandparent. Mrs. Lillehelt said that this is a matter
of land use vs providing low income housing. She did state that safety of residents
of any sort of housing is important. She supported the idea of mobile home subdivisions,
475
but there should be a clause in this part of the ordinance which prevents pressuring
mobile home residents from converting to single-family dwellings.
Mr. Leizear, a mobile home salesman, asked if a termpory permit could be
transferred to an emergency permit.
Mr. Carr responded if an emergency arose, probably, but if it were a means
to merely extend placement of a mobile home, he would doubt it could be transferred.
Mr. Payne stated that if no construction activity has taken place in 18 months,
the temporary permit would probably be revoked.
Someone asked who had initiated this legislation.
Mr. Carr said that this topic had been discussed by the County for many months,
even years. Since 1968, at the time zoning for the County was initiated, the proper
place and proper methods for mobile home location have been discussed. He stated
that there are some disadvantages to users of the highways and byways, landowners,
and mobile home owners for random scattering of mobile homes throughout the County.
He said that to some it is a matter of land use planning.
Mrs. Edna Anderson questioned the term "agricultural permit".
Mr. Keeler stated that this is currently provided in the ordinance for a full
term agricultural employee, but upon further questioning pointed out that if the
new legislation is adopted, it will still be permitted, but not for a family to
live on land and farm it.
Mr. Steve Muslin, an employee of Oakwood Homes, stated that mobile home
provisions should be included in the County Ordinance since it is the only available
housing for some individuals because of cost. He stated that he is not sure that
this proposal is constitutional.
Mrs. Elizabeth Breeden asked the definition of a mobile home, from a legal
standpoint.
Mr. Keeler stated that according to Section 36-71(4) of the Code of Virginia,
"mobile home" means an industrialized building unit constructed on a chassis
for towing to the point of use and designed to be used, without a permanent foundation
for continuous year -found occupancy as a dwelling; or two or more such units separately
towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single
dwelling, and which is designed for removal to, and installation or erection on
other sites."
Mr. Letrick reminded the Commission that mobile homes are titled in Richmond
with the Division of Motor Vehicles. He pointed out that modulars are taxed as real
estate, while mobile homes and double -wide mobile homes are subject to personal
property tax. He stated that in a recent survey the government states that 90%
of housing under $25,000 will be mobile homes. These mobile homes must meet
FTA and HUD provisions. If this ordinance is approved, Mr. Letrick felt that
many young will be deprived of their own housing.
Mr. Keeler stated that according to the County Fire Marshal, mobile homes
are more of a fire hazard than conventional single-family residences.
Mrs. Bukrim rebutted this remark saying that percentage -wise, there are
fewer mobile home fires than single-family residence fires.
476
One lady urged that mobile homes continue to be permitted in the A-1 zone,
yet be subject to more stringent conditions. She specifically addressed the setback,
stating that it should be increased. Where possible, it would be desirable to
locate the mobile home in wooded areas. She felt that location in the A-1 zone
was better than having a big concerntration in one area.
.4r. Carr said that if everyone wanted mobile homes on large acreages,
perhaps even in wooded area, the topic would have limited discussion. There is
a lot of acreage, though, in Albemarle County in very small tracts. When one gets
ready to put a mobile home on one of these small parcels, it is impossible to create
the large setback. And it seems that a large number of these mobile home applications
are requested for the small lots of record. These small lots of record stand,
and always will stand, and a dwelling is permitted on them. True, there are only
"x" number of mobile homes in Albemarle County now, but we hear there are going to
be "x" more built in this country, and people are going to use them. The
Planning Commission recognizes that, and it gives them some reason to believe
that the mobile homes ought to be organized; they ought to be where they can get
the proper facilities ( water, sewer, etc.); they should have adequate space.
But when one gets to the value of land, or when a man wants to rent if for a mobile
home, he doesn't want more than 4,000 square feet. So that is a problem and the
economics "come into play." But if there is to be a big increase in the number
of mobile homes, they will have to go a lot of different places. This proposal
is an attempt at looking ahead, and the Commission is trying to plan. There should
be a place to provide for mobile homes or low income housing. "We don't have the
answer to that question, and I don't think anybody in this country has the answer
to that question, short of the government paying for it, and I'm against that.
So I'm against Albemarle County, other than helping those who can't help themselves,
buying everybody in this county a house. I'm opposed to that. I think we are a
long way from Albemarle County having tax supported, heavily tax supported, housing
programs. Hopefully we will see some housing program that meets the needs of those
who are absolutely unable to provide for themselves. Only 69 of those have sought a
mobile home in the last 24 months. We are not talking about big numbers right now.
We are not imposing a restriction on a great number of people. But 40-some thousand
people live in Albemarle County. So if 211 people live in each mobile home, we are
only talking about 150 people. So that dilutes the problems in may mind, too."
He then invited comments from other Planning Commission members.
Mrs. Bukrim pointed out that the economy has been in a recession, and
is just beginning to recover.
Mr. Carr pointed out that that means there will more mobile homes, not fewer.
He closed the public hearing.
Mr. Easter agreed that this is a tough problem. Some people don't agree that
mobile homes depreciate. Many people feel that mobile homes depreciate values of
surrounding property. He stated that the Planning Commission is not "gunning" for
mobile homes or mobile home dealers. This is a problem with two sides that is
being discussed over the country. He pointed out that three adjoining counties
to Albemarle County have some sort of mobile home legislation.
Mr. Jones, citing the August issue of House and Home, suggested that this
be subject to referendum with a 55% vote to decide the issue.
Mr. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, told Mr. Jones that zoning by referendum
does not exist in the state of Virginia.
477
Col. Washington, stating that this legislation would affect only a
small number of people in Albemarle County. He stated that people owning
land in the A-1 zone have a right to privacy, and if this restriction is imposed
this right to privacy is denied, if they can only locate mobile homes in mobile
home subdivisions or parks. Col. Washington said that he would like to note
that he has no prejudice agains people living in mobile homes, since undesirable
people live in all kinds of structures. He stated that he can support the
amendments dealing with mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions, but
he cannot support the amendment dealing with temporary mobile homes.
Mr. Barksdale stated that better guidelines are needed for mobile homes
that are used as permanent dwellings in the County, to make the mobile homes
more appealing. He suggested permanent foundations, landscaping, etc.
Dr. Moore questioned the emergency definition currently permitted by the
ordinance. Mr. Keeler explained that this permit is issued in case of fire or
other destruction of a conventional dwelling for the period of one year.
Dr. Moore asked about court rulings on discrimination against mobile homes.
Mr. Payne stated that it is not permitted to outlaw mobile homes, but it
is possible to confine them to one particular area, such as a mobile home park or
mobile home subdivision.
Dr. Moore asked if the percentage of mobile homes in the County is increasing,
and how it compares to the percentage of increase in conventional dwellings.
Mr. Keeler stated that in the past three years both have remained approximately
the same.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that if the County retains mobile homes by special use
permit, there should be quality guidelines for their location ( such as a permanent
foundation ) and these mobile homes should be taxed as permanent dwellings.
Mrs. Graves asked the difference in the tax schedule for personal property
and for real estate. If there is a substantial difference, she stated that she
would prefer that mobile homes, like other dwellings, pay the tax to the County,
in order to support the schools.
Mr. Barksdale said that due to the depreciation factor ( since they are
registered in Richmond with DMV ), the county would receive more taxes in the long
run, if they could be taxed as real estate.
Mr. Tucker read a memorandum stating that shortly mobile homes will
be taxed as personal property, but the rate used will be the real estate rate.
Mr. Peatross asked the life of a mobile home.
Mrs. Bukrim stated that the life depends on the care of an owner, just like
a single family residence.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the lender depreciates mobile homes pretty fast.
Mr. Peatross pointed out that he is concerned about this proposal, since
he favors an individual being able to use his land as he wishes. He did feel that
there needs to be some sort of legislation governing their location and conditions
they are subject to.
478
Mr. Barksdale again suggested that the conditions be more• strictly defined.
He suggested at least 100 feet of setback, permanent foundations(to make it a nice
permanent home with landscaping), etc.
Mr. Keeler asked on behalf of the staff, that the staff be given the
opportunity to study what conditions might be desirable.
Mr. Carr pointed out that if the County continues to permit mobile homes
by special use permit in the A-1 zone, the cooperation of County mobile home
dealers is necessary.
Mr. Barksdale asked if there is a way, legally, to make the mobile home
dealers more responsible to the ordinances of the County.
Mr. Peatross made the following remarks:
"I'm in favor of extending this legislation to the other zoning districts;
I'm in favor of the three exceptions for the use of a mobile home; and I'm in
favor of the additionaluse of the right to have a mobile home in agricultural
areas, if something can be worked in the form of more restrictions, as suggested
by Mr. Barksdale. But I don't have such restrictions before me to really comment
on, and haven't given it the thought I think I should, in order to extend it that
far. But as I feel right now, I think what we have been presented with is a step
in the right direction. And I think we are going to have to control the growth -
I think we have to change what our present policy is in order to control the
growth. It is not worked out in may mind what additional uses we should allow beyond
what has been proposed by the staff, but I'm flexible and open-minded."
Mr. Carr felt that Mr. Peatross summarized what seems to be the Commission's
feelings. "I don't really disagree with that position. I urge this Commission
and the County to take told of this - I think it's loose and I think it's poorly
managed . because I don't think the rules are too good, they are inadequate rules.
I don't think we have whole -hearted support of the industry. I don't think this
is understood by a lot of people. If we are not to go all the way, we must certainly
strengthen our position. I hope the supervisors will support us in that. Otherwise,
I fear this will get beyond us, when it will be much more difficult to get a solid
base. It is good policy that is understood. It is easy to fall back on a good,
fair solid base. If we don't get that pretty soon, we may get a lot less and
this problem might grow. I'm willing to compromise my feelings on this and
it appears that this Commission wants to compromise the recommendation."
Mr. Jones urged that the requirements for mobile home location be "beefed-up"
as well as the requirements for the "trailer courts." He felt that the distances
between mobile homes is too small. The Fire Marshal should be involved in setting
these distances. Mr. Jones wants the spacing to be adequate to handle all sizes
of mobile homes.
Mr. Carr stated that he would entertain a motion that directed the staff to
prepare for the Commission a set of strengthened conditions ( provisions ) for
mobile homes, by special permit, in the A-1 zone. He pointed out that if this
is the will of the Commission, the staff will welcome input from the public.
He asked that the press take note of this and be helpful in the matter.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that there should be conditions, or provisions,
for mobile home location in the A-1 zone, mobile home parks, and mobile home
fir+ subdivisions. Before those provisions are drawn up and adopted by the Bounty,
he felt that input regarding such mobile home location should be received from
the industry. He moved that the Commission hold a special work session for this
479
purpose and then move forward with Mr. Carr's suggestion.
Mr. Carr asked that the public receive notice of this work session,
not through legal notices, but through the mailing list and through a newspaper
notice.
Mr. Jones seconded Mr. Gloeckner's motion.
Mrs. Graves asked about the representatives selling modular homes - she
felt they should also be represented at the work session.
Mr. Tucker suggested that October 12 be the date for the work session.
Mr. Easter asked that this be the only item on the agenda.
The motion carried unanimously.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
9
M
September 28, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, September
28, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -
Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Paul Peatross; Mrs. Joan Graves;
Col. William Washington; Mr. Leslie Jones; Dr. James W. Moore; and Mrs. Opal
David, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director
of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos
Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting.
George Cason - request for amendment to Franklin Subdivision - located
on Route 20 North:
Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant has requested withdrawal.
Mr. Easter moved that the Commission permit withdrawal without prejudice.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Division of Motor Vehicles Site Plan - located on the southwest quadrant
of the intersection of Westfield Road and Commonwealth Drive:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that the applicant
was not present. He stated that this is a proposal to locate an office building
on southwest corner of Westfield Road and Commonwealth Drive. The site is approximately
1.3 acres in size and will accommodate parking for 100 cars. The proposed one
story building will cover 5,494 square feet. The property is owned by B and H Rentals.
The Fire Marshal did require that a fire hydrant be located on or near the site.
(Mr. Rotgin, representing the applicant, arrived at the meeting.)
In staff opinion, the site plan presented at this meeting represents a
significant change from the plan reviewed by the Site Review Committee on September 9,
1976. Staff has serious reservations concering access/egress, internal circulation,
parking alignment, and fire safety. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission
refer this plan back to the Site Review Committee.
Mr. Montenegro pointed out, however, if the Planning Commission chooses to
approve this site plan, the site plan should be conditioned upon the following conditions
of approval:
1. Removal of note "Fire hydrant to be installed by the County of Albemarle."
The applicant has the responsibility to install the fire hydrant;
2. Fire Marshal review and approval to include location and screening of dumpster;
3. Location of northeastern entrance in compliance with Highway Department recommendations
' 4. County Engineer approval;
5. Landscape plan to be approved by staff;
6. All internal walks, curb and gutter to be constructed in compliance with provisions of
MID
paragraph 15.1-381 of the Code of Virginia., (1950) as amended;
7. Grading permit required.
Mr. Carr advised the Commission that prior to consideration of the technical
points, the Commission must decide if they will consider the site plan, or move
that it be returned to the Site Review Committee for input.
Mr. Barksdale asked if there is a policy for returning plans to site review
if the plans submitted after one review session are not satisfactory to the staff.
He felt that any plan not satisfactory to the staff should not be considered by the
Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner, who served on the Site Review Committee when this site
plan was reviewed, stated that the plan before the Commission is significantly different.
He pointed out that the Highway Department has not had input, and they were most interested
in the plan.
Mr. Rotgin addressed the background of the site plan, stating that the plan
before the Commission is the DMV's own plan, and they have reasons for presenting it
like this. The staff wants one thing for traffic flow and the Division of Motor
Vehicles wants another. This was, in his opinion, the only major issue, since it
has been determined that the applicant is willing to comply with other conditions
recommended by the staff. It was the opinion of Mr. Rotgin that if the plan is returned
to Site Review, nothing more can be accomplished. He stated that the plan would
return to the Commission with traffic flow still unsolved.
- Mr. Montenegro stated that the plan before the Commission is really the
third submission the staff has, and the problem is that each is markedly different.
Mr. Peatross questioned if anyone of the Site Review Committee had looked
at this particular plan.
Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Coburn of the Highway Department had looked at
it briefly, but had submitted no comments to the staff.
Mr. Jones asked that if the Commission sets a policy on returning such
plans to Site Review, that the policy be used consistently for all applicants.
Mr. Carr agreed that this was a good idea, stating that it seems to be
the fair thing to send it back to Site Review to receive the necessary technical
input. He said that Mr. Rotgin had made his point about DMV's requests.
Mr. Rotgin felt it necessary to tell the Commission that at its next meeting
the Commission will address the same issues it would address that evening, and that
is traffic flow. He stated that all the technical points have been cleared up, since
the applicant had agreed to them. He asked that if the Commission did not hear this
site plan, they review the second submission, which had been reviewed by the staff.
Mr. Keeler asked that the Commission have input from the Fire Marshal before
approving any plan. He felt that any change of anything on the site, because of
the limited amount of space, would result in a major change in the site plan.
Dr. Moore said that he would like to review one completed site plan.
Mr. Peatross, stating that the purpose of the Site Plan Review Committee
is to review the plan the Commission will see, moved the plan be referred back
to Site Review.
Mr. Jones seconded this motion.
482
Mr. Easter stated that he always likes to move items along for an applicant,
and asked the reason for all the changes on the site plan.
Mr. Montenegro stated that all the changes on this plan have been requested
by DMV.
Mr. Carr asked the schedule for Planning Commission review of the plan,
after it has again been processed by Site Review.
Mr. Keeler stated that the technical committee will review the plan on October 9,
and the Planning Commission will review it on October 19.
Mr. Carr said that though only one item had been scheduled for the October 12
meeting, the Commission could make an exception.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission make an exception and place DMV site
plan on the Commission's agenda for October 12, 1976.
The motion made by Mr. Peatross carried unanimously.
Resolution of intent to amend Section 18-2 - PUBLIC HEARINGS BY STATE
HIGHWAY COMMISSION:
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that this had been deferred by the
Commission in order to talk to the State Highway Commission and in order to review
the code. He stated that the staff had attempted to contact a member of the State
Commission, but was unsuccessful.
Mr. Payne said that the Commission was sent a copy of a letter which included
copies of the Virginia statute providing for the designation of scenic highways.
The law as it exists today provides that "prior to designation, the local governing
body and local planning commission, if any, in each county or city wherein such proposed
scenic highway or Virginia byway is located shall be given notice and, upon request
by any of the local governing bodies, the State Highway Commission shall hold a hearing
in one of the counties or cities wherein such proposed scenic highway or Virginia
byway is located." Section 33.1-62 refers to the fact that no designation is permitted
without notice to the governing body and the planning commission of the locality
wherein the proposed scenic highway is located. The governing body of that locality
has the right to request the State Highway Commission to hold a public hearing on
the proposed designation. The statute does not address possible designation of a
scenic highway upon the request of an individual or group other than the local governing
body. He also pointed out that in order for a road to be designated scenic by the
State Highway Commission, it is no longer to have the approval of the local governing
body ( this was previously required ). The main point is that the Board of Supervisors
and Planning Commission will receive notice, before designation, that a road is being
considered for designation. By amending Section 18-2, the County could permit a
designation - where there is no controversy - without a public hearing by the state
commission.
Mr. Peatross commented that it appears that since the statute has been changed,
this amendment would bring the ordinance more in line with the statute. Mr. Payne agreed.
Mr. Barksdale said that the Commission's concern had been that there would be
a designation without a public hearing. Mr. Payne said that the board and commission
would be notified of any proposals and it would be up to them to hold a public hearing.
This would be the only time that 1t Would be possible not to have a public hearing
on a proposed designation.
a M.
Mr. Easter wanted to make certain that citizens would be able to have
input on proposed designations. He felt that if the County is notified of any
such proposals, it would take the matter to public hearing. He moved that the
Planning Commission recommend that the Board amend Section 18-2 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
C. E. Runkle plat - located on Route 678, south of Ivy, to be served
by 50' access easement:
Mr. Montenegro said that the applicant wishes to divide an existing 5.4+
acres parcel into a 2+ acre parcel and a 3+ acre parcel. Parcel "C" will be served
by a proposed 50' right-of-way through parcel "B". The applicant has applied for
this division in order to sell the back lot ( Parcel "C") to his son and daughter-
in-law in order that they may build a house on the site. The Commission must review
the plat because a waiver of the frontage requirement for Parcel "C" is required.
Staff recommended that any approval be subject to:
1. Health Department approval of Parcel "c".
Mr. Keeler stated that a topo had been required for the subdivision, but
there had been no problem.
Mr. Easter questioned the status of the 5-acre proposal for the Tilman
Road area. Mr. Tucker stated that the Board will consider that proposal on
October 6. Mr. Easter said that this application was prior to that consideration
and would thus not be affected.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out that the Commission is reviewing this plat because
of ,the extension of the right-of-way.
Mr. Jones questioned the distance of the entrance from the 50' right-of-way.
Mr. Montenegro stated that it is approximately 100-150 feet.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the condition recommended
by the staff.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Christopher Byrum - discussion of possible subdivision of 66 acres - located
on west side of Route 604:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, giving the following background information:
April 27, 1976 - D and N Development Corporation requested division of an 89+ acre
tract into 23.7-acre and 66-acre tracts (Byrum was the contranct purchaser of the 66-acre
tract). Easement across the Shifflett property at that time was not specified.
Bot the staff and Commission indicated that future development would be limited by
the easement across the Shifflett property. The item was deferred so that
the applicant ( D and N ) and Mr. Prendergast ( the adjacent property owner of
lot 5 in Lexington Subdivision ) could reach an agreement concerning the location
of the 50' right-of-way across teh 23.7-acre tract.
484
May 18, 1976 - The Byrums and their attorney George Coles were present at this meeting.
The Byrums stated they wished to build 4 houses on the 66-acre tract. The Commission
approved the plat subject to conditions and noted there was serious question if they
would permit development of the 23-acres on this road.
June 29, 1976 - Ken Montero, representing D and N Development Corporation requested
relief from the conditions of approval that right-of-way across Shifflett property
be described as to location and width. The request was denied by the Planning Commission.
Auc�u�st� ?;1976 - Ken Montero presented a plat for administrative approval. The plat
showed the location of the right-of-way and indicated its width to be 14 feet.
The current request addresses the Commission receptiveness to the division
of this 66-acre parcel into five 5-acre parcels and a residue parcel of 41 acre. The
staff recommended this approach to the applicant because of the cautions expressed
by the Commission and staff at these previous meetings concerning further subdivision
or development of the parcels to be served by these easements. Mr. Byrum stated
that the purpose of this proposed subdivision is to obtain financing for the construction
of 5 dwellings units, all of which are for family members.
If this property were divided as proposed, a total of 12 dwellings could be
constructed without further review by the Planning Commission. Resultant traffic
over the 50'right-of-way and the 14' right-of-way would be 84 trips per day.
In staff opinion, to permit division as proposed, the Planning Commission should require:
1. A roadway constructed to state standards;
2. A right-of-way of 50 feet, across the Shifflett and D and N property
the 66-acre parcel to be served by a 50' right-of-way );
3. The relocation of the right-of-way across the 23.7-acre tract so that double frontage
lots will not be created in Lexington Subdivision ( this came up at the time
of consideration of the original D and N plat ).
Mr. Jones: What about the legal status of the 14' right-of-way?
Mr. Keeler: The Shiffletts were unwilling to agree to any specifications of the right -
of way. Mr. Montero presented the plat to the staff with evidence he had found
reference to the right-of-way width.
Mr. Carr: For what use of the 66-acres was the 14' right-of-way approved?
Mr. Keeler: The 23.7-acre parcel and the 66-acre parcel, both of which can be served by
that road.
Mr. Carr: That is what has been approved thus far by the County.
Mr. Peatross: Didn't we request at one time that the 50' right-of-way be moved away from
Lexington Subdivision and that couldn't be worked out.
Mr. Keeler: That was never finalized; the Commission stated it was not approving that
easement in that location because of extraordinary topogrpahy, which would
keep that from ever becoming a state road. The Commission said it would look
at it again if it is ever submitted to be part of the state system.
Mr. Byurm: All that we want to do is build houses for family members. The purpose of
the subdivision is to use land as collateral - this is strictly for financing
the small lots where we will build the houses. The Shiffletts don't want to agree
to larger right-of-way; they have only 20 feet along the highway, so they
couldn't give us a 50' right-of-way. We are under contract to buy the 66 acres
and this is the only right-of-way D and N can give us.
Mr. Barksdale: Is there any reason Mr. Byrum can't divide the 66-acres into equal lots
and still get the same financing, or even have more equity.
Mr. Byrum: and N is requiring that in order to have these 5-acre parcels released ( we
r.✓ are buying this on "time" from D and N) we have to pay a relatively high
release fee per acre so that we can't afford to have larger parcels released.
Mr. Easter: Does your contract read that you will take title to the whole tract?
485
Byrum: Yes, the 41-acre residue will be owned jointly.
Easter: But the deed is then not involved in that joint ownership, other than D and
N holding deed.
Byrum: That is correct.
Jones: Nothing has been said about the fact that there is only 20 feet of highway frontage.
Someone is going to have to acquire more land to make a larger entrance for propertN
in the back.
Carr: That may be right. Questions seems to be that we have an existing 23-acre parcel
and a 66-acre parcel served by a 14 foot road and the Commission must decide
if the County of Albemarle wants to permit further subdivision to be served by
that road. With only 20 feet of frontage, the County can designate where
the 14'right-of-way is, but it can't expand the entrance/exit. Then there is
the additional problem of the 50' easement, adjacent Lexington Subdivision,
determining if that is the proper location for it because of double frontage lot
provision. Commission should maybe consider other facts from a planning
stand point.
Barksdale: In a previous review the Planning Commission was told that was to be a division
of the 66-acre parcel and no more than 5 houses would be built on it by one family.
We all heard this, and this was the reason I voted for the division int 23.7 acres and 66
acres with a right-of-way into it. I would not be in favor of dividing it again into
six lots, with the 41-acre residue. This would open it up to 12 dwelling units.
-Mr. George Coles ( attorney for the Byrums): They want to make sure they can get
5 houses on the 5 lots; they have no objection to restricting the residue. It is a famil}
situation and five lots is all they desire.
Easter: Couldn't we put a note on the plat that the 41-acre residue is not dividable
without Planning Commission approval.
Keeler: The Zoning Ordinance provides that you can build up to two dwellings on a parcel
without site plan review. I am not questioning the intent of the Byrums, but they
may not always own the property, and the County could be looking at a possible
12 units without any Planning Commission approval.
Easter: They say the 41-acre residue will be common ground, owned by owners of the
5 houses. Can't there be some provision, that the Byrums would agree to, written into
the conditions to maintain this, like an RPN or PUD? Is there a legal distincition
there?
Peatross: One might write a contract like that , but the ordinance permits them to divide
the 5-acre parcels without any approval.
Coles: To subdivide 41 acres would require granting an easement, and the Planning
Commission would have to approve that. The Commission would still have control over
the 41-acres.
Carr: Approving this would put pressure on approving the subdivision of 41 acres at a later
date.
Coles: They are worried about closing on the land and not being able to put the five units
on it, without requiring a 50' right-of-way, which is going to be very difficult.
Barksdale: If you could tie 41-acres down to no further subdivision to be used as
dedicated open space, to be owned by this family in common, I would be for it.
Gloeckner: I would favor it if the County could get the 50' right-of-way through the
front portion of the property but not put that much burden on a 14' right-of-way.
Coles: We couldn't increase that right-of-way without Planning Commission approval.
Gloeckner: D and N might be able to and the Shiffletts might try to do some more - I'm
talking about the 23-acres up front.
Mrs. Graves: Is the road limited to one location because of the topography?
Keeler: Yes, because the Planning Commission responded that the road couldn't be located
anywhere else and we do not have a topo map, or any other data submitted, on
which to base the location of the easement. So the staff recommended that the
Commission take that out - they were not accepting, flatly, that statement that
the road could not go anywhere else. To use the road, it would have to be determined
that it could go no where else.
Jones: Because of the road frontage problem of only 20 feet, and the resulting problem
(the lack of the 50' easement ) I can't look favorably on this.
Keeler: The Shifflett property has only 25 feet of frontage. There are adjacent properties
over .which an easement could be acquired. It is dubious the Shiffletts will increase
the width of the right-of-way, since Mr. Montero spent from April through August
attempting to get them to agree to some width for the right-of-way. I don't know
what change of circumstances would get them to change it to 50 feet.
George Coles: We are not asking for anything more than what we were originally requesting.
The Byrums are worried about closing and not being able to put the 5 units they
need on the land.
Peatross: The contract doesn't restrict it to just the family, does it?
Coles: No.
Peatross: Them you are asking for more because you are asking for subdivision on less than
the 66 acres.
Coles: What they are asking is approval of 5 building sites.
Peatross: But you are asking for more than the Planning Commission said it would give
when you say you will divide the 66 acres, because you want to do it on a smaller
portion of that 66 acres, not the entire tract.
Keeler: I listened to the tapes of all those Planning Commission meetings, and the idea
of subdivision was never approached. Mr. Byrum stated they wanted 4 dwelling units
on the 66-acre tract, which could be accomplished through site plan approval.
Gloeckner: I thought they were going to build 5 dwelling units without subdivision and
the whole tract would stay under one family ownership.
Coles: In order to get financing, each family must own a parcel and a house.
There will be common land owned by all family members, but each house by one particular
family member.
Barksdale: Then why not divide it into 5-acre parcels and let D and N hold a deed of trust
against the parcel and house.
Coles: We have release provisions in the deed of trust which require them to release, instead
of just a parcel for the house, approximately 12 acres at $1,000/acre. What you
suggest would double our release price.
Mrs. Graves: Then each parcel will have to have a right-of-way to reach the 50' right-of-way.
Coles: That's right - that's why you will have to approve each one as there is further
subdivision. Even though they are over 5 acres, it requires granting of an easement
when that particular parcel is deeded to a family member. It will cost a lot more to
put it in just five parcels than release it in smaller parcels. We could, if it is the
only way, divide it into 5 parcels. We prefer to release if as we have requested.
Carr: What has been approved for the 23.7 and 66 acre parcels, Mr. Keeler?
Keeler: To this point, the County has approved the division of 89+ acres into a 23.7 acre
and 66 acre tract, with the 50' easement across the 23.7 acre tract to serve one
66-acre tract, adjacent the Lexington subdivision. Now there is a request to subdivide
the 66-acre tract in five 5-acre tracts, with a residue of 41-acres.
Carr: What is your recommendation?
Keeler: With the existing easements, we would recommend denial. The Planning Commission has
generally requested state road to serve three-four parcels. While the Planning Commission
does not have a firm policy on the number of parcels a piece of property can be
divided into before a state road is required, it would be unusual for the Planning
Commission to permit 6 parcels to be served by other than a state road. I have
never seen the Commission permit any easement less than 20 feet to serve a subdivision.
Coles: Would it be possible to grant it with the restriction of absolutely no further
subdivision without the 50' right-of-way, taking into consideration it is a family
situation.
Carr: The Planning Commission has some latitude. He asked for comments from Mr. Payne.
V
487
Payne: It seems pretty obvious the bank wants to be in the position, if it ever
has to, to sell the 5-acre lots. That is only apparent reason they would require 140)
this so I think once the subdivision goes to record, the lots can be sold to
anyone. Though it would require Planning Commission approval, they could be
further subdivided. Any time you grant further approval makes it harder not to
approve the other. With the other, under the Site Plan Ordinance, 2 units can be
put on any one parcel without site plan approval ( that explains the 12 dwellings
mentioned in the staff report ). This is not fanciful - though it may never happen;
but you should not consider it wouldn't happen. And I don't think Mr. Coles'
suggestion is possible, because if the Commission places a condition on the plat,
then your successors to the Commission could certainly raise the condition, if
brought to them - so it is possible to further subdivide the property.
Coles: That could always be the case when such a condition is placed on a plat.
Payne: Certainly.
Mrs. Prendergast( owner of lot 5 in Lexington Subdivision ): I am very concerned
about the traffic impact if further subdivision is granted. Currently there are
only 1-2 cars daily on this road, and an increase would be a major concern because
of small children.
Dr. Moore: Has the possibility of easement across the property other than the Shiffletts
been pursued?
Coles: The only solution we haven't considered is talking to the Prendergasts about a
portion of their lot for an easement.
Dr. Moore: I mean an easement on the west side.
Keeler: If the Byrums were to consider anything less than 4-acre parcels, then there could
be only one unit per parcel.
Gloeckner: I am concerned that the Shifflett property has 10 acres ( with existing
right-of-way which permits a possible 5 units ), the 23.7-acres along another
50' right-of-way; 5 double frontage lots that could begin to use this right-of-way.
Now we are talking about a lot of traffic on a 14' right-of-way. This is not the
proper size right-of-way for that much projected development.
Carr: I agree with that. I am not opposed to country roads serving large lots, but not
a 14' right-of-way. Many have worked on this, but a mistake was made at one
Point and we are being asked to solve it and I don't think the solution has been
provided, though an effort to find the solution has been made. I can't support
this division. I could support 6 lots, if there were a 50' easement.
Easter: I agree with Mr. Carr and Mr. Gloeckner.
Jones:: Could I make a motion that due to the narrow (14') right-of-way, we deny this request?
Keeler: This is just a discussion - no motion is necessary.
Moore: My question regarding easements on the west has not been answered.
Coles: We have not sought easements on the west side.
Keeler: Could we also ask that the Planning Commission indicate to the Byrums their
receptiveness to a site plan with five units on one 66-acre parcel - would they
still object to five units being served by a 14' right-of-way?
Carr: And let the seller work out the financing with that prior knowledge. That would
freeze the 66-acre parcel and take care of the Shifflett tract.
Keeler: That is correct. The Byrums had indicated they wanted 4 units on the 66-acre
tract.
Barksdale: I could support that, since this was my original thinking. I could support
4-5 houses being built or subdivision into equal parcels.
Jones: Could not support that, since we still have the same narrow entrance to that area.
The Shifflett tract and the 23.7-acre tract can still add to the traffic on the
14' strip.
Coles: It appears we would get approval with a 50' right-of-way. Could you give
us conditional approval upon our getting a 50' right-of-way and approval of each
smaller parcel as we get ready to build.
ME
Keeler: The Commission could say they would entertain a subdivision of the 66-acres
under these circumstances.
Coles: Perhaps we can amend our request in light of what we can work out with the people to
the west.
Carr: Any reason to believe that the Commission would not consider this subdivision if
there were a 50' right-of-way? Is there any dissent to this?
Barksdale: Probably everyone would be more receptive if it were to the west away from the
Lexington Subdivision.
Gloeckner: I would like to see the 50' right-of-way up against the Lexington Subdivision
completely done away with as far as the division of the 66 acres.
Carr: That would make the 23.7-acre parcel more desirable. If you proceed on the east
the staff will probably require a topo.
There was no further discussion on the Byrum proposal.
Celeste Scrimshaw subdivision - located on the north side of Route 250 West,
across from the Greencroft Club:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report locating the property for the Commission
and noting that this would be a division of a 14.84-acre parcel into three parcels of
4.84 acres, 7.170 acres and 2.29 acres. Parcels 2 and 3 would contain the existing
dwellings. The plat is being presented to the Commission because of a waiver of
frontage required for lot 3.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if lot 3's cottage has a septic field and water its own.
Mr. Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that there is a septic system, but
he is not sure about the water.
Mr. Jones questioned the small size of lot 3. Mrs. Graves followed this up by
saying that it is a pecularily shaped lot.
Mr. Boggs explained that it is shaped such because. the applicant has attempted
to keep all the improvements ( landscaping, etc.) with the main residence. He showed
the topo map to the Commission.
Mr. Keeler read to the Commission a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Robertson,
owners of adjacent property, who objected to the subdivision.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the property is zoned A-1. Mr. Keeler said "yes."
Mr. Carr questioned the building setback. He felt the setback should be where
the parcel has its greatest width.
Mr. Keeler stated that 150 feet is required for setback because of the scenic highway.
of a possible residence
Mr. Carr said that he is concerned because of the nearness/to the property line.
He asked if the Commission can require a certain building setback.
Mr. Boggs said that the most desirable building site is at the rear of the property.
IL Mr. Payne said that he has doubts that the Commission can require any certain
NW location for a building site, as long as the ordinance requirements are met.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that the Commission could require a certain setback, since it would
5W
be approving an irregularly -shaped lot and would also be waiving frontage requirements
on another lot.
Mr. Carr told Mr. Robertson that there seemed to be no real reason to deny
the subdivision, since even lot #3 is logical in the case.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the subdivision subject to the following
conditions:
1. Preliminary Health Department approval for lot 1;
2. Building setback line on lot 1 to be placed 50 feet north of the line
market North 76 degrees 76133" West, 53.39 feet long.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
The vote was 8-1, Mrs. Graves dissenting (objecting to the shape Qf the lot, stating
that she wants to be consistent.
Anna Crenshaw subdivision:
Mr. Tucker stated that this had been omitted from the agenda. The property is
located off Route 649, near Proffit. This lot requires a five foot waiver, and
the request is being made in order that the owner can get three lots from the residue.
Approval should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Residue acreage noted on the plat.
After a lengthy discussion, in which it was pointed out that adjoining property
owners had not been notified and in which the Commission considered deferring until
they were notified, Mrs. Crenshaw stated that she is willing to take five feet from
another part of the property in order to have the proper frontage. No Commission
action would thus be necessary. The Commission referred the item back to the staff
to pd:ocess administratively if the five feet is added to the frontage.
New Business:
The staff asked that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to amend and
and repeal certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify and make more readable -
these would not be major changes. Sections involved address special use permits, the
Board of Zoning Appeals, and non -conforming uses.
Mr. Easter stated that he would make a motion for the Commission to adopt a
resolution of intent to amend Section 10-1, repeal Section 10-2, amend Sections
10-5, 10-6, and 10-7, amend Section 11-13; and repeal Article 12, to be replaced
with Article 12.1.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
9
Continuation of discussion of site plans:
490
Mr. Tucker presented a report to the Commission regarding the time spent in the
r cast 60-90 days on the review of site plans and subdivisions. He reminded the commission
that some of the meetings were also used as work sessions or items that did
not deal with site plans or subdivisions. He said that this time survey does not seem
indicative of previous site plan review time, but it does give some idea of time spent
and the public input. It also shows time that would be saved if staff approval were
permitted when there is no objection from adjoining property owners, applicant,
Planning Commission or Board members.
The following ideas were expressed by Commission members:
1. One-half to one-third of Planning Commission time is spent on review of site plans
that could be administratively approved;
2. Items that have any objections will automatically be referred to the Commission;
3. Concern that citizens will not have available to them technical points;
4. If this idea is entertained, adjacent owners will be notified of site review meetings:
5. The Planning Commission can set the rules for the Site Review Committee;
6. Concern that if highway (entrance) approval is coordinated between the Highway
Department and the County's Engineering Department that the County is not blamed
for any delay;
7. County has never worked with the site plan ordinance the way it is written.
Before any changes are made, should make certain that a change is necessary and
beneficial to all;
8. Feared too much public pressure placed on the officials of the Planning Department;
9. Favor administrative approval of plans with no objection to permit Commission more
time for actual planning matters;
10. With exception of one member, Commission is not qualified to comment on work of
' professional;
11. Concern that professionals do not always follow the ordinance, rather follow wishes
of their clients;
12. Desire to seek quality under provisions of the law;
13. Desire to deal efficiently and effectively with the public;
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the staff move forward in refining the necessary procedures
to change the review process and present at a later date to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Easter seconded this motion.
Discussion:
not
Col. Washington and Mr. Jones said that though they were/committing their final votes,
they considered the matter important enough for further review, in hopes of permitting
more time for planning.
The motion carried with a vote of 7-2, with Dr. Moore and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Mr. Carr told the Commission that the Board, Planning Commission, and Highway
Department had held a joint meeting to discuss the traffic that exists on Route 29 North
and possible solutions, or relief, to these problems. The chairman stated that it is the
opinion of the chairman of the Board that the Comission has strayed from the service
road concept on Route 29 North. He stated that the meeting was most informative,
and the Board had instructed the County attorneys to look further into the ideas
discussed at the meeting and report back to the Board.
491
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt that the solution to many of the traffic
problems in the area could be a true by-pass. Though he was not at the first
of the meeting, he understood that this idea had been discounted on the basis
that the Highway Department feels that most traffic is coming into Charlottesville,
rather than by-passing it. He urged that the idea of a true -by pass be further
explored, as well.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
W. Tucker, Jr. - Secretary
October 5, 1976 492
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday
October 5, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
%MW Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Paul Peatross; Dr. James Moore;
Mr. Leslie Jones; Col. William Washington and Mrs. Opel David ex-officio. Absent
was Mr. Peter Easter.
Mr. Carr called the meeting to order.
Minutes of September 21, 1976 were approved as submitted.
Minutes of September 28, 1976 were defered by Mr. Carr until the October 12, 1976
Planning Commission meeting.
ZMA-14-76. Kenneth Youel request to rezone 66.59 acres from A-1 to RS-1/RPN.
Property located on south side of Route 660, approximately 4 mile from intersection
of Route 743.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Keeler stated that the staff had not presented impact statistics of the proposal
compared to existing zoning because with the applicants representative an agreement
was reached that such designation would be in accord with the proposed density.
The site review committee had defered till the applicant or his representative
could be present, also, indicating that the applicants representative had requested
deferral until the technical points were gone over.
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion of deferral.
Mr. Barksdale second the motion.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission would listen to the public input.
Mr. Barksdale stated that RS-1/RPN was not appropriate, that A-1/RPN could be used.
mr. Keeler stated that it could be head again on October 26, 1976.
Mr. Gloeckner's motion carried unanimously.
Resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Map by rezoning one (1)
lot from B-1 Business to R-1 Residential. Property located in the Berkely Subdivision.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
On August 31, 1976, the Albemarle County Planning Oommission adopted a resolution of
intent to rezone Tax Map 61M, Section 4, Block 6, Lot 2 from B-1 Business to R-1
Residential, the staff had reviewed the zoning history of this lot and believes an
error was made in the orginial zoning of the lot as B-1 Business. A chronology of
this lot is as follows:
August 3, 1965- lot recorded subject to restrictions of other Berkely lots except
that lot may be used as a well lot.
493
November 29, 1967- Written request by David Wood that all undeveloped land in the
Berkely Subdivision be zoned B-1 Business. Request granted as
submitted.
November 22, 1968- Lot transferred as gift to Albemarle County.
In the 1967 request by Mr. Wood, undeveloped properties were defined as those
areas "not divided into lots". Since the subject lot was recorded in 1965, staff
believes an error was made in the orginial designation of this lot as B-1 Business.
Mr. Jones ask if there were plans for a residence?
Mr. Keeler stated that it was a well lot, being disposed of at public auction.
Mr. Carr ask what use restrictions were placed on this well lot.
Mr. Keeler stated that it had the same restrictions as the Berkely lots.
Mr. Carr ask what the lot could be used for?
Mr. Keeler said that it was a full size lot and could be used for a residence.
David Wood stated that this parcel was cut out of a 10 acre piece. The lot
has no road frontage also, that he would like to see the opportunity to put
the parcel back into the 10 acre tract.
Mr. & Mrs. Wickline stated that they would support the R-1 zone to keep the character
of the neighborhood. They also stated that they had been informed that if the lot
was not rezoned that the county would retain it.
Mr. Nickols another adjacent property owner stated that he also favored the rezoning.
Mrs. Wickline stated that she was told that the parcel had the same restrictions
as the Berkely lots.
Mr. Jones asked what the Wickline':s would do with'the property if they purchased it?
Mrs. Wickline stated that they would purchase it to protect their existing lot.
Mr. David Wood stated that he was not notified of the public auction.
Mrs. Wickline stated that they were the highest bidders at the auction, and if
the lot is rezoned they would be the purchasers of the lot.
Mr. Wood stated that he had the understanding that the lot would not be sold
until after the Planning Commission meeting.
Mrs. Graves stated that legal notice was given that sale was contingent on rezoning.
Mr. Wood expressed the fact that he received no notice pertaining to the dale.
Mr. Carr stated that he was unsure of anyone being notified of the public auction,
but had to consider the rezoning on its meriis.
Mr. Payne stated that the sale of the property had nothing tovdo with the rezoning v
that the sale was subject to rezoning;also that the Commission was entitled to act
on the merits of the rezoning.
494
Mr. Barksdale asked if the County would not convey the property in re -sale if it was
not rezoned?
Mr. Payne stated that Mr. Jones had informed him that was the condition of the present
sale.
Mrs. Graves agreed that the property was a proper residential lot, and it would give the
Wickline's the protection of their existing lot.
Mr. Barksdale stated that if it were rezoned and the Board approved it, if Mr. Wood
was going to contest the sale that would involve the rezoning further into a
complicated matter.
Mr. Gloeckner asked what the width of the right-of-way was?
Mr. Wood stated that it was approximately 22 ft.
Mr. Gloeckner asked what the land to the north was zoned?
Mr. Keeler stated that the lots were zoned R-2, that if the lot remained B-1
there would be very little useable space for that type zoning.
Mr. Moore stated that he was in favor of the rezoning.
Mr. Jones stated that since the Wickline's intended to purchase the property to
protect their existing lot that he also was in favor.
Mr. Moore moved for approval.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
The vote carried 6-1-1 ( Carr no; Peatross obstained)
SP-65-76. Thelma L. Madison petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a
mobile home on 12.62 acres zoned A-1 agricultural. Property located near Mt. Chapel
Church.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this petition the
staff recommends the following condition:
1. Approval of state and local agencies;
2. Location of mobile home so as not to be visible from adjacent residences;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile home;
4. Removal of only those trees necessary of the installation of mobile home and
drainage field.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Planning Department had received two letters of objection;
Mr. & Mrs. Russell D. Mooney, also, Mr. & Mrs. McDaniel.
Mrs. Madison said that she would conform with the zoning regulation but felt that 12.62
acres was a considerable amount of property not to be able to use.
Mr. Mooney stated that he owned approximately 126 acres and his plans were to eventually
build on that; the area was desirable for agricultural and residential use.
�'*r Mr. Peatross stated that Bill Smith had contacted him stating that he didn't oppose
this petition that the mobile home would be located far enough the road.
495
Mr. Peatross asked Mrs. Madison why she wanted to move out of the mobile home park?
Mrs. Madison stated that it was not the most desirable place to live, that she was paying
rent to park her mobile home.
Mrs. Graves asked Mrs. Madison if she were planning to build on the property?
Mrs. Madison stated she would love to, but no definite plans for the very near future.
Mr. Mooney stated he would not oppose the mobile home if there were to eventually to
be a pernament dwelling.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Graves stated that she wished it could be limited to one mobile home per 12 acres,
that it be limited to one parcel of land to one special use permit.
Mr. Payne stated that one condition could be one (1) mobile home per 12 acres
and that any subdivision of the existing lot would vacate the permit.
Mr. Barksdale asked Mr. Keeler about the setback?
Mr. Keeler stated that it was not a state road.
Mr. Gloeckner moved .for approval with the condition of one (1) mobile home per 12
acres.
Mr. Moore seconded the motion.
With no discussion the motion carried &-1-1
sm
SP-68-76. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority have petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to expand plant facilities with a transmission line and storage tank.
Transmission line is proposed to commence from Morton's Frozen Foods, Crozet Plant,
Route 240, westward in the C and O Railroad right-of-way a distance of approximately
1000 ft, then in a southwesterly fashion to the eastern end of Hill Top Street (Route 691).
The transmission line would proceed westward in the right-of-way of state Route 240
to Jarman Gap Road then northward in the right-of-way of Blue Ridge Avenue to Route 789,
a northwesterly fashion approximately 800 ft to its termination at the proposed storage_
tank on property described as _P x Map 55, Parcel 46, White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Carr stated that Mr. Tucker informed him that the rights -of -way had not been obtained.
Mr. Keeler stated that on the Special Permit application there is a place for applicants
and for property owner's signature, that in the past it was assumed that the proper
easements have been obtained, in this case they have not.
Mr. Pollock stated that the time involved in obtaining the rights -of -way would result
in a considerable delay of construction.
Mr. Carr expressed the opinion that he felt like the County was being used as a "hammer".
Mr. Pollock expressed the fact that he felt like the Commission should not be concerned
about the exact location of the lines. He also stated that it was important to rely on
the technical expertise of their engineers in trying to locate the best location for
construction and also hydraulically for the flow of water.
Mr. Barksdale stated that the proposed plan would interrupt the grounds of WPED base station,
and all the underground wiring.
i4r. Pollock stated that they were willing to work with the radio station.
�I e
Mr. McClenahan stated that he was concerned with the policies of the right-of-way, that
the ground work made up the entire broadcasting system. He also stated that they do have
alternatives that would be less expensive.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
The staff recommended approval of this application conditioned upon the following:
1. Immediate re -seeding of those areas of earth distrubing activity of both the water line
and storage tank;
2. Site plan approval of the water storage tank to include a landscaping plan for screening
the tank;
3. Staff would advise the applicant that any alteration in the location of these proposed
facilities would require amendemnt of this special permit which constitutes another
special permit application. Work is this project may not begin until special permit
approval is obtained.
Mr. Gloeckner asked that with the exception of the Broadcasting Co, if the total
right of ways were the railroad or the street?
Mr. Keeler stated yes, where it crosses property for the storage tank
Mr. McClenahan stated that hw would favor the alternative route.
1�`rr
Col. Washington asked why the right-of-way didn't go along the railroad the entire distance?
Mr. Martin stated that by going the proposed route the water pressure would increase.
497
Mr. McClenahan stated that the eastern boundary of his property was a farm with nothing
but grazing, that if the transmission line leaving Morton's could bottle that fence line
coming in behind his studio that it would not disrupt the broadcasting system.
Mr. Martin stated that the engineers had orginally run a survey alon Route 240 and the
construction by going that route was extremely difficult.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if there were any existing water lines for fire protection?
Mr. Martin stataed that there were existing water lines.
mr. Carr expressed the fact that he was concerned when the Commission is handed an
application for approval especially when there is obviously problems involved,
in this case obtaining right-of-ways.
Mr. Pollock stated that the problem of obtaining the rights -of -way had been dealt with
before, and that their engineers felt like they could locate the line on th6 radio
station property without disturbing the base system.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that thes problems should be worked out before the Commission
acted on the item. Moved for deferral.
Mr. Jones stated that he felt like the Commission was being used as a lever.
Richard Peach stated that he felt like the citizens of Crozet should be informed
of'the proposed plans for rights -of -way.
Mr. Pollock stated that in July a public hearing was held on this project. The water
line was an agreement of a four (4) party contract as an improved project.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Barksdale moved for deferral until the McClenahan problem could be resolved.
Col. Washington seconed the motion.
Mr. Keeler stated that WPED would make a public anouncement as to when this item
would be heard again.
The vote carried 7-0 ( Peatross was out of room at time of the vote)
498
SP-72-76. John W. Propst petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a
central well on 20.51 acres zoned A-1. Property located on the west side of
Route 20 north, just north of the intersection of Routes 20 and 769.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Keeler stated that the property is on a long narrow triangle extending
more than 4 mile from Route 20. The back portion of the property is
developed with four cottages.
The staff recommends approval conditioned upon the following:
1. Subsequent administrative approval of site plan sketch.
Mr. Blue stated that 2 of the 4 cottages were used by Mr. Propst�j-,daughters.
Also stated that the well would be used for private residence.
Mr. Barksdale moved for approval.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
The vote carried unanimously
SP-73-76. Town of Scottsville has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
locate a communications tower on 51.082 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property
located on Route 795 behind the old School Board Building, and Union Baptist
Church, outside the corporate limits.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Town of Scottsville proposes this radio communication
tower to improve communications among the local rescue, fire, and police departments
and the County Sheriff's department and the University of Virginia Hospital in
an effort to better police provide emergency services in the southern portion
of the County. The 14-inch square tower is proposed to be 150 feet high complemented
by a 4 x 8 foot cinderblock equipment building. Federal Aviation Agency approval
has been secured.
Mr. Keeler stated that the staff recommended approval conditioned upon the
following:
1. Minimum disruption of wooded areas to erect the tower;
2. In the event the tower is damaged beyond feasible repair or is abandoned,
the tower shall be removed by the applicant within sixty (60) days.
Mrs. Gravesaskedwhat the access to tower was?
Mr. Keeler stated that it was an easement from an old county school road.
Mr. Barksdaleaskedif any people would be working on the site.
Mr. Tacker stated that it would not be.
Mr. Peatrossaskedif there would be any lighting on the tower?
Mr. Thacker stated that no lighting was necessary for the height of the tower.
.Mr. Barksdale moved for approval and that condition number one (1) be eliminated.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
WZ
Motion carried unanimously.
SP-75-76. Albert Schwartzenboeck has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to locate a central well on 182 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property
located on the southwest side of Route 620, 2 miles east of Route 795.
The Subject property is developed with a residence and dairy complex.
Across Route 620 are three mibile homes and a single-family residence.
A county store is located approximately # mile to the north.
Staff recommends approval of this petition conditioned on the following:
1) County Engineer's approval to include approval of location and size of
water lines and certification of a 48-hour testing.
Mr. Jones askedwhy Mr. Schwartzenboeck wanted the condition of 48-hour
testing removed?
Mr. Keeler stated that the pumping company that he purchased the pump from
advised Mr. Schwartzenboeck that it would burn the pump up.
Mr. Washington stated that if the well has served a dairy it certainly can
serve a residence.
Mr. Barksdale stated that the Planning Commission has used other criteria in
the past to determine amount of water Chats adequate.
Mr. Schwartzenboeck stated that the well was drilled about ten (10) years
ago and at that time the well was pumping 30 gal./minute. He ask that
the condition of 48-hour testing be removed since the well now serves a
dairy. He also stated that the County should review the policy on central
wells for agricultural and residential use.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Peatross ask what the difference in this testing and the testin. on
the previous central well?
Mr. Keeler stated that the previous applicant chose to test it prior
to the publid; hearing. "
Mr. Payne stated that the statute requires the Board to approve any central
well that any waiver should address the fact that there is adequate water ,
otherwise it would set a precedent.
Mr. Barksdale moved for approval of thit central well with condition number
one (1) being waived.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
With no discussion the vote carried unanimously.
SP-77-76. Edward R. Jackson petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate
a public garage on 1.83 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property located
on the east side of U.S. 29 south, approximately � mile south of I-64
and Route 29 south interchange.
500
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant proposed to locate a public garage which
would provide: (1) provide sales of autos; (2) provide mechanic service; (3)
provide wrecker service.
The staff would recommend approval conditioned upon the following:
1. Site Plan Approval; (2) Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
(3) Use shall be restricted to applicant's description as stated above;
4) Because U.S. 29 south is not visually despoiled, signing shall comply
with Article 18, Scenic Highwyas, Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance;
(5) Autos shall be setback 30 feet from right-of-way;
(6) Pennants, strings of lights, plastic spinners, and the like shall be permitted.
Mr. Barksdale asked if scenic highway signing could be required for a road
that isn't scenic?
Mr. Payne stated that it could be considered based on the character of the
neighborhood.
fir. Keeler presented two letters of objections on the basis of strip zoning.
Mr. Gloeckner ask if the definition of public garage included "auto sales"?
Mr. Keeler stated that yes it did and with this definition it has caused
considerable problems in the past and if not addressed soon will cause
problems in the future.
Mr. David Wood recommended approval by the Planning Commission to the
Board of Supervisors based on the following reasons:
1. Presently zoned A-1
2. The property has no demand for residential purposes its adjacent to
a major highway and a railroad.
3. The land north of the property is now zoned B-1
4. The property is near I-64 interchange.
5. The size and elevation of the railroad acts as a shield to Sherwood Farms
6. The present zoning deprives him if any use to this land.
Mr. Jackson stated that the property already has a well and sewer system.
Mr. Keeler ask if there was someone living on the property at the present
time?
Mr. Jackson stated that the property was now rented out.
Mr. Alonzo Wood an adjacent property owner stated that he did not want
undesirable use for this property that it should be a restricted use.
Mr. David Wood stated that with the house that is now located on the
property would be considered nothing more than a 4 room shanty. The
rent per month is $80.00 when collectable.
Mr. Barksdale questioned the previous use of the land.
Mr. Jackson stated that the land was used for his signing business but
due to the Highway Beautification .Act he was made to take down his signs.
Mr. Carraskedwhat the sale price of the land would be?
Mr. Jackson stated that 10 years ago he was offered $40,000.
501
mrs. Graves ask if Mr. Jackson was reimbursed for the loss of his signs?
Highway Beautification Act
Mr. Jackson said that under the/ he was paid $7.00 per sq. ft. for the removal
of the signs but couldn't relocate them.
Mr. Jones ask if the Virginia Department of Highways had considered buying the property?
Mr. Carr stated that the VDH expanded the right-of-way across the road.
He also expressed his sympathy toward Mr. Jackson proposal to locate the garage
but he stated that he had long standing concern for that strip on 29 south.
Mr. Jones ask what could that strip of land be used for?
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the fact that the strip had been studied and was decided
that each case would be considered on a peacemeal basis.
Mr. Peatross stated that the garaae would not be a wise use of the property
that perhaps it could be used for another proposed use.
Mr. Jones ask what if it were just a service station with wrecker service?
Mr. Peatross stated that it would not be permitted in A-1 zone.
Mr. Washington ask if the proposal revolved around used car sales?
Mr. Jackson stated that it did.
Mr. Peatross moved for denial.
Mr. Moore second the motion.
The vote carried 6-2, with Messrs. Gloeckner and Jones dissenting.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend Section 6-1-13 of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision Ordinance,
pertain to sidewalks, curb and gutter.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Payne stated that he had some substantial suggestive changes in the wording.
asked
Mrs. Graves / what would this do to having sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Mr. Keeler stated that if the Commission wished that they could waive these
requirements.
Mr. Wahington stated that there are cases for sidewalks on both sides of the street.
But there are topographic problems and questions of layout which encourage
sidewalks on only one side.
Mr. Carr stated that he liked the latitude of deciding what cases require
sidewalks on one side and which ones require sidewalks on both sides.
Mr. Payne stated that if the latitude isn't written there is always the question
of what can be waived.
502
asked
Mr. Gloeckner / who would maintain the sidewalks?
is
Mr. Keeler stated that if it/ in the right-of-way the Virginia Department of Highways,
if otherwise it would be maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
Mrs. David encouraged the Planning Commission to consider walkways as well as
sidewalks.
Mr. Barksdale moved for deferral until the language change could be seen.
Mr. Gloeckner second the motion.
The vote carried by a 5-3 vote.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
t
Roblert W. Tucker, Jr. - Se# etary