HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 503-573593
October 12, 1976
fir+''' The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting Tuesday,
October 12, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Paul
Peatross; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Leslie Jones; Col. William Washington; and Mrs. Opal
David, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., Director
of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos
Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
to order.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
Division of Motor Vehicles Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro stated that this site plan proposes a one storey building
of 5,495 square feet with 100 parking spaces on a 1.22-acre lot. The property
is located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Westfield Road and
Commonwealth Drive. The site plan had been deferred by the Commission at its
last meeting in order that the latest plan could be reviewed by the Site Plan
Review Committee and the Planning Staff. Staff recommended approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Landscape Plan be presented to staff for approval;
2. The note: "Fire Hydrant to be installed by County of Albemarle" be removed in
favor of a note specifying that the fire hydrant is to be installed by the applicant;
3. Areas adjacent to entrance on Westfield Road be curbed and planted as discussed
by the applicant;
4. All parking spaces not adjacent to a concrete curb should have concrete blocks
placed on them.
Mr. Montenegro also explained other changes in the site plan to the Commission.
Mr. Rotgin stated his appreciation of the staff's assistance in the site plan.
Mrs. Graves expressed concern that the entrance/exit to this property
would not be opposite the entrance/exit of the business across the street. Mr.
Montenegro stated that they are compatible - and that the staff had checked this.
He also stated that the Fire Marshal had reviewed and approved the plan, noting that
the dumpster location was solved to the satisfaction of Mr. Reynolds.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned any night(security) lighting. Mr. Rotgin explained
that the specs called for no night lighting since the building will not be used after
5:00 p.m.
Mr. Jones suggested eliminating one parking space in the employee only parking
lot in order to aid traffic circulation. Mr. Montenegro said the DMV had required
100 parking spaces, no less, and that the staff does not feel the traffic proposal
will be a problem in that particular lot, because realistically the employees arrive
early and leave late.
Col. Washington noted that he was interested in knowing if the state had
been contacted about the number of parking spaces, since it had been indicated that
100 spaces might not be necessary at the outset.
J504-
Mr. Rotgin pointed out that state officials had viewed the site that
week and had confirmed that 100 spaces were necessary, to meet the minimum require-
ment of the state.
Col. Washington further noted that the spaces drawn on the plan are
for large cars, and questioned the possibility of a "small car parking lot",
which works successfully other places.
Mr. Rotgin said that this would be a good idea, but the County's Zoning
Ordinance does not provide for small cars. He further noted that such a lot would
provide for more planting areas. Mr. Tucker stated that the problem with such "compact
car lots" is policing them.
Mrs. Graves asked if the parking lot will be executed as shown on the site plan
and Mr. Rotgin agreed that it would be.
( Dr. Moore entered the meeting. )
Col. Washington also said that he agreed with Mr. Jones regarding free
flow in the employee lot.
Mr. Montenegro said that the staff contends that such free flow would
result in problems with other individuals other tham employees using the lot.
Mr. Carr said that a twenty foot space with a twenty foot road is adequate,
if it is bumpered.
staf f .
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
FM
Mr. Tucker said that the applicant requests that condition #4 be amended
such that railroad ties could be used rather than blocks. He stated that the staff
would recommend that these ties be blocked. Mr. Easter amended his motion to reflect
this request ( condition to read: All parking spaces not adjacent to a concrete curb
should have railroad ties - spiked down - placed on them.)
The motion carried 8-0, with Mr. Jones abstaining.
Sidewalk amendments:
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
and Subdivision Ordinance had been deferred in order to have the verbage of the County
Attorney.
Mr. Jones said that he wanted to discuss underpass walkways, since their
planning should be subject to law enforcement approval, for safety and welfare of
individuals.
Mr. Carr said that the Commission also needs to ascertain that these
amendments address commercial/business development.
1.
Mr. Payne suggested some possible wording to accomplish this, since 40
that type of development is not addressed in the amendments.
505
Col. Washington reminded the Commission of Mrs. David's remarks -
there is not always a need for concrete walkways.
Mrs. Graves questioned the omission of equestrian ways from this
particular proposal. Mr. Easter stated that this would be a very expensive
venture that would result in the increase of housing costs in a development.
Mr. Easter moved deferral, asking that the wording be revised to
reflect plans for sidewalks, curb and gutter in commercial/business developments
as wells as residential developments. In this motion he suggested striking
"equestrian ways."
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mobile Homes - proposed amnedments to the zoning Ordinance:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, reading the memos from Melvin
A. Breeden and William S. Bradshaw ( see attachments ). He reaffirmed the
Fire Marshal's statement that mobile homes are not as safe from fire as conventional
dwellings.
Mr. Tucker stated that as of January 1 of 1977 mobile homes have to comply
with the national fire code.
Mr. Carr reminded the Commission and public that the purpose of the work
session is to seek public comment on conditions that should be placed on mobile
home permits, if mobile homes are to be permitted on private property in the A-1 zone.
Mr. Marvin Parr, a member of the Virginia Manufacture Housing Association,
spoke on behalf of the local mobile home and modular home industry. He discussed
the statewide discrepancies in taxation for mobile homes and modular homes. He
felt that the memo from the local finance department was in error, since the locality
will receive a 3% sales tax, even at the time of resale of mobile homes. He
asked that the Planning Commission not adopt any ordinance which would increase
the cost of mobile home housing, since mobile homes are purchased by those with
minimum income.
There was a brief discussion on mobile home taxation, in which the
chairman determined that the new tax base was recommended by the Housing Study
Commission, since it seemed unfair to levy a tax which provided that a property
owner pay a license fee to use his own property. Mr. Carr also pointed out
that it is hardly fair for one living in a mobile home to be subject to a
different tax base from one living in a conventional dwelling; he further
stated that this was based on the idea that much of the real estate taxes are used
for public education
Mr. Parr told the Commission that in many casesthe manufacturers warranty
is violated if modifications are made to a mobile home.
Mr. Barksdale specifically questioned skirting of mobile homes,
and was told that permanent foundations for mobile homes are not permitted under
the BOCA Code.
When asked about the future of the mobile home business in Virginia,
Mr. Parr siad that since 1973-1974, there has been a 6-7o increase in sales.
He felt it important that the state meet in the future poor people's need
for housing that permits them to live in safety and cleanliness. He feels
that mobile homes afford this opportunity for decent quarters with decent
furniture. He also suggested that an,� mobile subdivisions or mobile home parks
be much larger than 10 acres.
Dr. Moore asked if Mr. Parr had any available model legislation,
perhaps developed by the industry, that could be forwarded to the Commission.
Mr. Parr stated that he does have such information, and that he would mail
it to the staff to be passed on to the Commission.
Mr. Easter reminded the public and members of the Commission that at previous
meetings to d scuss mobile home location that the local industry had urged
that mobile homes be permitted in the A-1 zone on private parcels, but that
more stringent conditions be placed on their location. He felt that Mr. Parr
was now refuting this, asking for no conditions that would increase the cost
of the mobile home.
Mr. Parr said that grass, shrubs, skirting are all reasonable - besides
skirting is protective and a safety factor.
Even though not permitted by the BOCA Code, Mrs. Bukrim told the Commission
that concrete skirting for a mobile home approximately 65 feet x 12 feet would
cost approximately $980.
Mr. Parr also told the Commission that as of June 15, 1976, there is
legislation against modifications of mobile homes built after that date.
Prior to this legislation, any modification of a mobile home (such as an addition,
steps, etc.) was overseen by the locality's Building Official.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that the staff had recommended mobile
home parks and subdivisions of a particular size, since it appeared from the data
collected by the staff that smaller parks in this area are more successful in that
the turnover is less.
Mr. Payne said that he recommends that conditions placed on mobile homes
should be bonded, and that #3 under procedures ( which addresses adequate water and
sewer facilites ) be moved to "Conditions of Approval".
There was also a brief discussion of setback, and possible screening.
It was determined that the local mobile home industry favors a setback of 100 feet.
Mrs. Elizabeth Breeden pointed out that any greater setback necessitates an expensive
driveway.
After Mr. Parr noted his concern for the current special use permit process
for mobile homes, Mr. Peatross explained that the ordinance provides that any complaint
f rom an adjacent owner, etc., only brings the special permit from the administrative
process to the public hearing process.
Mrs. Graves said that if the life of mobile homes has increased, she felt
that lending institutions should reflect this in the term of loans.
Mr. Parr said that in some states this loan term has increased to 15 years *00
and in such states as North Carolina loans for 20-25 years, at simple interest, can
be obtained.
vi OF ALSeA,
F
GOV �OAter
J24 9
;F S,
yRGi^��P
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Keeler
FROM: Melvin A. Breeden
DATE: October 6, 1976
SUBJECT: Mobile Home Taxation
For the purpose of taxation Mobile Homes are defined by Section 58-829.3 as:
"All vehicles without motive power, used or designed to be used as
mobile homes or offices or for other means of habitation by any person."
This section also currently defines mobile homes as a separate classification
of tangible personal property subject to tax rates not in excess of other personal property.
Until several years ago it was a general rule in many Virginia localities to classify mobile
homes as real estate if placed on a permanent foundation and the wheels and hitch removed.
This was discontinued based on the opinion of the Virginia Attorney General that all mobile
homes should be taxed as personal property except double wides.
Mobile homes are currently assessed at a percentage of their cost. Listed
below is a schedule of the percentages used for 1976.
1st year of ownership 45% of cost
2nd 40
3rd 35
4th 30
5th 25
6th 20
7th 15
Minimum 8th 10
Cost is set at $10 per square foot if actual cost is unavailable.
Due to recent changes in state law the assessment of local taxes on mobile
homes will be entirely different beginning January 1, 1977. They will continue to be
classified as personal property and listed on the personal property records; however,
they will be assessed in the same manner and at the same rate as real estate. This means
that they will be assessed at 100% of their fair market value and taxed at a rate of
approximately $.90 per $100 of valuation.
On
M
z..
Page Two
This change will result in a substantial decrease in the amount of tax on
a new mobile home. In many cases the tax would decrease as much as one-half to three -
fourths. As an example, a mobile home purchased in 1975 for $9,500, dimensions 12' x 65*
would have been taxed at.$252.52 for 1976, under the current method. The same mobile
home under the new method would have been taxed at $84.24. This large difference will
decrease as the mobile home ages since as personal property it depreciated each year
for tax purposes. Under the new method, the assessment will be reviewed every two years
and adjusted if necessary the same as other real estate.
Under this new method of assessment I cannot see an increase in the amount
of tax on any mobile home no matter how old, since unlike other real estate which will
normally appreciate; mobile homes will even under the new method continue to depreciate
in value. ,
The change in method of assessment should have no effect on double wide
mobile homes since they already are assessed as real estate. Prior experience with
double-wides has shown that they also will depreciate in value; primarily since there is
a very limited resale market for them.
This change in state law will result in a loss of local revenue of approximately
$100,000 plus the expense involved in the new assessment method. Hopefully a large part of
this loss will be offset by an increase in sales tax revenue. Beginning January 1,1977
the sales tax on mobile homes will be increased from-2% to 3% and will be distributed to
the locality in which the mobile home will be located. However, this will be a one time
non-reoccuring tax. In addition, effective January 1, 1980 the locality will no longer
be permitted to impose a license on the operation of a. mobile home park.
CM
�9
N,v-4 OF ALSem
GO�
J� 9
U -1•�•�.Lirt L7
G1 N
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Reeler, Assistant Director of Planning
FROM: William S. Bradshaw, Supervisor of Assessments'.
DATE: October 5, 1976
SUBJECT: Effect of Mobile Homes on property values in.the area.
It is hard to actually be specific or say how the mobile home effects
value in an area.
In areas where there are modular homes, mobile homes would not effect
the value, or would a mobile home placed on a farm effect the sale of the
property.
Mobile homes placed near the entrance to estates may effect the -value,
but, it would be hard to determine what decrease it actually had caused.
'�wrw I think land value itself, would determine if the placement of a mobile
home is feasible. No one is going to pay the price of land along Barracks
Road and put a mobile home on it. In other words, in the rural areas where
mobile homes would be placed, they probably would not have any effect on
the market value.
:alc
En
Sic
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing, reminded the Commission that the
Deputy County Attorney had stated he needed to rewrite the ordinance prior to
its adoption.
Another discussion regarding setback resulted. Mr. Easter stated
that a lot of mobile homes in the County are not of the appearance that the majority
of the residents of the County would like, and that a setback increase could
possibly help this problem.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the policing of conditions placed on special use
permits for mobile homes. He pointed out that initally conditions might be met,
but might not be adhered to in the future.
Mr. Carr said that in his opinion interested citizens should report this
to the local zoning department. Mr. Tucker said that there are inspectors employed
by the County who attempt to enforce such restrictions.
Mr. Payne also pointed out that it would be possible to revoke a permit
if conditions are not met.
The Commission agreed that mobile homes should not be rented, and asked
that this be included in the conditions of approval, and that no special permit
for a mobile home be transferable.
Mr. Carr asked if any progress has been made in the handling of mobile
homes that is fair to the county and to the individual.
Mrs. Graves said that she would support mobile home parks and subdivisions
+ in all residential zones only if they are to be permitted by special use permit
( this was a result of a reminder that legislation addressing these two is also
pending by the Commission ).
Mr. Easter moved that the Commission continue to pursue the legislation
it has been considering, and that the staff request the model legislation and
tax information addressed by Mr. Parr.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that the staff is in receipt of a letter
from Max Evans requesting that the Youel rezoning be considered by the Commission
on October 19 rather than October 26. The Commission agreed to this request.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
09
SI1
October 19, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
October 19, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Col. William
Washington; Mr. Paul Peatross; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Leslie Jones; and Mrs. Opal
David, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director
of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro,
Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
order.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
Action on minutes of October 12, 1976, was deferred until October 26, 1976.
SP-68-76. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority:
Mr. Keeler presented a brief explanation that this had been deferred in
order that the applicant and the representative from WPED Radio could resolve the
problem of the underground wiring. No resolution was reached, and the Authority
had decided to use another route for the line. In order to give the property owners
whose property would be traversed proper notice, the staff requested deferral of
�iie application until the next meeting.
Mr. Barksdale moved that any action on SP-68-76 be deferred until October 26.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Easter, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
ZMA-14-76. Kenneth Youel:
Mr. Keeler presenvr.d the stafi7 report, stated that the request has been
amended for a rezoning to a lower density, to A-1/RPN, which would maintain the
same density as the A-1 zone, only provide for open space.
The staff recommended approval of the rezoning and the preliminary plan.
The preliminary plan should be conditioned upon:
1. In the final platting process, open space (common space) is to be platted
proportionately to the number of lots platted;
2. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include disposition
and maintenance of open space;
3. County Enginner approval of proposed lake and sediment basins;
4. The zoning designation be A-1/RPN.
5. Final plans will be subject to the Site Plan and Subdivision Ordinances.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, stated that the plan maintains
the existing entrance, to align the entrance with part of the existing drive. Parcels
will be grouped around the central common area. The Homeowners' Agreement
is to provide for the maintenance of the lake. Roads will be built to state standards.
612-
Mr. Jones questioned who would have rights to the lake. Mr. Evans
explained that the lake would be limited to Mr. Youel and residents within the
RPN.
Mrs. Graves asked if lake will be part of the County Engineer's approval.
Mr. Payne explained that even though the lake is actually out of the RPN and on
an extension of Mr. Youel's own land, the County Engineer will have to give approval.
Mr. Keeler also told the Commission that at the time of site plan review,
the double frontage for lot #26 must be waived.
Dr. Moore questioned the access to any future expansion of this development.
Mr. Keeler stated that at site review meeting, the staff was told that there
will be no future development, or phase II.
Mr. Evans said that the applicant did not agree to no other development,
but that any future development would have to be accomplished through another application.
Mr. Keeler said that there had been a great deal of concern about the
entrance, and that the Highway Department had made its recommendations on the fact that
there would be no other development.
Mr. Carr questioned the road width if there were other development, in case
the applicant ever wished to remove the cul-de-sac and extend the road.
Mr. Keeler said that he doubted that the 28 owners living along the
20 foot right-of-way would give easement onto their right-of-way.
Mr. Evans said that at this particular time, there are no plans for any future
development, but that circumstances might change, and the applicant did not want to be
limited by any conditions placed on this particular approval.
There was a rather lengthy discussion addressing what the proper width of
road should be. It was the general consensus that the right-of-way into what might
someday become Section II should be 60 feet, and that it should be approved by
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
Mrs. Graves stated that she wanted to ascertain that any approval given to
the plan would include County Engineer approval of the dam as well as the lake and
sediment basins.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the rezoning request and preliminary plan,
with the preliminary plan conditioned upon the following:
1. In the final platting process, open space (common space) is to be platted
proportionately to the number of lots platted;
2. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include dispostion and
maintenance of open space;
3. County Engineer approval of dam and proposed lake and sediment basins;
4. The zoning designation be A-1/RPN;
5. Final plans will be subject to the Site Plan Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance;
6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportaiton approval of the 60 foot
right-of-way into Section 2, instead of the 20 foot right-of-way.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Easter, carried unanimously, with no further
discussion.
S3
SP-79-76. KATHY ROBERTS has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile
home on 7.10 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture. Property is located on Route 676,
approximately 1� miles west of the intersection with Route 678. County Tax Map 58,
Parcel 3I, Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that this application was
before the Commission because of several letters of objection received by the Planning
Department. The request was made by Mrs. Wood for the mobile home in order that her
daughter can reside on the property and assist her with household duties. Existing
water facilities and an existing septic drainfield will be used. Staff viewed the
site and it is their opinion that the mobile home will not be visible from the road
or from other residences in the area.
Staff recommended that any approval should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Mobile home to be located as described;
2. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
3. Skirting around the mobile home from the ground level to the base of the mobile home.
Mrs. Wood said that she does not feel that the mobile home will be visible
from other properties in the area.
Mrs. Susan Landin , an adjacent property owner, expressed concern that the
mobile home will not be adequately screened from adjacent owners, that there is already
a mobile home in the area. She also questioned the effect the mobile home will have
on the property on which it is placed, as well as its effect on property values of
adjoining properties. Mrs. Landin reminded the Commission of the recent application
by residents of that area for Conservation zoning, and the Board's reaction that this
would be considered at the time of Comprehensive Plan review. She also addressed the
fact that there is another mobile home on that parcel of land.
Mr. Keeler stated that the mobile home mentioned by Mrs. Landen is on another
parcel, and that it is owned by the nephew of Mrs. Wood's husband.
Mr. Herbert Tull, a resident of Tanglewood Drive, stated that he fears he will
be able to view the mobile home in the winter time, and he expressed concern that
the mobile home can be adequately si&Wgned from adjoining properties. He asked the
Commission if more than one mobile/can be placed on this 7-acre parcel; he also
questioned the exact location of the proposed mobile home.
Mr. Carr said that it is possible legally to locate a second mobile home
on this tract, since the density would provide for three residences - there is already
an existing house, and the mobile home requested would make the second residence.
Mr. Keeler said that the mobile home will be 75-100 feet behind the house,
which is approximately 100 feet from the road. In other words, the mobile home will
have a minimum setback of 175 feet.
Mr. Larry Meem, a resident of the area, said that he realizes that the Woods
he
are natives of the area, and that it is with some hesitation that/opposes the request.
However, he pointed out that the residents of the area have been fighting for a
CVN designation for the area. He advised the applicant to locate a house, rather than
a mobile home, on the property, since a conventional dwelling will ultimately increase
the value of her land. He said that he would look more favorably on the request if
there were a time limit placed on the special use permit.
Mr. Jones questioned Mr. Payne regarding his opinion on a time limit
for the location of a mobile home.
Mr. Payne said that in his opinion a time limit placed on a special
permit will be difficult to defend in court, but if the Commission places such a
condition on the special permit, it should state that such a time limit was one
of the factors for granting approval of the location.
Mrs. Meem said that the residents of the area are also concerned because
there is rumor that there will shortly be a request for a second mobile home on the
same tract.
Mr. Ed Burmeister expressed the belief that a principle is at stake -
that residents of the area have been told to wait for a CVN designation in order
that the consultants could review the area to see where it fits in the revised
Master Plan. In that interim period, the residents of the area do not want the
character of the area changed.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Peatross questioned the staff about the screening, if the mobile home
were permitted as proposed.
Mr. Keeler said that when the staff viewed the site, it appeared that only
the roof of the Dunstan residence would be visible in the winter.
Mr. Carr replied that there are several residences on higher ground
which might be able to look down on the mobile home during all seasons, particularly
the Churchill residence. He had some reservations about granting a special permit
for a mobile home in that area, even though he realizes that the applicant's children
are concerned about their mother's health. However, in view of possible CVN
designation for the area, he opposed the request.
Mr. Easter expressed a similar concern because of possible conservation
zoning for the area.
Mr. Jones asked if the mobile home could be considered on a temporary basis
in view of Mrs. Wood's health.
Mr. Payne again stated that in his opinion the condition is not sustainable.
If the Comission wishes to try such a time limit, the motion should state plainly
that the condition was essential to the granting of the permit, so if
the court questioned the condition, the special permit could come back to the County
for review.
Mr. Carr asked Mrs. Wood if she would be receptive to a temporary permit.
Mrs. Wood said that the permit would not be worthwhile, from an economic
standpoint, if screening were placed, etc., and then it became necessary to remove
the mobile home.
Mr. Peatross supported the request in view of possible mobile home legislation
currently being considered by the County. He stated that the Commission must be
consistent in its policy. The Commission has stated that under certain circumstances
it will consider location of a mobile home in the A-1 zone. This request meets that
criteria, and it has been stated that the mobile home will be located approximately
175 feet from the road with screening. He moved approval of the request.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which was defeated by a vote of
3-6. Messrs. Peatross, Gloeckner, and Washington supported the motion to approve.
Mr. Easter moved that the request for the special use permit be denied.
s)s
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion for denial, and the motion carried
by a vote of 6-3, with Messrs. Peatross, Gloeckner, and Washington dissenting.
Mel Dixon Office Building Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report. He said that this is a proposal
to locate a two-storie office building on a 0.96+ acre lot. The site is located on
the north side of Route 631 (Rio Road) opposite Phillips Building Supply.
Recommended conditions of approval were as follows:
1. Outdoor lighting should be directed so as not to disturb adjacent owners;
2. Approval of this site plan does not include approval of the location of the septic
field;
3. Preliminary Health Department approval;
4. Dedicate 25 feet from the centerline of Route 631 on separate plat;
5. Fire Marshal approval of location of dumpster;
6. A 12 foot turning lane should be provided;
7. 6" concrete curb should be placed along deceleration lane and at entrance;
8. Engineering Department approval of parking lot curbing specifications.
Mr. Dixon stated that he is prepared to comply with all the conditions except
number 4. He knows that there are three buildings along that road, and he said that
he is under the impression that none of these had to dedicate the 25 feet.
Mr. Montenegro said that there is a reservation of 45 feet from Charlottesville
Hardware at the time of approval.
Mr. Dixon felt that any requirement regarding dedication could be waived,
but that he is willing to comply with any condition being required of other owners.
Mr. Montenegro stated that there is a 10 foot turnlane shown. However,
the Virginia Department of Highways recommends 12 feet for the turning lane and
a 6' concrete curb along the deceleration lane and at the entrance.
Mr. Carr asked if the curb is essential to drainage.
Mr. Dixon replied that he does not feel that it is.
Mr. Keeler said that the staff does not want the old abandoned right-of-way
to be shown as a drainage easement.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if there is a deedbook reference to this right-of-way
as a drainage easement.
When he researched it, Mr. Montenegro said that he found it to be an
access easement. In order to show this right-of-way as a drainage easement,
the applicant must show that he has permission to use it as such.
Mr. Dixon stated that this is a natural drainage easement.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the problem is that with increased drainage,
resulting from the parking lot, a legal question may arise.
Mr. Payne agreed that if the adjoining owner chooses to block up this drainage pipe,
there would not be any drainage from the proposed site plan.
,5i4
Mr. Keeler stated that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to
address the drainage of the site, but that it cannot approve anything off site
for drainage.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that if the applicant is challenged, he will have to
prove that he has the right to use the abandoned right-of-way for drainage purposes.
From an engineering standpoint, the right-of-way is the drainage solution.
However, when it comes to turning the water loose at the property line, a legal
question might arise.
Mr. Peatross said that the legal question would be how much injury the
drainage causes the adjoining property onwer.
away.
Mr. Montenegro stated that water and sewer lines are approximately 2000 feet
Mr. Peatross asked how much will be drained.
Mr. Snow, representing Mr. Dixon, stated that approximately � acre will be
drained in this fashion.
problem.
Mr. Jones asked if the adjoining property owners are aware of this drainage
Mr. Montenegro stated that he knows of one owner who is aware of it.
Messrs. Payne, Peatross, and Gloeckner did not purport to affect anybody's
rights as to whether an easement actually exists.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the site plan subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff plus the following condition:
9. The Planning Commission is not granting an easement over the "old abandoned
road" which forms the rear boundary of the lot, nor does the Commission
recognize that the drainage easement exists over the said road.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, asked if this drainage problem needs
to be solved before any approval is granted. It was decided that such a solution
is not needed prior to approval of the plan, as long as the condition of approval
is stated plainly.
The motion carried unanimously.
Valmont Estates Final Plat:
Mr. Montenegro stated that this is a proposal to divide a portion of a 400+
acre parcel into 12 lots, with an average size of 3.83+ acres. This subdivision is
proposed for the property adjacent to the 60 foot right-of-way which now serves
Totier Creek Park off Route 726 southwest of Scottsville.
The staff recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Approval subject to State Highway Department takeover to the 60 foot right-of-wa
( now owned by the County of Albemarle );
2. Since this property is contiguous to the flood plain of Totier Creek, and its
JI%
reservoir, the staff recommends that all structures and drainage fields be
setback 200 feet from the center line of Totier Creek;
3. Engineering appproval;
4. Preliminary Health Department approval;
5. Highway Department approval of side street entrances.
Mr. Payne disqualified himself from the discussion by leaving the room.
Mr. Lum stated that he has changed the setback to be 200 feet from the
waterline.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plan subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff, amending condition #2 to read as follows:
Since this property is contiguous to the flood plain of Totier Creek and its
reservoir, all structures and drainage fields must be setback 200 feet from
the normal water line of Totier Creek.
The motion to approve was seconded by Mr. Gloeckner.
It carried by a vote of 8-0, with Mrs. Graves abstaining.
John Boseley Final Plat:
Mr. Montenegro told the Commission that this is a proposal to divide a 17.6+ acre
parcel into eight lots, all of which average 2.2+ acres. The subdivision is located on
Route 769 approximately � mile southeast of Route 20 (Stony Point Road ). There are
no recommended conditions of approval. He read a letter from Frederick Nolting
questioning road problems. The staff stated that there is to be a joint entrance
for lots 5 and 6.
Mrs. Miller, an adjoining property owner, expressed concern about increased
traffic on this road.
Dr. Moore questioned if there should be a dedication here, in order to
provide for further upgrading of the road.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that there is a note on the plat dedicating 25 feet.
He moved approval of the plat as presented.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion to approve.
Mr. Jones stated that drainage should be addressed.
Mr. Barksdale responed that if the lots were developed simultaneously,
a grading permit would be required; however, if they are developed individually,
no grading permit is required.
The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
5 i6
Mini -Storage Warehouses Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro reported that this is a revised submittal of a site plan
already approved by the Commission in May, 1975. It is located on Berkmar Drive
adjacent to Charlottesville Hardware. This resubmittal locates nine warehouse buildings
on a 2.55-acre lot.
Recommended conditions of approval:
1. If asphalt curb is to be used where parking is allowed, then each parking space
should have a concrete bumper guard in front of the curb for protection;
2. Fire Marshal approval of location of trash receptacle.
When questioned by Mr. Jones, Mr. Montenegro explained the differences in
this and the previous site plans. On the revised plan, the buildings alternate at
a distance of 18 and 24 feet ( the old plan showed all buildings 18 feet apart ).
There is more than adequate parking, / the lot has been diminished.
though
Mrs. Graves established that the Fire Marshal has already given approval of
the turning spaces in the aisles.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the reason for cutting off the circulation from
building #1.
Since the applicant, nor his representative were present, the chairman
deferred the item until later in the meeting, noting that the Commission was running
ahead of schedule.
Stillfield Final Plat:
Mr. Montenegro presented the plat, stating that this is a proposal to divide
an exisitng 27.9-acre parcel into 18 lots. These lots are located on Route 654 (Barracks
Road ) adjacent to Montvue Subdivision and are an average size of 1.46+ acres. This
division necessitates a waiver of the frontage requirement for lots 17 and 18. They
will need a grading permit.
The staff recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Highway Department approval of road plans;
2. Engineering Department approval of road plans and water line plans;
3. Turn lane to be provided on Route 654;
4. Written Health Department approval.
Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving
the room.
Mr. Montenegro further stated that the preliminary plat has already been
approved.
One landowner, representing Mr. Baldwin of Colthurst, objected to the proposal
because of the four entrances proposed onto Barracks Road, contending they would be
a definite safety hazard. He asked that the applicant consider a single entrance
for the subdivision.
s1cl
Mr. Robert Humphries, a resident of Colthurst, objected to the proposal on
the basis of safety. He recommended one entrance to the subdivision for reasons of
safety and security. He fears that with other development in that area that this
road will become a major collector. He stated that he also understands that Barracks
Road is being considered for scenic designation, and feels it should be kept as attractive
as possible.
Mr. Frank Langford questioned the density of the development.
Mr. Carr explained that under the existing zoning for this land, it could
be developed at 5 dwelling units per acre. However, that would be practically impossible
because the development must include roads, etc.
Mr. Langford opposed the proposed layout, asked that the Commission defer
action in order that the applicant could revise the plat. He did note that he does
not oppose the subdivision, though.
Mr. Frank McCollough reminded the Commission that the safety factor will
affect not only the residents of Colthurst, but also the prospective residents of
Stillfield.
Mr. Jack Kegley, representing the owners in Montvue Subdivision, stated
that citizens in that subdivision are happy about the subdivision layout, because
the land could be developed at a much higher density.
Mr. Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, said that the subdivision has
already received approval of septic and water systems. He stated that the Virginia
Department of Highways cannot deny entrance onto Barracks Road, that the site distances
have been approved. He stated that the applicant has reservations about serving
the subdivision with alternate means.
Mr. Langford said that if the Highway Department has already given approval,
it leaves the Commission in a bad spot.
Mr. Carr reminded the Commission and the public that property owners have
rights, and that the Planning Commission has to act within those rights, providing
that all requirements of the appropriate ordinances have been met.
Dr. Moore asked if the Commission can deny access to Barracks Road if the
applicant is given access to another road.
Mr. Payne explained that in the state of Virginia there is a strong property
interest to have access to a public road. This right can be infringed upon only to
protect public health, safety, and welfare. There has to be a pretty strong showing
that public health, safety, and welfare will be endangered to deny that. The case
most specifically on point dealt with a corner lot, where access was denied on the
principal street, and it damaged the property owner to the extent only that he had
immediate access to the other street. It has never been specifically decided if
what Dr. Moore suggested is possible. The more circuituous the Planning Commission
makes the route to the public road, the more necessary it is to show it is in the
interest of public health, safety, and welfare. To cut the property owner off
completely, the Commission would have to show tremendous danger.
Dr. Moore asked if the Commission provided other public road access, if
if could deny him access to this public road ( Barracks Road )?
Mr. Payne said that he doesn't know that there is any evidence here that there
is substantial danger to public health, safety, and welfare.
Dr. Moore said that wasn't his point; he was asking if the Commission has to
supply the applicant entrance to any road he pleases.
Mr. Payne said it would be difficult to prohibit entrance onto Barracks
Road altogether, no matter what alternative is given, unless the Commission can
show there is some public interest in doing that, because the applicant has a property
right in that access. He again stated his uncertainty there is any substantial evidence
that the public interest requires that. that
Mr. Jones pointed out that under that same law, all these other property owners,
once they purchase lots in the subdivision, could have access onto Barracks Road.
Mr. Payne disagreed, stating they"could"have a driveway onto the public road, how-
ever, the planning Commission and Virginia Department of Highways have a considerable
say on sight distances. THAT is a regulation in the public interest.
Dr. Moore said that his point is that if the Commission provides other streets,
and if the developer doesn't build access to this road, why would property owners seek
access to Barracks Road, even if the Commission could not deny it.
Mr. Payne asked if Dr. Moore were questioning the plan of the easements.
Dr. Moore said "no" not easements, a street. A 400 foot extension of the road
shown would supply all but one lot, lot #3. He further pointed out that the
developer is building roads for eight out of 18 lots. The Planning Commission has
approved many subdivisions with internal roads.
Mrs. David asked if this weren't comparable to the Galban plat, in which
an alternative was offered.
Mr. Payne didn't think there was any comparison to be made between the
Stillfield Plat and the Galban Plat. He felt there is tremendous evidentiary
difference. He does not find the Galban plat similar because it it would have
been easy for the County to establish that multiple entrances onto 21 Curves
would have been hazardous. In this case, the evidence is that it meets the general
criteria of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, and
therefore meets the general standards for safety. Mr. Payne stated that he has
not heard any evidence that there is any peculiar danger with Stillfield.
Mrs. David said "Then you rely wholly on the danger; you don't hold that
as long as there is an alternative, you may deny access to the highway as a matter
of health, safety, and public welfare?"
Mr. Payne said "no", he didn't think the Commission could. He stated that
would be requiring the developer to spend funds, and not showing public interest
for that. Unless there is public interest in that, the County would have difficulty
in sustaining it.
Mr. Carr stated that at the time of preliminary approval, the Commission
had a number of concerns besides the four exits onto Barracks Road. One of the major
concerns was the possibility of houses being served by accesses from what would
be the rear of the houses. The Commission did not feel that it would be desirable
to have the rear of houses fronting Barracks Road. He then asked Mr. Roosevelt,
resident engineer for the Highway Department, about the safety of the plan.
5Z1
Mr. Roosevelt said that safety is a relative matter, and somewhere the
line must be drawn. According to Highway standards, the safe sight distance at
intersections is 600 feet and at private drives is 300 feet. Based on this criterion,
rr' this is a safe plan, though there may be safer alternatives.
Mrs. Baldwin established that the Highway Department has granted approval
of the entrances.
Mr. McCollough stated that though the Highway Department's power is one
thing, the residents of the area are asking the Commission to look to the particular
situation and go beyond the minimum requirements.
Mr. Boggs stated that the sight distances exceed the minimum requirements.
It was also established that according to the developer the development is
imminent.
Dr. Murad asked if there is an opportunity to amend the plat.
Mr. Carr said that the developer could re -arrange the plat according
to the bounds of the zone, but another proposal would have to be submitted.
Mr. Gloeckner established that the Highway Department is requiring a
de-cel lane.
Mr. Barksdale said that all these points were discussed at the preliminary
stage, and the Commission had determined that this is the best use of the land.
Mr. Boggs noted that the developer will construct the dwellings.
Dr. Moore said that he could not support the plan, since he feels that
it is poor planning from a safety standpoint, and he feels there are better alternatives.
Mr. Boggs replied that the Commission must view the plan under the provisions
it has to work.
Col. Washington felt there is no basis for denying the plat.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he could not support the plat in view of safety
factors and because of the vast opposition.
Mr. Carr said that he opposed the request for the same reasons.
Mr. Peatross favored the request because the owner has the right to use
the public road and there is no legitimate reason for turning it down. He moved
for approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff.
The motion failed by a vote of 3-5, with Messrs. Carr, Moore, Gloeckner,
Jones, and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Mr. Carr told the applicant's representative that this does not preclude a
revised plat and the applicant can submit another proposal immediately.
Mrs. Graves moved that the plat be denied, since the previous motion failed.
Dr. Moore seconded this motion, which carried by a vote of 5-3 - Messrs. Peatross,
Barksdale; and Washington dissenting.
522-
Mini-Storage Warehouses site plan - con't.
Mr. Gloeckner again questioned the reason for cutting off the circulation
at building #1.
Mr. Lambert, representing the applicant, said there has to be control over
vehicles exiting/entrancing for security reasons.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that it will be very difficult for a tractor
trailer to make a turn if it enters the lot.
There was a discussion in which Mr. Lambert pointed out that this was not
designed for tractor trailers and that it is for excess storage. Mr. Easter replied
that the problems will not result from local traffic, rather from long distance
movers.
Mr. Stowe, the applicant, said that the average cubicle of space is 50 square
feet and the largest is 100 square feet. He emphasized that this is for light excess
storage.
Mr. Easter said that he was addressing tractor trailers with only a few
pieces of furniture for storage.
Mr. Stowe said that one access because of security is what is desirable. He
said that he does not want traffic existing at the rear.
Mr. Easter suggested that this could be solved with a locked gate.
Mr. Jones questioned other changes in the site plan.
Mr. Carr said that the staff has reviewed the changes, and only two conditions
need to be addressed.
Mr. Gloeckner expressed the need for a 24 foot lane and a security fence
for fire trucks or tractor trailers.
Mr. Lambert said that the applicant is requesting approval of an improved
site plan.
Mr. Jones questioned the lighting. Mr. Lambert explained that there will
be lights on all nine buildings, but the buildings will be constructed two at a time.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if anyone knew the turning radius for tractor trailers.
Mr. Keeler said that he thinks it is the length of the vehicle plus 10 feet.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the revised site plan, subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
Col. Washington seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Easter could not support the motion because of possible
traffic problems for larger vehicles. Mr. Gloeckner agreed, as did Dr. Moore.
The motion lost by a vote of 3-6, with Messrs. Carr, Washington, and Barksdale
supporting the motion.
-"Z3
Mr. Carr asked if the Commission has a solution for the applicant.
Mr. Lambert noted that the applicant can proceed with a far less desirable
plan. Mr. Carr agreed. Mr. Stowe said that he is forced to accept the penalty of
reducing the size of building #1.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the site plan subject to several conditions.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission a motion to reconsider the site plan was essential before
any action could be taxen on a motion to approve.
Mr. Easter moved that the Commission reconsider the site plan, and moved
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. If asphalt curb is to be used where parking is allowed, then each parking space
should have a concrete bumper guard in front of the curb for protection;
2. Fire Marshal approval of location of trash receptacle;
3. A 24 foot passage to be left between the property line and both sides of building
#1;
4. A security gate ( the fence to be left to the discretion of the applicant )
at the rear of the property.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
American Auto Parts Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro stated that this is a proposal for a one-storie commercial
building on a 0.6+ acre lot. It is located on the corner of Hydraulic Road ( Route 743 )
and Inglewood Drive ( Route 1411 ), adjacent to the Seven -Eleven Store. The building will
offer 1000 square feet open to the public. The entrance to the site is off Hydraulic
Road. A grading permit will be required for construction on this site. Recommended
condition of approval:
1. Highway Department approval of entrance to site.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff also feels that the entrance to the
site should be changed to Inglewood Drive.
Mr. Boggs stated that the applicant is opposed to this suggestion.
Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that the Highway Department determines the safety
of entrances and in this case it feels Inglewood Drive is safer. Regardless of
Planning Commission action, the Highway Department can require this, however,
the location would be easier to enforce with Planning Commission support. He
contended that the entrance is too close to the intersection to be located on
Hydraulic.
Mr. Easter pointed out that with the amount of traffic on Route 743,
it might be very difficult to exit directly onto Hydraulic. He moved approval
of the plat subject to the exit/entrance onto Inglewood.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion.
„r Dr. Moore asked if this would change the internal plan. Mr. Boggs said that
it would not.
S z4
Mrs. Graves amended the motion to read and subject to staff approval of
any necessary revisions of the plat.
The motion carried unanimously.
Oak Forest Final Plat:
Mr. Carr disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving the
room.
Mr. Montenegro stated that this is a proposal to subdivide two existing
parcels into a 74-lot subdivision. The lots have an average size of 0.4+ acres and
are located on the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Hydraulic Road ( Route
743 ) and Whitewood Road. They are adjacent to Tudor Court Apartments and to
Jefferson Towne Apartments. A grading permit will be required. Any approval would
have to include waiver of frontage for lots 15, 16, and 17.
Approval should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Three fire hydrants to be located as noted by Fire Marshal;
2. Engineering approval of road plans and proposed water and sewer lines;
3. The 10' planting strip adjacent to the entrance to be included in Parcel I,
Block A;
4. Sewer lift station to be installed by applicant;
5. Highway Department approval of road plans and entrance alignment.
Mr. Easter assumed the chairmanship in Mr. Carr's absence.
Dr. Moore questioned the vicinity sketch and Mr. Boggs, representing the
applicant, told him that the residue acreages were included.
Mr. Boggs also stated that the sidewalk plan agrees with the ordinance and
the planting strip does not block access.
Mr. Jones questioned the possibility of sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant has met the recommendations of preliminary approval.
Dr. Moore, stating that preliminary approval does not guarantee final approval,
said that he favors sidewalks on all interior streets.
Mr. Barksdale replied that this would be prohibitive in costs, adding
expense to each house purchaser. He moved approval of the plat subject to the
conditions recommended by the staff.
Col. Washington pointed out that this layout is not as conducive to sidewalks
as a rectangular layout.
Mr. Keeler said that the roads will be state roads, and any sidewalk construction
will have to be to state standards.
Mrs. Graves said that she wanted to discuss the residue acreage, since it
is a small amount and might be brought up for commercial development.
Mr. Easter asked that the Commission first address the sidewalk issue.
525
Mr. Gloeckner said that in this subdivision, sidewalks are for children
walking to school, not for children to play on. Therefore he supported the plan as
presented.
Dr. Moore disagreed, contending they are built for children not in school;
since this is a city -type development, he felt they should be required on both sides.
Mr. Peatross felt sidewalks on one side are adequate.
Mrs. Graves expressed again concern that the residue acreage not be considered
at a future date for commercial uses.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that the precedent had already been set that B-1
zoning is not desirable for that area when a previous application had been denied.
Also it is undesirable because of the nearby school property, and now because of a
high density development.
Mr. Payne told the Commission that the only way they could address the
residue was if it is to be shown on the plat; besides, the residue is larger than
lots within the subdivision, so they could be used for residential purposes. Any
denial of business zoning cannot be attacked on this basis. A residential use would
be a logical use of the residue acreage.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion to approve.
Mr. Jones said that if the subdivision is approved, the Commission will
later be forced to approve an entrance onto Hydraulic Road for the residue acreage.
Mr. Payne stated that such an entrance could not be denied.
Mr. Boggs said that part of the residue is held by other owners than the applicant.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that he could not see denying a subdivision on
the basis of unknown use of the residue, especially since it can be used for residential
purposes.
Mr. Payne reiterated that there is not way to tie the residue to this subidivison.
Mr. Barksdale called for the question.
The vote to approve the subdivision was 5-3, with Messrs. Jones and Moore,
and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Lake Gilbert Preliminary Plat:
Mr. Montenegro reported to the Commission that this proposal to divide 52.96
acres into 18 lots, with an average size of 2.5+ acres is located on the east side of
Route 747 near the intersection with Route 600. The plan calls for a lake to
be built on the other side of which approximately 30 future lots may be located. A
grading permit will be required for construction of the roadways. The staff has no
recommended conditions of approval for the preliminary approval. Adjacent owner,
Richard F. Edlick, wants it noted that the spring which will feed Lake Gilbert is
polluted.
�i�
Final approval should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Engineering Department and Highway Department approval of road plans;
3. Homeowners Agreement on the dam and lake;
4. Dam to be aprpoved by the County Engineer;
5. Frontage on lot 10 to be waived.
Mr. Gerald Herring stated that the subdivision is not appropriate for the
area due to the road conditions of Route 747, which is a narrow dangerous road.
Mr. Oakley Straley expressed concern about the increased traffic on Route 600.
Dr. Edlick emphasized that the lake will be fed by polluted streams, and will
be a health hazard for potential buyers.
Mrs. James Fox, Jr., opposed the subdivision on the basis that this is a
rural area.
Mr. Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that the lake was designed
by the Soil Conservation Service, who looked into the possible pollution. The lots
are designed for single-family homes. Lots will be expensive because buyers will
be paying for the construction of the dam and lake. Thirty-five feet have been
dedicated in order to make the right-of-way 5o feet. Roads will be built to state
standards, and the applicant intends to improve the state road fronting the property.
Mrs. Herring said that she is concerned because individual wells and septic
tanks are proposed for each lot.
Mr. Carr told the public that a subdivision of this sort must meet the
ordinances of Albemarle County, and if the conditions set forth in the ordinance
are complied with, the applicant is within his rights to request subdivision.
Mr. Easter questioned the pollution problem.
Dr. Edlick said that the stream proposed to feed the lake is continuously
contaminated, even in the absence of cattle. Clorination is not successful. When
tested, the level of contamination was consistent, which probably means that there
is more than agricultural contamination.
Mr. Montenegro informed the Commission that when he talked to the Health Department,
they had found no problem with the layout of the subdivision.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the maintenance of the dam and lake.
Mr. Boggs replied that this would probably be handled through the Homeowners'
Agreements.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Peatross stated his concern about the safety problem
and said that he would oppose the motion. He further stated his intent to view -1000
the site.
5'z]
Mr. Carr said that he would like to view the site before the preliminary
is given approval.
Mr. Easter withdrew his motion for approval and moved deferral.
Mr. Gloeckner accepted the motion's withdrawal.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion for deferral, which carried unanimously.
New Business: B-1 Business Zone - General Provisions:
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that the general provisions of the B-1 Zone
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance should be considered for amendment.
The Commission unanimously adopted a resolution of intent to bring this
matter to public hearing.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
M
M
528
October 26, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
October 26, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Roy Barksdale;
Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Paul Peatross; Leslie Jones; Col.William Washington;
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 Frederick W. Payne, Assistant
County Attorney. Absent was David W. Carr, Chairman.
Mr. Easter, serving as chairman in Mr. Carr's absence, established that a
quorum was present, and called the meeting to order.
Since there were no corrections or additions to the minutes of October 5
and October 12, the Vice -Chairman approved them as submitted.
SP-68-76. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the Commission had
deferred any action on this request, hopeful that the applicant and WPED could reach
an agreement on the utility easement.
( Mrs. Graves arrived at the meeting. )
Col. Washington explained some serious erosion problems to the Commission,
especially those on Tabor Street in Crozet, and felt that immediate cut and fill
and reseeding should be part of any conditions of approval placed on this request.
He emphasized that these should be handled immediately, minus any two -week waiting
period.
Mr. Barksdale read a letter addressed to Robert Tucker, Jr. from
Mr. McClenahan, which requested official notification that the property of WPED
would not be traversed by the water line. Mr. Tucker explained that such notification
had been sent to Mr. McClenahan that day.
Mr. George Williams, Director of Rivanna Water and Sewer, told the Commission
that the project is essential to supply water to the Crozet area.
Mr. Harry Marshal said that the Authority will try to abide by the soil
erosion ordinance.
Mr. Easter addressed the erosion problems on the 21-Curves Road which
he said were created by water line installations. He cautioned the applicant to
carefully apply anti -erosion techniques.
Goldie Baber questioned the depth the water line will be on his property.
Mr. Williams said that the line will be routed through Mr. Baber's yard and
*411 driveway. Mr. Baber felt that there could possibly^ba?i alternative route, through
property he himself owns, that would prevent the line traversing the property on which
his house is located. He expressed the opinion that the copper wires on WPED property
were more than 10 feet from the property line, more like 25-30 feet.
529
Mr. Easter asked if the Planning Commission should be concerned about disputF .,
between this applicant and property owners whose land would be traversed.
Mr. Payne said "no," but the Commission must consider the effect the
water line has on all residents in that area.
Then Mr. Easter asked if the Commission is to concern itself with disputes
between two adjacent owners and the applicant.
Mr. Williams said that there is still opposition from WPED. The line has
been re-routed, though the consultant for Rivanna Water and Sewer had done a feasibility
study and had determined that it is possible to lay the lines on the property owned
by WPED; the line had been re-routed from the original proposal because of threatened
litigation.
Mr. Marshal stated that the re-routing would be less costly if the line
were routed through the property on which the Baber house is located.
When questioned by Mr. Barksdale about the re -pavement of the driveway,
Mr. Williams said that only that portion of the driveway which would be disturbed
would be re -paved. Also the yard would be re -seeded where it is disturbed.
Mr. Baber again asked that the line be re-routed through the vacant lot
adjacent his residence, emphasizing that he owns that vacant lot.
Mr. Bailey, County Engineer, stated that in the locating of any water line
of any length, there are always problems. He said that he could not speak to the
practicality of moving the line unless he investigates the re-routing. He pointed
out that the Authority is seeking the least costly route.
Mr. Easter asked if the Commission can approve a general plan subject
to the approval of the County Engineer, property owners, Rivanna Water and Sewer.
Mr. Camblos, representing Hadley Bowen, questioned the necessity of the
line, the cost, the particular location. He stated that he feels there are possible
alternatives that should be explored. His client is opposed to the location of the
water tower on his property, however if it is determined that Mr. Bowen's property
will be the site of the tower, he questioned the screening, grading, and protection
this property would have. He also pointed out that a construction easement will be
necessary and the owner needs assurance that the trees and property will be protected
as much as possible. If enough trees are left, the tower might not be so unsightly.
Mr. Williams replied that the trees on the site itself will have to be
removed, though no other trees will be disturbed. When the Authority began the
project, four sites were considered. The Authority is attempting to balance this
with the existing water system in Crozet. It was decided that this site is the
most attractive from hydraulics and economics. Mr. Williams also presented the
various cost estimates to the Commission.
Mr. Easter felt that the screening of the tank could be addressed at site
plan level.
Mr. Keeler told Mr. Camblos that the tower would be 38' above ground.
Mr. Bailey further explained to the Commission and the public that at
least 3/4 of the site will be graded, and the tank will be located on the side of the
530
for the tower
hill. He acknowledged that the Authority had considered another site/on the
a
Bowen property; however a cost study revealed that the foundation alone would cost
$60,000.
Mr. Easter questioned the cost of possible underground location.
He was told that the cost would be prohibitive.
Mr. Camblos asked if Mr. Bowen would be able to view the tower from
his residence. Mr. Bailey said "no."
Mr. Richard Pietsch was concerned that citizens of the Crozet area
are not aware of the plans for the water line in Crozet. He felt that the project
should have had much more publicity.
Mr. Easter closed the public hearing. He stated that he is concerned
about the opposition to this proposal and asked the timetable the applicant is
working with.
Mr. Williams said that the bids have been received, and the Authority
would like for work to begin within the next thirty days.
Mr. Jones said that he wished there had been more publicity on the project.
Mr. Keeler stated that on October 14 a press release had been sent to
WPED for their use in broadcasting.
Mr. Peatross felt that this is a case of eminent domain. The Authority
had tried to locate the water line and tower in the best place for the least amount
1
14 of money. Compromises have been tried and Mr. Bowen's lot seems to be conducive
�" to the water tower.
Mr. Gloeckner said that this application as presented does not seem to
jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare. He stated his approval of the general
plan.
Dr. Moore agreed with Mr. Gloeckner.
Mr. Easter asked if the tower will be blatantly visible on the top of the
mountain as one enters Crozet from one of the major entrances. Mr. Williams said that
i t would not be, since it is located on the road to the park.
Col. Washington suggested the following wording for condition #1:
Immediate reseeding of those areas of earth disturbing activity for both the water line
and storage tank and immediate restoration of all other areas.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the special use permit with the amended
wording for condition #1, plus the following conditions:
2. Site Plan approval of the water storage tank to include a landscaping plan for
screening of the tank;
3. Staff would advise the applicant that any alteration in the location of these
proposed facilities would require amendment of this special permit which constitutes
another special permit application. Work on this project may not begin until special
permit approval is obtained;
4. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to give special attention to the resolution of the
location of the easement across the Goldie F. Baber property.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
531
Sidewalks - proposed amendments ( 17-5-19 of the Zoning Ordinance
and County Code Section 18-39(n) - Subdivision Ordinance Section 6-1-13:
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that action on this matter had been
deferred in order to incorporate certain suggestions ( regarding sidewalks for
commercial and industrial areas, deleting equestrian ways, differentiation of those
walks to be accepted by the Highway Department and those to be approved by the County
Engineer ) made by the Commission at its last meeting.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the revised amendments ( see attachments );
this motion, seconded by Mr. Peatross, carried unanimously with no further discussion.
Mobile Home Amendments
SPECIAL MOBILE HOME PERMIT
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission to take action on all the proposed
amendments that evening, otherwise they move on as "approved by the Planning Commission"
to the Board of Supervisors.
Dr. Moore asked if any of the model legislation mentioned by Mr. Parr
at a previous public hearing had been received by the staff. Mr. Keeler stated that
the staff had written Mr. Parr the day after the last public hearing, but had received
no reply.
There was a discussion on the revised amendment as presented by the staff.
In this discussion it was pointed out that bonding would occur only in those cases where
conditions had not been completed by the time a temporary certificate of occupancy had
been issued. Screening could be justified because the mobile home was permitted by
special permit, and conditions can be imposed on a special permit. Condition D would
mean that if a mobile home is not located on the property 18 months after the permit
is granted, the entire special permit application would be necessary to locate the
mobile home.
Col. Washington stated that an eight condition should address the amount
of screening. He felt that screening should be in conjunction with the exterior of
the mobile home.
Mr. Barksdale felt that such a condition would be discriminatory.
Mr. Payne pointed out that this could be a difficult condition to enforce
since mobile homes must receive an SCC stamp of approval. Once that approval is
given, it is difficult to enforce other conditions on the exterior of the mobile home.
Col. Washington emphasized that effective screening is costly.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Col. Washington that the degree and magnitude
of screening should be based on the lustre of the mobile home.
Mrs. Graves felt that such a condition would penalize some and not others.v
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the idea of screening is not new to the
r
532
ZONING ORDINANCE (PROPOSED AMENDMENT)
17-5-19 Provision shall be made for sidewalks and
pedestrian walkways which will enable
pedestrians to walk safely and conveniently
between buildings on the site and from the
site to adjacent property. When feasible
pedestrian underpasses or overpasses are
to be encouraged in conjunction with major
vehicular routes. Provision shall be made
where appropriate for pedestrian walkways
in relation to private and public areas of
recreation and open space, e.g., schools, parks,
gardens and areas of similar nature. Connection
shall be made wherever possible of all walkways
and bicycle ways with similar facilities on
adjacent developments. All sidewalks and curbs
and gutters proposed to be accepted for
maintenance by the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation shall be built
in accordance with the construction standards
of the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation and shall conform to the
provisions of §15.1-381 of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended. All other sidewalks and
walkways shall conform to §15.1-381 of the Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended, and shall be
of material, specifications and design approved
y the County Engineer. Sidewalks and pedestrian
walkways shall be provided to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Commission in
residential subdivisions of a proposed density
of two (2) or more dwelling units per acre;
provided, however, that the Commission may require
sidewalks in residential developments of lesser
densitv and in commercial and industrial develop-
ments whenever the Commission shall determine that
the same are reasonably necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare and that the need
therefor is substantially generated by the
proposed development; and provided further that
the Commission may waive the requirements hereof
whenever the Commission determines that to apply
such requirements would not be in the best interest
of the County or when the Commission finds that,
due to topographic or other physical features,
sidewalks or walkways are not appropriate.
533
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (PROPOSED AMENDMENT
County Code §18-39(n) (Subdivision Ordinance §6-1-13)
(n) Sidewalks, curb and gutter:
All sidewalks and curbs and gutters proposed to
be accepted for maintenance by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation shall
be built in accordance with the construction -
standards of the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation and shall conform to the
provisions of §15.1-381 of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended. All other sidewalks and
walkways shall conform to §15.1-381 of the Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended, and shall be
of material, specifications and design approved
by the County Engineer. Sidewalks and pedestrian
walkways shall be provided to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Commission in
residential subdivisions of a proposed density
of two (2) or more dwelling units per acre;
provided, however, that the Commission may require
sidewalks in residential developments of lesser
density and in commercial and industrial develop-
ments whenever the Commission shall determine that
the same are reasonably necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare and that the need
therefor is substantially generated by the
proposed development; and provided further that
the Commission may waive the requirements hereof
whenever the Commission determines that to apply
such requirements would not be in the best interest
of the County or when the Commission finds that,
due to topographic or other physical features,
sidewalks or walkways are not appropriate.
534
ordinance. Furthermore, the BOCA Code calls for 7 foot impervious screening,
either a fence or vegetation.
Dr. Moore questioned what screening had been required in the past.
Mr. Keeler said that it had been 3-4 feet on center. Mr. Tucker also pointed out
that in some cases screening has not been necessary, but where required, it hasbeen
successful.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of SPECIAL MOBILE HOME PERMIT ( see attached ).
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME PERMIT:
Mr. Keeler presented the newly revised wording.
Mrs. Graves asked if this section should not address the fact that this
applies only to the A-1 zone, since a home can be built in any residential district.
Mr. Payne stated that a temporary mobile home is not permitted in any
zone but the A-1 zone, and permitted uses are set forth in the zoning ordinance
for each zone.
j, Mr. Jones did not feel that any conditions which increase the cost of
a temporary mobile home should be placed on the permit, since the applicant will
attempt to construct a conventional dwelling. Costly conditions on the temporary permit
will only delay or extend the construction of the conventional dwelling.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out that if the applicant shows good faith, a residence
could be under construction for as long as ten years, and screening and skirting would
protect adjoining residences.
Mr. Peatross said that it is conceivable that the applicant would want
to place the mobile home close to the road and build the conventional dwelling behind
the mobile home.
Mr. Jones suggested that if the conventional dwelling is not completed after
18 months, the occupant could then provide skirting.
Mr. Barksdale stated that the location of the mobile home would be limited
since the applicant would have to place the mobile home where he can hook up to the
well and septic field.
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that a temporary mobile home permit will
be administratively approved by the Zoning Administrator, and will not come to public
hearing.
Mr. Easter said that he is not for conditioning this sort of permit in
such a way that will encourage the mobile home to become a permanent residence.
He closed the public hearing, since there was no public comment.
The Commission discussed the possibility of a time limit, and finally
% reached the following compromise:
In any event, any such permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of issuance;
provided, however, that the Zoning Administrator may, for good cause shown, extend the
535
time of such expiration for not more than two (2) successive periods of one (1)
year each.
Mr. Jones moved approval of Temporary Mobile Home Permit ( see attached ).
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves said that she could not support the motion, because she was
worried about giving up the screening and skirting of the temporary mobile home, plus
the setback.
The motion carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mrs. Graves dissenting.
MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISIONS:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, pointing out the changes.
Since there was no public comment, Mr. Easter closed the public hearing.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of this section ( see attached ). Dr. Moore
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
MOBILE HOME PARKS:
4*
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Jones questioned the distances between the mobile homes in the park,
and Mr. Keeler replied that these distances are recommended by the Fire Marshal.
Mr. Payne suggested changing the wording "Public water supply" to
"central water supply" in anticipation of action of the Board of Supervisors on
such policy.
Since there was no public comment, Mr. Easter closed the public hearing.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of this amendment to the ordinance ( see
attached ). Mr. Peatross seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Definitions ( amendments to the ordinance ):
Mr. Keeler presented the staff recommendations.
Mr. Easter closed the public hearing.
Mr. Peatross moved approval of the definitions ( see attached ) as
presented. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
536
Section 11-14 SPECIAL MOBILE HOME PERMIT
Section 11-14-1 Procedure
(A). This section provides for administrative approval of individual
mobile homes in certain cases as hereinafter provided. In all
other cases, individual mobile homes may be authorized in
accordance with Section 11-13 or Section 2-1-23 of this ordinance,
as the case may be. Permits for the location of individual mobile
homes may be issued by the Zoning Administrator upon a determination
that the proposed location of the mobile home will be in harmony
with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and that the same
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general
welfare. Prior to making any such determination, and for purposes
thereof, the Zoning Administrator shall cause to be made an onsite
inspection of the property in question.
(B) No such permit shall be issued unless and until the Zoning Admin-
istrator shall have caused all parties concerned to be notified
of his intent to issue such permit. Such notification shall consist
of the following:
(1) By the sending of a certified letter to the last known
address of each adjacent property owner; and
(2) By sending notification of such intent in writing to each
member of the Planning 'Commission and the Board of Supervisors;
and
(3) By the posting of signs of a size and design approved by the
Zoning Administrator upon the subject property ,and adjacent
• to the nearest State Highway at the point of access to the
subject property; and
(4) By publication on at least one occasion in a newspaper of
general circulation in the County not less than 30 nor more
than 60 days prior to the proposed date of issuance of such
permit.
(C) In the event that no person so notified shall object to the
proposed location of the mobile home as hereinafter provided,
the Zoning Administrator may issue the permit sought. In the
event of any such objection, or if the applicant disagrees with any
proposed condition of approval, the application shall be referred
to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for their
approval and shall thereafter be processed in accordance with the
provisions of Section 11-13 of this ordinance. Any such objection
shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the Zoning Administrator
not later than the proposed date of issuance of such permit.
Section 11-14-2 Conditions of Approval
(A) The issuance of a permit under this section shall be subject to
the following conditions, which shall be met by the applicant
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy and which
shall thereafter be complied with:
537
(1) Albemarle County Building Official approval;
(2) Setback of a minimum of 100 feet from the right-of-way
of any public highway;
(3) Minimum side and rear yards and lot area to be established
and maintained in conformity with the provisions of the
district in which the mobile home is to be located;
(4) Location of the mobile home sous not to be visible from
any public highway or adjacent property; or, if this be
not feasible, screening to be provided to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator, consonant with
the exterior finish of the mobile home;
(5) Skirting around mobile home from ground .level to base of
mobile home;
(6) No rental to be made of the mobile home, the same to be
occupied by the owner of the land on which it is located
or by his lineal relative or bona fide agricultural employee;
(7) Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the reasonable satisfaction of.the Zoning Administrator
and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health.
(B) In addition to the foregoing, the Zoning Administrator may
require a bond to insure that the conditions imposed will continue
to be complied with.
(C) Any permit issued pursuant to this section may be revoked by
the Zoning Administrator, after hearing, for wilfull•non-
compliance with this ordinance or, any condition imposed under the
authority of this section. Prior to holding any such hearing,
the Zoning Administrator shall notify the permit -holder of his
intent to hold the same at least 21 days prior to the date thereof.
(D) In the event that no mobile home shall be located pursuant to
the permit within 18 months of the date of issuance thereof,
the same shall be deemed abondoned and the authority granted
thereby shall thereupon terminate.
538
Section 11-14-3 TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME PERMIT
Temporary Moible Home Permits may be authorized by the Zoning
1�r.r 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 a certificate 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;
Adequate- screening- fren�-readeraye-Bend-add scent-residet�tiai-uses
ai�a��-be-preerided-and-maintained-te-t�se-satisf aetier�-e�'-the-
$ening-Administrater;
.. S#irting-sha��-be-presided-around-tine-mebi�e-i�eme-frezn-ground
�ede�=te-t3�e-3�ase-or-Beer-ef-tire-mebiie-i�eme;
(4) Provision of potable water supply and sewage facilities to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the local
office of the Virginia Department of Health.
fin-issuing-a-�Pentgerary-Mebi�e-Heine-Permit; -tire-Bening-�idministrater
ahaii-be-autizoriz ed-te-requtr e-er-see3�-any-in€er2natier�-he-rnay-eleterx+ine
., necessary-te-snsttre-eex►piianee-rait3�-tire-intent-e�-this-gre�risie�i-
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. in
any event, any such permit shall expire three (3) years from the
date of issuance; provided, however, that the Zoning Administrator
may, for good cause shown, extend the time of such expiration for
not more than two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each.
AMEND Section 2-1-23 adding "c" Temporary Mobile Home Permit issued pursuant to
Section 11-14 of this ordinance.
539
October 26, 1976
ii4„r MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
The staff has 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.
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 them-
selves, but who may find it undesirable or difficult to construct a
conventional single-family dwelling. It is intended that owners of
mobile homes in these subdivisions may improve, convert, or change their
residences from mobile homes to conventional 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 subdivison 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.
I
Section 11-12-1 Minimum Size of Mobile Home Subdivisons
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.
Amend the Articles below to provide for mobile home subdivisons 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 4-1-12(7) 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
of this ordinance.
Article 6. Residential, General, District (R-3)
Section 6-1-21(9) Mobile home subdivision in
of this ordinance.
accordance with Section 11-12
accordance with Section 11-12
540
MOBILE HOME PARKS
The staff has prepared the following amendments in order to update and revise provisions
**,, for mobile home parks and to provide a suitable living environment for those renting
a space in a mobile home park.
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 (1.0) acres or more.
Section 11-9-2 Minimum Size of Mobile Home Parks
Each mobile home lot shall comply with the following area and width
requirements:
a. Mobile home lots served by both a public central water,supply and a
public central sewer system shall consist of four -thousand (4,000)
square feet or more, exclusive of off-street parking requirements,
and shall have a width of forty (40) feet or more;
b. Mobile home lots served by either a publie central water supply or a
public central 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 p-ablie central water supply nor
a public central sewer system shall consist of sixty -thousand (60,000)
square feet or more and shall have a width of one -hundred fifty (150)
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. The Albemarle County Fire Marshal may require additional space
between mobile homes or between mobile homes and other structures
in any area in which he shall determine the same to be reasonably
necessary to prevent unreasonable danger of fire or to provide
adequate protection therefrom.
c. No mobile home shall be located within fifty (50) feet.of any central
service or recreational structure;
d. Each mobile home lot shall front on an internal street;
e. No mobile home or other structure 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.
0
541
MOBILE HOME PARKS con't.
Section 11-9-5 Utility Connections
'a. Each mobile home lot shall be provided with an individual
connection to a public sewer system or other approved sanitary sewage
disposal system;
b. Each mobile home lot shall be provided with an individual connection
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 spaces
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
per acre or greater.
542
October 26, 1976
" PROPOSED DEFINITIONS
Section 16-59 MOBILE HOME: 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.
Section 16-60 MOBILE HOME PARK: One or more parcels of land in which rental lots
are provided for mobile homes.
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.
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.
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.
543
Lake Gilbert Preliminary Plat:
Mr. Montenegro reminded the Commission that action on this plat had
been deferred in order that members of the Commission could view the site.
Mr. Peatross determined that the Fire Marshal had approved the plat, since
where there is no public water, the Fire Marshal has very little to say.
Dr. Edlich questioned the Health Department assessment of the stream.
Mr. Montenegro said that he had spoken to the Health Department by phone,
and they know of no problems.
Mr. Easter asked if there are any legal requirements for checking new ponds
with the State Health Department. Mr. Payne said that he is not aware of any.
Mr. Easter said that it appears that any pollution that would occur
will come from natural causes ( he stated he had viewed the site ). However, he
did note that Route 747 is a very narrow road.
Mr. Peatross asked if anyone from the Highway Department had viewed the
site.
Mr. Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that Mr. Colburn had
viewed the site, and stated that if the entrance is grading, there should be sufficient
sight distance.
Mrs. Graves stated that she could not support the subdivision unless the
road is improved.
When questioned about the distance of the property to Route 600, Mr.
Boggs said that it is 1980 feet.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that the dam should meet the approval of the County
Engineer.
Mr. Boggs addressed the narrowness of the road, stated that the applicant
will dedicate 35 feet, to create a 50 foot easement. He pointed out that the applicant
is attempting to improve the roads in that area with such a dedication.
Mr. Easter explored the possibility of access onto Route 600; Mr. Boggs
stated that the road would be very steep and a stream would have to be crossed.
Furthermore, the acreage fronting Route 600 is restricted for two years.
Mr. Joe Richmond told the Commission that it is not economical for the
applicant to improve the entire road.
Mr. Easter told the Commission that he hates to see the land subdivided,
but the applicant is within his rights. The problem is with the dangerous road.
Col. Washington questioned the covenants of the pond. Mr. Boggs replied
that this will be included in the deed restrictions.
Mr. Peatross stated that he is concerned about the sight distance and
travel on a 12 foot road, and the road is narrow all the way to Route 640. Safety
concerns should be considered, and there are probably alternatives to this situation.
544
Mr. Peatross moved that any action be deferred until November 9, in
order that the applicant could explore the possibility of entering the subdivision
directly from Route 600.
Mr. Gloeckner asked that the motion be amended to include a statement
from the Health Department regarding the water quality of the tributaries which
would feed the proposed lake. He seconded the motion for deferral.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission of its action to deny the Stillfield
plat. He suggested that the Commission consider a resubmittal without fee.
There was a brief discussion about this, in which Mr. Barksdale moved
that the Commission reconsider the Stillfield plat, if it is revised.
Though there was no vote taken on this motion, it seemed to be the consensus
that any further submittals would include a fee waiver.
Edgar C. Lawson Subdivision request for a waiver of condition of approval:
Mr. Montenegro reported that the Commission had approved the subdivision of a
34+ acre parcel belonging to Dr. Edgard C. Lawson in August, 1976. Among the
conditions of approval was a requirement that a legal written maintenance agreement
for the maintenance of the private right-of-way be recorded. Dr. Lawson is request-
ing that this condition be waived because efforts to involve all parties with an
interest in said right-of-way have been fruitless:
He stated that the provision suggested by Mr. Carwile, the applicant's
attorney, regarding this right-of-way satisfies the staff's concern that prospective
buyers have notice that the County is absolved of any responsibility for the main-
tenance of said right-of-way. The staff recommended approval of waiver of the
condition, however noted that the other two conditions of approval should remain.
Mr. Barksdale asked if all adjoining property owners were notified. Mr.
Montenegro responded that they were.
Mr. Tucker stated that he had received word from Mr. Ed Burmeister that
he had not been approached regarding a joint maintenance agreement. Mr. Burmeister
had further stated that he would be agreeable to such an agreement.
Mr. Carwile, representing the applicant, said that this is not a new
subdivision, and that it is difficult to secure agreements after the fact. He
pointed out that the applicant has other options for the property that are not nearly
as agreeable a use of the land.
Mr. Peatross asked how many property owners were consulted about a joint
maintenance agreement. Mr. Carwile said that he is aware of two other adjacent
owners, one of whom is not agreeable. 44
Mr. Herbert Tull, an adjoining property owner, said that at the time
of approval of the subdivision, he was convinced that a maintenance agreement was
necessary. In the past there has been an informal agreement. Further subdivision
545
will only increase the difficulty in achieving a joint maintenance agreement.
Mr. Easter pointed out that such joint maintenance agreements, and
the difficulty involved in reaching one, is one of the reasons for state maintained
roads.
Mr. Peatross agreed that a maintenance agreement is most desirable,
but the proposal by the applicant's attorney protects the county.
(The applicant's attorney had proposed the following note on the plat:
"The grantees acknowledge that the road serving the property
hereby conveyed is a private road to be maintained by the
users thereof and that neither the County of Albemarle nor
the State of Virginia has any obligation, present or future,
to maintain the private road shown on the above -referenced
plat.'
Mr. Gloeckner agreed that it takes only one property owner to end
the possibility of a joint maintenance agreement. He, too, felt that the
proposal was sufficient protection for the County.
Dr. Moore suggested that perhaps insufficient effort was made in the
joint maintenance agreement.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the request for waiver, with the proposal
of the applicant's attorney to be placed on the plat. Mr. Peatross seconded this motion.
Dr. Moore said that he could not support the motion until he had sufficient
evidence that an attempt at a maintenance agreement had been made.
Mr. Carwile said that he is not in a position to say who had objected to
the maintenance agreement, however the person who is the contract/purchaser of the
property - Mr. Cooper Smith - had attempted to reach such an agreement.
Mr. Gloeckner said that a maintenance agreement would have to be the joint
effort of the community, not the effort of one or two individuals.
The motion lost with a vote of 4-4; Messrs. Jones, Moore, Washington, and
Mrs. Graves dissenting.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission reconsider the plat. Mr. Peatross
seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Peatross moved that action be deferred for three weeks in order that the
applicant could further explore the possibilities of including all concerned parties
in a maintenance agreement for the fifty (50) foot right-of-way.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Gloeckner. It carried unanimously, with
no further discussion.
Mrs. Graves stated that she wanted to discuss the action on Stillfield.
She pointed out to the Commission that action had already been taken at a previous
meeting to deny the plat. She stated that the Commission could not vote to reconsider,
546
however, it could vote to waive the fee at the time of resubmittal. She stated
that she wanted this matter cleared up for the record.
Mr. Gloeckner specifically moved that the denial of the plat stand,
but that the fee for Stillfield final plat be waived at the time it is resubmitted.
Mr. Peatross seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
New Business:
Mr. Tucker informed the Commission that applications have backed up
for upcoming public hearings before the Planning Commisison and Board of Supervisors.
After a conference with the Chairman of the Board and with the County Executive,
it was determined that there would be two public hearings for the Commission in the
month of November, one on November 9, the other on November 23.
Mr. Easter suggested that the Commission make use of every Tuesday night,
in order to avoid the possibility of two meetings per week.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that it is his opinion that members should be paid
for every meeting they attend. Mr. Easter agreed that this was a good idea.
Mrs. Graves stated that it is her opinion that the Commission should
hold a work session on the proposed amendment to the R-3 zone, regarding amending
the density of the zone, prior to any consideration of Mr. Wendell Wood's rezoning
request.
Mr. Tucker stated that he had understood the Commission to say that
they would like to consider the possibile amendment and rezoning request simultaneously.
Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission does not reach a decision on the
amendment to the R-3 zone, it can easily defer any action on Mr. Wood's request.
Mr. Tucker also explained to the Commission that the items appeared on
the same agenda because of the date of Mr. Wood's application.
Mrs. Graves made two corrections to the minutes of October 19, 1976.
Since there was no further busine , the meeti g adjourned ata.45 p.m.
al
o ert W. Tucker, Jr. - S reta
6
547
M
November 9, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, November 9,
1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner;
Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Paul Peatross; Col. William Washington;
and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent were Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Leslie Jones; and Mr. Roy Barksdale. Other officials present were Mr. Robert
W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick
Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Minutes of October 19:
Mrs. David stated that she understood that the changes made in the minutes on page
520 had been made to clarify the explanation of Mr. Payne, however, she felt it important
to have the minutes accurately reflect the comments made at the meeting. Mr. Carr
noted that "exit" was incorrectly spelled at the bottom of page 520. Mr. Peatross
asked that the tape be checked on the vote on Mini -Warehouse Site Plan to ascertain
if he had supported the motion - he said that he remembered that it was Mr. Carr,
not he, who had supported the motion.
Since there were no further corrections or additions, Mr. Carr approved the
minutes as corrected.
SP-76-76. Richard G. Miller, III, has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to locate a two-family dwelling on 14.28 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture. Property
is located on the west side of Route 769, approximately 1 mile east of its
intersection with Route 20 North. County Tax Map 62, Parcel 77, part thereof.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker stated that the applicant had requested withdrawal of this petition
and the staff advised the Commission to act on this request.
Mr. Gloeckner moved the Commission accept the request for withdrawal without
prejudice. This motion, seconded by Mr. Peatross, carried unanimously, with no further
discussion.
SP-80-76. Virginia Jones has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate
a mobile home on 2.00acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the north side
of Route 601 approximately � mile west of Route 676. County Tax Map 43,
Parcel 44, part thereof. Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that this applicant had also requested withdrawal
and asked the Commission to act on this request.
Mr. Gloeckner moved the Commission accept the request for withdrawal without
prejudice. Mr. Peatross seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
548
further discussion.
Lake Gilbert preliminary plat:
19
Mr. Montenegro reviewed the plat for the Commission since it was a deferred
item. The proposal is to divide approximatley 53 acres into 18 lots with an average
size lot to be 2.5 acres. Property is located on the east side of Route 747 near
the intersection with Route 600. The proposal calls for possibly thirty more lots
to be developed at a later date. Action had been deferred in order that the
applicant could explore the possibility of having the development enter directly from
Route 600. The Commission had also requested that the staff further investigate
the water quality of the tributaries which would feed the proposed lake. Mr. Montenegro
stated that the staff was unable to persuade the State Department of Health to test the
water. The applicant had investigated the possibility of entering off Route 600.
No conditions of approval are recommended by the staff for the preliminary plat.
However, any approval of the final plat should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Engineering and Highway Department approval of road plans, and the dam, if constructed;
3. Grading permit will be required.
Mr. Tucker stated that the applicant had met with the Highway Department and
Planning Staff and had agreed to share in the improvements of the road from Route 600
to Route 747. The preliminary plat should be conditioned upon this. He noted, however,
that the Board would have to appropriate funds for the County's share of the road
improvements.
Mr. Peatross questioned the Health Department approval. Mr. Montenegro replied
that the Health Department gives approval to individual lots for wells and septic systems.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he wanted the Engineering Department of the County
to approve the dam as well as the road plans. Mr. Montenegro agreed that this should
be added.
Mr. Boggs stated that he felt the upgrading of the road, as proposed by the
applicant, is an excellent opportunity for improved road at half the cost.
Dr.Edlich stated that he had contacted the State Water Control Board regarding
the tributaries. He presented as part of the record a letter from the State Water
Control Board and their specifications for bacteriological analysis of the coliform
group ( see attached ).
( Mrs. Graves entered the meeting. )
Mr. Carr stated that he had viewed the site and this stream appears to be
comparable to other streams in Albemarle County. He asked if the problems existing
in this stream are common to other streams, lakes, etc. in the area.
Mr. Tucker stated that he does not know if other bodies of water in the County
have been tested by the State Water Control Board, even Chris Greene Lake.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:`
1. Resolution of discussions with the Virginia Department of Highways resulting
in the improvement of State Route 747 from the applicant's property line to
9
f ,
�7'1Ti: I 111, TI i, /;1)
November 8, 1976
548A
Dr. Edlich
University of Virginia Medical School
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Dear Dr. Edlich:
You will find attached a copy of the Multiple -Tube Fermentation
Method for bacteriological analysis of the coliform group. The
methodology for the determination of the total coliform group and
the fecal coliform bacteria is detailed in this section. I hope
that this will be beneficial to you.
T',;you have any other questions, please contact me at any
time.
Yours very truly,
gyp. IL__
P. Godfrey
Pollution Control Engineer
Bureau of Surveillance and Field Studies
JPG/hs
..E _ ;s
-
.an
., _ a er. L.c .
VICE -C r'e 1't n
548B
M
2.02 Subclasses to Ccupl(5N-nt Major 1�ater Class D-,signations
Subclass A
Skaters generally satisfactory for use as phlic or municipal
eater supply, seccn0,ary contact recreation, propagation of
fish and aquatic life, and other beneficial uses.
Coliform Organisms - Fecal coliforms (mlltiple-tube f_ei„ n-
tation or MF count not to exceed a log mean of 1000/100 ml.
r'kot to dual or exce(A 2000/100 ml. in more than 10% of samples.
Monthly average value not more than 5000/100 ml. (M1PN or "IF
count) . Tot more than 5000 I%TN/100 ml. in more than 20% of
samples in any month. M3ot more than 20,0001100 ml. in more
than 5% of such samples.*
SiIhr-1 ss R
Eaters generally satisfactory for use as public or municipal
water supply, primary contact recreation (prolonged intimate
contact; considerable risk of ingestion), propagation of fish
and other aquatic life, and other beneficial uses.
Coliform Organises - Fecal coli_forms (; lltiple-tube fer,-r n-
tation or IT count) within a 30 day period not to exceed a log
mean of 200/100 ml. Not more than 10% of samples witiii n a 30-day
period 4rill exceed 400/100 ml.
Monthly average not more than 24.00/100 ml. (M'IPN or MF count).
I3ot more than 2400/ 100 ml. in more than 20% of samples in any
month. Mbt applicable during, nor ir.rodiately following periods
of rainfall.*
* With the exception of the coliform sta--Y—Iard for shellfish v.aters,
the enforceable stanan3s will be Chose pertaining to fecal coli-
_`c_rm I•''N concent-ra t ions are retai-ned as achninis-
t--ative guides for use by water treatjj7x�It plant operators.
5
549
State Route 600.
Mr. Peatross asked if the motion included State Water Control Board approval.
Mr. Gloeckner did not feel that necessary in the motion since other lakes,
streams, etc. in the area have the same quality of water. He asked if such a condition
would not be arbitrary.
Mrs. Graves felt there is a difference in preventing something that might be
a potential health hazard and something that exists. She said that it would not be
an arbitrary condition if such were required of all future proposed lakes in the area.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he would be willing to amend his motion to include the
following condition:
2. If the dam is constructed, the State Water Control Board will have to approve the
water for recreational uses.
Col. Washington pointed out that even if the lake is not of the quality for
recreational uses, it would be most helpful in fire protection. Furthermore, such a
lake would lower insurance premiums for homeowners in the subdivision.
Dr. Moore stated that he, too, felt the lake to be an advantage, even if
"No Swimming" signs were erected.
The motion to approve the preliminary plat carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr advised the applicant's representative, Mr. Boggs, that at the time of
submission of final plat, the lake will still be a topic of discussion. He also stated
that he hoped the road could be improved to State Route 600.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend the R-3 Residential Zone to provide for a density of 20 units per
acre by right, and a density up to 34 units per acre by special use permit.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report.
Mr. Payne suggested two changes to the Commission, however they were not
substantive in nature.
Mrs. Graves said that she understood the reason for the Number "20", since
it is an average of the R-2 density ( 8 units/acre ) and the 34 units/acre now currently
permitted in the R-3 zone. However, she noted that the population projections for
Albemarle County have been lowered, and suggested that if the County is to consider
possible rezonings to R-3, perhaps the permitted density should be more like 15-16.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the staff about the average density in the nation
for such a zone, in cities and counties of comparable size.
Mr. Tucker responded that he could not answer this, however, that 20 units/
acre, in most places, is considered to be a medium density, and in urban areas, 50-100
units/acre is considered to be high density. He noted that this figure for a permitted
density in the R-3 zone had been arrived at based on what exists in Albemarle County
and what land is zoned R-3 that is currently undeveloped.
550
Dr. Moore suggested using as a guide for Albemarle's high density
a doubling of the units provided by right in the R-2 zone.
It was pointed out that such developments as Square Hill, Country Green,
the rental units in Four Seasons, and Ivy Garden all have densities approximately
20 units/acre. At thirty units/acre Solomon Court is an example.
Mrs. Sue Rainey urged a work session on the question. She presented other
remarks on behalf of the Land Use Committee of the League of Women Voters ( see attached ).
Mrs. Graves questioned the special permit process for determining the density
of a zone, and suggested a floating zone like the city uses.
Mr. Carr said that he is not sure that 20 is the correct figure for units permitted
by right. However, the County, in his opinion, needs an R-3 zone, for apartments,
partly because of economics. He felt it immaterial whether that density is 15 or 18;
however, there is a great difference in 15 and 34 units by right. But with much
better design in apartments today, there is not a great difference in 15 units/ acre
and 20 units/acre. He pointed out that there will be a difference in the cost of
apartments developed at 15 units/acre vs 20 units/acre.
Mrs. Graves suggested that there might be less turnover with a lower density -
open space is desirable.
Mr. Carr stated that the typical apartment dweller is not annoyed with neighbors.
Today apartment complexes provide adequate parking and a difference in 3-4 units/acre
is not that meaningful to the dweller except to his pocketbook.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested doing away with a density of 34 units/acre by special
permit. Specifying one particular density lets the developer know exactly what he
can work with.
Mr. Carr said that such a suggestion makes sense, and then the County could
eventually move to a zone which provides for high rises, if the need ever occurs.
However, he pointed out that such a change in the proposed amendment would have to
be readvertised, since he felt that there would be property owners who would want
to address such a density.
Mr. Payne stated that such a suggestion would require a great deal of work on
the County's zoning map.
Mr. Carr said that such a zone would not exist on the map unless it were applied
for, just like the newly added CO zone.
Dr. Moore stated that he had understood the purpose of the amendment was to give
flexibility and make it easier for the county to consider possible R-3 zoning in the
County.
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff would treat the special permit provision of
density in the R-3 zone exactly as it would treat a proposed rezoning - all the same
impact studies would be accomplished in the review process.
Mr. Carr pointed out that if the permitted density is too low, that a lot
of special permits will have to be processed - that would be a lot of work for
the County and for the applicant.
Mrs. Graves was concerned that an applicant would request rezoning, it would
550A
Of4l
I vo_rj�
V0,111 Al
JA _1T,0T1V',1-)V_1 F,T,V, &-A_LT114,,_M_AJ-?T,T1`
OV C1 I COU-N
November 9, 1976
To: Albe.;!carle County -Planning Co...!.-Assion
Ile: A,,-�icndk-iients to Density Provisi-ons for A-3 Resl(`Ienfj-al fia-vieral lAstlJot
_3e-flore you decide whether to al!,,end the Oens.itly provisions
of t1le
TI-3 zone, v.e L-1-tink it would be vary beneficial to hold a work
session in order to consider s,rriet-lher these amendments v.Tould further
the objectives of the county Co!-Ol_)rchensive Plan3 and possible le.ral
rarAfications of the proposed e v.-,ould caution a,,-,ainst
acting 'oefore the following specij'ic points have been piven
careful consideration:
ar)1-)ro-ve of the attempt to decrease 11-3 del-;itv fro-11 the
pi-c-sently allowable 34 but ql-,,stiou _F tier
20 is the best choice for a now r) 1- o lit
flan rccc).--,):e nlds an of 1
u j d- t s per acre 'i o r 71 i,-7-i (I e r s i t y c', v 0 1 in
If you ...`end 'Che 0 -_ . � U - r J-. c e to ;,_Iou a j-!-,SUY
�-,�_� of 20 units/acre ',-)y ri,,ht aIid 31,1, units/acre by )Cial
bow colild this of t%e i'l"In co ( e._-P31)ly be
realized? Since, intil the revision of the Plan is cc,,:ilpletecI2 -,ny
chance in the ordinance s`,ould conform to the pro_.-_-,ent I-lan, r-7 1 1
I t
.-cr (lensity by ri�,ht in
it be more ap- I
.propriat,-� to Oesi��Yiate a loiter
order to acnieve an a JTP_rage (Ionsity of 15 du/acre?
cojicllyq if an increase in density to 34 unitls/acve by 71.Jc_cial
U,;e, FlerrcJ_t is orovicled for in the 11-3 zone, v.,e v.-onder -,iliat
ci,iteria would be used in g such a perniit lioul_d
,-e o-,,_ranted? no-%-; could you lc.;ally 1--iirn do1,n a i~efjue6t for on L--And zoned aftt;r one i-r�q-ilest had 10c.en
,,,ranted-. -and have it stand up i n coilrt?
'Se wonder if the Sp.ectal I,,-;e "e.rAt route is t7ie appropriate
one for Providing for Oi,,-Irker density? Poi-71aps it ,-ould be prefei,alhle
to have a separate zone for hi. -her density
Wit-7-1 rest-ricti- oils Spe-110(l out• le t'joi3,111t ':'?at -LLI-le [.`,ree Se, arate
111-i favni 1-y zones for in J:130
yl ;. nce
a 11 o w, i ng 12 209 and 30 imits/acre i,c�-�,pcctively, 1)i-ovi.cled a Oe:5i.i-able
ratite of Choice.
in conclusion, i%re ijr,e you to have a iiork sc-ssion and consider
tl-,(-,,,;e and ot,'Ter questions carefully
pvcs-nt
,)r d i lian G e
you.
11%W
Comity
T
551
be approved, and then the applicant would come in with a special permit to increase
the density.
Mr. Peatross said that he had no problem with the amendment as presented,
subject to the changes suggested by Mr. Payne. He stated that 20 units/acre complies
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Col. Washington said that he had no trouble with a permitted density of 20 units/
acre. Economics is certainly one factor'to consider. He pointed out that this would
be using fewer acres of the County for development and leaving more in open space.
Mr. Peatross moved approval of the amendments as follows:
1. Amend Section 6-1 by adoption of the following:
Section 6-1-21(10) Residential uses having a maximum net residential density
of more than twenty (20) but not more than thirty-four (34)
dwelling units per acre.
2. Repeal all provisions of Section 6-2 Area Regulations and adopt the following:
Section 6-2-1 Category 1. Residential developments served by a central sewer
system and a central water supply shall have a maximum net residential
density of twenty (20) units per acre; provided, however, that the
Board of Supervisors may, by special use permit, issued pursuant
to Section 11-13 of this ordinance, authorize, in particular cases,
residential developments of greater density, not to exceed thirty-four
(34) units per acre, upon a finding by the Board that the same will be
compatible with the public health, safety and general welfare and
with the character and development of the neighborhood.
Section 6-2-2 Category 2: Residential developments served by either a central
sewer system or a central water supply shall provide a minimum area
of forty -thousand (40,000) square feet per dwelling unit.
Section 6-2-3 Category 3: Residential developments served by neither a central
sewer system nor a central water supply shall provide a minimum
area of sixty -thousand (60,000) square feet Per dwelling unit.
Section 6-2-4 In the case of unusual soil conditions or other physical factors
which may impair the health and safety of the neighborhood and upon
the recommendation of the Virginia Department of Health, the Planning
Commission may increase area requirements specified under Section 6-2.
Mr. Peatross also moved approval of the following definitions:
Section 16-72.1 Residential Area (Gross). The total area of land and water within a
residential development.
Section 16-72.2 Residential Area (Net). That area of land and water within a development
designated for residential, open space, and recreational purposes and
unoccupied by streets or parking areas; provided that individual private
driveways accessory to residential uses shall not be considered streets
or parking areas.
►" Section 16-72.3 Residential Density (Gross). The total number of dwelling units within a
development divided by the gross residential area and expressed in dwell-
ing units per acre.
552
Section 16-72.4 Residential Density (Net). The total number of dwellina units
within a development divided by the net residential area and
expressed in dwelling units per acre.
Col. Washington seconded the motion of approval.
Discussion:
Mrs. Graves stated that she would support the motion since it is a step
in the right direction, though she wished the density to be approved were less than
20 units/acre.
Mr. Carr stated that the grounds to get a density of 34 units/acre is going
to be very difficult.
The motion carried unanimously.
ZMA-16-76. Wendell Wood has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
rezone 17.74 acres from R-2 Residential to R-3 Residential, and 0.84
acres from R-2 Residential to B-1 Business. 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, Parcels 9 and 12. Charlottesville and Jack Jouett Magisterial
Districts.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting the staff recommended
denial of the request for B-1 Business based on the following:
1. There are approximatley 12.5 acres of undeveloped B-1 zoned properties at
the intersection of Whitewood Road and Route 743, which in staff opinion, is more
than adequate to accommodate the neighborhood shopping area indicated in the Comprehensive
Plan;
2. A commercial use exists at the intersection of Routes 743 and 631, which is in
compliance with the Plan. Staff would recommend against further compromise of
traffic safety at this intersection by introducing B-1 zoning on the east side of
Route 743. Sight distance in this area is poor, complicating access to Route 743 from the
subject property.
The staff supported the density requested of 20 units per acre for R-3
Residential General, since it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
However, the staff favored an RPN designation rather than the traditional R-3
description for the following reasons:
1. Advantage to the applicant - The RPN designation provides for flexibility of design,
clustering of units, and a variety of housing types which could reduce development costs.
2. Open space - The RPN designation contains open space requirements, which staff believes
desirable in a proposal of this magnitude. Density credit is given the applicant for
provision of open space. A brief study by the Planning Department interns this summer
indicated this general portion of the Urban Area to be of top priority for the provision
of recreational/open space amenities.
3. The intersection of Routes 743 and 631 - Residentially -generated traffic under
the applicant's request would increase flow on Route 743 by approximatley 2,100
trips/day or 350 (1974 traffic counts). As stated previously, sight distance is poor
*40
in this area. This issue could be addressed in the RPN review prior to granting
553
increased density in this area.
4. Greenbrier Drive - as stated .1)reviously,_the Comprehensive Plan recommends the
extension of Greenbrier Drive through this property to the intersection of Routes 743
and 631. This issue could be addressed in the RPN review prior to granting increased
density in this area.
Dr. Moore asked if the Comprehensive Plan had taken into consideration possible
upgrading of the road to meet a definite increase in density.
Mr. Tucker pointed out the proposed major collector, but stated that the County
has no Capital Improvements Plan to provide for upgrading of certain streets and roads.
But the existing Comprehensive Plan does call for Hydraulic Road to be upgraded to a
four -lane street. Though the Comprehensive Plan makes no specific recommendation on
Greenbrier Drive, it indicates that it and other roads in the area should be brought
up to standards at some point, to handle the increased population.
Dr. Moore pointed out that there is not only a problem with these roads, but
also a problem with the traffic on Route 29.
Mr. Tucker stated that he understands that the Highway Department's plans are
close to being finalized on Hydraulic Road - this will be four lanes out to the bridge
at the reservoir, around to Route 29. However, that is several years to completion.
Mr. Carr noted that Commonwealth is to be extended. Several years ago, at
the time of approval of another development, the extension of Greenbrier was planned.
He asked if that joins the applicant's property and what discussion has taken place
regarding the extension of Greenbrier.
Mr. Tucker responded that there had been a preliminary plat to extend a portion
of Greenbrier. He noted that the applicant's land does abut this property, however,
the alignment has not been set.
Mr. Carr asked now, if the applicant's request is approved, if the County
is going to seek a continuation of Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Tucker stated that this
is what the staff is referring to in its recommendation of the RPN, since it cannot
be addressed in the request for R-3 zoning. He said that this could be addressed
at the site plan level of an RPN.
Mrs. Graves stated that at the time of previous application Mr. Wood had
indicated that the property might exit onto Four Seasons Drive. At that time he
was told Four Seasons Drive is not part of the state highway system. However, now
it has been taken into the system. She asked if he still intends to have the
property exit onto Four Seasons Drive, or if such proposal might not be allowed.
Mr. Tucker stated that he does not know the intent of the applicant regarding
this, but that road does go through the apartment units. The state does not take
over roads that go through apartment uses. So something would have to be done to tie
that in, but maintenance would still be left to the owners of the property. He did not
feel that the Highway Department would ever take it over.
Mrs. Graves asked if an extrance there could ever be effected. Mr. Tucker
stated that there is provision there for the extension of that road, possibly linking
up to the adjacent property, which is Mr. Wood's property.
Mrs. Graves said that in that case the Commission should consider the effect
the increased density would have on shoppers in Four Seasons and Berkeley, and the
entrance at Shoppers World.
554
That would be a logical place for it to go.
Mr. Carr asked how Greenbrier Drive affected the applicant's plans.
Mr. Wood stated that he had neither seen nor heard anything about Greenbrier
Drive and it would have no effect on his plans. He could see no future plans for
Greenbrier, since nothing has been done to upgrade Hydraulic. He stated that no
one has talked to him about this matter, but if he saw some plans he would work with
them.
Mr. Tucker stated that there are no plans; Mr. Carr pointed out that it has
long been planned by the County that that leg will go through there.
Mr. Wood said that he did not feel he should be "asked to wait and see."
He stated that he is going to try to have an entrance into Four Seasons down
to Four Seasons Drive, about three hundred feet away. He said that he was sure
that people would want to travel through Four Seasons and Berkeley to get to Shoppers
World, since it would be the shortest route. He said that he is still not sure, though,
that the adjoining property owners will work with him on this. He felt that the
logical way to do it was to have two entrances - one into Four Seasons and one from
Hydraulic Road. He stated that in the last few months a 12" sewer line has been built
through that property. Mr. Wood pointed out that the property - approximately 3/4 acre is separated from the other property and he felt that B-1 zoning is the only thing that
will make the small piece of property usuable, especially because of the church.
He did not feel it would be appropriate for a residential use.
Messrs. Rodney Nicely, Van Guiles, and Arthur Sorensen all opposed the
application on the basis that the Mormon Church had built its chapel on the corner.
The investment in the chapel was costly and they hate to see R-3 and B-1 zonings
in the neighborhood. They did not feel the rezoning would be in the best interests
of the public, especially because of the narrow road. They feared such a rezoning
would increase the taxes.
Mrs. Dorothy Speidel, representing Citizens for Albemarle, pointed out to
the Commission that there are 129 acres of undeveloped R-3 land, and 93 acres of
R-2. She thought such a rezoning would set a precedent for other R-3 rezonings
in the area. She presented the potential impact if all R-2 land were developed
at 20 dwelling units/acre.
Mr. Wood pointed out to the Commission that the Highway Department will not
upgrade a road until the traffic reaches a certain volume.
Mrs. Graves asked the representative from the Highway Department if this were
an accurate statement.
Mr. Coburn , representing the Virginia Department of Highways, replied that
plans for Hydraulic Road have existed for some time. It carries, from Route 29
to Route 631, approximately 7800 vehicles per day, approximately 4400 of which go
on to the reservoir, the rest to Rio Road.
Mr. Carr asked if there is to be public pressure which will dictate improvements
to Route 29 rather than to Route 743 to Albemarle High.
Mr. Coburn. stated that the matter will have to go to public hearing, but
hopefully by that time the Highway Department will have funds for improving Hydrauli
Road.
555
Mrs. David asked if money were not the reason for delay of upgrading Hydraulic.
Mr. Colburn stated that the matter will have to go to public hearing, and hopefully
by that time the State will have the money for the project.
Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission that Hydraulic Road is being designed
for current and potential development.
Mr. Coburn also pointed out that there are roads like Hydraulic Road in the
state which carry double the amount of traffic that Hydraulic carries.
Mr. Carr asked about road plans for Greenbrier. Mr. Colburn replied that a
road at the other end would certainly help traffic flow.
Mr. Carr asked if the applicant were agreeable to an RPN development.
Mr. Wood stated that he would like the property rezoned to R-3, since it
is not fair for a property owner to wait to use the land when Hydraulic is upgraded.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not feel the property owner should have to wait
for this upgrading either; however, he pointed out that the road in question
will have to come through Greenbrier. The RPN would give the developer and the
County flexibility. If part of the road is built the rest will come.
Mr. Wood responded that there are some unknowns, and that he is not ready to
build a road for the County.
Mr. Coburn stated that the Highway Department is not suggesting that the
applicant wait until Route 743 is upgraded. He stated that the Highway Department
does not want the entrance to this development at an intersection, and should enter
from Greenbrier.
Mrs. Graves questioned the school site on Whitewood Road. She also quesitoned
the sewer.
Mr. Tucker replied that the 8" line will become inadequate as development occurs
and will have to be upgraded to a 12" line.
Mr. Tucker pointed out, at Mr. Peatross' request, other high density development
in the area.
Dr. Moore stated that sometimes density has to be controlled because of water
and sewer, but in this case it should be controlled because of the roads. He stated
that he opposes the application on this basis, since he doesn't feel the road will
catch up.
Mrs. Graves stated her opposition on the basis of traffic, and because of increased
traffic that would occur through Four Seasons and Berkeley.
Mr. Carr stated that the density doesn't bother him, but he would like to see
an RPN designation, since Greenbrier is essential to the County. Hydraulic Road does
have too much traffic, but he did not feel denial could be based on this.
Mr. Peatross felt that there is a need to keep a balanced density between the
R-2 and R-3 zone, and the RPN was the proper way to do this.
556
Mr. Gloeckner said that he feels the RPN is the answer, mainly to relieve
some of the traffic pattern congestion. He felt the Commission should speak to
the design and alignment of Greenbrier Drive. This could be done under the RPN
and still allow him to develop at a density of 20 units per acre, if he so desires.
Mr. Peatross moved that the Commission deny the request for rezoning from
R-2 to R-3. He felt the request should be treated in two separate motions, since
the Commission had not yet addressed the B-1 zoning request.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion. There was no discussion on the motion, and
it carried unanimously.
Mr. Peatross stated that he sees the applicant's predicament, since the
church separates this land from the other proeprty. However, there is some merit
in considering that there is other business property nearby. He stated that he
could not see another convenience store located there, or service station, or
whatever. Based on the staff's recommendation, he moved denial of the request for
rezoning from R-2 to B-1 Business.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Carr stated that his mind is not closed on that matter if he sees
a proper RPN However, he stated that his opinion is not necessarily to rezone it
either.
The motion to deny the B-1 zoning carried unanimously.
Mrs. Graves stated that she would have problems with the density under RPN
also.
Col. Washington asked if it were possible for the applicant to withdraw this
particular request and come back with a request for RPN designation.
Mr. Carr stated that he can come back, since the Commission did not deny the
applicant an RPN. "We did not put a year's moratorium on this."
Mr. Tucker - "No, you didn't."
Mr. Payne stated that it is important here to show that the ordinance prohibits
re -application within the same year for substantially the same application. An RPN
at this density would be materially different.
Mrs. Graves stated that if it were an R-3/RPN, it would first have to be
considered for R-3 zoning.
Mr. Carr asked for a motion so there will be a record of the Commission's intent.
He stated that if it is the thinking of the Commission, that this does not put a year's
moratorium on Mr. Wood's property for an RPN application.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he so moved.
Mrs. Graves said that she thought this was part of the ordinance and she
did not think that the Commission could do this.
557
Mr. Carr stated that the attorney had just stated that the Commission could
do it, that it could hear it in less than a year. He wanted to make sure that the
Commission got rid of this point that evening.
Mr. Peatross seconded Mr. Gloeckner's motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Payne stated that he did not feel the motion was necessary. He stated
that the Commission could hear it anyway.
Mrs. Graves stated that she did not think it proper for the applicant to
re -apply within a year for an RPN/R-3.
Mr. Carr stated that he disagreed, and that this was the reason that an
RPN designation had been written into the ordinance.
Mr. Peatross called for the question, to get the intent of the Commission.
The motion carried by a vote of 4-2, with Mrs. Graves and Dr. Moore dissenting.
Mr. Carr stated that the intent of the Commission was not to deny the applicant
the opportunity to apply for an RPN, if he chose to do so.
Mr. Tucker stated that it would be the Zoning Administrator who would, or would
not, accept the application.
Mr. Carr said that the applicant might want to talk to the Zoning Administrator
before the 17th of the month ( public hearing before the Board for ZMA-16-76)
to get a ruling.
Dr. Moore asked what percentage of people are now in the area, according
to the suggestions of the master plan. Mr. Tucker replied that he would do this
computation.
ZTA-76-09. Osborn L. Huff has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend
the RS-1 Zone of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for livestock by
special use permit.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting that the staff recommended
denial of the amendment on the basis that the request is not in keeping with the
intent of the RS-1 Zone when compared to the definition of "livestock."
Furthermore, the staff felt that the provision for the maintenance of livestock is not
compatible with the minimum lot size as provided in this zone.
Mr. Huff felt without this amendment he would be denied the use of his four
acres. He stated that he has no idea of using the land for commercial uses,
and wishes to raise only one steer per year.
Mr. Carr questioned the amount of RS-1 land in the area. Mr. Tucker pointed
out the land in this zone and stated that there are still some lots of 1� acre size
because there is only one utility.
Mr. Carr asked the applicant if, at the time of purchase, he knew he could
not put livestock on it.
WN
Mr. Huff stated that he was unaware of that.
Col. Washington suggested that the applicant apply for rezoning to A-1.
Mr. Tucker stated that though the staff did feel there had been an error
made in the original zoning to RS-1, an application for A-1 zoning would be spot
zoning. However, the staff would probably favorably consider rezoning the entire
area to A-1, since most of the land is not subdivided.
Mr. Carr stated that he could not support the request to amend the ordinance,
however he sympathized with the applicant. He asked that the staff instruct the
Board of Supervisors that the Commission would entertain possible rezoning of the entire
area from RS-1 to A-1 ( since it had appeared that this was the consensus of the Commission)
Mr. Peatross moved that the request for ZTA-76-09 be denied, but that the
discussion regarding the possible rezoning of the area be taken to the Board at its
public hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Payne stated that an obvious mistake in the map had been made at the time of zoning,
and that no one would be harmed by a rezoning of the area; the number of uses would be
increased by a rezoning to A-1.
SP-69-76. Osborn L. and Martha W. Huff have petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to permit livestock on 4.18 acres zoned RS-1. Property
is located on the north side of Route 759, approximately 100 yards west
of the Fluvanna County line. County Tax Map 95, Parcel 16A, Rivanna
Magisterial District. NMMW
Mr. Gloeckner moved that in light of the previous action, this request
be denied. Mr. Peatross seconded the motion, stating that the Commission could
not approve this request without the enabling legislation to do so.
Col. Washington suggested that the applicant withdraw his request.
Mr. Huff stated that he wished the Commission to consider his request for
withdrawal of SP-69-76 without prejudice.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that in view of this request, he would withdraw his
motion for denial. Mr. Peatross accepted this withdrawal.
Mr. Peatross moved that the Commission accept Mr. Huff's request for withdrawal
without prejudice. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Col. Washington felt it very important that the staff present the idea
of possible rezoning of the area to the Board in order that Mr. Huff could have
use of his land.
SP-71-76.
Howard L. Hamilton and Connie Dempsey have petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to locate a public riding stable on 219 acres zoned A-1
:agriculture. Property is lcoated approximatley 200 yards southwest
of the intersection of Routes 601 and 829. County Tax Map 29, Parcel
76, White Hall and Jack Jouett Magisterial Districts.
61. 0
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, reading a letter of concern from
DeForest Mellon. He also read a memo from the Zoning Administrator stating that
the use already exists, though the applicant had been under the impression that
all that was needed was a building permit for a farm building.
Dr. Hamilton stated that from his point of view the use of the land has
not changed - originally it had been a farm for cattle; now it is a farm for horses.
However, in this case, the horses are for hire.
Mr. Russell, an adjoining property owner, stated that the fences are in
secondary condition and should be repaired for reasons of safety. He also informed
that during certain seasons, voices and instructions carry, and asked that the
Commission consider moving the ring away from adjoining properties. He also questioned
the time for the special permit.
Mr. Carr explained that special permits run with the land unless specifically
noted otherwise, but that a special permit can have conditions or limitations placed
upon it.
Mr. Edward McMurdo stated that he lives on Route 829 and that horses frequently
cross that road, creating a traffic hazard at a dangerous point.
Mrs. Dempsey stated that everyone rides across and along the road in that
area. However, she pointed out that her supervised students are not permitted to
ride in the road, only boarders.
Dr. Hamilton stated that there is a provision in the lease that the fences
will be maintained.
Mr. Carr suggested that the permit be limited to no concessions.
Mr. Gloeckner favored the special permit, but felt that because of the
neighbors a simple site plan should be approved by the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the special permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Planning Commission approval of site plan;
2. Health Department approval in accordance with requirements for commercial uses;
3. No permanent facilities for sale of goods to public;
4. Repair and maintenance of fencing to prevent horses from roaming on
public right-of-way.
Col. Washington seconded the motion for approval. It carried unanimously,
with no further discussion.
SP-81-76. Harry W. and Mary R. Wheeler have petitioned the Board
of Supervisors to amend SP-338 ( a special use permit for an antique,
craft, and gift shop ). This would give relief from condition #1 of
SP-338. The 77.3-acre parcel, containing the George Rogers Clark Museum
is zoned A-1 Agriculture, and is located on Route 20 North, adjoining
Buena Vista. County Tax Map 62, Parcel 31, Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting that on September 16, 1976,
the Building Inspections Department had issued a Stop Work Order to the applicant
560
who was constructing additions to the museum without a building permit
and in violation of Condition #1 of SP-338. It was also revealed
that condition numbers 2 and 4 had been violated. The staff suggested that
if the permit ( SP-81-76, which requests relief from condition #1 of SP-338 )
is granted, it should be subject to a series of conditions.
Mr. Wheeler addressed the Commission, stating that it is his desire to
complete the three little rooms of the museum according to the building plans
that he had submitted with the County. He stated that the water is not sold,
rather given away. He stated that he is unwilling to take down the DAR sign
erected in 1925 and another four square foot sign. He stated that he would
like to continue this as an historic site in the County.
Mr. Carr told the applicant that the conditions of the original permit
have been violated, and the County does not know why they have been violated.
He went through the conditions one by one, asking the Wheelers if they would
abide by them. A few minor changes were made in the conditions recommended
by the staff, since the Commission felt it would be reasonable to permit a few
signs on the site that were less than one square foot. Mr. Carr specifically
asked if the applicants were willing to comply with each condition, and after
they were revised, the Wheelers agreed that they would abide by the conditions.
Mr. Peatross asked how many people visited the site during the last year.
Mrs. Wheeler stated that they had received approximately 3000 visitors.
Mrs. Graves asked if the special permit can be revoked if it runs with the
land. Mr. Carr replied that this permit does not run with the land, rather is
issued to the applicants only.
Mr. Payne stated that for good cause, the special permit can be revoked.
Mr. Peatross moved that the Commission reinstate SP-338 and that condition
number one of that special permit be waived by approval of SP-81-76 subject to
the following conditions:
1. The building shall be constructed as indicated on plans marked "Received,
September 19, 1976" and initialled "RSK". In addition, the applicant shall
provide restroom facilities to be approved by the Virginia Department of
Health. These facilities may be housed in a separate structure. The Zoning
Administrator shall review and approve plans for these facilities to insure
harmony with the existing structure. No other structures shall be constructed
or located on the site without approval of the Zoning Administrator after
review to insure compliance with the intent of this special permit approval;
2. Any water supply used for public consumption shall first be approved by the
Virginia Department of Health as a public drinking supply;
3. There shall be only one sign on the site, exclusive of the DAR Marker, admission
sign, closing sign, no smoking sign. This sign shall be limited to an area of
four (4) square feet. The Zoning Administrator shall approve the location
and design of this identification sign. For the purposes of this special permit,
"sign" shall mean any pennant, lighting, plastic spinners, and the like;
4. This special permit has been issued to the applicant only and is non -transferable;
5. All sales and display of items for sale shall be confined to the interior of
the building;
6. There shall be no manufacturing on the site. Sales shall be restricted to
craft and gift items, antiques, and incidental food and drink;
01911
7. Compliance with Conditions #1, #2 and #3 to the satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator within six (6) months of the date of approval of SP-81-76;
8. The Zoning Administrator shall review this site for compliance with conditions
of approval six (6) months after the date of approval. Following that inspection,
the Zoning Administrator shall review the site annually.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
not
Mr. Carr stated that his opposition in the discussion had/been to the site,
rather to the neglect of the conditions of approval of SP-338.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend the County Code, Zoning Ordinance, and Land Subdivision
and Development Ordinance concerning fees for the review of preliminary
subdivision plats, rezoning and special use permit applications, soil
erosion plans, sign permits, and site development plans. The proposed
amended sections are as follows:
(1) Albemarle County Code - Section 18-43(a)(Section 3-5-1(3) of the
Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance);
(2) Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance - Sections 11-5-1, 14-1-1,
15A-9-4 and 17-6-6;
(3) Albemarle County Code - Sections 7-4(d) and 18-43(c)(Section 3-5-3 of
the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance).
Mr. Tucker stated that this was for the Planning Commission's information,
since it is actually the Board who sets the fee schedule. However, a motion of
recommendation from the Commission is necessary, since this is part of the public
hearing process.
Mr. Tucker further stated that the fees have been revised to be commensurate
with the entire processing, since there is a big increase in the work with an
increase in acreage.
Mr. Payne further pointed out to the Commission that the statutes speak to
defraying the cost of applications.
Mr. Carr stated that he feels some of the fees are high, however, the place to
put the burden is with the applicant.
Dr. Moore moved that the Commission recommend to the Board that sections
1, 2, and 3 of the amendments be approved as submitted. Mr. Gloeckner seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously. ( See attached amendments )
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Rob t W. Tucker, Jr. - Se reta
561A
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALtS :MABLE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING F EI S FOR
SOIL EROSION PLAN REVIEW
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALE.E J.; I,E CUu tTY
that the Albemarle County Code be, and it hereby is, amc-"ded by the
addition in Articles 7 and 18 thereof, respectively, Of t
_.rO .�t_,ctio?;s
7-4(d) and 0 -4 3 (c=) , respectively, as follows:
7-4(d) Upon submission of any Man submitted
'Pursuant to 17---3 herc-of, the applic&nt
shall_ pay to the County of .�1_�T ,.,
enar1_e
a fee of Twenty-five Dollars ($2.3.00)
to coved` the cost of the County to review
and act Upon such plan; provided, however,
,
that in the case of any such plan involving
devel_opsrnnt for which site plan end/or
subdivision approval is or ,could be required,
a fee shall- be paid for review of such plan
required pursuant to 517--6-6 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance or SH-43 (c) of the
County Code, as the case may be.
7-8 3 (c`) Soil Erosion on Plan: in the c' Cage of any soil
pursuant to
Article 7 of this Code, the appro'.al of
is required
as a p1"eGui_Slte t0 the final
approval of any final Plat- suhmitted pursKnnt
to this Article, the developer shall pay a
fee for the submission, review and approval
Of such plan, the amount of such fee to be
determined by reference to the schedule of
fees adopted pursuant to 617-6-6 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
4%W
561E
AN ORDINANCE TO MEND 92SA-9-4 CONCEPNING SIGN ££ g ?S
SS IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALHEMAR23 COUNTY
that §15A-9-4 0£ the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it
hereby is, amended to read as follows:
15A-9-4 SIGN TERMITS: No person shall erect or
QKA— --- �— ---
Co- \e erected any sign, exccct
auction and ienpurary event signs, ie
excess of rive (5) square £cet.io area
unless and until a permit ttezefo£ shall
have \ten obtained Qom the Zoning
Administrator. Such permit shall be
issued upon the payment of a tee in the
amount of Pen Dollars ($10\00) to cover
the cost incident to the issuance of
such permit and upon a finding by the
zoning Administrator that the proposed
sign conforms to the requirumen£s of
this ordinance.
561C
AN ORDINANCE TO AMIEND THE ALBEJ1ARLF COUNTY VO'NINIG ORDINANCE BY THE
**aw, OF §17-6-6 THEREOF CONCERNING FYJ,-,,Sj
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBI'M.7�RLE COUNTY
that §17-6-6 of the Albem'-Irle County 7orjj-ng Ordinance )--)0, and it
hereby is, amended to read as follo-,,,s:
17--6--6 The governing body, by resolution, may
establish from tiT,,ie to L.,iine a schedule
of fees for the (-xajidnation and apprbv,-31
or disapproval of s-L-.-e develoj- )m e n t p 3 i?:is
submitted pUJ-.S1_)a31t to this Article. In
addition, t) i e f e cs so (- s i--- a ID 3. j shed shall
apply, according to their terms, to the
siibmission, review and approval of any
soil- erosion con'Crol plan required pur-
suant to Article 7 of the Albemarl-e County
Code in any case in which such a pl-an is
required as a prequisite to the approval
of Eil-ly -i-j-e (]e-,1(-jopTj(- I
Pln-,cant 10 this Art-ic3e. Such fee shall -
be pa —id -to the County of and
e tine
shall )--)e one-ha'l__JF at the --- e
of filing of the plan or plans for which
such 'Lees shal-I appliv and the I_01Tia_11_1C1Gr
prior to final approval.
m
561D
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEK3R LE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING FEES FOR
THE REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLATS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
that �18-43(a)(3) of the Countv Code be, and it hereby is, amended
3-5'IC'9
to read as follows:
(3) Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether
or not a preliminary plat for the same property
has been filed previously, shall be subject to
the same requirements, provided, however, that
no fee shall be required for the review of a
preliminary plat of any subdivision involving
three or :Fewer lots.
N
561E
AN ORDINANCE TO. AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING
PAYMENT OF COSTS OF NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
that 511-5-1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it
hereby is, amended to read as follows:
Except as herein otherwise provided, every
application made to the Administrator, the
Commission, or the governing body which
requires notice and hearing in accordance
with >>15.1-431 of the Code, or in accordance
with the policy of the governing body, shall
be accompanied by a fee of $20.00 to defray
the cost of publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the County.
9
561F
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING
FEES FOR REZONING
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEK2�RLE COUNTY
that b14-1-1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it
her..eL,, is, amended to read as follows:
14-1-1 By the filing with the Zoning Administrator of
a petition by owners or contract purchasers of
land proposed to be .rezoned, which petitio.
shall be accompanied by a fee to be determined
as follows:
a. For rezoning of less than five acres -
$50.00;
b. For rezoning of five to ten acres -
$75.00;
C. For rezoning of more than ten acres -
$100.00 plus $1.00 per acre for each acre in
excess of ten.
In addition, the foregoing fee schedule shall
be applicable to any special permit application
made under �2-7 or <ll-9 of this ordinance,
any other provision_ of this ordinance to the
contrary notwithstanding.
562
November 16, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
November 16, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner; Col. William R. Washington; Mr. Leslie H. Jones; Mrs. Joan Graves;
and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Members absent were Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Paul Peatross and Dr. James Moore. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald S.
Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner;
Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Jr., Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Minutes of November 9, 1976, were deferred until November 23, 1976.
Edgar C. Lawson - request for waiver of condition of approval:
This item was deferred until later in the meeting in order that the applicant
or his representative could be present.
Stillfield Final Plat - located on Route 654 (Barracks Road)
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report noting that a previous application
had been denied by the Commission on October 19, 1976. The plat has been revised
to show two easements which will serve the lots fronting on Barracks Road. Therefore,
only one new entrance is proposed, for Stillfield Drive. If approved, the final plat
should be subject to:
1. Grading permit;
2. Water line plans to be approved by Service Authority and Fire Marshal;
3. Lots 17 and 18 granted a waiver of frontage;
4. Virginia Department of Highways approval;
5. Health Department approval.
Mr. Carr pointed out that lot 15 has an easement over an existing road, and there
will be no new entrances off Barracks Road except Stillfield Drive.
Mr. Batchelor addressed the Commission on the behalf of Mr. Robinson,
owner of property at the rear of the applicant's property. He stated that the
development will cause somewhat of a water problem across the road into Mr. Robinson's
property. Mr. Robinson has a 20 foot strip leading to his property at the rear,
and he also owns the 20 foot strip. Mr. Batchelor stated that Mr. Robinson would
be willing to deal with the increase in water if he had an additional right-of-way
to the rear of the property. He stated that the rear property has been considered
for future development, when right-of-way is provided through Montvue. What is needed
is a way for him to divert water and access to the rear property for modern-day vehicles.
If the Commission looks at lots 15, 13, 12, 18, and the strip that is .789 acre,
which follow Mr. Robinson's road, and if a right-of-way were given along these lots,
it would be possible to control the storm water that will come off these lots.
563
This would also give better access to Mr. Robinson's property. He asked that
an additional 25 feet be given.
Mr. Carr said that the Commission should consider the problem of run-off,
but the question of improving the access to the Robinson property is questionable.
He asked Mr. Payne's advice.
Mr. Payne said that he feels Mr. Batchelor is asking for a wider easement.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that there is no easement there now.
Mr. Batchelor stated that it is "fee -simple."
Mr. Payne stated that there is a right-of-way that traverses the applicant's
land.
Mr. Batchelor disagreed and stated that it is fee -simple title that Mr.
Robinson has to that property.
Mr. Payne stated that the plat shows the property line running more or less
the middle of the road. He asked if that were incorrect.
Mr. Robinson said that he would have to see the plat; he said that his plat
is recorded and does show the 20.foot fee -simple.
Mr. Payne asked if that is what he calls a pipestem. Mr. Robinson agreed.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the entrance has been there for many years.
He told the Commission that Mr. Robinson is stating that he owns, in fee -simple,
a right-of-way that is twenty feet.
Mr. Robinson said that it is not a right-of-way, but a fee -simple.
Mr. Carr said that Mr. Robinson owns a piece of property which is used as a road,
and Mr. Robinson agreed. Mr. Carr did not feel that the County is in the position to
give to Mr. Robinson a certain specified right-of-way, because his neighbor wants
to develop his land. If it were a public right-of-way, he felt it would be proper
for the County to address that.
Mr. Batchelor stated that when a man subdivides his land, the road was carried
to the end of his property line, adjacent to the next man's land, so that he would
not be cut off from further development. In some cases they have been extended,
and in some cases they have been closed. But in the past a man has been required to
take a road, and sometimes a right-of-way, all the way to his neighbor's land.
Mr. Carr said that is true in some cases where a new road is being built
and where it is envisioned that adjacent property will need an exit/entrance on
that road. In this case, with one slight exception, the applicant is not using that
road. He stated he is not sure what the applicant's legal right is there, but the
applicant proposes lot 15 to have entry to Barracks Road at the same place that
Mr. Robinson has entry. Apparently he does not have permission to use Mr. Robinson's
land, so he is going to use his own land, so there is only one entrance there.
Therefore, the buyer of lot 15 will use his twenty feet and Mr. Robinson will
use his twenty feet - this is hypothetical.
Mr. Batchelor cited Colthurst as an example. He stated that the property
564
to the rear of Colthurst has right-of-way off a number of parcels in Colthurst.
That was done at the time Colthurst was approved for subdivision, when roads were
new to Colthurst. The precedent has been set as to the exercise of the Planning
Commission. He said that the same is true of Mr. Robinson, who could have exit
over other property that he owns, when Montvue was still pastureland. When Montvue
was created, the owners of that property were required to give Mr. Robinson a right-of-way
out of Montvue. That right-of-way still exists today.
Mr. Robinson stated that the only problem with that is that the roads in
Montvue are not in the secondary system, and can't be used. He also said that due
to development in Colthurst and Montvue he has had to put in additional culverts to
handle runoff from the developments.
Mr. Carr agreed that the drainage problem may merit some discussion.
However, when the applicant does not intend to use Mr. Robinson's to any extend,
Mr. Robinson is asking that the County give to him additional land. Mr. Carr
said that he does not understand that, and does not feel the County has the power to
do that, with this set of circumstances. He felt the County would have the power
to do this if the County saw the need for a new road being built into Montvue to
eventually serve Mr. Robinson. He believed the set of circumstances to be different
with the Stillfield property.
Mr. Batchelor stated that there will be a need, and that is what the other
types of rights -of -way have been established for. Another reason the additional
right-of-way is needed is for additional guttering to handle the runoff that will
come from Stillfield.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt there could be a drainage easement running
along lots 18, 12, 13, 15, but he did not feel it could be an access easement.
This drainage easement could be required for the construction of drainage structures.
Mr. Payne stated that he does not feel the Commission has the power to require
the applicant to give land to Mr. Robinson - that is the exercise of soverign power
for the benefit of an individual. Secondly he questioned if the Commission has the
power to require this even in the form of a dedication to public use. This would
give a double -frontage lot, which is disfavored by the ordinance. The rule on
requiring dedications is that they can be required to the extent that they are made
necessary by this development. Of course there is some leeway in that. It might be
difficult to sustain that this man be required to dedicate a public road back here
when none of the lots require access. He felt the Commission would be on weak grounds
to require any additional right-of-way for the road. The drainage is a slightly different
problem. The fact that this is going to become residential land would probably tend
to increase the runoff. He did not envision that this would cause any liability
for Mr. Hereford to Mr. Robinson. Mr. Hereford has the right to fend off this natural
water. One has the right to fend off the common enemy - you can build a roof on
a structure, you can pave the land as long as it is not done in a malicious manner
to cause damage to your neighbor. He did not feel there would be any private cause of
action there. He said, again, that he is not sure the Commission can require the
dedication of a drainage easement for the benefit of a private individual - that is
inconsistent with the powers given the Commission. He had doubts that the Commission
could do either of these things.
Mr. Batchelor said that if that is the case the County is going to be in
bad shape to ask anyone for off -site cost on storm water, such as was done on the
shopping center that was just recently opened.
565
Mr. Carr agreed that the drainage issue is an entirely different issue
than the request for additional right-of-way to expand his pipestem. Then there
is another side to this - what is Mrs. Haffner's responsibility. The creeks are
on Mrs. Haffner. He assumed that further down the creeks are on Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Payne said that Mr. Batchelor is correct to some extent on the
drainage. The problem with that is thbughthe statute permits you to do that,
elaborate calculations have to be done to show the relations of the pro rata
share of this developer to the share of all development in this watershed. He could
be required to contribute only his pro rata share. That is what he recalled having
been done in the past in only a few rather limited instances. In these cases,
it was a rather easy engineering task to determine that. He said that he had no
idea what the engineering scope of this is. He said that he does not know of any
established plan for this, and that seems to be important.
could
Mr. Batchelor asked if this matter/be temporarily deferred in order that
he could confer with the applicant's representative on the plat.
Mr. Carr granted a brief deferral.
Edgar C. Lawson:
Mr. Tull asked that this matter be deferred or acted upon, though the
applicant is not present.
Mrs. Scala told the chairman that the attorney representing the Lawson's
had told her that afternoon that he is working on a maintenance agreement, and
that if everything were not cleared up by the meeting, he would not be present.
If not present, he asked that she request deferral until a later meeting.
Mr. Tull acknowledged that he had received that evening a new agreement.
Mr. Gloeckner moved deferral in view of these facts.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously with no discussion.
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote of the item
by leaving the room.
Foxfield Turf Course Site Plan - located on the south side of Route 601:
Mr. Montenegro stated that this is a proposal to locate a steeple chase course
on a 178+ acre site on the south side of Route 601, opposite Woodson's Store. A
special permit for this had been approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Site Plan approval;
2. Approval of local and state agencies;
3. No more than one major event per year;
4. Notification of the sheriff of a major event;
5. Notification of Health Department for approval of temporary restroom facilities;
6. No billboards, grandstands, or lighting on the tract;
7. Signing must conform to scenic highways - A-1 zoning.
He explained that this is the site plan mentioned in the approval of that
special permit. The staff recommended approval of the site plan subject to the
following condition:
566
1. Plat to be signed with a 25' dedication and a 5' reservation along Route 658
(south side of Garth Road).
Mr. Ashcom, representing the applicant, stated that the owner is agreeable
to the dedication .
Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff needs a separate plat with the dedication,
before the plat can be signed for recordation.
Mrs. Graves asked if any grading has taken place, and questioned the road.
Mr. Carr responded that the fences have been taken down, but that the new
road she is addressing is on property belonging to Mrs. Jones - it is her new driveway.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the site plan subject to the one condition
recommended by the staff.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
( Mr. Gloeckner remained out of the room during the following discussion
and vote.)
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the applicant wishes
to proceed with original approval , for shared entrances to serve lots fronting on
Route 631. A request was made and approved on September 21, 1976, to permit easements
along the rear of these lots for access. However, the expense of the conditions
of approval (grading plans and bond) has caused the applicant to change his plans.
If this request is approved, the same conditions of original approval would stand,
including shared entrances as shown on the plat and a deceleration lane for Whittington
Drive. She read a letter from the Highway Department which stated that it preferred
the plat showing the easement along the rear of the property, however, entrance onto
Route 631 could not be denied with adequate sight distance.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the last submission has not been recorded, since
the staff has not signed the plat ( bond has not been posted).
Mr. Barksdale said that the applicant has the right to enter Route 631 from
any lot fronting the road, and the shared entrances was certainly preferable to that
possibility.
Mrs. Graves asked if Whittington Drive has to be bonded to the end of lots
8 and 9. Mrs. Scala replied that it requires a bond at the time of dedication.
Mr. Breeden stated that the easement is more desirable, however, the cost is
prohibitive.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the request for shared entrances, with all the
conditions of original approval to stand. Mr. Jones seconded this motion, which
carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
OR
567
Mrs. Breeden, asked if on this private access, they needed to come to
Commission to get the private alley (easement) along the back of the lots.
She asked if that weren't considered a private road. She asked if one needed
to come to the Commission to put in a private road for eight lots.
Mr. Breeden said that what she wants to know if it is necessary to have
Commission approval to have an easement on a deed. Mr. Breeden further explained
that this question may arise again, because when this project is finished,
they will be developing other land. He said that they wish to keep entrances onto
Route 631 to a minimum.
Mr. Payne said that as he sees the question, the Breedens are asking if they
can create a private access at some time separate from subdivision. He explained
that this would probably require a grading permit anyway. Furthermore, depending
on what conditions were to be placed on access to the lots from the public road,
a grading permit would probably be required. It would have to come back to the
Commission since it is the body which would impose that condition. He said that there
would be a third point to consider: if there is an easement being created in connection
with the division of property. That is why Mr. Payne hesitated to say if it could
be done without Planning Commission approval. Since this is all one plan of development,
and there are two actions that are technically separate(but part of a single plan of
development), the Commission should treat them as one action. The Subdivision
Ordinance defines "subdivision" as any division of property in which an new access
easement is created. So the question would be if, after the plat goes to record,
that easement is part of the subdivision. He stated that he could therefore give
no definitive answer.
Mr. Carr stated that in his opinion, though it could not be relied upon
in this case, if the Breedens wanted to give an easement across the rear of the
lots, and if the eventual property owners just wanted to travel in on the grass,
rocks, or whatever, it would be all right. In regard to the grading permit, he
agreed with Mr. Payne. If more than a certain number of square feet of dirt is disturbed,
a grading permit will be necessary. He pointed out that any private easement that
would be created would have to be considered from maintenance points, etc. He advised
the Breedens to proceed with caution as the developers. Mr. Carr stated that no one
has said that it can be done and advised the applicant to take note of this.
( Mr. Gloeckner re-entered the meeting. )
Continuation of Stillfield Plat:
there
Mr. Boggs stated that/seems to be a question of title on this road.
According to one plat the road is on the right-of-way. Mr. Robinson has a plat
showing fee -simple title. Feels that something can be worked out outside of the
Commission meeting.
Mr. Payne said that he has some reservations about that; insomuch as this
is a private agreement, it would not require the sanction of the Commission.
On the other hand, if the Commission approved what has been submitted for review,
without knowing what that agreement is (and there could be material changes made
that the Commission would be unaware of), it could be treading on shaky ground.
If approved that evening, it should be with specific conditions that do not exceed
the scope of the Commission's competence, or approved as is, with no conditions,
with regard to that exit/entrance.
Mr. Batchelor felt that the Commission had the power to create a right-of-way
for the storm water to protect Mr. Robinson's property. However, he felt that
Mr. Robinson and Dr. Hereford could work this out, to the satisfaction of the staff.
Mr. Carr asked if something could be worked out about the runoff that would
be satisfactory to the County Engineer.
Mr. Payne said that would be agreeable. However, he differed in opinion
with Mr. Batchelor about the Commission's ability to do this. He felt the Commission
should approve it with no conditions regarding this matter, or it should defer in
order that the two concerned parties could reach an agreement.
Mr. Barksdale moved that any action be deferred until a later date.
Mr. Keeler felt that it would be out of order for the Commission to approve
or disapprove subdivision of property that may or may not belong to the applicant.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion for deferral, which carried uanimously.
Mr. Humphris, on behalf of homeowners in Colthurst, told the Commission that
they wholeheartedly support the one entrance to the Stillfield Subdivision shown
on this final plat. He thanked the Commission for its interest in this matter.
Water and Lucy Young Preliminary Plat - located west side of Route 20 South,
about 1 mile south of Carter's Bridge:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report noting that this is a proposal to
divide 32+ acres into 5 parcels, with a minimum size of 5.7 acres; the average lot
size is 6.5 acres. Parcels will be served by existing 50' easement which was
approved by the Commission on June 22, 1976 to serve one 15-acre parce. On September 21,
1976, the Commission approved the further use of the easement for a 2-acre parcel.
The Highway Department has stated that sight distance to the south is inadequate for
a commercial entrance ( more than two users).
Staff suggested deferral until a new entrance location can be investigated.
However, if approved, the following conditions should be met:
1. Note on final plat: "No further subdivision along this easement without Planning
Commission approval;
2. Health Department approval;
3. The deeds to the parcels should contain a maintenance agreement for the upkeep of
the easement.
Mrs. Scala further stated that the Highway Department states that there is a
rise in the road to the south which prohibits adequate sight distance, and the Highway
Department cannot approve the plat.
Mr. Barksdale stated that if such is the case even if the Commission approves
the plat, the entrance cannot be used. Mr. Snow replied that an entrance permit
has already been granted. He further noted that if the entrance is moved to the north
there will be even less sight distance.
Mr. Carr stated that the entrance is as far to the south as possible. He
asked if the Commission should deny the plat on the basis of Highway Department approval.
In other words, can the Highway Department deny entrance to property, when the
569
entrance already exists and it can't be moved.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the problem is exiting the property.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the entrance could be raised with grading.
Mr. Snow replied that raising the entrance will not help.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission follow the staff's suggestion
for deferral until the property could be viewed and until some attempt to resolve
the entrance could be made.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Charlottesville Savings and Loan Site Plan - located on north-east quadrant of
intersection of Route 631 (Rio Road) and Route 29 North:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that this is a request to
amend the landscape plan. The plan requested for approval is less intensive than what
was originally presented, however the staff has no objections, nor does it have
any recommended conditions of approval.
Mr. Barksdale moved the request be approved. The motion, seconded by Mr.
Gloeckner, carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
Huntington Village Phase II - located on the north side of Route 754
(Old Ivy Road) adjacent to Ivy Gardens Apartments:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that this is a request
for approval of the Site Plan for Phase II which allows for the development of twenty-nine
townhouse units. If the Commission moves to approve this site plan, the staff
recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. Approval of water and sewer plans by the Albemarle County Service Authority;
2. Engineering Department approval of road plans;
3. Highway Department approval of road plans.
Mr. Montenegro informed the Commission that this submittal differs from the
original preliminary, approved in March, in two ways: 1) The alignment of Harvest
Drive is changed, reducing the number of units in Phase II from 34 to 29; and
2) The pool and clubhouse facility are omitted and the developer has informed the
staff they will be included in the final phase of development.
Mrs. Graves asked if there are any provisions for tot lots in Phase II.
Mrs. Scala responed that there are none in Phase II, but two are in Phase I.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that as he remembers it, there were tot lots shown in
the preliminary for Phase II, none in Phase I. It was the Commission's opinion at that
time that they should be located in Phase I to assure play area for the children.
Mr. Gloeckner further stated that he would like to see the pool and other
recreational facilities to be part of Phase II, as originally shown.
Mr. Keeler stated that the realignment of the road prohibits the pool's
570
construction as originally shown in the preliminary.
Mr. Jones suggested that the developer should build the pool and other
recreational facilities on the right side of the entrance, in conjunction with
construction of Phase II.
Mr. Carr suggested requiring the developer to build the pool and recreational
facilities when a certain number of occupancy permits have been issued.
Mr. Gloeckner again stated that he would like to see the recreational facilities
part of Phase II.
The chairman deferred the site plan until later in the meeting in order that
the applicant's representative could be present.
Totier Hills Final Plat - located on the west side of Route 20 South
approximately 1000 feet south of Route 626:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that a preliminary has
already been approved. The subdivision consists of twenty-one lots, with an
average size of 2.3+ acres. Approval of the final plat requires a waiver of
frontage requirements for lots 17 and 18.
The staff recommended the following conditions of approval:
1. County Engineer approval of road plans, including a tapered deceleration lane on
Route 20;
2. Highway Department approval;
3. Grading Permit will be required;
4. Health Department approval.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat as presented. Mr. Gloeckner
seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Foster, surveyor for the applicant, questioned the setback, since the
preliminary had been approved prior to adoption of the 75 frontage setback in the A-1
zone.
The Commission unanimously agreed that the final should be subject to the
newly adopted 75 foot setback.
Hawkwood Preliminary Plat - located on the west side of Route 729,
approximately � mile south of the University of Virginia Airport:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that this preliminary
plat had been changed to show a new name for the development (Hawkwood, which
had formerly been Foxfields). This is a proposal to locate seventeen lots, with an
average size of 8.7-acres, on Route 729. A waiver of the frontage requirement will
have to be granted for pipestem lots 9 and 10. The staff recommended the following
conditions of approval:
1. County Engineer approval of road plans;
2. A grading permit will be required;
571
3. Preliminary Health Department approval;
4. Highway Department approval;
5. No further division without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat, as recommended by the staff.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Mountain Hollow Final Plat - located on east side of Route 670, just
south of Newtown:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that nine lots have been
previously approved. This plat shows five additional lots. All lots are two acres
and will be served by individual well and septic systems. Lot 11 is not shown, since it
is a part of the residue property behind these lots. Preliminary Health Department
approval has been received. No conditions of approval are suggested by the staff.
Mrs. Scala noted that the plat shows the new 75 foot setback.
Mr. Carr noted that this is a subdivision being cut off from a large tract.
He noted that he hopes this large tract will not be cut up bit by bit.
Mr. Tiffany, owner of the property, stated that at the time of purchase it
was planned that all the road frontage property would be developed, leaving the back
acreage for farm land. He stated that he is currently trying to sell a 25-acre
parcel from the orchard, and trying to sell the other part of the orchard as one piece.
Mr. Tiffany told the Commission that he is trying to sell all that land which will not
grow corn.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat as recommended by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Continuation of Huntington Village:
Mr. Carr told the applicant's representative that the Commission is aware
that the Highway Department realigned the road, thus changing the entrance location.
However, he pointed out that the Commission is concerned about the change in plans
for location of the recreational facilities and pool.
Mr. Bob Anderson, architect for the applicant, stated that the pool was in
Phase II. However, due to the decrease in size of the site for Phase II,
it is difficult to fit the pool and other facilities into this plan. He pointed
out that Phase II is to be units for the handicapped, having wheel chair units, etc.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the recreational facilities could be part of Phase II.
Mr. Anderson stated that Phase III will follow almost immediately. However,
he suggested that the Commission condition the site plan such that recreational facilities
will have to be built at the time of const.urction of Phase II, or if Phase III is
not built, the recreational facilities must still be constructed.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission wants a committment that the developer
will build the recreational facilities.
572
Mr. Carr said the County could be assured of this by holding occupancy permits
on 33% of Phase II until the pool is built.
Mrs. Scala suggested holding building permits rather than occupancy permits -
this is much easier to handle. A similar problem had come up, and the Zoning
Administrator had felt that to hold the occupancy permit was more inconvenient to
t he tenant than to the developer.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the site plan be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. Approval of water and sewer plans by the Albemarle County Service Authority;
2. Engineering Department approval of road plans;
3. Highway Department approval of road plans;
4. The proposed location of the recreation facilites is to be submitted for
approval by the Planning Department staff;
5. No more than two-thirds of the certificates of occupancy for Phase II will be
granted until the recreation area as approved by the Planning Department is
either completed or bonded.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion, which carried unanimously, with no
further discussion.
Running Deer Final Plats:
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff requests that the Planning Commission
permit administrative approval on any future lots in Running Deer Subdivision
along Running Deer Drive. She stated that the road has been dedicated and
bonded for the entire length, and the preliminary has been approved by the
Commission. She stated that the reason for this request is that the applicant
has chosen to plat the lots as they are sold, rather than on one final plat. She
stated that anything on the side roads will have to come to the Commission.
Mr. Payne suggested to the Commission that if this is done, that no
substantial number be presented to the staff at one time. He felt that three
lots for approval was sufficient, since it takes the staff longer to review
a considerable number of lots. Mr. Payne also stated there should be no substantial
change in the preliminary plat.
Mrs. Graves asked if there is a plat to go by, since she objected to
administrative approval whenre there will be subdivision next door.
Mrs. Scala noted that the preliminary has been approved, and the grading
permit has already been acquired.
Mr. Payne stated that the fee for administrative approval is predicated
on the small number of lots.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the only concern he has is that this will set
a precedent to future subdivisions to do the same. He felt that any approval
of this request should plainly state it is limited to only this subdivision.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Commission will also have to waive the length
573
of effectiveness for a preliminary plat.
Mrs. Graves stated that it is up to the developer to extend a preliminary,
not the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed.
Mr. Payne stated that in his opinion, the Planning Commission is making
the staff its agent, thus the time element on the preliminary is irrelevant.
Mr. Keeler also asked that the Commission state that this is being done
because there has been no change in circumstance in the area.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the staff be permitted to do this, provided there
is no significant change in the preliminary, at which time the plat must come back
to the Commission. The motion included the point that the staff give approval
for no more than three lots at a time, and that such type of approval is limited
to this one plat ( because of grading permit, dedication, bonding ).
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion.
Discussion: Col. Washington stated that he noticed that the preliminary
shows a 50 foot setback. Mrs. Scala stated that this has been changed to a 75 foot
setback.
The motion carried unanimously.
Public hearing pursuant to Section 15.1-467 fo the Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, to review a proposed subdivision ordinance for the town of Gordonsville,
to apply within a portion of Albemarle County.
Mr. Keeler stated that on October 1, 1976, the staff received notification
from the Town Attorney of Gordonsivlle that the Town Council was contemplating
extension of jurisdiction of its proposed subdivision ordinance a distance of two
miles beyond its corporate boundaries, which would affect properties in Albemarle
County. If the County determines that subdivision review by Gordonsville would be
appropriate, the staff recommended an agreement similar to that existing with
Charlottesville. ( Mr. Keeler presented this agreement to the Commission for discussion.)
The Commission discussed this, and based on the comments of Col. Washington
and Mr. Gloeckner, the following recommendation was forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors, by unanimous vote:
The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors that the Board
not approve the application of the proposed subdivision ordinance of the
Town of Gordonsville to any portion of Albemarle County. The Commission
likewise rejected the alternative proposal of the staff to amend the Albemarle
County Subdivision Ordinance to permit review by the Town of Gordonsville of
subdivision plats for land in a portion of the County. The Commission based
these recommendations on its feeling that the
574
public interest is adequately protected by the County's existing
development control ordinances (Zoning, Subdivision, Soil Erosion,
etc.) and that any review by the Town of Gordonsville would serve no
useful purpose and would impose an unnecessary burden on the citizens
of the County.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Robe t W. Tucker, Jr. - Secr tart'