HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 574-617M
November 23, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
November 23, 1976, Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -
Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner; Mr. Leslie H. Jones; Col.
William Washington; Dr. James W. Moore; Mr. Paul M. Peatross; Mrs. Joan Graves;
and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
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
The Chairman approved the minutes of October 26, 1976, as presented.
Minutes of November 9, 1976, were approved subject to the word "property"
being changed to "road" in paragrapy #7 on page 555.
ZMA-17-76. Edward C. Dudley, Sr., has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to rezone 3.84 acres and 0.6 acres from A-1 Agricultural to M-1 Industrial
Limited. Property is located on the east side of Avon Street Extended,
just north of Hall Brothers. County Tax Map 90, Parcels 35B, and 35E.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
By motion of Mr. Barksdale, and seconding by Col. Washington, this item
was deferred until the January meetings, by unanimous vote.
SP-85-76. Edward C. Dudley, Sr. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to locate a warehouse for storage on 3.84 acres and 0.6 acres, proposed
for M-1 Zoning, ( currently zoned A-1 Agricultural ). Property is located
on the east side of Avon Street Extended, just north of Hall Brothers.
County Tax Map 90, Parcels 35B, and 35E. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
By motion of Mr. Barksdale, and seconding by Col. Washington, this item
was deferred, by unanimous vote, until the January meetings.
ZMA-19-76. Claude Cotton and Max Smith have petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to rezone 14.403 acres from R-2 Residential to R-1/RPN.
Property is located at the end of Wilder Drive, bounded on the north
by Meadow Creek. County Tax Map 61, Parcels 198, 199, 200, and 201.
Charlottesville and Rivanna Magisterial Districts.
At the request of the applicant, Col. Washington moved the Commission
h t re'udice The motion, seconded by
accept the request for withdrawal wit ou p
Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter asked the staff, in the future, when they are aware of
deferrals, to notify the Commission members in order that they do not view
sites that will not be considered at the next meeting.
Hollymead Square Site Plan - proposal to locate a 25-unit multi -family
building on a site located on the south side of the eastern end of Woodburn Road:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report stating that the plan calls for
24 one -bedroom units, 52 two -bedroom units, and 24 three -bedroom units. The site
covers 13.749 acres with a density of 7.27 units per acre. For the plan to
meet the maximum gross density requirements of 2.62 units per acre in Section B
of the approved Planned Community Master Plan, the applicant would be required to
plat and dedicate an additional 24.42 acres to the Hollymead Citizens Association.
However, only 7 acres are proposed to be dedicated at this time due to restrictions
in the Homeowner's Covenants. A dedication of 24+ acres would severely restrict
any future development of Section B because much of the prime developable land in
this section would have to be included in the dedication. Therefore, if the Commission
approves this plan, the staff recommends that 7+ acres be dedicated to the
Homeowner's Association and a restriction be imposed limiting any future development
of Section B without the Platting of the additional common area to lower the density
to the 2.62 units per acre level. With these two restrictions the gross area density
for the plan is 4.76 units per acre. The applicant has already platted enough
open space in the rest of the Planned Community to maintain the gross density of the
whole Planned Community under the cummulative gross density requirement. The
staff suggested several conditions of approval.
( Mrs. Graves entered the meeting. )
Dr. Moore asked if this were a change from the originally approved plan.
Mr. Montenegro explained that when originally approved, the housing was not specified,
only the density for each section.
Dr. Moore then questioned the impact on schools. Mr. Montenegro stated that
since these are apartments, there will be less density than single-family residences,
and according to Mr. Massie of the School System, less impact on schools.
Col. Washington questioned the grading permit and was told that it has already
been secured.
Mr. Montenegro informed Mr. Jones that the parking requirements have already
been met.
Mr. Stuart Carwile, on behalf of the applicant, stated that all the
conditions are agreeable.
Mr. Carr told the Commission that this is a request to approve a segment of
Section B without fulfillment of one condition: platting of the open space.
However this was all right, since there could be no further development of Section B
until the open space is platted, and this will have to come to the Commission for
approval.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the whole section allows for 202 units, and
this requests approval of 100 units.
Mr. Carr -stated that if the project is stopped after this part is
developed, that the conditions of SP-156 will have been met.
When questioned by Mr. Jones, Mr. Tucker explained that all utilities
are to be underground.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of SP-156 be adhered to including:
(a) that sidewalks be constructed along the property on Woodburn Road, and
(b) that Woodburn Road be brought to State standards as far as the
Hollymead Square entrance;
2. That the Albemarle County Service Authority approve the plans for water and
sewer facilities;
3. No further development may take place in Section B of the Hollymead Planned
Community Master Plan ( SP-156 ) without the platting and dedicating of enough
common area to lower the density of Section B to the 2.62 units per acre level;
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion.
Discussion: Dr. Moore questioned the possibility of connecting the sidewalk
segments, since most sidewalks front only parking strips.
Mr. Salamonsky, architect, stated that there is a reason for non -connecting
sidewalks: rough terrain ( which would require lots of steps ). There will
be sidewalks to the recreational areas but he stated that he would be willing
to put them in the plan if the Commission desires.
Mr. Carr said that he thought Dr. Moore had also meant picking up the sidewalk
to Woodburn Road for children walking to school.
Mrs. Graves asked if there had been another school site reservation there.
Mr. Carwile replied "no" that the County had only the 47 acres there, though this
might hold another school.
Mr. Tucker said that he was in agreement with the architect that sidewalks
should be through the site, and not along major streets.
Dr. Moore emphasized that he felt some sort of continuous path should be there.
Mr. Barksdale questioned who would be responsible for the maintenance of
the sidewalks, steps, etc. Mr. Tucker replied that it would be the owner of the
development, since the units are rental.
Mrs. David suggested the possibility of ramps instead of steps. Mr.. Tucker
felt that the grade is too steep. He stated that the staff would be willing
to work with the applicant in providing adequate walkway plan, etc., to the school. -
There was a discussion in which it was agreed that the plan should be conditioned
upon the sidewalk plans.
Mr. Barksdale amended his motion to include the following two conditions
in addition to the three above:
4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to have the applicant place
a sidewalk traversing this development which would connect any future
development to Hollymead School;
5. The Planning Department staff meet with the applicant for the purpose of
finding a safe way of connecting all interior sidewalks.
Dr. Moore asked if the land is sold if the restrictions will hold.
Mr. Carr replied "yes."
The motion to approve subject to the five conditions carried unanimously.
ZMA-18-76. C. Edward Good has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
rezone 1.496 acres from R-2 Residential to CO Commercial Office. Property
is located on the east side of Rio Road, adjacent the railroad bridge.
County Tax Map 61, Parcel 153A, Rivanna and Charlottesville Magisterial
Districts.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, reading letters from the Voc
Tech School, Mr. Huja ( Director of Community Development for the City )
who opposed the request, and from the Virginia Department of Highways who
had commented that there would have to be significant site plan requirements.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the railroad separates this property from the city.
Mr.Good, applicant, pointed out that though the permit has expired,
a commercial entrance permit had been granted by the Highway Department for
this site.
Mr. Jones questioned the possibility of a shared entrance with the
adjoining property.
Mr. Good replied that he has not approached the owner on this matter, though
he had spoken to them when he was considering developing it as R-2 property.
A gentleman from the Voc Tech school stated that the school wants to continue
being able to operate at the time of construction on the site.
Since there was no public comment, Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Easter stated that there will obviously be problems with the driveway
since the land is below the level of the road.
Mr. Tucker agreed that there will have to be considerable fill in order to
provide adequate sight distance, though this would also have had to be done if the
property had been developed at an R-2 density.
Mr. Easter stated that he sees nothing wrong with the rezoning if there is
a decent entrance.
Mr. Tucker stated that this would have to be discussed at site plan level.
Mr. Jones asked if approval of the rezoning request would obligate the
Commission to approve a site plan for the property. Mr. Carr said "no", not if
conditions are not met. He pointed out that this is a request for rezoning.
Mrs. Graves stated that she would like to see the property used for offices.
Mr. Good replied that at this time those are his plans.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the application be approved, since CO is compatible
with surrounding area.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr told the applicant that the Commission recognizes the difficulties
with the exit/entrance for this property.
SP-84-76. Charles R. Baber has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate
a turkey shoot on 161.70 acres. Property is located on the east side of
Route 626, approximatley 200 feet south of Route 735. Property is zoned A-1
Agriculture. County Tax Map 133, Parcels 75 and 75A; County Tax Map 134,
Parcel 10A. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, in which several conditions of approval
were recommended. He also presented a petition of support for the request.
the
Mr. Barksdale asked how the applicant feels about condition limiting the months
of operation to November and December only during daylight hours.
Mr. Keeler stated that the property is zoned A-1 and this is supposedly
not to be a big commercial venture. He stated that the hours of operation should
be during daylight on Saturday because of access to medical facilities from this
end of the County, in case of accidents.
Mr. Baber stated that he did not want the permit if he could not hunt on
his property.
Mr. Carr explained that what is intended in the staff report is no unauthorized
shooting matches on weekdays, and the condition addresses only the area which would
be used for the shooting matches.
Mr. Baber stated that he would like the permit to be good from September 15
through Christmas. He also stated that he has never seen a shoot fully enclosed.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the closest residence to the shooting site.
Mr. Baber stated that it can be located so that the site will be 125 yards
from any building.
Col. Washington asked about the sheriff's approval of specifications of
safety devices. Mr. Keeler said that this would address the location and design
of the shooting match - whatever is needed to make it a safe facility.
Mr. Easter saw no problems with the request as long as it is used and operated
properly. He suggested adding a condition about closing the facility if it becomes
a public nuisance.
Mr. Peatross asked if the applicant understood that the shoot could
be held on Saturdays only in the daytime.
Mr. Baber stated that this is agreeable.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the request subject to the following conditions:
1. The location and design of the shooting range be approved by the Albemarle
County Sheriff to include specification of safety devices;
2. Annual review by the Zoning Administrator to insure the range is maintained
as approved;
3. Firearms limited to shotguns with loadings approved by the sheriff;
4. This shall be a seasonal use limited to the months of September through
December. The shoot may be held during daylight hours (specified) on Saturdays
only; provided in no case shall a shoot be held on Christmas Eve or Christmas
Day;
5. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on the premises during shooting matches;
6. This approval shall be limited specifically as described in Conditions 1 through 5.
No shooting, other than in the specified shooting matches, shall occur at the range;
7. If, in the opinion of the Board of Supervisors this becomes a public nuisance, or
if any of the conditions are violated, the permit may be revoked.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr said that he.felt the conditions were fair and hoped the Board would
approve as recommended by the Commission.
SP-88-76. Victor R. Ray has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate
a shooting match on 3.86 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the south side
of Route 738, north of Ivy Pulp Wood. County Tax Map 58-A(1), Parcel 2,
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Since the applicant was not present, the Commission unanimously deferred
any action until the end of the meeting.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend the B-1 Business Zone of the Zoning Ordinance to include the following
general amendment: Section 7-1-47. Retail stores and shops in compliance with
the Statement of Intent of the B-1 Business District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report stating that this would be a general pro-
vision for retail stores. Such uses not provided for would be represented by book
store, pet shop, wallpaper/paint store, tobacco shop, record shop, etc. Mr. Keeler
explained that rather than amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for these or other
uses specifically, the staff recommended the general amendment.
Mr. Easter, stating that he feels this fills a void in the ordinance, moved
approval.
Mr. Gilbert Somers questioned the meaning of the amendment, noting his
concern about hardware stores and building supply companies, because of the recent
Paulett rezoning application, which is now being litigated.
Mr. Keeler stated that the County's zoning ordinance is an exclusive
ordinance, and what is not specifically permitted is not provided for. He pointed
out that the list of possible businesses here is not specific and would be left
to the interpretation of the zoning administrator.
Mr. Carr stated that it is difficult to list businesses that might be good
in the B-1 zone, because it would be a continuous amending process. He felt that
if the business meets the intent of the zone, it should be permitted by right or by
special permit.
Mr. Jones felt that excluding certain uses would be helpful since the purpose
is to protect residential neighborhoods.
Mrs. Speidel, representing Citizens for Albemarle, stated that there is
concern that this amendment would open the door for heavy retail uses in the B-1
zone. She pointed out the recent problems with the Paulette Company in the B-1
zone even though it states clearly in the, ordinance that building material sales
yards are among uses permitted in the M-1, rather than in the B-1. She asked that
if the amendment is approved, it should be clear that businesses like building material
sales will not be permitted in the B-1 zone.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that there is a definition in the ordinance for RETAIL
STORES AND SHOPS and this amendment would be governed by that definition. He stated
that since the definition exists, the use should be provided for.
Mr. Easter asked if the proposed amendment is adopted, and since the defintion
exists, will the fears of these people become a reality.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance is subject to the interpretation of the
zoning administrator, but he feels there is no problem here.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that since the adoption of the ordinance in 1968,
these uses have been permitted as though this amendment were in the ordinance.
There was a discussion about adding the definition to the amendment,
and Mr. Payne advised the Commission that this was not a good idea, since the
ordinance is supposed to be read and interpreted in terms of the definitions
provided. He did not feel this particular amendment needed special or individual
treatment, since it could prove misleading to future zoning administrators and courts.
Mr. Somers suggested that the Commission defer any action until a further
study of possible uses could be made.
Mr. Peatross pointed out that there is a definition for r--tail stores and
shops in the ordinance. He said that he agreed with Mr. Payne that there is no need
for additional wording or clarification, since it will complicate if emphasized or
repeated. He felt that this covered those uses, as well as narrowing them.
Mrs. Graves stated that at the time the ordinance was adopted, the uses
in the B-1 zone were restricted, since this land w4s to be adjacent to residential
areas. She asked that the Commission consider,moX&R9 of the uses by right in the
B-1 zone into the uses by special use permit section.
Mr. Carr stated that this is not an all inclusive list, it is whatever businesses
fit the statement of intent of the B-1 zone.
Mr. Easter stated that
areas, but the attorneys had
as presented by the staff.
Mr. Barksdale seconded
he does not want to jeopardize adjoining residential
stated that this is properly covered. He moved approval
the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mrs. Graves asked if the Commission would consider dealing with uses by
right and by special permit in the business zone by stating its intent.
Mr. Carr explained that recently there had been a meeting, which he and
Mr. Peatross attended, at which the possibility of limiting further amendments
to the ordinance until completion of the review of the Comprehensive Plan,had been
the topic of discussion. In light of some of the developments at that meeting,
he stated that he would defer Mrs. Gravesrfor such a discussion for a period of two
weeks. request
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of intent
to amend Article 17 - Site Development Plan Section of the Zoning Ordinance -
which would provide for administrative approval of those site plans in which
no objections were filed with the Director of Planning; all other site
plans will be processed through the Planning Commission.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He read a letter from the
League of Women Voters which urged leaving Article 17 as written, since the
Commission represents the views of a broad spectrum of County residents. 'IWO/
Mr. Keeler also pointed out that preliminary plans for RPN's and PUD's
would automatically be reviewed by the Commission - this is required by the ordinance.
Mr. Gloeckner supported the proposal as long as public comment is allowed
at site plan review meetings.
Mr. Payne suggested written rules for the order of business of the site
plan review meetings, in order that there be a time when the public asked questions.
Mrs. Graves stated that there are no rules now for the site plan review meetings.
Mr. Tucker stated that at this time there is no public input at these meetings.
Mrs. Graves stated that the public is not notified of site plan review meetings.
Mrs. Dorothy Speidel, on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle, suggested that
if the Commission decides to permit administrative approval of site plans, there
should be public advertising of intent to approve particular site plans administratively
( similar to mobile home procedure ) and that objections from members of the public
( whether or not they are adjacent landowners ) be received by the Director of Planning
as reason for review by the Commission.
Mr. Keelerreviewedthe two timetable alternatives for the commission,
and Mr. Tucker stated that 18 days should give ample time for review.
Mrs. Graves felt it important that the Planning Commission address not the
technical points, but the intangibles. Thus she favored Commission review of
all site plans.
Mr. Keeler asked that Section 17-7-2 be amended to include a representative
from the Virginia Department of Health as part of the site plan review committee.
Mrs. Graves questioned the possibility of adding the sheriff as part of
that committee for reasons of health, safety, and public welfare.
This was discussed briefly, and Mr. Easter pointed out that the Sheriff
is understaffed now and felt he should be consulted only on staff request.
Mr. Tucker stated that he would ask the Sheriff if he would be interested
in being part of the site review committee.
Mr. Carr felt that if he were included, there would later be complaints
that the meetings were not being properly attended. The staff would request his
input as necessary.
Mrs. Graves stated that if site plan approval moves to staff that she
hopes that County employees will improve their attendance.
Mr. Keeler read for the benefit of the public those people who would be
notified.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the following:
1. Amend Section 17-3-2 as recommended by the staff;
2. Amend Section 17-7 Procedure as recommended by the staff with one change:
to include a representative from the
Section 17-7-2 should be amended
Virginia Department of Health as part of the site plan review committee;
3. Amend Section 17-4-36 as recommended by the staff;
4. Recommend Alternative 1 ( which allows 18 days for the public to respond ).
( SEE ATTACHED SHEETS )
Mr. Easter seconded the motion:
Discussion:
Dr. Moore stated that he is not convinced this will save time for the
Commission, plus he felt that the Commission provides a broad public view.
Mr. Carr stated that he still favors this proposal, and has from its
inception. He feels that this work' �n the best interests of all parties concerned.
He agreed that the Commission has served its purpose for considering the
more intangible matters of site plans, but does not support non -interested
people's picking away at the applicant, the architects, engineers, etc. He
emphasized that the place to administer a good site plan ordinance is at the
review committee level and stated that in voting for these amendments he does
not feel he is giving up the public trust.
Dr. Moore disagreed on who might be an interested party - he felt this
was not just necessarily an adjacent proeprty owner.
Mr. Barksdale said that anyone else could object through his representative
on the Board of Supervisors.
The vote on the motion was 6-2-1, with Dr. Moore and Mrs. Graves dissenting,
Col. Washington abstaining.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has adopted a resolution of
intent to amend Section 10-1; repeal Sections 10-5, 10-6, and 10-7; amend
Section 11-13; repeal Article 12, to be replaced with Article 12.1 These
sections and articles involve the nonconforming uses section, Board of
Zoning Appeals section and the special use permit section.
Mr. Payne explained the proposed amendments, noting that the purpose of
these amendments and repealers is to make numerous small changes to have the ordinance
comply with the statutes. He noted that under Article 12.1 all references to
special exceptions have been deleted, since this is done by the Board.
Article 10 deletes references to seasonal uses and addresses certificates
of occupancy for non -conforming uses. Mr. Payne stated that in the case of 10-7-4
the Zoning Administrator must make a case -by -case study. Section 11-13 more clearly
explains the special use permit provisions. Mr. Jones emphasized during this discussion
that he felt "mobile home" should be denoted a "residence". Mr. Payne explained
that residences are not permitted by special permits, only mobile homes by special permit
The only case where a special permit is required for a residence is in the B-1 zone.
Mr. Peatross questioned the time element in section ll-13 ana Mr. Payne replied that
the Commission and Board seem to have reached a consensus that they wish to try to
enforce this, and it would be more easy to defend if it were part of the ordinance.
This will apply to mobile homes only when the special permit comes to the Commission
and Board because of complaints. Mrs. Graves questioned the omission of seasonal
uses and Mr. Payne explained that non -conforming uses can continue unless not carried
out for a period of two years.
At the end of the discussion Mr. Easter moved that the Commission make
the following recommendation to the Board of Supervisors:
Amend Sections 10-1-1, 10-1-2, 10-1-3, 10-1-4, 10-5-1, 10-6, 10-6-1, 10-7-1,
10-7-2, 10-7-3, 10-7-4 as presented on the attached pages; and repeal Sections 10-1-5
and 10-2.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission recommend that Sections 11-13-1,
11-13-2, 11-13-3, and 11-13-4 be amended as presented on the attached pages.
Mr. Easter seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors
adopt Article 12.1 in its entirety, as presented on the attached pages.
Mr. Peatross seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors
repeal Article 12 in its entirety. This motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried
unanimously.
19
1. Section 17-3-2 - add the following sentence: Notice shall also be sent to
all members of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
2. Amend Section 17-7 Procedure to read as follows:
17-7 PROCEDURE
17-7-1 There is hereby created a site plan review committee composed of a
representative of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
the Albemarle County Planning Department, the Albemarle County Engineer's
Office, the Albemarle County Service Authority, and the Albemarle
County Fire Marshal's office, and the Virginia Department of Health.
In addition, two members of the Albemarle County Planning Commission,
to be designated by the Chairman thereof, shall serve as ex-officio
members of this committee. The committee shall have the power to make
rules for the regulation of its business, subject to the approval of
the Planning Commission.
17-7-3 The Albemarle County Planning Department shall transmit all applications
for site development plan approval to the committee for its review. The
committee shall review all such applications for technical compliance
with the provisions hereof. Upon completion of its review, the committee
shall make recommendations to the Director of Planning.
17-7-4 Upon receipt of the final site plan and the Committee's recommendations,
the Director of Planning shall determine if the plan is in compliance with
this Article. If he determines that it is not so in compliance, he shall
notify the applicant of his reasons for such determination, and request
that the plan be made to comply. If the applicant shall fail to comply
with such request, the Director of Planning may disapprove the application.
In the event that the applicant desires a review of the disapproval
of the Director of Planning, he may request review of his application by the
Planning Commission by filing a written request therefor with the
Director of Planning within the (10) days of such disapproval. Upon
receipt of such request, the Director of Planning shall forthwith transmit
the plan, along with his comments and recommendations, to the Planning
Commission for action.
17-7-5 If the Director of Planning determines that the plan is in compliance
with this Article, and if there is no written objection to the plan from
any citizen, adjacent owner or member of the Planning Commission or Board
of Supervisors, the Director of Planning shall approve the plan.
If, however, there is any such written objection the Director of Planning
shall forthwith transmit the plan to the Planning Commission for action,
whether or not he himself considers it to be in compliance.
17-7-6 If the site plan is transmitted to the Commission for action, the
Commission shall approve or disapprve the application within sixty (60)
calendar days from the date of the application. In so doing, the Commission
shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the site plan review
committee and the Director of Planning. In addition, it may consider such
other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application.
1%W Any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, nothing in
this Article shall be construed to prevent the Commission from deferring
consideration of any application on the ground that the applicant shall have
failed to comply with the provisions of thsi Article, or to attend any
meeting of the Commission whereat such application is to be considered.
17-7-7 Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Planning Commission in the
administration of this article may demand a review of the application
by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Such demand shall be
made by filing a request therefor in writing with the Albemarle County
Planning Department within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such
decision. The Board may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part,
the decision of the Commission. In so doing, the Board shall give due
consideration to the recommendations of the site plan review committee
and the Planning Commission. In addition, it may consider such other
evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application.
For purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited
to the applicant, persons required to be notified pursuant to Section 17-3-2
of this Article and any interested governmental agency or officer thereof.
The governing body reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions
of the Commission made in the administration of this Article which, in its
discretion, it shall deem necessary to the proper administration hereof.
3. Amend Section 17-4-36 under Specific Items To Be Shown, to read as follows:
Signature panels shall be provided for the Chairman and Secretary of the Albemarle
County Planning Commission;
4. Alternative I ( allows 18 days for the public to respond )
Last Tuesday of each month - deadline for site plan submittal
Following Friday - Notices sent to adjacent owners, Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors members.
Thursday following first Tuesday of each month - Site plan review meeting
Friday following second Tuesday - deadline for reviewed plans sent to Director of
Planning
Third Tuesday - Deadline for objections ( 18 days from date of notice ); Director
of Planning approves or denies site plan.
Fourth Tuesday - Planning Commission reviews plans for which objections have been
received, plans for which the Director of Planning has denied
and those appealed by applicant.
M
November 23, 1976
11-13 SPECIAL USE PERMITS
11-13-1 The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue
all special exceptions and use permits permitted hereunder. Special
use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon
a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the
district will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony
with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted
by right in the district and with the public health, safety and general
welfare.
11-13-2 Application for a special use permit shall be made by the filing thereof
by the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property with the
Zoning Administrator, together with a fee in the amount of fifty (50)
dollars, except in the case of a permit for the location of an individual
mobile home whose fee shall be twenty (20) dollars, to cover the cost of
the expenses incident to the processing thereof. No such permit shall be
issued unless the Board of Supervisors shall have referred the application
therefor to the Planning Commission for its recommendations. Failure
of the Commission to report within ninety days after the first meeting of
Commission after the application has been referred to the Commission
shall be deemed approval. No such permit shall be issued except after
notice and hearing as provided by Section 15.1-431 of the Code. Also a
notification sign shall be posted by the applicant on the right-of-way line
of the property and the nearest state right-of-way line for a period of
twenty-one days prior to the first public hearing.
11-13-3 The Board o-f '.Supervisors may impose upon any such permit such conditions
relating to the use for which such permit is granted as it may deem
necessary in the public interest and may require a bond with surety or other
approved security to ensure that the conditions so imposed shall be complied
with. Such conditions shall relate to the purposes of this ordinance,
including, but not limited to, the prevention of smoke, dust, noise,
traffic congestion, flood and/or other hazardous, deleterious or otherwise
undesirable substance or condition; the provision of adequate police and
fire protection, transportation, water, sewerage, drainage, recreation,
landscaping and/or screening or buffering; the establishment of special
requirements relating to the buidling setbacks, front, side and rear yards,
off-street parking, ingress and egress, hours of operation, outside storage of
materials, duration and intensity of use, building height and/or other
particular aspects of occupancy or use. Except as the Board of Supervisors
may otherwise specifically provide in a particular case, any condition
imposed under the authority of this section shall be deemed .to be essential
to and non -severable from the issuance of the permit itself. Any permit
issued pursuant to this ordinance may be revoked by the Board of Supervisors,
after notice and hearing pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code, for
wilful non-compliance with this ordinance or any conditions imposed under the
authority of this section. In the event that the use, structure or
activity for which any such permit is issued shall not be commenced within
18 months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed
abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate.
For purposes of this section, the term "commenced" shall be construed to
include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the
use of such permit within 18 months from the date of the issuance thereof
which is thereafter completed within 1 year.
11-13-4 Any use, structure or activity lawfully in existence on the effective
date of this ordinance which would be permitted under the provisions
of this ordinance relating to the district in which it is located by the
issuance of special use permit may be continued; provided, however,
that such use, structure or activity shall not be expanded or enlarged
beyond the boundaries of the parcel or parcels of land on which it was
located on the effective date of this ordinance; and provided further that
if any such use, structure or activity shall be discontinued for a period
exceeding two years, the same shall conform in all respects to the provisions
of this ordinance relating to the district in which it is located. whenever
the boundaries of any district are changed, any use, structure or activity
which shall therefore become non -conforming as a result of such change
through want of a required special use permit, shall be subject to the
provisions of this section.
ARTICLE 12.1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
12 4--1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, APPOINTMENT AND ORGANIZATION
12.1-1-1 A Board of Zoning Appeals, consisting of five members,
shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions
of Section 15.1-494, of the Code, and shall have such
powers and duties as set forth in Section 15.1-495
of the Code.
12,'1--1-2 Within the limits of funds appropriated by the governing
body, the Board may employ or contract for such
secretaries, clerks, legal counsel, consultants and
other technical and clerical services as the Board may
deem necessary for transaction of its business.
12.1--1-3 Members of the Board shall receive such compensation
as may be authorized by the governing body, from time
to time, by ordinance or resolution.
12.E--1-4 Any Board member may be removed for malfeasance, mis-
feasance or nonfeasance in office, or for other just
cause, by the court which appointed him, after hearing
held after at least fifteen (15) days notice.
12.E-1-5 The Board shall have the authority to request the
opinion, advice or other aid of any officer, employee,
board, bureau or commission of the County within the
scope of his or its respective competence.
12.�1-1-6 The Board of Zoning Appeals may, from time to time,
adopt such rules and regulations, consistent with the
ordinances of the County and the laws of the Common-
wealth,as it may deem necessary to carry out the duties
imposed by this ordinance. The meetings of the Board
shall be held at the call of its chairman or at such
times as a quorum of the Board may determine. The
Board shall choose annually its own chairman and vice-
chairman who shall act in the absence of the chairman.
The chairman, or, in his absence, the acting chairman,
may administer oaths and compel the attendance of
witnesses. The Board shall keep minutes of its
proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon each
question, or if absent or failing to vote, indicating
such fact. All records of official actions shall
become part of the permanent records of the Board. A
quorum shall be a majority of all the members of the
Board.
12.1-2 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The Board of Zoning Appeals shall have the following
powers and duties in accordance with Section 15.1-495,
of the Code:
12.1-2-1 To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement,
decision, or determination made by an administrative
officer in the administration or enforcement of this
ordinance or of any regulation adopted pursuant hereto.
12,,E-2-2 To authorize upon appeal or original application in
specific cases such variance from the terms of this
ordinance as weill not be contrary to the public interest,
when, owing to special conditions a literal enforcement
of the provisions will result in unnecessary hardship;
provided that the spirit of the ordinance shall be
observed and substantial justice done, as follows:
When a property owner can show that his property was
acquired in good faith and wher by reason of the
exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of
a specific piece of property at the time of the effective
date of this ordinance, or where by reason of exceptional
topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation
or condition of such piece of property, or of the use
or development of property immediately adjacent thereto,
the strict application of the terms of this ordinance
would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict
the use of the property or where the Board is satisfied,
upon the evidence heard by it, that the granting of such
variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship
approaching confiscation, as distinguished from a
special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant,
provided that all variances shall be in harmony with the
intended spirit and purpose of this ordinance.
No such variance shall be authorized by the Board unless
it finds: (a) that the strict application of this
ordinance would produce .undue hardship; (b) that such
hardship is not shared generally by other properties in
the same zoning district and the same vicinity; and
(c) that the authorization of such variance will not
be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and
that the character of the district will not be changed
by the granting of the variance.
12-1.-2-4 No such variance shall be authorized except after notice
and hearing as required by Section 15.1-431 of the Code.
No variance shall be authorized unless tlTe Board finds
the the condition or situation of the property concerned
or the intended use of the property is not of so
general or recurring a nature as to make reasonably
practicable the formulation of a general regulation to
be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance.
In authorizing a variance the Board may impose such
conditions regarding the location, character and other
features of the proposed structure or use as it may deem
necessary in the public interest, and may require a
guarantee or bond to,insure that the conditions imposed
are being and will continue to be complied with.
12-1-2-6 To hear and decide appeals from the decision of the zoning
administrator.
12.1--2-7 To hear and decide applications for interpretation of the
zoning map where there is any uncertainty as to the
location of a district boundary. After notice to the
owners of the property affected by any such question,
and after public hearing with notice as required by
Section 15.1-431 of the Code, the Board may interpret
the map in such way as to carry out the intent and the
purpose of the ordinance for the particular section or
district in question. The Board shall not have the
power, however, to rezone property or substantially
to change the locations of district boundaries as
established by this ordinance and the zoning map.
12.1-3 APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Appeal to the Board may be taken by any person aggrieved
or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the
county affected by any decision of the zoning administrator.
Such appeal shall be taken within thirty days after
the decision appealed from by filing with the zoning
administrator, and with the Board, a notice of appeal
specifying the grounds thereof. The zoning administrator
shall forthwith transmit to the Board all the papers
constituting the record upon which the action appealed
from was taken. An appeal shall stay all proceedings
in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the
zoning administrator certifies to the Board that by
reason of facts stated in the certificate a stay would
in his opinion cause imminent peril to life or
property, in which case proceedings shall not be stayed
otherwise than by a restraining order granted by the Board
or by a court of record, on application and on notice
to the zoning administrator and for good cause shown.
12.1 -4 APPLICATIONS FOR VARIANCES
Applications for variances may be made by any property
owner, tenant, government official, department, board
or bureau. Such application shall be made to the
zoning administrator in accordance with the provisions
of this Article and with rules adopted by the Board.
The application and accompanying maps, plans or other
information shall be transmitted promptly to the
secretary of the, Board who shall place the matter on
the docket to be acted on by the Board. No such
variance shall be authorized except after notice and
hearing as required by Section 15.1-431 of the Code.
The zoning administrator shall also transmit a copy
of the application to the Planning Commission which
may send a recommendation to the Board or appear as a
party at the hearing.
12.1-5
PROCEDURE
12.1-5-1
Appeals and applications for variances shall be filed
with the zoning administrator,,together with a fee of
twenty dollars ($20.00) to cover the cost of the
processing of such appeal or application.
12,1,-5-2
The Board shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing
of an application or appeal, give public notice thereof
pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code, as well as
due notice to the parties in interest, and decide the
same within sixty days. In exercising its powers, the
Board may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may
modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination
appealed from. The concurring vote of three members
shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement,
decision, or determination of an administrative officer
or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter
upon which it is required to pass under the ordinance
or to effect any variance from this ordinance.
12.1-6
DECISION OF BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved
by any decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals, or
any taxpayer or any officer, department, board, or bureau
of the county may present to the circuit court of the
county a petition specifying the grounds on which
aggrieved within thirty days after the filing of the
decision in the office of the Board, which petition shall
proceed in accordance with Section 15.1-497 of the Code.
In
ARTICLE 10 NONCONFORMING USES
10-1 Continuation
10-1-1 Any use, activity, lot or structure, lawfully in existence
on the effective date of this ordinance, which does not
conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating to the
district in which the same is situated may be continued in
accordance with the provisions of this Article.
10-1-2 No change in title to any property subject to the provisions
of this Article, including but not limited to, the demise,
renewal, expiration, termination or modification of any
leasehold interest, shall impair the nonconforming status
of such property.
10-1-3 Any such use, activity or structure which is discontinued
for more than two years shall be deemed abandoned and shall
thereafter conform to the provisions of this ordinance relating
to the district in which the same is situated.
10-1-4 Whenever any such use, activity or structure is changed to a
more restricted nonconforming use, activity or structure,
the original use shall be deemed abandoned.
10-1-5 Repealed
10-2 Repealed
10-3 OK
10-4 OK
10-5 Expansion and Enlargement
10-5-1 The use of any building or structure shall conform to the
provisions of this ordinance relating to the district in
which the same is situated whenever such building or
structure is enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally
altered.
10-5-2 OK
10-6 Nonconforming Lots
Any lot of record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance
which is less in area and/or width than the minimum required
by this ordinance may be used in a manner consistent with the
uses permitted for a lot having the minimum area and/or width
so required; provided, that the rear, side and front setback
requirements of this ordinance shall be maintained; and
provided further that no such use shall be permitted which is
determined by the Zoning Administrator to constitute a danger
to the public health, safety and general welfare.
10-6-1 For purposes of this section, any lot shown on a preliminary
or final subdivision plat was approved by the proper authority
of the County in accordance with law prior to April 15, 1968,
and which plat was subsequently recorded in due course, shall *at
deemed to be a lot or record at the time of the adoption of this
ordinance.
10-7 Restoration or Replacement
10-7-1 If a nonconforming structure or a structure the use of which
if nonconforming shall be destroyed or damaged in any manner
to the extent that the cost of restoration to its condition
before such destruction or damage shall exceed 75% of the total
replacement or restoration cost of such structure, the same
may be repaired and/or reconstructed only if such structure
and the use thereof shall conform to the provisions of this
ordinance relating to the district in which such structure
is situated.
10-7-2 Whenever any nonconforming structure or structure the use of
which is nonconforming is damaged as a result of factors beyond
the control of the owner and/or occupant thereof to a lesser
extent that that set forth in S10-7-1 hereof, such structure
may be repaired and/or reconstructed and the nonconforming
use thereof continued as provided in this Article provided
that such repair and/or reconstruction shall be commenced
within twelve months and completed within twenty-four months
from the date of such damage.
10-7-3 The value of the land on which such structure is situated
shall not be considered in the determination of the cost
of reconstruction and/or restoration as provided in S10-7-1
hereof.
10-7-4 Any nonconforming structure actually used as a single-family
dwelling or any historic structure which shall be destroyed
or damaged may be restored or replaced regardless of the
percentage of destruction thereof. For purposes of this
section, the term "historic structure" shall be deemed to
include any structure which is determined by the Zoning
Administrator to be of unusual historic, cultural or
artistic significance or any historic landmark designated
as such by the Board of Supervisors or the Virginia Historic
Landmarks Commission.
ME
-2-
Be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors does hereby state its
intent to amend Section 2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance by the addition of the
following: Any structure located within the A-1 Agricultural Zone which
was in existence prior to October 21, 1976, and is now non -conforming by
the virtue of the adoption of the above 75 foot front setback requirement -
if otherwise permitted - may be expanded, enlarged, extended or remodeled
with administrative approval of the Zoning Administrator; provided, however
that such expansion, enlargements, extension, or remodeling does not extend
beyond the present building line.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the above amendment
has been reworded, though there has been no substantive change made. He stated
that the staff suggests the following wording:
Any structure located in this district which was lawfully in existence
prior to October 21, 1976, and which is non -conforming solely in that
it is located within seventy-five (75) feet of any street, road or
access easement as hereinabove provided, may be expanded, enlarged
or extended as if it were a conforming structure; provided, however,
that such expansion, enlargement or extension shall not extend beyond the
present front building line.
Noting that this seems to be straight -forward, Mr. Easter moved that the
Commission recommended the revised wording, as just presented, to the Board of
Supervisors,
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
M
SP-88-76 - con't from earlier in the meeting:
Since the applicant was not present, Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission
defer action on the request for one week. If the applicant is not present at that
public hearing, the permit should be denied.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr., Secre ary
OR
575
November 30, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
November 30, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Colonel William R. Washington; Mr. Leslie H. Jones; Mrs. Opal David, ex -off icio;
Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Paul Peatross; and Dr. James Moore. Those
members absent were Mrs. Joan Graves and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. 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, Deputy County
Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Minutes of November 16 were approved with no corrections or additions.
Stillfield Final Plat - located on Route 654 (Barracks Road)
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report noting that on November 16, this item
had been deferred in order that Mr. Batchelor could confer with the applicant's repre-
sentative on the plat. At the request of the applicant, Mr. Barksdale moved that this
item be further deffered until December 14, 1976. Mr. Easter seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
- located on the southeast side of Route 641,
Piney Mountain Preliminary Plat
north of Advance Mills
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report stating that this is a proposal to
divide 69+ acres into 6 parcels, average size 11.6+ acres, minimum size 5.0 acres.
These lots are to be served by a private easement approximately 2400 feet in length.
If the Commission approves this plat it would include a reduction of the frontage require-
ment for lot 5 as well as the following recommended conditions:
1. Preliminary Health Department approval;
2. -highway Department approval of the entrance alignment and sight distance;
3. ao further division along the easement without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Montenegro asked Mr. Coburn of the Highway Department to brief the staff and
all present on the result of the radar review that was taken to determine what a valid
Plr. Coburn stated that 50 miles per hour was the result
speed should be in that area.
with nine
of a study taken in an hour and a half feetlatethetentrancedied.Hinformed and stated that
developer that the sight distance should be 500
this does not exist at the present. hie further informed the developer that the required
sight distance could be easily achieved in one direction but more difficult in the
other direction. lie stated that the Highway Department is open for suggestions to
improve this situation.
Mr. Easter asked Mr. Coburn what the actual sight distance is. Mr. Coburn
stated that the sight distance is 350 feet at this time. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Coburn
how the required sight distance is determined. Mr. Coburn stated that it is determined
multiplying ten times five miles above the assumed speed limit.
576
Mr. Barksdale asked if the entrance is paved. Mr. Montenegro stated that the
entrance is paved but less than desirable.
Mr. Peatross asked Mr. Coburn when the study was taken. Mr. Coburn said
that it had been taken at 10 or 11 a.m. on a Thursday. Mr. Peatross suggested
that the road may have been more heavily traveled at 8 or 9 a.m. Mr. Coburn stated
that in his opinion, the study was fair.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Coburn what the Highway Department's policy is, if the
required sight distance cannot be achieved. Mr. Coburn said that the Highway Department
doesn't want to deny entrance to any developer. He further stated that he felt that the
required sight distance for this entrance could be achieved; it would be costly but
that it would be required for safe entrance.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Coburn what the case would be for a private, individual
entrance. Mr. Coburn said that in that instance, the sight distance would be considerably
less.
Mike Boggs, the applicant, added that this is an existing road, 16 feet paved.
Mr. Jones stated that it has already been established that it is possible to
develop more than six houses in this area. He advised the staff that this should be
given careful reconsideration, as there very well could be more than six dwelling
units in the future. The normal sight distance requirement is 600 feet, but as the
development increases in dwelling units, the sight distance should be improved at this
time as presently, the sight distance falls short of 600 feet.
Mr. Barksdale recommended approval with three conditions: 1) Preliminary
Health Department approval; 2) Highway Department approval of the entrance align-
ment and sight distance; 3) No further division without Planning Commission
approval.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
Mr. Boggs added that he does not have Highway Department approval and that he
would ask for a possible waiver.
Mr. Peatross commented that he felt the Highway Department shouldn't rely on the
Planning Commission to make decisions on sight distance and safety. He further stated
that he agreed with Mr. Barksdale's proposed conditions of approval and supported
Mr. Barksdale's motion.
Mr. Montenegro recommended a fourth condition of approval that a Homeowner's
Agreement should be obtained for the maintenance of the road.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Montenegro in reference to standards what, if any, require-
ments were placed on that road.
Mr. Montenegro stated that there are no requirements as this is a private
easement.
Mr. Jones asked Mr. Payne's opinion on how legal we can be in preventing the
further development of this plat.
Mr. Payne stated that he didn't see any problem with that because it has
been fairly consistent with the County that that provision will apply when the
subdivision is not served by a state road. He told Mr. Jones that he would be well
within his rights .if there were any further division to require a state road, and in
that instance, the Highway Department would get to approve the sight distance on it and
577
that problem would be solved; the Commission would probably not have any objection.
Colonel Washington asked Mr. Montenegro if it is possible to move the entrance
to the east. Mr. Montenegro stated that this is a 16 feet paved road, the entrance
could not be moved to the east as there is an existing driveway to the east, and
furthermore, moving the entrance to the east, would cut down on the sight distance
considerably.
Mr. Carr stated that he hopes the Highway Department can bend to accept less
than 600 feet sight distance at the entrance of this plat. He stated that there are
many winding, curvy roads in Albemarle County and that the Highway Department is going
to be faced with many developers finding the same difficulty in achieving the required
sight distance. He supported Mr. Barksdale's motion and stated that if the Highway
Department doesn't approve it, that the Commission can deal with it appropriately again
and hope that the Highway Department will grant a waiver on their condition.
Mr. Boggs asked Mr. Coburn how much grading is necessary to increase the sight
distance. Mr. Coburn stated that he hasn't looked at it, and could not make a fair
judgement at this time.
Mr. Boggs, addressing Mr. Carr, stated that if the land was sold and divided
into lots, and the people would not be able to use it, he would be creating a spite
strip on the private road. Mr. Carr stated that he did not agree, that is a privately
owned easement, where the road could be widened. He further stated that was not his
definition of a spite strip - a spite strip would have to be outside of the right-of-way.
Mr. Carr moved for approval of this plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
The motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Jones dissenting.
Holly Memorial Gardens Office Building Site Plan - located on the east side
of Route 29 North
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that this plan is to locate
a 1600 square foot office building within the Holly Memorial Garden site. He called
the Commission's attention to the fact that this plan is located in an A-1 zone, and
that the Zoning Administrator had some comments. The plan calls for two parking areas
that accommodate a total of ten (10) vehicles. Should this plan be approved, the
applicant will be required to obtain a grading permit. The staff had no conditions of
approval.
Mr. Montenegro presented Mr. Benjamin Dick's letter to the staff. The Zoning
Administrator's comments read that the business use of this land constitutes a non-
conforming use, and a use that was legally in existence on the effective date of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. This use in an A-1 zone normally requires a Special
Use Permit but in this particular site plan, a Special Use Permit is not required, as
such existing use is not expanded or enlarged beyond the boundaries of the parcel or
parcels of land on which the use was located on the effective date of the ordinance. He
indicated that this site plan is in order.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the Office Building will replace the trailer that is
presently on the site.
Mr. Barksdale asked Mr. Montenegro if the trailer is visible from the road.
Mr. Montenegro stated that it is, with great difficulty one can see it from Route 29North
578
Mr. Carr added that a Grading Permit will be required.
Mr. Peatross moved for approval.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Barbara Surratt Final Plat - located on the west side of Route 810
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report. This is a proposed division of 25.32
acres from 198.98 acre residue located on 25 foot non-exclusive right-of-way. Staff's
only comment is that further subdivision of this parcel may be limited without a 50
foot right-of-way available. The staff had one condition of approval, that it be
noted on the plat, "No further division along this right-of-way is permitted without
Planning Commission approval."
Mr. Carr asked Mrs. Scala what presently exists along this road. Mrs. Scala
stated that it is an existing farm road serving one residence.
Mr. Carr asked the applicant, Mrs. Suratt, if the land is steep. Mrs. Suratt
stated that it is not, it has a slope in the center, 6 acres are wooded, 19 acres are
pasture land.
Mr. Barksdale asked Mrs. Suratt if this is a proposal to building one single-
family residence. Mrs. Suratt said that is correct.
Mr. Easter informed Mrs. Suratt that she would have to come back to the Planning
Commission if further division is planned.
Mr. Barksdale recommended ap
proval with the condition mentioned by the staff.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
J.H. Thompson Final Plat - located on west side of Route 601 near Free Union
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report noting that Lot A on the existing road,
which is not a defined right-of-way, had been previously approved by this Commission
on May 19, 1975, and presently contains a mobile home that was previously approved by a
Special Permit. Lot B was deferred by the Commission on November 25 of last year to see
if the applicant could obtain a 50 foot right-of-way across the adjacent properties out
to Route 601. Mrs. Scala informed the staff that this is a proposal to divide a 2.0
acre lot on an existing road, which is not a defined right-of-way. The applicant has
not been able to obtain a 50 foot right-of-way as requested. Mrs. Scala informed the
Commission and all present that in keeping with past action, the staff would recommend
denial, unless the right-of-way can be clarified. If approved, it should be subject to
Health Department approval, and the plat clarified so that residue is indicated as a
single parcel.
Mrs. Scala further stated that when Lot B was deferred last year, the staff
requested that the owners obtain an easement across the front two parcels, which has
not been accomplished at this time. The staff feels this right-of-way should be
clarified before approval is granted.
Mr. Carr established that a representative of this item was not yet present
at the meeting, and since the meeting was running ahead of schedule, A1r. Carr proposed
that this item be deferred until later in the meeting.
579
There were no objections.
West Woods Final Plat Amendment
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting
a road name change from "West Woods Drive" to "West Pines Drive", due to a similar
name in the city. 'Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommends approval of the change.
Mr. Barksdale recommended approval. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
Ivy Farms
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report noting that this plat was given approval
by the Commission on May 18, 1976, with the road name, "New Shack Mountain Road." The
applicant wishes to amend this plat by changing the road name to "Lamb's Road." The
staff recommends approval of this name change, since it is a logical extension of Route
657, known as "Lamb's Road."
Mr. Jones asked Mrs. Scala if the Post Office has any discussion in this matter.
Mrs. Scala stated that the Post Office recommended the previous change, and will more
than likely consider this logical.
Mr. Barksdale recommended approval. Mr. Easter seconded the motion which
carried unanimously.
B.P.O.E. Revised Site Plan - located on south side of Route 1421, Old Stony
Point Road
Mr. Carr proposed that this item be deferred until later in the meeting when
a representative could be present.
There were no objections.
Auburn Hills Section II - Revised Final Plat - located east side of Route 732
near Milton
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report noting that preliminary approval was
given January 21, 1974 and final conditional approval was given February 17, 1975
subject to:
1. Roads in both sections must be constructe
nowrecommends this condton
tstate
standards
triiSection
both
was never brought to state standards, sta
sections.
2. Percolation tests waived; preliminary Health Department approval is sufficient;
3. Grading Permit is required.
580
Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant now wishes to amend the final plat for
Section II to show a permanent turnaround on Auburn Drive. This would lower the
vehicle trip count and road pavement standards. The staff feels the permanent
144) turnaround should be permitted for the following reasons:
1. A connection in this area would not provide any substantial "shortcut" into
Charlottesville for either subdivision. Most traffic would probably take the
Milton bridge and Route 250 East;
2. The Highway Department has stated that it is very difficult to project traffic
counts on through streets, and therefore difficult to determine a pavement standard.
If the Commission approves this amendment, the only condition would be construction
bonds for the roads in both Sections I and II. Mrs. Scala stated that since this would
be a permanent turnaround, the road would never be extended. 11rs. Scala further stated
that the Highway Department has no objections to this proposal, except the conditions
mentioned as to the bonding of the roads.
Mr. Easter moved for approval of this plat subject to the conditions of the staff.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further discussion.
Western Sizzlin' - Clarification of Site Plan - located on west side of Route
29 North; south side of Westfield Road
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report noting thatthis site plan was approved
November 18, 1975 subject to two conditions:
1. Final Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrance;
2. Landscape plan to come back to the Commission.
Mrs. Scala stated that Planning Commission approval of the revised site plan was
granted on March 23, 1976, subject to staff approval of the landscape plan. That plan
was approved by the staff on March 26, 1976.
The Highway Department submitted their comments on November 24, 1975, following
the Planning Commission's original approval. Therefore the Commission did not have
an opportunity to discuss the requirement of an additional lane along Route 29 as
recommended by the Highway Department.
Mrs. Scala read the Highway Department recommendation; that the entrance on
Westfield Road would need an entrance permit and a full width third lane, curb and gutter
and drainage facility was required. Mrs. Scala said that a permit for the Westfield
Road entrance has been issued by the Highway Department with no mention of the third
lane. Mrs. Scala stated that the staff requests that the Commission resolve this question
before Western Sizzlin' apnl_ies for their certificate of occupancy. Mrs. Scala noted
that the re is presently a deceleration lane in front of the adjacent Expresso restaurant
for Greenbrier Drive; however, this lane does not extend the property line of Western
Sizzlin'.
i4r. Easter asked Mrs. Scala what Mr. Coburn's comments were on this item. Mrs.
Scala stated that Mr. Coburn said he would like to see this third lane, but that he
could not require it, as the Highway Department depends on the Planning Commission
to make decisions on this matter.
Mr. Easter asked Mrs. Scala if Westfield Road is in the state system. Mrs. Scala
stated that it is.
581
Mr. Carr asked Mrs. Scala how long the spite strip is. Mrs. Scala stated that
it is 15 feet.
Mr. Easter requested a copy of the site plan.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Payne if the right-of-way is adequate for the third lane. Mr.
Payne said that it is. Dr. Moore stated that there is a shoulder to the ditch. Mr.
Easter expressed his concern as to the traffic problems in this area. He stated that
with the new Division of Motor Vehicles building on the same road, the third lane could
cause confusion and traffic hazards.
Mr. Carr stated that the Highway Department is telling the developer that there
will be no requirement for a third lane unless they are given support from the Planning
Commission. Mr. Carr further stated that if the Planning Commission gives their support
this plat will still not be approved by the Highway Department unless the applicant
concurs.
Mr. Carr, addressing the Commission, asked if the Commission has the authority to
require this third lane.
Mr. Peatross said no, as there is no entrance on Route 29.
Mr. Payne stated that he felt the need for this lane is substantially generated
by this business. This lane is needed to move the traffic and this type of business
would justify the need for this traffic lane. Mr. Payne further stated that his main
concern was that he was not sure if, since the Commission has already approved it,
subject to Highway Department approval, if anything else could be done.
Mr. Easter expressed his opinion that he felt this is a proposal for a very
NW dangerous situation.
mr. Jones asked if there were any funds available to purchase the strip.
Hr. Carr stated that the developer owns the land. He addressed Mrs. Scala,
asking if any improvement in Westfield Drive is required. Mrs. Scala stated no, that
an entrance permit for Westfield Drive has been issued.
Mr. Barksdale asked if a motion is needed to waive a condition for a third lane.
Mr. Payne stated no, that this item should be dismissed. tie said that the
previous action should be affirmed, and that the Planning Commission could no nothing
else with this item.
Colonel Washington asked Mrs. Scala what comments or recommendations the Highway
Department gave in their correspondence of November 24, 1975, following Planning Commis-
sion approval.
Mrs. Scala read the letter to Colonel Washington, reading that an additional lane
on Route 29 is required, along with curb and gutter and appropriate drainage facilities.
This lane should begin to Route
traffic? and
Also,tie
theinto
proposedexisting
entrancelane
onnorth
WestfieldrRoadrier
Drive to assist the flow
should conform to commercial entrance standards.
Mr. Easter asked Mrs. Scala to see the letter.
Mr. Peatross asked Mrs. Scala how many feet between Greenbrier Drive decel lane
ted that it ends approximately 15 feet from the
and the property line. Mrs. Scala sta
property line
582
Hr. Easter. asked Mrs. Scala where this letter had been all this time. Mrs. Scala
stated that it had been in the file, that it had not been a problem until now. She furthez
stated that the site plan requirements are not reviewed until the applicant is
getting ready to occupy.
Mr. Carr stated that the requirements for the road construction that were given
in November of last year have not been complied with and asked Mrs. Scala if the Highway
Department has erred in issuing the developer his entrance permit. Mrs. Scala stated
that she had asked Mr. Coburn if he had required these conditions upon issuing the permit
and Mrs. Coburn said that he could not require those conditions and thus depended on the
Planning Commission to require it.
Mr. Easter stated that he felt this is a problem between the Highway Department
and the applicant and that the Planning Commission could do no more with it.
1Ir. Peatross stated that the Highway Department is saying that they want the
condition but that they don't have the power to enforce it.
11r. Easter stated that he wanted no part of this; it is considered a very
dangerous situation in his opinion.
Mr. Keeler stated that if the Highway Department comments were submitted prior
to Planning Commission approval, and if the Commission were to require it, there would
have been a third lane. Mr. Carr addressing the Commission, asked if they had right
to require this lane.
Mr. Peatross stated that he felt it is unfair to require it at this point; it
should have been done at the time the entrance permit was issued.
Mr. Jones suggested that he felt the Planning Commission is being asked to
blackmail the owner into paving the strip instead of the Highway Department requiring it.
Mr. Keeler stated that this is correct, as this is the county's policy, and further stated
that he felt the Highway Department would not require any developer to provide a third
lane on Route 29. 1,Ir. Carr stated that he felt that there should be conference between
the Highway Department, the Planning Commission and the staff on this matter.
Mr. Peatross moved to reaffirm approval of the site plan subject to the conditions
of November, 1975.
x. Payne addressed Mr. Carr stating that Mrs. Scala is seeking direction as to
whether a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued without construction of the third lane.
Mr. Peatross stated that his motion is to not require the third lane, and to
reaffirm approval subject to Highway Department approval of the entrance, which has
already been done.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, adding that the Planning Commission call the
Highway Department's attention to the combination of the hill and the increased traffic
on Westfield Drive as a result of this site plan and the Division of Motor Vehicles
Building.
The motion carried unanimously with no further discussion.
19
583
B.P.O.E. Revised Site Plan - located south side of Route 1421, Old Stony Point
Road
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report noting that Special Permit 509 was approved
on August 27, 1975. She further stated that this site plan originally was approved
December 9, 1975, and revised and approved February 17, 1976. This revised site plan
differs from the February revision in the following aspects:
1. Septic system is shown - as approved by Health Department. Sewer connection to
Moores Creek was not permitted;
2. Building area increased slightly - 104 parking spaces required - 112 shown plus 63
future; previous plan required 102; 137 shown; 38 future.
3. One of the two entrances has been changed to "future";
4. The swimming pools have been changed to "future";
5. Well is relocated and a new wellhouse shown.
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff feels that these requested changes are generally
reasonable. She said that the staff is concerned,however, that the intent of one of the
conditions of the Special Permit approval is not being met with this plan, that is
"Twenty-five foot buffer of existing or additional trees as required by the Planning
Commission along west property line." The height of the screening is not specified on
this plan.
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1. Fire Marshal approval;
2. If entrance number 1 is not completed at this time, it should be seeded and mulched
as required by the Highway Department. Mrs. Scala confirmed that this has been
accomplished.
3. The height of the screening should be specified along the west property lines. The
staff suggests white pines minimum height 3-4 feet, cedars minimum height 30-36
inches, and evergreen shrubs minimum height of 30-36 inches.
firs. Scala read a letter from one of the adjacent property owners, Mr. and Mrs.
James Green, owning the property directly to the west of the revised site plan, informing
the staff that they would not be able to attend this Planning Commission meeting and
asking that the Commission consider their opinions concerning this site plan. Mr. and
Mrs. Green stated in their letter that since the clearing of the adjacent property
and the gravel and curb with drainage pipe, drainage has been a problem on their property.
They stated that they had enlarged the ditch themselves but water still washes away the
sides and overflows across the backyard. The owners stated that they felt the only
answer to this drainage problem is an underground culvert across their backyard. The
owners also stated that cars leaving the parking lot will be shining their headlights
directly into their bedroom window. They also expressed their objection to the white
pines that are to be planted as a buffer between the properties, stating that the pines
would be insufficient and that something larger should be planted. They expressed their
opinion on the outdoor lighting stating that they trust it will be dim lighting and
directed away from their property.
Mrs. Scala then read a letter to the zoning administrator from the Assistant
County Engineer, Mr. J. Ashley Williams, regarding the B.P.O.E. soil erosion plan. The
letter stated that Mr. Williams, Mr. Harvey Bailey and Bob Mowry had made a field
inspection of the Building -Grading Plan and found that the following items need attention:
1. The drainage pipe is adequate to carry the storm water runoff, but a new straw
barrier should be installed and the widening of the ditches behind the houses should
lessen the chances of the ditch overflowing;
2. An extension of a pipe from the roof drain is needed and the drainage ditch behind
the building should be graded to drain the standing water.
584
Mrs. Scala stated that a soil erosion control bond has been posted.
Mr. Peatross asked Mrs. Scala what the cause is of the water that is
draining onto the Green's property. Mrs. Scala stated that the outfall of the
drainage pipe in the parking lot drains into the natural swale on the Green's
property and has been draining there before the construction of this site plan.
Mr. Lambert, the applicant, stated that the Green's concern of the drainage
problem was in existence before the construction of the Elks Lodge. He stated that
the same amount of water drains onto their property now as it did before. Mr. Lambert
further stated that he has diverted the water and it will not drain into the previous
pattern. The soil erosion plan has been approved and the natural swale is accepted by
the Highway Department.
Mr. Peatross asked Mr. Lambert what his source of information is that the same
amount of water will drain on the Green's property as did before. Mr. Lambert stated
that the soil erosion plan is based on the runoff calculation of the Engineering
Department which has been merely reviewed and not confirmed.
Mr. Easter asked Mr. Lambert if anything has been done to slow down the flow of
the water. Mr. Lambert stated yes, that the property is now sloped uphill and has been
approved by the Engineering Department.
Mr. Jones stated that according to Mr. Green, because of the clearing of the
property, there is more water draining on his property and coming across his entire
backyard. He stated that Mr. Green's opinion is conflicting with Mr. Lambert's and
addressing the staff, he asked if anyone had been to the site and observed the drainage
problem.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Engineering Department had reviewed the site
and it was not up to the Planning Commission staff to do that. Mrs. Scala stated
the previous comments of the Assistant County Engineer, that no additional runoff is
expected and had approved the soil erosion plan.
Mr. Barksdale added that there has been an unusual amount of rain in the last
few rainfalls and maybe has had a bearing on the drainage problem.
Mr. Easter asked Mr. Lambert if he would want his Certificate of Occupancy now.
Mr. Lambert stated yes, that he would add another row of 4-5 ft. white pines as
required by the staff. He further stated that the cedars have not been planted, but
that they will be, 3-4 feet in height. He said that he would like to proceed with the
site plan as originally approved.
it is. Mrs. Scala asked Mr. Lambert if lighting is intended. Tyr. Lambert stated that
Mrs. Scala stated the recommended conditions of approval as follows:
1. Fire Marshal approval;
2. Pirs. Scala confirmed that entrance 1 has been seeded and mulched as required by the
Highway Department;
3. The height of the screening should be specified.
Dr. Moore, addressing the commission, asked if they could add that
condition of approval. Mrs. Scala said that the plan is basically approved and
that the staff feels safe on the recommendation.
585
Mr. Jones asked Mrs. Scala if the Engineering Department has a copy of the
letter from Mr. and Mrs. Green. Mrs. Scala said that she was not sure, that she would
give them a copy.
Mr. Peatross added a fourth condition of approval that the County Engineer
reaffirm what Mr. Lambert has said, that there is no more additional runoff now than
before. Mr. Easter added that the Green's and a representative of the Elks get together
and work out their mutual problems. He motioned for approval with the four conditions
recommended by the staff.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
J.H. Thompson Final Plat
Mr. Easter moved that this item be deferred.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
W-,A rq.
Ro rt W. Tucker, Jr. - SA -re t
R -
December 7, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
December 7, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building. Those members
present were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner; Mr. Paul M. Peatross; Mr. Leslie Jones;
Mrs. Joan Graves; Col. William Washington; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio.
Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning;
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney. Absent was Dr. James W. Moore.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
SP-86-76. Phil Sheridan.
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that there was an error in the application
and the applicant requests deferral until the January public hearing.
Mr. Easter moved deferral of the request until that date.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-87-76. Phil Sheridan.
The applicant, through the staff, also requested deferral until January
on this matter.
Mr. Barksdale moved that any action be deferred until that date.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-88-76. Victor R. Ray - request for shooting match.
This item had been deferred from a previous meeting.
Mr. Payne disqualified himself as counsel by leaving the room and not
participating in the discussion.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the previous staff
report had been amended. The staff recommended denial of the request.
Mr. Ray stated that the shooting match will be approximately 800 feet
from the school. Since it will be held on Saturdays, no children will be on the
grounds. The letter of opposition from Stillman Kelly was a topic of discussion,
since Mr. Kelly lives approximately one mile from the property in question. Mr.
Ray stated that shotguns with Number 9 shells would be used on the range, and not
harmful to anyone. He stated that he has written consent from all adjacent property
owners.
Mr. John Massie, speaking on behalf of the School Board, read a resolution
passed by the School Board at its last meeting which opposed the request unless
the Commission could assure the Board it will not become a nuisance or safety
hazard. He stated that the school's ball diamond backs up to the cemetery,
and noted for the Commission that the principal had stated that the school
facilities are used year round for children.
Mr. Ray stated that there is no ball diamond behind Murray School, only
a basketball court.
Mr. Peatross asked if Mr. Kelly owns property in the area.
Mr. Carr stated that he does, however, he is not an adjoining property
owner. He stated no reflection on this applicant, but he doesn't feel this
is the proper place for a shooting match, even if conducted under the safest
conditions. It just would not be compatible to a school yard.
Mr. Peatross agreed. He stated that the Commission has to be concerned
with guns and since the school grounds are used all year, he opposed the request.
Mr. Ray stated that he has already held one shooting match, and the sheriff
said that it was completely safe.
Mr. Carr also pointed out that it is not safe to have a shooting match where
there is this dense a population.
Mr. Ray stated that the adjoining property owners do not object.
Mr. Easter stated that he had viewed the property on which the original
staff report had been written. However, he said that he is familiar with this
area, and it is highly populated. He pointed out the other factor that should be
considered is the noise in an area with this kind of population.
Col. Washington questioned the parking facilities. Mr. Ray explained
that parking will be in his own field.
Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that he had discussed this application
with the Sheriff. The Sheriff had stated that if the permit is granted,
he wanted the Planning Commission to know that his jurisdiction ends 300 yards
from the road. The Sheriff also said that he wanted nothing to do with approval
of the design for the match.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Peatross moved the application be denied. Mr. Easter seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Payne re-entered the meeting.
ZMA-20-76. Walter L. Radford has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
rezone 2.15 acres from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property is
located on the north side of U. S. Route 250 West, approximatley 10 miles
west of Charlottesville City Limits. County Tax Map 56, Parcel 107A,
White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that this application and
ZMA-21-76 are adjoining pieces of property, and the Radfords sold to their daughter
and son-in-law the property in question on ZMA-21-76. Though two separate actions
should be taken, perhaps the two items should be discussed simultaneously.
i
Mr. Keeler stated that while the staff is opposed to this rezoning, since the
use could be made conforming through the special permit process, the staff is
not opposed to some commercial development ( such as craft shops and the like
along scenic highways. Each case would have to be reviewed on its own merits.
Mr. Gale Pickford, representing the applicants, stated that these two
businesses are family operations and have been in existence long before zoning
in the County. At the time of the proposed zoning ordinance, the properties
were designated for Commercial General Zoning. He stated that the applicants
want the zoning to be in conformance to the use. He stated that there are uses
in the A-1 Zone which are incompatible with scenic highways. He noted that the
zoning of the property across the street is B-1.
Mr. Keeler stated that at the time that property was rezoned, the staff
had recommended denial of the petition for basically the same reasons as these
applications.
Mr. William Hutton, an adjacent owner to the Radfords, stating that he
opposed the requests, pointed out that if the property were sold it could be
developed in undesirable uses near a residential area. Mr. Hutton stated that
in his opinion the zoning across the street had been a mistake, since it is noisy
and improperly used.
Mr. Pickford stated that the scenic designation applies approximately 150 feet
beyond the highway right-of-way. No new commerical use could take place in this
area.
Mr. Hutton questioned the status of the scenic designation for Route 250 West.
Mr. Keeler stated that this has been designated by the Board of Supervisors
as an Albemarle County Scenic Highway.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that in light of the Scenic Highway restrictions and
the protection it affords, he favored the request. These are nice types of businesses
that will probably stay.
Mr. Barksdale agreed.
Mrs. Graves questioned the staff regarding the number of rezoning applications
since the road was designated a scenic highway.
Mr. Keeler stated that there had been only one request - Mr. Faulconer's
for CO near Bellair.
Mrs. Graves then asked what sorts of commercial development would be
agreeable along a scenic road.
Mr. Keeler responded such things as craft shops, antique shops, and tourist
and highway oriented types of commercial development. The staff was not encouraging
any strip development from Charlottesville to Afton Mountain, but in cases these
could be compatible. He also stated that in some cases industrial development
would be compatible. It has neverb�e staff's position that land uses should be
restricted solely to residential and agricultural uses along scenic highways.
Mr. Keeler also pointed out that in some cases a special use permit is better
than a rezoning, since unless violated, it runs with the land forever. This is not
true in the case of zoning.
Mr. Peatross asked how the property across the street became B-1.
Mr. Carr replied that this has always been a problem piece of property.
Col. Washington stated that he had received a call from Mr. S. Martin
who had expressed concern that these rezonings would be potential problems.
He said that for himself, he sympathized with businesses which had been in
existence for 30 years. He felt that gas stations are needed at certain intervals
along highways, and that the use should be conforming in order that if ever destroyed,
it could be rebuilt. He also stated that he did not understand why existing businesses
were not recognized at the time of original zoning.
Mr. Easter stated that this is a point well taken, but the County did not
want the potential for anything like that across the street.
Mr. Payne stated that there are several alternatives here: the owner could
apply for a special use permit that would permit conformity in the A-1 zone; if
the business were destroyed, the applicant could apply for rezoning at that time;
and though he doubted it would be possible, a variance might permit the relocation
of the business.
Mr. Keeler responded to someone's question and stated that the businesses
are currently non -conforming operations.
Col. Washington felt that in the A-1 zone, basket shops and gas stations
should be compatible. He asked if the applicants would consider special use permits.
Mr. Pickford replied that they would if it were their only recourse.
He noted again that the scenic highway regulations are very stringent. Under
Section 10-1-1 non -conforming uses could be made to move within 24 months.
Mr. Easter pointed out that if the property is rezoned to B-1 that a lot
of businesses could be put on the 4+ acres. Some of these potential uses would
change the character of the neighborhood. He felt this problem of non -conformity
could be corrected with a special use permit.
Mr. Hutton hypothesized that the applicants were granted special permits,
and then the businesses burned. He asked what procedures would have to be followed
for their relocation.
Mr. Carr stated that if this happened, the applicant would have to contend
with the scenic highway setback or else seek a variance to relocate.
Mr. Payne stated that if this happened, the applicants would not be able
to relocate the businesses exactly where they are now.
Mr. Pickford stated that the special permit seem reasonable, but they have
the right to continue the businesses now even though they are non -conforming. There
is no need to seek a change of status when they can continue by right now.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Payne if he agreed with Mr. Pickford.
Mr. Payne disagreed stating that the applicants are now seeking a change
of status, when they could become conforming in the A-1 zone with a special use
permit.
510
Mr. Peatross asked if, other than to become conforming, the applicants need
the B-1 zoning.
�bllwv Mr. Pickford stated that Section 10-1-1 of the Ordinance is the reason.
Mr. Payne stated that 10-1-1 is no longer applicable, that it has been repealed.
Mrs. Graves asked if the Board could remove Scenic Designation from Route 250 W.
Mr. Payne stated that they could, that it exists as a county scenic road at
the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors.
Mrs. Graves stated that she could not support the request because of more
uses on the property, since there would be no space limitation.
Mr. Easter felt that the special permit would give the protection they are
seeking; for this reason he could not support a change of zoning.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Peatross stated that he moved denial, or he would move that the
Commission permit the applicant the opportunity to withdraw without prejudice.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
Mrs. Graves stated that the Commission should act on the request in order
that the Board would know the feelings of the Commission. She pointed out that
the applicant still has the opportunity to withdraw without prejudice prior to
the public hearing before the Board.
Mr. Peatross withdrew his motion; Mr. Easter concurred with this withdrawal.
Mr. Peatross then moved that the request for ZMA-20-76 be denied.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion.
Mr. Peatross stated that denial of this request does not place any prohibition
on a request for a special use permit. Mr. Carr agreed that this statement is correct.
The motion to deny carried by a vote of 5-3, with Messrs. Barksdale,
Gloeckner, and Washington dissenting.
Mr. Carr noted that the Commission has some expressed sentiment to work with
the application on the special permit process.
ZMA-21-76. Dean and Peggy Strong have petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to rezone 2.00 acres from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property is
located on the north side of u. S. Route 250 West, approximately 10 miles
west of Charlottesville City Limits. County Tax Map 56, Parcel 107A(1),
White Hall Magisterial District.
In view of the previous discussion and motion, Mr. Peatross moved that this
request be denied. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of
5-3, with Messrs. Barksdale, Gloeckner, and Washington dissenting.
591
ZMA-22-76. Black Cat Road Associates have petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to rezone 5.811 acres from A-1 Agricultural to B-1
Business. Property is located at the intersection of I-64 East
and State Route 616, northeast of Boyd Tavern, and part of Mechunk
Acres. County Tax Map 94A, Parcels A2, B14, B15, and Parcel 1A,
part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, amending it to state that
the Keswick village cluster is proposed to extend to the west side of Route 616
with agricultural use proposed opposite this site.
Mr. Gloeckner asked how long the subdivision has existed and if any residences
are in the subdivision.
Mr. Keeler stated it has existed since 1965 and there are no houses.
Mr. Charles Sweet, representing the applicant, pointed out the uses in
the area, noting that future uses will be Exxon, Cities Service, and Texaco service
stations. He stated that in his opinion this property is better suited to B-1
zoning than some of the others. The property in the area, as far as uses is
concerned, is not unspoiled, and the parcel is not suitable for residential uses.
As far as the Master Plan is concerned, it is futile to attempt to use it as
Conservation land. The applicant owns Mechunk Acres as well as 80 other acres
in the area. They will have a use on the property that isn't noxious such as
a 7-Eleven or Stuckey's. This will be used as a buffer to Mechunk Acres.
Mr. Robert Coles, speaking on behalf of Mrs. Johnson, stated that there
are approximately 2000 acres in the county zoned B-1, only 300-400 which are
developed. According to the report from the Consultant who is reviewing the
comprehensive plan, only 200 more acres ( from what is currently developed )
is necessary. Thus, if his calculations are followed, there is enough surplus
B-1 zoning to run for a period of 250 years. With no sewer and water, he feels
that Keswick will not even be a community cluster. It was Mr. Coles opinion
that the applicant merely wishes to speculate on this property. He felt that
landowners should be considered before speculators.
Mr. Roy Graves, an interested citizen, stated that he feels a plan for
development should be presented before the property is rezoned.
Mr. Carr stated that would be desirable, but the laws do not provide for
a site plan prior to zoning.
Mr. Steve Helvin, representing the applicant, said that it is unreasonable
to assume that a person should not be permitted to make the highest and best use
of his land. He pointed out that in addition to undeveloped B-1 property in the
county, there is also a lot of undeveloped A-1 property. This would not be a spot
zoning, since commercial uses are planned for this area. An interstate interchange is
a logical place for commercial develpment.
Mr. Peatross asked how may residential lots in the subdivision could be
developed. Mr. Sweet responded that 13-15 lots could be developed, but this would
be the extent of any commercial development.
Mr. Barksdale asked if there were any specific plans for the property,
if rezoned.
592-.
Mr. Sweet replied that there would be a 7-Eleven, Stuckey's, fast
food chain, or something of that type.
Mr. Barksdale asked if such a use would be visible from the interstate
without huge signs.
Mr. Sweet replied that it would be somewhat visible.
Mr. Gloeckner asked how this area ever came to be designated Conservation.
No one answered his question.
Mr. Carr agreed with Mr. Helvin that just because other land in the County
is zoned commercial should not mean that this property should be denied a commercial
zoning. An I-64 interchange is a place where some commercial zoning might be all
right.
Mr. Coles stated that as yet there are no filling stations located there,
that oil companies just own the property.
Mr. Tucker stated that two quadrants are now zoned B-1.
Bair. Keeler stated that in that case the staff has an even stronger case for
recommending denial.
Mrs. Graves stated that she thought that the land had been designated for
conservation zoning because of the soil limitations.
Messrs. Carr and Tucker agreed.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that in his opinion good planning around an interchange
suggests commercial zoning.
Mrs. Graves stated that if the land won't perc, it is even more reason it
cannot be developed.
Mr. Gloeckner replied that such a risk is up to the applicant.
Mrs. Graves felt that the plan had addressed how many quadrants at an interchange
should be developed commercially.
Mr. Tucker stated that was not the case.
Col. Washington stated that this is a simple interchange - money has already
been spent on the road. The County could get revenue from businesses that would
locate here.
Mr. Peatross felt that there are some pluses here, since the applicant owns the
adjacent residential areas. The area is already committed to commercial uses; it
is incongruous to permit commercial zoning in other quadrants and not here. This
seems to be a logical place for commercial zoning, and it is certainly better than
on a country road.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the request for rezoning. Mr. Peatross
seconded the mtion.
Mr. Carr stated that he needed to close the public hearing.
�q3
Mr. Easter_ stated that he supported the motion because of other commercial
zoning in the area and because this is an interstate exchange.
The motion carried by a vote of 7-1, with Mrs. Graves dissenting.
SP-89-76. Willard E. Hall has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
locate a pbulic garage on 2.0 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture. Property is
located on the south side of Route 649 across from Springfield Subdivision.
County Tax Map 32, Parcel 29F, Rivanna and Charlottesville Magisterial
Districts.
This item was deferred to later in the meeting in the absence of the
applicant.
ZTA-76-10. Crutchfield Corporation has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to amend the M-1 Zone of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for an accessory
dwelling for use as office and residence, by special permit.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that the number of the
request should be changed to Section 8-1-27(15) as requested by the applicant.
In the staff report, it was noted that the staff felt this should be a use by right
rather than by special permit, as requested. This would make the Section # 8-1-32.
Mr. Payne suggested that in the definition the words "or constructed"
in the proposed addition, be omitted. 140)
Mr. Jones stated that he feels such a use will provide security.
Mr. Crutchfield stated that what his company sells is very desirable for
theft. He stated that he would feel better about his business if he could be there
to respond to any alarm. He would have a chalet/cottage near the lake on the
property.
Mr. Payne noted that the M-1 zone is supposed to be compatible with residential
use, and he too suggests that if the Commission supports this request it will be
a use by right. This would perhaps be even easier to support by right than the
same use in the B-1 zone.
Mr. Carr asked if this will be a potential problem.
Mr. Payne stated that it would not be a problem, because of the definition.
Mr. Barksdale agreed with the staff that this is a good use by right in the M-1
zone.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the use
be permitted in the M-1 zone by right, by the addition of Section 8-1-32.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion.
Mr. Jones stated that he was not sure the Commission could make such a
recommendation, since this is a higher use than one by special use permit. He also
questioned the appropriateness of this particular use since it is near the airport.
Mr. Crutchfield stated that there are three residences in this immediate
area now. Besides the location is very good for him since he owns a plane.
Mr. Payne stated that he felt the Commission could approve this as a use
by right, since this is a change to the text and not to the zoning map. He advised
the Commission to include approval of Section 16-28.1 as suggested by the staff,
since it is part of the request.
Mr. Peatross also questioned if this could be recommended as a use by right.
Mr. Payne stated that the statute in question is 15.1-493 of the Code of
Virginia. He felt, after reading this section to the Commission, that it could be
approved as a use by right.
Col. Washington was uncomfortable with the point that was raised.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the intensity of what is permitted in the
zone is not being changed from an industrial standpoint; this provides for a residential
use.
legal
Mr. Payne stated that the important part of the/notification was the M-1
zone.
Mr. Easter stated that his only concern about residential uses in the M-1
zone is such a use in an old industrial zone.
Mr. Tucker stated that other uses permitted by right in the M-1 zone,
which is a light industrial zone, are compatible to residential uses.
Mrs. Graves stated that she did not feel this was the proper manner to
handle the request.
Mr. Payne stated that this is a very limited definition of a residence
in the M-1 zone.
Mr. Peatross stated that he had considered the matter, and feels that the
public has been given proper notice.
The motion to include Section 8-1-32, and to amend Section 16-28.1 as
written below, carried by a vote of 6-2. Mrs. Graves and Col. Washington were
the dissenting votes.
Section 16-28.1 Dwelling Accommodation, Accessory: One or more rooms
designed to provide living and sleeping accommodations
in a structure used primarily for commercial or industrial
purposes, or a separate dwelling unit located upon a parcel
used primarily for commercial or industrial purposes, the
inhabitation of which shall be limited to the proprietor
and his family or a bona fide employee of the proprietor
and his family.
so
-59S
SP-90-76. Crutchfield Corporation has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to locate an accessory dwelling - for use as office and
residence during construction of Crutchfield Corporation's new office
and warehouse complex - on 8.258 acres zoned M-1. Property is located
oppostie Cardinal Airline's entrance, off State Route 606, adjacent
Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport. Tax Map 32, Parcel 17B, Charlottesville
and Rivanna Magisterial Districts.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that in view of the previous application and Planning
Commission action, that if the Board of Supervisors should turn down ZTA-76-10
by right, but permit it by special use permit, he moved that SP-90-76 be approved
subject to the following condition:
1. Accessory dwelling be submitted as a part of the overal site plan. Other
site plan conditions of approval to be established at that time.
Mr. Easter seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution
of intent to amend the following codes and ordinances;
(a) Albemarle County Code - Article III, Sections 10-17, 10-18, 10-19, 10-20.
Also Section 18-2 Definitions.
(b) Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance - Section I
Definitions - Words and Terms under subsections 1-38.1 Sewerage System,
Central; 1-38.2 Sewerage System, Public; 1-57.1 Water Supply, Central;
1-57.2 Water Supply, Public.
(c) Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance - Section 16 - Definitions under
subsections 16-18.01 Central Sewerage System; 16-18.02 Central Water
Supply; 16-69 Public Sewerage System; 17-70 Public Water Supply; 16-70.1
Public Utility.
Mr. Payne stated that the proposals under (a) of the amendments are included
for informational purposes only, and require no action from the Planning Commission.
He explained each section of the proposed amendments.
Mr. Easter asked if this would simplify the procedure and make it easier for
the public.
Mr. Payne stated that this is correct, and it also makes it easier for the
County Engineer.
Mrs. David stated that unless someone on the staff really understands this
to explain it to the public it will be very confusing. She suggested that this
be included in those sections currently being reviewed by the Board appointed
committee. She felt that editorial comments would be most helpful for purposes
of citizen interpretation.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission recommend to the Board that
Section 18-2 Definitions be adopted ( as presented on the attached pages ).
Mr. Peatross seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
511
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
CONCERNING CERTAIN DEFINITIONS FOR SUBDIVISION CONTROL
Be it ordained by the Board of Supc,rvisor_s of Albemarle County
that the County Code be, and it hereby is, amended by the addition
of four definitions, as follows:
Sec. 18-2 Definitions.
Central Sewerage Sys_- in. A sewerage s-;Tstem. consisting
of pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, force mains or sewage
treatment plants, including, but not limited to, septic tanks and/or
drain fields, or any of them, designer to serve three or more connections,
used for conducting or treating sewagF.�, Is required to be approved
by the governing body of the county pu7=suant to Title 15.1, Chapter 9,
Article 5 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Central Water Sur)p]_y. A water supply consisting of a
well, springs or other source and the necessary pipes, conduits, mains,
pumping stations and other facilities in connection therewith, to serve
or to be capable of serving three or more co r.ections; ��rhich is required
to be approved by the governing body of the county pursuant to Title
15.1, Chapter 9, Article 7 of the Code of Virginia.
Public Sewerage System. Any sewerage system consisting
of pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, force mains ur sewerage
treatment plants, or. any of them,operated by, for or under the authority
of the Albemarle County. service Authol_ ity.
Public Water SupplY. ti water supply consisting of a
well, springs or other source and the necessary pipes, conduits, mains,
pumping stations and other facili_tie,� ir, con.n(,ct:.ion ' therewith, operated
by, for or under the authority of the t=, _bemar le County Service Authority.
For the autnori ty of counties to adopt subdivision
regulations, see Sections 15.1-4G5 et seq. of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended.
rM
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CERTAIN DEFINITIONS IN THE ALBEP,lARLE
COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEIAkRLE COUNTY
that Article 16 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and
it hereby is, amended by the addition of three new sections, nurni_)e170d
16-18.01, 16-18.02; and 16-70.1, and by the amendment of two
existing sections, 16-69 and 16-70, to read as follows, respectively:
16-18.01 - CENTRAL SEWERAGE SYST ,1 - A sewerage system, consisting
of pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, force
mains or sewage treat:,.en.t plants, including, but
not limited to, septic tanks and/or drain fields, ol- any
of them, designed to serve three or more connection'_
used for conducting or treating sewage which is
required to be approved by the governing body of th-
county pursuant to Title 15.1, Chapter 9, Article 5
of the Code of Virginia.
16-18.02 - CENTRAL WATER SUPPLY - A water supply Consisting or
a well, springs or ot'.,er source and the necessary
Pipes, conduits, mains, pumping stations and othc°r
facilities in connection there,..ith, to serve or to
be capable of servir_g three, or more connections
is required to be approved by the governing body of the
county pursuant to Title 15.1, Chapter 9, Article 7,
of the Code of Virginia.
16-69 - PUBLIC SEWERAGE SYSTEM' - A sewerage syst.e�i consisting
of pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, force
mains or sewerage treatment plants, or any oy them.,
operated by, for, or under the authority of the
Albemarle County Service Authority.
16-70 - PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY - A water supply consisting of a
well, springs or other source and the necessary pipes,
conduits, mains, pumping stations and other facilities
in connection therewith, operated by, for or under the
authority of the Albe:-.arle County Service P`-i-7.thority.
16-70.1 - PUBLIC UTILITY - Any r_lant or equipment fo-- the
conveyance of telephone messages or for the production,
transmission, delivery or furnishing of heat, chillc,d
air, chilled water., light, power or water, or
sewerage
facilities, either directly or indirectly, to or for
the public.
°+ww For the authority of counties to adopt zoning regulations see
Sections 1.5.1-486 et seq. of the Code of Virginia (1.950), as amended.
U
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission recommend to the Board that
it adopt Sections 16-18.01, 16-18.02, and 16-70.1 to be included in the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance ( as presented on the attached sheets ).
Mr. Peatross seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission recommend to the Board that
it amend Sections 16-69 and 16-70 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
(as presented on the attached sheet).
Mr. Peatross seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Discussion of possible repeal of Accessory Tourist Lodging:
Mr. Keeler stated that when this had been adopted by the County as
part of the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission had asked that it be presented
for review in six months, in order to consider possible repeal.
Mrs. Joyce stated that economically this provision has not been successful.
However, it has been successful otherwise. Her group wished to continue this
operation, stating that it has served its purpose being able to accommodate 15-20
people when other places have been full.
Mr. Keeler asked if any theft had occurred. Mrs. Karen replied that there
has been no theft.
Mr. Carr asked what means of advertisement had been employed.
Mrs. Karen replied that the service had been advertised twice in Harpers
Weekly, the Chamber of Commerce was aware of the service, and the nine Virginia
welcoming stations had information on the service.
Mr. Carr questioned how many homes were used, not the number available.
Mrs. Karen stated that is difficult, because some were used only half the
season, returning to students at the beginning of the school term.
Mrs. Graves questioned how many permits were issued by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Keeler stated that is a difficult question to answer, since he never
received a clear answer. He had been informed that between 6 and 13 permits had
been issued.
Mr. Easter asked if anyone had contacted the motel business about this
review. Mr. Keeler responded that the staff had not contacted them, also that
there had never been any complaints from the motel business during the time
since this had become a permitted use.
Mr. Jones stated that this had been included in the ordinance in the anticipation
of the overflow of the Bicentennial Tourist Season. There had been no overflow,
and he felt it would be safer to omit it from the ordinance.
Mr. Barksdale stated that it is apparent that the women doing this have put
a great deal of effort into it, and felt it should continue for another year.
Mrs. Redenbaugh stated that the people staying in these homes have
been very happy. Though the advertising is poor, the word of mouth is good.
She felt a lot of good will had come from the use.
Mrs. Reyda.r stated that in the months of May and October theirs had been
the only accommodations in the County and City.
Someone questioned if the matter needed to be advertised for public hearing.
Mr. Tucker replied that to keep the use on the books no public hearing is necessary
However, if the intent is to repeal the use, it will have to be advertised for public
hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that the good will is worth something.
Mrs. Graves noted that it doesn't sound as though the use is being abused.
Mr. Carr agreed, but noted that he felt the County should review the
matter again in the fall.
Col. Washington noted that he is still concerned about it, since he had
feared it would become a motel in a residential area.
Mrs. Reydar stated that the hours for contacting are from 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Arrival after dark is certainly discouraged.
Mr. Easter asked if a business license is required for this and if
taxes are paid on the gross income.
Mr. Tucker stated that the license would depend on the number of guests
being served.
Mrs. Karen stated that they have to pay taxes on the gross income.
Mr. Easter agreed that if there have been no objections to the use and if it
does indeed provide a service, it should be continued. However, it should be reviewed
in twelve months.
Mr. Carr instructed the staff to inform the Board that the matter had been
reviewed by the Commission and it was found that a public hearing for repeal is
not necessary at this time.
Mr. Easter stated that if the use becomes a problem, the staff should bring
the matter to the attention of the Commission earlier than one year from now.
Mr. Easter also stated that the staff should notify the motel business of
this decision.
Mr. Carr stated that this suggestion means a public hearing, and no motion
is necessary to sustain the use.
Mrs. Graves stated that if Mr. Easter feels that strongly about it that
she moved that the matter be put on the Commission's agenda for the January
public hearings.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Col. Washington moved that the matter be reviewed by the Commission
'in December, 1977, at a public hearing.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-89-76 con't from earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the matter be deferred until the next Commission
meeting in view of the absence of the applicant or his representative. He asked
that the applicant be notified of the coming meeting.
Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr deferred discussion on the B-1 Business Zone uses by right and
by special permit until a later date.
Since there was no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
/� a/ A/. juz-lvk� -, - -
R b t W. Tucker, Jr. - Secr tar
no
December 14, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting to consider
a series of site plans and subdivision plats on Tuesday, December 14, 1976, 7:30 p.m.,
Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Paul Peatross; Col. William Washington; Mr. Leslie Jones;
Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Absent was Mrs. Joan Graves. 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,
Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order at 7:30 p.m.
Minutes of November 23, 1976, were approved subject to the change, during
the discussion phase of the amendments to the ordinance, of Section 13-3 being
changed to Section 11-13.
Church of God Addition - Nortonsville Site plan - located Route 663:
At the request of the applicant, Mr. Gloeckner moved that this site plan
be deferred until the January meeting.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
( Mr. Easter arrived at the meeting. )
SP-89-76. Willard E. Hall - request for public garage:
In the absence of the applicant or his representative, the chairman
deferred this discussion until later in the meeting.
Stillfield final plat:
Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving the room.
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, reviewing all the information from
the meeting at which this matter had been deferred.
Mr. Carr questioned the right-of-way - if there had been any resolution of
the Robinson right-of-way.
Mr. Montenegro replied that Mr. Hereford sold to Mr. Robinson
30 feet, which is described as Parcel A.
Mr. Jones questioned the transmission lines on the narrow strip
near the Montvue Subdivision.
Mr. Montenegro responded that this strip has been purchased by one
of the Montvue owners, to be added to his lot for protection.- this is shown on the plat.
Dr. Moore pointed out that lots 4, 5, and 6 are still to be served by
easements, according to the plat. He stated that he favored streets for access
to these lots, since easements might make it easier for people to demand rights
onto Barracks Road.
Mrs. Langbaum questioned if Mr. Robinson really owned the land he had
purported to at the last meeting.
Mr. Montengro stated that there had been conflicts in the plats of Mr.
Robinson and Mr. Hereford. Mr. Robinson's plat showed he had ownership of the
20 foot pipestem, and Mr. Hereford's plat showed that his property extended to
the centerline of the 20 foot easement. Evidently the matter had been solved
by the purchase from Mr. Hereford of the additional 30 feet, which is described
as Parcel A on the plat.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that instead of requiring more street right-of-way,
that the Commission recommend to the Highway Department that they deny access to
Barracks Road. They the future owners of the lots in question could use Stillfield
Road.
Mr. Jones stated that he did not think this was possible. Mr. Keeler
explained that it could be done since there is alternate access (Stillfield Road).
Mr. Gloeckner also suggested moving the "resume speed" sign to the end of
lot 15.
Mr. Boggs, representing the applicant, asked that this be a recommendation
to the Highway Department, not a condition of approval.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed that this was fair, in view of Mrs. David's comment
that the Colthurst residents have undertaken this discussion with the Highway
Department. (She had also pointed out that the Highway Department stated that a
certain amount of traffic had to justify this sign move; it was also pointed out
that other safety questions regarding the speed limit had to be considered.)
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Grading permit;
2. Water line plans to be approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority
and the Fire Marshal;
3. Lots 17 and 18 granted a reduction of frontage requirement;
4. Virginia Department of Health approval;
5. Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 restricted to access by way of access easements and
not�have access to Barracks Road.
to
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion.
�D3
Dr. Moore said that any subdivision that can afford streets should not have
easements, and for this reason he could not support the motion.
Mr. Peatross felt that before the vote was taken the Commission should ask
if the applicant's representative has any further comments.
Mr. Boggs stated that he only wants the plat approved.
Mr. Jones noted that the roads through lots 8 and 9, and through 2 and 3 would
not be maintained at the same level that Stillfield Drive will be.
Mr. Carr stated that these will be private easements, and maintenance will be
left to the owners along these easements.
The motion to approve subject to the five conditions carried by a vote of 5-2,
with Dr. Moore and Mr. Jones dissenting.
Mr. Easter returned to the meeting.
Walter and Lucy Young Preliminary Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stated that the plat had been
deferred because the entrance did not have proper sight distance. Currently
the proposal is to use the existing easement which serves three existing parcels.
She stated that since the last meeting she has received no further information
from the applicant or the Highway Department.
Mr. Young stated that all he knows is that the Highway Department wants
to know how many people are going to be using the road. He is not able to determine
ut
this now, since he does notefelt that anentrance could beworked wtlhlenout bfor hthis property
e is trying
to sell larger tracts. H
on the south side of the Kenneth Smith property.
Mrs. Scala stated that if the intent is for larger lots, and if the driveway
is to be on the other side of the Smith property, she recommended another plat
be submitted to show this. This would also need Highway Department input. She
stated that the only problem with this plat is the sight distance.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that any action on the request be deferred until
the matter could,isolved.
be
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
J. H. Thompson Final Plat - Lot B:
Mrs. Scala reported to the Commission that neither the applicant nor his
representative could be present, however the applicant had requested that action
be taken in his absence.
There was a consensus that this was not out of order since it was the
applicant's request.
Mrs. Scala reviewed the plat for the Commission, noting that the
present access is an existing road which is not a defined right-of-way.
Action had been deferred to see if the applicant could obtain a 50 foot right-
of-way across the adjacent properties out to Route 601. She stated that she
was informed that the applicant tried to do this, but not successful.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he is concerned about the residue, since it
could be subdivided again.
Mr. Peatross agreed, noting that this could open the door to real problems.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the plat be denied because there is no 50 foot
easement.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
W. C. Battle Final Plat - located between Routes 676 and 678 in Ivy:
agenda. Mr. Carr stated that he had been told that this plat should not be on the
Mr. Montenegro stated that Mr. Tucker had decided to put the plat on the
agenda and let the applicant's representative describe it to the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that this is not a subdivision, and any discussion
is a waste of time, since the Commission can take no action one way or the
other. He stated that the Commission has no power in this matter.
Mr. Jones moved that the plat be dismissed from the agenda, since it
is not properly before the Commission. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
The chairman deferred the Wyant and Wieboldt plats until later in the
meeting, since the applicants' representatives were not present.
James C. Trogden final plat - located on Route 600 about one mile
west of Cismont:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that this is a division of four
3-acre lots, with 50' frontage reserved to serve the residue of approximately 40
acres. The residue acreage also has considerable road frontage in addition to the
50' pipestem. The purpose of the subdivision is for residential lots. Joint entrances
for lots 9 and 10 are recommended by the Highway Department and they also recommend
grading along Route 600 to insure proper sight distances along the frontage of lots
9, 10, and 11. The 50' pipestem location may not have adequate sight distance for a
commercial entrance ( entrance for 3 or more users ). The staff recommended
the following conditions of approval:
0
1. Joint entrance for lots 9 and 10;
2. pipestem location may not be approved at a later date for a commercial
entrance.
Mr. Gregg stated that he does not anticipate problems with the residue since
the land in the rear, because of the terrain, is not conducive to subdivision.
ission should support the Highway Department
Mrs. Scala felt that the Comm
regarding joint entrance for lots 9 and 10.
Dr. Moore questioned if the "not dedicated" property means a pipestem.
Mrs. Scala replied that this would be a pipestem to the rear of the property.
Dr. Moore asked if the Highway Department felt this was the best location
for the pipestem. Mr. Gregg stated that when he viewed the site with the Highway
Department they did not object to this them.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
Mr. Easter seconded this motion, which carried by a vote of 6-2, with
Dr. Moore and Mr. Jones dissenting.
Mr. Carr stated that this land has been dealt with in bits and chunks,
and hoped that everything is above board.
W. A. Wyant Final Plat - North side of Route 614 at White Hall.
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that this proposes a
division of a 2-acre parcel from existing acreage. A waiver of frontage will
have to be granted, because of the location of parking for the store. The purpose
of the subdivision is for home site for a family member. The staff recommended
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Waiver of frontage requirements;
2. Health Department approval.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to Health Department approval, thus
granting the frontage requirement. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
E. F. Wieboldt Final Plat - West side of Route 29 South north of Covesville:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that this is exactly like
the preliminary for the property. The proposal is to divide two parcels, 3.88
acres and 3.76 acres on the existing paved 30 foot right-of-way. There is a note
on the plat regarding no further subdivision. At preliminary approval, waivers
were granted for use of the existing right-of-way, and frontage for residue
acreage on Route 29. She stated that the greenhouses on the front parcel are to ldt at be
sold. The back parcel containing the residence is to be retained by
this time.
tPL'�j
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Waiver of frontage for residue;
2. Waiver for use of existing right-of-way ( no frontage on public road ).
Dr. Moore asked if lot 15 is to be served by only the narrow strip. Mrs.
Scala responded that is correct. Dr. Moore then questioned if the 90' strip has
a 30' right-of-way included.
Mr. Snow, the applicant's representative, stated that he does not have
that information with him.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that this is the last subdivision he will be able to
do unless he has a 50' right-of-way on up through the property. He moved approval
with the two waivers suggested by the staff.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mountain Hollow Final Plat - Lot 23 - located on Route 690 near Newtown:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that plat requires Commission
approval since it is a part of a larger subdivision. She stated that any references
to the "future road" have been deleted and the staff report should have these
deleted.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the residue on the west side of Route 690.
Mr. Tiffany responded that it is approximately 180 acres.
Col. Washington questioned why, if the road has been deleted, does the
rounded corner appear on the plat.
Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant wishes to leave this option open.
Col. Washington stated that if there is ever another lot, and no road is built,
the lot should be square to avoid the pecularily shaped lot.
Mr. Carr noted that it is not desirable to strip this land all the way to
the end of the road.
Mr. Barksdale asked if the applicant needs to submit a new plat. Mrs.
Scala replied that he does to meet any conditions that might be attached to the
approval.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval;
2. 75 foot setback from future road should remain;
3. If the future road is not constructed, the lot line should be squared
when the next lot is brought in for approval.
Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
19
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Site Plan - water storage tank located
Route 788 and 789 - Crozet:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report stating that this property is
zoned A-1 with a special permit for the proposed use. The plan calls for a 40 foot
high water tank to be placed on the proposed 1.8+ acre site. The tank will be 96
feet wide and is equipped with an overflow/outflow system. The site plan meets all
the requirements of the Site Plan Ordinance, however, the staff does not feel that
the outlet from the overflow system is in the best location possible. The staff
feels that the drainage easement along St. George Avenue may not be able to handle
the possible outflow of the 12 inch pipe the plan calls for. The conditions of
approval should be as follows:
1. That the applicant either furnish proof to the County Engineer that the easement
on St. George Avenue can handle the possible overflow, or that the pipe be
relocated to a location where the drainage facilities are designed to handle
this overflow, or that the facilities on St. George Avenue be improved to handle
the possible overflow;
2. Engineering Department approval of the surface treatment on the road.
Mr. Montenegro read a letter from the applicant stating that the 12"
outflow outlet for the tank was located in the tank access road near the intersection
of Buck Mountain Road and St. George Avenue to take advantage of existing drainage
facilities. Discharge from the outflow outlet will flow in a drainage ditch along
St. George Avenue before entering Parratt Branch. An alternative to the proposed
outflow location would have required construction of a drainage ditch from the tank
site, southwest to an existing ditch on Route 788. Higher costs associated with
this alternative resulted in selection of the access road routing. The outflow
will seldom, if ever, be used. Overflow of the tank is prevented by two independent
safety system; an altitude shut-off valve and an overflow alam. Malfunction of
both these systems is unlikely. Drainage of the tank for maintenance and repair will be
accomplished by allowing the distribution system, through normal use, to empty the
tank. Only in rare cases when tank water is contaminated will it be necessary to
use the outflow system. In such a situation, normal operating procedure specifies
that the tank be drained slowly. If the Crozet tank ever requires draining in such a
fashion, the rate of discharge will be regulated as not to exceed the carry capacity
the receiving ditches and culverts.
Mr. Pollock, representing Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority,stated that
he feels that the two emergency systems are adequate, since these kinds of tanks
rarely have problems. The tank will be drained every 6-8 years, for maintenance reasons.
Mr. Jones asked what if the power went off.
Mr. Montenegro stated that the most overflow that could occur would be
1,000 gallons per minute.
Mr. Pollock explained that if the power went off, the valve is a manual
valve that will still work if the power if off. He also stated that there are
two electric companies that serve this area. The likelihood of both having
power failures at the same time is remote.
Mr. Montenegro told Mr. Carr that he has some reservations about the
drainage ditches along St. George Avenue.
Mr. Keeler stated that he had viewed the site that morning and that
any increase in the waterflow along those ditches would be unancceptable.
However, he further explained that those in the Engineering Department and
from the Service Authority had stated that a need to use the St. George Avenue
ditches would almost never occur.
Col. Washington questioned what improvements could be made to the drainage
ditch there, other than digging it up. He pointed out that it is relatively
level along this street.
Mr. Keeler stated that there have been problems with one property owner in
the area, who has attempted to re-route the water around his property by building
a small earthen dam. Another property owner on down has a 10" pipe under his
driveway, which is traversed by the ditch. This property owner stated that in wet
weather this pipe is not adequate.
Mr. Montenegro stated that overflow from the tank will proceed at a more rapid
rate than just normal drainage.
Mr. Easter did not feel that 1000 gallons per minute is that much, since
one can get 100 gallons per minute out of a one inch hose, with a little over 100
pounds of pressure.
Col. Washington stated that since the applicant has acknowledged that the
tank will be emptied occasionally, the ditch should be improved.
Mr. Pollock stated that sometimes the tank would be drained by the users;
the ditch will rarely, if ever, be used. The remaining thousand gallons would
be manually drained - very slowly. The only other time the ditch would be used
is if both safety features broke at the same time, which is highly unlikely.
He stated that the tank, and use of the ditch would not compound the problem,
especially if there is an existing problem.
creek. Col. Washington stated that an alternative would be to pipe it to the
Mr. Pollock stated that that alternative had been investigated, and was
quite expensive compared to this proposal.
Col. Washington questioned the County Engineer's position on this matter.
Mr. Keeler stated that when he spoke to the Engineering Department on this
matter his questions were answered in terms of explanation of the system, rather
than in answers to his questions.
Mr. Carr stated that he has heard noting that means that there will be a major
increase of outflow from the tank onto St. George Avenue. Whether there will be an
increase in runoff may be a different question, if the ditch will not now handle
the runoff. However, just like the Commission sould not do to a private sector,
he did not feel the Commission should do to the County of Albemarle and the city
anything that would greatly increase the cost of the service.
Col. Washington stated that he does not feel St. George Ave. can take 1000
gallons per minute.
Mr. Carr said that some things cannot be stopped just because some feel that one of these days there will be a malfunction. He pointed out that it is
necessary to be reasonable.
�'A
Mr. Peatross, stating that he agrees with the rule of reason here, and
that there are two safety features here. The possibility of both malfunctioning
at the ^fie makes it unreasonable to channel it to the creek. He stated that he
%w"' just did not see the problem. He pointed out that the applicant is going to control
it as can best be done.
Col. Washington stated that a pipe to the creek would be less than 1,000 feet;
this would assure a safe system.
Mr. Peatross agreed that if the pipe would be used daily or routinely, the
cost would be justified. However, the applicant has stated that it will be used
only once every 6-8 years. Even if necessary, there is a controlled method for
handling the 1000 gallon per minute release.
Mr. Easter felt that it would be less than that, since the applicant had
stated that every 6-8 years it would be run out through the system. It would be
merely the water in the bottom of the tank. He did not see any problem, though
he stated that he did not want residents of the area to have flooding problems.
He again pointed out the two safety features, and stated that he hates to see
the county spend money on a third one.
Mr. Jones felt that it should be made to work properly, since it might not
always be operated the way that it has been explained at this time.
Mr. Carr questioned the cost of the pipe. Mr. Pollock replied that it would
cost approximately $10-15,000. Mr. Carr responded that this is an expensive safety
device.
Mr. Barksdale explained that a pipe would mean going under the road and under
the railroad, or else it would have to be routed around.
Mr. Carr asked if the service is paying for itself on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Pollock stated that it is. Mr. Carr said that the pipe would make the cost of
water go up. Thus if not paid for in taxes, the cost of the service will go up.
Mr. Easter moved approval as it is, stating that he complains about government
spending money, and he could not vote any other way that would help prohibit this.
He stated that he wanted this approval subject to Engineering Department approval
of the surface treatment on the road. In the grading of this road, adequate controls
of the run-off from the site should be employed( this is run-off from the site,
not tank overflow ).
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jones established that the likelihood of the tank leaking is almost
impossible, since it is make of steel.
Col. Washington stated that he sees nothing wrong with condition #1 as
recommended by the staff.
Mr. Carr stated that this had been deleted because of the discussion.
Col. Washington stated that all this discussion did was cut the overflow
from 4,000 gal./min. to 1,000 gal./min. The ditch should be made to handle
this sort of overflow, without question.
Mr. Easter said that he assumes the applicant will make sure that
the ditches the water will be going into are satisfactory.
Mr. Jones said leave it to the County Engineer.
Mr. Peatross asked Mr. Keeler if the County Engineer had not already
addressed the problem. He asked if the County Engineer did not feel that everything
is taken care of.
Mr. Keeler stated that the County Engineer had merely explained the system to him.
He expressed no opinion one way or the other. He stated that when he spoke to
Mr. Thompson about a similar system at Mint Springs that he had learned that the
valve does not function properly.
Mr. Pollock stated that the second safety alarm had been added to the system
at the recommendation of Mr. Bailey, the County Engineer.
Dr. Moore asked if anyone had considered the present drainage situation.
Mr. Montenegro stated that he had spoken to Mr. Williams of the County
Engineering Department, who had stated that probably the best thing to do was
to analyze the entire drainage situation of the area, then work from there.
Evidently this is prohibitive in cost and time, though.
Dr. Moore asked if on -site inspection of the ditches would not be a means
of determining if it were adequate.
Mr. Keeler explained that the ditches are not in front of houses -
he illustrated the route on the map. At Buck Mountain road it becomes an open
146)
ditch. He suggested that the Engineer certify that the ditch at the most
constricted point is adequate to handle 1000 gallons per minute and the applicant
agree to a condition of continual maintenance and checking of the safety devices; then
the precautions might be sufficient.
Mr. Jones asked if he could amend the motion for approval to include
condition #1 as suggested by the staff.
Mr. Carr said that he could not support that, but he could support that
the situation be monitored - that the applicant be required to monitor the situation.
To support (1), either he has to run a complete study , he has to locate elsewhere,
or he has to improve the facilities on St. George Avenue. Mr. Carr stated that he is
not being insensitive to the question, he just believes the Commission is looking
at a "ghost." He said it is a "rare ghost" at that. He said that if the drainage
on St. George Avenue, as it now exists, is less than desirable, then that is
another problem. He did not feel that much would be added to St. George Ave.
if existing conditions are satisfactory.
Mr. Easter asked if the County Engineer has any official position with
Rivanna Water and Sewer. Mr. Pollock stated that he is on the Board of Directors.
Mr. Easter felt that the professionals should work this problem out in a satisfactory
and agreeable manner to the city and the county. Mr. Easter felt his motion
covers the situation and he called for the question.
Further discussion on the motion:
Dr. Moore said that the question is if the County Engineer has addressed the
problem.
Mr. Easter stated that he can't help believing that in designing this
project that the Engineer and consulting engineers would not cover these
questions.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Keeler if he feels that the County Engineer is weak on
this matter. He noted that some of the staff's first comments led some members
of the Commission to believe that the County Engineer is weak on this matter.
Mr. Keeler felt he could say that is accurate. He said that his questions
were answered with explanations and not really answers to the questions that he
asked. Mr. Keeler stated that he does not know if the drainage ditch has been
addressed.
Mr. Easter stated that if such is the case, he withdraws his motion for
approval.
Mr. Carr said that he would entertain a motion to send it back to the
County Engineer for some position on the matter.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he would make this motion.
Col. Washington seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jones stated that in the interest of time he felt that condition #1 would
cover this.
Mr. Carr explained that the County Engineer has been asked this question
by the appropriate authority and he did not give a definite answer.
Mr. Keeler stated that it was the department of the County Engineer.
Mr. Peatross asked if the question is "Does the County Engineer feel these
two safety devices are adequate to control overflow?"
Mr. Carr said yes, and the other question is "What overflow does exist there
that might be a problem for the health, safety, and welfare for the people living
on St. George Avenue?"
Mr. Easter said another part of this is question of adequate ditches.
This motion to defer action until these questions could be addressed
carried unanimously.
Bill Edwards Site Plan Amendment - located on the west side of Route 29 North,
between gunny Hill Motel and East Coast Gas Station:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the property in
question is zoned B-1. The proposal is to amend a site plan approved by the
Commission in June, 1976. The amendment includes a 40' wide joint entrance with
the Sunny Hill Motel and 12 foot tapered deceleration and acceleration lanes for
the southbound lanes. The plan also calls for the widening of the existing turnaround
by 10 feet making it a total of 40 feet wide. One of the conditions ofoapproval
a joint
involved the further negotiation with the Highway Department to allow
entrance with the Sunny Hill Motel opposite the existing turnaround on Route 29
north. The Virginia Department of Highways has approved the proposed changes
with the exception of the exclusion of a 12 foot side stacking lane 200 feet
IV4)in length with a 200 foot taper. Although the staff recognizes that the turnlane
is necessary, it feels that the burden is excessive for a single developer to bear.
Therefore, the staff recommends that the costs of construction of the turnlane
be born equally by the applicant, the Sunny Hill Motel, and the Virginia Department
of Highways. Furthermore, the County Attorney's Office has informed the staff
that the County would have difficulty defending such a requirement if the issue
were brought to court.
The following should be conditions of approval for the site plan:
1. Engineering Department approval of surface treatment, storm drainage lines, and
roof drainage;
2. Grading permit;
3. Storage of recreational vehicles will require a special permit. (The Commission
wished to put the applicant on notice that the question of sewerage disposal
for the recreation vehicles would be addressed if and when the special permit
is applied for);
4. The joint entrance is accepted subject to further negotiation between the
applicant, the Virginia Department of Highways, and Sunny Hill Motel to
equally bear the costs of constructing a turnlane on the Northbound lane of
Route 29 North.
Dr. Moore questioned the 200'stacking lane.
Mr. Montenegro stated that this is not part of the applicant's proposal.
The Highway Department recommends this. The staff has been informed that the
motel will not bear any of the burden, though the Highway Department seems
agreeable to share in the expense.
Mr. Peatross asked if this would delete the front entrance. Mr. Montenegro
stated that it would.
Mr. Boggs :Mated that the condition addressing recreational vehicles could
be deleted in view of the fact that there will be no such storage on the site.
This storage space has been converted to regular vehicle storage. He stated
that the need for the turning lane already exists, and the development of this
site has nothing to do with a problem that already is there. He stated that
the Highway Department should be required to do this, not the applicant.
Mr. Edwards stated that it is unfair of the Highway Department to insist
that he build their roads. The traffic situation is pre-existing. He stated
that he discussed sharing the expense with Sunny Hill, and though it would benefit
them, he stated they have no intention of doing this.
Mr. Peatross asked the applicant if he would be willing to contribute,
at some future date, to the construction costs of the stacking lane.
Mr. Edwards said that he would but he would want to know the conditions
under which he would be contributing.
Mr. Peatross questioned if the applicant's business would in any way
generate additional traffic here. Mr. Edwards said that it would.
01-3
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the position of the Highway Department is not
different from its position
last
June
a- site t theel
crossoveriseceive Highway Department
ft
rn
ne
built,
approval only if the le
Mr. Payne explained that there has been some change in thinking from the
County Attorney's office regarding this matter. For all practical purposes this
is the same as the third lane or service lane concept. The Highway Department is
confident that the County can require this sort of construction as part of site
plan approval or any sort of development. There is one attorney in the Attorney
General's Office who feels this can be done. One County in the Commonwealth
does require this sort of construction. It is a judicable question. As yet
there is no definitive authority in Virginia. If, based on the evidence before
ission feels there is a need for this construction, and
the Commission, the Comm
for the road, there is some authority
if the business will increase the need
that says the County can require it. However, there is likewise sAttorney�sity
which says that it cannot be required. In other words the County
office has amended its position somewhat.
Mr. Jones asked if there is currently a need for the turnlane.
nswer
arent
Mr. Rooseveltst�nedthat ounts.heHeeally statedathataneitherhdoesshechaveeanyppersonal
does not know the U- to
knowledge of the matter.
Dr. Moore questioned which, if only one recommendation could be met, would
the Highway Department prefer.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that if such were the case the Virginia inia theartment of
Highways would prefer the right turn lane into the property,
ent
has the option of closing the crossover.
Dr. Moore pointed out that there is to be a discussion by the Board of
Supervisors on the third lane concept on December 15, and perhaps any action
on this site plan should be deferred until the intent of the Board is known.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that it could act on the site plan now
or hold until this decision is made and act at a later date. However, any action
taken by the Commission which would conflict with the intent of the Board would
probably result in the Board's calling up the site plan for review.
Mr. Jones asked if the Highway Department would study the crossover before
closing it.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the Department would be hard pressed to close
the crossover with just potential problems.
Mr. Carr asked the approximate cost of construction of the 200 foot taper.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that it would be approximately $7,100.
Mr. Edwards stated that this cost did not include the cost of curb and gutter
which would also be required by the Highway Department, though when the Highway
Department builds such roads it does not meet the standards it sets for private
individuals ( and does not build curb and gutter ).
Mr. Barksdale moved deferral on the request until the intent of the Board
is known regarding the third lane or service road concept.
eoly_
Dr. Moore seconded the motion for deferral.
When questioned by Mr. Easter how such a deferral would affect his plans,
Mr. Edwards replied that he does not like the deferral, and pointed out that
if the Highway Department were constructing Route 29 today it would build
a stacking lane. Furthermore, he does not like to have more stringent require-
ments placed on him than are placed on the Highway Department itself ( he was
addressing the curb and gutter matter ).
Mr. Roosevelt explained that the reason such a street as Berkmar Drive
does not require curb and gutter is that it is not a commercial entrance.
Mr. Edwards questioned if he were to contribute 1/2 to 1/3 of the cost
of the stacking lane if the Commission would approve the plan that night.
He stated that he felt the Highway Department is wrong but felt that court
costs and delays might be more than the cost of construction of the turning lane.
Mr. Peatross felt this was a fair question and wanted input on this
from the Highway Department.
Mr. Carr asked if the Highway Department and the applicant could agree
on a 50-50 basis and then let the Commission address that.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he knows of no money available for such a
proposal and he felt, furthermore, that the third lane should be financed by
the developer. He stated that this is the department position. He stated
that what is being discussed is two agencies, the county and the state, who
normally and consciously try to act as one body. In almost all cases the two
agencies have the same position. This happens to be an exception to the rule.
He stated that if the county had a definitive policy on this, he could refer
to this in his review of site plans and all other development. But regardless
of the position of the County on this particular site plan, the Highway Department
will recommend a left turnlane, at the cost of the developer. He stated that
at some point it will have to be determined just how far up in the Highway Department
the left turnlane was reviewed. He feels as though his position will be supported
when the permit is requested.
Mr. Peatross recalled the earlier discussion when Mr. Roosevelt had stated
that he did not know if a need for a left turnlane currently existed. However,
he is taking the position that the turnlane is required if Mr. Edward's develops
his property. That seemed inconsistent to Mr. Peatross, since there has not
even been a need established. He asked if the Department has done a study that
Mr. Roosevelt is referring to.
This crossover currently serves nothing but a turnaround, according to
Mr. Roosevelt.
Mr. Carr disagreed, stating that it serves Berkmar Drive.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that it does serve as a turnaround to get back
down to Berkmar Drive, but it does not directly serve Berkmar Drive. It is
Possible to get into Berkmar Drive by going up to Rio Road. However, he did
agree that there are a number of people making U-turns here. He stated that
if because of accidents it was determined that this was a dangerous crossover,
he could put up a temporary barricade here. He stated that he could keep it
closed until there were funds to permanently close it. No adjacent property would be hurt by this action. He stated that once the development is there, though,
it will be very difficult for the Highway Department to justify closing the
crossover, unless it becomes an accident prone location.
<v/!5
Mr. Roosevelt stated that it would even be possible that at such time Mr. Edwards
might even complain that such closing would pose a hardship on his business.
Unless something is stopped, he does not feel that the Department will have
money to share in the construction of the left turnlane. Once Mr. Edwards
has his entrance to his property, he has no legal responsibility to put any
money into the construction of the left turnlane.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commilong history of trying to get
ssion has a
and follow the input from the Highway Department. He pointed out that in some
cases the Commission is even willing to go further than the Highway Department.
Mr. Carr said that in view of all the development along Route 29wNorih that responsible
it
is evident that the left turnlane is going to be necessary,
butfor funding it is yet to be established.
Dr. Moore felt that the Board should consider distributing
the csome f these
requirements among the people who benefit from them, by
method. That would eliminate a lot of these problems.
Mrs. David asked if he meant putting an assessment on Sunny Hill Motel.
Dr. Moore said "or Berkmar Drive."
Mr. Carr agreed that this is a very important question for the Board to
address. He felt that many people have serious questions if the whole burden
should fall on Mr. Edwards.
The motion to defer carried unanimously, since there was no further
discussion about the request.
Jarman Gap Estates Preliminary Plat - north side of Route 691, east
side of Route 684 near Crozet.
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that this is a proposal for
fourteen 2-acre lots. Lot 14 will require a waiver ofthe
andf8,nta e requirement.
Shared entrances are shown for lots 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 7
2
12, and 13 and 14. Lot 1 will have an individual entrance on Route 691; Lot 2
Lot nary
will have an individual entrance onto Route 684. The Heaelth Dtedrthattthe lots on
approval has been received. The Highway Department has 3, and 4
Route 691 would have no problem with sight distance. However, lots 2,
should be checked before final approval for the best entrance locations. It may
be better for lots 2 and 3 to from are an entrance. road" adjacent owne
old oad"hsinceas ghested
a wording change on lot 14 royal.
still uses this for access. The staff recommended several conditions of approval.
Mr. Carr stated that the waiver of frontage requirement for lot 14 just gives
him another lot.
the applicant is not being requested to build
Mrs. Scala agreed, noting that
any roads or make any site improvements.
Mr. Snow, representing the applicant, stated that there could be 13 lots,
but they would have strange configurations. He stated that the building sites
are better with the fourteen lots.
Mr. Carr questioned the grade at the rear of the property.
Mr. Snow replied that there is about a four foot bank. Farther on
up it reaches 7-8 feet. He stated that the applicant has agreed to shared
entrances where the Highway Department recommends them.
When questioned about the wording for "old abandonned road" Mr. Payne
responded that the terminology for road is really a matter of semantics.
Col. Washington stated that he had received a call from Mr. Mott who
had stated that his primary concern is to eliminate the number of entrances onto
Route 691. He suggested a service road at the rear of the property, since it
is a rocky ridge.
Mr. Peatross stated that this sounds a lot like the questions raised
at the discussion of Stillfield.
Mr. Carr stated that the difference is that he does not believe that the
traffic here is going to accelerate or increase. He pointed out that this road
is not a major collector like Garth Road.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Entrances for all lots subject to final Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation approval;
2. Waived frontage for lot 14 ( since there would be only one lot with
a strange configuration as opposed to strange configurations for all
lots if there were only 13 );
3. Change wording from "old abandonned road" to "old road."
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
(Mr. Easter left the meeting.)
SP-89-76. Willard E. Hall - request for public garage:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, since the Commission felt that
the applicant had been properly notified on two occasions to attend the public
hearing.
Mr. Peatross moved that the Commission recommend that the request be
denied due to lack of attendance after due notice on two accounts.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
HUD Grants:
Mr. Payne stated that this is a request from the Service Authority for
federal funding on a sewerage project. Under HUD regulations, there is a
necessity for two public hearings to be held prior to the seventh of January.
This is not required by state law, rather by HUD regulations. He explained
that it is necessary that the Commission hear this on January 4, 1977, so that
the Board can hear it on January 5, 1977, and recommend this to HUD.
k7
Mr. Keeler noted that this is for two applications, one for the Albemarle
County Service Authority and one for Albemarle County.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission hear these requests for federal
funding for a sewerage project at the January 4, 1977 public hearing.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Keeler asked the Commission to reconsider Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority's site plan, which had been discussed earlier in the evening.
Mr. Peatross moved that the Commission reconsider the whole matter.
Mr. Jones seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Keeler stated that he was requesting this reconsideration because
Mr. Pollock, the applicant's representative had stated that a deferral would
be a problem to him. He reviewed the two reasons for deferral for the
Commission ( opinion from the County Engineer as to whether the safety devices
are adequate, and to verify that the drainage
nitch
his r adequate
d for
the the
seotential
1000 gallon discharge). Since the County angiee
safety device, he felt that the County Engineer would state that the two
safety devices were adequate. In the event he can verify that the downstream
ditches are adequate , he sees no need for the matter to come backo the Cotmmission.
Mr. Keeler felt that the County Engineer could clarify these two Points
planning staff. If the staff is not satisfied, then they would bring the site
plan back to the Commission for review.
Mr. Peatross stated that he prefers that the site plan come back,
and the applicant had publicly stated that he could live with a deferral.
There was a great deal of confusion about what the County Engineer felt
and he wanted to know the position, rather than just have the staff.
He felt a short amount of time could be taken to consider it at the next meeting.
by the C
Mr. Peatross wanted the varthe1ous matterebelons to broughtbbacknto thedCommission�atsthen.
Mr. Peatross moved that
January 4 meeting.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with
no discussion.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
ed"v I
�
R ert W. Tucker, Jr. - Sec etar
M