HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 58-101Revised 2/2/76
and as approved by Planning
Commission 2/3/76
ARTICLE 1B
SCENIC HIGHWAY DESIGNATION
18-1 Request for Designation
18-1-1 (A) The Board of Supervisors may, from time to time, request the Virginia
State Highway Commission to designate any public road in the County
as a scenic highway or a Virginia byway in accordance with Section
33.1-62 of the Code of Virginia (1950) , as amended.
(B) In addition, the Board of Supervisors may designate as an Albemarle
County Scenic Highway any public road in the County which meets state
scenic designation standards except with regard to signs. Application
shall be made to the Virginia State Highway Commission for scenic _
designation in accordance with Subsection (A) of this section at such
time as any Albemarle County Scenic Highway shall meet all state scenic design
ctanr3arr7 cz _
18-1-2 Prior to making any such request of the State Highway Commission, or anv such
designation, the Board shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission for
its recommendation. The Commission and the Board shall hold public hearings on
the advisability of making any such request or designation in accordance with
Section 15.1-431 of the Code.
'9-2 Public Hearings by State Highway Commission
Iry Except as otherwise specifically provided by resolution of the Board of
Supervisors from time to time, the Virginia State Highway Commission shall
hold public hearings in accordance with Section 33.1-62 of the Code prior
to the designation of any scenic highway or Virginia byway in the County,
whether or not such designation be at the request of the Board of Supervisors.
18-3 Restrictions Along Designated Scenic Highways and Virginia Byways
In addition to and notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance to
the contrary, the following regulations shall be effective.along any
designated scenic highway or Virginia byway.
18-3-1 No structure_, except as hereinafter provided in the case of certain signs,
shall be constructed within 150 feet of the right-of-way of any designated
scenic highway or Virginia byway having a right-of-way width of fifty (50)
or more, nor within 175 feet of the right-of-way of any such highway or
byway having a right-of-way width of less than fifty (50) feet.
18-3-2 For purposes of this Article, no sign except those signs defined in Sections
16-80-6, 16-80-7, 16-80-10, 16-80-11, 16-80-12, 16-80-16, 16-80-17, 16-80-18,
and 16-80-19 of this ordinance shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the
right-of-way of any designated scenic highway or Virginia byway having a
right-of-way width of fifty (50) feet or more, nor within 75 feet of the
right-of-way of any such highway or byway having a right-of-way width of
less than fifty (50) feet.
r+
18-3-3 Subject to the provisions of Section 18-3-1 of this Ordinance, signs visible
from any designated scenic highway or Virginia byway shall be permitted in
accordance with Article 18 of this Ordinance; provided, however, that the design
of any sign, other than those signs defined in Sections 16-90-10, 16-80-12, 16-80-17,
and 16-80-18, proposed to be erected within 500 feet of and visible from any
r.r such highway or byway shall be reviewed as herein provided and that the
location, configuration, design, materials and color of all signs and structures
shall be encouraged to be in character with the historical and environmental
setting of Albemarle County.
18-3-4 No sign shall visually dominate the structure to which it is attached and shall
be architecturally harmonious with the surrounding structures. Sign materials
should be predominately wood or utilize open lettering and indirect lighting
shall be encouraged. All signs subject to review hereunder shall be processed
as follows:
(a) The applicant shall submit two copies of sign drawings at a scale not
smaller than one inch equals two feet, to the Zoning Administrator for
Albemarle County;
(b) The Zoning Administrator shall transmit one copy to the Director of Planning
for review and shall retain one copy. The Director of Planning shall review
the drawings within ten (10) calendar days from the date of application;
provided, that nothing herein shall be construed to limit the right of the
Director of Planning to refer any application to the Planning Commission
for its review in any case in which he shall deem the same to be in the
public interest.
(c) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Director of Planning in the
review of such signs may demand a review of the signs by the Albemarle
"*W County Planning Commission by filing a request therefor in writing with
the Albemarle County Planning Department within ten (10) days of the
date of such decision. The Commission may affirm, reverse, or modify,
in whole or in part, the decision of the Director of Planning. For
purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall include
the applicant, any adjacent landowner, and any public agency or officer
thereof.
(d) 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 a proper administration hereof.
18-3-5 All signs subject to the provisions in Article 18 of this Ordinance shall
conform to the regulations of Article 15A of this Ordinance except where
specifically provided for as follows:
(A) Agricultural (A-1) District and Residential (RS-1, R-1, R-2, R-3)
Districts
(1) Business signs ( free standing or projecting):
One free standing sign or one projecting sign per establishment per
road frontage. Each sign shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet
in area nor exceed ten (10) feet in height above ground level.
(2) Business Signs (wall):
One wall sign shall be permitted in place of the signs permitted in
Number One 0 1) above. Area of sign shall not exceed one square foot
for each one foot of linear frontage of the main structure, with a
maximum area of twenty (20) square feet. No portion of the wall sign
shall exceed twenty '(20) feet in height above ground level or project
above the eave of the roof of the main structure.
(3) Location Signs:
Two location signs per establishment to be located on a scenic
highway not to exceed six (6) square feet in area nor exceed
r.Y ten (10) feet in ehgiht above ground level. The signs shall be
permitted only whre deemed necessary, by the Zoning Administrator,
for public safety.
(4) Subdivision Signs:
One sign per subdivision entrance not to exceed twelve (12) square
feet in area nor ten (10) feet in height above ground level, with only
the name of the subdivision displayed on the sign.
(B) Commercial (B-1) District
(1) Business Signs (Free standing or projecting):
One free standing sign or one projecting sign per establishment per
road frontage. Each sign shall not exceed eighteen (18) square
feet in area nor exceed ten (10) feet in height above ground level,
with lesser heights being encouraged.
(2) Business Signs (Wall):
One wall sign in place of the signs permitted in Number One (#1)
above. Area of sign shall not exceed one square foot for each two
feet of linear frontage of the main structure, with a maximum area
of thirty-five (35) square feet. No portion of the wall sign shall
exceed twenty (20) feet in height, above ground level or project
above the eave of the roof of the main structure.
r.r (3) Location Signs:
'Two location signs per establishment to be located on a scenic highway
not to exceed six (6) square feet in area nor exceed ten (10) feet in
height above ground level. The signs shall be permitted only where
deemed necessary, by the Zoning Administrator, for public safety.
(4) Sale or Rental Signs:
1. One free standing sign per road frontage not to exceed twelve
(12) square feet in area nor ten (10) feet in height above
ground level; or
2. One wall sign per parcel of land not to exceed twelve (12)
square feet in area with no portion of said sign to exceed twenty
(20) feet in height from ground level or project above the
eave of the roof of the main structure.
(5) Shopping Center Signs:
1. One free standing entrance sign per road frontage, except
one additional sign shall be permitted when road frontage
exceeds 600 linear feet. Such sign shall not exceed eighteen
(18) square feet and shall display only the name of the shopping
center. The height of this sign shall not exceed ten (10) feet;
2. One wall sign for each individual establishment within the shopping
center. The area of this sign shall not exceed one square foot per two
front linear feet of said establishment, with a maximum area not
to exceed thirty-five (35) square feet. No portion of this sign shall
exceed twenty (20) feet above ground level or project above the eave
of said establishment;
3, One projecting sign per establishment, except an additional
projecting sign shall be permitted when the establishment has
`"*Iow an entrance on another pedestrian walkway. Projecting signs shall
not exceed four (4) square feet and no portion of said sign shall
exceed ten (10) feet above ground level;
4. Two or more establishments which are designed as a single
commercial group, whether on the same parcel or not, or
under common ownership or management, or having common main-
tenance or parking, or the appearance of one continuous commercial
area shall be governed by the above shopping center provisions;
5. All signs governed by the above shopping center provisions shall
be designed in such manner as to create continuity and a harmonious
appearance with the architecture of the shopping center and the
intent of this ordinance.
(C) Industrial (RTM, M-1, M -2) Districts
(1) Business Signs ( Free standing and projecting):
One free standing sign or one projecting sign per establishment
per road frontage. No sign shall exceed eighteen (18) square
feet in area nor ten (10) feet in height.
(2) Business Signs ( wall ):
One wall sign shall be permitted in place of the signs permitted
in N'.:mber one (i#l) above. T:;e area of such sign shall not- exceed
one square foot for each two feet of linear frontage of the main
building, with the maximum area being thirty-five (35) square
feet and no portion of the wall sign shall exceed twenty (20)
feet in height from ground level or project above the eave line
of the roof of the main building.
(3) Location Signs:
Two location signs per establishment to be located on a scenic
highway not to exceed six (6) square feet in area
ten (10) feet in height above ground level. The signs shall
be permitted only where deemed necessary, by the Zoning Admin-
istrator, for public safety.
(4) Sale or Rental Signs:
1. One free standing sign per road frontage not to exceed twelve (12)
square feet in area nor ten (10) feet in height above ground
level; or
2. One wall sign per parcel of land not to exceed twelve
(12) square feet in area with no portion of said sign to
exceed twenty (20) feet in height from ground level or project
above the eave line of the roof of the main building.
(D) Industrial Park
'fir.+
(1) Business Signs (Free Standing):
One free standing sign per industrial park per road frontage
not to exceed eighteen (18) square feet in area nor ten (10)
feet in height from ground level and shall display only the
name of the industrial park.
(2) Business Signs (Wall):
One wall sign shall be permitted for each enterprise within the
industrial park not to exceed one (1) square foot per two (2)
front linear feet with a maximum area not to exceed thirty-five
(35) square feet and no portion of the sign shall exceed twenty
(20) feet in height from ground level or project above the
eave line of the roof of the main building.
(E) Multi -Tenant Buildings
(1) Business Signs (Free standing):
One free standing sign per building per road frontage not to
exceed 18 square feet in area nor ten (10) square feet in height
which shall display only the name of the building or the names of
enterprises.
(2) Business Signs (Wall):
A commercial enterprise with a separate entrance shall be permitted
one wall sign not to exceed one (1) square foot per two (2)
front linear feet of said establishment with a maximum of
thirty-five square feet in area and no portion of the sign
shall exceed twenty (20) feet in height from ground level or
project above the eave line of the roof of the main building
(3) A_ professional office with a separate entrance shall be
permitted one identifying wall sign not to exceed four square
feet in area and no portion of the sign shall exceed twcnty (20)
feet in height from ground level or project above the eave line
of the roof of the main building.
18-3-6 Any development undertaken adjacent to any designated scenic highway
or Virginia byway which is subject to review by any officer or employee
of the County shall be reviewed in accordance with the objectives of
such designation as provided by law.
Group Home: A single family dwelling occupied by an adult and his family
and not more than eight (8) boys and/or girls unrelated to the
adult under the supervision of the adult.
as Mr. Cox, representing the applicant, noted that the number 8 was arrived
atAthe number of boys that could be kept without destroying the basic concept of
Tros-Dale, which is to provide a family unit, and not an institution.
He passed out brochures to the Commission explaining the Tros-Dale Home for Boys.
Mr. Voight, a member of the public, asked if this would open up the A-1 zone
for other homes of this type.
Mr. Carr said that with a special use permit that it Votild, that other
individuals, groups, or corporations can apply for this through the special use
permit process.
Mr. Tucker said that the number 8 was intended to include the group parent's
children.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out that this is restrictive.
Mr. Cox said that eight total children is too restrictive. He suggested
limiting the number of welfare children to six, since the definition needs to be
flexible enough to include the children of the parents.
Mr. Tucker noted that the staff has no strong feelings concerning the number 8.
Mr. Payne said that the definition could say 6 or 8 welfare children, plus
a man, wife, and his children.
At this point, Mr. Peatross asked if two sisters could not have such a home.
Mr. Carr said that the definition needs to be fairly restrictive.
Dr. Moore suggested that if two sisters wish to operate such a home, they
could apply for a variance.
Mrs. Graves said that she wanted the definition written such that it would
be a family unit, providing parental influence.
Mr. Easter said that he wanted the definition to specifically say
"husband, wife, and children". He also asked if two acres of property could
handle this number of children.
Mr. Peatross noted that two acres can accommodate a duplex. However,
he said that he wanted the definition limited to 8 welfare children.
Mr. Easter said that the point made about a duplex on two acres was well
taken.
Mr. Tucker asked that the Commission defer the matter in order that the
proper wording for the definition could be drawn up.
Mr. Easter said that he would move approval of the request, as long
as the definition included "8 children not in the natural family, and the parents
to be a man, wife, and their children."
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr temporarily deferred the vote in order that the County Attorney
could write the definition to include the stipulations of the motion.
ZMP-345. Roy S. Clarke, Jr., has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to rezone 41.04 acres from A-1 Agricultural to
RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the north side of Route 779
and south side of Route 710, near Route 29 South. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 87, Parcel 35, part thereof. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report.
Mr. Clarke stated that he plans to have 60,000 square foot lots unless
it is difficult to find water there. If a public water system becomes necessary,
he might use the 40,000 square foot lot in order to pay for the water system.
Mr. Ruth M. Peterson, an adjacent owner presented the Commission with a
series of questions. She wanted to know if this rezoning would mean that other
landowners property would have a change in zone. She also asked if this would
set a precedent for RS-1 zoning in the area. She said that she wanted the privacy
of at least two -acre lots.
Mr. Carr told her that any change in the zoning of the Clarke property
would not change the zone or the use of her property. He also pointed out that
this area is designated as a village cluster and it is anticipated that this cluster
will grow to perhaps 3000 people. However, he pointed out that this is in the hands
of the property owners in that area. He did note that if this rezoning is approved,
it could prompt other rezonings.
Mrs. Peterson asked if her property could be rezoned without applying
for it.
Mr. Carr said that he did not forsee this, but that all property can
be rezoned by governmental authority.
Mr. Bill Marley stated his opposition to the request on the basis that
it will set a precedent. The area is substantially A-1 now.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out to the Commission and the applicant that
as far as a septic system and water is concerned, the 60,000 square feet lots
will each have to stand on its own merits.
Mr. Carr said that if the development is done in phases, as proposed by
the applicant, each phase will have to meet the requirements for roads, wells,
septic systems, etc.
Mr. Kidd questioned the taxes on surrounding land.
Mr. Carr said that the Planning Commission could not address this point.
Mr. Deane Carpenter said that she agreed with the comments of Mrs. Peterson,
noting that she hated to see this sort of development taking place in this area.
Mr. Hook said that wells and septic systems can't be too close together;
he hoped that the property would be developed with two. acre lots.
Mr. Clarke said that the project will be done in two or three phases. law
He said that this community was planned to grow. He said that there will be deed
restrictions on the property in order to avoid devaluing anyone's property, including
his own.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that the staff reports indicates that the soils in
this area have moderate limitations for septic tanks, excavation and basement.
She said that requests where there is a lack of water have been denied in the past.
Mr. Peatross said that he favors the request, one reason being that the
Comprehensive Plan allows for this sort cf development in this area. He said that
where possible, the Comprehensive Plan should be followed.
Mrs. Graves asked if this area is recognized as a water deficient area.
The staff said that it was not aware of it.
Dr. Moore asked if there is other RS-1 zoning in the area.
The answer to this question was "no."
Mr. Barksdale agreed with Mr. Peatross.
Mr. Easter said that if the request is granted, a central well could be
installed and the property cut into 1-acre lots by right.
Mr. Barksdale said that this probably won't occur due to the expense.
Mrs. Graves asked how the area would be considered for proposed zoning
if this particular acreage were zoned RS-1. She felt this case to be another
example of the need for conditional zoning.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Mrs. Graves, stating that a buffer to the rest
of the community is needed.
Mr. Tucker said that this could be done with an RPN.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that this be investigated by the applicant.
Mrs. Graves moved that the request be denied.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Easter asked that the applicant be supplied with information regarding
an RPN. He felt that he could supportl=z acre zoning in this case.
Mr. Tucker briefly explained the RPN to the applicant, but pointed out
that more front money is needed for such a development.
Mr. Clarke explained that he is in the process of preparing a plan
using 1� acres. He noted that due to the lay of the land, houses could be placed
only in certain places.
Mr. Tucker also told the applicant that the RPN requires a central well.
Mr. Barksdale moved that action be deferred until the applicant could review
fir+° the RPN with the staff.
The motion, seconded by Dr. Moore, carried 6-1, with Mr. Peatross voting
against the motion.
UP-75-13:
Mr. Payne told the Commission that he was ready to present the
wording for the definition for Group Home. He asked the Commission if the
following definition was sufficient:
A single-family dwelling occupied by an adult and his family and not
more than eight (8) boys and/or girls unrelated to the adult under
the supervision of that adult. All such children shall have been
previously placed in such home by order of a court or by agreement
with their respective legal guardians. For purposes of this section,
the term "family" shall include the parents, parents -in-law, and
children of such supervising adult.
The vote on the motion to approve UP-75-13 and the above definition
passed unanimously.
SP-543. Halsey K. Scott has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to locate a radio station (FM) and antenna on 20
acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the northeast
side of Route 817. Property is further described as County Tax Map
19, Parcel 47, part thereof. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, stating that the Planning Department
had received one letter of opposition to the request.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the location in regard to the airport.
Mr. Tucker did this, and noted that the FAA has approved the site.
Mr. Scott told the Commission the height. He said that he plans to
locate his house on this property. After talking to several residents of
the area, as well as to all the adjoining owners, he said that he has received
no opposition to the request. Since the tower will be located five miles from
the airport, there will be no conflict. The airport, he stated, even encourages
placing the tower here to be used as a landmark in that area.
Mr. George McCallum, on behalf of the McGoverns, who reside in Texas,
strongly opposed the request. He said that the staff report is based on the
fact that there will be no radio studio on the property, and there will probably
be one located there. He was also concerned about the increase in the daily traffic.
The request is premature, he felt, since no FM channel has been authorized for this
area. Also, he pointed out that the applicant is not licensed as an FM operator.
He was concerned that the views in the area would be considerably obstructed
and felt this might set a precedent for other sorts of visual impairment.
Mr. Howard Collier objected to the tower.
Mr. Tucker explained that the radio station being located on this property
is not a firm possibility. He also noted that the tower can't be located without
FCC approval.
Mr. Thomas Mann, speaking on behalf of the applicant, said that the number
of FM stations in an area is not limited. He also pointed out that before an appli-
cation can be submitted to the FCC, there must be a firm feeling where the tower
will be located.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the number of houses in view of the location.
Mr. Tucker explained that there is not exactly one set location, since
*,taw there is not one location better than the others. He said that the important
thing is to keep the tower out of the flight patter and to keep it as low as
possible.
Mr. Scott stated that he definitely planned to locate the station there.
Mrs. Graves asked if the McGoverns objected to the commerical area or
to the tower.
The answer to this was "both."
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he objected to the station, that it belonged
in a commercial area, but that he had an open mind on the tower.
Mr. Mann told the Commission that there is really no site that is appropriate
as far as the FCC is concerned, but that this is the technically optimum site.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Scott said that if he locates the station on the property, the advertising
office will have to be in the city - because of travel time. He pointed out that
the McGovern property is further down the road from this entrance and the traffic
that would be generated would have no bearing on them. The applicant stated that
there is only to suitable property in the county, and that this is probably the
best site.
Mr. Carr said that the tower is technically correct, and that the applicant
asked for approval of his choice of sites. He said that he could support the tower,
though he doesn't like to look at them. He said that he could not support the
station, though.
Mr. Easter suggested a location such as Brown's Mountain where there are
already towers in the area.
Mr. Mann explained to the Commission that mountain areas like Brown's Mountain
are too high and that there is no building within the city that is appropriate.
Mr. Peatross moved approval for the tower{only,subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff:
1. Final FAA approval;
2. Planning Commission approval of site plan for installation of the tower;
3. Driveway to be maintained with a gravelled surface;
4. Only those trees necessary for the installation of the tower shall be removed.
Mr. Easter said that he could not support the motion, and asked that the
applicant secure another location.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
The motion carried with a vote of 4-3, with Messrs. Easter, Gloeckner,
and Barksdale voting against the motion.
Halsey K. Scott - preliminary plat:
Mr. Tucker explained that this is a schematic to see the Planning
Commission's feelings.
Mrs. Graves stated that this opens up all other special use permits.
Mr. Gloeck.ner and Dr. Moore said that this division of the 20 acres
into three parcels is completely different from locating a tower on 20 acres.
Mr. Carr said that the 10 acres for the tower does meet the requirements
for a tower, but he questioned if this is adequate.
The entire commission stated that it had reservations about this preliminary
plat regarding the subdivision of this property.
SP-544. Double C Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to locate a central well on 2.039 acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 677.
Property is situated on the south side of Route 677. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 58, Parcel 74, part thereof ( lot 3 },
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that the preliminary subdivision
plat on the property has already been approved.
There was no public comment, thus Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of SP-544 subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff:
1. County Engineer's approval of location and size of water lines;
2. Limit of 14 units to be served by this well;
3. County Engineer's written certification of the well output.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
SP-546. Ann Alexander has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 12 acres zoned A-1. Property
is located on the west side of Route 708, approximatley 1800 feet from
the intersection of Route 708 and 637. County Tax Map 73, Parcel 36B,
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that if the request is approved,
it should be conditioned upon the following:
1. Approval from all state and local agencies;
2. Minimum setbacks to be determined by the Zoning staff;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile home;
4. This permit is non -transferable;
5. This mobile home cannot be rented under any circumstances;
6. Screening and landscaping to be determined by the Zoning staff;
7. This permit is valid for five (5) years.
He also stated that this was being presented to the Commission due to
the three letters of opposition that had been sumbitted to the Planning Department.
Ann Alexander, the applicant, stated that this was requested in order
that she and her child would have a place to live near her grandparents, of
whom she takes care.
Mr. Jim Murray, on behalf of the Michies and Johnsons, objected to the
request, since it is out of keeping with the neighborhood. While there is sufficient
acreage, it has a steep location, and thus the mobile home will have to be placed
on the front part of the property.
Mr. Jim Faulconer,an adjacent owner, said that this is a residential area.
The two other mobile homes in the area are not visible. Besides, mobile homes
are not compatible to this area.
Mr. William Boozer opposed the request. No matter how the property is
screened, mobile home will still be visible from the property he has contracted
to purchase.
Mr. Roger Grant, an adjacent owner, opposed the request. He stated
that the proper place for mobile homes is in mobile home parks.
Mr. Vince Tolson suggested that other housing in the same price range
be considered. He said that this sort of housing is not appropriate for the area.
Mr.Faulconer stated that he is also opposed to SP-547, which is in the
immediate area.
Mr. Ivor Massey opposed the request, fearing that it will set a prececent.
Mrs. Alexander said that there are three trailers in the area prior to
the sale of the 180 acre that her grandfather sold to some of the people objecting
to the request.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Carr asked the grandparents' need for care.
Mrs. Alexander said that they need daily attention.
Mr. Easter moved action be deferred until members of the Commission could
view the site.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-547. Louise Marshall has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 15 acres zoned A-1. Property is
located on the south side of Route 637 west of the intersection of Routes
708 and 637. County Tax Map 73, Parcel 36C, Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
M
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that this permit had originally
been issued on an emergency basis, when the applicant's house had burned.
He noted that the Planning Department had received three letters of opposition.
Mrs. Marshall stated that the house burned in December, 1974. She said
that if this permit is granted that she plans to build another house in the next
five years.
Mr. Jim Murray, on behalf of the Michie and Johnson families, objected.
He asked that this permit be viewed in retrospect. He pointed out that other
people than the applicant have been living in the mobile home the past year.
He also stated that there is a lot of rubbish that needs to be cleared from the
site.
He questioned if this is indeed a proper emergency permit, in view of the circumstances.
Mrs. Lee Wood, said that she sold the property to the Boozers and she
asked if this applicant could not care for the grandparents mentioned in SP-546,
and there would be the need for only one mobile home, at most, in the area.
Mrs. Marshall said that her health does not permit her caring for her parents.
Mr. John O. Higginson stated that he hopes that no other trailers will be
put on the 15 acres.
Ivor Massey, Vince Tolson, and Jim Faulconeralso objected to the permit
on the basis that this area is a residential neighborhood and unsuitable for
mobile homes.
Mr. Easter moved action be deferred until this site could be viewed by
members of the Commission.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP--01-76. Larry B. Hall and Douglas M. Taylor have petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate an automobile body shop on 2 acres zoned
M-2 Industrial. Property is situated on the west side of Route 29 North.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 22C. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that if the request is approved
it should be conditional to the following:
1. Site Plan approval by the Planning Commission and screening approval must be
given at the site plan review level;
2. Road standards to handle the proposed development of this tract to be approved
by the County Engineering Department;
3. Signing to be limited to one eighteen (18) square foot free-standing sign located
on Route 29 North bearing the name of the industrial park only, and one wall
sign not to exceed thirty-five (35) square feet and not to project above the
eave line of the building.
l%
Mr. Barksdale asked what else had been approved for this site.
Mr. Tucker told him that Pyrofax gas was also on this site.
Mr. Gale Pickford, on behalf of the applicants, presented the drawings
of the proposed building. He said that there are only two M-2 parcels in the
county. This would not be for mechanical repairs, it will be a body shop, and old
cars will not be on the property. He noted that the site is not visible from
the highway, though the building will not be unattractive. He pointed out that
this is a much lighter use than many uses permitted in M-2 zone by right. He
said that the applicants have the desire to establish a business and they are
contract/purchasers of the property in question.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the property is wooded or cleared.
Mr. Gilletley, present owner of the property, said that there is a substantial
amount of growth on the property.
Mr. Peatross asked the staff what their objection is, since the property is
zoned M-2.
Mr. Tucker said that it is the feeling of the staff that this use is
incompatible with the area.
Mr. Easter said that he is not bothered by this use.
Mr. Barksdale agreed that there could be worse uses for the land.
Mr. Carr asked that if this is approved that a condition of approval
be added regarding the number of non -operable vehicles that could be on the
property, since he does not want a number of junk cars around.
The applicants pointed out that they do not wish junk cars on the property.
As far as non -operable cars, they felt that 10 was a fair number.
Mr. Carr said that he wished the condition to read:
4. Limited to ten (10) cars, no one of which should sit on the property more than
90 days.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the special use permit subject to the
conditions recommended by the staff and the condition suggested by Mr. Carr.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Minutes:
Decmeber 2, 1975
January 6, 1976
January 13, 1976
January 20, 1976
January 27, 1976.
The chairman deferred action on these minutes until a later date due to the
hour.
Mrs. Graves said that in view of her affirmative vote on SP-543,
that she wished to move that the request be reconsidered in public hearing.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr said that he would accept this motion for vote, but not
hear the discussion until the applicant could be present.
Mr. Payne pointed out that it will be necessary to re -notify the
adjacent property owners and applicant.
The vote on the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner asked the staff to set a work session on mobile homes
and mobile home parks in the county at the next possible time.
The Commission unanimously agreed that this was in order.
Mr. Tucker reminded the members of the Commission that the Board of
Supervisors had requested their presence at a meeting on February 10, 1976,
3:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
i
Secr tart', Robert W. Tucke Jr.
19
73
February 10, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on
Tuesday, February 10, 1976, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Ellen
Craddock; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Paul Peatross; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio.
order.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
Approval of minutes:
December 2, 1975:
Mrs. Graves asked that her motion for deferral of SP-537 be amended to
state that this deferral was made as provided for in Section 2-7-3 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Subject to this change, Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the
minutes.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
January 6, 1976:
Mr. Easter moved approval of these minutes. The motion, seconded by Mr.
Barksdale, carried unanimously.
January 13, 1976:
Mr. Easter moved approval of these minutes.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
January 20, 1976:
Dr. Moore moved approval of these minutes.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Craddock, carried unanimously.
January 27, 1976:
Mrs. Graves asked that the motion regarding policy for subdivision and site
plan review read as follows:
No site plans, subdivisions, special permits be accepted for review by the
Site Plan Review Committee or the Planning Commission until the zoning is
established by the Board of Supervisors or the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Graves asked this change be made since she had amended Mr. Gloeckner's
motion that evening.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed that this was correct.
74
Subject to this change, Mr. Gloeckner moved the minutes be approved.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Graves carried unanimously.
February 3, 1976:
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of these minutes.
The motion., seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr addressed the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors held in the afternoon of that day, regarding the review of
the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he, Dr. Moore, Mrs. Graves, and Mrs.
Craddock were present at that meeting. He noted to the Commission that the
staff had presented the Board and Commission a memo regarding this review ( see
attached sheets ).
He stated that the Board favorably accepted the suggestions in this memo,
especially those relating to the initial stages of review for the plan, in
which there would be meetings in each magisterial district. He pointed out
that the staff had recommended that a consultant be employed to do the Comprehensive
Plan, and that members of the Commission and Board would make the selection of
the consulting firm.
At this point, Mr. Easter asked if the firm of Mr. Rosser Payne would
be considered, since that firm had drawn up the first master plan for Albemarle
County. 140)
Mr. Tucker stated that this firm would not be considered.
Mr. Carr said that the meeting that afternoon had turned into a question
session, though no answers had been provided. He noted that the Board of
Supervisors had stated that they were unwilling to review the zoning map for
the county until the master plan had been reviewed.
Some items that were addressed at that meeting were:
1. Cluster development - will it be retained as part of the master plan when reviewed;
2. Should this be a five year projection, or should it be a more permanent sort of
plan?;
3. Population projections;
4. Public utility systems;
5. Highway corridors.
Dr. Moore added that low cost housing - especially mobile homes - had been
addressed.
Mr. Carr pointed out that as far as the courts are concerned, the master plan
is more than just a guide. He stated that the Board wishes at some future date
to discuss these items as well as others in another joint meeting with the Planning
Commission. This should be done prior to anyone's working on the plan ( excluding
data gatherning ). -1-4)
�!5
V,�vi OF AL@e,4
Ov 2� ��
�'Itf L' LN�F
Planning Department
411 EAST HIGH STREET
CHARLOTTE_SVILLE. VIRGINIA 22901 ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR.
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
MARY JOY SCALA
PLANNER
Date: February 10, 1976
Memo to: Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
From: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. - Director of Planning
Re: Comprehensive Plan Review
Over the concern of the review of the County's Comprehensive Plan the Planning
Staff offers the following comments. We wholeheartedly concur with members
of the Board who feel that public work sessions concerning the goals for future
development within various sections of the county should be initiated by
county representatives promptly. This should be accomplished prior to the
commencement of the Comprehensive Plan review. Citizen participation and input
is the basis, or should be the basis, for any Comprehensive Plan.
To carry out these work sessions the staff recomu cndS that cc^.mittees made up of one me..We
of the Board of Supervisors, two Planning Commissioners, and one staff member
be established to meet with the citizenry in those areas set forth below.
The Board member and Planning Commission member would be responsible for
those meetings within their magisterial districts when possible. The possible
areas within which these meetings could be held are as follows:
Scottsville Elementary - Scottsville and immediate surroundings
Yancey Elementary - Southwest Scottsville District
Walton Middle - Middle Scottsville District.
Piedmont Community College OR
Stone Robinson Elementary - Northern Scottsville District and Lower Rivanna
Keswick Community Center - Keswick and Route 22 North
Stony Point Elementary - Stony Point and Route 20 North
Broadus Wood Elementary - Earlysville and area north and west, including Free
Union, Boonsville, Advance Mills
Whitehall Community Center - Whitehall; area surrounding, including Mountfair and South on
Route 810
Hen-.ey Middle School - Crozet, Greenwood, Batesville and areas surrounding
Red Hill School - area surrounding and Route 29 South
Meriwether Lewis OR Murray Elementary - Ivy and area
Jack Jouett School - Jack Jouett and Charlottesville Districts
These committees would actually be a "listening" board in which the public would
be invited to express their opinions - pros and cons - on the existing comprehensive
plan and what, if anything, should be reviewed in more depth or revised or improved
upon, etc.
'74,
{
The public comments offered concerning the plan would provide the basis for establish-
ing the County's goals and objectives which in turn would provide a guide for the plan's
review.
In response to the question concerning who shall prepare the plan, the staff is still
of the opinion that due to the existing daily work load of the planning staff, it would be
impossible for the staff to undertake the comprehensive plan review and complete
its preparation during this calendar year. To hire additional qualified planners,
just for one year would be extremely difficult. To contract with several consultants
for various sections of the plan would, in our opinion, be unwise and very difficult
to coordinate those findings later into a constructive, meaningful plan. It should
be understood that while this process is termed a "review" of the comprehensive plan, all
of the background data and studies prepared for a community's first master plan must
again be addressed. The reason for this is that trends and data are constantly
changing. Finally, it is our opinion that the review of the plan should begin
immediately, in hopes that the final draft could coincide with the findings of the
Betz Environmental Engineer's Study. In order to accomplish this, a competent
planning consultant should be employed as soon as possible.
Possible Schedule of Events
March 1-31 -Meetings held with public by Goal Setting Committee
April 15 - Select consultant*
May 1 - Planning Staff completes its background data
June 1 - Consultant completes and presents economic study to Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors ( Joint Meeting )
July 1 - Consultant presents preliminary plan and recommendations to Planning
Commission and Ec=2 cf Surma_visors ( Joint Mccti.
`7 )
July 15 - Consultant solicits public input on preii.minary plan and recommendations
( several meetings )
Sept. 15 - Consultant presents recommendations after citizen input to Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors ( Joint Meeting )
Octo. 15 - Public Hearing ( Joint Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors Public
Hearing )
* The consultant should be selected by a screening committee made up of three (3)
Planning Commissioners and two (2) Board of Supervisors.
RWTj:jc
t;.
77
Mr. Carr said that it had been requested by Mrs. Fran Martin that the
League of Women Voters and the Citizens for Albemarle have a means for their input
rather than the normal way for input - at the public hearings.
Mr. Easter said that such a request is a "sore spot" with him, since in the
preparation of the proposed zoning map and proposed ordinance, these groups were
given every opportunity available for input during the work sessions and public
hearings. He said that many of their suggestions were incorporated into the map
and ordinance, and then at the public hearing for the Board of Supervisors, they
did not support the Planning Commission's recommendation. He said that these
groups were treated properly and he did not like having criticism that their input
was not taken.
Mrs. Graves suggested that the intent of Mrs. Martin was in reference to
the drawing up of the original master plan.
Mr. Carr said that Mrs. Graves was correct. He said that he did not have the
idea that Mrs. Martin's request was in the form of a criticism. He pointed out
that there should be input from other groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, etc.
He noted that these groups have a degree of expertise that should be used by the
Planning Commission. He pointed out that no decision on Mrs. Martin's request was
made by the Board.
Mr. Carr also pointed out that it had been the staff's recommendation that
there be as many joint meetings as possible in order to consolidate ideas.
( Mr. Peatross entered the meeting. )
Mr. Carr said that it will be left to the Board to decide the number of joint
meetings that will be necessary, as well as the number of meetings to be scheduled
for each magisterial district.
Work Session on the Moratorium Area:
Mr. Tucker presented to the Commission the background information on the
South Rivanna River Reservoir ( Study Area ) - see attached sheets.
Mr. Tucker, pointing to the maps that were part of the presentation,
explained the three alternatives in zoning for this area:
1. existing zoning;
2. proposed zoning adapted to the existing zoning;
3. first stream valley - which is the staff's recommendation.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that ideally the master plan should be
revised for the entire watershed area, but that this is impossible due to the
time involved.
Mr. Carr asked if the only unknown, as far as the first stream valley map
is concerned, is the 20,000 square foot areas.
Mr. Tucker confirmed this.
in
Mrs. Graves asked if the property is rezoned at this time it will be
a rezoning for the life of the moratorium or if it will be permanent.
'14g Mr. Tucker stated that once it is rezoned, it will be in effect until the zon
ordinance is again reviewed or until the property owner requests a rezoning for a
particular use.
Mr. Easter said that any rezoning that might occur should be only for
the life of the moratorium.
Mr. Payne stated that it is the Board of Supervisors thinking that any rezoning
for only the life of the moratorium will be unwise. He noted that it will also
be easier legally to defend the moratorium if the land is rezoned.
Mr. Barksdale asked the County Attorney's Office if the moratorium can
stand on its own.
Mr. Payne said that it can in his opinion.
Mr. Gloeckner said that in view of this, he saw no need for a rezoning of
all this property.
Mr. Payne said that not rezoning the property legally weakens the moratorium.
He said that a rezoning would make the law consistent. He also pointed out that
the moratorium will expire on its terms at the end of the current calendar year.
Mr. Carr asked what would happen after the Betz Study, if the County
adopts the zoning( the first stream valley ) recommended by the staff.
�11r
Mr. Payne said that if no restrictions are placed on the property by
the findings of the Betz Study that a property owner could petition the governing
body for a rezoning, like any rezoning request that is processed.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that any review of the Comprehensive Plan
and the termination of the Betz Study should coincide - in other words, the Betz
Study should be used as a guide for the review of the master plan.
Mr. Payne suggested to the Commission that after the Betz findings, that
the property in that area could be rezoned, but not necessarily to the current zoning.
Mr. Barksdale felt that the Commission would look foolish to rezone property
now, and then have the Betz study reveal that high density development has nothing
to do with the pollution of the reservoir, which he said is very likely, since there
is currently no high density development in the area.
Mr. Easter said that he sees no intelligent reason for rezoning at this time,
since the moratorium is in effect.
Mr. Payne said that if the zoning is in conflict to the plan and if the
moratorium is challenged, the county's stand could be weakened. He also explained
that this rezoning would not be after the fact, it is all part of the same package
as the moratorium. Mr. Payne pointed out that the moratorium was intended to
be permanent, but in order to get it on the books at that time, it had to be
enacted as an emergency ordinance and later have public hearings on it. This
emergency oridnance would be in effect for 60 days.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Payne if the Planning Commission is being asked to review
the zoning map and the zoning ordinance.
(l)
E;
Boundary Description
The Rivanna Reservoir Study Area consists of approximately 40 square miles, west of
law Route 29 North and north of Route 250 West.
The southeastern boundary generally follows the watershed line. Starting here,the in-
tersection of 250 West and the 250 Bypass, it runs northeast along Georgetown and Hydraulic
Roads, and Route 659 to the intake of the reservoir. The Study Area boundary continues
north along Route 743 to Earlysville, and along Route 663, shortly along 664, and intersects
with Elk Run, to its junction with Piney Creek and Route 665. The Study Area boundary con-
tinues along 665 to Free Union and turns south on 601, to its intersection with 674, along
674 to 678 and then east on 614 to Owensville. At this point it turns south on 676, then
southeast on 677, to the intersection with Route 250. A short segment along Route 250
completes the boundary of the Reservoir Study Area.
Area
The Rivanna Reservoir Study Area is 26,057.3 acres or 40.71 square miles. A breakdown
of the Study Area is as follows:
Acres Percent of Total Area_
Land Area
South Rivanna River Reservoir
Other Impoundments & Ponds
Rivanna & Mechum Rivers
State Roads & R/W*
TOTAL
25,258.3
96.93%
439
.1.68
104
0.40
87
0.33
169
0.64
26, 057.3
100.0 %
*Includes area to centerline of roads defining boundary of Study Area.
NOTE: Columns may not add to total due to rounding.
Topography
Elevations in the Study Area range from the 382-foot normal pool elevation of the Reser-
voir to a 654-foot elevation on Route 676 south of Owensville. Roughly 40% of the Study Area
is below the 500-foot elevation.
Steep slopes occur alomg the Reservoir and adjacent to the flood plains of the Rivanna
and Mechum Rivers and Ivy Creek. Steep slopes also occur in the ridge -and -valley situations
on most perennial and intermittent streams.
(2)
Population
A population estimate has been prepared by the Study Area based on the Virginia Department
M Highways' "Charlottesville -Albemarle Transportation Study" augmented by the County Planning
Department's on -going land use survey. Both of these studies were conducted on a sub -area
basis, resulting in population and housing estimates for small areas within the Study Area.
A current population of 4,669 is estimated in the Study Area, residing in 1,530 dwelling
units. Transportation Zone #77, containing Georgetown Green, Montvuo, and a portion of Hessian
Hills, has the highest population density (1.46 persons/acre) with all other areas having
densities of less than 1 person/acre. The overall population density of the Rivanna Reservoir
Study Area is 0.18 persons/acre, or about 80% greater than the overall County population density.
TABLE 1: POPULATION ESTIMATE: RIVANMA RESERVOIR STUDY AREA
Based on Charlottesville Albemarle Transportation Study (August, 1974) and
Albemarle County Land Use Survey (January, 1976)
C.A.T.S.
Density
Traffic Zone
Dwelling Units
Population
Acrea e*
(Pop/acre)
77
585
1669
1144.20
1.46
105
32
105
583.12.
0.18
106
18
57
1443.57
0.04
107
73
221
2751.23
0.08
117
54
167
1529.89
0.11
118
62
186
2796.12
0.07
119
57
180
1393.06
�.13
120
46
129
801.68
0.16
,*me
121
39
130
2045.97
0.06
108
180
567
1963.33
0.29
Albemarle Co.
L.U.S.
A
5
16
298.45
B
163
552
6148.94
C
95
304
1926.59
D
77
246
281.92
E
53
170
514.25
TOTAL
1,530
4,669
25,622.32 acres
*Excludes Reservoir - 439 acres
0.05
0.09
0.16
0.87
0.33
0.18 persons/acre
IF/
i
(3)
i
Subdivision Activity
Subdivision activity in this report is separated into two categories - major subdivisions
and minor subdivisions. A major subdivision contains 10 lots or more and generally requires
road building activity and central services. A minor subdivision is composed of less than
10 lots and is generally less developed in terms of roads and central services. Minor
subdivisions, generally, are established along existing roads, characterizing "strip' -'type
development. For minor subdivisions, only parcels of less than 4 acres were counted because
of the possibility of future division of larger parcels. The data for minor subdivisions
are based on plats processed and approved through the Planning Department. Since all ap-
proved lots may not be recorded, and all subdivision plats are not processed by the Planning
Department, these data are only indicators of minor subdivision activity.
Major Subdivisions
Major subdivisions account for over 1500 acres of the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area. Of
the 20 subdivisions in the area, 12 were approved or established prior to 1969. Subdivision
activity from 1969 through 1974 accounted for only 87 lots (9.3%) of the total of 935 lots.
The four subdivisions receiving preliminary or final approval in 1975 contain 215 lots or
23% of the total activity. On an acreage basis, these subdivisions accounted for only 12.4%
of the total land in major subdivisions.
Major subdivisions represent 5.8% of the acreage in the Study Area, compared to 1.6% for
the County. The average lot size in the Study Area is 1.61 acres compared to 1.14 acres in
the County.
Minor Subdivisions
Minor subdivisions from 1970 to 1975 account for 456 acres of the Study Area. Again,1975
was the most intensive year with 52 (36%) of the 145 lots being approved and representing
44.3% of the total acreage.
Acreage in minor subdivisions represents 1.7% of the Study Area compared to 0.8% for the
County. The average lot size in the Study Area is 3.14 acres compared to 2.35 acres in the
County.
Summary
Historically, subdivision activity, both major and minor, has been more intensive in the
Study Area than the County in general. For both the County and Study Area, 1975 was a "boom"
year of subdivision activity. The Study Area (5.1% of the County) had 16.5% of the minor
subdivision activity and 39.0% of the major subdivision activity in the County in 1975.
Average lot sizes for both minor and major subdivisions are greater in the Study Area than
in the County.
TABLE 2: Major Subdivision
Activity:
Rivanna Reservoir Watershed
Study Area
Subdivision and
Lots
Average Lot Size
Acreage
in Tots ,
Year of Apjj roval
Prior to 1969
Flordon
60
2.55 acres
153.00
'armington
126
3.45
434.70
*"'Volthurst Farms
60
2.02
121.20
Montvue
33
1.84
60.72
Hessian Hills (part)
55
0.46
25.30
Knollwood
44
0.50
22.00
Georgetown Green
110
0.06
6.60
Reynard Woods
12
4.90
58.80
Bedford Hills
37
1.89
C9.93
Ardwood
15
4.55
68.25
Clover Hill
59
1.29
76.11
Clearview
22
2.50
55.00
1971
Clearview Knolls
15
2.09
31.35
1972
Arbor Park
22
2.82
62.04
1973 '
Fairgrove
21
2.00
42.00
1974
Hickory Ridge Farm
29
1.14
33.06
1975
Ivy Farms
18
6.00
108.00
Georgetown Woods
38
0.17
6.46
Panorama (preliminary)
147
0.20
29.40
Lake Hills (preliminary)
12
3.60
43.20
TOTAL
935
1.61 acres
1,507.12
i
t
E
TABLE 3: Minor Subdivision Activity: Rivanna Reservoir Watershed Study
Area
i
Lots
Acres Average Lot
Size
1970
10
28.9
2.89
`
1971
14
34.4
-2.46
1972
22
72.5
3.30
1973
20
57.5
.2.88
1
1974
29
60.3
2.08
1975
52
202.1
3.89
145
455.7
3.14
There are five urban residential
developments within the study
area, they
include:
Old Salem Apartments
Georgetown Square
Hessian Hills Apartments
(portion)
The WocJs - duplexes
Georgetown Green
Industrial activity includes:
9
Teledyne
Murray Manufacturing
03
(5)
Existing zoning
Table 4outlines existing zoning in the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area. About 97% of the
a1 area is realistically usable as zoned. The remaining 3%, composed of water and roads,
is also tabulated.
Table 5 compares percentage distributions of zones in the Study Area and the County. For
the Study Area, lower percentages are noted for the A-1, RS-I, B-1, RTM and M-2 zones. higher
percentages are noted in the more intensive R-1, R-2, and R-3 residential zones and in the Al-1
manufacturing zone.
The saturation potential of existing zoning in the Rivanna Reservoir Study Area is pre-
sented in Table 7 Upon saturation, population in the Study Area would be about 81,600 persons
YBsiding in 26,900 dwelling units. Population density would be 3.13 persons/acre or about
of the current population density of Charlottesville. The potential population density of
the Study Area far exceeds the potentia_'. County density of 1.89 persons/acre. While the Study
Area is 5.5% of the County, its saturation potential is 8.8% of the County's saturation poten-
tial under existing zoning.
The saturation potential is a maximum attainable under existing zoning and should be tem-
pered by reference to population projections. Interpolation from recent projections indicates
a*population of about 9,000 in the Study Area in the year 2,000, assuming maintenance_ of
existing zoning. Factors of Urban Area influence, availability of water and sewer, and other
amenities of the area were not considered, resulting in a low -range projection.
2M
TABLE 4 EXISTING ZONING - RIVANNA RESERVOIR STUDY AREA
ZONE ACREAGE PERCENT OF
TOTAL ACRF,AGE
A-1
22,735.6 acres
87.2%
Rs-1
28.8
0.11
R-1
1,887.6
7.24
R-2
159.2
0.61
R-3
260.5
1.00
B-1
59.2
0.22
R-TM
---
M-1
127.4
0.49
M-2
---
SUBTOTAL 25,258.3 acres
96.87
Reservoir (normal pool) 439 acres 1.68%
Other impoundments 104 0.40
Rivanna & Mechum Rivers 87 0.33
State roads & R/W 169 n,
TOTAL 26,057.3 acres 100.0%
NOTE: Columns may not add up to total due to rounding.
(6)
AFTr 5:
ZONE
A-1
RS-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
B-1
RTM
M-1
M-2
TABLE 6:
'%NW
ARISON OF EXISTING ZONING: RIVANNA RESERVOIR STUDY AREA & ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Percent of Total Area
ZONE
Study Area
87.25%
0.11
7.24
0.61
1.00
0.22
0.49
Count
96.13
0.38
1.32
0.41
0.39
0.49
0.04
0.22
0.15
PROPOSED ZONING MAP ADAPTED TO EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE:
A-5 density
A-1
RS-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
B-1
M-1
SUBTOTAL
Reservoir
Other Impoundments
Rivanna & Mechum Rivers
State Roads & R/W
ANNA RESERVOIR STUDY AREA
ACREAGE
13,530.43
9,420.24
1,694.84
40.20
176.20
208.80
90.16
97.44
25,258.31 acres
439
104
87
169
TOTAL 26,057.3 acres
err NOTE: Columns may not add to total due to rounding.
PERCENT OF
TOTAL ACREAGE
51.93%
36.15
6.50
0.15
0.68
0.80
0.35
0.37
96.93%
1.68%
0.40
0.33
0.64
100.0%
S
(7)
a<r
tr
co
co
a
rn
H
o
co
to
to
O
Eti
til
"o
�
A
C�
2
N
N
v
H
N
N
M
ON
N
a
N
H
O
d'
3
A
h
2
W
MO
:,I,
1
1
N`fl
co
a
M
M
w
Eti
H
_
Z
N
W
s.,
A
U
ZO
ro
to
fn
M
tn
E-,
O
M
N
N
a
�
w
O�
a
w
O
.
o�
2
�
H
O
[v
0
N
co
O2H
o
C4
N
v�i
b
a
W
H
W
F
w
a Q-
0
H
p
v
M
N
a
F4
N
N
Q
Ei
N
Ch
t�
N
1
W
�
pA
N A
(8)
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
it Comprehensive Plan
In the Staff's opinion, the Planning Department has not received sufficient information
to date from which the staff could determine appropriate measures which would insure the
palatability and potability of the South Rivanna River Reservoir as a drinking supply. The
Staff therefore recommends to the Planning Commission that revision of the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan for the Reservoir Study Area not be made at this time. The Staff pro-
poses that the appropriate time for revision is after sufficient information has been re-
ceived from Betz Environmental Engineer's study of the Reservoir.
At this time, the Staff recommends that immediate consideration be given to the effect-
uation of measures for water supply protection outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for the
South Rivanna River Reservoir and that, in the near future, consideration be given for the
effectuation of these measures for the South Rivanna River Reservoir's major tributaries and
for the Sugar Hollow, Charlottesville, Beaver Creek and Totier Creek Reservoirs and their
respective major tributaries (See pages 77-78 Natural Resource Objective).
Zoning Ordinance
Implementation of the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan for the South Rivanna River
Reservoir would require an amendment of the existing zoning ordinance by the addition of
two zones. The Staff proposes a conservation zone (CVN) of a density of 1 unit per five
acres (0.2 units per acre) which would be more restrictive in the uses by right than the
existing A-1 agrlcuirural zone. The Starr also proposes a residential zone (RS-2) which
would permit a density of 1 unit per 20,000 square feet (2.2 units/acre), provided public
water and sewer facilities are available.
The text for these two zones have not been completed yet.
m
Mr. Payne also pointed out that in addition to the revisions in the map
and the zoning ordinance, that amendments to the comprehensive plan should be
planned.
Mr. Peatross asked for clarification of the rezoning that was being recommended.
Mr. Payne said that this would be a zoning implementation to the comprehensive
plan.
Mr. Peatross said that if this is the case, it is a rezoning because of the
moratorium, and that he was not in favor of this, since the moratorium should be
able to stand on its own.
Mrs. Graves said that it is her feeling that this rezoning would be an
attempt to make the map comply with the existing Comprehensive Plan, and regardless
of the moratorium, it should be done.
Mrs. Craddock said that public hearings would still need to be held.
Mr. Tucker said that this is correct.
Mr. Barksdale asked what will happen if the Planning Commission recommends
that the existing zoning remain.
Mr. Tucker said that because of the resolutions of the Board regarding the
moratorium, public hearings will still need to be held.
Mr. Payne explained that the Board of Supervisors proposes to amend the
map to make everything in the area A-1 zoning. He stated that even so, the Planning
Commission can make its own recommendations regarding the zoning for this area.
Mr. Easter said that he is bothered by a permanent change in the ordinance,
though he does realize that the reservoir needs protection. He said that he
feels that even the staff's recommendation is taking land from the owner without
just compensation.
Mrs. Graves said that tax assessments are about the same for R-1 and A-1
zoning.
Mr. Gloeckner said that the only fair way to down zone property is to
justly compensate the property owner for his financial loss, employing the
law of eminent domain.
Mr. Easter pointed out that the land was purchased under the assumption
that it could be developed with a high density. He said that any compensation
should be done on the basis of the true market value of the land.
Mrs. Graves said that in her opinion anyone who purchased land that
could be developed at a high density was purchasing it for the purposes of speculation.
She said that these purchasers were taking a chance.
Mr. Easter pointed out that even the experts disagree as to the damage that
high density development could cause. He felt that no downzoning should be done
until the results are received from the study of the reservoir. He pointed out, also,
that development in the area has stopped because of the moratorium, and he sees no
further protection as necessary.
Mrs. Craddock reminded the Commission that the legal counsel says differently.
m
Mr. Payne said that legally there is a reason for doing, since it makes
the county's case stronger on the moratorium, although he did not wish to discuss 110)
this philosophically.
Mr. Easter felt the moratorium should stand on its own merits.
Mrs. Graves said that a good planning practice is to protect the area, and
that does not mean high density development around a water supply.
Mr. Carr said that there is a legal basis for putting the map into compliance
with the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Gloeckner said that if the map is put into compliance with the plan in
one area that it must be put into compliance in all areas of the county.
Mr. Peatross felt that the moratorium was the reason for the rezoning,
thus enhancing the county's legal position on the moratorium.
Mr. Payne said that this is correct, though the plan and the zoning should
coincide.
Mr. Easter asked if the property is downzoned, then the county purchases
the land after the property has been downzoned, if the rezoning will be hard to
legally defend.
Mr. Payne said that it would be hard to defend this, because it would
appear that the land had been downzoned specifically so it could be purchased
at a lower price.
Mr. Easter said that he certainly could not be"party" to such a scheme.
Mrs. Craddock established that if no rezoning occurs, if the moratorium
is not challenged,then it will stand in court. She noted that in view of this
there is no need to rezone, unless there is a suit brought against the moratorium.
Mr. Payne gold the Commission that any part of the legal package that is
not supported, weakens the entire package.
Mr. Barksdale said that Albemarle County is scheduled to have a new Comprehensive
Plan by the end of' the year. He suggested revising the map at that time to comply
with the new comprehensive plan.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the land, because of the moratorium, is currently
in a "holding pattern".
Mr. Easter again stated that he felt the moratorium had accomplished what
it set out to do, and if a rezoning is needed to make it stand, then he feels that
that is unfortunate.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that the five mile radius now set forth restricts
more people that rezoning part of the property would ( such as with the staff's
recommendation ). She stated that with a rezoning, that some people would still
be able to develop their property, but not at as high a density. 148)
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the Board of Supervisors has considered the law
of eminent domain.
Mrs. David said that they had not considered this.
Mr. Payne said that this would mean 4-5 years of litigations.
Mr. Peatross said that he did not wish to be accused of defending any
certain people, but said that he still wanted to know if the only reason for
rezoning was because of the moratorium.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the Board has asked the Planning Commission
to protect the reservoir.
Mrs. Graves said that zoning will be here longer than the moratorium.
Mrs. Craddock also said that some people feel that such a rezoning
of land around the reservoir would increase their property values not decrease them.
Mr. Gloeckner said that if downzoning occurs, people should be compensated
for their loss.
Dr. Moore said that the map should support the comprehensive plan, and
it appears that even though there is no high density development in the reservoir
area, it could not help the reservoir's problems. He felt that any rezoning should
occur in the entire watershed, and not just in an approximate five -mile radius.
Mr. Easter pointed out that the county is now having to work out from under
the mistakes of the initial zoning of property in the county.
Mr. Carr said that he felt that the Commission had not been issued a directive
to take one particular action, though he does feel that the Board has asked the
Commission for its recommendation. He said that he hopes that the Planning'Commission
is never directed by the Board, that he has never yet felt directed. He said
that a direction for one particular action would dilute the power of the Commission
thus making it ineffective. He stated that in this particular case the Commission
has been asked to review the situation, and that the Commission's recommendation
does not necessarily have to be the decision of the Board of Supervisors.
Mrs. David agreed, stating that the Board had asked the Commission for a
recommendation.
Mr. Easter suggested drafting a one page summary of concerns of the Commission
for rezoning at this particular time, stating that the Commission at this time
feels that a rezoning would be premature until the Betz Study is completed. He
suggested this course of action, if it is the consensus of the Commission.
Mr. Easter also noted that this small amount of rezoning could go unnoticed
by most property owners in the county, since their particular properties would not
be addressed. He felt that there should be a county wide rezoning in order to make
the map and comprehensive plan comply.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed.
Mrs. Graves suggested that Mr. Easter would consider upzonings, but not
downzonings.
Mr. Easter said that this comment from Mrs. Graves was very unfair.
Mr. Carr said that there should be proper hearings on the matter, but
the Commission first needs another work session on the matter.
90
Mrs. Graves said that public hearings were needed regardless of the
Planning Commission recommendations.
Mr. Payne agreed, pointing out to the Commission that if it does not
make a particular recommendation, it is assumed by law that the Planning Commission's
recommendation is the Board's proposal.
Mr. Easter said that he wants comments on all three alternatives for
zoning in the area.
It was then established that the Commission would conduct another work
session on the matter February 24, 1976, and that the public hearing would be
March 9, 1976.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Secr tary, Robert W. Tucke Jr.
EM
n
February 17, 1976
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting Tuesday,
February 17, 1976, 7:30 p.m., County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Paul Peatross; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mrs. Joan
Graves; Mrs. Opal David - ex-Officio. Absent were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner and Dr. James
Moore.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Mr. Carr informed the Commission that he had appointed Mrs. Craddock
and Mr. Easter to serve with him and two members of the Board of Supervisors to
retain a consultant to review the county's Comprehensive Plan.
ZMP-345. Roy S. Clarke, Jr. - request to rezone 41.04 acres from A-1 to RS-1:
Mr. Easter moved that the Commission accept the applicant's request for
withdrawal without prejudice.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Craddock, carried unanimously.
SP-543. Halsey K. Scott - request to locate a radio station on 20 acres:
Mr. Carr reminded the Commission that when this request had been reviewed
two weeks earlier that it had been approved by a vote of 4-3. Later in that meeting
there was a proper motion, properly seconded, that carried unanimously that the
request again be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Carr reminded the Commission
that at the same meeting that the applicant had asked for Commission feelings on
subdividing the parcel on which the tower was to be located. This request was not
favorably received, though no action was taken. Mr. Carr asked legal council
the effect of the second action on the special use permit.
Mr. Fred Payne explained that after the motion to re -hear the request,
the first action to approve by a 4-3 vote was wiped out, thus having the effect
that no action has yet been taken on SP-543.
Mr. Fred Landess, attorney for the applicant, told the Commission that the
applicant had no ulterior motives regarding the subdivision of the property.
The intent was to subdivide, but not into a large number of lots. He explained
that the important item to the applicant is the request for the tower.
Mr. Scott stated that he wished to formally withdraw all requests for subdivision
of this property.
Mr. Easter explained that his original "no" vote had arisen from the fact
that he hated to see more towers in that area. He said that he preferred a tower
be located where there are existing towers. He asked the applicant if he had been
able to secure another site since the previous meeting.
(i )
Mr. Scott said that it would definitely be cheaper for him to locate
his tower with another FM tower, but unfortunately his competition would not permit
this.
R,
Mr. Easter suggested Carter's Mountain, since it has a tower which can
be used on a rental basis.
Mr. Scott said that this was not a good location powerwise. He said that
much of the available land in the county is not suitable, and what is suitable
is in most cases prohibitive financially.
Mr. Carr said that he had made some informal inquiries to determine if
the special permit needed to be secured in order to apply to the FCC. He said
that he had found that approval was a prerequisite to applying to the FCC. He
asked the applicant how long it would be before the FCC would approve or deny the
request.
Mr. Scott said that it could be anywhere from a few months to 6-7 years.
Mr. Carr said that he had favored this request, but the time element made
him reluctant.
Mr. Scott pointed out that this time element will have to be dealt with
no matter who the applicant is and regardless of the location of the property.
Mr. McCallum, representing the McGovern family, stated that he wished
to point out to the Commission that the property could be divided into three parcels
without Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Landess reminded the Commission that the applicant is not interested
in subdividing.
Mr. Collier, another adjacent owner, expressed his opposition to the request.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Graves stated that she had wished to rehear the request because of
the implication that land can still be subdivided after a special permit is approved.
She stated that a vote for approval of a special permit must be safeguarded. She
stated, also, that she still thinks the applicant has the right to take this to
the proper agency to see if he can secure approval for the tower and suggested
that if approved it should have the conditions recommended by the staff as well
as the following conditions:
1. Any future subdivision of the parcel will require an amendment to the special use permit;
2. Special Permit is vacated if the tower is not approved within a five year period.
Mr. Peatross seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr said that this time limit may not be fair since the applicant had
pointed out that it might take more than five years.
Mr. Peatross suggested that in this case, the applicant apply for an
extension of time.
Mr. Barksdale suggested the time be extended only if the applicant is
showing progress in his application.
Mrs. Graves stated a desire to have the permit non -transferable.
Mr. Carr said that he could not support this since it would mean that the
applicant could not sell his business.
Mrs. Craddock noted that towers in the County have proliferated, and that
they were originally meant to be only in commercial areas.
Mr. Easter stated that he regretted that he had to vote against the request
since he considered himself an advocate of free enterprise. He said that his
concerns are the adjacent property owners, who had voiced objections, the lights,
the pocket of zoning different from A-1 zoning, and the fact that owners in this
area will not know the status of the tower for a few years.
Mr. Carr noted that zoning cannot necessarily dictate the place where such
a tower will be located because of height restrictions.
Mrs. Craddock pointed out that such uses are more fair where there is proper
zoning or where an application for rezoning has been submitted, so that adjacent property
owners & the neighborhood in general -.would be aware of the impending erection of a touch of
this magnitude.
The motion to approve died by a vote of 3-3, with Mrs. Craddock, Messrs. Easter
and Barksdale voting against the motion.
SP-546 and SP-547:
Mr. Carr suggested considering the requests together, taking separate actions.
Mr. Dure, representing Ms. Alexander and Mrs. Marshal asked that they
be considered separately.
SP-546. Ann Alexander - request for a mobile home:
Mr. Tucker stated that this item had been deferred in order that the
Commission could view the site.
Mr. Barksdale asked the proposed location of the mobile home.
Mr. Tucker stated that it would be to the right of the house.
Mr. Kendrick Dure, representing the applicant, presented a sketch of
the area, accompanied by pictures of existing uses of the parcels. He noted
that the use for the mobile home will be temporary, since the applicant needs
to care for her grandparents. He said that he felt the conditions of approval
should reflect this.
Mr. Jim Faulconer, an adjacent owner, explained the financing for property
he and his partners had purchased from the applicant's grandparents. He suggested
that perhaps an addition to the house would be more suitable than a mobile home.
Mr. Jim Murray, representing Mrs. Michie, stated that the mobile home will
be visible from her residence.
Mr. Boozer noted that the mobile home will also be visible from his property.
He questioned the need for two mobile homes for the same family.
Messrs. Massey, Grant, Tolson, and Wood also objected to the request.
Mr. Gibson favored the request.
Mr. DurP noted that these purchasers acquired land there when the
character was as it is presently. He also stated that the permit would be
needed for the lifetimes of the grandparents.
*40
Mrs. Graves asked if there is proper drainage for a septic field.
Mr. Tucker stated that Health Department approval is needed.
Mr. Barksdale asked if the permit can be approved on a yearly basis and
also if it can be screened from the road with a fence.
Mr. Carr said that the type of fence that would be needed is too expensive.
He said that he would support the request because there is a need for the mobile
home.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
staff as well as the following conditions:
1. Yearly administrative approval for renewal;
2. Premises to be kept neat;
3. If circumstances of approval change, Planning Staff to be notified;
4. Grandparents to live in the house;
5. Permit to be revoked three months after death of the grandparents.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
The motion to approve died by a vote of 3-3, with Mr. Peatross, Mrs. Graves,
and Mrs. Craddock voting to deny the request.
SP-547. Louise Marshal - request for a mobile home:
Mr. Tucker read a letter from Palmer Weber objecting to the request.
Mr. Dure, representing the applicant, located the property with a vicinity
sketch and pictures. He pointed out that the mobile home was moved there in
January, 1976, when the applicant's house burned, on an emergency permit basis.
Mr. Jim Murray, representing Mrs. Michie, stated that the property had
been cleaned up immediately after the last Planning Commission public hearing
before the Commission members visited the site. He felt that the past year has
shown what will happen to the property if the permit is granted permanently.
Mr.Faulconer reminded the Commission of the mess that has existed on the
property for so long.
Mr. Dur.e said that the applicant intends to build a house in the next few
years on the property and that a temporary amount of time is needed for the mobile
home. He also explained that while the applicant had been out of town, that
she had had someone reside in the mobile home because of her liability for the
3-acre lake on the property.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Barksdale suggested that the permit be granted for three years and
that a woven fence 6' x 70' be placed in front of the mobile home.
Cr}
Mr. Easter suggested that the permit be issued for one year with yearly
renewals required due to the numerous objections to the request.
Mrs. Graves asked if the applicant resides in the mobile home now.
Mrs. Marshal said that she does live there.
Mr. Easter moved approval of SP-547 subject to the following conditions:
1. This special permit is non -transferable;
2. The mobile home cannot be rented under any circumstances;
3. Approval by all state and local agencies;
4. This permit is valid for only one (1) year;
5. Rubble pile to be removed in thirty (30) days;
6. To be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to end of one year if premises
are not kept up.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Peatross stated that he wished to put the applicant on notice that
he will vote against the permit in one year, since he feels provisions need to
be made to build a permanent structure.
Mrs. Marshall stated that plans for the house are currently being drawn.
Mr. Carr deferred until the end of the meeting the public hearings
on the Bikeway Plan and Section 3-12 EROSION CONTROL.
Logan Village - south side of Route 676 near Clearview.
Mrs. Scala said that this is a subdivision of thirteen lots zoned A-1 on a
proposed state road with an average lot size of 2.08 acres. The grading permit for
Lawrence Road was obtained. The waiver of the 700 foot maximum length cul-de-sac require-
ment was approved by the Planning Commission in 1974.
Mr. Carr siad that he wished to point out that he feels as if he has no
conflict of interest in this matter.
Mr. Morris Foster explained that there are no extreme slopes in the area
and that road bonds were not necessary when these roads were built.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval is needed;
2. Highway Department written approval is needed;
3. A road bond will be required for the construction of the road; or if the road has
been constructed to state standards, then only a maintenance bond will be
required before the plat can be signed;
4. Source of title and owner's signature is needed.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ivy Farms final subdivision plat - Section 3 - located off Route 658:
Mrs. Scala pointed out that the preliminary plat in this area showed 9 lots
with an average size of 9.078 acres and that the final plat shows 11 lots with an
average size of 7.091 acres. Final plats for this subdivision seem to be adhering to
the preliminary plats.
The Highway Department has stated that both Wingfield and Barracks Hill appear
to be constructed in accordance with approved plans.
The end of the dedication line on Wingfield Road indicates limits of the grading
permit.
Mrs. Scala said that the staff recommends approval subject to:
1. Maintenance bond for roads ( until three houses have been built and the road
can be accepted by the state ).
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the condition above.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Warehouse addition to Inland Service Corporation site plan - north side
of Route 250 West:
Mrs. Scala said that the previous site plan submitted in September, 1975,
was withdrawn because the building was situated on an existing 30' right-of-way.
This plan shows no grading and no new sewer or water connections. She wished
the Commission to discuss the fact that the Highway Department has indicated the
need for a deceleration lane at this entrance. She wanted to know if it will be
required now or at a later date when there is a larger development.
Mr. Barksdale felt that it is not needed at this time since the traffic
won't justify it. He felt that there will be no additional traffic to the site.
Mr. Sam Darnell, applicant, said that he does not want to see a decel lane
at this time.
builds.
Mrs. Graves asked if a dedication could later be required if Humble Oil
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plan as submitted.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Stonehenge final subdivision plats - Phase 2 - West side of Route 631
( Rio Road ).
This is a plat for 124 townhouses zoned R-2 Residential. The revised
site plan for Phase 2 was approved by the Commisison in July, 1975.
The grading plan has been approved by the Soil Erosion Committee. The
pavement specifications for the roads in this development meet the design standards
of the recently adopted subdivision road standards.
Mrs. Scala stated that approval should be conditional upon the following:
y 1. Grading permit;
2. Approval of final plats does not guarantee availability of sewer;
3. Approval of the Stonehenge Homeowners Documents for Phase 2 by the County Attorney;
4. Tot lot on sheet 3 of 5 is not located according to site plan;
5. Sheets need to be numbered.
M
Mrs. Scala reviewed the stages of approval in Stonehenge. She said that
the staff has two plats and their utility plans. She noted that there have been
problems with soil erosion in the swale; the erosion inspector was to check this
out.
for
Mr. Barksdale moved/deferral until the following points could be addressed:
1. Status of construction of the recreation areas;
2. Erosion problems resolved between Ferguson and Rotgin - past and present owners;
3. Minutes of Planning Commission to be checked regarding the requirements of
the recreation facilities.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Dr. Schubert, a resident of Stonehenge, cited numberous problems in the area
which he asked be investigated.
Mr. Easter suggested holding up the last certificate of occupancy until these
problems could be addressed.
B. P. O. E. revised site plan - located south side of Route 1421 - Old
Stony Point Road:
Mrs. Scala stated that this plan shows relocated buildings and parking,
omission of the tennis courts. The public sewer will be utilized. The grading
permit has been obtained.
The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways written approval is needed. They have indicated
that decel lanes will not be required;
2. Service Authority approval is needed for the proposed sanitary sewer line;
3. Dedication of 25' strip must be accomplished on a separate plat prior to issuance
of a building permit.
Mr. Carr said that the limited amount of traffic does not justify a decel lane.
Mr. Greene, adjacent owner, asked the location of everything be pointed out.
Mr. Lambert, architect for the project, explained this, noting that the
tennis courts were omitted.
Mr. Greene observed that now everything is out of his back yard.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hardtimes Estate final subdivision plat of Parcel "E" -
west side of Route 29 North:
Mrs. Scala said that the property, zoned M-2, already has Thacker
Construction and Pyrofax Gas. This subdivision is presented in conjunction with
Special Permit application SP-01-76 for an auto body shop.
There is a 100' setback on two sides of this parcel where it abuts A-1
zoning. There is a 50' front setback from the proposed right-of-way. This would
leave an area approximately 100' x 150'.
The Zoning Administrator has interpreted the setback area to include structures,
and cars which are being worked on. The does not include the parking facilities.
Staff recommended approval be deferred until the Board has acted on the
Special Permit.
If approved, it should be subject to:
1. Road standard to be approved by County Engineering Department;
2. Road to be constructed or bond posted prior to plat being signed;
3. Note on plat: No further subdivision along this easement without Planning Commission
approval.
Mr. Peatross moved action be deferred.
The motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, carried unanimously.
Lucille A. Tirrell final subdivision plat - east side of Route 606:
Mrs. Scala explained that the applicant wishes to divide 2.3 acres for
her daughter. The 2.3 acres would be served by an existing right-of-way of
unspecified width which traverses Airport property out to Route 606. The existing
right-of-way crosses Parcel 9D to serve Parcel 17D and the residence.
Mrs. Craddock noted that any waivers should be justified.
Mrs. Scala said that the pipestem is for future protection if adjacent property
is sold.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions
recommended by the staff:
1. Note on plat: No further subdivision along this right-of-way without Planning
Commission approval;
2. The new lot has only 55 feet of frontage on the existing right-of-way. This
requires a waiver of the frontage requirement;
3. Setback line should be shown at 150' lot width.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
There was no vote on the motion, since the waiver was again discussed.
Mrs. Craddock said that the frontage is being waived because of the hardship
that the applicant will lose her trees that will act as a buffer.
Mr. Easter again moved approval subject to the staff's conditions.
M
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Lochridge revised final subdivision plat - east side of Rote 743
( Hydraulic Road ).
This is a redivision of lots 8 and 9 into lots 8, 9, and 10, with an
average size of 3.8 acres.
Mrs. Scala said that when the plat was approved it was subject to the
following conditions:
1. Lots 9 and 10 must be combined, or the entire plat brought back to the
Commission if desired after it has been reworked;
2. All building and septic systems must be setback at least 200' from the
reservoir (water's edge ) except lot 9, in which case setback shall be 150'.
A note to this effect must appear on the plat.
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff finds no problem with the request, however,
a condition of approval should be the construction of a deceleration lane at the
entrance, since land is now available, due to the approval of Lake Hills.
Mrs. Craddock moved approval subject to the one condition requiring
a decel lane.
Mr. James Gercke said that he did not feel a decel lane is needed, since the
extra lot does not create an extra burden on the road at this time. He said that
if this is required, the moratorium will affect this plat.
Mr. Easter noted that this is a rough road to drive.
Mr. Payne suggested bonding the road.
Mr. Gercke said that he will not accept a decel lane condition.
Mrs. Craddock withdrew her motion for approval.
Mr. Barksdale moved action be deferred.
Mrs. Craddock seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Doctor's Court revised site plan - located east side of Route 743
(Hydraulic Road ) near Whitewood Road:
Mr. Carr disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by
leaving the room.
Mr. Easter assumed the chairmanship.
Mrs. Scala said that basically the plan is in order. An additional
10' has been reserved for sidewalks. This will remain a requirement if and
when the rest of the property is developed.
It should be noted that approval of this site plan would void the approval
of the previous one. If the moratorium is revised to permit construction according
to the first plan, then the Commission would have to re -approve that site plan.
The applicant stated that he does not want to delete previous site plan
approval, since he was submitting this plan as an alternative.
Mr. Peatross moved action be deferred until the guidelines for the
moratorium, if permanent, could be established.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr re-entered the room.
Mrs. Graves left the room.
Bikeway Plan public hearing - an element and part of the Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan:
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that this was presented in full to
them at a meeting in December. He said that it is the staff's intent to make
this an element of. the Comprehensive Plan and to require bike paths in the
county as different areas develop, through site plans, subdivisions, RPN's, PUD's,
etc. In other words, this would be in piecemeal fashion. Funding can be
secured from the state. This bikeway plan will be used as a guide for developers
as development occurs.
Miss Rubinoff, one of the staff members who worked on the bikeway plan,
said that this will be a framework for bike trails and that there are myriad
funding possibilities. She noted that this bikeway plan provides the positive
points of bicycling. The study concentrates upon the urban area of the county.
She reminded the Commission of the extensive presentation that had been made
in December, 1975.
Mrs. Paul, assistant in compiling the data for the survey, pointed to
the survey, on which there had been a 12% return, noting that the principal
cycling deterrent is personal safety.
Mr. Carr said that this matter was up for discussion to decide whether or
not to recommend it to the Board of Supervisors to be an element of the Comprehensive
Plan. As development occurs, the plan can be implemented.
Mrs. Craddock said that she was amazed to find all the ways that the
trails can be funded.
Mr. Easter commended the presentation. However, he said that he does
not wish it to be a part of the comprehensive plan since that will be just
a way to get pressure to get it funded. It would have many safety features for
bicycling, but he does not feel that it should even be looked ahead to. This was a
luxury he thought the County could not afford.
Mr. Carr asked if it would be appropriate to have the consultant review the
plan.
Mr. Tucker felt that the work should not go to waste. He suggested that
perhaps it could be refined and could be used as part of development in the urban
area.
Mrs. Opal David said that it would be important in the joint plans with the
city regarding transportation studies. It is desirable to have in the planning process.
Mr. Peatross felt it important, and noted that immediate funding is not
necessary.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Graves moved that the bikeway plan become an element of the Comprehensive
Plan and that it be included in the revisions of the comprehensive plan.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion.
The vote was 5-1, with Mr. Easter voting against the motion.
Public hearing to consider amending Section 3-12 EROSION CONTROL of the
Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance:
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the requirements suggested in this
amendment have already been employed as requirements for erosion control in
the subdivision of land.
Since there was no public comment, Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the amendment as presented by the staff.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Pq
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
'6'., 1 '�/- A:!� 6
Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr., Secr ary
M