Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 130-170NEWTOWN A Study for A Possible Village Cluster Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan The Albemarle County Planning Commission has directed the Planning Staff to prepare a study of the Newtown area for possible establishment as a Village Cluster under the County's Comprehensive Plan. This study has involved a field survey of the area to determine the existing land uses, data gathering for soil and slope analyses, and final report preparations, analysis, and recommendations. Location of Study Area Newtown is located at the base of Bear Den Mountain in the west central portion of Albe- marle County, west of Greenwood, Virginia. The study area encompasses approximately 2,600 acres or 4.1 square miles. Existing Character and Land Use This area is rural and mountainous. There are sixty single-family dwellings (inc. 4 mobile. homes), two churches, one commercial establishment and one industry existing within the study area of Newtown; the remainder of the study area is made up of forest, pasture, cropland, and roads. There is an estimated population of 192 persons. This was arrived at using the standard figure of 3.2 persons per dwelling unit. From this it was determined that the densities maintained are one person oer 13.5 acres and -ne dwelling rnit per 43 acres. The only highway access into the area is by Route 690. Interstate 64 traverses the area, as well as the C & 0 Railroad, however, there is.no direct access from either of these major transportation modes. Soils and Slopes The topography in this study area varies considerably. The area north of I-64 primarily contains slopes from 15% to 25%. It is in this area that the greatest concentration of residential development of Newtown is located. The area south of I-64 is made up primarily of 0-15% slopes. This particular area is sparsely developed and the majority of land uses is agricultural, i.e., pasture, cropland, and forest. The latest soil analysis available for this area was accomplished in 1937 by the Soil Conservation Service. This analysis indicates that the greatest majority of this area con- tains soils that have severe limitations for development and flood plain areas along streams which contain alluvial soils. There are smaller areas along the eastern border of the study area which contain moderate limitations for development. While these soils have severe to moderate limitations for development, -the soils south of I-64 are good for agricultural productivity. Staff Comment *A.Greenwood, a designated village cluster, is located approximately two (2) miles east of Newtown. It contains a cuinmercial center, post office, elementary school, and a concen- tration of housing. The Comprehensive. Plan recommends that village clusters contain these HIE types of uses plus others when the need arises, such as health centers, police stations, fire stations, etc. rY°it is the staff's opinion that Greenwood should serve as this area's village cluster rather than establishing a new one in this area at Newtown. We base our opinion on several factors. First, it would not be feasible to expect future necessary services and public facilities to locate in Newtown because of its proximity to Greenwood where many of these facilities already exist. Second, according to the Soil Conservation Service, the majority of the soils around Newtown are not conducive for development. Third, the SCS indicates the soils south of I-64 are good -fair for agricultural productivity. Fourth, presently the only access into Newtown is via Route 690; any concentration of development in the area would require a major improvement to this highway to accommodate the capacity plus insure its safety. One alternative to the Newtown Village Cluster would be to extend the area of the Green- wood Village Cluster to encompass the Newtown area. While this may be a viable alternative, the staff feels that this would extend beyond the scope and intent of the village concept. If this alternative were followed, however, the staff would recommend that this area con- tinue to maintain a two acre minimum, because of the severe soil capabilities, for deve- lopment, until proper treatment facilities could be extended to this area. Lastly; any consideration of this area for Village Cluster should await the review of the Comprehensive Plan in general, to ascertain the validity of retaining the Village Concept and to revaluate all community of interest areas as to their future, relative to intensive development. 'Wry^ ' f k Soil and Soil No. Slope Davidson Stony Clay Loam (46) Davidson Clay Loam (45) A-C D-E Davidson Clay (54) A-C D-E Dyke Stony Silt Loam (106) Dyke Silt Loam (105) A-C D-E Hayesville Stony Loam (76) Hayesville Loam (75) A-C D-E Wicham (91) A-C Starr Silt Loam (13) Other Alluvial & Alluvial Mixed Soils (1 thru 20) Slope: A 0-2% B 2-7% C 7-15% Suitability: S - Severe M - Moderate G - Good D 15-25% E 25 & over $ * severe at any slope dtability_ ror: w o E4 � a -) er ta U 44: +� a, a� 3 3w of to A A co A cq ►a La S S S S M M M M S S S S M M M M S S S S S S S S S M M M S S S S S S S S M M M M S S S S G G G G S S S S 'S S f I S i S Mc1L-nFAMt V�Fml- pub ,,,,._.O CofiAAAFRC! I 1. . rl, All .. a .1, .i' � 1 ." .- rr•. : i', it �/ 'r` ...a L r. .. . � � • (�� :,��y, +,ASS /,•, .`•�. .1 ►� 1 • .•',•;j ...••a,�� ��f�:, . ��k�II`JJJ--- ;. 4rR. '/'i. P��'/• T�' • . _ , ,` •.: 11111• .•r•-� t • 'i�/: {• • •' •'. �.• M 1 ;. , r • . F \� / use • r •, f:• V ✓� J- \ . •.�.1t�'• 1.. jr {'V.••••, f 1� C ,f •I �.•� J\ `' �.• • •:! .. �' '' `/ � • •" r •` •1',''',�: . I tr t•I!.: �� .7 • �\- � 1 r C',`" .. f•••.• yr a. •t.' f•;•y+'•. , 1,�--v. ♦at l :•. r'J. ,0 ••�' .:,•y'• r. .%��<'trj. •': '_ ! !� •.•, ', .�• ..; l,��i,• ►a � • '••�TTTT� TTi'j : • t r • tl i87. '•''-t • •�, :• 'r•, •. 1,�' . • .a( •` •.1.. • , •' J Il ^', ;�� •1, •t •... �• L 1.• ••.•l�J: t\•81i,,• •tr• '.• ��. .. ••. r• •i.r t � G�.". ' •'':� - • • (`� :r'�. ..• - ®, �� •' :�.ilt a j'f '�:" ' ,` .' ;• ' ' • �� 1 ` j ;' ►• . oe •-a• � f. •'• + .•�t �" F' yj ire .t\�)��; � '�'� 1' '1•,•1 ,: ref .•r: ,� r�',�..�,it ,.Y ' •�• s.{ � �i;� t,�r• _ . • \ to �`"�•�.+-.•r.,. �1, "toF S a r . ' a �. f, r r,`. 1 ' r,. �u.. y�.t_'. ^ . t °• 4is4 �•0�•`"��'+'i"•.►:••.'i :f/' '.•'I c:_•.•.!�t- :', 1'.'•.r�•. tma`l`�`j? fi�,'"'-Ir::'r.�.\!: �•f�i; + t. • =' - `. P ,, •.' ._.1-2� f.tt �•',f��: ta1' �•��f.a• tl {5:'�. '.�{•. ' �' .. .i �r e• 1� �4`,J♦µ-wI�w J !si •Z „ i.i'l -.:' • It ��r o •,} r�-�.���,yp•'•' J •, - `. I.•. •-•, •,'\�.' ..tom ♦ 1 •, 1 t.. •k�.Pi�O• •'S f.A •P ''-ti r:.•i`�. .a.y�. j., -�^ ♦ i *�.,,��'.f�t�yr,��.r+s' ��. �V..1 •, 1e ` J fiC.. 11C.z ► f� _" . ` ! ;^� •�., 3 I LJ.. `• Z nor ! .' vc.! ! Vi F 54 . j- se S4• ��: {'t' ,:•.1�• '•� •! •.o '•.A•.af.• \ram i _, ZSO jT ••1'' 7 ,'2{; :.�!: �A ♦:.�•'t .d� ��'• ?j. fit! `'� JT '+. �j 1 • t .a t.M • ,-r �� "2) L 7� r r r ! . • . iO.•�•..•_.,,,� 47 - �r // � : 1::, =ti, • � „� � , r.. � mot.: `,1 �. t�. ,1 �� =_ . �i. •,..i •:rrs .:� 1 . //; '�p{jj : °- , _ � . _ 2t t :-31� �tc.�,. �. t •, t� )j `�i 4'•�'Y ht� ' y`, Jr. �( L�3ti;•i' •tAs •• .�� �'• ... ����f '� �i��t: �' :+ it `a df ?n.r i � �..4 ,+:.! - ., rB"'Z -` ```` � �• ���'` ,. .y�:•• ,• ��' • yt•••.i, 1 i �i� •'��" '_..._yl_ �.. �� 't .-..t'yR- • `�'Z: t:' � `.''►".'••j f' �'_•M. i �"•'�.r�l•.-J.t ` � �.•'+;%' u":'° Q a'¢`? fOt ' _ ''.� Lf n - � . P ��i 1 ' 'iw .` .. •s �T: ' t.. i �.- a' .� !t!.• f D J ... 1 •• i.� ! • �\ r: rat , '-dQ'Z. ..,. p � .. >� � ••. �•....• ►- It n !t. �. ! let ,��� � r• p�l.'. •J.• � `L 'i)7 lrsi` .r ��.•..• { •t ,� 1�, • �'• s`t - '� t` tj+Z.�1 t t. 1 ��.� • o ;� 1OS^ rsc 1e.• -•, �� t..tl,�; !i• it r.: ' - . \• 1 ' t �s i ° ill!} F 27'!' .�, } *� 5a. a -- �, *• is a3 ° p �73- � ,'� ,t t. � • •: r � • ` •� 3 ti��,�l. IT t' r'' it ; 'Tal •.2) � �� • ., ��1-��t r I ' .� by � i, _ -• t ,`. � ,. / ,.���...,-,. <'�,,,�,` y, � •r ~ ',t' u�'� :.'._�. � '""tea •' .•^I� I�n•R'�+": i.,,�. �'` I � ..r_: r. yy�tr. a:+..:..�., -. .} �.�.r.........w.. ......•. 'i. —.1.. y+•r. �. ♦ i w .rt •••.t ••h •,• 1 , l� •ri •. • •�',•��Ir � •. r � •mot 'Ir �p 1 f• • 7 '� •} ��r.0 1,�-"Yr`y'1,..._l, j���.`,. •� •1[•♦.^ �_ •1 :�IAi 1. ••i'i�N 1 / • •1'�, a, �•• ��:; `�,' r' ��^:'�• 'l�• \ / '1 �• ��•• `r .W , ��1Rf 1• � +1 t •'>1 •. 'I �j,Y � ,�'` �,;• • .'1, ''. •• •t� •• 1` •'•I.l ` r' t . •. Q �, �..1 •• ..;1 �• 4�•01�' \ /Ir�'n• t .►. .. '`•. � , .�� \''. .•:...� � ti .. � e i .•. •N ?•1 �. a, ll.+.�.r .'. . � r /'rr-%/.';�JI i�•.9 •'".2 `3 V/.Y�_r� -J �t •�' ,�\ `�P �EFI111 1•+^"'i. t. _ '�r ���;J!'vr'�t }% � „r .. `� ,•, .1/�/ r rf�`, ,•r .t ,�S �.;�}! ••t •r lip J r/� i N>. �1 �. ';'�. •\y11r. �••R,�.l W �j ,t / ,�� rtSr i,11 i .r• � - .t v..1,wol, IQ / '•rr'•� � tom'/j•''r ,r,`'O/ � i �6a!- •'-"'�- �-�'.. .�- �ia.r�' -1110 7' ta42 -% �---•`..-�.., � -. __-tea /.;' � �'f .`_• / \ .t,�••. f St on .� CE90, �- it t• .. / .�'h ._� 'IR` �'4'i`..J ACT.•v .. � r r -/ � �c� � • - _ _. ��� • I:n 4 aoe • it ',, / � � —_"•`'y' �.!,�' _ ... s s• � _ \ ��\ � t r j. r•'2�' „•Yvary� 1 Z \ �� y ` , [ " �' .- - .:EM .� .-- J f' � � 6 ,f� ( �'� %�7;�r-.• � "\R/�r''- �— 'tea. .: `�..-� ' ` _ ,� ✓' .fit r j � ) •�:-... 1��; , - �- d' . �. 1 ' i' �' �r f \ --1 � ` I � .. � ice• '�� $M •� �. } �'•.,`,�y... - ° ) jl ram,.—.--q,a'�` - { ^ r . -x "• • eta.-� r >;T'°''" ::.�: * � -' --.:'' ..' ,1� .1 JV C t ., r,,. r •, t ��i1�t•. .- �. ItMtttllt iurp Mtn - .•/. ./" A� . � t jr�= � �' j2-; _ L,'f �•.e�''��� 61 i1 � d��- � �� � '•"' ""' i` Mr. Tinsley moved denial, on the basis that there is already land zoned for commercial use in that area. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion. Mr. Carr said that denial is fine if the use of a piece of property cannot be deter- mined. In this case, he pointed out, there is a planned use. He said that he cannot deny a request on the basis that there is already too much commercial acreage not in use in an area. He said that he saw no reason for denying this request. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that this is a commercial intersection in a commercial area. The Vote to deny the request was 1-3. Mr. Gloeckner again moved approval of the request. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-1, with Mr. Tinsley voting against the motion. SP-520. L. I. Associates have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a central well on 6.142 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of State Route 706, approximately 0.2 mile west of State Route 631. Property is further described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 79, Samuel Miller Magis- terial District. Mr. Tucker, in the staff report, said that this is the second request for a central well from L. I. Associates. Mr.Tucker said that there were no problems, that there is plenty of water. Mrs. Craddock moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff: 1. Any additional units served by this well will require an additional special use per- mit; 2. County Engineer's approval of water lines and storage capacity. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-0. Mrs. Graves was out of the room at the time of the vote. SP-524. Conner Homes of Charlottesville, Inc., has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a central well on 106.72 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of State Route 618, and the north side of State Route 620 near Woodridge. Property is further described as County Tax Map 115, Parcels 22 and 23. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Mrs. Craddock asked about the depth of the wells. Mr. Turner said that one well is 215' and the other is 140'. Mr. Payne reminded the applicant that a public service corporation is needed for this. \ Mr. Tinsley moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff: 1. Bacteriological testing and approval by the Health Department of water quality: 2. County Engineer's approval of sizing of water line. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. SP-527. Robert A. Leiby and Donald Nelson have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a craft shop on 3.001 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 250 West. Property is further described as County Tax Map 57, Parcel 81J. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Mr. Payne pointed out that though there was an error in the legal advertisement, that all adjacent property owners were properly notified and that the Office of the County Attorney feels the advertisement to be sufficient. However, he felt that this should be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Planning Commission approve the fact that all property owners adjacent to the property in question were properly notified and that the public hearing be held on SP-527. Mrs. Craddock seconded this motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Tucker stated that perhaps the number of employees to use the facility should be limited. Mr. Carr suggested that the number of employees be limited to three (3) Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the request subject to the conditions recommended by the staff: 1. Operation of only one kiln; 2. Landscaping around kiln as determined by the Planning Staff; 3. No outside storage of materials; 4. No retail sales from Parcel X, Tax Map 57, Parcel 81J; 5. Limit to three employees. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. SP-528. Walter H. Mehring, Jr., has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a two-family dwelling on 611.2 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of State Route 698 about 1 mile north of State Route 633. Property is further described as County Tax Map 97, Parcel 21. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report noting that the Board of Supervisors has always had the policy to approve only if the owner lives in one of the units. Mr. Mehring explained the reasons for the request, noting that the dwelling is lo- cated on 611.2 acres that are isolated. He passed out pictures of the unit, noting that when he secured the building permit that the Building and Zoning Official said there would be no problem acquiring a special use permit for its use as a /? duplex. Mr. Mehring also said that no one can build a house on adjoining acreage that will be visible to the duplex. Mrs. Craddock stated that she would like to approve the request subject to only members of the family living there. Mr. Tinsley asked if this could be done legally. Mr. Payne said that the general rule on conditions to special use permits is that the conditions have to relate to the use of the land, rather than an individual using the land. He stated that it was his remembrance that this sort of condition could not be placed. Mrs. Graves moved that the special use permit be approved even if it could not be tied to the family, noting that the special permit can always come back for amendment if circumstances change; she also noted that the property is isolated. However, she said that she did not wish this permit to set a precedent. Mr. Gloeckner amended Mrs. Graves' motion to read that the Commission had noted the intent of the applicant, and that it be limited to family at present, to come back if the applicant wishes to rent the duplex to others. He also said that he did not want this to be precedent setting, and seconded the motion. Mrs. Craddock agreed with Mr. Gloeckner and Mrs. Graves. The Commission unanimously approved the request, subject to the following condi- tions: 1. Approval by all county agencies; 2. Health Department approval; 3. Limited to members of family only at present; 4. No more duplexes to be located on the property. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ?OL L. Humph y, Se ary 39 November 18, 1975 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 1975, to consider a series of site plans and subdivisions. The meeting was held in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, at 7:30 p.m. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barks- dale; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Peter Easter; and Mrs. Ellen Craddock. Absent were Messrs. Kurt Gloeckner and Clifton McClure. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Mr. Carr said that in the interest of the time, the minutes would be deferred to a later meeting date. SP-529. Robert and Beverly Rice have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 20.55 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on Route 712, approximately 1 1/8 miles SE of intersection of Route 712 and 713. County Tax Map 122, Parcel 12K, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, pointing out that the applicant intends at a later date to build a residence on the parcel. He further stated that another owner had had a special use permit for a mobile home on that particular parcel, but that it was to be removed, and that the Rices would place their mobile home on the same location. Mr. Rice stated that he had purchased the parcel, but it would be at least five years before he would be able to build a residence on the pro- perty. Mrs. Dolores Ambrose opposed the mobile home, noting that she owns over five hundred acres in the area and she felt it would devalue her pro- perty if the special use permit were granted. (Mr. Peter Easter came in at this point). Mr. Rinehart said that even though the parcel has had a mobile home on it before the Rices purchased the land, he did not feel this had set a precedent for mobile homes to be on the property. He suggested that the mobile home permit be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Minimum of 100 foot setback from the right-of-way of Route 712; 2. Minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet and minimum side yard setback of 25 feet; 3. Screening, as recommended by the Zoning Staff; 4. Skirting around mobile home from its base to ground level; 5. Mobile home is non -transferable; 6. 7. Mobile home cannot be rented Mobile home permit is issued under any for three circumstances; years with administrative ap- proval to be secured for two additional years. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-0 - Mr. Easter did not participate in the vote. (Mrs. Craddock arrived at the meeting). Julian Thomas final plat - Route 708: Mrs. Scala stated that this plat originally showed two parcels and the applicant wishes a 25' right-of-way; she said that there is an existing road there now. The access to the property will be from Route 708. She stated that the staff recommends approval subject to Health Department ap- proval. Mr. Thomas said that Mr. Chiles and a few other property owners will use the right-of-way. Mr. Barksdale, noting that this will only increase the length and width of an existing road, moved approval subject to Health Department approval. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Doctor's Court site plan - Route 743: Mrs. Scala said that this property has recently been rezoned to Busi- ness. This is the first phase of an office complex to be used for six dental offices. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval is needed. She said that there have been negotiations re- garding an entrance off Whitewood Road, and the staff recommends that they pursue this; she stated that the staff also wants them to reserve an access to the south of the property. A grading plan is needed and the applicant needs to dedicate a few feet in order to make the distance 25' from the centerline of highway (Rt. 743). She said that the plan shows more than enough parking. Mr. Easter asked how this entrance lines up with entrances to George- town Green and Albemarle High School. Mr. Carr said that it doesn't. Mrs. Craddock suggested a sidewalk on Rt. 743 in front of the property. Mrs. Scala stated that when Route 743 is widened, one of the developers had agreed to put a sidewalk in, fronting his property. Mr. Tinsley agreed with Mrs. Craddock that a sidewalk was needed there. Mrs. Craddock said that a sidewalk would make the property more attrac- tive and there would be a more meaningful development, in addition to the safety factor. Mr. Rinehart said that because of the steep bank there, this seems to be an unreasonable condition until the road is widened. Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has not finalized its alignment for H d lii P g Y Road yet. Mr. Charles Perry of the Highway Department said that with respect to sidewalks, there is no policy. He said that sidewalks are usually con- structed according to recommendations made by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tucker asked if additional right-of-way is needed, and Mr. Perry said "no." Mr. Carr suggested that Mr. Perry is speaking off the record. Mr. Rinehart said that two parking spaces need more maneuvering space. Mr. Easter said that he hated to have the Planning Commission put bur- densome conditions on any applicant, but he feels that someone should be made responsible for sidewalk construction along both sides of Route 743, noting various reasons that much development is scheduled to occur in that area. Mr. Jim Hill spoke to dedications for such things as sidewalks being unlawful at the national level. Mr. Payne stated that the Planning Commission can ask for a dedication of 25 feet for sidewalks to be built at a future date. Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant is dedicating 25 feet, and pointer out that Planning Commission is requesting that an additional 10 feet be reserved. She pointed out that this reservation would be for the widening at some future date of Route 743 and to accommodate sidewalks along this route as might be proposed by the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans portation at that time. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the plan subject to the following con- ditions: 1. Provision should be made to permit future access to adjacent properties on the north and south sides. This should be noted on the plan ( 50' easement); 2. Subject to final Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrance; 3. A grading permit must be obtained prior to issuance of building permit; 4. A plat must be recorded which shows dedication of property within 25' of centerline of Rt. 743. Site plan must show reservation of addi- tional 10' to provide for an ultimate right-of-way on Rt. 743 of 70' (35' from centerline), and to permit an area for future sidewalks as needed; 5. Sign should be shown to meet required 30' minimum setback from proposed right-of-way line (a total of 65' from centerline), or a variance ob- tained; 6. Future buildings will require site plan approval; 7. Parking lot plan should be revised so that there will be turnarounds at east end of both parking lots. It was also suggested the dumpster be relocated to an area more accessible to the trucks. The County Engineer will require curb on the southernmost turnaround. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Totier Hills Final Plat - Route 626: Mrs. Scala stated that the staff was recommending approval of th�jlal as submitted, and that it would be subject to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval. She said that the plat shows a 50' setback and shared entrances. Mr. Rinehart suggested the setbacks be staggered. Mr. Morris Foster said that staggered setbacks can be shown only when a specific type of house has been chosen to build. Dr. Carey Moon, representing himself and Mrs. Elizabeth Tompkins, said that there are now small homes on the acreages in this area. He said that he and several other owners had voluntarily placed their holdings in 10- acre proposed zoning. He said that due to the nature of the area he ob- jected to small subdivisions. Mr. Rinehart said that the Commission recognizes and sympathizes with his point of view, but that Planning Commission action has to be based on the existing zoning ordinance and that this particular property owner is in his right to develop this property as submitted as long as all county ordinances and regulations are adhered to. Mr. Foster said that the property in question is currently zoned for 2-acre zoning and that it is also proposed for 2-acre zoning. Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat, urging larger, staggered set- backs. He stated that approval should be subject to Virginia Depart- ment of Highways approval. Mr. Easter stated that he made the motion to approve, though he noted his disapproval of what the applicant was pro- posing, citing the character of the area. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Buck Mountain Final Plat - Route 601 and 671: Mrs. Scala asked the Commission to defer action on this plat until the applicant met some further requirements from the staff. Mr. Easter moved that action be deferred; the motion, which carried unanimously, was seconded by Mrs. Craddock. Ivy Farm Roads Dedication - Final Plat - Route 658: Mrs. Sca;a stated that the plat was in final form, and that the appli- cant had received previously grading plans for the roads. She said that the developer now wants the roads dedicated in order to subdivide the pro- perty. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is willing to accept the roads into the state system, if they are tied to 52 residen- ces. The staff is requesting a maintenance bond to insure acceptance into the state system and the Engineering Department is asking that the drainage conform to the road plans. She said that staff had no way of knowing if this is actually the way the land will be subdivided. 4e )4 � pointed out that the larger acreages could be subdivided into 2-acre par- cels. Mr. Charles Perry of the Highway Department said they needed informa- tion as to the number of residences that are proposed to see if the roads will accommodate the traffic that will result. He noted that part of the plat is preliminary, and part of the plat is a final one. He said that if there are later more than 52 residences to be served by the roads, the applicant or any other developer will be responsible for upgrading the roads. Mr. Carr asked why it was not approved by the Highway Department for only 52 lots. Mr. Tucker said that the final plat could be amended, but the prelimi- nary will not be tied to anything. Mr. Perry emphasized that he was speaking to 52 residences, not 52 lots Mr. Carr said that no, this is not correct. Mr. Rinehart said that on the deeds to the property should be notes acknowledging this fact, in case buyers wish to further subdivide the pro- perty. Mr. Grant Goodell, owner of one of the parcels of property, said that the entire development has changed since the idea was conceived. He said that he feels the Planning Commission is being asked to approve a piece- meal plan. He pointed out that there are five ponds on the property, ap- proximately one-half mile from the reservoir, and he wanted to know who was responsible for their maintenance. He suggested asking for the entire plan and its covenants. He also pointed out that it would be to his ad- vantage to have the dedication approved at this meeting but that he was a- gainst it for reasons that might occur in the future. Mr. Carr asked who would maintain the lakes and dams. Mr. Jim Hill said that the property owners whose land adjoined them would be responsible. Mr. Goodell said that he did not own the dam on his lake and that he was not responsible for its maintenance. Mr. Hill said that the request was for a 60' right-of-way from Garth Road and that approval meant that building could begin. Mr. Easter said that he was concerned that some of the large acreages on the plat might be further subdivided. He stated that he had received numerous calls of concern regarding this matter. Mr. Rinehart repeated that a statement on the deed is needed that Farm Drive will accommodate only 52 dwellings and the upgrading of the roads is to be done by the property owner who is subdividing. - Mr. Carr stated that he was concerned about future problems for pur- chasers and for the county if the dedication is approved. Mr. Hill stated that he had no objection to placing Mr. Rinehart suggestions on the deeds. Mr. Goodell again stated his concern about dam maintenance and future problems. Mr. Carr pointed out that even though development is usually done in steps, that the total proposed plan is usually known. Any changing of boundaries would mean that the plat would have to return to the Planning Commission. Mr. Easter asked that as far as county regulations are concerned if th plan is complete. Mrs. Graves asked if any provisions of the subdivision ordinance were applicable here. Mrs. Scala stated that no lots over five acres will come to the Plan- ning Commission. Mr. Rinehart moved deferral until additional information could be ob- tained. He said that questions regarding the persons responsible for dam maintenance should be answered and who would be responsible for upgrading the roads in the future. Future land buyers also need to be aware of any limitations on subdividing their land. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion for deferral. Mr. Tinsley suggested that an overall plan should be submitted. Mr. Carr asked that there be a meeting between the staff, the applican and him to discuss all the problems. The Commission voted unanimously to defer action. Lucky Seven Gasoline Pumps Site Plan - Four Seasons: Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant is proposing to sell gas at this location. She said that the pumps would be located in the existing park- ing area. The only requirements to be met are those of the Fire Marshal, who says that the attendant must be able to see the pumps at all times from within the store. Mr. Rinehart questioned the ingress and egress. Mrs. Graves said that it is her opinion that in order for this to be properly before the Commission it must be an amendment to the special use permit for the Four Seasons development. Mr. Carr said that this part of the development had been set aside for commercial use. VWd Mrs. Graves said that because a service station is shown exiting onto Rio Road, this is a modification of the use. Mrs. Scala said that it is the staff's opinion that this is a natural addition to a convenience store. Mr. Crafaik, the applicant, said that the pumps are to be used by the residents of the housing complex. Mr. Gaylord, an owner across the street from the store, stated that he had secured approximately 75 signatures from the Patio House complex in opposition to this proposal. Mrs. Scala read the statement accompanying the petition to the Commis- sion. Mr. Rinehart said that stack space should be shown on the plans. Mr. Carr said that it is necessary to decide if the matter is properly before the Commission. Mr. Tucker said that it is a use provided for in the B-1 zone and that the staff and the office of the County Attorney feel it to be in order. Another gentleman from the Four Seasons Patio House Complex said that he had decided to live in Four Seasons because he had reviewed the special use permit. Mr. Payne said that having control of the access is no problem, and he explained the reason that he did not feel it to be a change of use for the property that would require an amendment to the special use permit. Mrs. Craddock said that she is respectful of the signatures on the petition. Mr. Tucker suggested the matter be deferred in order to determine the conditions of the original approval. Mr. Easter asked if the pumps are visible to the cashier as required by the Fire Marshal. Mr. Crafaik said that he will comply with the conditions of the Fire Marshal. A member of the public said that the road conditions should be consi- dered part of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the area. Mrs. Craddock moved that action be deferred. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. Mr. Rinehart suggested screening from the residences of the Patio House Complex. The motion for deferral carried unanimously. ` - Lucky Seven Gasoline Pumps Site Plan - Southwood Estates: Mrs. Scala noted that this proposal is similar to the previous one. The staff recommended approval subject to Fire Marshal approva-1m) She noted that existing parking is sufficient. The property will have a new entrance on Butternut Lane. Mrs. Graves said that this appears to be the same situation as the one at Four Seasons, that it is a large extension of the use and an amendment to the special permit is needed. Mr. Easter said that these lots are rented and this this is a dif- ferent situation. Mrs. Graves said that the dignity of the ordinances should be protect - WAF Mr. Tucker said that it is the opinion of the staff that gasoline pumps are permited under the definition of a "general store", and that the applicant has a special permit for a general store. Mr. Barksdale said that this definition permits gas pumps by right. Mrs. Graves moved the extension be advertised as a special use permit. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion. The vote was 4-3, with Messrs. Barksdale, Easter and Carr voting against the motion. Michie Tavern Revised Parking Plan - Route 53: Mrs. Scala showed the Commission the grading, landscaping and construc tion plans that had been submitted. She said that there will be two tiers of parking and that the present entrance to the tavern will be relocated. She said that the staff requested a time limit on the landscape plan. The Assistant Director of Monticello strongly urged a condition that would insure that planting would occur shortly after the parking area is completed. He pointed out that dogwoods would not screen the cars. Mr. John Haskell, an adjoining property owner, said that he hoped the Planning Commission would require white pines rather than dogwoods set- back from the road, in case the road is ever widened. Mr. Evans said that the size should be specified. Mr. Tinsley suggested spruce and hedges of evergreen. Mr. Evans said that he might suggest evergreen shrubs between the dog- woods on both tiers. He said that he realized that the impact of the cars should be reduced. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the construction plan, the grading plan and the planting plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Addition of small evergreens with dogwoods along Route 53 and on se- cond tier to provide screening of cars; 47 2. Revised plan submitted and approved by Planning staff; 3. Addition of evergreens to break up perspective view up the mountain from the west on Route 53, Route 20, of the linear axis of parking lot; 4. Landscaping to be accomplished no later than May 31, 1976; 5. Subject to final Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrances. ing. Mrs. Haskell asked that where possible that there be complete screen - Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Bonanza Site Plan - Route 250 East: Mrs. Graves left the room before the discussion began. Mrs. Scala located the site as where Conner Mobile Homes used to be. The existing entrances will be made use of and Health Department approval is needed. She said that the applicant will have to provide an access to the adjoining property, and that he has agreed to show a cut in the curb. She suggested that the landscaping be subject to the staff's approval. The 90' right-of-way is shown and the applicant is 30 feet farther back. Mrs. Craddock asked how a restaurant of this size can be accommodated by 1.33 acres. Mrs. Scala said that an alternate drain system will probably be on an adjoining piece of property. Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. County Engineer review of offsite water line; 2. Staff approval of more detailed landscape plan; 3. Health Department approval; 4. Curb cut provided on west property line to provide access to adjacent property to be shown on the revised plan; 5. Provision for alternate drainfield shown on plan (to be waived should public sewer be utilized). Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, reminding the applicant to carefully plan the landscaping. The vote was 6-0 - Mrs. Graves did not participate in the vote, since she was not in the room for the most of the discussion. Western Sizzler Site Plan - Route 29 North: Mrs. Craddock left the room. Mrs. Scala said that the applicant has not shown the entrance onto Route 29 North. Approval would be subject to Virginia Department of High- ways approval and a landscape plan. Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Final Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrance; 2. Landscape plan to come back to Commission; Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-0. Mrs. Craddock did not participate in the vote. Panorama Preliminary Plat - Route 631: Mrs. Scala stated that a site development plan has already been ap- proved and that this is the next step of approval. The purpose is to see how subdivision will look. The Plan shows the lot lines, utlities, fire marshal recommendations, location of sidewalks, etc. Mrs. Scala said that there will be five different phases of the pro- ject. The first phase includes the clubhouse, and other recreational areas. She said that it complies with the subdivision ordinance, require- ments for a preliminary plat. Mrs. Craddock questioned the recreation areas. Mrs. Scala said that basically they are the same as in the site deve- lopment. Mrs. Graves asked if the plat complies with all conditions of the site development plan. Mrs. Scala said that the staff is of the opinion that it does an that it has complied with the subdivision ordinance, preliminary plat re- quirements. Mrs. Graves asked if there is a soil erosion plan. Mr. Rinehart said that this sort of plan would not be feasible until the topographic maps are completed. He pointed out that this is a re- quest for approval of the concept. Mrs. Graves stated that it is her belief that all conditions of the site development plan should be met. Mr. Carr again tried to clarify that this is just a step that permits the developer to proceed to the next step. He said that the preliminary means nothing. Mrs. Scala stated that the preliminary is for the developer's sake, it is not required, and is just a working document. Mrs. Graves said that this had been submitted under the Townhouse Or- dinance. She said that the commission has listed a series of conditions that it wishes to have the developer meet, but as yet the Commission has not seem them. Mrs. Scala said that some things are impossible to show until the final stage. lzr Mr. Rinehart questioned the loop road off the property. Mr. Wood pointed out that the property on the little loop will have sidewalks (he pointed to the map). Mrs. Scala said that the entrance road will be built to state stand- ards. Mr. Carr asked the staff if it is satisfied with this step in the pro- cedure and that all steps are being taken as they can be. Mrs. Scala said that the staff is satisfied,but that she did want to clarify the sidewalks. Mr. Wood said that the sidewalks would not be cement. Mrs. Scala said that they can be called pedestrian paths. Mr. Payne said that he wished to assure the commission that the matter is properly before the Commission. Mr. Wood said that his goal has been to ask for no variances and that to date he has complied with all suggestions of the staff, Planning Com- mission, etc. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Two copies of revised preliminary plat to be submitted; 2. Fire Marshal requirements met, including: fire access road to be constructed to Fire Marshal's specifications (20' lane with 4' base, prime and seal, chained at both ends, labeled "fire lane only") and hydrants installed prior to framing; 3. Correct lot lines on lots N8 and )l where they overlap and buildings kept 30' apart; 4. Show pedestrian paths on at least one side of access easement from lots H5, Al, P9, and T7 to traffic circle, and on one side of traffic circle (Sidewalk from traffic circle out to Route 631 to be construc- ted when front property is developed); 5. Phasing of project to be coordinated with utlities and soil erosion control. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion for approval. The motion carred by a vote of 6-1, with Mrs. Graves voting againt the motion. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Q�t - �, 41el� - - n L. Humphre Secr ary M November 25, 1975 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting to consider site plans and subdivision plats on Tuesday, November 25, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley. Absent were Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman and Mr. Peter Easter. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Approval of minutes: October 21, 1975: Mr. Rinehart moved approval of these minutes subject to the word "atmosphere" being changed to "environment" on page 7, lines 23 and 34. Mr. Gleockner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. November 4, 1975: Mr. Tinsley moved approval of these minutes subject to editing by Mrs. Craddock. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. November 18, 1975: Mr. Rinehart moved approval of these minutes subject to "developer" being changed to "property owner who is subdividing" on page 5, line 29; and condition #3 to the Michie Tavern revised parking plan being changed to read "Addition of evergreens to break up perspective view up the mountain on Route 53 from the west, of the linear axis of parking lot". Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that two items needed to be deferred and asked for formal action on these. final plat Mr. Rinehart moved that Buck Mountain/be deferred; Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Rinehart moved that action on B.P.O.E. Site Plan be deferred; Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. on IWM ZMP-336. Elizabeth Breeden - request for rezoning from A-1 to RS-1: Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that this had been deferred in order that the members of the Commission could view the site. He stated that the applicant had requested an amendment to the original request for rezoning the entire parcel, asking that there be a 400 foot setback of A-1 zoning along Route 631. Mrs. Craddock asked the proposed density on the property. Mr. Tucker explained that under the original request the 212 acres could have a density of 180 dwelling units compared to the 90 dwelling units if it were developed under A-1 zoning. Mr. Tucker reviewed the staff report, noting that the staff recommended that the proposal be denied. Mr. Carr pointed out to the Commission that since the proposal has been altered, the Commission needs to fully understand the request. Mr. Rinehart asked for a synopsis of the proposal and asked for reasons the applicant has not looked at an RPN or PUD concept. Mrs. Breeden, the applicant, presented the Commission a revision of the plans for the property ( see attached sheets ). Mrs. Breeden said that she was proposing to have the lots at the top of the mountain 5-acre lots. She stated V%W` that no public sewer availability is the reason she had not planned an RPN or PUD. She further explained the costs and availability of public sewer in the future. Mrs. Breeden said that she had done a cost analysis of 2-acre lots on both sides of the road for this property, and showed the Commission the drawing of two acre lots, which she is entitled to do by right. Mr. John Humphrey located the property for the Commission, relating it to Fifth Street and Southwood Mobile Home Park. He pointed out on the map the urban area proposed by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rinehart said that the applicant could do a PUD or an RPN without changing the density, and not change the zoning. This would place the units closer together and there would be more open space. This RPN or PUD would set the proper precedent for the area, rather than setting the precedent of RS-1 zoning. Mr. Rinehart said that with a cluster alternate plan, the road construction costs would be reduced. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that an RS-1 precedent in that area might not be undesirable since it is so close to the urban area. Mrs. Craddock voiced concern about other large acreages in the area if this property is rezoned to RS-1. Mr. Carr pointed out that the 1600 acres across the street belongs to the Breeden family. Mrs. Graves said that she had gone by the site and noted that it is further from Oak Hill than she had thought. She said that she wanted to be E' Re,;ponse to Staff Report Z1,70-336. Elizabeth Breeden aequest: RS-1 Re i,dental s t � '12, 00'1 Agri c..__ a_ Acreage: 2 Location rnhi�� y area i sfour mii es from-+omtor,� Charlottesville and si;; miles from Unive_rs:l ty. 0haracter of the Area the urea i_ cdevelo� ed by aparl,-;,vnt pr o. �,c•ts such as Country Green and Sherwood t�?:�.nor and re>ident l Y Subdivision and Sou-t;'r;. a_v eas such as Oak Hill s� �aod r�To,� � �_ T T.,^�. a m_� Le of green sp��ce ��;, t..7eer those gates. There is about 1?le tract in questi{era e - � ''e d�''''-' opments and this area. lends i ,elf to �,.; ,ester developmont with its steep slopes and stroam,s, in or 0e•:- - o retain th character t'.� c?evele; per mould e3 cn ba{��?c !;eet e rural Lynchburg Road and retluire ho,,o ; u_ ilderc "10 plantffive0ld trees for every one removed from thv utilities u�tcler round. ma-," as well as place all g (see ma_ " Comer ehensive Plan "07rhe idea of the Comprehensive Flan is to potec E through green spaces Qnd clus-,-- _n�, tI7 t development can afford to comply tTith the (-; . " `h this rezoning we the rural nature of 01�1 L ,;,tea of h' ' plan, protecting ynchb,, d Road zu),1 presenting a subdivision Plan which would ir,,, ode a riooded atmostihere for middle income _families. (see Cost AnalyNis, pg.6) Schools The :riddle income housing that are pro-po the need of re:: _dents of Aibemarle co �.,J- sing is bring fulfill families into �L::', not to bring more he county. This •r enccu - ar-e a gradual shift Of s-�ur ents in the e e„ a v bUt Z,;'ll _ iiOt i.r^reaSe ^ rr7Gr �'._'�01 Ot' -five -real, �e�+i nr Jac:: dent c o 7: ez: __er-ept _bl y �� T ' .�,t v or alhear� .�i'�. 1' e pre 1 -.;i nary p ? : :ate :,,ter, �'e ese Z, , , � nte,A 1�`�3rc r �Y. l ? _ ('l ., la:t '.It2iCt1 '.Te Gil::.. '�?'; "{ �n"'- 1\.�' ����- c� `�� �� �. -� '� � .L' cl- �!1�' ... c (`c, .. r,nr e iic:...Lt`'a Q__ ��'•�'• ., _ a , :; �i;!'T' '1,;.--i -��j�? �� . :yob „rrer has verbally a.fre .;;astray Depart.,�ent. pronos ed to study v .ri o� s de:j i cat -Lon als concnrnin,M bet-C_ ng -�rle r.^ute from this location to nterstate 64. 1 Water and Sewer I_) Included are letters (page 4 and 4A) from Forest Oak Utilities promising public water for the development. The letter from `%W the Albemarle County Service Authority indicates that the Morse Creek line is not proposed for the area until 1979, 159000 feet from the tract. Soil Analysis Included is a letter (page 5) from Ed Rosenberry, Sanitarian for Albemarle Health Department stating that the land is suitable for subsurface drain fields. The location of the four foot sample holes are included on the enclosed map. Comment The Planning Department staff states that this rezoning request is premature. Included below is a cost breakdown for developing two acre lots and one acre lots: ONE ACRE TWO ACRE Road $2250 $3300 Water 300 300 Engineer 175 225 Land Cost 2000 4000 Real Est. 567 939 Fee Selling Price292 —$8764 With this rezoning we can provide 5500 dollar lots that are aesthetically attractive, and environmentally protected. With- out it we must resort to "shot ing". houses along the existing road. (see map and Cost, pg. 6 The time, e-pense, and reliminary"promises of a PUD force costs of each lot up to 7000 which is too e.-oensive for the middle income house as is the price of a two acre developed lot. The control to ensure that good planning is realized for the best interests of the public is still in the hands of the Planning Board and Board of Supervisors in that the must still come before you with the subdivision plan for your approval. 2 M / Sz) M�,NLTV Cif= D ll: F. CJ 4, ir'.Eh tr•r_ c. .. ..�5 ._ /; rat- .�!.\l r:, CIO, ';.••� 4 R'l .fir r w ntl.'.E� ..i .r.•. .. "I. III f..�, :.! iNVM4:. •` r .� L.N ) C 1 F I/ll�r ,�r. I �i F'lC7 tOhi . r it v _ V � /t! rt lr Ultif A'lrT :uf.rr.(r!!': I'rk:rlr:lrrl-;- '. M DEPARTMENT OFy�HIGHWAYS y�&µ TRANSPORTATION J.LL��l��-yCnryfAy��yya���lF{{�,+�,,oM�4��+yF///(MjyyV���y".�7T/j`✓�1/��'Ci'-x.%tii f.µF(.(�Wi41V Cl!K1lC YY� . Cherl.ottesvi_lle, Virginia 22902 October 30, 1975 J�rs. aizabeth Breeden Route 1, t3cx 24 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear M-rs. Breeden: JOr". E. MAR WOCM DEPUTY COMMISSIr'.cl.5t•r.. trv'.i".t_- W S 6RRITTON DIRECTOR OF AFI MNI:',TRATIr.:r H. GORD'%N SLUNUr:IN DIRECTOR OF PH0:',F':.41 "ANAL,I'Mi J. M. WRAY• JR_ DIRE/ TUR OF Eli✓: TTOvs 1 P. ROYER, JFi DIh ECTOP OF PLIN4r P. P. �CLDIRON. UIRFCIv= JF.::Ji,In.E`n;:,. IN F.EPLY PLEASE RSFEH TO out e 631 abemarle County With reference to our meeting concerning the proposed alignment for the above road, please be advised that the Department will be investigating possible alignment changes for Route (,31 within the immediate area of the :3outhwood Idobilerestates. At such time as we have made a thorough investiga- tion we will again be in contact with you. If you have any questions, please donft hesitate to call. Very truly yours) R. G. Warner ;Resident ingine.rl�, By: ?. Ferry r Asst. :resident ~ngi e r i imc 3 A HIGHWAY 15 AS SAFE AS THC USER h1AKE7� IT I. J. BREEDEN, INC. P. O. BOX 1411 CHARLOTTESVILL@. VIRGINIA 22902 _':UrHWOOp M091LE HOME ESTATES , FOREST OAK UTILITIES October, 17, 1975 Mrs. Elizabeth Breeden Rt. 1, Box 24 Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Mrs. Breeden: Forest Oak Utilities agrees.to furnish water to each individual lot, according to your subdivision plan, on the 218 acres of land located on state route 631, described as Parcel 3 and Parcel 95 on Tax Map 90 at rates r.. listed on attached rate sheet. Our present capacity is 720,000 gallons per day using four of the existing nine wells. We may increase this capacity to suit your needs. Sincerely-, �I ''r1 sick nt, I''c lc t Oak Utilities 4 M, ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY 409 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 �>t.r MAILING ADDRESS E. E. THOMPSON. JR. P.O. Box 6777 Executive Director Charlottesville, Va. 22906 ' November 20, 1975 Mrs. Elizabeth L. Breeden Route 1, Box 24 Charlottesville, VA Dear Mrs. Breeden: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 6 and also provide you with the answers to your questions concerning sewer availability to your 200 acre tract on Route 631. Unless some unforeseen additional capacity becomes available at the Moore's Creek Treatment Facility, capacity will not be available until the Advance Wastewater Treatment Plant is completed, which is scheduled for 1979. This plant will be designed for 15 MGD. The approximate distance to connect into an existing sewer line is 15,000 feet, and the cost of a connector line under present policy must be borne by the developers. Individual connection charges at the prevailing rates would apply as completed buildings tapped into the system. If I can be of additional help, please contact me. , ELT: Jy 4A OR E. E. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director 11 011ner or Deve1 o p e r FKU 14: yr,� � — Sanitarian _ __ _ Albemarle-Chariottesville Health Uepartment DATE: The soil at /7I.��'/�i� _. located at'�=��� appears to be suitable for subsurface drainfields and the lot sizes are such that there is enough space to install the re- quired amount of septic tank system necessary for the planned buildinu, with additional space to install new. drainfields when needed. However, each lot will be eval- uated on its own merit and a percolation test may be re- quired at the time that septic permit is applied for. The results of a percolation test when required, must be accept- able before a permit to install a septic tank system is issued. ;,C: as R 3 �Www Cost: Happy Medium/Shotgun Plan: Happy Medium Roads 10,000 feet @ w25.00/foot .$250,000.00 Land- $3629600.00 _ Water ~10,000 feet @ $2.25/foot $ 22,500.00 Miscellaneous $ 33,000.00 Total Cost wb ,100.00 10 lots 9 $10,000 each $1009000.00 100 lots @ $6,500 each $6 0 000.00 - Gross 7509000.00 Net Profit $ . 81, 900..00 Plan: Shotgun Roads n/c Land $2279000.00 Water n/c 13,400.00 Miscellaneous Ty n....a otal VVJV n nll nn 62 lots @ $7,500 each Gross $4659000.00 Net Profit $2429100.00 6 M -3 - yft,,,; sympathetic, especially since it is beautiful setting for a housing development. She said that RS-1 zoning for this owner might be desirable, but if property changed hands, there would be no guarantee that the Breedens' proposal for the land would be adhered to. Mrs. Graves urged that the proper persons contact members of the state legislature in order that support for conditional zoning be acknowledged. Mr. Rinehart again asked reasons the owner had not considered the cluster alternate. Mrs. Graves suggested that the cost of the cluster alternate is prohibitive. Mr. Rinehart said that he did not think this was correct, since the road construction costs would be cut. Mr. Gloeckner said that a PUD is very expensive, since the calculations for this sort of project are extremely costly. Mr. Humphrey said that the staff had encouraged the applicant to use the PUD concept, and that the staff would have supported this sort of proposal. He noted that the applicant would not consider this. He said that with a PUD the intent would be clear to the applicant as well as to the county. Mr. Breeden said that with due respect, he and his wife could clear approximately $200,000 selling 2-acre lots along Route 631, but that they did not wish to do this, unless absolutely necessary. Mr. Humphrey suggested that the Planning Commission weigh the future. Mr. Rinehart asked how much more work and money is involved with a PUD. Mr., Gleockner said about three times as much money. Mr. Rinehart said that with a PUD, he would be willing to consider locating the, alternate drainfields in the open space, since a precedent has already been set for this. it Mr. Breeden explained that the "front money" is the problem, that/all comes down to dollars and cents. He said that only 15% of the public can afford to purchase lots now. He pointed out that his family lives in the area near this property, and that they plan to stay there. He said that he has a lot to lose if he does not abide by the proposal he is submitting, since he plans another proposal in two years for other property in the area. He said that the 400 foot setback.of A,7zoning would yield approx imatley 35 acres of buffer which would make the, neighborhood better. Mr. Carr acknowledged that the economics of development are important to the Planning Commission. He said that in the utilization of land for housing, more economical lots are needed in Albemarle County. He said that there can be no guarantee of a 400 foot buffer, 5-acre lots, etc. He said that this might be good only if Mr. Breeden owns the land. Mr. Gloeckner said that the County needs a 5-acre zone rapidly to guarantee err that mountaintops and other specific parcels can be saved. Mr. Carr said that if the request for rezoning is not approved, then the applicant can strip the land. He pointed out that the Planning Commission could -4 - approve the request and accept Mrs. Breeden's proposal for land use in good faith. Mrs. Craddock asked if there is any way that the applicant can work with the County Attorney and present a legal covenant regarding this. Mr. Payne said that this is not possible since covenants are enforceable only by the private parties. Mr. Breeden asked if there is any zone that will accommodate his proposal. Mr. Carr told him only the proposed zoning ordinance would accommodate his needs, and its adoption seems to be a long time in the future. Mrs. Graves asked if conditional zoning is anywhere in the near future. Mr. Payne said that conditional zoning is in force in one jurisdiction and before the General Assembly now for the entire ccmmonwealth. He said that it is possible that conditional zoning could be adopted as early as June of 1976. Mr. Rinehart pointed to the proposed use of the land and asked how much would be involved in delineating 1-acre lots if this were before the Commission as a PUD. Mr. Humphrey said that not that much would be involved, since all that is i4aw needed for a PUD is the general road layout, the utilities, and the proposed density. He said that an elaborate plan is not necessary - that the Commission needs to merely look at the entire project at one time to get the density control. Mr. Breeden pointed out that road costs alone would make the PUD financially infeasible. He said that they had already been forced to sell three lots along Route 631, and houses in the price range of $55,000-70,000 have been built on them. The houses have been setback only 100 feet, and the lots are at least 600 feet deep. He said that he does not wish to whack off any more lots along the front. He said that the 400 foot buffer would make the lots more sellable. He said that he had purchased the property from George Bailey and the other half had been purchased from the family trust. Mrs. Craddock asked if the owner could have restricted roads with the PUD. Mr. Humphrey explained that soon there will not be what is currently defined as a restricted road. He said that the new proposal for this property is better than the original proposal, though there is no guarantee it will be done. Mr. Rinehart suggested fifty lots in an RPN. Mr. Humphrey said that this is possible with a 10-acre minimum. Mrs. Craddock said that an RPN or a PUD are more orderly. Mr. Gleockner said that he felt the proposal is in good faith, and he moved the property be rezoned RS-1, except for the 400 foot strip buffer and except for the land above the red dotted line on the proposal. Mr. Tucker asked for either a legal description or more specific wording. -5- '14AW Mr. Gloeckner said the would be an extension of the property line at the northeast to go directly through the property, in.other words everything to the northwest of the powerline right-of-way. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion. Discussion: Mrs. Craddock said that this opens up RS-1 for the entire area; this is not planning, since it would spot zone and there would be no control. Mr. Rinehart said that it would premature zoning that far out. Mrs. Graves said that she wanted to do it, would have to vote against the motion. Mr. Tinsley said that he feels that the proposal is premature, the public utilities are too far away, and it would be strip zoning. The motion lost by a vote of 2-5 with Messrs. Barksdale and Gloeckner voting in favor of the motion. Lucky Seven gasoline pumps site plan - Southwood Estates: *400. Mrs. Scala read a letter from the zoning administrator explaining that these gasoline pumps were an accessory to the country store and that there is no need for an additional special use permit. Mrs. Scala further stated that on the basis of this memo from Mr. Clarke, the staff asked that the request be considered and approved. Mrs. Graves asked if gas pumps were mentioned in the original special use permit. Mrs. Scala said that they were notmentioned in the minutes. Mrs. Graves read the following statement: I think it is extremely unfortunate that Mr. Clarke wasn't asked for his opinion when I first raised the question of extension of the Special Use Permit for Southwood Estates on November 6th.. It would seem to me that the County is somewhat in the same situation as was Mr. Charles Motley when he wanted to add temporary signs to the ordinance - he chose the Planning Commission route which precluded him from a decision from the Board of Zoning Appeals. However, I know that the time limit has probably not expired in this case, but I do hope this Commission will reaffirm its decision of last week. and ask, the applicant to request an amendment to his Special Use Permit. The definition of a General Store reads "Gasoline may also be offered, but only as a secondary activity of a country general store, so I do not believe the applicant has an inherent right of this addition. Section 12-6-3 of the Zoning Ordinance speaking to Special Exceptions states that a special exception "Shall not increase congestion in the public streets nor danger of fire or other hazards." This requirement ought of be considered by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, either by the inclusion of gasoline sales at the time of an application for a convenience or general store, or by amending an existing special permit for this additional use, after proper advertising and hearings. If the Site Plan Ordinance is strictly observed, a site plan may not even be necessary, leaving adjacent property owners with no redress ( 17-2-ld ). Mrs. Graves further said that this is a matter of maximum protection for the general public. Mrs. Scala said that the zoning administrator had given his opinion before the Site Review Committee meeting. Mr. Humphrey said that the zoning Administrator had made his decision, and if the Planning Commission objects to this decision, the recourse is to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mrs. Graves insisted that the decision was after the fact. Mr. Humphrey emphasized to Mrs. Graves that the zoning administrator has to receive these requests, and then they are passed on/the Planning Department only after he has reviewed them. to Mr. Payne said that the Commission must either act on the request or else the Planning Commission can appeal it to the Board of Zoning Appeals. This board can tell if the zoning administrator's interpretation is correct. Mr. Carr said that when the special use permit was approved, the language should have been clear to all parties. He said that the gasoline pumps had been approved,by the definition of a country store, since the County did not place the restriction of "no gas at this store." Mr. Payne said that gasoline sales is treated as a hazardous use in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Carr said that the public had accepted this without gasoline pumps. Mr. Rinehart said that this is a piece of property within another piece of property. Mrs. Scala said that this is not a separate parcel. Mrs. Graves said that the Planning Commission should not open up other stores in the county without redress. Mr. Humphrey said the matter is to issue the request to the BZA or else act on it. Mr. Carr said that the Planning Commission cannot ignore the Zoning Administrator. -7 - Mrs. Graves said that she had disagreed with the zoning administrator before the meeting. Mrs. Scala pointed out that she had asked the zoning administrator about this before the Site Review meeting and that he had said it is a proper use, though at that time she did not have him put his opinion in writing. Mrs. Graves noted that the public is no notified if the access is not changed. Mr. Rinehart moved that the matter be moved to the BZA. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion. Mr. Barksdale offered a substitute motion that the site plan be approved. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Mr. Rinehart noted that a precedent is being set if adjacent property owners are not notified. Mr. Gloeckner suggested approving this particular site plan and amending `401 th definition of "country store" in the ordinance. Mrs. Scala reminded the Commission that approval should be subject to Fire Marshal approval. Mr. Barksdale restated his motion to include the condition. The vote was 6-1 in favor of the motion, with Mrs. Graves voting against it. Mr. Gloeckner then moved that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution of intent to amend the definition of country store in the county zoning ordinance. Mrs. Scala suggested that it could be worded such that there could be gas pumps with site plan approval. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion. Mrs. Craddock asked if this would be advertised as an amendment, and was informed that it would be. The motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Graves said that she reserved the right to appeal this particular case ( Southwood Estates ) as an agrieved party, Mr. Carr told Mrs. Graves that she could certainly do this 41. something has been omitted. WC Ivy Farm road dedication - final plat - Route 658: Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving the room. Mrs. Scala said that the staff has met with the applicant and that to insure having sufficiently built roads, she had calculated the acreage and she feels it is necessary to assume there will be 2-acre lots throughout. She said that the applicant and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation are agreeable to this. of the dedication of Ivy Farm Dr. and Fox Run Mrs. Scala further said that approval/should be conditioned upon the Lane following: 1. Roads constructed to state standards based on traffic generated by 2-acre lot developemnt or a performance bond posted to insure the construction. 2. Maintenance bond posted to insure that these two roads will be accepted by the state. 3. Drainage easements to be approved by County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways. Mrs. Scala noted for Planning commission information that maintenance of the dams is mainly a private matter. She said that the zoning administrator said that the maintenance would have to be by standards that are acceptable to the Soil '440- Erosion Committee. Mr. Payne said that dams could be of potential public interest in relation to flooding and sedimentation control. He pointed out that if there are no maintenance agreements, the dams exist at the whim of the property owner, and that no upstream owner could ask a dam to be built back if it washed out. Mr. Humphrey stated that ownership goes to the center of the dam. Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mrs. Craddock asked who is responsible for dam maintenance. Mr. Carr said that the buyer is responsible. He said that the county could not be awarded any problems resulting from the dams. Mrs. Graves said that if problems arise, perhaps they can be drained and grassed. Mr. Carr said that if they are properly maintained, they could be an asset to the reservoir. Mr. Humphrey said that according to the Thomas Jefferson District they are currently no problem. ION.. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion for approval. The vote was 5-1, with Mrs. Graves voting against the motion. mc Mr. Gloeckner returned to the roan. Planning District 10 Regional Plan - presentation: Mr. Bob Abbott explained that Thomas Jefferson District 10 has been working on a regional plan for Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, and Nelson Counties and for the City of Charlottesville. He said that when the sewer plan was done, it did not have a land use plan. This regional plan shows the community centers. Mr. Abbott said that state law required the T. J. District to draw up a regional plan. He then introduced Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh who explained how the plan, if implemented, would affect Albemarle. Mrs. Harbaugh explained that this is a draft of future land use anticipation. She asked for input from the Planning Commission at least thirty days before the public hearing. Basically, in the regional plan, TJPD had considered the city and county comprehensive plans. New revisions are sympathetic to the cluster alternatives. TJPD wanted to give the Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors more time to become familiar with the Plan than the required 30-cay minimum before the public hearing and it wanted to receive from the local boards revisions that might be incorporated before the regional plan is scheduled for public hearing. The TJPD Lnad Use Plan provides a significant opportunity for localities to influence the planning of other localities and of state and federal agencies. Only elements which affect more than one local jurisdiction are to be included in the regional plan. Future detailed plans might cover transportation, housing, economic development and open space. Mrs. Harbaugh explained that once a regional plan is adopted, local governing bodies which have approved the plan may not proceed with public improvements or with the acquisition or disposition of public land if in conflict with the adopted plan. Authorities and joint exercise of powers agencies come under the restrictions on local government action. Regulatory action is not affected. She said that the regional concept of the TJPD Land Use Plan incorporates the community cluster concept of the Albemarle County Master Plan, except that Ivy and Keswick are designated as residential clusters rather than complete clusters, and several small clusters have been added. She said that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is required to use adopted regional plans as guides for its regional A-95 review of local and state agency applications for federal assistance. Functional Classification of transportation routes is emphasized in the plan, both because of the relationship with land use and also because classification by function lends itself to a multi -modal approach to methods of transportation. Arterials stress traffic movement between distant points and are appropriate for mass transit between regions or between clusters. Collectors emphasize access to 'r.- adjacent land uses as well as arterials and collectors are also appropriate as commuter bicycle routes. Local roads which only provide access to adjacent land are not included in the regional plan. 501C The recent proposal by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for functional classification of highways is much more consistent with the regional cluster concept than the 1974 preliminary classification, and the new proposals for all existing roads will be incorporated in the plan. Several additions of existing roads to the minor collector classification are recommended. A new major collector between Route 20 north and the proposed extension of McIntire Road is not included in the present proposal. Routes 743 and 631 in the Urban Area are designated as urban arterials in the plan rather than rural major collectors because this more accurately describes the travel functions of these routes. Scenic River designation is suggested for the North and South Forks and the Rivanna River from the Fluvanna County line to Route 29. It will take a coordinated effort by the various public agencies using the river's resources and by private land owners to assure continued multi -use of the river. The trail along the Rivanna River from the James to the Applachian Trail which is part of the 1974 Virginia Outdoors Plan is not included in the TJPD Lnad Use Plan. A trail through the Ragged Mountains and Fan Mountain to the Applachian Trail at Three Ridges in Nelson County, which is a long term project of the Virginia Outing Club, is included instead. The Scout's Jefferson Trail connecting the City, Monticello, Michie Tavern and Ash Lawn is also included. The proposal for a park in the Albemarle County Plan for the southern edge of the Urban Area is also included. Routes 6, 20, 22, 250, 626, 712, and 810 are recommended as scenic roads. The Bikecentennial Trail has been added to the plan. The concept of major flood plain, water shed and Urban Area airshed protection is included in the regional plan. Open space is divided into three general classifications, agricultural, recreation/conservation and general conservation. Mr. Humprey said that the Albemarle County Planning Department is not ready to present a critique on this presentation of the Land Use Plan, which he feels is important before there is Planning Commission Input. Mr. Humphrey asked for several work sessions to discuss this plan as well as other matters that need immediate attention. Commission The Planning/noted that they were interested in having input on such items as flood plains, water supplys, and transportation routes. The told Mrs. Harbaugh that they did need a critique of the TJPD Plan and would have a work session and would forward their input as soon as possible. Mr. Abbott pointed out that the plan is an information document as well as a cooperation document. A-95 Review Request - Peppermill Plaza - 39 units: As preface to this, Mrs. Scala made the following comment: "Representatives on the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission have questioned wheteher all local planning Commissions and officials are -11- familiar with federal requirements for local and regional review through the TJPDC of certain applications for housing assistance, including approval of subdivisions for Farmers Home Administration housing loans. All such applicnat subdivisions must received approval of their plats by local Planning Commissions. However, localities may be concerned about additional aspects of proposed subdivisions and development which are not addressed in local ordinances. Through the regional A-95 review process conducted by the TJPDC as the regional clearinghouse, comments on these concerns are forwarded to the funding federal agency. Where relevant, local comments are also used to formulate regional comment. Mrs. Scala stated that Peppermill Plaza is one three subdivisions that need preliminary review by the Planning Commission of Albemarle County. She said that the zoning is proper. Mrs. Harbaugh said that the Planning Commission needs to review Peppermill Plaza because it is federally assisted housing. Mrs. Graves said that the plan should speak to the impact on schools. Mr. Humphrey said that this development comes under Title 8 and that the representative from HUD had spoken to the Planning Staff, and had asked for local input. He said that the site plan will have to come back to the Planning Commission and that HUD wants guidelines at this time. Mr. Gloeckner mentioned playground facilities. Mr. Humphrey said that he would forward them a copy of the Site Development Plan Ordinance and tell them to follow the same guidelines that everyone else has to follow when submitting a site plan. Mr. Carr asked the reasons that this A-95 review was before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rinehart said that this is unnecessary work for the Planning Commission when there is so much other work that needs attention. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the staff should handle the review with the use of the site plan ordinance, and that if there are areas of particular concern, the staff can bring these to the attention of the Planning Commission. Mr. Carr said that with this decision, the Commission could dispose of the following items on the agenda: 1. Peppermill Plaza - 39 units 2. Ridgewood Subdivision 3. Stony Point Hills Subdivision J. H. Thompson plat - one 2-acre lot - Route 601 on proposed 25' easement: Mrs. Scala said that this request is before the Commission because of the access easement; she said that except for the easement, the parcel is landlocked. -12- Mr. Humphrey said that for the general welfare, the Commission and staff need to know the specified easement and alignment. Mr. Barksdale pointed out that if the owner continues to subdivide, he needed a 50' right-of-way. Mr. Gloeckner questioned the number of lots that were permissible before the roads are built to state standares. Mr. Rinehart moved action be deferred until the applicant could obtain a 50' right-of-way. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Brookwood Section 3 final plat - Route 1204 - 41 lots: Mrs. Scala read the following conditions of preliminary approval as set forth by the Planning commission: 1. When a lot is sold which is not already built upon, there must be a provision in the contract or deed that the lot must meet Health Department approval for a septic system. Mrs. Scala said that the Board of Supervisors approved the preliminary and asked that the final go before the Planning Commission. The final plat omits four lots, now showing 41 lots, with an average lot size of 22,500 sq. ft. The final plat will also go to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Staley, an adjacent property owner, asked that the access be the same as it was. Mr. Gloeckner asked if any septic fields had gone bad. Mr. Ronnie Morris said "no." Mr. Tinsley moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage easements to conform with road plans; 2. Roads constructed to state standards, or performance bond posted for their construction. Maintenance bond posted to insure their acceptance into the state system. 3. County Attorney approval of wording of contract or deed rpoviding that any lot which is sold unbuilt upon must meet Health Department approval for a septic system. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. on -13 - Lawrence N. Wood Estate - 2 lots - final plat - Route 743 and 764: Mrs. Scala stated that lots 3 and 4 are the ones in question, that lots 1 and 2 had been administratively approved. Lots 3 and 4 do not meet the frontage requirements. The property is in the middle of Earlysville. She suggested waiving the frontage because of the configuration of the acreage. Mr. Gloeckner said that the site distance to the road is bad. He said that if all four lots had come in at one time, they could have had common entrances. Mrs. Craddock asked the reason for waiving road frontage. Mr. Carr explained that waiving frontage is done only if the situation justifies it. Mrs. Graves moved that the plan be denied. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion. Mr. Rinehart offered a substitute motion that action be deferred until the owner or his representative could be present to justify the waiver of frontage. Mr. Rinehart also asked that the Commission review the plat of lots 1 and 2 which was administratively approved. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The Commission decided to hold meetings on December 9 for consideration of site plans and subdivision plats and on December 3 for a work session. The meeting was adjourned. Mr. Carr reopened the meeting at the request of the staff in order to address the remaining items on the agenda. The Commission unanimously agreed to defer the work session on the RPN and PUD Districts and Scenic Highway Ordinance. Mr. Payne asked the Commission to adopt a policy on the keeping of records. He said that he felt this was necessary, in order that if any files or materials from the Planning Department are subpoenaed to court, the original file or plat or record will remain in the Planning office and only copies will be sent to court. He suggested that originals could be subpoenaed only with the expressed consent of the Planning Commission. -14- Mr. Gloeckner moved that Mr. Payne's suggestion be implemented as Planning Commission and Planning Department policy. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be amended to provide for fire stations and rescue squad stations. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned. pq M