HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 250-328April 21, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting at 7:30 p.m., April 21,
1975, Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider site plans
and subdivision requests.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mrs. Joan
Graves; Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio. Mr. Gloeckner was absent.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Scottsville Flood Prevention Plan:
This item was deferred until 8:15 p.m., until the mayor and a member of the Town Council
could be present.
Charles B. Dulaney plat:
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a request to divide property into two parcels and
extend the 500 foot right-of-way.
Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve, seconded by Mr. McClure. The motion carried
unanimously.
rr Cardinal Recycling Center:
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room.
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a request for a change in use, and that the site had
originally been approved in January of 1974. She stated that if the applicant wished to
recycle non-ferrous metals, he had to request this from the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Craddock questioned tha noise factor and was told there would be no additional
noise.
Mr. Easter was informed that there would be no outside storage.
to
Mrs. Craddock stated that this service would be an asset/the community and moved approval
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Preston Locher plat:
Mrs. Scala pointed out that this is a preliminary plat which already has access to
Route 676. She stated that this is a request to cut off the back property and that the
easement will be on the property of the owner. She stated that he wished to sell the 22+
acres.
Mr. Rinehart stated that if the owner ever wishes to subdivide it will be difficult
to run a road.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the property is under sales contract to a lady who wishes
a 50 foot easement to protect her if she wishes to divide into 5-acre tracts.
Mr. Rinehart moved preliminary approval subject to the right-of-way being 50 feet.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hop -In Food Market revised site plan:
Mrs. Scala said that the revised site plan had been brought in for several reasons:
1. The gas pump location is not on the original site plan and it will barely meet the 3
foot setback requirement.
2. The engineering details of agreement to a different location of the drainage struc-
ture and the sanitary sewage plan - both should be shown on the plan.
3. Georgetown Green Homeowner's Association, Hop -In Market, the Zoning Administrator,
and the legal council for the various parties, had agreed to planting plants as part of
the conditions.
Mr. David Wood, representing Hop -In, stated that he was aware of only the issue of the
pumps. He noted that the original location of the pumps was poor planning, but pointed out
that the gas island now meets the setback for the proposed widening of Hydraulic Road, whick
according to Bob Warner of the Highway Department, might now take place at its present lo-
cation. He asked for approval with the understanding that if the pumps are ever in the way,
they will be removed at no expense to the county or state.
Mr. R. Huskie asked that screening fence length be recommended by the staff.
Mr. Al. Shuping stated that trees were planted that date.
Mrs. Graves inquired as to the location of the pumps if they were moved, and Mr. Wood
told her he did not know where they would be placed.
Mrs. Scala stated that the County Fire Marshal will approve the location of the pumps
if the Zoning Department approves.
Mr. Carr suggested that the staff and the tenant of Hop -In agree on the fence.
Residents of Georgetown Green Apartments ask that the fence extend to the sidewalk, at
which point Mr. Rinehart noted that perhaps some of the residents of this development should
have some of the responsibilities.
Mr. Barksdale suggested that perhaps 80 feet of extra fence should be joint venture bet
ween the residents of Georgetown Green and the tenant/owner of Hop -In.
Mr. Nelson, the tenant of Hop -In stated that he is willing to cooperate, but there is
a limit as to what the owner can do.
Mr. McClure moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Fence being constructed to the property line.
2. Re -location of the drainage and sanitary sewer lines to be shown on the revised sit
plan.
3. Path to be built.
4. Pumps approved subject to the fact that if their re -location was ever necessary
M
it would be at the expense other than the county or the commonwealth.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Scottsville Flood Prevention Plan:
Mr. Balzer of Balzer and Associates, Roanoke, Virginia, gave a presentation on a flood
prevention plan as devised by his firm.
He stated that there would be two possibilities for flood prevention - 1. physical re-
location of the town of Scottsville on higher ground OR the 2. removal of the traffic from
the downtown area with a dam to be built on Menke Creek.
He stated that the feasibility of moving Federal Period Historic Buildings would create
problems. He stated that the construction of a dike on one side of the railroad tracks would
be aesthetically impossible.
He pointed out that the cost estimate for his firm's proposition would be $2 million.
He said that the Federal government had reserved $494,000 for the first phase of the
suggested project - the Menke Creek impoundment.
At this point Mr. Thacker, the town mayor, stated that Scottsville had twice been
flooded by the creek before the James River had even reached flood stages.
Mr. Balzer told Mr. Easter that the dike would protect the school.
Mr. Roudabush asked if the construction of this dike would increase the flooding result
on the other side of the river, and was told that environmental study must be done to deter-
mine this.
Mr. Bruce, the engineer for Balzer and Associates, pointed out that this is a 4-stage
plan and that each plan is to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, the Board of Super-
visors, and the Piedmont Planning District Commission X and the town of Scottsville.
Questions are to be answered upon completion of engineering studies for particular problems.
for
Mr. Carr noted that this plan is before the Commission/primarily informal purposes.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the concept be approved, specifically Phase I.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley, and it carried unanimously.
Crozet Moose Lodge:
Mr. Barksdale disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room.
Mrs. Scala stated that this is an existing building at Yancey's Mill. She stated that
the plan called for the size of the entrance to be 30 feet, and noted that the staff recom-
mended the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval.
2. Highway Department approval.
3. Parking spaces to be marked.
4. Some lighting for the parking spaces.
Mr. Rinehart asked if any contours would be changed.
Mr. Neil Ballard, representing Crozet Moose, answered that only slight grading
had or would be done. He stated that the Lodge did not wish to mark any parking spaces
since the lot would eventually be asphalted.
Mrs. Craddock stated that some trees should he planted and that some landscaping shoulc
be accomplished.
Mrs. Whiting, an adjacent owner, questioned the activities of the lodge, which Mr. Bal-
lard explained to her as well as giving her a schedule of the hours of the lodge.
She also questioned any disturbance to the entrance of her property which Mr. Ballard
assured her would not be disturbed.
Mr. Carr emphasized to Mr. Whiting that her right-of-way could not be disturbed.
Mr. Ballard agreed to clean up the trash that is on the back of the property.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the conditions that the staff recommended plus
these additional conditions:
5. Blockage of present entrance along the east side of the property line.
6. Staff approval of a planting plan.
7. Existing trash to be removed.
8. Parking to be either marking according to the existing plan or parking must be
asphalted in 6 months.
Pine Haven Duplexes site plan:
Mrs. Scala noted that this site is adjacent to Fountain County Apartments and that the
property is zoned R-2.
She stated that staff conditions to approval were:
1. Highway Department approval of entrance.
2. Grading permit being obtained.
3. Final approval by Service Authority.
4. Fire Marshal states there shall be no parking on the North side.
She stated that also the City had been notified that this site plan was before the
Commission for consideration, but that nothing had been heard from the city.
Mr. Roudabush, representing the owner, stated that the proposed zoning is comparable tc
the existing zoning. The plan for the property is duplex/townhouse style development and
that a minimum amount of work would be done to disturb the neighbors. The owner is aware
of the concern of his neighbors regarding drainage and is willing to cooperate.
Mr. Booth, Harry Pond, Mrs. Burruss, H. W. Allen, Bill Thompson, Mrs. Cassada, Mrs.
Hyde, Mr. Meade, all adjacent property owners, expressed extreme opposition to the proposed
site plan on basis of the following:
1. Opposed further rental development in the area.
2. Opposition due to road, noise factor. Vao
3. Neighborhood peace and security will be threatened.
4. Traffic situation should be considered.
5. Land that is already abused by rental neighbors.
6. Water run-off.
Mr. Booth presented a petition from 64 neighborhood residents in opposition.
This voiced opposition was followed by a discussion of the proposed density, in which
the 2.6 acres will be divided so that 13,000 sq. ft. will be used for buildings and approxi-
mately 20,000 sq. ft. will be used for roads and driveways, in other words approximately .8
acre will be used.
ment.
Mr. Tucker stated that 10 feet is the side requirement and 25 feet is the rear require -
Mr. Roudabush pointed out that there is existing shrubbery.
Mr. Carr stated that this site plan is subject to approval by the city as well as the
county.
Mrs. Craddock asked if any recreational area is provided and Mr. Roudabush stated that
none is designated. She also learned that fire lanes meet the ordinance.
Mr. McClure moved deferral and asked the staff to discuss the drainage with the city.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the law permits owner to use land as it is zoned if the re-
quirements are met.
Maupin's Supermarket:
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommended the following conditions:
1. Highway Department approval.
2. Health Department approval of the septic system.
3. Planting plan at the discretion of the staff.
4. Easement.
5. Lighting approved by the staff.
Mrs. Craddock voiced the opinion that there should be more planting.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the water lines and power lines prohibit large plants or
shrubbery.
Mr. McClure moved approval with the conditions recommended by the staff; Mrs. Craddock
seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Ashview subdivision:
Mrs. Scala stated that this property backs up to Ask Lawn and that the road will be con-
structed to state standards. It is the staff's opinion that approval should be conditional
upon the following:
1. Grading permit obtained.
2. Written Health Department approval on the septic field.
3. Highway Department approval.
4. Trees on lots 5, 6, 7, 8 be left.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the staff recommended conditions; Mr. Tinsley
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ministor Associates:
Mr. Tucker explained the site plan and the use of the property.
He stated that the conditions recommended by the staff are as follows:
1. Storm drainage and sanitary sewer shown on the site.
2. Highway Department approval of the fire lane at the ends of the warehouses to be
marked NO PARKING.
3. Parking allowed only on the east side as they serve buildings.
4. Grading permit secured.
5. 20 foot width for parking spaces.
Mrs. Graves questioned the 10 foot buffer and Mr. Tucker told her that there is only a
5 foot buffer with white pines and junniper plantings - i.e., the 10 foot buffer has been
eliminated because the sewer lines run with the property line.
Mr. Reid Cornwell asked that the width of the lane be 16 feet rather than the 20 feet
recommended by the staff. He noted that usually people come approximately every 4 hours
to such storage facilities and the fact that there could be no heavy vehicular traffic
due to the conditions placed by the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Tucker stated that the conditions must be complied with or the applicant must appl,
for another special use permit if the buffer is amended.
Mr. Easter felt that a problem with heavy vehicular traffic is being created and that
the plan does not seem to be workable.
Mr. Cornwell emphasized that most goods that will be stored come in by automobile.
Mr. Rinehart stated that if the plan came to motion, he would vote against the motion
and made the following suggestions:
1. Dimensions from the property lines be shown.
2. Dimensions of the building to be shown.
3. Distance between buildings to be shown.
4. Dimensions of property, parking lot to be shown, using aisle dimensions and spaces.
5. Finished grades for the buildings to be shown.
6. Design for tractor -trailer moving vans.
7. Landscaping for the rear of the property to be shown.
8. Description of flood lights.
Mr. Carr stated that since a special use permit was issued designated the use of the
property, with guidance from the staff, the applicant should be able to work out something.
Mr. McClure moved deferral till a proper site plan was submitted. Mrs. Craddock
seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Spring Valley and Country Side;
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that she would present these together, since they are
adjacent, but noted that they should have separate approval.
Mr. Barksdale disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room.
Mrs. Scala pointed out that there have been several problems with the subdivisions -
namely that the Health Department states that the water table on certain lots is undesirable.
She stated that the Highway Department suggests that all entrances be shared and that the
3 pipestem lots have one common driveway. She also noted that the staff questions the width
of lots 6 and 13 of the Country Side Subdivision.
Mr. Carr asked the type of house to be constructed on these lots and Mr. Anderson,
owner, told him that they would be Nationwide Modular homes.
Mr. Harold Spainhower, an adjacent property owner, objected to the proposal on the
basis that the roads are too narrow for this many houses and if the stream is straightened
there will be a drainage problem. He feared a trespassing problem. He suggested that clus-
ter would take place in the proper place, which is not cleared farm land.
Mr_. Bob Merrill pointed out that it is unfortunate that farm land must be destroyed.
He questioned the identity of the potential buyers.
Adelaide Spainhower pointed out that many people do not recognize the unpleasantries
of farming.
Mr. Bob Wilson stated that the county has amoral obligation to consider the direction
the county is taking and also questioned the water situation.
Mr. Tom Ferrell stated that the road is dirt and is not passable at certain times of
the year.
Mr. Ed Robb stated that the Planning Commission has a job to avoiding patchworking
development.
Mr. Henry Morazo asked the number of lots.
Mr. Carr stated that he wished to look at the property before making a decision.
Mr. Anderson rebutted a discussion that had taken place on the Farmer's Home Administra-
tion.
Mrs. Craddock moved deferral on both items. This motion which carried unanimously,
was seconded by Mr. Tinsley.
Mr. Carr reminded the staff to re -notify the property owners when the Planning Commis-
sion would again hear the matter.
John B. Flinn:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for approval of a right-of-way.
I Mr. McClure made a motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Rinehart. It passed unanimously.
Bell and Aust subdivision plat:
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the
room.
Mrs. Scala stated that this plat had been illegally recorded without the proper
signatures. She stated that everything was in order and that the new plat would have a
current date with the proper signatures.
Mr. Barksdale moved approved; Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unani-
mously.
John Shifflett plat:
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that this is a request to cut off a 2-acre tract and
have a 30-50 foot right-of-way.
Mrs. Craddock stated that terrible things have been done to this property and that
with one rain the top soil will be lost.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The property contains only 1 dwelling.
2. Health Department approval.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
ER
April 22, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on the
proposed zoning ordinance and map on Tuesday, April 22, 1975, commencing at
4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Court Square, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Jack
Rinehart; Mr. Peter Easter; and Mr. Lloyd wood, ex-Officio. Mrs. Ellen Craddock
and Mr. Wilbur Tinsley were absent.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Mr. Humphrey announced that the commercial setback would not be addressed
at this meeting.
Ben Minor Miller Tract - Tax Map 61, Parcels 129, 130, 131, 132B, 132B1,
132, 132A - comprising 49.61 acres:
.Mr. Humphrey stated that this property is zoned B-1, proposed for CL. He
further noted that this property is in the shopping center area.
Mr. Gerald Tremblay represented Mr. Miller. He gave a cost breakdown for
the above investment, explaining the zoning of the surrounding properties. He
stated that the owner was requesting comparable zoning.
Mr. Carr stated that shopping malls fit into the CL zone.
Mr. Humphrey stated that some CG uses are not compatible with shopping centers.
Mr. McClure moved that the property be zoned CG; Mr. Gloeckner seconded the
motion. it carried by a vote of 5-0. Mr. Rinehart did not vote due to his late arrival.
Tax Map 76, Parcels 21A-1, 22A, 24B:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the existing zoning is A-1, and the proposed zoning
is RR.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the owner, stated that the property is best
suited for some commercial use and mixed residential use.
Mr. McClure moved that the property be zoned RR. Mr. Rinehart seconded the
motion, which carried by a vote of 6-0.
-2-
Farmington Undeveloped Areas and Northlea:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the property is proposed to be zoned AGR/CVN and
that the owner is asking for RR zoning.
Mr. Waterson spoke for himself and for Farmington.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the property southeast of Ivy Creek be RR, and
that the remainder of the property be zoned AGR/CVN until the use is presented.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-3.
Messrs. McClure, Gloeckner, and Carr voted against the motion.
Messrs. Gloeckner and McClure stated that they felt more of the land should
have 2-acre zoning.
Dr. Charles Hurt Property:
Mr. Humphrey stated Dr. Hurt's plan for the property, stating that the
owner requested CG.
Mr. Rinehart moved that 100 acres of the property be RT and that the remainder
be zoned AGR/CVN. This motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the IL property (Tax Map 78, Parcel 31A) be zoned
IG. This motion carried unanimously.
east.
Tax Map 78, Parcels 17, 17A, 17A1, 17A2, 17D, 15B, 15C:
This property was unanimously voted to be CG.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 59A:
This was unanimously voted to be CL where it fronts on Rt. 20 North, 800 extended
Tax Map 78, Parcel 59A, part; Parcel 57, Parcel 55A, part:
This property was voted by a vote of 5-2 to be zoned RT.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 20, part thereof:
This property will be zoned RM. Rear protion bordering on Rivanna River.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 20, part thereof: 250 frontage, south half:
This property will be zoned CG.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 20, part thereof: 250 frontage, north half:
This property will be zoned CL.
M
OR
-3-
Tax Map 78, Parcel 20B:
This property is proposed to be zoned CG.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 20Bl:
This property is proposed to be zoned CG.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 31:
This property is proposed to be zoned CG.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 21:
This property is proposed to be zoned RM.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 12:
This property is proposed to be zoned CL.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A, part thereof:
This property is proposed to be zoned CL.
Samperton Property - Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A1:
This property is proposed to be zoned CL.
Wilhoit Property - Tax Map 78, Parcel 12:
This property is proposed to be zoned CL
DeButts Property - Tax Map 76, Parcel 52:
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the vote and the discussion by leaving
the room.
Mr. Humphrey explained that this property was zoned R-3 when purchased, and
the owner is requesting that it be zoned RMH.
Through a motion that carried by a vote of 6-0, Parcels 521, 52J, and 520
were proposed to be zoned RM. The same motion proposed that parcel 52 be zoned RT.
Forbes Reback Property - Tax Map 91, Parcels 1, 1A, 1B, 1E:
This property is to be proposed to be zoned IL, by unanimous vote of the Commission.
ZC
James E. McFarland, Jr. - Tax Map 45, Parcel 104:
Mr. Humphrey stated that this property is currently zoned B-1 and the
owner requests that it be zoned CG. He stated that it would possibly be non-
conforming in the CG zone.
By unanimous vote, the property will be proposed to be zoned CG and
the owner will have the opportunity to apply for a special use permit.
Hurt Property - Tax Map 45, Parcel 104A:
This property was unanimously voted to be proposed to be zoned CG.
E. O. McCue - Tax Map 45, Parcels 68 and 68C:
The property is currently zoned B-1 in the front and R-3 in the rear.
It is proposed to be zoned Cl in the front and RM in the rear.
The owner requests CG for the entire area.
The motion, which carried unanimously, placed the front in CG zoning and
RM for the back.
William E. Bell - Tax Map 45, Parcel 26:
This property is currently zoned R-2 and is proposed to be zoned RT. The
owner requests that the entire parcel be zoned RTM.
By a vote of 4-3, the property was voted to be zoned RTM.
Parcel 26A and C were included in the motion.
Crown Corporation - Tax Map 45, Parcel 23:
This property is proposed to be zoned CL.
The motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1, was that the property be zoned CG,
provicint that the staff and developer agree that the use can be recommended.
Dwight B. Coggins - Tax Map 45, Parcel 93A:
The property is proposed to be zoned Cl in the front and RT in the rear. The
owner requested comparable zoning to the existing B-1 zoning.
By unanimous vote, the property was proposed to be zoned CG.
Q72
David J. Wood Property - Tax Map 61, Parcel 24B:
Messrs. Easter and Rinehart disqualified themselves from the vote and
discussion by leaving the room.
Mr. Wood stated that a site plan had been approved for a florist.
A motion to propose this property to be zoned CG carried by a vote of 5-1.
Tax Map 78, Parcel 55, 55C; Tax Map 79, Parcels 1, 2, 12:
Mr. W. A. Stf�:-ens represented Fidelity Corp.
By a vote of 7-0, the Commission voted to propose to zone this AGR/CVN - this
would include those parcels on Tax Map 78. Those on Tax Map 79 will be RR.
Tax Map 79, Parcels 5, 5A, 10:
By a unanimous vote, these parcels will be proposed to be zoned AGR/CVN.
En
The meeting adjourned.
M
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
on April 22, 1975, during a work session to consider the proposed
zoning map. This resolution and directive to the staff is relative
to the proposed zoning map in the area of the Charlottesville
Reservoir on the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
All properties indicated as Conservation zone on the original
staff proposed zoning map are to be indicated as originally
proposed by the staff as an Agricultural/Conservation district with
a five acre minimum development size except as indicated below.
The areas involved in this designation, with reference to the
subject .reservoir, are described as follows:
1) Those areas designated originally as Conservation
zoning on the north side of the reservoir extending
from Route 29 North, west of the intersection of
Route 601 with the Rivanna River and Mormons Creek just
south of Free Union.
2) On the south side o �i1e reservoir extending from
Route 29 North to the bridge of Route 743 over the
reservoir, this area having a 200 ft. strip from
normal pool of the reservoir designated as Agricultural/
Conservation zoning five acre minimum development.
i
3) On the south side of the reservoir including the Ivy
Creek stems, beyond the intersection of Route 743 and
the reservoir, west to be designated as Agricultural/
Conservation - 5 acre minimum development size or
originally proposed by the staff.
4) On all major streams contributing to the reservoir
outside the above mentioned areas, shall have a minimum
Conservation zone with a five acre minimum development
of 200 ft. extending from either side of the major
tributary or to the limits of the designated Flood Plain
as approved by the Board of Supervisors, whichever is
greater.
M
May 1, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on the proposed
zoning ordinance and map on Thursday, May 1, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves;
Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
and Mr. Jack Rinehart. Absent were Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Ellen
Craddock; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Clif's Cash and Carry Site Plan:
Mr. Tucker explained that no Certificate of Occupancy can be issued until a
site plan has been approved.
He stated that the staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Entrances to be a minimum of 30 feet;
2. Two foot high posts with reflectors to delineate the entrances;
3. Railroad ties to delineate parking spaces.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the Highway Department had approved this and was informed
that the staff would be more restrictive than the Highway Department. -
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff;
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, whihc carried unanimously.
Zoning Map:
Mr. Humphrey stated that there were still a few remaining items of business
concerning the map that needed to be cleared up.
Four Seasons West:
He stated that the existing zoning on this property is R-3 and is proposed
to be zoned RTM in the rear and RM on the front. The owner is requesting comparable zoning.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the density here should be conserved, in view of the
adjoining property.
Mrs. Graves stated her support of the proposed zoning, as did Mr. Carr.
Mr. Tinsley made a motion that the property be zoned RTM in the rear and RM in
the front. This motion, which carried unanimously, was seconded by Mrs. Graves.
Tax Map 76B, Parcels 2-7, 8, 12, 17A, 17:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the existing zoning on this property is A-1,
since it was recorded prior to zoning in Albemarle County. He stated that city
duplexes are adjacent and the zoning was originally designated to be R-3.
Mrs. Graves stated that the access is limited.
Mr. Rinehart made a motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, that the property
be zoned R-3. This motion carried unanimously.
Barnes Lumber Yard:
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that the property owner wishes this to be
conforming in some way without moving into the IG zone; however, if the only way
that it can be conforming is to move into this zone, this will be the request.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that they had already been given IG.
Mr. Humphrey stated that perhaps they could be made conforming by placing
them in the IL zone and changing the uses permitted by special permit to permit
such an operation.
Mrs. Graves stated her support for IL zoning.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the property be zoned IL, with the text to be changed
to include this use by special permit.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Barksdale also moved that Mr. Humphrey write a letter to Mr. Yancey of
Yancey Mills suggesting this zoning and the reasons. Mr. Gloeckner also seconded this
motion, which carried unanimously. This would mean that Yancey Mills would be made
conforming in IL zone with a special use permit.
Tax Map 60, Parcel 48:
Mr. Barksdale moved this property be zoned IL. Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion,
which carried unanimously.
Tax Map 76, Parcel 17:
Mr. Rinehart mvoed this property have comparable zoning since no precedent has
been set for the area.
This motion, seconded by Mr. Easter, carried unanimously.
At this point a discussion on whether to re -hear some pieces of property took
place. There was a general consensus that no matters should be reheard.
Charles Meadows ( his property near Fountain Court Apartments ):
Mr. Tinsley moved that his property remain in a comparable zone. Mr. Easter
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
John Humphrey read at this time 3 letters from Mrs. Martha Selden. One
was a letter of appreciation, one related to the IL zone, and the third was of
specifics that should be included in the text under uses permitted by special permit
in the IL zone.
Mr. Humphrey then presented the staff's suggestion regarding the 10-acres,
5-acre, two 2-acre zones.
Mr. Rinehart stated that he was not happy with the two different 2-acre zones.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the difference in the two is directed at the
projected clustering areas.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the following names, recommended by the staff be
assigned:
AGR-10, AGR-5, AGR-2, and RR ( Rural Residential ).
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
In reviewing briefly the AGR-5 zone, Mr. Humphrey stated that there is a need
for a definition of COMMERCIAL POULTRY AND HOG FARMING.
At this point, Mr. Humphrey asked the Commission to review the statements of
intent for the above mentioned zones, in order to be prepared to discuss them at the
next work session. He also pointed out that the Commission should review the comments
from the public on the text.
The Chairman asked the commission members if they would approve the following
meeting dates:
May 5, 1975- regular meeting
May 7, 1975- work session on proposed ordinance
May 12, 1975-work session on proposed ordinance
May 19, 1975-reglar meeting
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
L. Humphrey, Sec ary
May 5, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on
Monday, May 5, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Piedmont Virginia Community College auditorium,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs.
Joan Graves; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-officio. Mr. Clifton McClure
was absent.
Pine Haven Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala read the two letters stating that the drainage field should be
improved to a 33 inch line.
Mr. Barksdale asked how far the pipe would have to go if it were extended.
Mr. Booth, an adjacent property holder, asked if the State Highway Department
was contacted regarding the water situation.
Mr. Jack McCarty, an adjacent property holder, addressed the problem of
enlarging the drain on the property on which he lives, questioning how far it would
be extended.
Mr. Carr told the public that the law did not demand the applicant to
enlarge the drain past his property line.
border.
Mr. Meadows asked for a border chain link fence 72 inches high as a property
Mr. Booth discouraged approval by the Commission.
Mr. Carr assured the public that the Planning Commission wanted to be certain
that a proper site plan is approved, and also pointed out that the sewer flows between
the Lee lots and Mr. McCarty's property.
Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that the sewer easement was
reserved when he leased the land.
Mrs. Craddock recognized the concern of the city citizens regarding the site
plan and stated her opposition on the basis that there should be fewer units, a recre-
ation area, etc.
Mr. Barksdale learned that for approximately 300 feet of 36 inch drainage line,
the cost would be approximately $5,000.
Mr. Boggs stated that he did not know how much additional run-off would be
created.
Mrs. Craddock asked who would be legally responsible for the run-off that
could cause flooding.
Mr. Payne told her that it would be the responsibility of the citizens
to contact the property owner whose property seemed to be the cause.
Mr. Moore, the applicant, stated that the general development of the
area has caused a lot of problems with drainage, but that he would be willing to
work with the city in correcting the drainage problem.
Mrs. Craddock made a motion for the applicant to return with a revised
site plan; this motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley. She stated that this site plan
should include reduced density, a recreation area, a drainage system satisfied as to
cost and efficiency, as well as other things.
Mr. Rinehart stated that some items might not be able to be covered by a
site plan, since some items will have to be covered without Planning Commission
guidance.
Mr. Barksdale asked if a condition could be placed stating that the applicant
work with the city and county staffs regarding the drainage field.
Mr. Moore stated his willingness to reduce the density to help solve the
drainage and play area problems.
Mr. Gloeckner asked that the motion be amended to include screening of
trees as a border.
Mr. Rinehart offered a substitute motion which would give approval to Pine
Haven subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways approval - the turn lane is to be full width and
12.5 feet from the property line;
2. Grading permit secured;
3. Service authority approval;
4. No parking in the driveway;
5. Removal of southern most duplex and a recreational area to be located with staff
approval;
6. 72 Inch fencing along the southern boundary up to the 18" maple tree.
7. Drainage problem to be worked out with the City of Charlottesville and applicant
to the staff's satisfaction; if this cannot be worked out, the site plan must come
back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1, with
Mr. Carr voting "no".
Ministor Associates Site Plan:
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff recommended approval since the problems of
the original site plan had been corrected.
Mr. Cornwall stated that Charlottesville Hardware and Ministor Associates
will mutually solve the grading problems regarding the retaining wall.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Final Virginia Department of Highways approval;
2. Mark fire lane and one-way arrows on site;
3. Grading permit;
4. Parking only on east side of 18' lanes.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Country Side and Spring Valley Subdivisions:
Mr. Barksdale disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by
leaving the room.
Mrs. Spainhower, Mr. Bob Merrill spoke in opposition to the proposed
subdivisions on the basis of the road and drainage situations.
Mrs. Scala gave the staff reports and read letters from the Health
Department. She stated that the lot lines have been moved on the Country Side
plat so that all lots now have at least 150' in width.
Mr. Carr stated that the location is not good for this sort of development.
Mr. Haynes, representing the applicant, stated that lot #3 of Country Side
is the only lot the Health Department has any reservation about.
Mrs. Craddock made a motion for approval subject to the bank being cut
down, lots 1, 2, and 3 being put together on the Spring Valley Subdivision, leaving
lots 7, 8, and 9 as they area, and combining lots 12 and 13.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion.
Mr. Haynes asked why these lots should be combined.
The vote on the motion was 4-2. Mr. Rinehart did not vote.
Mr. Gloeckner made the motion that Spring Valley be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. Combine lots 1, 2, and 3 to form 2 lots of approximately equal size;
2. Combine lots 10, 11, 12, and 13 to form 3 lots of approximately equal size;
3. Lots 7, 8, and 9 to share a joint entrance;
4. Health Department approval;
5. Entrances shared as shown on the plat;
AND THAT Country Side Subdivision be approved subject to the following conditions;
1. Cut down the banks on lots 8 and 12 to improve visibility;
2. Health Department approval;
3. Entrances shared as shown on the plat.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motions, which carried by a vote of 5-2; Mrs.
Craddock and Mrs. Graves voted against the motions.
27
ZMP-321. Jesse E. Seale has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to rezone 4 acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-1 Residential.
Property is situated on the west side of State Route 684, about 1 mile
north of its intersection with State Route 788 in Crozet. Property
is further described as County Tax Map 39, Parcel 20C. White Hall Magisterial
District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mrs. Seale questioned the staff's recommendation for denial.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that it looked as if he could do what he wished
without rezoning.
Mr. Payne of the County Attorney's Office stated that the lot is non-
conforming to begin with.
Mr. Rinehart moved the request be denied and Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion.
Mr. Barksdale stated that this seemed to be a good use for the land.
The vote was 7-1 to deny the request. Mr. Barksdale voted against the motion.
SP-466. Dr. Charles W. Hurt has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to locate a Planned Community on 200.84 acres zoned
A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of State Route
20 South, and the east side of State Route 742. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 91, Parcel 2. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Morris Foster, surveyor for the project, explained to Dr. MaGee of the
community college the projected date for the project's start.
Mr. John Smart stated that he hoped the dam had been corrected in order
that it would take the water, since he feels that the spillway cannot carry the
water now.
Mr. Foster stated that the problems with soil erosion have already been
approached.
Mr. Yost asked about the sewer lines.
Dr. Hurt asked the Planning Commission to waive condition #11 in the staff
recommE:-?ations or revise the wording.
Mr. Lynn Hartman asked if the sewer authority had secured more connections
than it had thought possible by September, 1975.
Mr. Tucker stated that improvements are being made to Moore's Creek
Treatment Plant and Hillcrest could tie into this provided capacity is there.
Mr. Gloeckner asked who has the liability for service and maintenance of the
dam?
Mr. Foster told him that it would be Dr. Hurt until the Homeowners Association
takes over.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Basic land use concept and densities shown on the Hillcrest Development Plan,
marked "Received 4-23-75" be adhered to;
2. No development of this project to take place until sewerage service is available for
this project;
3. No development to take place until street plans, subdivision plats, and site plans
have been approved by the appropriate state and local agencies;
4. A detailed master plan showing truck/collector and lateral water and sewer lines as well
as storm water facilities shall be submitted and approved by the County Engineering
Department prior to any construction;
5. The gross density of 2.57 units per acre shall not be exceeded;
6. Homeowners' Agreements and deed restrictions shall be approved by County Attorney's
Office prior to construction; Homeowners' Agreement should cover the maintenance
of the dam;
7. Minimum of 0.5 acre in tot lots and equipment and a 3.0 acre area shown for
a play field to be located appropriately in the development and shown on the site
plans when submitted for approval;
8. All development shall be served by public water and sewer facilities;
9. Any approval of this plan or subsequent plans or plats do not constitute a
guarantee of water or sewer service by the RWSA;
10. All necessary easements for utilities, as approved by the County Engineer, shall be
deeded to the County Service Authority;
11. No further construction of streets shall take place until the street plans have
been approved by the appropriate state or county officials and the property bonding
for such streets have been accomplished or are built;
12. No excavation of buffer areas or open space, with exception of utilities and roads,
without planning staff approval;
13. Water impoundment (dam) shall be approved by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and
Conservation District;
14. Maximum of eight (8) single-family lots located nearest Route 20 may use septic
drainf ields.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-468. James Armstrong has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to locate a garage on 0.39 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property
is further described as County Tax Map 128B, Parcel 31. Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Lindsay Dorrier appealed to the Planning Commission on the behalf of
Mr. Armstrong that his client has conditions more rigorous than any other business
of this nature in the county. He presented petitions supporting Mr. Armstrong's request.
The following people spoke in behalf of Mr. Armstrong: Mr. Van Clief,
Mr. Joe Arbaugh, Mr. Burton, Mr. Rucker, and Mr. James Childress.
Mr. David Wood, representing Mr. Matthew Murray, Mr. Al Turnbull,
B. M. Little, and others, objected only to the location of the business, not to
the business itself. Mr. Wood stated that his clients do not object to the
ability of Mr. Armstrong as a mechanic. He further stated that the noise and
traffic situations are offensive, and asked for denial of the request.
Mr. Carr told the public that the commission is interested in knowing
if this is a logical use of the property and that this is the only consideration
here.
Mrs. Mary Armstrong said that some of the cars there are cars belonging
to the family, and as a rule there are no more than 6 vehicles to be worked on
parked on the property.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Tucker how many times the applicant has been reminded
that he is not in compliance with the conditions of the original special use permit.
Mr. Tucker told him there were two letters notifying Mr. Armstrong that
he was not in compliance.
Mr. Tinsley stated that this is a non -conforming use on a non -conforming
piece of property.
Mrs. Craddock moved that the Board's conditions of 1972 prevail, with the
exception of the evergreen trees, which she suggested should be a fence.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion.
Mr. Rinehart offered a substitute motion that the request be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. Not more than six (6) vehicles which are in Mr. ARmstrong's care for repair,
maintenance or restoration be left outside of the structure overnight at any one
time;
2. Existing landscaping be maintained;
3. Site Plan approval of the addition proposed.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-469. Northwoods Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to locate a general store on part of 13.844 acres zoned
A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of State Route 785.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 32B, Parcel D, part thereof.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr- Tucker gave the staff report stating that there is a letter of opposition
to this request from Mr. and Mrs. Leake.
Mr. Worley showed pictures of his plans and stated that the primary use
of the land would be for an office.
Mrs. Leake stated that the traffic situation is dangerous there and that the
water situation is unbearable, stating that the water supply is inadequate for the
number of dwellings there.
Mrs. Mary Jo Lovelace stated her opposition to the request was based
on the traffic and location.
Mr. H. J. Robert stated that he had been under the impression that this
would be a convenience store.
Mr. Carr and other members of the Commission voiced their desire to view
the site.
Mrs. Craddock moved deferral on the request; this was seconded by Mrs.
Graves. The motion carried unanimously.
SP-471. Nancy Caperton has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to lcoate a two-family dwelling on 4.674 acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of State Route 676,
just north of its intersection with State Route 743. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 6D(1). Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mrs. Caperton stated that she did not wish to change the character of the
building, and mentioned that there are a couple of other duplexes in the area, and this
would not be the one setting the precedent.
Mr. Barksdale seemed to think that four people living in such a duplex would
not do as much damage as horses would, especially since the place has county approved
septic system.
Mrs. Craddock moved the request be denied on the basis of the reservoir.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-476. Norther Piedmont Electirc Cooperative has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate an electric substation on 3.0 acres
zoned M-1 Industrial. Property is situated on the east side of Route 606
about 1 mile south of its intersection with Route 641. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 21, Parcel 14, part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, recommending approval.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Site Plan submitted to the Planning Commission for approval;
2. Sufficient berm on the northern and eastern property line with evergreen trees
planted on top of the finished berm in order to screen the substation from
U. S. 29 North;
3. Only the actual substation structures be fenced - not the entire site;
4. Grading plans approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at midnight.
9
cm
May 7, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session
on the proposed zoning ordinance on Wednesday, May 7, 1975, 7:30 p.m.,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman: Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner; Mr. Peter Easter; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mrs. Joan Graves;
Mr. Roy Barksdale; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio. Those members
absent were Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Jack Rinehart;
and Mr. Wilbur Tinsley.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called
the meeting to order.
Mr. Humphrey opened the discussion with the intent of the
AGR-5 zone.
The Commission voted to have the purposed of the Agricultural
AGR-5 zone to read as follows:
This district is designed to serve the dual purpose of
accommodating farming and kindred rural occupations and the
preservation and conservation of land deemed not suitable for
intensive development.
In relation to farming and kindred rural occupations the intent
is to establish large parcels of land designated for permanent use
in agriculture and agriculturally related functions on land which
has been determined to have soils highly productive for such uses.
Regarding conservation, it is the intent of this district to preserve
those areas of rugged terrain, those prone to flooding, those
having poor draining soils, and where development should be held to
a minimum for resource protection. It is the further intent of
this district to discourage the random scattering of land uses which
require public facilities, such as roads, schools and emergency
services, to a greater extent than is generally available in areas
rural in character and to promote and preserve those asethetic values,
natural resources and environmental amenities associated with such
areas.
The Commission voted that the Uses permitted by Right in AGR-5
would be as follows:
1. Agriculture/excluding commercial poultry and hog farming
2. Conservation and preservation areas
3. Stabling of horses - private use
4. Forestry
5. Dairying
6. Accessory buildings and use
cm
-2-
Uses Permitted by Right con't.
7. Graveyards, family
8. Horse show grounds
9. Off-street parking as required by this ordinance
10. Single family detached dwelling units conventional or cluster
subdivision
11. Home occupation class A
12. Hunting and game preserves
13. Churches, parish homes, adjunct cemeteries
14. Public utilities: poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and
related and similar facilities, water adn sewer distribution
lines
15. Flood control devices
16. Plant nursery, wholesale
17. Single family rental units, two or less by right; with site
plan approval in accordance with article XXV
18. Conventional lodging units for persons employed on the premise
limited to one unit per five acres within the premise
19. Mobile homes individual, in accordance with sections 2-11 to 2-16
20. Condominiums with site plan approval
21. Wayside stands selling commodity raised on premise
22. Signs as permitted in article XXV
23. Professional offices
24. Fish hatcheries
25. Parks and recreations areas, public only
26. Observatories
The Commission voted that the Uses Permitted by Special Permit
should be the following:
1. Agricultural related business and industry
2. Commercial poultry and hog farming
3. Nautral resource extraction and processing as limited by
article XXI division 4
4. Country stores
5. Sawmills and planing mills
6. Recreation areas - private
7. Craft and cottage industries
8. Country clubs - tennis and swimming clubs
9. Airports
10. Campgrounds
11. Camps, summer
12. Boat marinas
13. Carnivals, fairs, temporary non-profit only
14. Educational institutions, public and private
15. Mobile homes: individual, double wide and expandables
16. Mobile home parks and mobile home subdivision in accordance with
applicable general regulations
17. Construction facilities, temporary in accordance with definition
of construction facilities contained in section 1-4
18. Convents and monasteries
19. Sanitary landfills
20. Accessory living units
-3-
Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit con't.
21. Public utilities: Public water and sewer transmission mains or
trunk lines and treatment facilities, pumping stations; electrical
power transmission and distribution substations and transmission
lines and towers, oil and gas transmission pipelines and
pumping stations, unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro -wave
and radio wave transmission and relay twoers and substations
22. Home occupations class "B"
23. Seasonal shooting ranges
24. Commercial kennels
25. Volunteer fire and rescue stations
aa. Radio and T.V. stations and antennae
bb. Nursing homes
CC. Commercial horse riding stables
dd. Single family rental units, three or more; with site plan
approval in accordance with article XXV
ee. Memorial parks and cemeteries
The Commission voted unanimously to the Uses Permitted by Right
and by Special Use Permit be the same for the AGR-2 zone as those in
the respective divisions of the AGR-5 zone.
It was also the consensus of the Commission that the
"w''setback in all Agricultural and Rural Residential zones should be
100 feet.
Under height regulations in the AGR-2 zone, it was
decided that silo's were exempt from the forth feet height regulation.
Mr. Carr asked the Commission to schedule two more work
sessions for the 12th and 14th of May at 7:30 p.m., in the County
Office Building.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
.' -
En
"Ci
May 12, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work
session on the proposed zoning ordinance on Monday, May 12, 1975,
7:30 p.m., County Executive's Office, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman;
Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Ellen Craddock;
Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Peter Easter was absent.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called
the meeting to order.
The Commission held a discussion of an executive office
in the different zones, expecially the agricultural zones.
Mr. Rinehart moved that executive offices be permitted with
a special use permit with a 50-acre lot minimum, a maximum square
AW footage of 7,500 sq. ft., and a maximum of 20 people employed.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr voiced opposition to the number of people in the
motion made by Mr. Rinehart.
Mr. McClure stated that the office must be limited to the
existing residence.
Mr. Gloeckner asked about the provisions for a site plan.
The vote on the motion was 3-5, with Messrs. Barksdale,
Gloeckner, McClure, Tinsley, and Carr voting "no".
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Planning Commission accept
for the amendment to the existing zoning ordinance as passed by
the Board of Supervisors - in other words, the executive
offices would be permitted in the AGR-10, AGR-5, and AGR-2 zones
and there will be a 100-acre minimum, as presented in the existing
ordinance.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Tucker suggested that the Clearview section of the county
be put into the AGR-2 zone rather than the RR zone in order to
accommodate horses.
- J '
-2-
Mr. Carr stated that private stabling had already been taken
care of in the RR zone with a special use permit.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the Clearview section on Route 676
be zoned AGR-2 rather than RR.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
At this point Mr. Tucker suggested to the Commission that a
special session be held on mobile home parks.
Mr. Rinehart and Mr. Gloeckner suggested to the members of
the Planning Commission that the definition of LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
include the phrase "licensed by the state of Virginia". This
would be covered in the RT zone.
The Commission decided to defer this matter to the next
meeting in order that the state code could be read.
On page 110 of the proposed ordinance, under (j), the
Commission decided to strike "Foundation planting and any";
the last sentence should read "Planting used for screening purposes
shall be evergreen."
Page 79 of the proposed ordinance should have the words
"patio housing" replace the words "group house development".
Page 86, Item 2, Subsection 12-4C, the 60o should be changed
to 70%.
Under the CG zone the following should be added:
Temporary events -- non-profit fairs, carnivals, etc.
The wording should be as follows:
Temporary events, i.e., carnivals, fairs, and amusement parks
4*01 after public hearing shall have been held by the governing body on an
application submitted to the body for such use. In approving any such
application, the governing body may establish such special requirements
and regulations for the protection of adjacent properties, set the
hours of operation, and make such requirements as they may deem necessary
in the public interest.
-3-
Page 22 - Definition change kennel to be commercial kennel.
Page 14-Definition Airports to include Gliderports.
When there is reference to kennels preferences were chosen by
commercial kennel.
Page 53- Agricultural-10 Section 3-5 - The setback is changed to
comply with the rewording as found in AGR-5.
Page 68 where a reference was made to stabling of horses and ponies,
Special Permit, change it to read "Stabling of horses - private use".
Page 96-Special Use Permit (d) include clinics along with
hospitals and medical centers.
Page 100 - Section 60-3 of the CL zone - add convention centers
under Special Permit and also "by right" under CG zone final place 102.
Page 102 under CG under 18 is a printing establishment as included
loose paper publishing.
Under CG, Item 11 - Uses Permitted by Right - add wording "to
permit building and construction contractor, office and equipment
storage yards".
Page 103 - Change item 19 to read "retail sales of garden
materials and supplies, hardward and building materials supplies.
Display areas may be required to have screening as determined by the
Planning Commission under site plan approval. In addition, building to
permit workshop under the permitted use of building materials from
supplies should be incorporated."
Page 104 under Special Uses - CG Commercial Kennel.
The Planning Commission decided by unanimous vote that all set-
backs in all commercial zones would be 50 feet.
Page 115 under Industrial IL, (g), add "frozen food processors".
Under (a) of IL, something is to be done with motor vehicle sales -
this is to be reported to the Planning Commission at the next work
session on May 14, 1975.
Under IL add "recycling centers" appropriate wording by right -
processing with a special permit.
In regard to the Historic Zones, it was decided by the Planning
Commission that this would be shown on the map only if requested by
the owner. Mr. Humprehy was asked by the Planning Commission to notify
the new owner of Ash Lawn.
� All the above were decisions made by the Planning Commission
and are to be incorporated in the proposed ordinance text.
_n
At this point, Mrs. Graves made a statement on the CG zone.
In it she offered some alternatives to the Planning Commission
about redesignating the CG zone to CL next to residential areas.
She stated that if this alternative is not taken by the
Commission she would recommend review of the CG and IL zones' permitted
uses next to the residential zones.
Another alternative she suggested was to change the nemPn^ia+-»re
of the zones to designate the density of the residential and commercial zones.
Mr. Gloeckner and Mr. McClure stated that many things in she
ordinance could be changed, but that it would be impossible to readdress
all the matters that would result in unanimous agreement by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Rinehart stated that perhaps it is not good to put the
CG zone next to a residential use, but this could be handled by the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Carr stated that he could not see addressing the first
two of Mrs. Graves alternatives, but he would asked the staff to
.- consider the nomenclature by the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
N, -*
xMW-A/, /
E"F®r N
f. sz---etar
C� q
May 15, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session
on the proposed zoning ordinance and map on May 14, 1975, 7:30 p.m.,
Board of Supervisors Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman;
Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Jack
Rinehart; Mr. Peter Easter; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley;
Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Roy Barksdale; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the
meeting to order.
Mr. Carr opened the meeting with a discussion on the proposed
ordinance and how he hoped that it would be moved on to the Board
of Supervisors in such a way that it could be democratically processed.
He pointed out that the Planning Commission should be cohesive in
its support for the ordinance and map on which it had been working
for almost two years.
proposed
There followed a discussion about a/ minority report on the
ordinance being presented to the Board of Supervisors in which such
points as the following were brought out.
Mr. McClure stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Carr -
that all Planning Commission members have compromised on their
ideas to arrive at a good, workable ordinance.
Mrs. Craddock voiced the opinion that a minority report to
the Board would show weakness in the Planning Commission as a whole.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that a united front should be presented.
Mr. Rinehart noted that this proposed zoning ordinance is
a reasonable approvach to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Gloeckner urged Mrs. Graves to consider the fact that plenty
of people are concerned about the problem areas in the ordinance,
and that it is not her responsibility as a member of the Planning
Commission to represent the views of private citizen groups to the
Board of Supervisors, since she is a member of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Tinsley stated that anything other than a unanimous vote
means that the work of the Planning Commission for the past two
years has gone down the drain. He stated that it was his opinion
that a split vote on the ordinance by the Commission would weaken the
Board's decision.
-2-
Mrs. Craddock emphasized that it is the big issues that need
to be considered, not some of the particulars that everyone has
made compromises on.
Mr. Fred Pay, Assistant County Attorney, stated that he sees
no authority for or against a minority report on the ordinance.
However, he stated that such a report could dilute the impact of
the ordinance to the Board, but there is nothing unlawful about it.
Mr. Carr stated that in his membership on the Planning
Commission the oc,7asion had never arisen when such an issue had
to be addressed, and therefore he hoped that it had been properly
addressed this time. He again pointed out that a minority report
could undermine the work of the Planning Commission and that such
a report would be a real disservice to the work of the Commission.
Mrs. Graves stated that she would consider each member's point of view before making
a decision on a minoritv report.
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that it was time for
a reorganization of the body.
Mr. Carr turned the Chairmanship over to Mr. Humphrey who
opened the floor for nominations for Chairman.
Mr. McClure made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, to
elect Mr. Carr as Chairman. This motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter moved that Mr. McClure be Vice-Chairmna. This
was seconded by Mr. Rinehart. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Humphrey to draw up a letter of transmittal
to the Board of Supervisors to accompany the proposed ordinance
which would ask that those property owners who had property in the
10-acre and 5-acre zones be given some sort of tax relief.
It was decided that the language regarding "landscape
architect" would stand as written.
Mr. Rinehart moved and Mr. Gloeckne5 seconded that duplexes
not be permitted in the 2-acre zone without a special use permit.
�*W The Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve the
nomenclature recommended for the different zones by the staff.
They will be as follows:
-3-
AGR-10, AGR-5, AGR-2, RR-2, R-1, R-2, R-3, RT-6, RTM-12, RM-20,
and RMH-30. This would designate the density of the zones as
well as describe the use of the zone.
The Planning Commission decided to have its next work
session on Wednesday, May 28, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Page 167: Sec. 26-6. Parking area design:
Change "guards" to "safety structures".
Page 167: Sec. 26-3 (a):
Change "one hundred" to "two hundred".
Mr. Gloeckner moved that Mr. Humphrey and the staff be allowed to
address the size of parking space depending upon parking angle and
access, and write this into the ordinance.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Humphrey recommended to the Planning Commission that
Home Occupations - Class A be a permitted in all residential zones.
Mr. Rinehart moved that all materials related to this be enclosed
and only those vehicles permitted to travel on the highway be
permitted on the premises.
Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
Page 136, Sec. 21-35. Hours of operation.
The hours of operations should be changed from "between
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m." to "7:00 a.m. and midnight".
-,*W Page 137, Sec. 21-41(b)(1):
Change "two months" to "twelve months".
-4-
Page 137, Sec. 21-41(b)(2):
Change "one hundred feet" to "two hundred feet".
Page 140, Sec 21-42:
This section should include the idea that a county bond
will be required only if there is no comparable state bond.
The Commission unanimously voted to include Day Care Centers
in every residential zone with a special use permit.
Page 115, Sec. 19-2:
Eleminate (j) in uses permitted by right.
Page 117, Sec. 19-8:
Change "zoning administrator" to "Planning Commission".
Page 74, Sec. 9-2:
The second sentence should be changed to read:
"Uses permitted by right in the R-1 district, except home
occupations and stabling of horses and ponies".
Page 107, Sec. 18-2:
Move (m) under uses permitted by right to uses permitted
with a special use permit.
Since there was no further bus
adjourned at 10:30 p.m. c�
ss, the meeting
May 19, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on May 19, 1975,
7:30 p.m., Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr.
Peter Easter; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Ellen Craddock;
Mr. Lloyd Wood; ex-Officio. Mr. David Carr, Chairman, and Mr. Jack Rinehart were absent.
Mr. McClure assumed the chairmanship and called the meeting to order.
Deferred Items:
SP-469. Northwoods Corporation
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he saw no reason not to approve this request.
Mr. Tinsley moved denial after noting that it is unfortunate and unnecessary to have
commercial acreage next to a residential area.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion for denial, which carred by a vote of 5-2.
SP-467. Tom Forloines:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request on the part of the applicant for withdrawal
without prejudice.
Mr. Barksdale moved that this request for withdrawal be accepted.
The motion carried unanimously.
Site Plan Ordinance and repeal of Sections 6-9-1, 7-7-1, 8-2-1, and 9-2-1:
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report and read a letter from the Citizens for Albemarle.
Mr. Easter moved that under Section 17-5-17 one sentence read as follows:
"Where the particular development contributes in part, along with other development or
developments in the area, to the need for such facilities, the developer may be required
to contribute lands, on a pro-rata basis, for such facilities as are reasonably attri-
butable to the particular development."
This motion was seconded by Mr. Barksdale and it carried by a vote of 5-2.
Mrs. Craddock moved approval of the proposed Article 17 with the above motion included,
and the recommendation of repeal of Sections 6-9-1, 7-7-1, 8-2-1, and 9-2-1 from the County
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
At this time Mr. McClure reminded the members of the Commission to declare their real
estate holdings with the office of the County Attorney, in order to comply with the new sta-
tute.
Lockridge Subdivsiion Preliminary Plat:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report, commenting that the restricted road needs approval
of the Board of Supervisors.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the property is proposed for AGR/CVN (5-acre) zoning, and if
this plat is permitted, the lots will be non -conforming with the new zoning ordinance.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the road be shifted to the west,thus moving the location
of the building sites. On this basis, he moved. deferral.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Charlottesville Associates Preliminary:
Mr. McClure, Vice -Chairman, disqualified himself from the vote and discussion by leaving
the room.
Mr. Gloecker assumed the chairmanship.
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments, noting that there are no plans to improve Route
643 in the six year plan.
At this point, the developer pointed out to the Commission that there are several ws
to get to the property.
A member of the public stated that Route 643 is not in good shape and that the State
Highway Department has never been receptive to the property owners along that road.
Mrs. Graves moved deferral, and asked that the applicant submit the original of the
covenants for the maintenance of the restricted road to the County Attorney prior to the Board
of Supervisors' meeting.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion; it carried unanimously.
Ednam Village Section 2:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments, noting that the setbacks are not met; she further
noted that the office building lot is not to be considered a part of this section. She
pointed out that the reason for a variance is to present clustering as in the first section
of Ednam Village.
Mr. Evans, representing the applicant, stated that the restricted road is built to
state standards.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Board of Supervisors' approval of restricted road and private driveways (re-
stricted road built to state standards).
2. Board of Zoning Appeals approval of variances for setbacks, yards and lot depths.
3. County Attorney's review of Homeowners' Association Documents (Original to be re-
corded should be submitted).
4. The commercial area should be eliminated from the final plat, unless a rezoning has
been approved.
5. Agreement between the approving Health Department and the Boar's Head Inn and ap-
plicant concerning sewage disposal.
6. Agreement with Mr. Kellogg on the water line.
7. Evidence of Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrance.
8. County Engineer and Fire Marshal approvals.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Monticello Homebuilders plat at Lindsay:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the plat be approved.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, adding the condition that where lots 3A and 3B enter
onto the 20 foot right-of-way with lots 3C and 3D.
The motion carried unanimously.
Monticello Homebuilders preliminary plat of Woodridge:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Right-of-way across lot 4 or thereabouts to be resolved with Mr. Moore.
2. Lots 12 and 13 to share joint driveway.
3. Every two lots should share a joint entrance.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
J. H. Thompson plat - Route 601:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval. The motion, which carried unanimously, was seconded by
Mr. Tinsley.
William Carpenter plat - Route 637:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments, noting that this is a request to waive the 60,000
sq. ft. requirement for septic system and private well, and the 25' dedication requirement.
The reasons for waive were because there was excessive amount of road frontage and the adop-
tion of the subdivision regulation soon after his rezoning.
`" Mr. Easter moved approval.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Scottsville National Bank - Revised Site Plan:
Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving the room.
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
James Trogdon plat - Route 600:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval to this subject to final Highway Department approval of
the entrances and shared entrances between lots 1 and 2, 3 and 4.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Better Living Preliminary plat - Route 663:
Mrs. Scala explained to the Commission that this property is located near Nortonsville
and that this is a request for 9 lots with a series of pipestems.
Mr. Walker explained the plat, stating that this is the best use of the property
and that only three houses will be on the road. He noted that FHA loans have been committed,
stating that if right-of-ways are put on it, that the plat will not be approved by FHA.
Mr. McClure stated that it would be desirable to preserve the larger acreage at the
rear of the property and stated that it is regretable that the government does not allow ease-
ments.
Mr. Robin Lee, a resident of the area, stated that this is an example of very poor
planning and that the property does not lend itself to being cut into 9 lots.
Mrs. Graves moved that action be deferred until the Commission could have an opportu-
nity to view the site.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Thacker Construction Company Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala told the Planning Commission that it had been requested that this plan go
before the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Wood stated that the reason that it was to be brought to the Board was that there
was a question of why screen M-2 property from M-2 property.
Mr. McClure stated that the reason the Planning Commission has required this was
that it did not know when the next business would be built and that the Commission wante
the residence screened.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the condition regarding screening
should remain, since it was not known when the remainder of the M-2 land would be developed.
Cardinal Recycling Center Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala explained that this was a request to delete the requirement of the 8' high
fence for the certificate of occupancy approval.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval, but stated that the fence should remain shown on the
site plan, and if a nuisance should be created, the plan could be brought back for enforce-
ment of the requirement.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carred unanimously.
James Morris Property:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that action be deferred in order that the Commission could view the
site and in order that a topo could be prepared.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned, since there was no further business.
4 0 or.-
1 %� Tz'� M-.e " - -, I - M-'� �
L. Humphrey, SA-tretar
i Y/I
M
June 2, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Department held a regular meeting on June 2, 1975, 7:30
p.m., Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr., Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Jack
Rinehart; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio. Absent were Mr. Peter Easter and Mrs. Ellen Craddock
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Deferred Items:
Lockridge Subdivision:
Mr. McClure assumed the chair since Mr. Carr had been absent the meeting this had ori-
ginally been discussed.
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for a waiver. She told the Commission that
the subdivision still lacked Highway Department and Health Department approval. She pointed
out that this subdivision would be heard by the Board of Supervisors since it has a restricted
road.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval to waive the frontage on lots 4, 5 and 6 and 9 subject to
Highway Department approval and Health Department approval.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Charlottesville Associates Partnerhsip:
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room.
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a two-part subdivision: the first part is comprised
of 12 2-acre lots and 10 lots on a restricted road.
Mr. Gary Green stated opposition because of the road situation on Route 643.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Restricted road to be approved by the Board.
2. Entrances for the two -acre lots to be shared where feasible.
3. Virginia Department of Highways approval.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-0. Mr. Tinsley did not
vote due to his late arrival.
Better Living, Inc. - Subdivision:
Mr. McClure again assumed the chair.
Mrs. Scala stated that this had been deferred in order to consider the pipestem subdi-
vision.
Mrs. Graves stated that she had visited the site and also told the Commission that two
adjacent pipestem lots had been recorded.
Mr. McClure stated that. this is the only way that FHA approval could be secured.
Mrs. Graves moved approval subject to Health Department and Highway Department approvab.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
The vote was 5-1. in favor of the motion. Mr. Rinehart voted against the motion and Mr.
Carr did not vote.
At this point Mr. Carr asked the staff to address the problem of approval of FHA lots
without restricted roads to Mr. Gordon Wheeler, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, through
a letter in the hopes that the Board could submit the suggestion to Farmers Home Administratiot
that they approve subdivisions with restricted roads.
UP-75-06. Stony Point Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to allow volunteer fire stations in the A-1 Agricultural Zone with
a special use permit by amending the County Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, stating that the staff recommends approval on the
basis that this seems to be a proper use in the Agriculture zone.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously
SP-488. Stony Point Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to locate a volunteer fire station on 8.02 acres zoned A-1 Agri-
cultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 20 North near its intersec-
tion with Route 600 in Stony Point. Property is further described as County Tax Maps
48, Parcel 18, part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Thomas Flint, the adjoining property owner, read a statement of opposition to the
request.
Mr. Ron Tweel, representing some of the residents of the Stony Point area, argued a-
gainst the particular location of the fire company, noting the adjoining school, the safety
of the children attending this school, and the poor ingress and egress to the station.
Mr. Charles Norton, representing Stony Point Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., stated that there
is a need for a fire department in that area, since there had been five fires in that area in
the last six months.
Mr. Rinehart questioned the size of the facilities.
Mr. Ted Armantrat stated that the facilities are designed so that the driveway goes
to Route 20. The structure is concrete slab with board and batten southside and with a cedar
shake roof. He also explained the parking facilities.
A member of the public suggested that a fence be built around the school.
Mr. Peter Davidson, a teacher at Stony Point School, stated that there seems to
be no problem with the children at the school.
Mr. Elwood Hall, representing the School Board, stated that since the location of the
entrance is known, there will be no problem with the children on the playground.
Mr. Flint questioned the noise factor of the fire siren.
Mr. Rinehart questioned the use of the 8-acres for fund raising projects.
Mr. Norton stated that he realized that the future of the fire department depended upon
the good will of the community.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with all appropriate state and county agencies;
2. Removal of only those trees where development is to take place;
3. Driveway and parking area to be compacted stone and to be approved by the planning
staff;
4. Signing to be limited to a wall sign only.
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
UP-75-07. Mr. Cole E. Digges, III, has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super-
visors to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow the sale of horse trailer
in the A-1 Agricultural zone with a special use permit.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Rinehart asked if this request was primarily a basis for a manufacturer's represen-
tative to be in the area.
Mr. Digges stated that at this time people purchasing horse trailers must purchase them
outside of the County of Albemarle.
Mr. Carr asked if this could be considered to be a home occupation.
Mr. Bolling of the County Attorney's office stated that this would be stretching the
meaning of the definition of Home Occupation.
Mr. Tucker stated that it was the opinion of the staff that the definition of home
occupation would apply only if the applicant stocked no trailers on his property - in other
words, no outside storage.
Mr. McClure moved deferral on the matter until the staff could work with the office
of the County Attorney to establish what legal direction could be taken on this matter.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ZMP-322. Don and Esther Burch have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisor!
to rezone 1.39 acres from A-1 Agricultural to M-1 Industrial. Property is situated on
the south side of East Market Street in the Woolen Mills area. Property is further de-
scribed as County Tax Map 77-A, Parcel C. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker stated in the staff report that the staff feels that a mistake was made in
the original zoning of the property, and that it should be changed to M-1, especially since
the property is surrounded by M-1 property.
�2
Mr. McClure moved approval. Mr. Gloecknex seconded the motion. It carried unanimously
ZMP-323. Draft Building Company has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of w
Supervisors to rezone 1.82 acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-1 Residential. Property is
situated on the east side of State Route 690, near Newtown. Property is described as
County Tax Map 70, Parcel 1, part thereof. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Hank Tiffany represented Draft Building Company. He stated that this is a 535-acre
tract in a black community, and he wants to intermingle $100,000 houses with FHA housing. He
also stated that he wished to raise cows on part of the property.
Mrs. Francis Steffen, a resident of the area, stated that people of low incomes could
not afford to live in this area. She also questioned the sewage system.
Mr. Wendall Jackson, of the Greenwood Citizens Council, stated that he was opposed to
the petition on the basis that it is not in line with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rinehart stated his concern about the drainage system.
Mr. Barksdale asked the exact location of the property and the party responsible for
maintenance.
Mr. Tiffany stated that Public Service Company, of which he is the sole shareholder,
would be responsible for maintenance. He said that the property is located near the water
tower.
Mr. Gloeckner asked about the lot size across the street.
Mr. Tiffany responded that the lot size was probably 2-acres.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he would have a problem approving lots of 8,200 sq. ft., but
could probably recommend 14-acre lots.
quest.
Mr. Rinehart stated that due to the size of the lot sizes, he could not approve the re -
Mr. Gloeckner stated that this is too many lots with too little frontage - he said that
this could mean a driveway over sixty feet.
Mrs. Graves moved denial.
Mr. McClure stated that he would have no problem with this request if the property could
be determined to be a part of the village cluster.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion to deny the request.
Mr. Barksdale offered the substitute motion of deferral until the lot size could be in-
creased and until one utility is provided.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
M
SP-489. Public Service Co. of Va., Inc. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to locate a central sewer and well system on 331.066 acres zoned A-1 Agri-
cultural. Property is situated on the north side of State Routes 796 and 250 West, and
the east side of State Route 690, near Newtown. Property is futher described as County
Tax Map 70, Parcel 1. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. McClure moved deferral on this request until ZMP-323 could be heard by the Planning
Commi s s ion .
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-474. Claude J. Bailey, Jr., has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervi-
sors to locate a central well on 26+ acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is sit-
uated on the east side of State Route 824. Property is further described as County Tax
Map 71, Parcels 43A abd 34A, part thereof. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, making the correction that the existing well draws
5-6 gallons of water per minute.
Mr. McClure moved approval of the request subject to the following conditions recom-
mended by the staff:
1. Only four (4) dwelling units shall be served by this proposed central well;
2. Health Dept. approval of the well and water;
3. County Engineering Department approval of pipe sizing to serve these four units.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1.
SP-475. David H. Turner has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to lo-
cate a Planned Community of 107.72 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated
on the north side of State Route 620, and the south side of State Route 618 near Wood-
ridge. Property is further described as County Tax Map 115, Parcels 22 and 23. Scotts-
ville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Evans, representing the applicant, explained the plan.
Mr. Cecil Gribble, an adjoining property owner, objected to the request on the basis
of road and well conditions.
Mrs. Graves questioned the proximity of the planned community to a shopping area.
Mr. Evans responded that the closed area was Woodridge.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. McClure asked that the matter be deferred until there had been ample time to study
the plan and the site.
Mr. Rinehart stated that it is a well -laid out plan and that he would have no qualms
about voting for approval.
Mr. Carr noted that it could be a premature plan due to pending county proposals.
Mr. Barksdale moved deferral on the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClure.
It passed unanimously.
days.
Mr. Carr asked that the staff bring this request to the Commiission in thirty
SP-479. Samuel A. Birckhead has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to locate a mobile home on 3.5 acres zoned A-1. Porperty is located on the south side
of Route 708, about 1 mile west of its intersection with Route 20 South. County Tax
Map 101, Parcel 57A, part thereof. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. L. T. Gibson, an adjoining property holder, asked the length of time the permit
would be good if the Planning Commission approved it.
Mr. Birckhead stated that he intended to rent the trailer.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rinehart reminded the Commission that there has been a policy in the past that
mobile homes for rental uses be permitted only in mobile home parks, and moved denial.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-481. American Pre -School Centers has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super
visors to locate a private educational institution on 2 acres zoned B-1 Business. Pro-
perty is situated on the west side of Route 29 North. Property is further described as
County Tax Map 45, Parcel 112-C, part thereof. Charlottesville Magisterial Dis-
trict.
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room.
Mr. William Der Giragossian, the applicant, explained the situation of staggered arriva
of the students. He stated that he felt there is a need for a school in this area.
Mrs. Graves questioned the setback.
Mr. Giragossian stated that there will be a chained link fence around the property and
that the playground is level.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff:
1. The upgrading of the existing access road to a minimum pavement width of 18 feet;
2. Improved existing decel lane and drainage structure on Route 29;
3. Allowance for a 20 foot fire lane free of any obstructions and parking along the
western, northern and eastern boudaries of the property based on recommendation of
the County Fire Marshal; do
4. Preparation of a site plan by a professional certified to/such work.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
9
Dr. and Mrs. Milton Edgerton have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to locate stabling facilities for light horses and ponies on 4.57 acres zoned R-1 Resi-
dential. Property is situated on the west side of Dogwood Lane in Farmington. Property
is further described as County Tax Map 60E-3, Parcel 4. Samuel Miller Magisterial Dis-
trict.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Bill Edgerton, representing his parents, showed the Planning Commission a plat of
the proposal, pointing out the screening offered on the property. He also gave the Commission
a letter of approval from Farmington, Inc.
Mr. Perkins, representing several adjacent property owners and residents of Farmington,
spoke against the request, presenting a petition with this opposition.
Mr. Kellogg, a resident of Farmington, stated his sentiments are with Mr. and Mrs.
Barker, whom Mr. Perkins represents.
Dr. Edgerton, noting that the signers of the petition are not in sight of the stable,
spoke concerning the plans for the stable, and noted that he thought horseswere permitted in
Farmington.
Mr. Rinehart spoke in favor of the request, noting that Farmington had always been con-
sidered to be part of the horse area of Albemarle County.
Mr. Gloeckner also stated support for the request, noting that there is even a bridle
path along the back of Farmington property.
Mr. McClure moved approval, subject to the conditions recommended by the staff:
1. Limit number of horses to three (3) on this property at any one time;
2. This permit to be approved for the private use and enjoyment of the present property
owners only;and
3. If this use becomes a nuisance, as determined by the zoning administrator or Health
Department, it shall be brought back to the Board of Supervisors for review imme-
diately.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 4-3. Messrs. Barksdale
Carr, and Tinsley voted against the motion.
New Business:
Review of a proposed amendment to the County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance:
Discussion and vote on this was deferred until Mr. Payne of the County Attorney's Office
could be present.
report.
Monticello Home Builders - final plat at Woodridge:
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of this plat of 16 lots after Mrs. Scala gave the staff
Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
l - /
Alwood Property Preliminary plat:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval; Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried by a
vote of 6-0. Mrs. Graves did not vote.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned.
4LHUImlphrey, Secr ary
9
June 4, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on the proposed zoning
map on June 4, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Vir-
ginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Wilbur
Tinsley; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Jack Rinehart. Absent were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr.
Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Ellen Craddock and Mr. Peter Easter.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
Mr. Humphrey told the members of the Commission that specific pieces of property to
be discussed would conclude the work on the proposed zoning map.
Hedgerow Corporation: Tax Map 45:
Mr. Humphrey stated that this was at the intersection of Routes 29 South and I-64.
He further stated that no commercial property had been extended except the IL zone. The
proposed zoning on this property is AGR-5, and the existing zoning is A-1.
Mr. Henderson Heyward explained to the Commmission that this property now has public
water drawing 60 gal/min. and that sewage will be available. He stated that Hedgerow
Corporation is asking that a portion of the property fronting on Route 29 South, to a
depth of 900 feet, be zoned commercial. He emphasized that the property would not be put
to bad use, and felt it to be a fair request, since it is sandwiched between two pieces
of commercial property.
Mr. Fishburne, attorney for Hedgerow Corporation, stated that there is a need for more
commercial property in that area. He restated that the property would be carefully and
sensibly used.
time.
Mr. Barksdale stated that this seems to be a logical extension of the commercial zone.
Mr. Rinehart stated that commercial zoning in this area would be premature at this
Mrs. Graves reminded the Commission that no commercial zoning has been extended.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the request be denied; Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which
carried with a vote of 4-1. Mr. Barksdale voted against the motion.
Four Seasons West:
Mr. Rinehart disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the
room.
Mr. Carr stated that this is one of the problem areas relating to drainage into the
reservoir.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the adjoining properties had received comparable zoning.
Mr. Barksdale moved that 14 of the acres be put in the RR zone and that the remaining
77 acres be put in the RMH zone.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 3-1. Mrs. Graves
voted against the motion.
Oak Hill developed and undeveloped areas:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the existing zoning is R-3 and that the proposed zoning is
R-3, single unit.
Mr. Jim Hill asked for comparable zoning (duplexes).
Mr. Humphrey stated that the character of this area is single family dwellings.
Mrs. Graves moved denial of the request.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he would not support the motion, since there is a plat
on file; he does not wish duplexes to be made non -conforming.
The motion carried by a vote of 3-2; Messrs. Carr and Barksdale voted against the
motion.
Martin Marietta Aggregates:
Mr. Humphrey stated that there is a desire to discuss the natural resource zone
He reminded the Commission that they originally felt that this is not the time to rezone
the property, since adjacent property input would be overlooked.
Mr. Clyde Gouldman, representing Martin Marietta, stated that the request is sensible,
due to the purpose of the zone. He stated that it protects the neighbors and that it per-
mits the property owner to come in with a request for a special permit to start activity
in the zone.
Mr. Rinehart stated that perhaps the text should be changed to include the ideas that
Mr. Gouldman suggested.
Mr. Gouldman stated that Red Hill is prime IG property and that this is M-2 land
which has been down -zoned to CVN. He suggested that Red Hill be shown on the map as IG
and that Parcels 13 and 18 have an overlay of NR. He asked that in the Rivanna District
that all 6 parcels belonging to Martin Marietta be zoned IG and have an overlay of NR zone.
Mr. Rinehart moved that in the Rivanna District that parcels 70, 59, 59A not be in-
cluded in the natural resource zone.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion.
Mr. Tinsley stated that he could not support the motion, since the land will not lend
itself to any other use.
Mr. Barksdale moved that Parcels 70, 59, 59A in the Rivanna District be placed
in the natural resource zone.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-1. Mr. Rinehart voted
against the motion.
Mr. Barksdale moved that TM 88, Parcel 13 be included in the natural resource zone.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the 40 acres parallel to the railroad not be included in the
IG zone.
Mr. Tinsley seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
R. A. Yancey Corporation:
Mr. Humphrey stated that this is presently zoned M-1 and is proposed to be zoned
IL with a special permit.
Mr. Yancey stated that he requests that TM 55-11B be zoned IG instead of IL, in order
that it can be conforming.
Mr. Rinehart moved that that portion of Parcel 11B that is east of the Exxon Station
and approximately 200 feet in depth be zoned IL and the remainder of the property be zoned
IG.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-1. Mrs. Graves
voted against the motion.
Mary Carter Greer Estate:
Mr. Humphrey stated that this is a request for comparable zoning RR.
Mrs. Graves reminded the Commission that this property was proposed to be zoned CVN,
which has been replaced by AGR-5.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the request for comparble zoning be denied.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Patric -a G. Simmons Property: Tax Map 69, Parcels 5B, 5C, and 5A:
Mr. Humphrey stated that all these parcels are zoned A-1, proposed AGR-5.
Mr. Simmons requested that the property be zoned such that the uses in A-1 be per-
mitted in AGR-5 with a special permit. He recognized that the only zone which permitted
the uses that he required for certain retail sales is CL.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the staff recommends AGR-5.
Mr. Carr told Mr. Simmons that a request for rezoning is comparable to applying for
a special use permit.
Mr. Simmons then requested comparable zoning.
Mr. Humphrey stated that other comparable requests had been denied by the Planning
Commission in their work on the proposed zoning ordinance.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Reservoir:
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that there have been requests to re -address the re-
servoir.
Mr. Carr told the Commission, Mr. Humphrey, and the public that the Planning Commis-
sion had originally decided that the reservoir would not be re -addressed, since it felt
that it had done everything it could do concerning this matter.
Mrs. Graves asked that the reservoir area be considered as a whole.
Mr. Barksdale moved that the issue of the reservoir not be re -opened.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-1. Mrs. Graves voted
against the motion.
Mr. Humphrey told the members of the Planning Commission that were present that the
proposed map is ready except for the placing of the country stores on the map in order
to make them conforming. He stated that the staff requests a vote on the map and for a
letter of transmittal to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the Planning Commission accept the proposed map, sub-
ject to the action of the meeting of June 4, 1975, and the addition of the country stores
to the map. He further moved that the staff correct any errors that they might find be-
fore sending it to the Board of Supervisors, and moved approval based on the action of the
Planning Commission in its work sessions.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr asked the secretary to poll the Commission on the motion.
Mr. Barksdale - "Aye."
Mr. Rinehart - "Aye."
Mr. Carr - "Aye."
Mrs. Graves - "As a participant in the preparation of this proposed Albemarle County
Zoning Map since its inception, first as an interested citizen and
lately as a member of the Planning Commission, I approach this moment
of truth with considerable trepidation.
While I recognize that the map we are viewing represents a consensus
of the Commission reached through compromise, sometimes with my
affirmative vote, I cannot resolve my difficulties with the following
items when confronted with them.
1. The sublimation of the Conservation Zone to the Agricultural 5
designation despite the stated objectives of the Comprehensives
Plan.
2. The re -affirmation of high density zoning on portions of the
reservoir, thereby jeopardizing future preservation of a viable
water supply.
3. The vanishing village cluster, also an integral part of the Com-
prehensive Plan.
4. Areas of heavy commercial zoning next to existing residential areas
with little or no special permit protection.
5. Areas of up -zoning with no notification of, or input from adjacent
property owners.
However, because I believe that this map, if not further eroded, still
represents an improvement over the existing zoning map, and because
I cannot countenance wasting the immense amount of time and money
spent on its preparation, I vote aye on this proposal."
Mr. Tinsley - "Aye."
Absent: Mr. Gloeckner, Mrs. Craddock, Mr. Easter, and Mr. McClure.
Mr. Carr deferred the discussion on the scenic highway setback until a later meeting.
The meeting was adjourned.
W-m- A
L. Humphrey, _ `I
June 16, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Monday,
June 16, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Piedmont College Auditorium, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs. Joan Graves;
Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Lloyd Wood-ex-officio. Absent was
Mr. David Carr, Chairman.
Mr. McClure, serving as chairman in Mr. Carr's absence, called the meeting
to order after he established that a quorum was present.
SP-490. Tom Forloines has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to locate a central well on part of 859.88 acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 623, south
of Boyd Tavern. Property is further described as County Tax Map 94,
Parcel 21. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report.
Mr. Forlines stated that there will be 39 dwelling units served by the
central well.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
staff:
1. Out -flow of central well(s) shall provide one gallon per minute per unit
after a 48-hour testing;
2. County Engineering Department to approve well testing results and water pipe
sizes to serve the subdivision; and
3. County Health Department approval of well location.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-0.
Mrs. Graves and Mr. Rinehart did not vote due to their late arrival.
Review of proposed amendment to the County Land Subdivision and Development
Ordinance:
Mr. Rinehart moved this be deferred until the end of the meeting.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Definition of Horse Trailer Sales, Limited - Intent to adopt:
Mrs. Scala stated that this proposed definition to the County Zoning Ordinance
would be permitted in the A-1 Agricultural Zone with a Special Use Permit; she
noted that it would read as follows:
d.Z
Sec. 16-44-2 HORSE TRAILER SALES, LIMITED:
Horse trailer sales to be limited to not more than three (3) horse trailers on the
property at any one time and they shall be lodged at all times in an enclosed structure
until they are sold.
Proposed use to be permitted in the A-1 Agricultural Zone with a Special User Permit:
Sec. 2-1-25(18.2) Limited Horse Trailer Sales.
Mr. McClure stated that he had not thought that it was the intent of the
Planning Commission to enclose all display items since a site plan would be requested.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the definition as was presented by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Earlysville Heights Section 4:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is the Last section of Earlysville Heights and
noted that it is not served by central water. She pointed out that the Health
Department has some problems with the soil and they recommend a central well.
A road bond and grading permit will also be required.
Mrs. Craddock asked that a different plat with larger lots be presented to
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Humphrey said that there are no plans for extension of water and sewer to
this area.
Mr. Rinehart stated that a preliminary plan approval is not binding but
moved deferral.
Mr. Tinsley suggested that the applicant revise the plat using 40,000
square feet lots and a central well. He seconded the motion for deferral.
The motion carried unanimously.
Stonehenge Phase 2:
Mrs. Scala stated that there has been a change of ownership and that
they have revised the plan to include 63 units, 3 less than originally proposed.
Mr. Cox stated that the first grading of the area will be done in one
week and that the area to be graded is the tennis courts.
Mr. Humphrey asked if the project will be recorded in phases or in total.
Mr. Cox told him that it would be done in total
Mr. Rinehart moved deferral until the County Attorney could review the
Homeowner's Agreements.
-3-
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion for deferral, which passed unanimously.
Cavalier Country Bank:
Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving
the room.
Mrs. Scala stated that this is not a new site plan, merely a request for
an extension of the time for the original site plan.
Mr. Gloecker asked the period of extension requested.
Mr. Wendell Wood, representing the bank, stated that a one year period
would be sufficient.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the request for a period of one year with
and additional 6-month approval to be issued administratively, if requested.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
John C. Shiflett plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that Virginia Department of Highways approval of the
entrances is recommended.
Mr. Gl(--,kner moved approval; Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
William C. Thacker, Jr., plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this subdivision is near Quandry Farm. She noted
that there had been two letters of opposition to this plat.
Mr. Jim Murray, Jr., asked for deferral on the basis that one of the
immediate adjacent landowners had not been notified.
Mr. Humphrey stated that it was not a requirement for adjacent property
holders to be notified, and that some of the real estate tax maps were out
of date.
Mrs. Craddock moved deferral.
Mr. Thacker stated that he would use joint driveways and asked that it
be heard as soon as possible.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Windrift preliminary plat:
Mr. McClure stated that there was a request by the applicant to defer the
action on this request until a later date.
Woodedge final plat:
Mrs. Scala gave the members of the Commission a copy of the soil study and
and a letter from the Health Department; it was also pointed out that the owner has
dedicated a 50' right-of-way.
Mr. Forloines stated that there is a building site on each pipestem lot.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Final approval of SP-490 for a central well;
2. Final Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrances;
3. Soil study will be forwarded to the He,:7th Departmnet for their use when
giving final approval of the septic systems;
4. The frontage was waived on lots 13, 14, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28 and 29.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Pantops Dodge site plan:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is the third location that has been proposed for
this business.
Mrs. Craddock suggested more planting on the site.
Mr. Harlan Manweiler explained the planting plan that Mr. Max Evans is working
on for the site.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. County Engineer approval of private water system;
2. Grading permit;
3. Health Department approval;
4. Planting plan prepared to staff's approval. If staff is not satisfied, it will be
brought back to the Commission;
5. Virginia Department of Highways approval.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
-5-
Peacock Hill preliminary plat Section 2:
Mrs. Scala explained the plat, stating that a special permit would be required
for the central water and sewer. She stated that the 3 access easements would also need
approval of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Barksdale inquired who will maintain the easements.
Mrs. Scala told him that the people who used them would be required to
maintain them. She stated that all lots will be single family units.
Mr. Baber, an adjoining property owner,asked for explanation of the use of
the property.
Mr. Frank Smith, representing Peacock Hill, explained the project,
noting such things as price range, the well system, and the plans for the open
space area.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following:
1. Approval of a special permit for sewer and water to serve this section;
2. Review by the Commission of the common open space plan, including recreation areas;
3. Review by the County Attorney of the Homeowners' Agreements, specifically in
I%W regard to the proposed easements.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Harry Disston preliminary plat:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving
the room.
Mrs. Scala noted in the staff report that the County Attorney should
review the the easement.
Mr. Humphrey pointed out that this is the first time for a request such
as this on the maintenance of the easement.
Mr. Payne stated that this should go through standard homeowner's association
agreement.
Mr. Davis, an adjoining property owner, opposed the subdivision, stating
that it would disturb the rural environment and also pointing out that the right-
of-way goes into the existing road.
Mr. Rinehart pointed out that it is in the property owner's right to
,, develop the property as he has proposed. He moved approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. A note on the plat must state that the 50' right-of-way is for the use of
parcels C, D, F, and G only;
2. Maintenance of the right-of-way will be the responsibility of the owners
of those parcels.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1. Mr.
Tinsley voted "No".
American Pre -School Centers Site plan:
Mrs. Scala stated that this site plan accompanies the special permit that
the Planning Commission had approved previously.
Mrs. Graves stated that the entrance should be improved.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of SP-481;
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval of deceleration lane at entrance.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion. it carried unanimously.
George Fitz -Hugh Preliminary Plat:
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Maintenance agreements for the 50' right-of-way.
2. No further usbdivision on this 50' right-of-way without Planning Commission
approval.
3. The ninety -degree turns should be straightened out.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Urology and orthopedic Additions to University of Virginia Medical Center AND
Law-GSBA Dining Facility:
Mr. Humphrey stated that the addition to the Medical Center was for
purposes of information only to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Rinehart noted that there should be adequate parking facilities in
the plans for the Law-GSBA Center. He moved approval of this site plan.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously by a vote
of 7-0 ( Mr. Gloeckner did not participate in the discussion or the vote ).
dL
Allwood property final plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this request had been withdrawn.
Totier Creek Park Master Plan:
Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for approval of the general layout.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Eve L. Wright Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that the preliminary of this plat had been approved by
the Board of Supervisors in June of 1974.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following:
1. Road Bond OR written acceptance of the construction of the restricted road
from the County Engineer;
2. County Attorney approval of the Homeowner's Agreements;
3. Final fee paid;
4. Note on the plat stating that there is to be no further subdivision without
Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Resolution to adopt Sec. 5-5-1 of County Zoning Ordinance in order to
clarify the side yard requirements for two-family dwellings that are to be sold:
Mr. Gloeckner moved that this be advertised for public hearings before
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Proposed amendments to Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development
Ordinance:
SECTION 1
(Preamble) Except as otherwise herein expressly provided,
any term contained herein which has an established
meaning at common law shall be deemed to have it common
law meaning and any definition thereof shall be deemed
declarative of teh common law and shall be construed
in accordance therewith.
Mr-15
SECTION 1-54 SUBDIVISION: The term "Subdivision" shall include:
1-54-1 The division of a parcel of land into two or more lots,
parcels or tracts such that:
(a) Any one of such lots, parcels or tracts is less
than five acres in area; or
(b) Any one of such lots, parcels or tracts does not
front on a road which is part of the State Highway
System or State Secondary Highway System;
1-54-2 The creation of any condominium regime.
1-54-3 The following shall not be deemed a subdivision:
(a) The sale or exchange of parcels between adjoining
landowners where such sale or exchange does not
create additional building sites; provided that any
new parcel created by such sale or exchange shall
be deemed to be a part of the adjoining property
and shall not be deemed a separate lot for purpose
of transfer of ownership; or
(b) The division of any parcel occasioned by an
exercise of eminent domain by any public agency; or
(c) The release of a portion of the security of any
mortgage or deed of trust; provided that any sale
of property pursuant to any mortgage or deed of trust
which would otherwise constitute a subdivision of
land shall be subject to the provisions of this
ordinance.
Mr. Rinehart moved that this be brought to public hearing for the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
June 30, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session the proposed
zoning ordinance on Monday, June 30, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office
Guilding, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Jack Rinehart;
and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-officio. Absent were Mr. Clifton McClure; Mr. Peter
Easter; and Mrs. Ellen Craddock.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Mr. Humphrey, the Director of Planning, gave a list of suggestions from
the Albemarle County Building Official to be included in the proposed ordinance.
These were textual changes that were unanimously agreed to by the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Gaves asked that the Planning Commission again discuss the PUD, especially
the addition of the CG and IG zones within this concept.
Mr. Humphrey explained the true concept of the PUD to Mrs. Graves, noting
that a Planned Unit Development is actually a self-contained development where
there is more than just residences; lie explained that more intense uses are
necessary within the PUD in order to have the true PUD.
Mrs. Graves moved that the CG and IG designations be removed from the
PUD concept.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he was seconding the motion in order to bring
it to vote.
The motion was not approved; the vote was 1-5 with Mrs. Graves only voting
in favor of the motion.
Mr. Humphrey explained the staff recommendation of the RPN zone to
proposed text and zoning map. He explained that this zone would allow for the same
type of development that is presently in Four Seasons and Peacock Hill. He
siad that the PUD is for new communities.
Mrs. Graves moved that action on this be deferred until the office of the
County Attorney could review this. ( attached is an explanation of the RPN zone. )
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
r
SUGGESTED ADDITION TO PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE
June 20, 1975
Division 3(A) Residential Planned Nei hborhood. District RPN-R1, RPN-R2,
RPN-R3, RPN-RT, RPN-RTM, RPN-RM
Sec 21- Purpose.
(a) The RPN District is intended to encourage and provide for variety
and flexibility in land development for residential purposes, and uses an-
cilliary thereto, that are necessary to meet those changes in technology
and demand and that will be consisted with the best interest of county and
the neighborhood in which it is located. It is the further intent to promote
economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, appropriate
and harmonious variety in physical development, creative design and a better
enviroment.
(b) An RPN District is defined for the purposes of these regulations
or a planned development for dwellings and related uses and facilities.
Sec. 21- Procedure for establishment.
(a) The board of supervisors may authorize the development of residential
planned neighborhoods within the Residential R-1, Residentia". R-2, Residential
R-3, Residential Townhouse K-T, Residential Townhouse -Multi -*amity FZM Districts
,..._ ,,_ ._ �_ ..,,a h, - r;n-, - s regiji rari by Se�1 iOn 15.1-
` Cr'Cci?:.Cl by tt!!_5 Uc.tltiuiil.c, GiLI,Gt .,^v��C,
:.. �_..� -� _ 1
431 of the Code of Virginia. Such authorization shall be given only to land areas
of ten acres or more.
(b) Additional land area may subsequently be added to an approved re-
sidential planned neighborhood if it adjoins or forms a logical addition to the
existing planned neighborhood. The procedure for an addition shall be the
same as if an original application were filed, and all requirements of this
section shall apply except the minimum acreage requirement as specified above.
(c) The applicant shall file an application for rezoning with the Zoning
Admin.strator, and shall furnish fifteen copies of plans, maps, studies, and
reports of all of the following:
1) Location of tract or parcel by vicinity map at a scale of not
less than one (1) inch equals 2.,000 feet, and land marks sufficient to pro-
perly identify the locations of the property.
2) An accurate boundary survey of the tract or plan iimi.t showing
the location and type of boundary evidence.
3) Existing and proposed roads, easements, and utlities; water
courses and their names; owners, zoning, present use of adjoining tracts, and
location of residential structures on adjoining tracts, if any.
4) Location, type and size of ingress and egress to the site.
5) Existing topographX accurately shown with a maximum of five (5)
foot contour intervals at a scale of not less than fifty (50) feet to the inch.
Other, maximum interval n;ay be required by the Planning Commission where topo-
graphic considerations warrant.
6) Flood plain limits which shall be established by current
soil survey engineering methods or study accomplished by the U. S. Corp.
of Engineers which have been accepted by the County of Albemarle.
7) Connection to proposed Virginia Department of Highways con-
strcution when necessary.
8) A minimum of two (2) datum references for elevations to be used
on plans and profiles and correlated, where practical, to U.S.Geological Survey
data.
9) In particular there shall be supplied a report identifying all
property owners within the area of the proposed district and giving evidence of
unified control of its entire area. The report shall state agreement of all
present property owners:
a. To proceed with the proposed development according to re-
gulations existing when the map amendment creating the PD district is passed,
with such modifications as are set by the Board of Supervisors and agreed to
by the applicant at the time of amendment;
b. To provide bonds, dedications, guarantees, agreements, con-
tracts, and deed restrictions acceptable to the Board of Supervisors for completion
of such development according to approved plans, and for continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas, facilities and functions as are not to be _provided,
operated or maintained at general public expenses; and such dedications, con-
tributions, or quarantees as are required for provision of needed public facilities
or services,; and,
c. To bind their successors in title to any commitments made under
(a) or (b) above.
In additio to, or as part of, the report described above applicants shall
submit a development concept plan for the development and shall submit detailed
pr:rposals in accord with (a) and (b) above as a basis for specific agreements
concerning plans, programs or instruments or specific modifications of details
of RPN or other zoning, subdivision or other regulation, where it is alleged by
the applicant that such modification serves public purposes to an equivalent: de-
gree.
Sec. 21- Uses permi'.-ted by right..
The following use;, shall be permitted by right in RPN Districts.
(a) Dwelling units in detached, semi-detached, attached or multi -stored
structures or any combinations there of.
(b) Non-residential uses of a religious, cultural, recreational character
to the extent they are designed and intended to serve the residents of the R1'N
development.
(c) Commercial convenience facilities designed and intended to serve the
residents of the RPN subject to the restrictions of Sec. 21-
(d) Schools, public.
(e) Fire and rescue stations.
/L
(f) Public utilities: Poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and
related or similar facilities; water, sewer and gas distribution lines.
(g) Nurseries and day care centers.
M Home occupations, Class "A"
Sec 21- Density permitted.
Overall residential densities shall not exceed the following number_ of
units per gross acre for each type of RPN zone, except as provided for in Sec.
21-
(a) Overall densities shall not exceed the following number of units
per gross acre.
1) RPN-R1: 1.00 dwelling units per gross acre.
2) RPN-R2: 2.17 dwelling units per gross acre.
3) RPN-R3: 3.48 dwelling units per gross acre.
4) RPN-RT: 6.00 dwelling units per gross acre.
5) RPN-RTM: 12.00 dwelling units per gross acre.
6) RPN-RM: 20.00 dwelling units per gross acre.
(b) The planning commission and the board of supervisors or its agent
may require, as a conditional prerequisite to approval of the development, that
the developer allocate space necessary for public purposes including parks,
schools, open space, playgrounds, or other public facilities reasonably attri-
butable to and occasioned by the particular development. where the particular
devebpment partially contributes, along with other development or developments
in the area, to the need for such facilities, the developer may be required
to contribute either land or funds, on a pro rata basis, wh .hewer may be the
more feasible, the portion of such facilities as is reasonably attributable to
the particular development. In situations where land is contributed, density cre-
dit will be given for such land based on the zone density permitted on a per
gross zrre based. Such unit density may be used on the gross site for development
at the discretion of the developer and approved by the county.
(c) Total commercial convenience uses, including parking, sh�,"! not exceed
a standard of three per cent of the total land area of the district,
or appropriate to the scale of the development, convenience establi.sh.T,!nts, and
neighborhood shopping centers. No commercial uses, nor any building, ''::voted pri-
marily to a commercial use, shall be built or established prior to th< residential
buildings or uses it is designed or intended to serve.
(d) The planning commission shall review the preliminary ply. submitted
by the applicant and shall determine the location within the county apro-
posed planned community and shall study the characteristi.ces of the erving
the proposed planned community. The planning commission shall then i_ne a
reasonable time which shall be sufficient to permit a technical st:. the county
to evaluate the proposed project and to present its reconuaendaticY necessary
utilities and other fL_ilities to protect other uses within the
No prelimi--
nary approval shall be given to any such project until the recommendations of
,the technical staff have been considered by the planning commission.
(e) Following the recommendation of the planning commission and the
approval of the board of supervisors of the preliminary plan, the applicant shall
furnish fifteen copies of a final plan of any section of not less then twenty-
five acres of the land shown on the preliminary plan, prepared or certified by
a duly licensed surveyor or engineer, showing the layout of all streets and roads,
the location of all buildings, parking areas, pedestrian ways, utility easements,
lot lines, open spaces, parks, recreation areas, school sites, playgrounds, the
proposed use of all buildings and the metes and bounds of all dedicated areas
and lots. The applicant shall also furnish a proposed deed of dedication including
restrictions safeguarding the use of open spaces and preventing encroachment upon
open spaces between structures. When the final plan and deed of dedication shall
have been approved as being in conformity with this section of the ordinance and
with any changes or requirements of the board of supervisors on the preliminary
plan, and it has been determined that the applicant has complied with the require-
ments of the subdivision ordinance of the county, whether or not it is a subdivision,
it shall be approved for recordation and recorded. Thereafter, no modification
may be made in the final plan except by an amended final plan submitted as provided
for the original plan.
Sec. 21- Same --Permitted by special use permit.
No special use permit is applicable in RPN district; the procedure for all
uses is as set out in the preceding section.
Sec. 21 Area rerp-,irements.
There shall be no r.t: ;imam percent lot
a RPN, but of the total gross acreage within
five percent of the site shall be developed
street parking.
Sec. 21- Setbacks.
coverage for the individual uses within
the development no more than seventy -
with lots, buildings, streets, and off -
There shall be no m-_nimum setback rc:yuirements within a RPN district;
except, that the area on the outer perimeter of the planned community shall adopt
the setback of the adjoining district; provided, that setback lines on primary,
stated Negeral highways shall be mainta:*.ned. The location of all structures shall.
be as shoran on final plans as required.
Sec. 21- Yards.
There shall be no minimum side and rear yard requirements; except, that no
single family detached dwelling and no addition to any single family detached
dwelling shall be erected within a distance of less than twenty -foul: feet from any
other single family dwelling.
Sec. 21-
I.T. `Its.
There sha . no height regulations, except wir_ ,_ RPN is located in the
airport district; airport district: regulations sl_: apply.
Sec. 21- Corner lots.
(a) of the two sides of a corner lot, the front shall be decried to be the
i
shortest of the two sides fronting on streets.
(b) The side yard on the side facing the side street shall be thiry feet
or more for both main and accessory builings.
Sec. 21- Accessory structures.
(a) Accessory buildings' aggregate area shall not exceed twenty-five
percent of the area designated as open space.
(b) Accessory buildings shall not be located closer than twenty-five
feet to any propety line.
Sec. 21- Open space.
Open space requirements shall be as set forth in article XXIII.
Sec. 21- Minimum off-street parking.
Minimum off-street parking requirements shall be as set forth in article
XXVI
Sec. 21- Signs.
Requirements for signs shall be as set forth in article XXV, Section 25-2;
25-3 and 2504 if applicable.
-2-
Mr. Carr noted to the Planning Commission that it seemed as if the time
has come when it is time for a vote on the concept of the proposed zoning ordinance
text, noting that certain items remained for legal review. He asked the staff
to bring to the attention of the Commission anyting it felt should be officially
approved, and asked the staff to incorporate into the text certain editing that
was needed.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the proposed zoning ordinance text be approved by
the Albemarle County Planning Commission subject to final approval and review by
the office of the County Attorney and the Albemarle County Planning Staff, and that
the ordinance in final form be passed on the Board of Supervisors for their consideration.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The secretary called the roll for vote on the motion:
Carr - "Aye"
Graves - "Aye"
Tinsley - "Aye"
Rinehart - "Aye"
Barksdale - "Aye"
Gloeckner - "Aye"
The motion carried unanimously.
Since there was further business, the meeting adjourned.
M
July 1, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held its regular meeting to
consider requests for rezonings and special use permits on Tuesday, July 1,
1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale;
Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley;
and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-officio. Absent were Mr. Clifton McClure, Chairman;
Mrs. Ellen Craddock; and Mr. Peter Easter.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Mr. Tucker suggested to the Commission that those applicants who had
requested deferral on their requests be heard first.
SP-499. Peacock Hill Limited Partnership has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate a central water and sewer system
on 336 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural ( Planned Community ). Property
is situated on the west side of Route 708, and the north side of I-64. Property
is further described as County Tax Map 73, Parcels 29, 29D, and 29F.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker explained that the applicant wished action deferred until a
later date.
Mr. Rinehart moved deferral. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner,
carried unanimously.
SP-500. L. I. Associates have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to locate a central well on 10 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural.
Property is situated on the north side of Route 706. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 80A. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission that the applicant had requested
deferral until August on this matter.
Mr. Rinehart moved deferral of action on this request. Mr. Gloeckner
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
OR
-2-
SP-501. American Pre -School Centers has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate a private educational institution
on part of 47.33 acres zoned B-1 Business. Property is situated on
the east side of Route 29 North. Property is further described as County
Tax Map 61, Parcel 135B. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker explained that the applicant had been unable to secure the
contract to lease or buy this property and was requesting an acceptanct of
withdrawal without prejudice.
Mr. Gloeckier moved that the Commission accept the request for withdrawal.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Discussion of the RPN ( Residential Planned Nieghborhood ) Zone:
Mr. Tucker stated that there was still some work remaining for the staff
and the county attorney regarding this zone.
Mr. Carr asked if the Planning Commission were ready to approve the concept.
Mr. Rinehart opened the discussion by stating that the concept is good
for the best land use. He stated that he felt higher density zones would take
care of themselves. He moved that the concept be approved by the Planning Commission
and that they review it after the details had been refined.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion for approval.
Discussion: Mrs. Graves asked if other zones, such as the agricultural
zones could be added at a later date.
Mr. Carr told her that they could, if the Planning Commission agreed.
The vote on the motion was unanimous to approve the concept.
ZMP-323 and SP-489 were deferred until the applicant could be present for
the discussion.
SP-475. David Turner:
Mr. Tucker stated that this request was a deferral in order that the staff
report could be reviewed and in order that some of the Planning Commission members
could visit the site.
Mr. Elmer Martin, an adjacent property holder, presented a petition from
the neighbors of that area in opposition to the request on the basis of roads,
and decreased property values.
Mr. Max Evans, represented the applicant. He explained the open space, the
low density, and the central well and the small pond on the plan. He noted that the
lots are such that the dwelling units would be several hundred feet apart.
-3-
He also stated that a good rural setting will be retained. He stated that
recreation facilities will be in the area and that the plan falls within
the Comprehensive Plan's designation for cluster. He pointed out that the
development would take 3-5 years for completion, and i.hat it would provide
Albemarle County with moderate income housing.
Mr. Gloeckner asked what was downstream from the dam.
Mr. Evans stated that this was farmland, with a stream running to the
east and north.
Mr. Carr stated that this is a good piece of property and that it is
desirable from the standpoint of development, especially since it is away from
the urban area. He acknowledged that the roads are inadequate for traffic,
yet the Highway Department may meet this need for improvements as demands for
improvements are made by the prospective property holders.
The chairman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rinehart spoke in favor of the plan, noting its designated recreation
area, the building site on east lot. He moved approval of the request.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mrs. Graves pointed out her concern about the one -lane bridge and the
lack of a nearby commercial area.
Mr. Rinehart amended his motion to include the conditions recommended
by the staff:
1. Approval of a special use permit for a central well system prior to any
development with an ability to provide 1 gallon/minute/unit;
2. Dwellings on lots with direct access to exiting state routes be setback 100 ft.
from road's right-of-way;
3. Dam for pond, when and if it is built, to be approved by the Thomas Jefferson Soil
and Water Conservation District;
4. All lots to have shared or common driveways, i.e., one driveway per two lots,
or as shown on the preliminary subdivision plan;
5. All streets built to Virginia Department of Highways standards;
6. All homeowners' agreements to be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's
Office.
7. Only those areas where roads, driveways, pedestrian wlakways, active recreation,
and structures are to be located shall be disturbed with grading operations;
8. Recreation areas shall include one-half acre devloted to tot lots and two acres
acres devoted to playfields, basketball courts, etc.
store.
Mr. Gloeckner stated again the need for a commercial area, even a convenience
Mr. Evans stated that such a development should encourage commercial development.
The motion carried unanimously.
ME
ZMP-323. Draft Building Co.
Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that this item had been deferred
in order that the applicant could increase the lot size . He stated that the
applicant wished to use 8,500 sq. ft. for the lot size rather than a larger size
to keep from re -advertising. Mr. Tucker stated that SP-489 involved the same
property.
Mr. Tiffany stated that he did not have the letter that he had hoped
to have from the SCC. He noted that the nine lots could not be further subdivided.
Mr. Rinehart questioned what recourse the lot owner would have in regard
to septic systems if this request proves to be ineffective.
Mr. Tiffany emphasized that Public Service is a public utility sznctioned
by the SCC.
Mrs. Graves reminded the Commission that the staff had recommended denial
because of teh Comprehensive Plan. She further pointed out that this property
is proposed to be zoned AGR-5.
Mr. Tucker reviewed the staff comments, noting that denial had been recommended
on the basis of the proposed density.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the lots are too small and there is no 25 foot
dedication. He stated that this puts too many units too close together.
Mrs. Graves agreed with Mr. Gloeckner.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Barksdale stated that he thoughh the the lot size should be increased
to 12,500 sq. ft. and then the use would be good for the land.
Mr. Tinsley stated that the development is out of character with the farming
area.
Mr. Tiffany stated that the lot sizes could be increased, but that he would
have to re -advertise, but he was willing to do so.
Mrs. Graves moved denial of the request.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Barksdale stated the need for low cost housing in the area and did
not seem to think the development totally out of character with the area.
Mr. Carr stated that the lot size is no consistent with good planning.
Mr. Tiffany said that there is no zone which meets what the Planning
Commission recommends.
-5-
The vote was 5-1 to deny the request. Mr. Barksdale voted against the motion.
SP-489. Public Service Co. of Virginia:
Mr. Rinehart moved this request be denied due to the fact that the Planning
Commission had just voted against the request for ZMP-323.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ZMP-324. Dennis G. and Betty M. Stokes have petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.22 acres from R-2 Residential
to B-1 Business. Property is situated on the east side of Hydraulic Road.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 36, part thereof.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Dennis Stokes stated that there are 2, not 3, vacant dwellings on the
property. He stated that he felt this pooperty could be a buffer between residential
and commercial zoning in the area. He stated that a proposed use - such as a dental
office, would not create much additional traffic on Route 743.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the proximity of the building to the property line.
Mr. Stokes told him that the residence is approximately 175-185 feet from
Route 743.
Mr. William Grimm stated that the Stokes residence is at the back of the property on
the high point of the ground.
Mr. Tucker stated that the property is proposed to be zoned RM.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the Highway Department may not approve a road
connection on the sharp bend on Route 743.
Suggesting that the request is premature, Mrs. Graves stated that B-1
Zoning means more than just office space.
Mr. Rinehart acknowledged that the property could support a heavy use
density, yet the ingress and egress would be a real problem because of the heavy
traffic on Route 743. He noted that the staff had recommended denial of the request,
and put this recommendation into the form of a motion before the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion to deny the request for the same reasons.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
There was no discussion on the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
ZMP-325. Eldridge M. Pitman has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to rezone 5 lots from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business.
Property is situated on the north side of Route 250 East. Property
is further described as County Tax Map 79A-1, Block C, Lots 13, 14, 15, 16,
and 17. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff .report.
Mr. Barksdale questioned the purpose of the rezoning - he wanted to know
if this would make the use conforming.
Mr. Tucker stated that this was the understanding of the staff.
Mr. Pitman siad that lot 13 is part of the driveway, lot 16 is used for
parking, lot 17 has his residence. He asked that all lots be approved for rezoning,
not just those recommended;.qy the staff.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval for lots 13, 14, 15, and 16 - he stated that
the house should not be zoned B-1.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. There was no discussion on the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
ZMP-326. Salasco Service Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to rezone 13.95 acres from R-2 Residential to R-3 Residential.
Property is situated on the east sdie of Hydraulic Road. Property is
further described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 36, part thereof. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. He read the letter from E. E. Thompson,
Executive Director of Albemarle Service Authority regarding sewer capacity for the
property.
Mr. John Dezio, representing Salasco Service stated that it is a subsidiary
of the locally owned Charlottesville Savings and Loan. He stated that the purpose
for rezoning will be with less density ( 10-12 dwelling units per acre ) than
that zoning which is proposed for the property. As a practical matter, he stated,
the land cannot support a density of more than 16 dwelling units per acre. He
also noted that Salasco has considered teh highway plans for Route 743.
Mr. William H. Grimm, a member of the board of Directors for Salasco,
told the Commission that Salasco Service Corporation was formed for the purpose
of owning and developing land. He noted the need for houses in the $40,000
and down price range for Albemarle County. He stated that though the proposed
zoning will be down zoning, Salasco will not object, but they need the rezoning
application approved wince money is obviously involved.
Mr. Barksdale questioned the time involved in commencing to build.
-7-
Mr. Grimm stated that Salasco wishes to begin construction within the
next six months for ten dwelling units.
Mr. Carr reminded Mr. Grimm and the Commission that the rezoning is
to be considered under the existing ordinance, not the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Barksdale stated that a site plan takes precedence over any zoning
that might come into effect.
Mr. Dezio again stated that the property cannot be practically developed
into a density of more than 16 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Carr pointed out that sewer is not available at the present for this
sort of development.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that it was his opinion that even eight dwelling units
is too great a density for the property considering the visibility on Route 743.
Mr. Rinehart agreed with Mr. Gloeckner and moved that the petition be denied.
Mr. Barksdale questioned if the matter has been discussed with the Highway
Department.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the property is not wide enough to accommodate
`%W a de-cel land and seconded Mr. Rinehart's motion.
Mr. Carr accepted the motion and the second and closed the public hearing.
He further said that he was swayed by the fact that this is a local organization
applying for this request and also pointed out that they would attempt to build
some moderate income housing.
The Commission voted with a count of 5-1 to deny the request.
ZMP-327. Edward C. Dudley has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to rezone 3.966 acres from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business.
Property is situated on the east side of route 742 ( Avon Street Ext. ).
Property is further described as County Tax Map 90, Parcel 35B.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Dudley was represented by his son who stated that the traffic flow in
that area is not bad. He pointed out that there are no recreational facilities
south of town, and if the property were rezoned, his father planned to build a
bowling facility, which they considered to be an asset to the community.
Mr. Moyer, speaking for the applicant, explained how he felt a bowling
facility would be a good use for the property.
M.r Rinehart stated that the tract of land is very narrow at the road.
Mr. Dudley said that the property is approximately 100 feet x 300 feet.
-8-
Mrs. Isabelle Fernsworth, an adjoining property owner stated her opposition
to the application on the basis of devaluation of her property and noise factor.
Mr. Tinsley questioned the parking facilities that will be available once
the bowling alley is built. He stated his concern regarding room for these spaces.
Mr. Dudley stated that parking is part of the site plan, which is being
prepared by Mackie Engineering.
Mrs. Graves asked about parking facilities during tournament bowling.
Mr. Dudley stated that there will be seven parking spaces per lane, which
meets the Brunswick reugirements.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rinehart stated that he has qualms about a facility on this size parcel,
though he has no objection to such a facility on Avon Street Ext. He said that
he felt this to be a poor use for the property.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if there is available central water and sewer.
Mr. Tucker told him there is not.
Mr. Dudley stated that they have applied for a sewage treatment facility.
Mr. Tucker explained that what Mr. Dudley means is that they will tie into
the treatment facility interceptor.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that it will be a few years before there will
be a facility for sewage in this area.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Graves moved denial of the request. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion; it carried unanimously.
ZMP-328. Caleb Stowe has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to rezone 0.717 acres from M-1 Manufacturing to B-1 Business. Property
is situated on the east side of Berkmar Dirve. Property is further described
as County Tax Map 61U, Parcel 7A. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Tom Scala, representing the applicant, stated that he had nothing further
to add.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the rezoning request. The motion, which
carried unanimously, was seconded by Mr. Barksdale.
M
SP-483. Clay Smith has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
to locate a gift, craft and antique shop on 5 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural.
Property is situated on the north side of Route 250 East near Boyd Tavern.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 94, Parcel 28C, Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Barksdale asked if this would make an existing use conforming.
Mr. Tucker stated that it would.
Mr. Tinsley moved that the request be deferred until the applicant or his
representative could be present.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-491. Kenas L. and Joyce C. Shifflett have petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 2 acres zoned
I%W A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on Route 776, about 4.0 miles
northwest of Earlysville. Property is further described as County Tax
Map 18, Parcel 8A, part thereof. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Barksdale asked if the conditions were applied if the trailer would
have to be relocated.
Mr. Shifflett stated that it would not have to be moved..
Mr. Tucker stated that the trailer is in technical violation, only,
since the applicant is not living in it.
Mr. Shiffeltt stated that there was no other place to set the trailer when
it was purchased. He also noted that there is a well and septic system on the property.
Mr. Rinehart stated that usually if the applicant has plans to build a
house, the time period of the special use permit is shortened.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval to the special use permit with the conditions
recommended by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the permit be issued for 3 years with an additional
2 years by administrative approval if necessary.
Mr. Barksdale amended his motion to include Mr. Gloeckner's suggestion.
Mr. Carr stated that he was voting for approval only on the basis that a
house is to be built.
M
-10-
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with the
following conditions.
1. Approval from appropriate state and local agencies;
2. Minimum setback from Route 776 of 100 feet;
3. Minimum side yard setback of 25 feet and rear yard setback of 35 feet;
4. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile home;
5. Mobile home shall not be rented under any circumstances;
6. Time limit of 3 years with administrative approval for two additional years, if needed;
7. Screening from Route 776 approved by the Zoning staff;
8. This permit is non -transferable.
SP-498. Richard E. Bailey has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to locate a central well on 27.14 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural.
Property is situated on the north side of Route 676. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 42, Parcel 12D. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing since there were no public comments.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the
staff:
1. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies;
2. County Engineering Department's approval of the location and sizing of the water lines;
3. Any additional use of this well, other than 5 rental units, will require an
additional special use permit.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-503. ITT -United States Transmission System, Inc., has petitioned the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to lcoate a micro -wave tower on 2.06
acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of
Route 633. Property is further described as County Tax Map 97, Parcel 4A.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Walter Seahl, representing the applicant, explained the use of the
micro -wave radio tower, stating that this is an un-manned station once the construction
is complete; He noted that there will be two lights on the tower.
Mr. Huggins, an adjoining property owner, wanted to know the location of the
tower and questioned if Route 648 would be used.
Mr. Seahl told him that Route 648 would not be use, even for construction purposes.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
-11-
Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Federal Aviation Administration approval.
2. Removal of the old tower.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
New Business:
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that a resolution of intent to adopt the
following definitions under Article 16 of the County Zoning Ordinance:
16-4.1 AGENT: The Director of Planning for Albemarle County, Virginia, who
shall act on behalf of the governing body of Albemarle County, Virginia.
16-7.1 ARCHITECT: A person licensed to practice as an architect in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
16-30.1 ENGINEER: A person licensed to practice as a Professional Engineer
in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
16-48.1 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: A person registered in one or more states as a
landscape architect or a member of the American Society of Landscape Architects.
16-67.1 PLANNER: LAND PLANNER: A person who is either registered as such in
one or more states or who is a member or meets the standards of the American
Institute of Planners.
16-86.1 SURVEYOR, LAND: A person registered as a certified land surveyor in
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
After a lengthy discussion of the definitions, it was noted that any points
regarding these definitions should be brought up at the joint meeting of the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors on the next evening.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
IM