HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 41-95August 5, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting
on Tuesday, August 5, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton
McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter
Easter; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley;
Mrs. Joan Graves. Absent was Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
The Chairman established that a quorum was present and called
the meeting to order.
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 -ounty Tax Map 89, Parcel 80A.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker stated that there are two wells that serve 16 units.
One of the wells serves 13 units, and the other serves three units. Both
have an output of twenty gallons of water per minute, but they have not
been tested for the normal 48-hour period. There is a well completion
report from 1970, when the well was dug. The applicant wants to come
into compliance - he was not aware that a special use permit was needed
for a well.
Mr. Brown, the applicant, told the Commission that the wells have
been in operation for five years and a cost would be involved if he
had to provide extra storage. He stated that he had asked the residents
of the thirteen units to submit reports on availability of water, and
seven reports had been returned.
Mr. Tucker stated that all seven reports had been favorable.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Tinsley asked if the well was originally approved by the
Health Department, and Mr. Brown told him that it was.
Mr. Carr questioned the storage capacity.
Mr. Tucker explained that the County Engineer determines if
storage capacity is needed.
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Well output of one gallon per minute per unit;
2. Any additional units served by this well will require an additional
special use permit;
42_
-2-
3. Additional special permit be obtained for second well;
4. Health Department approval, if needed;
5. County Engineer's approval of storage capacity.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Brown stated that he would hate to have storage capacity required
if the water supply is sufficient.
Mr. Easter then explained the motion to Mr. Brown.
The vote on the motion for approval was unanimous ( 8-0 ).
Mrs. Graves did not vote due to her late arrival.
SP-502. Virginia Marie Walker has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 22.58 acres zoned
A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 616.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 80, Parcel 74.
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker explained that this request had been deferred in order
that the applicant could be present. He reviewed the staff report for
the Planning Commission. He said that there had been an objection to
the location of this mobile home from Mr. Angus Arrington, reminded the
Commission that Mr. Arrington had attended the last meeting, and read
the letter of objection from Mr. Arrington.
Miss Walker, the applicant, stated that the property on which the
mobile home would be located belonged to her aunt. She said that
the single-family dwelling on the property is rented. The mobile
home was purchased from an individual, who did not tell her that she
needed a special use permit to locate a mobile home anywhere other than
in a mobile home park. The water and septic system of the single-family
dwelling would be used for hook-ups.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that some natural screening prevents vision
from the road.
Mrs. Thelma Tyler, sister of the applicant, said that she did not
see how placing a mobile home in that area would devalue the property of
the Arringtons.
Ms. Linda Stanton, citizen, asked how many other houses were nearby.
Mr. Tucker told her that there are four.
Miss Walker said that the Health Department has viewed the site
and agreed to the site she wanted.
Mr. Tinsley said that he had viewed the site, and asked, since
there are quite a few acres there, if she would be willing to put the
mobile home behind the single family dwelling.
4--i
-3-
Miss Walker stated that she would not be willing to do this.
Mr. Easter moved deferral until the site could be viewed.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr reminded the applicant and the Planning Commission
that the public hearing will remain open.
The Planning Commission deferred action on items c-f under
"Deferred Items" until the end of the meeting.
ZMP-329. William A. and Shirley L. Stanton have petitioned the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 11.5 acres from
RS-1 Residential to A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on
the north side of Route 250 West and Route 796 at their western
intersection. Property is further described as County Tax Map
68, Parcel 52A. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval of the request. Mr. Gloeckner seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
ZMP-330. Peter Sargent has petitioned the Albemarle County Board
of Su�.,,rvisors to rezone 30.14 acres from A-1 Agricultural to
R-3 Residential. Property is situated on the south side of
Route 250 East. Property is further described as County Tax Map
94, Parcel 8A, part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, noting that tri-plexes and
quad-plexesused to be included in the A-1 Zone with a special use
permit, but that the Board had removed them from the ordinance in 1970.
Mrs. Craddock asked if the applicant could be accommodated on
his wish for a tri-plex without rezoning thirty acres.
Mr. Tucker stated that this would take an amendment to the ordinance
and reminded Mrs. Craddock that it had been a part of the ordinance
originally.
Mr. Sargent stated that he already has one unit, and now wishes
to have a duplex.
Mrs. Graves asked if these are the same units that were mentioned
in the minutes of December 4, 1972 when the request for SP-223 was presented.
Mr. Sargent said that they are.
-4-
Mr. Carr pointed out that there must have been insufficient inform-
ation in 1972 regarding this matter.
Mr. Barksdale pointed out that a lot of money has been invested,
though.
Mr. McClure asked if the applicant could apply for a variance.
Mr. Payne said that he could, but that the Board of Zoning Appeals
probably will not be receptive to a self-imposed hardship.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. McClure moved that the request be denied.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ZMP-331. J. W. Writght, Jr. and Frank A. Keasler have petitioned
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 0.68 acres from
R-2 Residentidl to B-1 Business. Property is situated on the south side
of Route 250 West near Ednam Village. Property is further described
as County Tax Map 59D(2), Parcel 10, part thereof. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, reading a letter from the
Institute of Textile Technology stating its opposition to the request.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he had no conflict of interests in this
matter though the plat presented did have his name on it - the plat
that is presented is an old plat on which the property is shown.
Mr. Rinehart said that he wanted to remind the Commission of the
blind curve in the area.
Mr. Wright said that under proposed zoning he would have no
objection to property being re -zoned CO.
Mr. Max Evans stated that the building that would be proposed
would have architecture similar to phase II of Ednam Village.
Mrs. Graves asked if the scenic highway setback could be met
with the building that would be built.
Mr. Evans stated that this setback could be met.
Mrs. Seldon, on behalf of the Scenic Highway Committee of
Citizens for Albemarle, suggested that it could be a premature
proposal She said that the residnets of Ednam Village think that the
parking will be in the rear of the building. She stated further concern
for strip development on Route 250 West. She requested that action
on this matter be deferred.
-5-
Mr. Jerry Short of the Ednam Forest Homeowners Association
requested deferral until the Association could meet on this problem.
He stated that they wanted to study the water supply.
Mr. Coty, owner of Ednam Village, stated that she was not aware
of the discontent among the citizens of Ednam Village concerning the
office site.
Mrs. Averly requested that the matter be deferred.
Mr. Evans stated that he had not done a site plan for the property,
but that this is the only possible use for the property.
With the exception of the curve of the road, he sees no real problem
with the property if the building is done to a residential scale.
Mr. Tinsley suggested underground parking for building.
Mr. Evans stated that he had done a grading study on the site
and that the final site plan would be very close to this study.
Mr. Easter asked for the approximate location of the building.
Mrs. Graves noted that anything permitted in the B-1 zoning
could be built on this property if it is rezoned.
Mr. Carr found the use to be compatable with the property, if
properly done. He only questioned if there were adequate land.
Mr. McClure asked if anyone knew the plans for Birdwood. He
also asked the applicant if he would be willing to have in the deed
restrictions that the property be limited to office buildings in the
proposed CO zoning and in the existing zoning.
Mr. Wright stated his willingness to do this.
Mrs. Craddock suggested deferral until the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation could study the curve and explain their
plans for the road.
Mr. Easter voiced similar concern. If the same effect as the
front part of Ednam can be achieved, he had no objection. However,
he wondered if if can be done on such a small tract of land.
Mrs. Coty stated that the road that is to be opened was originally
a construction road. She asked how rigorous the restrictions were then.
Mr. Evans stated that according to Robert Warner of the Highway
Department, it is an existing permanent access.
Mr. Tinsley suggested that perhaps part of this tract would be
needed for highway improvements.
Mr. Evans said that the curve is past this property.
4-c,,
Mrs. Craddock said that perhaps the Planning Commission should
have written comments from Mr. Warner that this is a permanent road.
Mr. Tewksbury of the Institute of Textile Technology again
stated conern about the curve.
Mr. Easter said that he would like to see the proposal work
and if done properly, it would not be a detriment to the surrounding
area. He said that he was pleased that Mr. Wright would tie down
the use with deed restrictions.
Mr. Rinehart suggested that it would be helpful to see a schematic
site plan and asked for input form the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation concerning the site.
Mrs. Graves asked if the deed restrictions will constitute
conditional zoning.
Mr. Payne stated that it will not, but that it will be out of the
County's power to enforce.
Mr. Evans stated that applicant's willingness to submit a site
plan.
Mrs. Craddock moved deferral until the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation could have an opportunity to study
the highway, the exists and entrances. She suggested that a site plan
would be helpful
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-506. Hickory Ridge Limited has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to lcoate a central well on part of
517.14 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural (Planned Community). Property
is situated on the northwest side of Route 665. Property is
further described as County Tax Map 30, Parcels 36, 37, and 37A,
and County Tax Map 18, Parcels 14 and 14A. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. He showed the Commission a
mosaic of the 6 lots that would use the well.
Mr. McClure asked if there would be provisions for storage.
Mr. Browne said that there will be 100 gallons of storage at
the well, and 50 gallons of storage at each house. He pointed out
,4,, that each owner will have 1/6 interest in the well and that all the
property owners will have to maintain the well.
Mrs. Sargent asked how many wells will be in the whole compleX.
-7-
Mr. Browne explained that this well is for the cluster unit.
Each individual dwelling will have its own well.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Rinehart, stating that this is standard, moved approval,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval of water;
2. County Engineering Department approval of water lines location
and sizing.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-508. John H. Flick has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 2+ acres zoned
A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of
Route 643. Property is further described as County Tax Map 46,
Parcels 102 and 106, part thereof. Charlottesville and
Rivanna Magisterial Districts.
�%W Mr. Tucker gave the staff report and read a memo from Mr. Clarke
regarding his conversation with Dr. Iachetta.
Mr. Flick explained to the Planning Commission where he planned
to locate the mobile home.
Mr. Gait, an adjacent property holder, opposed the location of
this mobile home and based his concern on the fact that it will set
a precedent in the area and property will be devalued.
Dr. Iachetta stated his concern for the technical requirements
that would need to be met. He was especially concerned about the waste
waters.
Mr. Tait explained that the mobile home would be visible from
his residence in the winter, not the summer.
Mr. Carr said that his major concerns are for the technical
requirements, especially Health Department approval. He also noted
that the property could fall in the flood plain. He asked the staff
if the Planning Commission could ask the Health Department and the
County Engineer to view the site.
Mrs. Craddock stated that she did not wish a precedent for
mobile homes to be set in this area.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the Engineering Department view
the site and determine the level of the land, even run a perc test
if necessary.
W10
Mr. Rinehart said that before the Planning Commission took
action, it should be determined if it is even feasible to fit a
mobile home on the property. He too, suggested site inspection.
Mr. McClure moved for deferral.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-509. B.P.O.E. No 389 has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to locate a fraternal lodge on 6.0 acres
zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side
of Route 1421, just west of its intersection with Route 20 North.
Property is further described as County Tax Mpa 78, Parcels 58,
part thereof, and 58A. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Messrs. Gloeckner and McClure disqualified themselves from the
discussion and the vote.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report.
Mr. Tinsley asked the location of the entrance.
Mr. Tucker told him that it is on Old Route 20.
Mr. Harry J. Brown, representing the applicant, showed the plat
on which they have an option to purchase and submitted a letter stating
what is proposed to be done.
Mr. Jim Greene, an adjacent property owner, stated his concern
for the location due to his family's loss of privacy, the traffic situation,
and the drainage problem that would be generated. He stated that he had
offered to purchase part of the property in order that he would be able
to establish some sort of buffer, thus not having the land belonging to
the Elks on two sides of his property. He further stated that he had
received no notice of the meeting.
Mr. Roudabush stated some of the plans for the property. He
said that he does not feel that the lodge will be detrimental to the area.
He said that Lamber, the architect, will determine the location of the
lodge.
Mr. Ken Hoy, also an adjacent property holder, wanted to know the
location of the swimming pool, tennis courts, etc. in the interest of
his privacy. He asked if board fenceing could be used as a buffer.
Mr. Roudabush pointed out that a site plan has not yet been developed.
Mrs. Graves addressed the question of noise and lighting requirements .
am
Mr. Rinehart made a motion to defer action until a time
schedule for outside activities could be presented. He also suggested
that a schematic location of the building be presented.
Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Proposed amendment to the R-2 Residential Zone of the County Zoning
Ordinance in order to clarify the side yard requirements
for two-family dwellings that are to be sold:
Mr. Tucker explained the need for this in the ordinance.
Mr. McClure suggested that two words should be omitted from the
addition.
Section 5-5-1 was unanimously approved to read as follows:
Side. The minimum side yard for each main structure shall be ten
(10) feet or more. For a two-family dwelling, the side yard shall be
a minimum of ten (10) feet at each end of each structure.
Proposed amendment to the R-2 and R-3 zones concerning accessory
buildings:
Mrs. Graves addressed the fact that in the proposed ordinance
there was some sort of buffering established to lower density zones.
She said that she wanted this included in these amendments, in view of
the fact that the proposed zoning ordinance might not become a reality.
Mr. Easter moved that the amendments be approved to read as follows
(Mrs. Graves seconded the motion):
Sec. 5-1-1. Accessory buildings as defined; however, garages and other
accessory structures such as carports, porches and stoops attached to
the main building shall be considered part of the main building. No
accessory building may be closer than five (5) feet to any property
line. There shall be no setback requirements for detached garages or
carports which are incidental to single-family dwellings, two-family
dwellings or townhouses. Where the R-2 zone abuts a lower density
zone, the five (5) feet setback shall be adhered to.
Sec. 6-1-1. Accessory buildings permitted as defined; however, garages
and other accessory sturctures, such as carports, porches and stoops
attached to the main building shall be considered part of the main building.
No accessory building may be closer than one (1) foot to any property
line. There shall be no setback requirements for detached garages or
carports which are incidental to single-family dwellings, two-family
-10-
dwellings or townhouses. Where the R-3 zone abuts a lower density
zone, the five (5) foot setback shall be adhered to.
The motion carried by a vote of 8-0. Mr. Carr did not vote.
Amend Section 1 - Definitions - Words and Terms AND
Amend Section 1-54 which is rewording of the definition for Subdivision
Mr. Payne briefed the Planning Commission, citing the Haynes -
Anderson case, stating that these two sections have been suggested as
additions to the zoning ordinance in order to alleviate problems that
arise often.
A lengthy discussion followed on the particular ramifications
of adopting these. Mr. McClure pointed out that a property owner not
on a state road would be at the mercy of his neighbors. This is
his primary concern.
Due to the late hour and all the particulars that needed to
be addressed in these two sections, action was deferred.
Approval of May 5 minutes:
Mr. Easter moved approval; the motion was seconded by Mr. Barksdale,
which carried unanimously.
Approval of July 29 minutes:
The Commission unanimously approved these minutes.
A report was presented from the Albemarle Taxpayers
concerning their survey of the citizens of the county regarding the
proposed moratorium on the Rivanna Reservoir and the Watershed area.
This was only briefly discussed, since the number of citizens
polled was not given. The results could not be conclusive and considered
by the Planning Commission unless they knew the facts.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
5%
August 12, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday,
August 12, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Clifton
McClure; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; and Mr. Peter Easter. Absent were Mr. David Carr,
Chairman; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
In Mr. Carr's absence, Mr. McClure assumed the chairmanship and established
that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
SP-502. Virginia Marie Walker.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that this was a request for a mobile home
that had been deferred in order that members of the Planning Commission could visit
the site.
I%W Mr. Rinehart said that he had visited the site that day with a member of the
Planning Staff. He noted that there are five houses in the immediate area, one of
which is a mobile home. Mr. Rinehart stated that there is an additional mobile home
further down the road. It was his opinion that there should be no problem granting
this request as long as the mobile home was placed in the proper location, which he
suggested should be in the rear of the outbuildings or back of the house. He moved
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval from appropriate state and local agencies;
2. Setback from Route 616 of 100 feet and setback from the existing right-of-way
into the property of 60 feet;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of mobile home;
4. The mobile home is not to be rented under any circumstances;
5. This mobile home is issued to the applicant and is non -transferable;
6. Screening, if necessary, to be determined by the Zoning staff;
7. Time limit of 5 years.
Mr. Tinsley stated that he also thoughtthe setback should be as proposed
by Mr. Rinehart in order that the adjacent property owners would not be able to
see the mobile home.
Mr. Barksdale suggested that the drawing Mr. Rinehart had made on the site
should accompany the folder on the special use permit when it went to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
-2-
SP-509. B.P.O.E. No. 389.
Messrs. Gloeckner and McClure disqualified themselves from the discussion and the
vote by leaving the room.
Mr. Rinehart assumed the chairmanship for this item.
Mr. Tucker stated that this item had been deferred in order that the
applicant could present a schematic site plan of how the site would be used it
the special permit were granted.
Mr. Sandy Lambert, architect, explained the location of the clubhouse,
the outside activities' location, and the parking facilities. He pointed out
that this site could be used because it is clear of trees. The remainder of the
site has trees that the applicant wishes to keep if possible.
Mr. Rinehart stated that this is a good use for the property, as long as
it is made to be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. He said
that he has viewed the site, and that it would appear to him that the plans for
the outside recreational facilities should be on the opposite end of the site from
what is on the schematic site plan.
Mr. Lambert reminded the Commission that the plan is only a schematic
and that the Planning Commission's input would certainly be considered. He said
that the parking indicated is required. He noted that such facilities as the ballroom
and public dining areas could expand in the future, and siad that this was one of
the items considered in the schematic.
Mr. Easter saw the Elks property as an asset to the community, but stated
that something should definitely be offered in the way of a buffer between these
facilities and the residential neighborhood.
Adjacent property owners present voiced their concern about loss of
privacy, askeing that the outside facilities be setback considerably and that
the lighting be turned from the residential area.
Mrs. Graves asked if the water to the river is handled by the swale.
Mr. Lambert told her that part of it is, but that such items as this would
need further investigation and recommendations from an engineer.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the Elks are trying to keep the developemnt out
of the tree area as there are possible future plans for picnic facilities in this
area. He asked for the permit for the use of the property, and stated that other
items be considered at the time that the site plan is presented.
Mrs. Graves suggested hours of operation for the outdoor facilities be
part of the conditions for the special permit.
Mr. Rinehart suggested that the following conditions be part of the special
use permit:
1. Approval of site plan and planting by the Planning Commission through site
plan review procedure;
2. Removal of only those trees where buildings and parking are to be located;
3. Parking requirement shall be one (1) space per one hundred (100) sq. ft. of
gross floor area;
4. Approval by appropriate state and local agencies;
-3-
5. Twenty-five (25) foot buffer of existing trees or additional trees as may be
required by the Planning Commission to be left along the west property line;
6. Lighting directed away from adjacent properties of two (2) foot candles;
7. Engrance/exit on east of property;
8. Hours of operation: outside to be 10:00 p.m., inside to be 1:30 a.m.
9. Setbacks to be from North 28 degrees, 29 minutes, 35 seconds East, Extended,
as follows: 100 feet for the building, 125 feet for the pool; 150 feet
for the tennis courts; and 100 feet for the parking facilities.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the special use permit subject to the
conditions suggested by Mr. Rinehart. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Existing Zoning Ordinance:
Amend Section 1 - Definitions - Words and Terms
Amend Section 1-54 - rewording of the definition for subdivision
After a discussion concerning the definition of "new easement" Mr. Rinehart
suggested that a committee of John Humphrey, Bob Tucker, Kurt Gloeckner, Fred Payne,
and Clifton McClure be formed to discuss this matter and report their decision back
to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Barksdale moved that this committee be formed and that the items be
deferred until after the committee had made its recommendations to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m., since there was no further business.
August 19, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on
Tuesday, August 19, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Jack Rinehart;
Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Wilbur Tinsley. Absent were
Mr. David Carr, Chairman, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
In Mr. Carr`s absence , Mr. McClure assumed the chairmanship. He established
that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
SP-499. Peacock Hill Limited:
Mr. McClure stated that it had been requested that this request be
deferred. Mr. Rinehart moved for deferral; the motion, seconded by Mr. Tinsley,
carried unanimously.
Charles E. Blue, Jr., final plat:
Mrs. Scala remarked that the applicant had requested deferral and asked
the commission to approve this request.
Mr. Rinehart moved for deferral. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
Better Living preliminary plat ( revised ):
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report, stating that the property is located
on the south side of Route 663. There are ten new lots and two existing lots
making a total of 12 lots. The average lot size is 2.1 acres.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if there is a building site on each lot.
Mr. Walker said that there is.
Mr. McClure pointed out that there is more acreage on the property than
was originally thought.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat that had one additional lot.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DOOM
Running Deer final plat:
Mrs. Scala commented that the plat had received preliminary approval
in January. The property is located on the south side of Route 250 East.
Bond will be posted for the additional dedication.
Mr. Rinehart moved apporval of the plat, including the additional dedication
of Running Deer Drive, as shown on the plat.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Better Living site plan:
Mrs. Scala pointed out that this is a request to replace the modular display
unit on the west side of Route 29 North with a new model of the modular unit.
It has been the policy, that if this is to come back to the Commission every year
for review. if it is to become a permanent use of the property, more screening
is to be used. She stated that the staff recommends a landscape plan. The Health
Department has waived the water and sewer requirements.
Mr. Rinehart commented that a landscaping plan should be sutmitted, and that
even if it is a minimum plan, this approach could help the sales.
Mr. Nunley stated that the effect of sales model could be destroyed if there
is too much landscaping required.
Mr. McClure stated that if the Planning Commission reviews the site every
year, then it will be easy to see if this appears to be a permanent use for the
property. If that is to be the case, then a landscaping plan can be submitted.
Mr. Rinehart moved apporval of the site plan for three years, subject to
a landscape plan prepared to the Planning staff's approval.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Lyon Woods site plan:
In the staff report, it was stated that this property is on the southeast
side of Route 631. The request is for 6 rental units on 12.98 acres zoned A-1.
Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving
the room.
In his absence, Mr. Rinehart assumed the chairmanship.
Mrs. Scala stated that there is one section of the site plan that shows
plans for the future, in which one -acre lots are shown. She pointed out that this
-3 -
part of the site plan is not to be considered at this time. She read a letter
of opposition from Mrs. Mabel Harlow.
Mr. Joe Hearn stated that this part of the plan looks to the future in
case there is a higher density in that area at some later date, which is a possibility
due to the proximity of the urban area.
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommends the following conditions to the
site plan if it is approved:
1. Grading permit for road and houses if needed.
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval of entrance.
3. No approval of subdivision at this time.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval, subject to the recommendations from the staff.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Barksdale, and it carried unanimously.
Eugene Brown site plan and final subdivision plat:
Mrs. Scala stated that this property was rezoned in March of 1973 to correct
a violation. She stated that the site plan is a single family dwelling - this
is required since this would make the fifth dwelling unit. She stated that
the applicant also wants to subdivide the property. A waiver of water and sewer
would have to be given, or else a special permit for a central well will have to
be approved .
Mrs. Graves asked if the applicant could do all the things he was requesting
on one acre.
Mrs. Scala commented that R-2 zoning is very permissive.
Mr. Brown said that he has a well there now, which is for his personal
residence that draws 22 gal./minute. Two houses are served by this well, and
the other two houses have individual wells.
Mrs. Craddock remarked that under the circumstances, all individuals
should have plenty of water.
Mrs. Scala stated that Mr. Brown has applied for a special permit for a
central well, but that the entire matter is very confusing.
Mr. Gloeckner moved deferral of action on this site plan and final subdivision
plat until the time when the special use permit would be considered. He also
moved that the setbacks and distances between dwellings be shown on the site plan
as well as easements for water lines and a joint driveway should be placed where
the proposed lot line will divide the property. He noted that the two existing
driveways could be used.
1XIC
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Charlottesville Savings and Loan Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala pointed out that this is the site plan for a permanent
building. The property is adjacent to Albemarle Square Shopping Center.
She noted that the vehicular plan hooks to the Shopping Center. She stated
that a landscape plan has been presented.
Mr. McClure asked if this site plan considers the cut in the north-
bound lane on Route 29.
Mr. Evans stated that the entrance is a long way from this.
Mr. McClure stated that the entrance for Charlottesville Savings and
Loan should comply with the site plan of Albemarle Square.
Mrs. Scala commented that the parking spaces are not 10' x 20'.
Mr. Rinehart asked if we showed access to these entrances in the
approval of the Albemarle Square Shopping Center.
Mrs. Scala stated that the entrance there was not shown, but a year
later the Board of Supervisors reviewed the site plan. The plan they re-
viewed at that time had that entrance on there, in fact they spoke about
that entrance, whether or not it was necessary and they finally approved
it with that entrance. She further stated that she asked Fred Payne if
that would overrule the Planning Commission's approval.
Mr. Payne stated that it probably would since the Board had approved
it like that.
Mr. Gloeckner recommended that the plan should show a paved de-cel
lane. Also, 100' of stack space is needed for the drive-in window.
Mr. Evans requested that he be permitted to show all the conditions on
a revised site plan that he would submit to the planning office.
Mr. Gloeckner also questioned the night lighting.
Mr. Tinsley moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Deceleration lane at the entrance.
2. Virginia Department of Highways approval.
3. Parking spaces must be shown 10' x 20'.
4. Mark one-way directional arrows on the plan.
I%W 5. Show appropriate floor area and amount of parking required and provided.
6. Over 10,000 square feet to be graded requires a grading permit.
7. Lighting should be directed away from the traffic.
-5-
8. Approval of site plan does not guarantee availability of sewer.
9. A fire hydrant is required in the southern -most corner of the property.
10. Minimum 100' stack space for the drive-in window.
11. County engineer to check storm drainage. If there is any difference
of opinion then the plan is to come back to the Commission.
12. A revised site plan is to be submitted and approved by the staff.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter noted for the record that he does not have a conflict of
interest in this plan.
E. F. Wieboldt final plat:
Mrs. Scala noted that this is a final plat for one 2-acre lot on an
existing 15' right-of-way. Without approval, the property would be land-
locked.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that a note should be put on the plat stating
"The right-of-way cannot be used as an access to the 8.6 acre residue."
With this note to be put on the plat, he moved for approval.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Monticello Home Builders final plat - William A. Moomaw Property
The staff told the Commission that this property is located on the
east side of Route 620. There are two 2-acre lots that require a waiver
of frontage requirements.
Mr. Rinehart asked if there are two building sites on the property.
Mr. Snow stated that there are.
Mr. Gloeckner recommended one entrance, instead of two on the sharp
curve.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval, provided that a common entrance is used.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Terrybrook final plat:
Ir, Mrs. Scala stated that approval of this plat will complete the sub-
division.
-E-
Mrs. Craddock stated that the Planning Commission should not approve
this plat until all the soil erosion that has occurred has been rectified.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that a vicinity map should be shown on each plat.
Mrs. Craddock moved that action on the plat be deferred until the soil
erosion violation in Terrybrook has been corrected.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The staff noted that a grading permit for the new road contruction
will have to be obtained, and any existing erosion cleaned up.
Mr. Fred Payne said that the motion for deferral under these circum-
stances is perfectly in order.
Michie Tavern Country Store - review of working drawings:
Mr. Rinehart questioned the reason for review.
Mrs. Scala pointed out that this was one of the conditions of the
special sue permit. She stated that the applicant proposes to restore
one building and add a series of craft shops.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding the removal of some trees that
should have remained. it was established that these "trees" were just
scrubbs and that entire landscaping would occur when the site was finished -
this would virtually make the parking lot invisible from Route 53.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the contract drawings.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:;5 p.m.
John L. Humphrey, Secretary
In
August 26, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on
Tuesday, Aubust 26, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy
Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley;
Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Jack Rinehart; and Mr. Peter Easter. Absent
were Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-officio.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the
meeting to order.
SP-508. John H. Flick.
Mr. Tucker explained that this request for a mobile home had
been deferred in order that the elevation of the site, due to its
proximity to the floodplain, could be determined and in order that
the Health Department could respond as to whether the property could
sustain a septic system.
He noted that the Engineering Department had determined that
the lowest point on the site is 369 feet, 9 feet above the 360 feet
established as floodplain by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Homer Cheavacci
of the Health Department had recommended that Mr. Flick be allowed to
hook up his trailer to the public sewer line that is now being
installed in close proximity to where his proposed trailer sits.
If this hook-up is not possible, the Health Department recommended
a septic system that would require the installation of a dual pump
system with a warning device inside the trailer, plus 800 square feet
of drainfield lines.
Mr. Barksdale asked asked who will be responsible for enforcement
of the Health Department conditions.
Mr. Tucker told him that the Health Department would be.
Mr. Carr gave a description of the site, noting that at best
it is a difficult site.
Mr. Easter agreed with Mr. Carr, but said that if Mr. Flick
is willing to bear the expense, then he moved approval with the
following conditions:
1. Approval from appropriate state and local agencies;
2. Setback from Route 643 of 100 feet;
3. Side yard setback of 25 feet and rear yard setback of 35 feet;
4. Skirting around mobile home from base of mobile home to ground level;
5. This mobile home shall not be rented under any circumstances;
- 2 -
6. Screening, if any, to be determined by the Zoning Staff;
7. Time limit of 5 years;
8. This permit is issued to the applicant and is non -transferable.
Mr. Easter also pointed out to the applicant that in five years the
special permit will have to be re -approved. He also recommended that
as few trees as possible be cut.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of
7-1, Mr. Carr voting against the motion.
At this point Mr. Easter stated that he could not find a sign
in front of the Flick property. He voiced his concern about the signs
that are to be posted on the right-of-way when the use or zoning of
property is proposed to be changed. He asked that they be posted in
sight of the road, in order that all property owners in the area be
aware of a requested change, not just those adjacent property owners
who are notified by the County.
Mr. Tucker stated that for requests for mobile homes, signs are
placed by the zoning staff. Signs for ZMP's and SP's are to be placed
on the right-of-way. He asked the Planning Commission for a statement
expressing their request for better posting.
*40W Mr. Easter moved that the Planning Commission ask the staff to check
the size, color, and other guidelines for posting signs in the right -
of way while action on requests is pending before the county.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Better Living, Inc. revised final plat at Nortonsville:
Mr. Tucker stated that this plat, in final form, had been submitted
on this date to the Planning Office. He remarked that the subdivision
has been revamped, pointing out that two lots have been deleted, and other
lots have been combined in order to have eight lots in total, rather
than the twelve that were originally submitted. The staff recommended
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Lots 1 and 2 have a shared entrance;
2. Lots 3 and 4 should also have a right-of-way across the shaded
strip, in addition to lots 5-8.
Mrs. Craddock asked it the topography permitted these conditions.
Mr. Walker stated that it does.
Mr. Payne asked who is to own the two access strips.
Mr. Walker stated taht to the northside the strip will be deeded to
lot #5 with a right-of-way to lot 8.
Mr. Payne stated that lots 3-8 should have a right-of-way across
the shaded strip.
-3 -
Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Charlottesville Panorama:
Mr. Carr stated that they were now at that point on the agenda
where this item was listed. He asked the office of the County Attorney
what should be done about this item.
Mr. Payne stated that Mr. Tucker of the Planning Staff could
read the letter, since it is already part of the record.
Mr. Tucker read the letter from Mr. Wood requesting that the
site plan be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda and also
requesting that some action be taken.
Mr. Payne remarked that the reading of the letter in no way
means that the Planning Commission states approval of the contents of
the letter. He siad that the first part of the letter holds no significance.
He stated that the second part of the letter is the reason for the present
litigation, and asked that the Planning Commission make no comments.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the Planning move on to the next item
of business on the agenda.
Mr. Tucker read a letter from the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation regarding the study done on Route 29 North at
the Berkeley and Shoppers World entrance.
The following is from the letter that was read to the Planning
Commission:
The first item that was studied was the speed at which the traffic was
traveling on Route 29 in the north and south bound lanes. During the
morning peak hour and the afternoon peak hour the sheer volume of traffic
tended to keep the motorist traveling at a relatively safe and consistent
speed. During the off peak hours when the volume of traffic was down, the
speed at which they were traveling increased. Our traffic survey indicated
that the 85 percantile speed in the northbound lane was 50 mph, and 49 mph in
the southbound lane.
Considering the speed limit is 45 mph, out study shows that 35 percent of
the motorists exceeded the posted speed limit in the northbound lane and
28 percent of the motorists exceeded the speed limit in the southbound lane.
Based on these results our Traffic and Safety Offices in Richmond and Culpeper
did not feel that a reduction in speed was warranted.
The second part of the study consisted of a traffic signal evaluation at the
intersection of Route 29 and Route 851. This study lasted for 12 hours.
The results indicated that Route 851 failed to meet the minimum warrants for
signalization.
WE
In order to take in the total picture, we reviewed the accidents which
took place in this area from January 1, 1972 through September 30th, 1974. This was
approximately 33 months. During this time there were four (4) reported
accidents with no injuries; and property damage only amounting to $600.00.
In realizing that the development of the Charlottesville Shoppers World
is generating more traffic additional observation is certainly in order.
Our Traffic and Safety Office in Culpeper will continue to review this
location for any changes that might take place. Even though there are slight
delays experienced by the motorist while entering and leaving the Shopping
Center it is felt that no changes are required.
In summation, the Traffic and Safety Offices both in Richmond and Culpeper
are recommending that the speed limit not be reduced on Route 29 since
the traffic volumes at this particular location have a better than usual
accident picture, and as soon as the Charlottesville Shoppers World has been
in existence for another few months, a more realistic accident picture can be
obtained and will be reviewed.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if there is a "Dangerous Intersection"
sign posted in the southbound lane. He stated that he too felt that
a traffic light could be dangerous, but felt that a sign was needed.
Mr. Easter agreed.
Mr. Carr pointed out that this would be a good way to further pursue
the situation and asked the staff to draft a letter to the Virginia
Department of Highways concerning the sign.
Mr. Gloeckner put this suggestion into the form of a motion
also requesting that the Virginia Department of Highways give an
up -date on the intersection at the appropriate time.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at
8:10 P.M.
September 2, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting
on Tuesday, September 2, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office
Buidling, Court Square, Charlottesville.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Kurt
Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Peter Easter;
Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs. Joan Graves; and
Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio. Absent was Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the
meeting to order.
Mr. Carr thanked the representative from The Daily Progress
for the series of articles explaining the proposed zoning ordinance,
noting that he felt that the explanations in those articles had done
much to clarify the questions of property owners in Albemarle County.
ZMP-331. J. W. Wright, Jr., and Frank A. Kessler.
Mr. Tucker stated that he had received a call from the
petitioner the afternoon of the meeting requesting that this application
be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. Tucker noted that this request
would be presented in writing to the Planning Staff.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the Planning Commission accept the
request for withdrawal without prejudice.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Eugene Brown site plan and final subdivision plat AND
SP-513. Eugene E. Brown has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to locate a central well on 2.222 acres
zoned R-2 Residential. Property is situated on the north side
of Route 702. Property is further described as County Tax Map
76, Parcel 15. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the site plan and final
subdivision plat had been deferred until the request for SP-513 could
be considered. He noted that three separate actions were needed.
The Commission deferred until the end of the meeting action
on these items in order that the applicant might be present.
-2-
UP-75-08. Charles C. Motley has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to amend the following Sections of the County
Zoning Ordinance: Section 15A-1 Signs Permitted ( A-1 Agricul-
tural ) to permit under Section 15A-1-15 Temporary Portable Signs:
Section 15A-6 Signs Permitted ( B-1 Business ) to permit under
Section 15A-6-9 Temporary Portable Signs; Section 15A-7 Signs
Permitted ( M-1 Manufacturing ) to permit under Section 15A-7-9
Temporary Pootable Signs; Section 15A-8 Sings Permitted ( M-2
Manufacturing ) to permit under Section 15A-8-9 Temporary Portable
Signs.
Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, commenting that it is the
staff's opinion that a teimporary sign as described by the applicant
could be easily abused and would eventually become a permanent sign by
simply being renewed or applying for a new sign permit each time the
message changed or an extension of time was requested. He also said
that in view of the county's recent attempt to more effectively
regulate the signs in Albemarle County, the staff feels that a teimporary
portable sign would not be in keeping with the sign committee's intent
and therefore the staff recommended denial of the amendment.
Mr. Motley, the applicant, stated that the city of Charlottesville
allows these signs with a permit. He stated that he had talked to
Mr. Clarke, the Zoning Administrator, who was not receiptive. He talked
then to Mr. Lloyd Wood, his Board representative, who recommended this
route. He stated that this is a small sign at the point of purchase.
He presented a picture of some signs on Route 29 North, and feels that his
idea is more attractive for a temporary use. Feels these signs to be
a service to smallbusinessmen. He stated that he does not want to
employ the services of an attorney in order to secure this temporary
sign priviledge from the county. He emphasized that wherever this has
been done, it has been a service that has worked well.
Mrs. Seldon stated her concern about adding more signs to the
county roads, expecially when the county has been tryping to secure scenic
highway designations.
Mr. Motley stated that the signs he proposes are not in addition
to existing signs, but rather would replace hand written signs, etc.
He emphasized that they are to be temporary.
Mr. Easter siad that he was under the impreseeion that these
signs, of certain size - 16 sq. ft. on each side - were permitted by
the present ordinance.
Mr. Tucker stated that the County Zoning Administrator says
that the signs proposed by Mr. Motley do not meet with the zoning
ordinance. Mr. Tucker said that he does not know the specifics of
Mr. Clarke's interpretation, but that he himself feels that a temporary
event sign is the nearest similarity to Mr. Motley's proposal that is
described in the current ordinance.
Mr. Easter said that he would like the full details, especially
an explanation if it were turned down because of size or type.
Mrs. Graves questioned the setbacks that would apply in this
-3-
case and the party responsible for maintenance and storage of the signs.
Mr. Motley stated taht the sing maintenance would be by the
sign company, not the lessee.
Mrs. Craddock seemed to feel that the Planning Commission would
be caught in the middle when the use for a sign is changed. She suggested
action be deferred until the Zoning Administrator could be present to
explain the particulars.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the Planning Commission is being asked
to amend the ordinance, not to overrule the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Lloyd Wood stated that this is a matter of interpretation
of the ordinance, and that the Zoning Administrator had interpreted
the ordinance in the strict sense. He pointed out that this was the
best route to be taken, since it was also his feeling that this temporary
sign amendment to the ordinance would releave the guadiness of the present
situation.
Mr. Rinehart Suggested that Mr. Motley's proposal fit under the
temporary event sign clause and then the county should employ tighter
enforcement of the ordinance. He felt that the time period of temporary
' event signs should be cut considerably from the maximum six month period
and absolutely not allow these signs in the A-1 zone.
Mr. Motley said that his signs are fifty square feet on each side.
Mr. Carr said that many temporary signs "get tired" and further
noted that this part of the ordinance is very hard to enforce. The main
concern is with administration.
Mr. Motley suggested that the amendment should state that the
temporary sign, upon expiration, could not be re -acquired for a period
of thirty days, then enforcement would be simpler.
Mr. Carr pointed out the cost and care in choosing a location
for a permanent sign. He stated that with temporary signs, there is
not so much attention placed on these matters by a lessee, and sometimes
rules are broken, perhaps not even deliberately, because the sign is
not owned by the business establishment.
Mr. Motley agains siad that county would be working with the
sign company, not with the lessee.
Mr. Carr asked how many such signs were now leased in the City
of Charlottesville.
Mr. Motley said that his company had no signs leased there.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that the county does not even have a
definition of temporary portable signs.
-4-
Mrs. Craddock suggested a work session on the sign ordinance before
the zoning ordinance is amended to include Mr. Motley's request.
Mr. Easter stated that he does not want the size and number of
sign increased over the number permitted by the present ordinance. However,
he said that this request seems to fit the temporary event sign if it is
limited in size to 16 sq. ft. per side.
Mr. Payne, the legal counsel present, suggested consultation with
the Zoning Administrator, since without knowledge of his reasons for
the strict interpretation, action by the Planning Commission would be
premature.
Mrs. Craddock moved deferral until there could be proper input.
Mr. Tinsley also voiced his concern about the situation, and
seconded the motion; it carried unanimously.
SP-514. Woodsmen of the World Fraternal Insurance Society has
petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Sueprvisors to locate a
fraternal lodge and summer camp on part of 38.0 acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is situated on the northwest side of Route
604, and the northeast side of Route 817. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 19, Parcel 46A, part thereof. White
Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the number of acres that will be used
for this lodge and summer camp.
Mr. Tucker said that 15 acres would be used.
Mr. Easter asked for landmarks in the area in order to locate
the site.
Mr. Roy Canada, local representative for the Woodsmen of the
World, stated that it is next to the Piney Ridge Brethern Church. He
also explained the use of the property.
Mr. Paul Smith, regional representative, stated that membership
is held by policy holders, and that there are approximately 582 members
in this area. He said that H. H. Lamb is selling the property in question
to the Woodsmen.
Mr. Rinehart asked if all activity is localized, and was told
that it is.
Mr. Charles Herring, a property holder across the street, was
concerned about alcoholic beverages being served on the premises and
questioned the general activities of the organization.
-5-
Mr. Smith stated that alcoholic beverages are prohibited by
the consititutional by-laws of the Woodsmen, which has been in operation
for 27 years. He stated that this is a family organization.
Mr. H. Roach was concerned about the access to the property.
Mr. Canada stated that easements from been secured form Route 604
and 817.
Mr. Roach illustrated on the chalkboard his concern about the
easements on 817, stating that Route 817 does not need any extra traffic.
He was specifically concerned about the traffice because of his small
children.
Mr. Herring stated that the road to the lodge and camp come
in on a coruve and there is also a drainage problemin the area.
On behalf of the church board, Mr. W. J. Marx voiced his concern
for the project.
Mrs. Margaret Roach stated concern about the proximity of this
lodge and camp to her property.
Mr. Charles Herring also questioned the hours of operation.
Mrs. Hausroute said that the driveway to this facility will
come right into her driveway.
Mr. Canada stated that the Woodsmen organization will be willing
to work with the church regarding the road since they wish to be a good
neighbor to people living in the area.
Mr. Roger Browning, the other local field representative,
stated that the facilities will be used only for family entertainment.
Mr. Carr asked the number of night sessions per month and was
told this would be one night meeting.
Mr. Browning also pointed out that the lodge will not be built
for approximately five years.
Mr. Rinehart emphasized that this facility will have an impact
upon a small community that could be either bad or good, and it is the
reponsibility of the county to setforth guidelines that will make the
impact good. He suggested deferral of the matter until the Planning
Commission could review the site and until the staff could contact planners
in other areas of the state about how this organization's facilities
have been handled in other areas.
Mr. Carr noted that the public hearing was not closed.
Mr. Rinehart put his suggestion into the form of a motion for
deferral, which Mr. Easter seconded.
/3 I
Q.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Rinehart to amend his motion to include
a study of the ingress and egress to the property.
Mr. Rinehart did this.
Mr. Canada stated that the Virginia Dept. of Highways has not
approved the ingress and egree, but also stated that there is no road
frontage on Route 817.
Mr. Easter asked it if is legal for the Commission to include
in the list of conditions that no alcoholic be served on the premises.
Mr. Payne stated that this would not be legal, since it could
not be enforced.
The motion for deferral carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr appointed a committee, to be chaired by Mr. Rinehart,
to view the site on Friday, September 5, 1975. Others on the committee
were Mrs. Joan Graves, Mrs. Ellen Craddock. Mr. Tucker of the Planning
Staff would also serve on the committee.
Lewis Hill West Subdivision - final plat:
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the Board had lifted the
moratorium on this particular subdivision since the restricted road
was already built before the moratorium was in effect and that no
grading would be involved in this subdivision. The Board has directed
the Planning Commission to act on Stowe Court sicne there will be no
impact on the reservoir. He said that the plat has received preliminary
approval, and that the staff recommends approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Conditions of SP-382 for a central well shall be met;
2. Note on the plat stating "lots 8 and 14 must have ingress and egress
onto Stowe Court only."
Mr. Tucker also pointed out that approval of this plat would waive the
frontage for lots 10 and 11.
Mr- Rinehart moved approval subject to the conditions recommended
by the staff.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Eugene Brown site plan and final subdivision plat AND
SP-513.
The Commission voted to defer action on these items until
the applicant could be present.
76
Q.
Mr. Tucker informed the Commission that they are considerably
behind in approving minutes of the meetings. In fact, seventeen sets
of minutes have been mailed to the Commission that need Commission
review and action.
Mr. Carr suggested that a meeting be scheduled for the
next week for approval of minutes and for discussion of future work
sessions.
Mr. Humphrey explained to the Commission that he had defended
the proposed zoning ordinance on a local radio station in rebuttal
to accusations made by a Greene County attorney, who was obviously
misinformed about the procedures of the Planning Commission when the
proposed ordinance was being drafted and put into final form.
Mr. Iloyd Wood also added his congratulations to the representative
of The Daily Progress for its series of articles on the proposed zoning
ordinance.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
J/
"err
September 9, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on
Tuesday, September 9, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Peter Easter.
Absent were Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Jack Rinehart; and Mr. Wilbur
Tinsley; Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio.
order.
meeting.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
Approval of minutes:
The Commission deferred action on these minutes until the end of the
UP-75-08:
The Commission deferred action on this until later in the meeting.
SP-513. Eugene E. Brown has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to locate a central well on 2.222 acres zoned R-2 Residential.
Property is situated on the north side of Route 702. Property is further
described as County Tax Map 76, Parcel 15. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
Mr. Tucker explained that not only would the central well be considered,
but that a request for a subdivision and a site plan were being submitted in
conjunction with the request for a central well. He reminded the Commission
that three separate actions would be required.
Mr. Brown said that his personal well was the one he intended to use
as the central well, and that according to a.test that was made when it was
dug, that it drew 20 gal./minute. He stated that he had not had the 48 hour test
run because of the length of time that it had taken to fill his swimming pool,
much under the minimum time period. He said that during that time he had had
no complaints from his tenants regarding lack of water.
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that the staff had been instructed
not to bring requests to the Board for a central well until a well had had
a 48 hour test.
Mr. Barksdale asked the cost per hour of this sort of test, and Mr.
Humphrey stated that it cost approximately $30.00 per hour.
72-
I.
-2-
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he may not have met the technicality, but
that in view of the fact that he had filled his swimming pool in 56 hours
at a rate of approximately 10 gal./min., a test had already been run and
that the 48-hour test seemed to be a waste of money and water. He suggested
using the other 3 wells on the property as auxiliary systems in case of shortage
of water from this particular well.
Mr. Barksdale remarked that since Mr. Brown is in the rental business,
he would have to provide his tenants with water.
Mr. Barksdale recommended approval of the special permit , subject to
all the conditions suggested by the staff except Condition #1, which related
to the 48-hour test. He asked Mr. Humphrey the staff's feeling on this omission.
Mr. Humphrey stated that under the circumstances, a 48 hour test did
not seem necessary, and that the staff would present the feelings of the Planning
Commission to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
The motion to approve SP-513 was to include the following
conditions:
1. Health Department approval of the water;
` 2. County Engineering Department approval of the sizing of the water lines which
serve the units.
3. Any additional units to be served by the well will require an additional special use
Mrs. Graves suggested,before the vote,that in order to avoid paying permit.
approximately $30/hour for the 48-hour test that Mr. Brown wait to request the
special permit the following year when he again filled his swimming pool,
at which time, with proper monitoring, this could be used as a substitute for
the 48-hour test,
Mrs. Craddock suggested that some proviso to the motion be made in
order that the Board of Supervisors would know that the Planning Commission did
consider the filling of the swimming pool to be the substitute to the 48-hour
test.
Mr. Humphrey assured her that the staff would make this presentation.
Mr. Payne stated that this is possible.
The motion to approve SP-513 subject to the above conditions carried
unanimously.
Eugene Brown site plan and subdivision plat ( Route 702 )
Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the subdivision had not been recotded
14W at time of approval, and that when he had tried to record it, the restrictions
had been changed to include a water requirement for a subdivision of this type.
He stated that at a previous meeting the Planning Commission had asked for the
setbacks to be shown, the easement of the water line to be shown, and that joint
driveways be shown. The applicant had placed all these items on the plat.
7-3
-3 -
y Mr. Tucker further stated that the staff recommended approval of the site plan
and the subdivision, but asked that two separate actions be taken.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the subdivision subject to 1) location of septic
systems to determine if easement is necessary; 2) Board approval of SP-513; 3) Health
Department approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the site plan subject to 1) Health Department
approval; 2) Board approval of SP-513. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried
unanimosuly.
Mr. Easter took this opportunity to request that an investigation
be made as to improvements in the cost and procedure for 48-hour testing of a well,
noting that county requirements should still be met.
Mr. Carr suggested that the County Engineer should do this.
Mr. Humphrey said that he would speak to the County Engineer about this,
but that all that the county requires at this time is a documented 48-hour test.
UP-75-08.:
Mr. Tucker told the Planning Commission that Mr. Hartwell Clarke,
Building and Zoning Official, was present to answer some questions raised at
the previous meeting concerning this request to amend the ordinance.
Mr. Clarke stated that anything that is not mentioned in the zoning
ordinance is not permitted. He stated that as far as portable signs were concerned,
he had no strong feelings. He said that he had guided Mr. Motley, the applicant,
to request that the ordinance be amended, since this seemed to be the least expensive
route. He pointed out that permission to amend the ordinance would secure the
applicant that he could begin to make plans for business in the Albemarle County area.
Mrs. Graves stated that this amendment to the ordinance would mean nothing -
that the County could not force a businessman to rent these signs in preference to
hand -lettered signs. She stated that this would only give permission to liter
the highways with more signs.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the sign that Mr. Motley proposed to use is
much too large.
Mr. Easter stated that there are times when a businessman needs a short
term sign, and that many of the amateurish lettered signs are awful, thus leaving
a bad image for the business itself. He stated that the portable sign would meet
a short term need, but that the proposed dimensions for the sign are much too large.
Mrs. Craddock stated that in her opinion hand -lettered signs, such as
those used for yard sales, were much more attractive.
Mr. Barksdale said that the issue is to first decide if the size of the
sign meets the approval of the Commission. He said that Mr. Motley is not going.
to bring his business here if he has to manufacture another size sign to meet
'46W the ordinance, since obviously he already has invested in the signs that will
be used.
Mr. Gloeckner voiced opposition to the request, noting that it would be
much too difficult for the county to police the use.
�f-
QM
Mr. Carr agreed with Mr. Gloeckner, also noting that he did not want to
increase the square footage of signs in Albemarle County. He said that there
must be some demand for such signs, otherwise Mr. Motley would not have requested
to amend the ordinance.
Mr. Clarke asked that if the use is permitted, that it be very carefully
worded.
Mrs. Graves moved that the Planning Commission accept the advise of the
staff and deny the request.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mr. Payne asked the Commission if he could assume that this request is
being denied not only on the basis of aesthetics, but also because of safety and
welfare reasons , plus the fact that the use would be hard to regulate.
The Commission stated that this is a proper assumption.
Mr. Clarke asked if this denial waived the route of the Board of Zoning
Appeals for Mr. Motley.
Mr. Payne stated that it probably did, because of the time element - that
after the zoning official makes a ruling, the applicant has thirty days to request
a hearing before the BZA.
Mr. Carr noted that at some future work session, the Planning Commission
needed to address the thirty foot setback for signs in the county.
Mr. Clarke asked that grading plans be submitted simultaneously with site
plans, in order that soil erosion problems could more easily be controlled.
Mr. Tucker reminded Mr. Clarke that one of the conditions to site plan
approval is always the securing of a grading permit.
Mr. Clarke seemed to feel that once the Planning Commission signs a plat
that the applicant feels that he can commence grading.
Mr. Tucker again stated that all plans are approved subject to a grading
permit being secured.
Mr. Payne stated that the County has a maximum of 45 days to act on a
soil erosion application.
At this time Mr. Clarke explained the 45 day process to the Planning
Commission.
There was no further discussion on the matter, and the vote to deny the
request carried unanimously.
I%W
,5
M
-5-
Approval of minutes:
January 13, 1975:
Mr. Barksdale moved approval; Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which
carried by a vote of 5-0. Mrs. Graves did not vote since she was not a member of
the Commission at that time.
January 16, 1975:
Mr. Easter moved approval, and Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion. It
carried by a vote of 5-0. Mrs. Graves did not vote since she was not a member of
the Commission at that time.
January 21, 1975:
Mr. Easter moved approval; Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which
carried by a vote of 5-0. Mrs. Graves did not vote since she was not a member of
the Commission at that time.
January 22, 1975:
Mr. Barksdale moved, and Mr. Gloeckner seconded, approval. The motion
carried unanimously.
January 27, 1975:
Mr. Barksdale moved, and Mr. Gloeckner seconded, approval. The motion
carried unanimosuly.
February 3, 1975:
Mr. Easter moved for approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
February 5, 1975:
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of these minutes; the motion, which carried
unanimously, was seconded by Mr. Easter.
February 10, 1975:
Mr. Easter made a motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner. The
motion carried unanimously.
February 17, 1975:
`%W Mr. Easter moved approval. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
February 24, 1975:
Mr. Easter moved, and Mr. Gloeckner seconded, approval. The motion
carried unanimously.
March 3, 1975:
Mr. Easter moved for approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
March 5, 1975:
Mr. Easter moved approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
March 10, 1975:
Mrs. Graves noted that the first item of business was incorrect, but
that the staff had already corrected the minutes.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the tax map notation should be Tax Map 61M, Parcel
1 ( Berkmar Drive ).
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to this change. Mr. Easter seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
March 17, 1975:
'err
Mr. Easter moved approval of these minutes. Mr. Barksdale seconded the
motion, which carried unanimously.
March 25, 1975:
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
March 26, 1975:
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of these minutes. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Gloeckner and carried unanimously.
April 2, 1975:
Mr. Easter moved approval of these minutes. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
April 7, 1975:
Mr. Barksdale made a motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner. It
carried unanimously.
April 9, 1975:
140W
Mr. Barksdale moved approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
%7
-7 -
April 21, 1975:
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of these minutes. Mr. Barksdale seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
May 1, 1975:
Mr. Easter moved for approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
May 19, 1975:
Mrs. Craddock asked that these minutes explain the reasons for waiver
of frontage for the Carpenter plat and that the Trogdon plat be located by highway
number.
Subject to these additions, Mr. Gloeckner moved approval. The motion
was seconded by Mrs. Craddock. It carried unanimouuly.
June 2, 1975:
Mr. Barksdale moved approval, and Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. It carried
unanimously.
F June 4, 1975:
Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the minutes. Mr. Easter seconded the motion,
which carried uanimously.
Mr. Tucker noted to the Commission that some corrections had already
been made to some of the minutes by listening to the tapes.
Mr. Tucker asked that the Planning Commission consider meeting on September 18,
1975, to consider approximately six items that had been deferred because of the
moratorium. The Commission added this to the meeting to the calendar.
Mr. Humphrey advised the Planning Commission that he had some items of
business that he wished to be considered at future work sessions of the Planning
Commission. He stated that if the Board proceeds with the proposed zoning ordinance,
the staff will have 30-45 days more work to complete.
Other items that Mr. Humphrey expressed a desire to work on with the
Planning Commission were the bike trail system, which had been studied by the
summer interns. He noted that this could be incorporated into the Comprehensive
Plan at review time in more detail.
+*AW He asked that the Planning Commission give the staff some direction as
to items that it wished to consider in future work sessions.
Mr. Humphrey stated that it is the desire of the staff to do most of the
work on the Comprehensive Plan "in house". He noted that such items as follows might
-r
be considered at review time of the Comprehensive Plan:
1. parks
2. school needs
3. fire protection
4. police
5. bike trails
6. housing situation - especially low cost housing
He stated that the staff is currently working with the Department of Highways
and Transportation on a land use survey.
Mr. Easter suggested that no work commence regarding the Comprehensive
Plan until the Board of Supervisors makes some sort of decision regarding the
proposed zoning ordinance and map. He specifically asked that the Planning
Commission address the mobile home situation. He questioned the work on "police"
that Mr. Humphrey mentioned.
Mr. Humphrey explained that the work he meant would involve population
studies, services available, and expense as far as giving the police some guidelines
to follow from the planning viewpoint.
Mr. Barksdale asked that low cost housing be addressed.
Mr. Easter pointed out that studies had been made by state and federal organizations
and that nothing conclusive could be arrived at. Furthermore, he stated that there
seems to be no direction from the Board of Supervisors regarding this.
Mrs. Graves stated that she did not think it necessary to wait on a decision
from the Board regarding the zoning ordinance, since zoning should not color the
Comprehensive Plan or vice versa.
Mr. Humphrey took this opportunity to explain reasons that the staff feels the
cluster concept is still part of the proposed zoning ordinance.
The Planning Commission briefly reviewed the compromises that had been made
when recommending zoning for the property of Albemarle County
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Em
John L. Humphrey, Secretary
cm
September 16, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission met on Tuesday, September 16,
1975, Board Room, County Office building, Charlottesville, Virginia, at
7:30 p.m.
Those members present were M. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Jack
Rinehart; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Absent were Mr. David Carr, Chairman;
Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
Mr. Wilbur Tinsley.
Mr. McClure called the meeting to order.
A quorum could not be established and the meeting was therefore
adjourned until Thursday, September 18, 1975.
September 18, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, September 18, 1975,
7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Ellen Crad-
dock; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Jack Rinehart; and Mr. Wilbur Tinsley. Ab-
sent were Mr. Easter and Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
SP-514. Woodmen of the World
Mr. Tucker reminded the members of the Commission that this item had been deferred in
order that the staff could contact different areas where the Woodmen already had facilities
and in order that members of the Commission could view the site. He stated that the staff
had contacted the Rockingham County area and the Appomattox area. The Appomattox area has
no requirements for a. special use permit for such facilities - there have been no complaints
in this area. Rockingham County does require a special use permit, and one was granted to
the Woodmen of the World; however, no conditions were placed on the special use permit in
Rockingham County. They, too, have had no complaints. Mr. Tucker stated that he had viewed
the site with the members of the Commission who had been appointed to do so. He stated that
they had met with the applicant as well as with some of the local residents, and certain
recommendations to these people had been made which the staff and the committee felt would be
supported by the Planning Commission.
rirrr+ Mr. Tucker stated that the staff recommends the following conditions if the special use
permit is approved:
1. Site Plan approval be granted by the Planning Commission for the fraternal lodge;
2. The entrance at the church be improved and utilized by the Woodmen of the World - this
entrance is just off Route 604 (the staff and committee felt this to be the best entrance
because of the sight distance);
3. The right-of-way to be used by the Woodmen of the World to be located on the west side of
the existing fence and retain the existing tree line along the fence to serve as a buffer
between the church and the Woodmen of the World right-of-way;
4. Entrance on Route 817 to be limited to maintenance and service entrance with a chain and
lock on the entrance.
Mr. Herring, a resident of the area, stated that the church would be receptive to giving
the Woodmen an access off the corner of the property.
Mr. Lamb suggested trading a portion of the land with the church.
Mr. Browning of the Woodmen of the World agreed with Mr. Lamb's statement.
Hollis Roche, speaking for the church, stated that the church would be agreeable to the
trading of land for an entrance.
The staff suggested meeting with the Highway Department on the trade agreement and the
entrance.
Mr. Herring stated that the entrance would be coming in front of his house and he objected
to that.
Mr. Rinehart moved action be deferred until a trade of property would realize a safe en-
try for the Woodmen of the World and until the entrance could be approved by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-0. Mr. Tinsley did not
vote.
Charles Blue, Jr., final plat - Route 20 North
Mrs. Scala explained that this is a request for a 5-acre parcel and 25' access easement
off Route 20 North.
She stated that the staff recommends (and there is a note on the plat stating such) that
no further subdivision can take place without Planning Commission approval. She stated that
the staff recommends approval.
Mr. Rinehart asked how many dwellings were on the tract of land, and Mr. Blue told him
that there are four.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the final plat; Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
Village Green Office Building addition site plan - East side of Ednam Drive
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommends approval, since there is to be no additional
parking required (since there will be no additional employees).
Mr. Barksdale moved approval; the motion was seconded by Mr. Gloeckner. It carried
unanimously.
Westfield Office/Retail Complex Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Eliminate 2 parking spaces adjacent to the Berkeley Subdivision;
2. Plant a double row of hemlocks adjacent Berkeley Subdivision;
3. Extend these hemlocks around the corner of the parking lot toward Commonwealth Drive a
distance of two parking spaces, thereby eliminating one of the green ash trees shown on
the landscape plan;
4. Approval is subject to resolving the dispute about the joint driveway with the Virginia
Association of Counties;
5. Move the drainage easement 10' from the Building "B" in accordance with the site plan or-
dinance.
Mrs. Scala further stated that the first floor of space will be for retail use, and the
second floor will be used for office space.
Mr. Rinehart questioned the location of the existing drainage easement.
Mr. Morris Foster explained its location and stated that an easement was not necessary.
Mr. Rinehart also asked if two parking spaces could be relocated from the adjacent Vad
house in order to provide better screening.
1-
Mrs. Craddock recommended that since more parking than required is provided, then two
spaces could b:e done away with.
Mr. Foster stated that he felt this could be worked out with Commission recommendations.
Mr. George Long of the Virginia Association of Counties which is located adjacent to the
south spoke to problems of adjoining easements and architectural facades.
Mr. Foster stated that he felt the problems with Mr. Long could be resolved.
Mr. Rinehart suggested that the easement could be moved.
Mrs. Graves suggested that there be no parking on Commonwealth Drive.
ing.
Mr. Bull, an adjacent property owner, questioned the removal of parking spaces and screen -
Mr. Mennivich of the Berkeley Association, spoke to parking on Commonwealth Drive and
screening along the entire north property line.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions that Mrs. Scala had read.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Buck Hill Estates Preliminary Plat
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommended approval; conditional to a larger setback
than 30 feet.
Mrs. Craddock asked about the water in the area.
Mr. Carr suggested and asked if 100' setbacks were feasible.
Mr. Snow said that some lots were conducive to 100' setback and some were not.
Mr. Rinehart recommended approval with additional setbacks where possible.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Inland Service Company addition site plan - North Side Route 250 West
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments, noting that this is an addition to the Rothwell Dis-
tributing Company for additional warehouse space and parking space indoors at night to ward
off vandalism. Mrs. Scala read a letter from Mrs. Martla Selden, expressing thanks to Inland
Service Company for its design consideration and ccnstruction of its previous addition, and
for its landspacing efforts. The letter requested the Planning Commission to carefully consi-
der the site plan due to the fact that Route 250 West is being considered as a scenic highway;
it was also written on behalf of neighbors in the area.
Mrs. Scala stated that there has been a last minute concern as to whether there is really
a 30' right-of-way under this proposed addition. She stated that the staff is in receipt of
two conflicting plats, and asked that action be deferred until further investigation could
solve the problem of the right-of-way.
Mr. Tinsley moved deferral until the investigation could take place.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hessian Hills Section 7 final plat - extension of Old Forge Road (6 lots) zoned R-1.
Average lots size 1.24 acres. Minimum lot size of 1.08 acres.
Mrs. Scala stated that this is served by county water, and stated that the Board of Super-
visors has directed the Planning Commission not to act on this plat until an adequate bond is
secured or until the road is built to state standards. Mrs. Scala stated that the owner has
been working on getting this road into the state system.
Mr. Scaler, owner of lots 8 and 9 at Sturbridge Road stated that the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation requires the cul-de-sac if the road is to be taken into the
system. He said that he and his neighbors support the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Carr stated that he saw no purpose in not agreeing to this.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if there were any reason that the cul-de-sac could not be done away
with all together, and make this a continuous street and let the cul-de-sac be at the end of
Cannon Place.
Mr. Scaler explained the reasons that this would not be possible, though it had been part
of the investigation.
Mr. Rinehart recommended approval of the permanent cul-de-sac and moved that the right -of
way be vacated and the property be distr7buted to the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
W. A. Lynch preliminary plat - west side of Route 743. Two 4-acre lots
Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommends approval of the plat.
Mr. Carr stated that he felt this was a reasonable division of this land and that the
hardship is that an easement would be more reasonable than the restricted road.
a
Mr. Rinehart said that this was proper because it is/larger tract in keeping with the
land around the reservoir. However, he felt a note should be on the plat stating that no
further subdivision, without approval of the Planning Commission, should take place along
the right-of-way. He further noted that a grading permit should be obtained if necessary.
At this point Mr. Rinehart moved for approval. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carrie
a vote of 6-1, with Mrs. Craddock voting against the motion.
Tanglewood final plat - located south side of Route 676. Three 2-acre lots
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room.
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments and stated that the staff recommends that lots 2 and 3
have shared entrances on the state road rather than Tanglewood Drive, that Health Department
approval be secured, and that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation ap-
proval be secured. Mrs. Scala also noted that there is a VEPCO right-of-way that cannot
be built upon, although in some cases property owners are permitted to put their septic
system on the VEPCO right-of-way.
Mr. Larry Mealms, a property owner directly across the street, spoke in opposition to the
proposal because of the runoff into the Mechum River. He also noted that there are large lots
in the area, and that the Master Plan calls for 5-acre lots in this area.
Ms. Gaby Hall, one of the owners of the property, stated there were springs on the pro-
perty, and that the staff recommendations concerning entrances were not acceptable.
Mr. Tull stated the springs were not located on the property she bought. He questioned
the boundaries along Tanglewood Drive.
Mr. Lewis stated that he hoped that larger lots only be permitted.
Ms. Hall rebutted Mr. Lewis' comments.
Dr. Brent Harrison questioned access to Tanglewood Drive.
Mrs. Craddock stated that she wished to see this land in larger acreage because of the
topography and water.
Mr. Tinsley agreed with Mrs. Craddock.
Mr. Barksdale acknowledged that he felt also that water and topography were problems.
Mr. Rinehart moved for deferral until the site could be viewed by members of the Commis-
sion.
Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mr. Carr requested that a perc test be made by the Health Department.
Lockridge final plat - located east side of Route 743. Ten lots with average size of
3.27 acres
Mrs. Scala stated that the preliminary for this subdivision had been approved in June.
She said that the Board of Supervisors had approved the restricted road in June, too. A
grading permit for the road has been secured, under the emergency soil erosion ordinance. Ap-
proval should be subject to the same conditions as that of the preliminary plat:
1. Lots 9 and 10 must be combined, or the entire plat brought back to the Commission if
desired after it has been reworked;
2. All building and septic systems must be setback at least 200' from the reservoir (water's
edge) except lot 9, in which case the setback shall be 150'. A note to this effect must
be put on the plat;
3. No further subdivision will take place on the restricted road without Planning Commission
approval.
Mrs. Craddock recommended that the setback from the reservoir be 200'.
Mr. Gerke stated that he has no problem with this except on lots 9 and 10.
Mr. Carr agreed with Mrs. Craddock on the setback.
Mr. Rinehart drated that he could accept lots 1-9, but not lot 10.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions listed above. Mr. Gloeckner
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Wayside Heights final plat - located west side of Route 691. Twenty-four lots zoned R-1,
average size of 0.425 acres
Mrs. Scala stated that the preliminary for this was approved in 1959. Under the exist-
ing subdivision ordinance lots must be 40,000 sq. ft. with a central well approval. Lots
not built on presently should be combined. Mrs. Scala stated that Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation indicate they will take over Old Beagle Gap road.
Mr. Herb Pickford gave background information on the subdivision plat. He stated that
this plat was deferred and is not under new subdivision regulations.
Mr. Snow,engineer for Mr. Young, stated that the 50' right-of-way could be adhered to.
Mr. Barksdale recommended deferral in order that it can be reviewed under pertinent or-
dinances. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Claude Bailey, Jr. Site Plan - two new rental units located on east side of Route 824
Mrs. Scala gave the staff comments, noting that the staff recommends approval, subject
to Health Department approval.
Mr. Barksdale moved for approval subject to this condition.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-0; Mrs. Craddock did not
vote.
011ie Fitzgerald, Jr., final plat - located west side of Route 660. Five 2-acre lots
Mrs. Scala gave the staff report.
Mr. Morris Foster stated that a 50' setback is shown from the right-of-way line. He
stated that the remaining property in the back is conducive to only two building lots.
It was the general consensus of the Commission that the 30' pipestem to the 10.73 acre
residue may not be sufficient for further subdivision, and recommended retaining a 50' strip.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat as submitted.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Panorama Charlottesville Site Development Plan - located north side of Route 631, Rio
Road
Mrs. Scala reminded the Planning Commission of the different reasons for deferral of thi!
plan, the latest being the moratorium. Mrs. Scala stated that eash Commission member had
a folder on correspondence relating to this project. She stated that there was a let-
ter from Hittman and Associates, the consultants on this case, who formulated some cri-
teria that the Commission had requested. She stated that she had a letter from George Wil-
liams, of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, stating that the procedures for controlling
storm water runoff were acceptable as an interim proposal, pending the completion of the
Betz study, which would develop more definite criteria. She reminded the Commission that the
Board of Supervisors has enacted an emergency soil erosion ordinance. Mrs. Scala stated that
the staff has recommended to the applicant that he investigate the problem of the twenty-
five % slopes - the Board has denied any building on slopes of twenty-five % or more - since
part of his site is affected by this. Mrs. Scala suggested to the Commission that they might
address the situation of whether the Board's emergency ordinance is sufficient criteria, or
whether the Planning Commission wishes to supplement this ordinance.
Mrs. Scala read a letter from Mr.and Mrs. Bowers, adjoining property owners, stating op-
position to this site plan, as well as site plans for other high density development of R-2
zoning that would affect the reservoir.
Mrs. Scala stated that the seven items that the Planning Commission has asked the appli-
cant to address at the last meeting has been answered, and that if the Planning Commission
wanted a report on these, the applicant was ready to address these points.
Mr. Barksdale asked if these items were covered in the emergency ordinance.
Mrs. Scala said no, not specifically, but Hittman and Associates had suggested measures
which they felt were adequate to protect the reservoir until the Betz study is completed.
Mrs. Graves stated that she wished to see a copy of the new ordinance.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the plan be approved subject to the emergency ordinance.
Mr. Payne told the Commission that the emergency ordinance is in effect for sixty (60)
days, and this will come to public hearings before the Board of Supervisors in October. He
stated that it seemed to be the intent of the Board to enact this as an ordinance.
Mr. Carr suggested to Mrs. Scala that she read the ordinance, since there was only one
copy at the meeting.
Mrs. Scala told the Commission that it has been available to the public.
Mr. Gloeckner voiced the opinion that since the Board of Supervisors has spent a great
deal of time in formulating the ordinance, the Planning Commission should abide by the pro-
visions set forthin it.
Mr. Gloeckner also stated that he felt the emergency ordinance should be made a condition
of the site plan.
Mrs. Graves suggested that some of the advisory conditions of the emergency ordinance
could be made mandatory for this site plan.
Mr. Tucker at this time read the emergency ordinance relating guidelines for development
in the watershed area.
Mr. Carr noted that the emergency ordinance does not speak to the sewage problem.
At this time the Commission addressed on an individual basis each condition recommended
by the staff.
the
Mrs. Scala stated that approval of this site plan would be/first step in approval of
the townhouse development.
Mrs. Scala read the conditions that would be applied if approval is granted:
1. Approval of site plan does not guarantee the availablity of sewer;
2. The privacy fence requirement (Section H.(2) of Townhouse Ordinance) was waived
due to the type of dwelling proposed;
3. A sidewalk from this development out to the state road (Route 631) shall be constructed
at the time the front property is developed;
4. The Commission determined that the 34' public access easement with minimum 24' width of
travelway shall be used for interior streets, as prescribed in the Townhouse Ordinance;
5. A barrier shall be provided to prevent the use of the steep slopes adjacent the reser-
voir by inhabitants or other visitors to the site. Plans for such barrier shall be sub-
mitted to the Planning staff for approval;
6. Final subdivision approval shall be obtained, including the following items:
a. Final landscape plans
b. Engineering final approval of water, sewer, storm drainage and road design
c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance and access
road
d. Grading permit issued in accordance with the Albemarle County Soil Erosion and Sedi-
mentation Control Ordinance
e. Approval of Homeowners' documents by the County Attorney. Homeowners' documents
should include, but not be limited to, provision for the maintenance costs of roads,
common open space, and monitoring of the runoff
f. Sidewalks design proposal to be submitted for approval (minimal impervious cover)
g. Street lighting design submitted for approval
7. Developer will make provision to pay for the monitoring as outlined in a report by Ritt-
man and Associates entitled "Proposed Water Quality Criteria and Sampling Schedule for
Stormwater Runoff from the Panorama Townhouse Development."
8. Developer will also make provision to pay for any additional monitoring required by the
Board of Supervisors following the Betz study.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the site development plan for Panorama Charlottesville
pursuant to the Albemarle County Townhouse Ordinance with the above conditions.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion.
Mrs. Craddock made the following statement:
"Since I am opposed to the entire concept of a development of this magnitude, adjacent
to the reservoir, I will not support this motion, and will therefore vote NO."
The motion carried by a vote of 5-2 with Mrs. Craddock and Mrs. Graves voting against
the motion.
Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
VA
IN FA
FIF,11"'Vii
•-
Sal
September 23, 1975
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, September 23, 1975,
7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mrs. Ellen Crad-
dock; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio. Absent were Mr. Wilbur Tinsley and Mr. Jack Rinehart.
Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order.
SP-514. Woodmen of the World
Mr. Tucker stated that this request has been deferred in order that the staff and the
Virginia Department of Highways could view the site and determine the best en-
trance for the Woodmen to use. Mr. Tucker stated that there are two alternatives: 1) off
Route 708 - which has poor sight visibility AND 2) on south edge of Mr. Lamb's property -
where the sight visibility will be improved by trimming the trees. It is the second alter-
native that the staff and the Virginia Department of Highways felt was the better.
Mr. Tucker stated that the staff and the committee recommended approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Site Plan approval;
2. Entrance to be located at south edge of Lamb's property and applicant should consult
Highway Department for exact location before construction of entrance;
3. Right-of-way to be used by Woodmen of the World to be located on the west side of the
existing tree line along the fence to serve as buffer between the church and the Wood-
men of the World right-of-way;
4. Entrance on Route 817 be limited to maintenance and service entrance only with a chain
and lock on the entrance.
Mr. Barksdale asked if Mr. Lamb and the Woodmen are both agreeable to this and Mr.
Tucker told him that they were, since it is the only way Mr. Lamb can sell the property.
Mrs. Craddock noted that the entrance is still dangerous and requested that the Virgi-
nia Department erect a sign noting "turning vehicles."
Mr. Herron stated that the suggestions of the staff and committee were the best solution
from this viewpoint, as long as the church is not involved at all.
Mrs. Graves asked if the time limit could be placed on the special use permit, in order
that if the entrance proved unsatisfactory for the residents of the area, the church, and the
applicant, changes could be made.
Mr. Carr pointed out that from all the information that had been submitted, this seemed
to be a permanent investment for the applicant. He said that the way to address the problem
is to decide if the permit should be issued in the first place, though he said that he was
not suggesting that it be denied, but all considerations regarding the entrance should be
taken care of at this time.
Mrs. Craddock stated that the neighbors could later ask to have the special permit re-
�rrr' viewed.
Mr. McClure said that if the applicant is abiding by all conditions set forth at this
time, there would be no reason for review later.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the site is suitable.
Mrs. Craddock said that it is, except for the entrance.
Mr. Tucker stated that from the staff's viewpoint, the site is suitable.
Mr. Roche said that Samuel Shifflett's house is on the property adjacent to the property
of the Woodmen, and he did not think that this property has been viewed by the staff or the
Commission.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that Mr. Shifflett was notified of the application, because he
was an adjacent property owner.
Mr. Barksdale moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff and
the committee.
This motion, seconded by Mrs. Craddock, carried by a vote of 4-1, Mrs. Graves voting
against the motion. Messrs. Easter and McClure did not participate in the vote.
Mrs. Craddock noted that Mr. Shifflett's house should be sure to be considered at site
plan stage.
Inland Service Company addition site plan - North side Route 250 West
Mr. Humphrey stated that the applicant has requested that he be permitted to with-:
draw the application without prejudice.
Mr. Easter put the request into the form of a motion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale. The
motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Humphrey passed out to the members of the Commission a copy of "Rules and Regula-
tions, Regulating, Limiting and Restricting the Discharge of Water into the Sanitary Sewer
System of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority." He pointed out that the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority has asked the Albemarle County Service Authority to adopt these rules, as
well as ordinances enabling the Authority to enforce them.
Mr. Carr asked if these rules related to the emergency Soil Erosion Ordinance adopted
by the Board of Supervisors regarding the watershed area.
Mr. Humphrey said that this has to do with sanitary waste disposal only.
Staff Presentation: Charlottesville -Albemarle Urban Area Transportation Study
Mr. Humphrey told the Planning Commission that this is a ten year review of the trans-
portation study. He pointed out that the basic area has been enlarged (he pointed to a map
of the area that would be considered). The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportatic
has done the basic work, and it is the desire to update all projects from the 1968 study and
make any additions to it that are necessary. Two committees: a technical committee and
a policy committee -• will make this study. He stated that the basic area for the ori-
ginal study was the old Charlottesville Magisterial District. He noted that this area has
been extended considerably (he illustrated on the map).
Mr. Humphrey suggested that this study will give ideas on the widening of roads and will
�r+help in determining if a bus transit system needs to be employed. He said that the study
will take them from 12-18 months, will then be passed to the Planning Commission for review,
and will be acted on by the Board of Supervisors. The same chain of review and approval
will be used by the City of Charlottesville. He said that this study would be the basis for
state and federal aid for such things as mass transit, and that other valuable items besides
traffic will be obtained from the study.
The area of study was arrived at from staff input - county and city, traffic surveys,
the master plan, etc.
Mrs. Craddock asked if the Planning Commission will have the ability to use the findings
of the study in review of site plans, subdivisions, zoning cases, etc.
Mr. Humphrey told her probably not wihtout more direction from the General Assembly.
He said that the study will determine the immediate and future needs of transportation and
will assist in capital outlay determinations.
Mrs. Craddock said that basically a problem with roads and transportation is not attach-
ed until a road is so conjested one cannot travel it safely.
is
Mr. Humphrey said that this/about the way the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation attackes a highway problem.
Mrs. Craddock said that in the western part of the country, traffic is cut at a certain
time and then mass transit takes over.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that in determining the area of study, it seemed as though the
cluster areas had been ignored and the urban sprawl had been concentrated upon.
Mr. Humphrey said that the cluster areas have not been ignored, they just have not been
considered.
Mr. Easter expressed the desire that due to cost, time involved, etc., that the cluster
concept would be considered in the study.
Approval of Minutes
This item was deferred until the end of the meeting.
Discussion of the proposed zoning ordinance
Mr. Carr opened the discussion by stating that the fifth item on the agenda encompasses
two items:
1. The Board of Supervisors asked the staff and the Commission to review with them on Octo-
ber 1, 1975, the subject of how much the Commission has strayed from the master plan in the
recommendation of the ordinance;
2. The staff felt that some essential things had been deferred that should be included as
amendments to the existing ordinance if the Board defers adoption of the proposed ordinance.
Perhaps some items should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors now, some things that are
needed now.
C',,,\
Mr. Humphrey made the following statements:
"The staff has prepared a list of elements of the proposed zoning ordinance which we
feel are important enough to consider as amendments to the existing zoning ordinance.
We are of the opinion that they are of high priority, all eleven items, but have prioritized
each as to its importance. Not to say that the whole damn written text shouldn't be adopted.
If the Commission has other items they wish to consider, pending the tabling of the entire
ordinance, feel free to so state.
That's one thing - now, the other thing that I would like to say to the Commission is that
last week myself and four members of the staff who have been working very closely with this
zoning ordinance sat down and we went over the Comprehensive Plan in detail and related that
to the zoning map and the ordinance itself, and dammit, you all have gone beyond, in our
opinion, what those objectives were. You have either equaled and gone beyond, what those
objectives were as called for in the Master Plan. You have to keep in mind that the Master
Plan called for a two -acre agricultural zone, which would delineate the clusters. Well, we
essentially had the clusters - they are still there - I won't get into that, not at this time
but the consultant had the two acre zone buffering the clusters, with the bulk of the county
being in the two -acre zoning. The Commission has developed a ten acre zone on the books for
those who wanted it. You have developed a five acre zone which I think is 30% or more
greater than that anticipated by the Plan. We have these figures. We didn't bring them
over tonight, but I am going to present them October 1.
We cut back on the two acre zoning. As far as meeting the objectives of the agricultural
and conservation amenities and natural resources, I think we have gone overbroad. We have
gone much further than the Comprehensive Plan ever envisioned. When you get down to what
the Comprehensive Plan said about too much commercial zoning, indicating that some areas are
too high in density, in the urban area basically, the Commission tested that and tried to
bring that in compliance with the Master Plan. We went to the public hearings, we got
feedback from the public. I think 2000 people at least were at our public hearings an
there may have been 40 or 50 some that spoke before the Board of Supervisors. Anyhow, the
Commission with public input did what they felt was proper based upon public input at these
hearings. We cut back and put back many of the ones in the strip zoning which you felt was
necessary by virtue of the public hearings. O.K., fine. You made the attempt and it didn't
wash in public. But you did cut back also on some of the intensive areas; you don't have as
much of the B-1 as you did before so that the most critical part of it would be in the urban
area. While the consultant indicated on the Comprehensive Plan that there should be some
down -zoning, it was Mr. Payne's intent to point out errors that were under the original
zoning map, and if possible, to downzone. So you've gone through that, and found it impossi-
ble to do at this point. Whether you could ever reach these objectives, I don't know, or
whether the Board could. If you go through all the written comments and objections received
from the public, you will find they have all been considered. Now, of course, a few can
"knit -pick"; out of fifty things you may take one. Now this is not right. You've got
country stores; we had a conservation zone and did have country stores in it with a special
permit. Some didn't like that. You combined the conservation and the agricultural 5. That
was done for a purpose and it was valid at that time. I don't feel the conservation mea-
sures have been left out - it is there, the intent is there. However, there is difference
of opinion; people feel that it should be separated, specifically. I don't feel that has
been lost by what the Commission has done. If you want a true conservation zone, let's just
say conservation with nothing permitted but birds, squirrels, and thats it, not even houses,
it is my belief that you cannot do that. You have got to permit some type of development
in that zone, be it 10 acres, 5 acres, or 25 acres. But you take that book (The Comprehen-
sive Plan) and you read through there, and see how close you are, and how far you've gone be-
yond; the only thing we've yet to do is elaborate more on the open space program and
parks program which is self evident. We have provided for clustering and other types
of development - we provide open space. But detail parks and open space, planned and pro-
2
grammed, capital improvements program is what I'm talking about - has not been done and there
is good reason for that - we have been involved in other things - the zoning ordinance per
se, up to this point - and detailing parks and open space takes a refined study before you
can determine which way you want to go. But providing for open space and parks is built into
the proposed ordinance. That was my feeling; I am finished. Bob, do you have anything you
would like to add."
Mr. Tucker:
"No, that covers it; I think when you can see the table - we didn't bring it over - you'll
see how much further that the Commission has exceeded the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. I think it's just sad that something we went over and over and over, that it couldn't
be implemented."
Mr. Carr said that at the public hearing held by the Board of Supervisors many of those
who spoke were critical of this plan (he said that he was not talking about the knit -pickers)
because it did not carry out the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. He said that's what
raised his eyebrows some, John's some too, and so the staff went back to look at that. The
strip zoning problem on Route 29 North was not solved. At this time Mr. Carr asked Mr. Hum-
phrey to expound on the cluster concept.
Mr. Humphrey: "That is hard to expound on, because they haven't been neglected. I
mean, they are still there."
Mr. Gloeckner: "We didn't touch those at all."
Mr. McClure: "Anyone who knows anything at all knows that the key to the clusters is
the utilities. When we say that you have to have an acre and a half before you can put a
well and septic tank in, then you can't have smaller lots than an acre and a half, 'til you
get out there and put in some ublities."
Mr. Humphrey: "Let me say one other thing: The Master Plan calls for agricultural and
conservation zones to help delineate the clusters."
Mr. McClure: "And that's with 40,000 sq. ft. for well and septic tank."
Mr. Humphrey: "There's no way, and I don't think the Board, or the Planning Commission
or members of the public want the clusters implemented immediately with RT zoning, with R-3
zoning, without the utilities."
Mr. Gloeckner: "You can't do it."
Mr. Humphrey: "The community clusters are still there, they're a concept and they
materialize over a period of time. They may begin as they have in many cases with one acre
lots. Or with acre and a half lots. But over the long haul, ultimately this type of density
will get there. You go back to the chicken and the egg type of thing. All it takes is one
large land developer to come in and initiate one of these clusters in its entirety with
public utilities. It's not far-fetched to think someone couldn't do that. Maybe not in the
next several years, the way things are, but, it can be done. So I'm saying that the cluster
concept has not been removed from the plan. It has been enhanced."
Mr. Barksdale: "I agree with John. I don't think we have done away with the cluster
at all, but from the taxpayers that I have talked to in the past three or four months, none
of them are willing to spend their dollars putting water and sewer out to these outlying
areas, with no possibility of development at all at the present. A need had got to be there
first. The demand has got to be there. The main objection that I heard was to the dropping
the conservation zone. And I don't think anyone on this Commission would object to taking
all the mountaintops and all the land under water, and putting it in CVN zone. That will
take 30% of the County, won't it?"
Mr. McClure: "The funny thing about it is that one of the main comments we
heard at our public hearing was that people were mad about their agricultural land being put
in conservation."
Mr. Gloeckner: "I don't think it was the same people, though." (Several members of
the Commission agreed with him).
Mr. McClure: "When you put it in five acres, aren't you preserving it?"
Mr. Carr: "Thats what we thought we were doing."
Mr. McClure: "If it's five acres, whether it's agricultural or conservation, you are
preserving it."
Mr. Humphrey: "The only way you can preserve it is to permit nothing, and you can't do
that."
Messrs. Barksdale and Carr agreed with Mr. Humphrey.
Mrs. Craddock said that it depends on the land.
Mr. Barksdale: "That is confiscation, and you can't do that. ...If you don't allow me
anything, you have got to buy my land."
Mrs. Craddock
Mr. Gloeckner
before."
Mrs. Craddock
conservation."
"I still don't think that five acres is enough."
"We've gone from two to five, and have been though all of this
"I know that we have been through all this before, but it is still not
Mr. Barksdale: "It's just in a name."
Mrs. Craddock: "It's not really conservation, we're fooling ourselves by calling it
that. The only thing that is sacrosanct is our floodplain. And people are scared to put
a house in the floodplain, because it might be washed away. But they aren't scared to try
to put a house on every five acres of land on Fox's Mountain, if they can get a road up
there. That is not preserving Fox's Mountain. But five acres is better than two acres."
the
A brief discussion followed as to the present intent of the Board regarding/proposed
ordinance.
Mr. Easter said that he felt that it was the special interest groups that killed the
ordinance. "I think that they were the ones in here always after us to do more and I resent
this. They killed it in one meeting."
Mr. McClure agreed with Mr. Easter.
Mrs. Craddock stated that it was her understanding that two things would make the ordi-
nance fall into place, from the Board's viewpoint: 1) village clusters and 2) re -in-
stating the CVN zone.
rt
Mr. Wood, ex-Officio, said that the Board seemed to feel either the ordinance needed
a good re -working or else it would be shelved until the Comprehensive Plan is re -worked.
He stated that this was his idea as a Board member.
Mr. Carr said that the first thing the Planning Commission needs to help the Board with
is the idea that the ordinance does not conform to the master plan. He suggested that per-
haps it was their constituents who had convinced the Board that it did not comply with the
Master Plan. At this point he urged the Planning Commission to attend the joint meeting
with the Board the following week.
Mr. Wood said that the Board is looking for individual input and for the actual intent
of the Planning Commission. He said that if the ordinance is not acceptable to the general
public, it won't work.
Mr. McClure said that the importance is in the text.
Mrs. Craddock pointed out that it is the Board and not the public who will pass the
ordinance, and thus it is the Board that needs to be convinced.
Mrs. Graves asked if on the list of priorities could be included the RT zoning around
the reservoir.
Mr. Carr said that until the Betz study is completed, the Board has addressed this pro-
blem with the emergency ordinance.
Mr. Easter stated that it was his understanding that the Board was not requesting minor
adjustments, rather a complete re -working.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the proposed ordinance has been a compromise, and Mr. Easter
agreed with him.
Mr. McClure pointed out that it is the owner of small acreage who wishes to preserve
the agricultural land, and not the owner of the agricultural land.
Mr. Carr atihis point asked that the Director of Planning put his remarks into
skeleton form and mail them to the Planning Commission members. (These would be the re-
marks that the staff would present at the joint meeting of the Board and Planning Commission
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the Planning Commission as a body support Mr. Humphrey's
thoughts, defend what the Planning Commission has submitted, and let it ride on its own
merit, not ask for any more or any less; "We have gone as far as we can with it, and if
we ask for anymore, the Board is not going to go for it. If we start revising the map,
that means hearing all these people again, because we're proposing different zones for
their property. So I think we ought to stand behind it firmly - that this is our compro-
mise, this is as close as we can get, and that it does meet the Comprehensive Plan as close
as we can get it at this date as a realistic plan. And just stand behind it firmly, not
be ordered to re -do, and re -do, as we have been doing in the past. Let's just stand behind
this - I don't think that there is anything wrong with it, some semantics, there's some
philosophy, and we have been all through these arguments before. But if you ask us to re-
vise certain sections, we will do it."
Mr. McClure made the motion that the Director of Planning speak on behalf of the
Planning Commission to the Board that the Planning Commission feels that this ordinance and
map complies with the Master Plan as far as the Planning Commission was able to agree. If
the Board feels that there are areas where it does not comply with the Master Plan, then
the Planning Commission asked that the Board gives the directive to change it.
Mr.Gloeckner seconded the motion.
It carried unanimously.
The Commission decided to handle one matter at a time, and after a decision was —
made by the Board, then the Commission will handle items that might need to be included
as amendments in the existing ordinance.
The Planning Commission spent some time assisting Mrs. Selden in her approach to
scenic designation. They advised her to request a resolution from the Board stating a
policy toward scenic highways.
Approval of Minutes:
It was decided by the Commission that the staff should review with letters from
property owners, the tax map and parcel notations in the minutes of the work sessions
to ascertain that they were correct. Action on the seventeen sets of minutes was deferred
until this could be done.
Mr. Carr told the Commission that Mr. Payne has requested that the Planning Commissia
hold an executive session in order that the Planning Commission could be brought up to
date on a matter of litigation.
Mr. McClure moved that the Planning Commission adjourn to executive session.
Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
r Wx R
i
HXyumphrey,(Xecreta
19