Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPages 96-129October 7, 1975 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 7, 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. Peter Easter; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio. Absent were Mrs. Joan Graves and Mr. Clifton McClure. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. SP-499. Peacock Hill Limited Partnership Mr. Tucker said that the applicant was requesting deferral. Mr. Rinehart moved for deferral; Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carrid un- animously. ZMP-333. Walter A. Young has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 5.189 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the south side of Beagle Gap Road, west of Route 691. Property is further described as County Tax Map 54, Parcel 41I(1). White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker stated that the applicant was requesting withdrawal without prejudice. Mr. Tinsley put this request into the form of a motion; Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ZMP-335. Rose and Nathan Porter have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to rezone 15 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the west side of Route 795. Property is further described as County Tax Map 103, Parcel 30A. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker said that the applicant was requesting withdrawal without prejudice. Mr. Easter moved that the request for withdrawal be approved; Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Minutes - September 18 and September 23: Mr. Rinehart moved that action on these be deferred until he could review them. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Tanglewood Final Plat Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that action on this plat had been deferred in order that the Planning Commission could view the site, the staff could view the site to consi- der the feasibility of shared entrances, and in order that the Health Department could have necessary input. He stated that the staff recommended a shared entrance at the pipestem lot on Route 676 rather than three individual entrances. He read the let- ter from the Health Department concerning perc tests and septic fields. Mr. Tucker a so read a letter from John D. Dalgliesh, Jr., the architect for the applicant, stating that he felt that all the building sites as indicated on the plat are suitable for single family residential construction, while satisfying the desire for individual privacy. Mr. Tucker further stated that the staff has reviewed all the input and has found the plat to be in compliance with all county ordinances and that the staff recommends ap- proval subject to the following conditions: 1. A note to be shown on the plat concerning the shared entrance at the pipestem for all three lots; and 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the entrances. Mr. Carr pointed out to the Commission that they had now received the input that had been requested and that Mr. Tucker had given the staff recommendations, and the matter should be acted upon. Mr. Larry Meem, an adjoining property owner, opposed the subdivision. He presented to the Commission the first plat that had been done on Tanglewood, a series of maps from the county indicating that under proposed zoning the area had been recommended for a 5- acre density. He noted that no central water seems to be planned for this area by the county for several years, and requested that action on this plat be deferred until the Board makes a decision on the proposed zoning ordinance. Mr. David Lewis, an owner of property next door to the subdivision stated that there seems to be minimal guides for perc tests from the State Health Department and cited an article he had read suggesting that perc tests in the county are not carried out properly. He suggested that water from the property probably drains into the creek that runs into the reservoir, causing pollution. He requested that the subdivision be denied, and acknowledged further opposition on the grounds of safety. Mr. Herbert Tull stated that the traffic situation on Route 676 is critical and noted concern for individual entrances. He suggested a shared driveway for three lots on the pipestem lot. Ms. Gabrielle Hall, applicant, said that she had gone to the site with the Health Department to check for drainage fields and to watch them do the perc tests. She said that it appeared as if the Health Department knew what they were doing. She stated that she had been in contact with the other owners of the property in question, and that plans were to sell one lot per year. She also pointed out that the back lots that were to be developed at a later date are 5-acre lots. Mr. Carr closed the public hearings, and pointed out to the Commission that action must be based upon the existing zoning ordinance, and not the proposed zoning ordinance. He said that the plat could and should be acted upon. He pointed out to the public that if everything about the plat is in compliance with the county ordinances and no action is taken, the applicant can take the plat to the circuit court and demand action. Mrs. Craddock stated that she had viewed the site and was most concerned about the steep slopes, especially since the road for one lot would make a steep plunge into Route 676. She said that no adjoining parcels are less than nine acres, and some are as much as forty acres, and a subdivision of this sort would change the character C of the area. She also pointed out that to move soil would no doubt mean eventual damage to the reservoir. She stated that the only way she could approve the plat would be for the lots to be much larger in acreage. Mr. Barksdale asked if the Commission had a legal right to request the entire plan for Tanglewood before action is taken. Mr. Payne stated that there is no legal right for this request, and that only the remainder of the property must come back for review and action by the Planning Commission. Mr. Carr further pointed out that the reason the plat was being considered by the Commission was due to the 25 foot easement that is needed for lot #3. Otherwise it would not need Commission review. Mr. Tinsley noted that if the plat is turned down, the applicant could subdivide the property so that lot #3 entered into Tanglewood Drive and no Commission review would be necessary. Mr. Tull at this time spoke to the status of Tanglewood Drive. Mr. Payne stated that lot #3 entering onto Tanglewood Drive would not remove the re- view process from the Planning Commission. Mr. Carr told the Commission that a decision needed to be made. Mr. Rinehart stated that if all three lots exit onto Route 676, there would a line of sight, the Health Department had approved the subdivision, and the staff had recommended approval. He said that since the plat would not damage the general public, he moved ap- proval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Easter stated that he agreed with Mr. Rinehart and seconded the motion. Mr. Carr stated that he could find no reasons to support a "no" vote, though this did not seem to be a desirable subdivision of the property. Mr. Barksdale stated that he disliked the subdivision of the property also, but he felt he had to vote for it. The vote on the motion to approve the plat was 5-1, with Mrs. Craddock voting "no." UP-75-09. William H. Chapman has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit a private radio transmitting tower in the R-1 Residential Zone with a special use permit. Mr. Tucker presented the staff report. Mr. Robert Blodinger, representing the applicant, requested deferral on the basis that he felt that some research should be accomplished to establish if this were not just ad- junct to normal household uses, like television antennae. He stated that this is the live- lihood as well as the hobby of the applicant, who is blind. He noted that when Dr. Chap- man had employed someone to put up the tower, it was discovered that a building permit was necessary. He stated that such towers were in existence in the city as well as the county, and he felt that this use could not be regulated anymore than a regular television antennae, but he needed time to research the matter, since he had been retained only four days before the hearing. Mr. Payne stated that the recourse would be an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals, since the Zoning Administrator had ruled on the matter. Mr. Carr stated that he felt that the Planning Commission would be agreeable to more review from the county staff, the office of the County Attorney, and the 04 attorney of the applicant, in order that this might mean some sort of resolution other than an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. McMinna, speaking for the applicant, gave a brief description of the tower. Mr. Rinehart moved action be deferred until there could be proper review by the parties suggested by the chairman. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ZMP-332. William T. Dettor, Jr., has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to rezone 31.893 acres from A-1 Agricultual, RS-1 Residential, and B-1 Business to M-2 Manufacturing. Property is situated on the south side of Route 738, near its intersection with Route 676. Property is further described as County Tax Map 58, Parcel 37. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker presented the staff report. Max Kennedy, representing Mr. Dettor, passed out an explanation of the character of the area to the Planning Commission. Mr. Dettor explained to the Commission that he had requested M-2 zoning rather than M-1 zoning since M-1 required a special use permit. He read a statement explaining the various businesses on the property. Mrs. Lucille Willis, an adjacent property owner, voiced opposition on the basis that Route 738 is a narrow road, and on the basis of other safety factors. In 1970, Mr. Dettor said that he would have approximately ten trucks, not counting the tractor trailers that travel the road. School buses also travel Route 738. She seemed to think that heavy in- dustry is not a good neighbor to an elementary school. She requested the property not be zoned. Mr. Stillman Kelly stated that three things have been overlooked - 1) a plat drawn up in 1970 that had 90% opposition from adjoining property owners. He stated that an industrial park was planned and has not taken place; 2) No residential lots discussed in 1970 have had any activity; 3) He sold Mr. Dettor enough land to allow a 40 foot right- of-way and on the south side of Route 738 in order that the road situation could be im- proved. He stated that the land described in the staff report is not "vacant", but rather supports his residence, and is therefore opposed to heavy industry. Mr. and Mrs. Rappolt voiced opposition on the bases of ecological reasons, and safety factors on Route 738. Mr. Bob Merrill asked the proposed use of the cinderblock building at the top of the hill. a Mr. Tull stated that it belongs to him and is/mechanical engineering facility. He stated support for the petition and noted that some sort of industry is needed in the county, and this property seems to be a good location for it. Mr. Grey Olan, speaking on behalf of Ivy citizens, stated opposition to all future development that might occur if the M-2 zoning is granted. Mr. Dettor pointed out that he is requesting rezoning in order that his business can expand. He said that he supported the buffer zone that the staff is recommending He noted that lack of funds, by the Industrial Commission, is the reason that the road problem has not been resolved. Mr. Barsdale asked the square footage of the building on the property. Mr. Dettor told him that it is 70,000 sq. ft. plus frozen space and he stated his desire to expand the facility. Mr. M. W. Willis asked what had happened to the 20 acres that had originally been zoned for an industrial park as well as the lake that had been proposed. Mr. Carr pointed out to Mr. Willis that 10 acres had been sold. Mr. Dettor said that the bottom land remaining is not suitable for a lake. A long discussion followed in an attempt to establish the A-1 zoned property that belongs to Mr. Tull. Mr. Easter suggested B-1 zoning for Mr. Dettor's property with a special use permit and noted that this would permit the warehouse to be expanded. Mr. Tucker stated that an engineer or a surveyor would have to establish a plat as to where the B-1 zoning exists, since in the previous rezoning request there is only a description of the property that is to be rezoned, not a plat. Mrs. Craddock established that a site plan that was submitted in conjunction with the original conditional use permit was not done through the process that plats now undergo. Mr. Tucker read the conditions of the original conditional use permit. Mr. Carr pointed out to Mr. Dettor that if he chooses the property that is currently zoned B-1 to be some other zone, he must retain the buffer area. Mr. Easter asked if the lots in the front have been platted. Mr. Tucker stated that they had not. Mr. Easter noted that no building would be permitted without 60,000 sq. ft. of lot. He also pointed out that the M-1 zoning seems to be more restrictive than the B-1. Mr. Rinehart suggested a 200 foot buffer parallel to the Kelly property. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff recommended M-1 zoning rather than the M-2 zoning, since the intent of M-1 is to make it compatible with residential uses. Mr. Carr asked if it would be legal to rezone the property of the existing business to M-1 as well. Mr. Payne said that it was his interpretation of the statute that it could be, since the property had been advertised for a more intense use than M-1 - the M-2 zoning re- quested by the applicant. He stated that any property owner adjacent to Mr. Dettor had been notified by certified mail of the more intense zoning request, and they had had the opportunity to appear in opposition. Mr. Tinsley stated his concern for the existing special use permit. "IVA) Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the rezoning with the following wording: Tax Map 58, Parcels 37 and 37B be zoned M-1, with the exception of a 400 foot depth of RS-1 zoning from Route 738 and a 200 foot buffer of A-1 zoning paralled to the Kelly property. The 100 foot buffer along the east property will be retained as originally imposed under CU-140. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ZMP-324. Draft Building Company has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to rezone 6 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the south east side of Route 690 near Newtown. Property is further de- scribed as County Tax Map 70, Parcel 1, part thereof. White Hall Magisterial Dis- trict. Mr. Tucker presented to the Commission the staff report. Mr. Tiffany explained the location of the property and the type of homes in Newtown. He noted that the Farmers Home Administration has enabled citizens of that area to improve their housing. fie noted that the well for this property draws 19 gpm and that the lots will have individual septic fields. Mrs. Craddock asked the staff to point out the 5-acre zoning in the area that is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Barksdale stated that he felt this to be a good use for the land, pointing out the need for low cost housing of this sort in that area. He stated that the problem with the original request had been the lot size, and that with this request he is satisfied that the lot size is sufficient. Mr. Gloeckner stated that for safety reasons, he would rather have a central water system. Mr. Easter stated his concern that this lot size would set a precedent in the area. Mr. Gloeckner stated that in this case the community of Newtown is the precedent. However, he noted that he would be opposed to this sort of development in strict agri- cultural area. Mr. Rinehart requested that the staff prepare a report on the feasibility of New- town becoming a village as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which would permit development such as the applicant was requesting. He put this request into the form of a motion for deferral of the request. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 19 SP-516. C. J. Pugh has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to lo- cate a general store on 4.58 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of Route 636, just west of its intersection with Route 736. Property is further described as County Tax Map 84, Parcel 9. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, noting that the staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of all state and local agencies; 2. Planning Commission approval of site plan and planting plan; 3. Parking to be located to the west of the store, with a graveled surface; 4. Signing to be limited to one wall sign with an area of 30 square feet. Mr. Pugh located the site as about four miles from Batesville. Mr. Tinsley asked him if he planned to sell gasoline. Mr. Pugh said that he did not know yet, but perhaps. Mr. Tinsley reminded Mr. Pugh that gasoline sales sometimes pose a parking problem. Mr. Bob Merrill supported the application. Mr. Tinsley moved approval, subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance under Section 17-7-3 of the Site Development Plan Ordinance: Mr. Tucker stated that this amendment was a result of the emergency Soil Erosion Ordinance, which would specify a time period in which construction would have to begin. The amendment would read as follows: Approval of a site development plan pursuant to this article shall expire 18 months after the date of approval unless actual construction shall have commenced and is thereafter prosecuted in good faith. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the amendment as proposed. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. N L. Humphrey, Secr tary 19 lL��5 October 14, 1975 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting to consider subdivision plats on Tuesday, October 14, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. M. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chair- man; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; and Mr. Wilbur Tinsley. Ab- sent were Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Jack Rinehart; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Mr. Carr asked the Commission if they were ready to approve the minutes that were on the agenda, subject to the editing of Mrs. Craddock. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the minutes of September 18, 1975, subject to the editing of Mrs. Craddock. Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Easter moved approval of the minutes of September 23, 1975, subject to the editing of Mrs. Craddock. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the minutes of October 7, 1975, subject to the editing of Mrs. Craddock. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. John Henry Johnson final plat - North side of Route 708: Ik%' Mrs. Scala stated that the Commission must approve a 20' right-of-way that follows an old road bed, and the staff wants a note put on the plat that there will be no further sub- division along the right-of-way without Planning Commission approval. She stated that the staff recommends approval of the plat. Mr. McClure asked if the owner had enough frontage to make the right-of-way 50'. Bill Masenni stated that Mr. Johnson does not want to do this. Mr. McClure moved approval of the plat subject to the condition that there be no further subdivision along the right-of-way without Planning Commission approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Mr. Carr noted that his vote in favor of the plat was done in hesitation, due to the right-of-way being only 20 feet. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0. Mr. Tinsley did not participate in the vote. Albert A. Bowles final plat - North side of Route 250 East: Mrs. Scala stated that this is a pipestem lot that the staff was recommending to be an easement. She stated that the staff also wished the surveyor to place the residue acreage - which is between 5 and 10 acres - on the plat. She stated that the easement should also avoid the group of trees near Route 250, if possible. A note stating that no further subdivi- sion will occur along the easement needs to be placed on the plat. Mr. Barksdale asked if the Planning Commission should defer action until information could be received as to whether the pipestem lot can be changed to an easement. Mr. Tucker stated that the Commission could approve the plat and all the condi- tions could be handled administratively. Mr. Payne stated that it is a poor practice to consider approving a plat and then leaving the conditions to administrative approval. He cited a case to illustrate the point. Mr. Payne was specifically addressing the situation of the staff's approving the pipestem being changed to an easement. Mr. Tucker suggested to the Planning Commission that all residue acreage, up to a certain number of acres, should be placed on a plat, noting that he felt this should be handled through an amendment to the subdivision ordinance. He also suggested adding the tax map and parcel numbers on plats, though they would be changed later. Mr. McClure moved approval subject to the two acre parcel being served by an access easement to be approved by the Planning Staff, rather than the pipestem that is currently shown on the plat. Other conditions that were placed upon the plat were: 1. Two acres to be exclusive of easement. The easement is to avoid the group of trees near Route 250 East if possible. 2. No further subdivision along the easement be noted on plat. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Harold Richardson plat - West side of Route 20 South: Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving �1 � the room. Mrs. Scala said that there is a gravel driveway to the parcel, the owner will deed the existing dwelling to a cousin, and the 30' right-of-way will serve the property of the owner, Mr. Richardson. Mr. Richardson said that when any of the property is sold, it will revert to him. Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommends approval. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat, subject to a note being placed on the plat stating that no further subdivision will occur along this right-of-way without Planning Com- mission approval. Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Jerry and Anne Dowell Estate final plat - South side of Route 633 near Covesville: Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request for the property to be served by a 30' right- of-way, in case it is necessary to have another access at a later date. She stated that the owner does not plan to use this right-of-way at this time since he now has another access. Mr. Foster stated that the sanitarian has already approved the location of the septic field. L Mr. Carr asked the residue acreage. Mr. Foster told him that there is about thirty acres. Mr. McClure moved approval of the plat subject to Health Department approval. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Malcolm G. Finley - Route 601: Mrs. Scala stated that this is an existing 4-acre tract that has been shown in this shape because of the stream at the back of the property. The subdivision has been requested in order to give the son of the owner a place for his residence. She stated that the only reason the plat is before the Commission is because of the shape of the lots. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat as submitted. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Everette and Evelyn Sipe plat - North side of Route 22: Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room. Mrs. Scala stated that the owner is proposing a 30' right-of-way which serves one 2- acre lot. She stated that the right-of-way will follow the old road bed. She also stated that the amount of residue acreage needed to be shown on the plat. Mr. Carr noted that only Parcel B1 is subject to this. Mr. Foster said that the new right-of-way had been provided in order that future legal problems could be avoided. Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the residue acreage being shown on the plat. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Buck Hill Estates final plat - East side of Route 795: Mrs. Scala stated that the final plat is essentially the same as the preliminary. The 50' strip serves the residue acreage. She stated that there were no conditions of approval necessary unless all the lots are developed at one time, and in that case a grading permit would need to be secured. Mr. Gloeckner stated that both plats need vicinity maps. Mr. Barksdale asked if additional setbacks could be required. Mrs. Scala stated that the staff had discussed this with the owner and he is consider- ing the suggestion. Mr. Derickson stated that this is true and that the setbacks will probably exceed the requirements. Mr. Carr pointed out that the joint driveways have already been shown. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the addition of a vicinity sketch. Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Fairgrove Section 2 final plat - West side of Route 660: Mrs. Scala stated that this is located on the road to Earlysville near Murray Manu- facturing. She stated also that this is the back section of the property on which houses were built approximately one year ago. The second portion will be bonded in order that a road can be constructed. She stated that Health Department approval was necessary. Mr. Carr asked the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Foster stated that it is 1535 feet. Mr. Easter moved approval of the plat as submitted. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. J L. Humphrey, Se44tary 9 October 21, 1975 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, October 21, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider a series of site plans, subdivision plans, and special use permits. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Peter Easter; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; and Mr. Roy Barksdale. Absent were Mrs. Joan Graves and Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. SP-499. Peacock Hill Limited Partnership - request for a central water and sewer system: Mr. Humphrey gave the staff report, noting that the sewer system will be the same as for Section 1, which is a large septic field. He stated that the applicant had supplied information on this date regarding the total number of gallons of water that were being re- ported from the five wells. Mr. Humphrey said that the County Engineer had not had time to review and approve the system. He suggested that if the Planning Commission acted on the request, that approval be conditional to the review and approval of the County Engineer, or that the request be approved subject to the conditions set forth in the special use per- mit which granted approval to the PUD. Mr. Easter said that he might have a conflict of interests and disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room. r' Mr. Humphrey read to the Commission the letter from the applicant which gave the well outputs. Mr. Rinehart asked if these results were based on 48-hour tests. Mr. Humphrey said that they were, and that drilling and testing had been accomplished by the C. R. Moore Drilling Company. He said that the 38 and 29 gallon per minute wells had been run simultaneously, and that the wells seemed to comply with the number of gallons per minute that were required by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tinsley questioned the central collection system for the water. Mr. Smith, representing the applicant, said that there are two storage systems, and that all requirements have been met, there had been time for no review by the County Engineer. He stated that the only additional information presented was the test on the three wells. Mr. Carr questioned the success of the well drillings. Mr. Smith said that the result had been about 50% on the drilling - only one had been found to be dry. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of SP-499 subject to the following conditions: 1. Well output of one gallon per minute per unit; 2. Well ouput to be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer; 3. Any additional units served by this well(s) will require an additional special use permit; 4. Public Service Corporation filed with the State Corporate Commission; 5. Storage of water from wells to be in line with the requirements set forth by the Health Department; 6. Finalized utility system for the central water and sewer facilities, showing the septic lines and the back-up system for the current septic fields, detail sizing of the water lines as presented and approved for Section 1; 7. This Special Use Permit granted to serve Sections 1 and 2 of Peacock Hill and a maximum of ninety-nine (99) dwellings based upon the capacity of the five wells tested which report a capacity of 29, 28, 1112, 7 and 15 gallons per minute. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-0. Mr. Barksdale and Mrs. Craddock did not participate in the vote. Peacock Hill Section 2 Final Plat - 60 lots: Mr. Easter again disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room. Mrs. Scala stated that the plat for section 1 had been approved by the Board of Super- visors subject to SP-499 and to the open space plan and review by the County Attorney of the Homeowner's Agreement. She stated that the applicant is requesting the following re- visions to Section 1: 1. Pond to be increased in size and the access road to be relocated; 2. Increase in area of lot 2, Sheet 2. She noted that the applicant will have to secure an amendment to the original concept of the PUD in order to locate a commercial area in the middle of the development. Mrs. Scala further pointed out that in Section 2 the open space has been increase and the lot areas decreased, but one area is to be a cluster lot area, thus the number of units will remain the same. She stated that this Section 2 should be approved subject to SP-499 being approved by the Board of Supervisors. The remaining conditions the staff recommended were: 1. Commission approval of the common open space plan, including the recreation areas; 2. Review and approval by the County Attorney of the Homeowners' Agreements; 3. Road bonds for all roads to be posted - this includes a bond for the completion of Section 2, and of Section 1 and a maintenance bond to insure their inclusion into the state system; 4. Grading permit must be obtained for all roads to be built; 5. Fire Marshal approval (i.e. a fire hydrant and relocation of the pond access road to be shown on the plats). Mr. Smith, representing the applicant, noted that there are plans to eliminate the common parking lot. Mrs. Scala reminded him that if this is done the eight parking spaces must be shown on the plat since they are required. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the alterations of Section 1. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-0. Mrs. Craddock and Mr. Barksdale did not participate in the vote. Mrs. Scala again read the conditions the staff was recommending if Section 2 were approved. IL)9 Mr. Payne asked to review the Homeowners' Agreement before it is put to record. Mr. Rinehart noted the 5' setback on the building lots. Mrs. Scala explained to him that when the PUD was approved, the setback conformity was initially set forth. Then Mr. Rinehart asked how this will affect the larger lots. Mr. Smith told him that an architectural review committee will work with this, that the setback will be at least five -feet. He noted that the building sites are geared to the appearance of the entire community, not just to individual building sites. He explained that this was for design freedom. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of Section 2 subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-0. Mr. Barksdale did not participate in the vote. Hessian Hills Section 7 Final Plat - 6 lots: Mrs. Scala said that this property is zoned R-1 and that action on the plat had been deferred until the bond could be posted for Old Forge Road. She stated that a receipt of $5,800 had been received by the staff, and that a note had accompanied the receipt stating that work will be completed no later than November 30, 1975. She explained that this is one method of bonding. Mrs. Scala stated that the other conditions recommended by the staff were: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the road (to be con- structed to state standards). 2. A letter from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation stating that the work is to be done according to a receipt from S. L. Williamson that will bring the following roads to state standards: Old Forge Road, Sturbridge Road, Whetstone Place, Cannon Place. 3. A bond for the construction of Old Forge Road in Section 7. 4. Waive the frontage requirements on lots 2, 3 and 4 due to their location on a cul-de- sac. Mr. Humphrey stated that at this time the road must be considered as a restricted road, not a state road. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Dr. Pullen questioned the setback on lots 2, 3, and 4,the effect of the subdivision on Montvue, and the effect the road would have on the power transmission. Mr. Carr told him that the setback on lots 2 and 4 would be the standard 30' setback required along a cul-de-sac, and that for lot 3 it would be beyond the pipestem. Mr. Humphrey stated that VEPCO will determine how the power will be brought to the property and that the septic systems will be worked out with the Health Department. (Water lines w/Service Authority). ��o Mr. Tinsley seconded Mr. Rinehart's motion for approval. It carried unanimously. Terrybrook Final Plats "E" and "C" - Remaining Sections - 29 lots: Mr. Rinehart excused himself from the meeting. Mrs. Scala stated that the erosion problem there had been taken care of - she read a letter from the Zoning Department to this effect. She further stated that all the pre- vious requirements had been met as well. She said that the frontage on lots 11, 12, 13 needed to be waived due to their location on a cul-de-sac: these lots appear on Plat "C". Mrs. Scala noted that the drainage easements have been changed on lot 6 and 37. Mel Dixon, representing the applicant, stated that all water systems are complete and that the ground has been seeded. Mrs. Scala pointed out to the Commission that these are the last lots that require approval. Mr. Easter moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Frontage requirements waived on lots 11, 12, 13 due to their location on a cul-de-sac (Plat "C"). 2. If seeding does not take, it shall be reseeded until it does. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-0. SP-517. Faye Bryant has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 11.7 acres zoned A-1. Property is located � mile south of Collins Market on Route 29 South. County Tax Map 87, Parcel 39, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey gave the staff report, noting that there had been two letters of ob- jection from adjacent property owners. He pointed out that the mobile home had been found to be in violation by the Zoning Department. He stated that if the request for the mobile home is not approved by the Board of Supervisors, the mobile home must be removed or the owner is subject to fines. Mr. Carr noted that neither the applicant nor his representative was present for the meeting. Mr. Easter moved deferral of action until the applicant could be present, but asked that comments from the public be heard at this time. Mr. Clarke stated that the brother of the applicant, would be living in the trailer. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of Helen Mawyer. He said that there is an open field between the Mawyer and Bryant properties. He noted that the mobile home would devalue property in the area. Another member of the public stated that the mobile home has been on the property since August without a permit. Mr. Clarke also said that people had been living in the mobile home without water, lights, plumbing, etc. He said that he had spoken to the Zoning Administrator about this, but had received no response. 11r Mr. Barksdale asked if any trailer that was in the area had been placed there since zoning. Mr. Clarke stated that only one had been placed since zoning, but that it had a lot of screening. Mr. Easter noted that this did not sould like a good situation, but moved deferral until the next meeting of the Planning Commission in order to give the applicant a chance to be heard. He pointed out that deferral on these grounds was a standard policy of the Planning Commission. He also suggested to the staff that provisions be taken in order to make certain that the applicant was aware of the meetings. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Barksdale suggested that the public hearing remain open. Mr. Rinehart returned to the meeting. SP-518. Kenneth L. Gibson, Jr., has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to locate a mobile home on 20.38 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the east side of Route 689, 4 mile south of intersection with Route 637. County Tax Map 71, Parcel 57, White Hall and Samuel Miller Magisterial Districts. Mr. Humphrey gave the staff report, noting that the reason the request was before the Planning Commission was due to the letter of objection from Mr. John W. Brown, an adjacent property owner. Mr. Brown, thinking that the mobile home was to be placed on his property, withdrew his opposition. Mr. Gibson stated that the trailer is not occupied at this time, though it is on the property. He said that he had secured the trailer from an individual, anticipating that he and his wife would eventually live there. He said that his father-in-law owned the property. Mr. Donnivan, owner of the property, stated that there is a septic field for each trailer and one well for the two trailers. Mr. Tinsley suggested that action be deferred. Mr. Barksdale said that the road on which the mobile home is, is one of the least traveled roads in the county, and that he felt it was a good place for a mobile home. He moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval from appropriate state and local agencies; 2. Minimum of 100' setback from any state right-of-way; 3. Minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet; 4. Minimum side yard setback of 25 feet; 5. Skirting around mobile home from base of mobile home to ground level; 6. This permit is non -transferable; 7. Mobile home cannot be rented under any circumstances; 8. Screening as required by zoning staff; 9. This special use permit is valid for five years. Mrs. Craddock emphasized that there should be good screening. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Deeridge Preliminary Plat - 15 2-acre lots located west side of Route 795: Mrs. Scala located the property as across the street from the recently approved Buck Hill Estates property. She said that the Health Department has given approval, though the soils are not the best. She stated that the staff suggested that only the front lots be developed, that there be shared entrances, and that there be an easement for a driveway for lot 5 across the 60' pipestem. She stated that the applicant had met all the suggestion from the staff. Mr. Rinehart suggested staggered setbacks and removal of as few trees as is necessary. He moved approval of the plat. Mr. Bolton said that the suggestions of the Planning Commission would take place and that the 60' strip will stay with the back property. Mrs. Craddock also suggested leaving as many trees as possible. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Lawrence Stallings Final Plat - five 2+ acre lots located north side of Route 622: Mrs. Scala located the property on the Fluvanna County line for the Planning Commission She stated that this is the final plat for the five lots. She suggested more than the required 30' setback. She stated that the plat shows shared entrances for lots 1 and 2, 3 and 4. Mrs. Elizabeth Clemmens asked if this will affect the use of her property for chickens, cattle and other farming. Mr. Carr told her that if this plat is approved, there will probably be five resi- dencies across the street. Mrs. Clemmens said that she is opposed to this development and asked how this deve- lopment will affect taxes on her property. Mr. Humphrey stated that if she has her land approved for land use taxation, it won't affect her. He noted that Mrs. Clemmens also has the right to subdivide her property into two -acre lots if she wishes. Mrs. Craddock, said that in all fairness, the taxes on Mrs. Clemmens' property would probably increase. Mr. Humphrey suggested that Mrs. Clemmens apply for land use tax assessment. Mrs. John L. Barnes noted her opposition to the development on the same grounds as Mrs. Clemmens' opposition. Mr. Carr stated that the owner of this property is within his legal rights to make this use of the property as long as he meets the proper requirement. Mr. Barnes noted his opposition, stating that he wished to maintain the country environment. Mr. Easter reminded the public that if taxes increase, the value of property also increases. Mrs. Craddock stated that this is no relief - she too suggested relief by applying for the land use tax assessment. Mr. Rinehart moved approval if the plat subject to the conditions that the driveway for lot 5 be shown on the west side of the lot. He also recommended larger front setbacks where possible. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Rinehart also suggested to the members of the public that they speak to their Board of Supervisors representative in support of the proposed zoning ordinance, since this matter of saving the country atmosphere is spoke to in that ordinance. Mr. Carr supported Mr. Rinehart's suggestion. Siegfried Oil Company Site Plan - Gasoline Pumps located Intersection of Routes 6 and 726: Mrs. Scala stated that this is a request to locate 2 gasoline pumps on the Smith Chevrolet Company property. She said that this meant creating a new entrance on Route 6. Mr. Rinehart stated that he saw no difference from the previous site plan submitted, and said that there is not enough information for action until the applicant submits further information. 1-40W Mr. Richard White, representing the applicant, said that the tanks will be setback so that they are not on the proposed 90' right-of-way. He said that only the concrete pad is in question as far as this is concerned. He asked the Commission to waive this setback requirement from the right-of-way. Mrs. Scala reminded the Commission that another site plan (Hop -In - Hydraulic Road) had addressed the additional right-of-way and that the owner had in that case stated that he would move the tanks at his own expense if the right-of-way is ever needed. Mr. Rinehart stated that he wished the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tation to view the site and requested a letter from the applicant stating that if the 90' right-of-way is ever needed, he will move the tanks at his own expense. Mr. Charlie Smith, owner of the property, stated that there are economical and con- venience reasons for this request for approval of the site plan. A long discussion followed regarding the right-of-way and the self-service unit. Mr. Carr asked the future of this corner property. Mr. Smith said that there is no future for it in the next 20-30 years. Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the tanks and concrete pad be made perpendicular to Route 726. Mr. Carr said that the island and pump will be part of the setback - 75' from the centerline of Route 6. Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire Marshal approval; 2. Pumps and island setback 75' from centerline of Route 6 (this allows for 25' NWO from centerline of existing right-of-way, plus 20' for proposed right-of-way, plus 30' normal setback from right-of-way line); 3. Pumps and island setback 55' from centerline of Route 726 (this allows for 15' from centerline of existing right-of-way, plus 10' additional dedication, plus 30' normal setback from right-of-way line); 4. Dedication of 10' strip along Route 726 entire length of subject property; 5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of proposed entrance. Mrs. Scala noted that a revised site plan including these conditions of approval would need to be submitted in order that a building permit could be obtained. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Ernst and Pearl Jones Plat - nine 2-acre lots located north side of Route 666: Mr. Carr left the meeting and Mr. Rinehart assumed the chairmanship for the remainder of the evening. Mrs. Scala stated that lot 3 enters off the pipestem via the easement, which is shown on the plat. She stated that a revised plat has been presented, and that the Health De- partment has approved the subdivision. The owner across the road objected because the houses that would be constructed would be directly across the street from his own residence, thus eliminating the country at- mosphere. He stated his concern for the development's effect on the water supply of VaWO his own property. Mrs. Craddock stated that she felt there is a need to observe the topography of the area. Mr. Rinehart stated that the surveyor said that there is a building site on each piece of property. Mrs. Florence Wellings noted concern for strip development. Mr. Easter said that he sympathized with these people, but the plat is in accordance with all regulations regarding this sort of development. He moved approval, noting the 50' pipestem to the residue acreage. He also recommended larger front setbacks where possible. Mrs. Craddock expressed her concern for people turning on a private road. The owner said that he will dedicate 25 feet. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The vote was 6-0. Pyrofax Propane Storage and Office Building Site Plan - located west side of Route 29 North: Mrs. Scala told the Commission that this is the tract of M-2 land on Route 29 North on the left side of the road. She stated that the owner plans to grade the entire site, and that a grading plan had also been submitted. She stated that there is a 100' setback from the A-1 land. On the west and south side of the property is M-2 land; Route 29 North is the other border. She stated that the applicant shows a 70' setback. She stated that the Fire Marshal had reviewed the plans, and that three options for fire control had been discussed. She said that the applicant had decided upon the fixed nozzle system. Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant is in the process of securing a grading permit. White pines will be used for screening and the existing trees will be used for screening from the A-1 property. Mr. Gelletly, the owner of the property, stated that he had tried to conform to all the codes and recommendations of the staff. He requested approval of the site plan. Mr. A. McCauley, an adjacent property owner, asked about the safety features and note- that it appeared that the most dangerous plan for fire control was the one that the owner had chosen. He stated that he was opposed to this on the basis of safety factors, but said that if the plan is approved, he requested screening from his property. Mr. Gerhardt, another adjacent owner, stated his concern for safety. He requested an underground system. Mr. Shifflett, another adjacent owner, also stated his concern for safety. Mr. Gelletly explained that the above ground tank had been chosen for reasons of maintenance. Mr. Easter explained the standards of pamphlet #58 and noted that they are very stringent conditions. He stated that it appeared that all safety factors have been taken into consideration. He stated that Pyrofax operated bulk plants properly. Mr. Gloeckner said that he was concerned about the mass grading and said that the safest method for storage seems to be in underground tanks. Mr. Gelletly explained his grading plan and how the excess dirt will be used - the dirt will be used to fill a gully and the 1-acre pond will be exposed. Mr. Easter pointed out that the 1-acre pond's water is of benefit to the adjoining property owners. Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant will also have to use a fire hydrant. Mr. Gloeckner asked if off -loading with gravity to buried tanks could be done. Mr. Van Osselaer said "no." Mr. Gelletly again reminded the commission that all the codes and ordinances require- ments had been met. Mr. Rinehart stated that the site plan was visually upsetting, citing the location. He stated his desire to view the property. Mr. Tinsley and Mrs. Craddock agreed with Mr. Rinehart. Mr. Easter stated that with the energy crisis, the more facilities such as this that are in the area, the better off the community is. He stated that he too would like to see the tanks underground, but asked that if this requirement is not set forth in Pamphlet 58, could it be legally enforced. \V Mr. Gelletly said that underground tanks appear only in congested areas. He suggestec the alternative of a sprinkler system. Mr. Payne, Assistant County Attorney, suggested action be deferred. Mr. Gloeckner stated that if 37,000 cubic yards of grading are accomplished, this operation will cost $37,000. He again suggested underground tanks, for safety reasons and in order to avoid mass grading. Mr. Easter moved action be deferred, in order that the County Attorney could review the matter, the Fire Marshal could have more input, and until the site could be viewed. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Minutes of October 14, 1975: Mr. Barksdale recommended approval. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Rinehart appointed Mr. Gloeckner and Mrs. Graves to serve on the Site Review Committee for the months of November and December. Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. o L. Humphrey, Se r tary M November 4, 1975 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Tuesday, Novem- �ftw ber 4, 1975, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, to consider a series of special use permits and rezoning requests. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Absent were Mr. Clifton McClure; Vice - Chairman; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Peter Easter; and Mr. Roy Barksdale. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Minutes of October 21, 1975: This item of business was deferred until the next meeting of the Planning Commission in the interest of time. Mr. Tucker told the members of the Commission that due to the number of site plans and subdivisions that had been presented to the Planning Department, the staff was request- ing a meeting for November 25, 1975. The members of the Commission agreed to this. Pyrofax propane storage and office building site plan - west side of Route 29 North: Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that this item had been deferred in order that the members who wished could view the site and in order that there could be input from the Offices of the County Attorney and the Fire Marshal. Mr. Reynolds, Fire Marshal, reported to the Commission that there were four alter- natives, and the safest would be to place the facility above ground, since this would enable the owner to use the most effective cooling system. He stated that he had visited the the Pyrofax facilities in the Richmond area and several sites in the Maryland area. He stated that with the available water on the site, a cooling system would be quite effective. He drew an illustration on the chalkboard to point out how this system would work, pointing out the safety features. He said that he had reached a satisfactory agreement concerning fire prevention with the applicant. Mr. Carr thanked the Fire Marshal for his presentation, and asked if certain specifi- cations he recommended could be made part of the record. Mr. Reynolds suggested the following conditions: 1. Fire Marshal approval following NFPA #15, #58, and Article 31 of the County Fire Prevention Code. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the staff recommended these additional conditions: 1. Obtain a grading permit; 2. Existing trees and shrubs along the non-exclusive easement to be retained, however, if any of these trees are removed they must be replaced with additional trees along the easement from the future building site back to the west end of the property; 3. Additional planting around the future building; 4. Provide a decel lane. (, 1 �\ Mr. Gelletly told the Commission that he may relocate some of the trees that are in the 50' right-of-way. Mrs. Craddock suggested the same sort of screening that VEPCO uses around the building to be placed around this showroom. Mr. Tinsley recommended approval of the site plan subject to the conditions recommendec by the Fire Marshal and the Planning Staff. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ZMP-334. Draft Building Company. The public hearing on this item was deferred until later in the meeting when the applicant could be present. SP-517. Faye Bryant has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to lo- cate a mobile home on 11.7 acres zoned A-1. Property is located � mile south of Collins Market on Route 29 South. County Tax Map 87, Parcel 39, Samuel Miller Magis- terial District. Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that this request had been deferred from a previous meeting in order that the applicant could be present. He noted that the request had come before the Commission because of objections from adjacent property owners. Mr. Tucker further pointed out that the mobile home is currently in violation, having been placed there without a special use permit, and that the brother of the applicant is residing there with- out necessary facilities. Mrs. Bryant, the applicant, explained that she was a new resident of Albemarle County, and that she was not aware that she was not adhering to regulations of the County when the mobile home was placed on the property. She stated that her brother and sister-in-law sleep in the trailer, but they eat at her home. Mrs. Craddock asked if there are any other mobile homes in the area. Mr. Tucker told her none in the immediate area. Mr. Clarke, an adjoining property owner, explained that his objection was the fact that mobile homes devalue property in the area and he also noted his concern that perhaps the mobile home had been placed too close to property lines. Mr. Everette Morris, brother of Mrs. Bryant, stated that he had planned to live in the mobile home until his own home could be built on property he was buying from his sister. Mrs. Bryant stated that she did not wish to devalue her own property with the mobile home, that it would be a temporary use, and that she had had no intention of breaking any laws. Mrs. Craddock noted that the mobile home is in the wrong spot, already in violation, with no facilities, and stated that she would be against its location on this parcel with- out proper screening. Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission that he did not think there would be a place on the property where it could not be visible to adjoining properties. //7 Mr. Carr said that after Mr. Morris had acquired the land he would be willing to hear a request for a mobile home that would be a temporary use while a home was under construc- tion. Mrs. Craddock moved that the request for SP-517 be denied and that if the Board denies the request, she asked that the mobile home be removed from the site within thirty days from action by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ZMP-336. Elizabeth L. Breeden has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 212.001 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is sit- uated on the west side of State Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road). Property is further described as County Tax Map 89, Parcels 95 and 95 A, and County Tax Map 90, Parcel 3. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Mrs. Breeden, the applicant, made a series of comments done as a report (see attached sheets). Mr. Michael Murray, asked that the map be amended to show 4 acres with his house. He said that he bought his house last summer and before he purchased the property, he checked the master plan to see what was planned for that area. He noted that the existing zoning provides for 2-acre density, and that the master plan calls for conservation zoning. He said that he felt it would be undermining to the master plan if the property owners could not rely upon it when purchasing property in Albemarle County. Mr. Faulkner stated that Old Lynchburg Road is already overloaded and asked that this matter be considered by the Commission. Mrs. Breeden stated that she is the contract purchaser of the property. Mr. Carr stated that it seemed that a PUD approach would be better than straight RS-1 zoning. Mrs. Breeden stated that she intended to have green spaces in the plan with the RS-1 zoning, and that RS-1 zoning provides her with more flexibility than the PUD does. Mr. Gleockner stated that it seemed that RS-1 is not bad, because of the steepness at the rear of the property. However, he said that the RS-1 zoning at the front bothers him. He suggested perhaps dropping the zoning back and beginning it 600-800' from the road. He also supported a little development in this area. Mrs. Breeden said that she would be willing for a 600-800' drop back of the zoning. Mrs. Craddock emphasized that there would be no control over this development with- out a plan, such as with a PUD. Mr. Carr said that he would like to see a schematic plan employing the 600-800 ft. setback. Mr. Tucker said that there is no way to legally tie her to any plan that might be presented. Mr. Payne stated that there is legislation before the General Assembly that might provide for future conditional zoning. Mrs. Craddock reminded the members of the Commission that the staff feels this request to be premature. She emphasized good planning for the county as a whole. Mrs. Graves, noting that she wished to view the site, moved action on the request be deferred. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion. Mr. Gloeckner asked that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation sub- mit a report on this request. Mrs. Breeden inquired if the Planning Commission needed additional information. ZMP-337. Virginia Leonard Plotnick has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 17.6 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated at the intersection of State Routes 719 and 717. Property is further described as County Tax Map 120, Parcels 9 and 10. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that this be withdrawn without prejudice. The Planning Commission unanimously accepted this request. ZMP-338. Richard Cogan has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 8.92 acres from B-1 Business to A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Interstate 64 and the north side of Route 250 East. Property is further described as County Tax Map 78, Parcel 47A. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Mr. Cogan stated that this property will not be developed as a mobile home park to its capacity. He said that each lot must have individual approval by the Health Department. He stated that he has two spaces available that have not been developed. Mr. Cogan ex- pressed the desire to have his zoning comply with the use of the property. Mrs. Craddock asked how many mobile homes he anticipated placing on the parcel. Mr. Cogan responded that he would place as many as permitted by the ordinance and as is feasible with the soil and the topography. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission would have control over expansion via special use permits and site plans. Mr. Carr asked to be informed as to the demand for such a place. Mr. Cogan said that bank lending processes are different from four years ago, but there still seemed to be some demands for such a facility, especially since the county is discouraging mobile homes on individual parcels of property. Mr. Tinsley reminded Mr. Cogan of the economics of rezoning from B-1 to A-1. 2- i Response to Staff Report ZMP-336. Elizabeth Breeden Request: RS-1 Residental Existing Zoning: A-1 Agricultural Acreage: 212.001 Location This area is four miles from downtown Charlottesville and six miles from the University. Character of the Area The area is developed by apartment projects such as Country Green and Sherwood Manor and residental areas such as Oak Hill Subdivision and Southwood Mobile Home Estates. There is about a mile of green space between these developments and this area. The tract in question lends itself to cluster development with its steep slopes and streams. In order to retain the rural character the developer would drop back 600 feet from Old Lynchburg Road and require home ;guilders to plant five trees for every one removed from the property. (see map) Comprehensive Plan rfne idea of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect development through green '1 ..i ..�: .r..L i1_: Z. r r......; ng ..,,. f f--r o hen—!Y S,,ii-h mho spaces all�a clustering. rr� . •• u•i:a ic yv•+a.y .. .. a•: a. �'d tv *40" idea of this plan, protecting the rural nature of Old Lynchburg Road and presenting a subdivision plan which would include a wooded atmosphere for middle income families. Schools The middle income housing that we are proposing is for filling uhe need of residents of Albemarle County, not to brine, more families into the county. This may encourage a gradual shift of students in the elementary school over a five year period but will not increase student enrollment perceptibly_at Walton, Jack Jouett or Albemarle High. Transportation Included (page 3) is a letter from the Highway Department. Bob Warner has verbally agreed to study various dedication proposals concerning bettering the route from this location to Interstate 64. C- Li ccr and Sc%%lo'r nclur Ccd is a letter (page 4) from rorest 0,:,k Utilities proIiiising public for the development. The Morse Creek line is not proposed for the area uncil 1979 and even now is working at capacity. 12.z_ E Soil Analysis Included is a letter (page 5) from Ed Rosenberry,. Sanitarian for Albemarle Health Department stating that the land is suitable for subsurface drain fields. The location of the four foot sample holes are included on the enclosed map. Comment The Planning Department staff states that this rezoning request is premature. Included below is a cost breakdown for developing tWo acre lots and one acre lots: ONE ACRE Two Acre Road $2250 $ 3300 Water $300 300 Engineer $175 225 Land Cost $2000 4000 Real Estate $567 939 Fee Selling Price $5292 $8764 With this rezoning we can provide $5500 lots that are aesthetically attractive, and environmentally protected. Without it we must resort to "shotgunning" houses along the existing road. The time., expense, and preliminary proiuisus of a PUD force costs of each lot up to $6500 which is too expensive for the middle income house as is tche price of a two acre lot. The control to ensure that good planning is realized for the best interests of the public is still in the hands of the Planning Board and Board of Supervisors in that we must still come before you with the•subd:ivision plan for your approval. */t{M0NVVEALT1+ OF VjRGINt !'� DOUGLAS B.fVGATE, COMMISSIONER -01�'` 1 A 1 EONARD R. HALL, BRISTOL, BRISTOI. DISIR/(! HOHACE G. FRALIN, ROANOKE,SALIX DISTRICT THOMAS R. GLASS, LYNCHBURG. LYNC'NBURG DISTN/CT MORRILL L1. CROWE, RICHMOND. RICTIAIUND DISTRICT WIL, ROOS, YORKTOWN, SUFFOLK DISTRICT OGU WG. JANNEY. FREDERICKSBURG, FRUM.PICA.SBURG DISTRICT RALPH A. SEFTON, FALLS CHURCH, CVLP/.'PL'R DISTRICT ROBERT S. LANCES, STAUNTON, STAUNTON DISTRICT T. RAY HASSEL L, III, CHESAPEAKE. AT LARGE-VRRAN CHARLES S. HOOPER. JR., CREWE, AT I.ARGE•RURAL DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION X2MC00=v/y lVii9XWLVXiJ•/CVC %xx Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 October 30, 1975 Mrs. Elizabeth Breeden Route 1, Box 24 Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mrs. Breeden: t2 JOHN E. HARWOOD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHIEF ENGINEER W. S. G. BRITTON DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION H. GORDON SLUNDON DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT J. M. WRAY. JR.. DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS J. P. ROYER. JR. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING P. S. COLDIRON, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Route 631 Albemarle County With reference to our meeting concerning the proposed alignment for the above road, please be advised that the Department will be investigating possible alignment changes for Route 631 within the immediate area of the Southwood Mobile Estates. At such time as we have made a thorough investiga— tion we will again be in contact with you. CBP/imc If you have any questions, please dontt hesitate to call. Ve 7 truly yours, R. G. Warner Resident Eng By: C. B. Perry Asst. Resident A HIGHWAY IS AS SAFE AS THE USER MAKES IT SOUTHWOOD MOBILE HONE ESTATES 1. J. BREEDEN, INC. P. O. BOX 1411 CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902 October, 17, 1975 FOREST OAK UTILITIES Mrs. Elizabeth Breeden Rt. 1, Box 24 Charlottesville, Virginia Dear ;firs . Breeden: Forest Oak -Utilities agrees to furnish water to each individual lot, according to your subdivision plan, on the 218 acres of land located on state route 631, described as Parcel 3 and Parcel 95 on Tax Map 90 at rates listed on attached rate sheet. Our present capacity is 720,000 gallons per day using four of the existing nine wells. We may increase this capacity to suit your needs. Sincerely, I. J. Breeden President, Forest Oak Utilities lam.; SOUTHWOOD MOBILE HOME ESTATES cm 1 1. J. BREEDEN, INC. CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 22902 FOREST OAK UTILITIES WATER SERVICE INFORMATION Billing - Meters will be read and service billed on a quarterly basis during August, November, February and May. Service for any portion of a calendar month will be billed at a minimum rate of $4.00. Charges for service will continue until receipt -of a disconnection request irrespective of water usage. Accounts not paid 90 days after billing date will be subject to disconnection. Fees - A connection fee of $300.00 will be payable in advance for service at a new location.' A reconnection fee of $5.00 will be payable in advance for new service at an existing location. A deposit of $15.00 will be payable in advance for service to a new customer, returnable upon termination of service and settlement of account. RATE SCHEDULE 6,750•Gal. $12.00- 17,000 Gal. $22.93 7,000 " 12.27 18,000 24.00 8,000 " 13.33 19,000 25.07 ' 9,000 14.40 20,000 26.03 10,000 15.47 21,000 26.98 11,000 16.33 22,000 27.73 12,000 17.60 23,000 28.59 13,000 18.67 24,-000 29.44 14,000 19.73 25,000 30.29 15,000 20.80 26,000 31.15 16,000 21.87 27,000 32.00 Over 27,000 Gal. - 0.64 per 1,000 Gal. �.- Owner or Developer FROM: liC�j�/J cJ° ���G���'�%---s Sanitarian /�lbemarle-Charlottesville Health Department VATE: T h e soil at located at appears to be suitable for subsurface drainfields and the lot sizes are such that there is enough space to install the re- quired amount of septic tank system necessary for the planned building, with additional space to install new drainfields when needed. However, each lot tai11 be eval- uated on its own merit and a percolation test may be re- quired at the time that septic permit is applied for. The results of a percolation test when required, must be accept- able before a permit to install a septic tank system is issued. hC:as d 2�- Mrs. Craddock said that she was opposed to the grading that would have to be done on the steep slopes. Mr. Gloeckner said that he felt the applicant should be allowed to continue the use of his property, though the rezoning would certainly jeopardize the value of the property. Mr. David Turner said that perhaps there would be a water problem in that area, since the Sheraton Motor Inn, a neighbor to this property, has had water problems. Mr. Carr stated that the rezoning would be no different from the existing use. Mrs. Graves said that she was opposed to any expansion that could be viewed from I-64 and would not support any special use permit in the future that would reflect such an expansion. Mr. Cogan suggested that he employ the services of an engineer/surveyor to view the site and see exactly where expansion would occur. Mr. Gloeckner supported Mr. Cogan's suggestion and put this into a motion of deferral. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ZMP-334. Draft Building Company has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Super- visors to rezone 6 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the southeast side of Route 690 near Newtown. Property is .further de- scribed as County Tax Map 70, Parcel 1, part thereof. White Hall Magisterial Dis- trict. Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission that this request for rezoning had been deferred in order that Newtown could be studied for the possible status of a village cluster as, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report on this study (see attached). Mr. Carr and Mrs. Craddock noted that this was an excellent presentation. Mr. Tucker then reviewed the staff report on the rezoning request. Mr. Tiffany, the applicant, stated that there was one fact omitted from the staff report, and that is the fact that Greenwood and Newtown have approximately the same number of houses, but that Newtown has no lots available for expansion. He stated that this would provide six lots for this purpose. He said that the rezoning need not establish a precedent. He further pointed out that if planned today, Newtown would not be a village cluster, but that it is the black extension of the Greenwood Community. He said that this rezoning would satisfy a need for housing there. He felt that there is no better place for houses financed by Farmer Home Administration. Mr. Gloeckner noted that there had been no objection from owners of 2-acre parcels. Mrs. Craddock questioned the soil. Mr. Tucker said that the soil is poor for development but good for agriculture. Mrs. Craddock further noted that there isno sewer system available. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out to the members of the Commission that when a previous re- zoning request for this property had been presented to the Commission, that the Commission had indicated that it might look favorably upon a request for 1-acre zoning. Mr. Gloeckner said that. Mr -Barksdale who was very familiar with the Newtown area, had supported a request for 1-acre zoning. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the request Mrs. Craddock said that individual lots must stand on their own, and the request would have to be subject to Health Department approval. Mr. Tucker reminded her that there could be no conditional zoning. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion. Mr. Carr noted his reservations regarding approval of this request, since he would be opposed to a 1-acre sprawl. The vote was 4-1, with Mrs. Craddock voting against the motion on the basis that such a zoning would set a precedent. SP-523. H. H. Tiffany has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a central well to serve fourteen units on 32.16 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of State Route 690 at the intersection of State Route 796. Property is further described as County Tax Map 70, Parcel 1, part thereof. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval subject to the conditions recommended by the staff 1. Verification of well output, after a 48-hour testing, a minimum of 14 gallons per minute; 2. Health Department approval of the bacteriological testing; 3. County Engineering Department approval of the water line sizing; and 4. County.Attorney's approval of the Public Service Corporation documents as they relate to the service of these lots. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ZMP-339. North Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 40,000 sq. ft. from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property is situated on the south side of State Route 649 (Proffit Road). Property is further described as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 36, part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Mr. Hill said that there was a 7-Eleven planned for this parcel of property, and that the entrance would be off Route 649. He said that there seemed to be a need for this re- zoning. Mr. Gloeckner said that the entrance will be controlled by the site plan, and he moved approval of the request. The motion died for lack of a second.