Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 19741245 April 1, 1974 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning 1` Commission held on April 1, 1974 in the auditorium of Piedmont �rri' Virginia Community College, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr. Peter Easter, Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. David Carr, Mr. Louis Staley, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Dr. James Sams, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. It was the consensus of the Commission to defer action on the minutes of February 11, 1974 and February 18, 1974 until the next week's work shop meeting. Mrs. Craddock, Mr. Easter and Dr. Catlin were assigned to carefully review the minutes before the next meeting. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that SP-339 T. H. Bain, MD. did not require a special permit, as the staff had found that Dr. Bain's request could be accomplished as a non -conforming use. Several adjoining property owners expressed their concern that they would not have a chance to see the plans (such as parking, screening, etc.). The staff was instructed to see if Dr. Bain had come before the Planning Commission at a previous time for approval of the present office building. DEFERRED ITEMS: a) Leiby/Nelson Craft Shop- The Commission was informed that Mr. Leiby and Mr. Phillips had been into the Planning Office that day and that the staff had determined that only 8 parking spaces would be required based upon retail space being utilized within the craft shop. The Commission was also informed that the Highway Department would not lessen- the requirements for the width of the 1246 road but that the pavement could be narrowed to 18 to 20' at the top of the hill. Mr. Rinehart suggested that possibly trees scattered through- out the parking lot would create a better effect than possibly uniform rows would. Mr. Phillips stated that the applicant would prefer to locate the entrance at the rear of the barn. Mrs. Speidel urged the Planning Commission to give the applicant some stick of measure regarding screening so that the staff could easily determine if the applicant was complying with the site plan. Dr. Catlin said he was of the opinion that the screening should be left up to the planning staff and the applicant. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the craft and gift shop parking lot conditioned upon a revised site plan being submitted providing 8 off-street parking spaces, narrowing of entrance from State Route 682 r-o-w to a minimum of 18 feet, and screening to be determined by the Planning staff and the applicant. Mr. McClure seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. McClure asked that the records show that he was disquali- fying himself from the discussion or voting on the next matter and that he was leaving the room. b) Walter G. Verling- Mr. Phillips told the Commission that Mr. Verling had obtained approval from the highway department for the southern entrance. Mr. Carr and other Commission members expressed their surprise of the site plan that had been submitted, when the Commission had stated that they preferred that the old entrance be revised and that it would be poor planning to allow two (2) entrances on the property. 1247 Dr. Catlin commented that it was his opinion that the Planning Comission was being flim-flammed from one side to the other and that it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to acquire good development of the land. Mr. Carr stated that it seemed to him that Mr. Verling had taken the matter into his own hands. He stated that during the seven years that the Commission had been dealing with Mr. Verling, Mr. Verling had not always been one of a "cooperative spirit". Mr. Carr asked if the applicant already had a lease agreement conditioned upon Mr. Miller helping improve the entrance. Mr. Carr noted that the applicant when starting his business on the previous site, already had moved his cars on the location, and was already in business before he had obtained a permit. Mr. Wood, Supervisor, stated that he believed Mr. Carr's statement was true, but that the Commission should not base approval or disapproval for this site plan on previous circumstances. Dr. Catlin said he did not feel that he should approve something that he thought was wrong just because the applicant had already begun business. Mr. Rinehart stated that he would like to recommend deferral of action on the site plan, in hopes that a plan could be worked along the lines of their last meeting on this plan. Mr. Tucker noted that the staff or the applicant could not work anything out with the furniture store regarding a joint entrance. Mrs. Craddock moved for deferral of action on the request until the owner of the land had presented a plan in line with the thoughts of the Planning Commission. Since the Commission was of the opinion that action needed to be taken on Mr. Verling's request by no later than the next week, Mrs. Craddock changed her motion 1248 to " deferral for one week". Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The staff was instructed to write a letter to Mr. Verling, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Phillips, and also asked the staff to work with them to see that a single entrance was developed for the property which could be used for Mr. Verling'soperation as well as future development. c)Expresso Restaurant - revised site plan The Commission was informed that a site plan had been approved two years ago, and that the applicant was requesting a change in the walkway, (taking off planters), etc. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the changes met engineering specifications. Mr. Carr stated that he was of the opinion that the records should show that no certificate of occupancy was obtained prior to the use of the property and that the Commission had been made aware of this. Mr. Carr moved approval of the revised plan, which was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a) ZMP-300 J. T. Jr. and Elizabeth B. Sandridge have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 1.50 acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-1 Residential. Property is situated on the south side of Route 691 about 1/2 mile west of its intersection with Route 240 in Crozet. Property is further described as County Tax Map 55, Parcel 70F. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Sandridge told the Commission that his plans were to build four rental units. It was noted that the area in question had already been designated R-2 on the propsed zoning map. Mr. McClure moved approval of the permit, which was seconded by Mrs. Craddock and carried unanimously. 1249 Mr. Carr noted that this was the maximum number of units that could be built unless the road was improved. Mr. Rinehart noted that if the property was ever put up for sale, the applicant would need money to develop a 50' right-of- way. b) Estelle Smith has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 3.76 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of Route 635, about 2 mile west of its intersection with Route 691. Property is further described as County Tax Map 84, Parcel 60A. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Smith spoke for his mother stating that she was the owner of the property, and at the present time, this was to be a temporary mobile home site. The staff recommended that the following conditions be attached to any approval of the permit: 1) Minimum setback of 100 feet; 2) County building official approval 3) Petition granted to the applicant only and is non- transferrable. After a brief discussion, Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the request with the following conditions: 1) Minimum setback of 100 feet; 2) County Building official approval 3) Petition granted to the applicant and is non-transferrable; 4) Screening to be determined by the planning department; 5) and for a period of five years. Mr. Carr seconded the motion which carried unanimously. c) SP-337. M. L. Hensley has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 27 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 729, about 1 3/4 miles south of Nix. Property is further described as County Tax Map 105, Parcel 8 (part thereof). Scottsville Magisterial District. The staff informed the Commission that the property in question was heavily wooded, and that the following conditions be attached to any approval of the permit: 1)County building official 1250 approval 2) Removal of as few trees as possible 3) Minimum of 100' setback from Route 729 4) This petition be granted only to the applicant and is non-transferrable. Mr. McClure moved approval of the request with the above 4 conditions with condition #2 being revised to read: "Removal of as few trees as possible surrounding the mobile ''home site" and condition #5 being: "for a 5 year time period". Mr. seconded the motion which carried unanimously. d) SP-338. Harry W. and Mary R. Wheeler have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate an antique, craft and gift shop on 77.30 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 20 North, about 12 miles north of Route 250 East. Property is further described as County Tax Map 62, Parcel 31. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. McClure asked that the records show that he was dis- qualifying himself from discussion or voting on this matter and that he was leaving the room. Mrs.Speidel noted that Route 20 North was designated in the master plan as being called a "scenic and historic parkway loop" and that in the new ordinance a CL and CG district would be required to run this operation. Mr. John Haskell asked if the Commission would consider making this permit non-transferrable and reviewing the operation at the end of a 5 year time period. Mrs. Craddock read a letter to the Commission from a M-L,�.r McMurdo who was very much in opposition to the request, for the same reasons she had previously opposed Mr. Vermillion's request on Key West Drive. Mr. Carr stated that he was not opposed to the type of operation that the applicant proposed but thought some restrictive conditions needed to be clearly defined and attached to the perIlvd - mit. 1251 Mr. Rinehart moved approval with the following conditions: 1) Restricted to building seen in photo only (on file) 2) Restricted to one sign only;not larger than 4 square feet (identification sign of historic area on gateway) 3) Issued to applicant only and non-transferrable 4) Sales confined within building (on George Rogers Clark's birthsite)5) no manufacturing on site. Restricted to selling of crafts, antiques, gift items and incidental foods and drinks 6) For a period of 5 years with administrative review yearly each year during that 5 years, at the end of which time, the applicant would have to re -apply. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. e) SP-340 Michael B. Stewart has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 5.08 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 727, about 1 mile north of Blenheim. Property is further described as County Tax Map 103, Parcel 16 (part thereof). Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report noting that the property in question was near the historic area of Blenheim and was being considered for part of the Virginia Landmarks Register. Mrs. Craddock stated that she was concerned about any approval of this application setting a precedent and becoming a mobile home subdivision. Dr. Catlin stated that the Commission should act on this request only. Mr. Carr moved approval for 2 years with 1 year administrative approval. Extension of 1 year would be given unless the administrator is concerned about the effect or change of the area, at which time it would come back to the Commission; 2) County Building official approval 3) granted to the applicant only and non-transferrable 4) 30' setback from the access road 5) and removal of previous permit. 1252 The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley which carried unanimously. SP-342 Mr. and Mrs. M. H. Harris have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on .475 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 20 South, about 6 miles south of Charlottesville. Property is further described as County Tax Map 102, Parcel 23. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report commenting that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors wished to approve this petition, it should be conditioned upon: 1) County Building Official approval 2) granted to the applicant only and is non-transferrable. Mr. and Mrs. Michael Seymour were present to speak for her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Virgil Eugene Williams (adjoining property owners). Mrs. Seymour stated that her parents home was designed in 1810 by Thomas Jefferson and therefore,her parents were in opposition to the request because they believed the location of a mobile home would devalue the property. She also presented a petition of 22 names of residents of the neighborhood which were opposed to the request. Mr. Rinehart stated that he would like to approve the mobile home, if the applicants were planning to build a house in the future. Mr. Carr stated that he would like to view the site, as he was in sympathy with Mr. Rinehart but could also understand the Williams' point of view. Mr. Carr moved for deferral for one week so that the Commission could view the site. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Yr. Tucker gave out the proposed addendums to the Soil Erosion Ordinance and asked the Commission to review it so that possibly they rould draw up a resolution next Monday night. 1253 He also presented the Commission with a possible amendment to the ordinance concerning condominiums and asked them to review it. He told the Commission that effective July 1, 1974, state law would require that provisions b: mrc,o -'or "r?ndonirZiim to b i-n the zoninr- o-„?;_n,pnce. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. M M 1254 April 8, 1974 This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission r held on April 8, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mr. Louis Staley, Mr. David Carr, Dr. James SamF , Mrs. Ellen Craddock and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Mr. McClure was absent. The Chairman called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of February 11, and February 18, 1974 were approved with any corrections to be written and turned into the clerk. DEFERRED ITEM: VERLING AUTO SALES Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Miller, the landowner, before the meeting and that Mr. Miller had agreed to use the one existing entrance and improve it and eliminate the southern entrance. Mr. Tucker told the Commission with reference to a joint entrance with the furniture company, that the furniture company was not receptive to the idea at all. Mr. Humphrey stated that the Highway Department would require a southern acceleration lane and that the entrance be located a minimum of 25' from the furniture store entrance. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that according to the site plan, the driveway was 25 feet from the furniture store entrance. Dr. Catlin stated that he believed that it was the consensus of the Commission that there be only one entrance into the property, and that it was very little the Commission could do if the Highway Department was going to require an acceleration lane across the front of the 1255 property. Mr. Miller stated that he had not had anyone interested in leasing or buying the property behind the motor cycle sales shop -,,,or did he anticipate it. Mr. Miller stated that he objected strongly to continuing the southbound acceleration lane. Mr. Carr wanted to know if the Highway Department would be satisfied if they asked for a dedication for a future accleration lane should the property develop futher, and/or if the owner at a later date obtained approval for another entrance to the property. Mr. Phillips stated that the Highway Department would not grant a permit: unless an acceleration lane was installed along the front of the property. Mr. Phillips told Mr. Miller that the Highway $partment might possibly require a wider entrance into the property than 30'. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the site plan dated 3/10/74 with the following conditions: 1) The entrance and entrance road be developed to state standards up to the entrance of Monticello Motors. north 2) Connect deceleration lane to adjoinging property from the 3) A reservation or dedication for permission to allow for a acceleration lane to the south by the owner. 4) Approval of the above contingent upon highway department approval. Mr. Carr stated that he thought the terminology for condition #3 should be that Mr. Miller give permission for a future acceleration lane to the south by the owner. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. Mr. Easter wanted to know if the possibility of a joint entrance 1256 with the furniture store had been pursued to the furtherest extent. Mr. Easter added that he would like the 5th condition to read: ' if possible, there be a joint entrance with the furniture company. He asked the staff to check to see if the furniture company had already obtained a highway permit. The motion as amended carried unanimously. WORK SESSION AMENDMENTS TO THE SOIL EROSION ORDINANCE The following was presented to the staff: Amendment #1 New Paragraph under 11-8A-2 All plans, either for grading or filling prior to any development or in connection with immediate development of land shall indicate the following: 1. Existing and proposed contours. Existing drainage areas and any proposed relocation of drainage area. 2. Permanent or temporary sediment basins (debris or desilting basins and silt basins). 3. Location of existing trees, with the size indicated. What trees and natural cover are to be removed and what trees and natural cover are to remain. 4. Methods of replacing the disturbed natural cover with a statement indicating the estimated date for completion of the grading or fill activity. 4. Any additional soil erosion preventive measure deemed necessary by the Area Conservationist of Soil Conservation Service or by the Agent for the Board of Supervisors, in keeping with the soil erosion hand- book. Amendment #2 New Paragraph under 11-8A-2 Any grading or fill plan which is submitted for a road, which is located in the urban area or community clusters, as defined by the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, as amended, must be accompanied by road plans and profiles approved by the Virginia Department of Highways prior to the issuance of a grading permit, even though the road is not involved in an immediate subdivision or development of the surrounding land. No grading of a road is to take place until the above has been accomplished. In approving a grading or fill plan for roads and their right-of-way, the agent shall make the following conditions applicable: 1. Within 30 days of initial grading, stabilize all streets and parking areas with base coarse crushed stone. Following completion of rough grading, other exposed areas shall be protected by seeding and mulching. 2. Protect exposed cut and fill slopes against overland flow of storm runoff from adjacent areas through installation of interceptor 125i dikes and other appropriate structures. Divert runoff to safe outlets and following final grading, immediately stabilize slopes with vegetation or other appropriate materials. 3. Promptly establish rough graded rights -of -way to temporary vegetation if the period of exposure will be greater than 30 days before construction and final stabilization can be accomplished. 4. Limit grading to areas of workable size so as to limit the duration of exposure of disturbed and unprotected area. Mr. Rinehart stated that he would like to see less destruction of property without a plan being submitted and could not see any real reason for destroying vegetation before a plan had been approved. He then asked Mr. Daley Craig,who was present, if Mr. Craig himself had any feelings regarding this. Mr. Craig said he could not forsee any problems only if approval delayed construction which ran into bad weather. Mr. Carr noted that land was not always being graded by the developer but possibly by the middle man, c.ho was getting it ready for sale. After further discussion by the Commission, Mr. Carr stated that he would hate to see the Commission go all the way regarding this matter, and wanted to know if there wasn't some middle ground the Commission could take. Mr. Lloyd Wood, stated that he had anticipated this action, and thought maybe he had been a little harsh regarding the Berkeley incident and hoped the County would not make it too much of a burden on other developers and landowners who were trying to comply. Dr. Catlin stated that maybe in the case of residential development versus business or industrial development, that possibly the Commission could require a buffer strip. Mrs. Craddock noted that it was now good planning to leave as much as of the natural beauty as possible even in commercial and industrial uses. Mrs. Joan Graves, stated thatthe Berkeley Community Association 91 1258 supported the proposed addendums to the Soil Erosion Ordinance and in her opinion, the revisions would not be too restrictive upon a well intended developer. She stated that she did not see any point in the Commission requiring screening of mobile homes, if they were going to let items such as this get by. Mr. Craig suggested some type of preliminary site plan to take care of this. It was suggested that this type of preliminary site plan might include: 1) Existing trees to be shown 2) Structures located on the plan It was then noted that the preliminary plan would have to come before the Commission. Mr. Carr stated that he did not see a preliminary plan having structures located on it. He stated that it was his opinion that this type of site plan should show the more attractive natural features, on the property and if the grade was going to be changed, then the slopes should be shown on the plan also. Mr. Humphrey noted that he would rewrite Amendment #1. Amendment #2 Mr. Carr stated that he agreed with this suggestion. Mr. Goode Love suggested that a time limitation be put on seeding. Mr. Humphrey stated that this might pose a problem because grading may take more than a year. It was suggested that a phasing and certification letter be required and a permit be granted for that time only. The staff then presented proposed amendment to the ordinance in the R-2 and R-3 zones. 1259 1. Amend Article 5-1 to include: an additional use to be known as: 5-1-15(6) Condominium Housing Projects subject to approved site plan. 2. Amend Article 6-1 to include an additional use to be known as: 6-1-21(10) Condominium Housing Projects subject to Site Plan approval. 3. Amend Article 16 Definitions - to include the following: Condominium: ownership of single units in a multiple unit structure or complex having common elements. Ownership includes fee simple title to a residence or place of business and undivided ownership in common elements in the structure and including the land and its appurtenances and as futher defined and regulated under Chapter 4.2,Title 55 of Virginia State Code as amended. Mr. Craig told the Commission that condominiums were the only way that the developer could reach the low income and middle income markets. Dr. Sams suggested that possibly the Commission was subverting their interests by making so many amendments to the old ordinance, instead of working on the new one. Dr. Catlin stated that he tended to agree with this, but that it was a matter of public concern, Mr. Carr made a motion that by resolution of intent the Albemarle County Planning Commission propose to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by making revisions to Article 11-8A Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Easter which carried unanimously. Mrs. Craddock made a motion that by resolution of intent the Albemarle County Planning Commission propose to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for condominiums in the R-2 and R-2 zones and also to allow for the definition of a condominium.in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1260 The staff discussed the zoning map, primarily the Scottsville and Ivy area. Mr. Carr noted that Mr. Charles Ancona, as a member of the airport Commission, said he would arrange to fly the Commission members around Albemarle County, and that Mr. Ancona would like for them to set a time in advance. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. N M 1261 April 1% 1974 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on April 15, 1974, at 7:30 p.m. in the auditorium of Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. David Carr, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Dr. James Sams, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Louis Staley, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Those members absent Mr. Peter Easter. Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. The Minutes of February 11th and February 18th were, approved, withany cor- rections to be handed in to the secretary. Proposed Amendment to change the Definition of a mobile home to have a gross floor area of 950 square feet or less in lieu of 800 square feet. Article 16-59: "A single family detached dwelling unit transported to a site as a compact unit with a gross floor area of 950 square feet or less." Mr. McClure moved approval of the above proposed amendment which was seconded by Mr. Carr and carried unanimously. SP-329 Edwin G. Lee, Jr. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a duplex on 64 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 6339 about 1 mile east of Covesville. Property is further described as County Tax Map 109, Parcel 59. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report to the Commission commenting that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approved the request, it should be conditioned upon Building Official approval, and landscaping around the struc- ture to the satisfaction of the Planning and Zoning Department. 1262 Mr. Lee commented that his plans were to convert a building that was al- ready located on the property into a duplex. Mr. William Norvelle, a property owner who lived down the hill from 1. Lee, wanted to know how any approval of a duplex would affect his property, specifically concerning taxes. Dr. Catlin commented that the land would remain agricultural but that he or the Planning Commission could not make a statement with reference to the tax rate. Mr. W. R. Ve:rling wanted a clarification of the request and an answer to Mr. Norvelle's question regarding taxes. There was a :Lengthy discussion between Mr. Norvelle and the Commission, regarding the effect the request would have on his land (specifically regarding taxes) and whether or not approval of this request would set a precedent in the area. Mr. Norvelle noted however, that he was in sympathy with Mr. Lee when a man could not do as he pleased with his land. It was noted that the cinder block building on Mr. Lee's property was to be converted and that it was adjacent to a barn. This location produced the question of sanitation. Dr. Sams stated that in recent considerations that the Commission had granted permits on the basis of there being an accessory living unit (such as an apartment in a house, and in instances such as the one before them now, the Commission had tended to recommend denial; and in his opinion one additional living unit would be okay, but "two or more" would change the character of the area. Mr. Carr stated that Dr. Sams had a point, but stated that there was a need for housing for middle income families, which was removed from the high density areas. He stated that he did not think this request would harm the neighbors or change the area. Mr. McClure and Mrs. Craddock were concerned that this might set a pre- 9 cedent in the area. 1263 Dr. Sams moved for denial of the request. Mr. Timsley seconded the motion which carried by a 4 to 3 vote with Mr. Rinehart abstaining. SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISION PLATS a) Beaver Creek Lake Comfort Station and Boat Dock Site Plan Mr. Williams, the Assistant County Engineer, stated that the septic system would be located far enough from the lake to protect the water supply. Mr. Williams told the Commission that he and Mr. Cheavacci had looked at the soil and that the County had a health department permit in hand. Mr. Sampson told the Commission that the County was proposing a comfort station and storage room for the Parks Department. Upon questioning by Dr. Catlin, it was ascertained that the building would have routine maintenance checks by the Parks Department. Mr. Sampson told the Commission that the dwelling would have a minimum temp- erature of 32 degrees year round. A Mrs. Walter asked the Commission if this project would take any of her property. She was told that it would not. Mr. Rinehart wanted to know who had prepared the landscape plan? Mr. Sampson told him that a member of the County staff had prepared the plan and he had a degree in landscape architecture. Mr. Staley expressed his deep concern to protect the water supply. After further discussion, Mr. Carr moved approval of the site plan, which was seconded by Mr. McClure and carried unanimously. b) Oak Terrace Apartment Site Plan - Inglewood Drive Miss White told the Commission that the plan had been reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee. She stated that the staff was still waiting for a letter from the City concerning sewer availability. 2) that the Highway Department stated that the entrance must be 301 in width 3) that the Engineer stated that there should 1264 be satisfactory sewer and water lines (sufficient size) rand so shown on the plan. 4) and that the soil erosion measures be shown on the site plan. Mr. Roudabush stated that he had not talked with Mr. Main at City Hall but stated that he would be in communication with him within the next few days, and stated that possibly the Commission would like to make this one of the condi- tions of approval. Mr. McClure moved approval of the site plan conditioned upon: 1) water and sewer availability 2) Highway Department approval 3) a revised site plan with revisions as listed above be submitted. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. c) Hop -In Food Market Site Plan Miss White told the Commission that a plan for this parcel had been approved some two years ago, but that the staff felt there were enough changes to warrant re -submittal. It was noted that the following items were needed: 1) The Engineering department stated that they would. have to review plans for the discharge of the storm water from the catch basin. 2) that the setback needed to be shown on the site plan 3) that dimensions of retail area be com- puted and stated on the site plan so that the number of parking spaces required could be computed. 4) although the grading does not exceed 15,000 square feet, the staff recommends that precautions for soil erosion during grading be made a condition of approval 5) and any flood lights be directed away from the resi- dential area. Mr. Bill Jamison, builder, was present to represent Mr. Harper, as he could not be there. Miss White told the Commission that Mr. Harper intend to use the sewer and water facilities at Georgetown Green, including the sewer and water pumping sta- tions owned by Daley Craig, Inc.. 1265 Mr. Bill Jamison noted that he thought approximately 1776 square feet of retail area would be used. Mr. Rinehart was concerned about the plans for the small area of land, owned by Mr. Harper, that was not being used for this site plan. Mr. Robert J. Huskey, President, of Georgetown Green Homeowners Association, Inc. read a lengthy letter from the association expressing their concern about some potential problems that might result from the proposed construction including drainage, screening, traffic hazard, etc. A copy of said letter is on file and a matter of record concerning this site plan. Mr. Rinehart noted that in view of all the problems, he would like to see the site plan re -worked. Mrs. Craddock suggested that possibly at least 3 of the Planning Commission members view the site. Several commission members stated that they were already very familiar with the site. Mr. Rinehart moved deferral of action so that the site plan could be revised to include the following information and so that some of the questions raised could be answered. 1) Planting plan - thought additional screening may be necessary. 2) Parking - Doubt expressed that the site is large enough to provide parking for two levels of commercial usage. 3) Drainage must be resolved. 4) Sewage disposal must be clarified. An agreement should be reached between the owner of the sewerage lift station (Daley Craig) and the Georgetown Green Homeowners Assocation whi^h main- tains it. 5) What are the plans for the property to the immediate north which has been set aside? 6) Parking spaces 1-9 may not be feasible due to entrance, exist conflicts and also the proposed right-of-way. 7) Fift,7, (50) foot rear and side yard setback line should be identified with a note. The front setback line should be shown as a straight line parallel to, and thirty (30) feet from the proposed right-of-way:line of Route 743. g) Amount of net retail area on both floors of the building must be computed on the site plan in order to deter- mine parking space requirements. 9) Soil erosion control measures must be 1266 shown on the site plan 10) Floodlighting plans should be specified. (No lights directed toward adjacent residential areas. 11) A de -acceleration lane from Hydraulic Road should be shown on site plan. Dr. Sams questioned the location of the gasoline pumps. Mr. Carr noted that the pumps were probably self service and that there was not room in front for them. Mr. Carr seconded the motion which carried unanimously. d) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Site Plan Miss White told the Commission that the Site Plan Review Committee had reviewed the plan and noted that the Highway Department stated that the plans must show the two entrances with a minimum width of 301 each. She stated that the Highway Department was going to require a dedication of 101,' which would run the full frontage along Route 743, and that also a turning lane with the same limits as the 101 dedication would be required. The County Engineer stated that a 15' easement for the water line should be shown on the site plan. :Miss White told the Commission that an erosion control plan should be submitted before a grading permit was issued. There was a lengthy discussion of the 101 dedication requirement and a deceleration lane running the full length of the property. Mr. Carr moved for approval of the plan with the following conditions: 1) an erosion control plan 2) 15' easement shown on site plan for water line. 3) resolution of highway problem by appropriate deceleration lanes at both entrances. Mr. Carr noted that he would like for the Commission to go on record as preferring deceleration lanes at both entrances but not across the entire length of the property. Mr. McClure seconded the ;notion which carried unanimously. e) Stonehenge Subdivision — Section 5 and Addition One, Section 5. After a brief' discussion Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the above with the 1267 following conditions: 1) waiving the 40' lot width requirement on lot 9 2) approval of site plan as shown. Mr. McClure seconded the motion which carried unanimously. f) Addition of Phillips Building Supply Site Plan The Planning Staff recommended that: 1) Per the County Engineer's recom- mendation, the outlet structure should be cleaned out. 2) consolidation of en- trances - no more than two on Route 631 (Rio Road) and one on the thirty foot right-of-way 3) Erosion control measures should be indicated on the site plan 4) and water and sewerage should be noted on the site plan. There was a lengthy discussion between Mr. McCauley, an adjoining property owner, the applicant and the Planning Commission regarding Mr. McCauley's concern over water runoff, condition of and maintenance of the road, additional truck traffic and noise, etc. After further discussion of these matters, Mr. Carr moved approval of the site plan with the following conditions: 1) The outlet structure should be cleaned out as per the County Engineer's recommendation. 2) Soil erosion control measures should be stated on the site plan 3) The thirty (30) foot right-of-way should be surface treated to width of twenty (20) feet and the length from Rio Road to the rear of the rear entrance, and maintained forever. 4) Water and sew- age should be noted on the site plan; and 5) An agreement should be reached in reference to the storm drainage water to be carried along the thirty (30) foot right-of-way and disposed of in the vicinity of Mr. W Cauley's house into the existing creek, to the approval of. the County Engineer. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion which carried unanimously. g) Woodbrook Subdivision, Section 10. Miss White told the Commission that this was a request for 29 lots, of which it .^ 7,r,,ro ? +l + they he .,cry by Vieth County water nn? set,er (r�ood17^ok �. x The staff recommended that front setback lines and lot sizes be shown on the plat. 1268 She noted that the County Engineers comments were: 1) that in order to check -the drainage easements on the plat, the Engineering; Department would have to have plans and profiles of the roads in this section; 2) and that a subdivision plan would be needed for the site with the sewer and water plans. They noted that the sewer plans would have to have profiles to accompany. There was a lengthy discussion between the Commission and Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, as to whether or not there was sufficient capacity in the Wood - brook Lagoon to provide sewer for this addition to Woodbrook as well as handling the already approved Shopping Center. It was noted that the certificate limit for the Woodbrook facility was 55,000 gpd as a monthly average. It was noted that the citizens of Woodbrook suggested that sufficient fire hydrants be required according to the fire ordinance. Mr. Carr moved approval of the plat contingent upon the following conditions being met: 1) Revised site plan submittal showing revisions requested by letter dated 4-4-74. (Road bond, setbacks shown on plat, and lots sizes shown on plat). 2) that the County Engineer must be able to advise the staff that existing com- mitments and the requested commitments to Woodbrook Lagoon will not exceed the 53,000 gpd capacity and 3) that fire hydrants be installed as required by the code. 4) and administrative approval contingent upon the previous three condi- tions being met properly. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unani- mously. h) Westside High School (Preliminary Site Plan) The staff prE!sented the site plan, and Mr. Wood, Supervisor, suggested that the parking for the school be made as inconspicuous as possible and that possibly the Highway Department could give them some guidance regarding the entrance, as he did not thi.n!,� it would be wise to have the ­�ntrarcer; 1ncnt.�� d t, thc., same p� nt (Y. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the preliminary plan with the following con- ditions, which was seconded by Mr. and carried unanimously. 1269 1) That the Virginia Department of Highways be consulted regarding the entrances. 2) Anything that could be done to make the parking inconspicuous. 3) That a landscape plan be submitted, possibly in consultation with a land- scape architect. 4) That the service area in relation to the parking area be re-evaluated. It was noted that the final site plan would need to be reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee and Planning Commission for engineering details, etc. i) Temporary Fireworks 'Stand Site Plan - at intersection of Rio Road and Route 29 North. The staff made the following recommendations and comments: 1) Health Depart- ment has approved the use of the adjacent facilities for one month 2) Any new signs erected must comply with the County sign ordinance, and require permits 3) Approval of the facility would be for one month. 4) The Albemarle County Code contains certain restrictions against the sale of fireworks, which should be adhered to. The staff told the Commission that it would be from June 7th through July 7th and that the applicant would be leasing from Charlottesville Savings and Loan Association. It was noted that it would be a frame structure. Mrs. Craddock moved approval subject to the above four mentioned conditions which was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously. j) Monticello Home Builders - request for a 25' easement to serve one 2 acre parcel across 1/2 acre lot. The staff noted that the plat indicated a 25' strip from the center line After a brief discussion, Mr. Carr moved approval of the plat, with the ease- ment being only to serve one lot, which was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously. k) Ray Compton - request for a 25' easement to serve on 4 acre parcel The staff noted that a 3 acre parcel would be added to an existing parcel. 1270 After a brief discussion, Mr. Rinehart, moved approval of the reouest to serve the one 4 parcel located on the south side of Route 250 West, Mr. Carr seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Dr. Catlin noted that there had been 13 things on the agenda, and he con- sidered that just to be too many. He asked the staff to see if they could limit the number of items if possible and if necessary the Commission would have to consider holding more meetings. He also commented that the site plans still seemed to be incomplete and asked the staff to see if they could solve this problem. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 9 1971 April 22, 1974 This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held at 7:30 P.M. on April 22, 1974, in the County Executive's Conference Room, 4th Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. David Carr, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr. Peter Easter, and Mr. Louis Staley, Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Those absent were: Dr. James Sams and Mr. Jack Rinehart. Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. It was the consensus of the Commission to delay action on the minutes of February 25, 1974, through March 18, 1974, until next week's work session. Mrs. Fran Martin made a correction or. Page #1235 (as corrected in the offi- cial minute book). site. DEFERRED ITEM: SP-342 M. H. Harris This application had been deferred so that the Commission could. visit the The staff recommended that if the Commission desired to approve the appli- cation, it be conditioned upon the following: 1) County Building Official appro- val 2) and that it be granted to the applicant only and would be nontransfer- rable. Hr. Easter stated that he had visited the site and believed that it was in an Brea in which. the Commission should not encourage mobile homes, however, this was the only means of providing a dwelling for the applicant at this time. After further discussion, Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the request with the following conditions: 1) Satisfactory screening (to the staff's approval) 2) that the long axis of the mobile home be pointed to the Williams' home 3) for a period of 1 year with two annual administrative renewals if progress is 1272 is being made toward building a house 4) that the permit be limited to the Harris' and is non-transferrable and. 5) Building Official approval. Mr. Rinehart stated that he wanted. to stress if the driveway could be located from the side instead of coming down the utility easement that it would be more desirable. Mr. Staley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Upon questioning by Mrs. Speidel, concerned with scenic highway designation, Mr. Tucker stated that the mobile home was not visible from Route 20. Mr. Tucker presented to the Commission the suggested amendments to the Albe- marle County Zoning Ordinance relative to Article 11-8 A Soil Erosion and Sedimen- totion Control, which was as follows: SEE INSERTS - Amendment #1 and Amendment #2 There was questioning by some Commission members as to why only urban area and clusters were designated in Amendment #2.' Mr. Carr stated that he had no desire to make the farmer live up to the standards in Amendment #2, but did not know exactly how to solve the problem. Dr. Catlin stated also that there were some active ferms in the urban area and would they have to come under the provision of Amendment #2; Mrs. Craddock suggested the Commission look at these amendments again in a modified form and that an act to protect the reservoir be devised. Mrs. Fran Martin asked the Commission to please come up with some type of provision so that persons could not use the "agricultural activity" clause to keep them from obtaining a grading permit, when it was not actually bona fide agricul- tural activity. She suggested some type of affadavit that would bind the devel- oper to their intentions. Mr. George St. John stated that the definition of "agricultural" was taken from the state code and that an affadavit could be signed. He stated that an unscrupulous person could say that he had changed his intentions and if an 12i3 affadavit was thought to be fraudulent, it would be up to the Commonwealth's Attorney to decide whether to issue a warrant or etc. Regarding the protention of reservoir areas, Mrs. Speidel questioned whether engineers could furnish the guidelines for boundaries for protection. Mr. Humphrey replied this would have to be an entire watershed area. Dr. Catlin noted that the second amendment needed more thought given to it. (how to protect the reservoir, etc.). He asked the staff to come up with some suggestions regarding this. Mrs. Groves noted that possibly a buffer zone would be beneficial. There was a lengthy discussion of whether the plans mentioned in Amendment #1 and #2 would come before the Planning Commission. Dr. Catlin noted that the Soil Conservation Service was not as concerned, when they reviewed any development plans, with the effect to the neighbors and the surrounding community as the Planning Commission was. Mr. Humphrey agreed with this statement. Mr. St. John stated that he had been questioned about what could be done about an application for a grading permit that was not accompanied by any plans for the development of the site. He noted that at the present tine, if all the technical aspects were met, the applicant did not have to present a site plan at that time. He noted that he had been asked repeatedly by the staff and citizens what to do about this problem. Dr. Catlin agreed that it was a problem because the aesthetic value of land had been hurt. Mr. St. John noted tha there was no solution to this particular problem in the amendments as presented tonight. Dr. Catlin stated it was his opinion, that if the land was zoned B-1 or Industrial, that it was reasonable to think the land should be bulldozed as long as the Soil Conservation Service sees that it meets standards for soil erosion, etc. 1274 Mrs. Craddock stated that land did not have to be leveled completely for business development and thought that the business man needed to be educated in thi s way. Mr. Goode Love stated that he thought that it was a mistake to require resi.- dential-streets to be brought up to state standards (50' wide). Mr. Carr noted that he did not want the County of Albemarle to get as dic- titorial as the State Highway Department. Mr. Easter stated that he thought a requirement for some type of buffer zone and screening was needed. It was noted also that a grading plan should be required on non-commercial land, and that commercial land should be required to have some sort of buffering. Mrs. (Martin questioned whether the particular items being discussed should be included in the Soil Erosion Ordinance, and stated that she would like to see the two sections separated. Dr. Catlin noted that under Amendment #1, grading plans should be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the staff's review and the Soil Conservation Service Review. Mr. Staley wanted to know how the Commission felt alout trees being cut? Mr. Humphrey noted that the Commission would have to adopt a tree ordinance to accomplish that. Condominiums: 1. Amend Article 5-1 to include: an additional use to be known as: 5-1-15 (6) Condominium housing projects subject to approved site plan. 2. Amend. Article 6-1 to include an additional use to be known as: 6-1-21 (10) Condominium Housing Projects subject to Site Plan approval. 3. Amend Article 16 Definitions - to include the following: Condominium: ownership of single units in a multiple unit structure 1275 or complex having common elements. Ownership includes feeysimple title to a residence or place of business and undivided ownership, in common elements in the structure and including the land and its appurtenances and as further defined and regulated under Chapter 4.2, Title 55 of the Virginia Code as amended. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that,the state enabling legislation recently adopted, stated that no zoning ordinance will preclude condominiums and had to be provided for in the ordinance by July 1, 1974• Mr. Goode Love expressed his concern that unless association by-laws and agreements were written correctly, the property owner could easily get rooked. Mr. Humphrey noted that these should be similar to subdivision restrictions. Mr. Carr noted that he thought this was a problem between the buyer and the developer. He thought that these problems should be controlled by a homeowners' association. The Commission asked the staff to confer with Mr. St. John about the protec- tion that the buyers would have. Mr. McClure moved that the above mentioned proposed amendment be made ready for public hearing. Mr. Carr seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Routine Plat - Scottsville Sbopping? Center Mr. Humphrey- told the Commission that it was his understanding that all the land under the building was going to be sold to the individual owner of each store. He noted that this particular easement would provide access for parcels #1 and #7 and that others would be submitted later. It was noted that this would present a question of who would maintain the parking lot, lights, ingress, and egress. He noted that the homeowners could pay for this or each owner could be charged on the basis of the square footage his building occupied. 4 It was the consensus of the Commission that they would like to see an agree- 1276 meat that would go on record. with this plat. Xr. Humphrey noted that he would like for the Commission to make a motion of intent so that he could advertise for public hearing as requested by the Board of Supervisors, an amendment to Article: 2-1-25 (29) which would add the follok-ing sentence: "No sanitary landfill shall be operated except, by and for the benefit of the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle, a public service authority organized under the laws of Virgir•.ia and serving the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle, or both; or such other political subdivision of the State as may be authorized by State law to serve such City or County or both. This section shall not preclude a publicly operated landfill by independent contractor; but no privately operated landfill shall be permitted". Mr. St. John stated that the State Bode provided that a county, or any locality is responsible for the operation of landfill, regardless of whether it is publicly or privately operated. Mrs. Craddocl; moved that the above mentioned amendment be made ready for public hearing. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that soon there would be a resolution of intent coming to them from the Board of Supervisors in which bonding would be tied to the Certificate of Occupancy, and in which if there was a financial basis for occupying the premise before a certificate of occupancy is issued, the appli- cant might post a bond to take care of the remaining conditions. Mr. Humphrey stated that by resolution of intent he mould like to bring before the Planning Commission a requirement that rental units be allowed with special permit approval only, outside of the R-2 and R-3 :,ones. Mrs. Craddock questioned the basis for which they would deny or approve special permits. There was a discussion among Commission members for possibly allowing one or two rental units without special permit approval. 1277 Mr. Carr moved that by resolution of intent, an amendment, regarding rental units being allowed with a special permit only be advertised for public hearing. Mr. Easter seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that the definitions of home occupation by right and by special permit were not at all clear (new zoning ordinance). Mr. St. John and Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that since the master plan was geared for the year 2000, that Mr. St. John was trying to draft standards regarding premature subdivisions and premature site plans which would be forth- coming on the agenda. There was a lengthy discussion concerning designation of the prime agricul- tural land as A-1 and good agricultural land (grazing land) as A-2. Mr. Carr stated it was his opinion that outlying growth could be controlled by getting water and sewer to the cluster areas. Mr. St. John questioned whether the land designated as agricultural would ever be used as agricultural. Mr. Easter stated that he would like to see the County's agricultural land tied to land that would qualify for land use taxation. Mr. St. John noted that each category would probably have to be defended in court and that it would be good to have the agricultural zone divided into A-1 and A-2. Mr. McClure stated that there would have to be a considerable amount of land zoned R-R in the County for the low and middle income families. After further discussion along these lines, the meeting was then adjourned. 1278 April 29, 1974 This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on April 29, 1974, at 7:30 p.m. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.. Those members present were Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Clifton M. McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. David Carr, Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Peter Faster, Mr. Wilinzr Tinsley, Mr. Louis Staley, Dr. James Sam::, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Dr. Catlin called the .meeting to order and established that a quorum war present. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the minutes of February 25, 1974, through March 18, 1974, as corrected. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried un- animously. Revised item: Beaver Creek Comfort Station - The staff told the Commission that the com- fort station was being moved to the top of the hill and that the boat dock was being moved around. to the cove. They noted that 'fr. Fisher and Mr. Carwile objected to the previously proposed location. "r. Staley was very concerned with the location of the septic tanks. Mr. Sampson noted that the location of the septic tank had not changed from the pre - Mr. Staley :sated that, he felt the septic t -1- f-i e - viously approved site plan. should be placed below th=: R�:aver Creek: DR I. Mr. Staley noted that several people in the area had called him concerning this, and suggested that several of the Commission members re-.,iew the site. Mr. Sampson stated that he had visited the site with Mr. Fisher. Mr. Carr stated that he had agreed with approval of the previous site plan as there was going to be a small degree of activity and since the Engineering Depart- ment and the Health Department would approve it. Mrs. Craddock recommended that at least ? members of the Commission visit the 1279 site; Mr. Staley being one of them. Dr. Sams noted that if they located the facilities so that they were not used, then the Commission would be accomplishing nothing. Dr. Catlin added that he thought that all of the facts were before them. Dr. Sams moved that they approve the revised site plan, recognizing Mr. Staley's statement, but also recognizing that the location of the septic tank was something that had been approved previously. Mr. McClure seconded the motion which carried with Mr. Rinehart and Mrs. Craddock abstaining and Mr. Staley voting against it. AMENDMENT SOIL EROSION ORDINANCE Mr. Rinehart stated that he was concerned with the additional time element that would be caused by the amendments; that construction would be delayed considerably. Dr. Catlin and Mr. Easter stated that they thought that contro-irersial mea- sures should be brought to the Commission. Mrs. Craddock moved that by resolution of intent the amendment be advertised for public hearing. AIRPORT APPROACH AND HAZARD DISTRICT AREAS Mr. Tucker noted that this ordinance on the hazard area provided for height restrictions, which world conform with FAA regulations. He noted that it eliminated any high density residential development and places of public assembly. Mr. Tucker noted that, FAA was now in the process of rQviewing the ordinance. Mr. Carr noted that he thought th.s presentation was somewhat premature and wanted to get FAA's reaction before they considered it Nrther. Mr. Easter commented that there was soil erosion taking place near the end of the runway. Nfr. Hlurphrey told the Commission that the proper authority had been notified to re -seer?. 1280 Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that he would like a resolution of intent from them so that the amendment requiring three or more rental units in certain zones to have a special use permit could be advertised for public hearing. "Ir. Carr made a motion, that the above mentioned amendment be advertised for public hearing. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion which carries unanimously. There was lengthy discussion about what to zone; the remainder of the County, after the Agricultural and Conservation zones had been designated. Mr. McClure stated that he thought that from the beginning the Commission's intent had been to zone the remaining part of the County RR (2 acres). Mr. Carr noted that this would make it very hard for clusters to form that would be provided with water and sewer. Mr. Love told the Commission that he considered "'i" acre ample property for a homeowner to afford and take care of. Several Commission members also expressed their concern for holding back urban sprawl, wanting dwellings to be built in clusters, etc. On the other hand, other Commission members were concerned how this would affect the low or middle income person in any effort to own a home. After further discussion along these lines, the meeting was adjourned.