Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 19742-4- August 5, 1974 hrrrr This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held at 7:30 p.m. in the auditorium of Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Peter Easter, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Dr. James Sams, Mr. Louis Staley and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Mr. Carr called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. Deferred Items: Health Spa definition Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve the following definition, which was a revised version of Mr. Sloan's recommendation: A Health Spa is an establishment which provides facilities and per- sonalized supervision for maintaining one's physical fitness. Such establishment should include work out area, steam, sauna and sun rooms, whirlpool bath and swimming pool, and a dressing room area with shower and toilet facilities. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. It was noted that a health spa would not have to include all of the above mentioned facilities. SP-370.. Mr. and Mrs. Sam Lively Mr. Easter told the Commission that he had viewed the site and that he was not as upset with the mobile home as he was with the trash around the location. He also suggested that the mobile home be placed in the vicinity of the landlord's residence so that the mobile home would not be in view of the other residents. Mr. Rinehart stated that he had the same reaction as Mr. Easter and that the only way that he would vote for approval of the request was that the mobile home be located within 200 yards of Mrs. Sweeney's residence. Mrs. Sweeney stated that the trash had been removed from around the other mobile home on the property. Mr. L. L Lively told the Commission that he had met with Mr. Easter and Mr. Rinehart and that he wanted the Lively's to have a place to live, but wanted to know where the applications for mobile homes in the area would end, OR z and strongly objected to the trash and traffic, etc. that the present mobile home had caused. , At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the petition, subject to the following conditions being met: 1. County Building Official approval; 2. That this mobile home be located within 200 yards of the main dwelling on the property (Mrs. Sweeney's residence); 3. Skirting of the mobile home from ground level to the base of the mobile home; 4. Five (5) year time limit; 5. Health Department approval; 6. Issued to the applicant only and is non-transferrable; 7. That the entrance to Mrs. Sweeney's property be cleaned up (removal of automobiles, trash (beer cans, trunks, and miscella- neous trash.) Mr. Easter seconded the motion. It was also a part of the motion that the trash would have to be cleaned up within 60 days. The motion carried unanimously. SP-371. Herbert McDaniel. Mr. McDaniel told the Commission that he wanted to live in the mobil home so that he would repair the house (specifically floors). He noted however, that he would prefer living in the mobile home and renting the dwelling. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the permit with the following conditions: 1. County Building Official approval; 2. Screening from Route 605; 3. 600 foot setback from Route 605; 4. Skirting from the base of the mobile home to ground level; 5. For a period of two years with l year administrative approval at which time the administrative approval for the additional year will be granted only if the intent is being met. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. T. Eugene Worrell Mr. Rinehart disqualified himself from discussion or voting on this matter, and consequently left the room. Mr. Tucker told the Planning Commission that even with the first ap- peal that the application could be ruled upon by the Planning Commission G�3 Mr. Humphrey read the staff report commnting that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors wished to approve the application, it should be conditioned upon the following: 1. only the main structure shall be used for professional offices and any addition to this structure for office purposes shall require an additional special use permit; 2. Any use of this property shall be limited to professional offices and these of- fices shall be further limited to legal, accounting, data processing, and execu- tive professions; 3. Preservation and maintenance of all vegetation on the property; 4. Administrative approval of a site plan for the office building to insure adequate provision of parking; and 5. Assurance that deed restrictions will pose no conflict for this property to be used as a professional office. He noted that in their decision, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors should consider the intent of the Agricultural zone. Mr. Clyde Gouldman, attorney for the applicant, and Mr. Max Evans, landscape architect for the applicant, were present. Mr. Evans showed the existing conditions and proposed landscaping of the property. Mr. Gouldman told the Commission that only the key executives of the company would be located in the building. He noted that there would be very little traffic. He stated that he did not believe that the ordinance limits it to offices serving the community. Mr. Chamberlain, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Rosenblum, stated that the proposed use would change the character of the area. He stated that this would obviously be a cor- porate headquarters. He stated that there was a distinct difference between "professionals" and "executives." He stated that the County Attorney had stated that the zoning administrator had no decision to appeal, so therefore they were told that there was no legitimate appeal. He stated that they then filed a second appeal, which was an appeal to the decision not to accept the first appeal. After further discussion, Mr. Easter stated that it was his opinion that they did not have the necessary council to act on this request. Upon questioning by Mr. Easter, Mrs. Miller stated that she had not had time to dis- cuss the second appeal with Mr. St. John. Dr. Sams moved that to continue to hear the application, as it seemed proper to de- cide whether the application was within the intent of "Professional offices." Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mrs. Fran Martin told the Commission that at a meeting of the residents of "Ardwood" it was the consensus of the residents that if approved "2" conditions should be incorporated into the application: 1. That the permit be granted to the applicant only and nontransferrable. 2. That it be noted that the Planning Commission did not wish to set a precedent along Route 743. She stated that she thought the applicant was agreeable to this, and that the fault was not with the applicant but with the zoning ordinance. She suggested that an amendment be made to the ordinance for corporate offices;, in rural areas. She stated that possibly a floating zone should be es- tablished which would require that any operation such as this have 50 acre and that the applicant agree to leaving.90o of the land as open space. She stated that possibly a requirement could also be to use the existing house. Mrs. Rosenblum stated that she was sorry to see that their appeal had been thrown in the trash, and that she urged the Planning Commission to take up the problem of professional offices. Mr. Ron Roberts wanted to know the total amount of land area which would be involved and what type of signs would be put up. Mr. Worrell told the Commission that at the present time they would be utilizing 4.4 acres. He stated that they were the contract purchasers for 117 acres and that they had options to but the land across the road. He stated at the present time they intended to use the remaining acreage for raising cattle, and that the signs would be in keeping with what was already there. Mrs. Martin suggested that the ordinance be amended and that the applicant be asked to re -apply under the appropriate category. Dr,Suter stated that he was of the opinion that large acreages should be required for corporate offices. At this time the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tinsley stated that he would like for Mr. St. John to meet with the Commission to explain "executives" versus "professionals" and to tell them what limits could be applied to the 4.4 acres. Upon that basis, Mr. Tinsley moved for deferral (deferral date being on August 19). The motion was seconded by Mr. Easter and carried unanimously. Public Hearings: SP-382. Cushman Realty and Building Corporation has petitioned the Al- bemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a central well to serve "Meriwether Hill" and "Lewis Hill West" subdivisions on about 1.33 acres zoned RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the east side of State Route 678, adjacent "Meriwether Hill." Property is further described as County Tax Map 58B, Parcel F. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Bailey re -iterated his comments per the letter dated July 24, 1974. The staff stated that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors concurred with the staff's recommendation of approval, it should be condi- tioned upon the following: 1. In keeping with Board of Supervisor's policy, capacity of one gallon/minute/unit be maintained; 2. Testing of both wells simultaneously and results approved by the County Engineering Department; 3. County Engineering Department approval of location and sizes of water lines; and 4. Health Department and State Water Control Board approval of central well. There were several comments by citizens, (Dr. Suter and Mr. Scribner, Jr.) being concerned with how this would affect the area water supply, etc. It was noted that the water lines would be built to County standards. At this time the public hearing was closed. After a brief discussion, Mr. Tinsley moved approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. In keeping with Board of Supervisor's policy, capacity of one gallon/ minute/unit be maintained; (This means 64 gallons/minute) 2. Testing of both wells simultaneously and results approved by the County Engineering Department; 3. County Engineering Department approval of location and sizes of 4. water lines; and Health Department approval and State Water Control Board approval of 5. central well; That lots in Lewis Hill West and Meriwether Hill subdivisions will be supplied with water from a system owned and operated by Cushman Realty and Building Corporation, the owner and developer: Said owner and developer agrees on behalf of itself and its successors or assigns in ownership of such system, to dedicate to public use all distribu- tion lines, valves, connections and water meters owned by it, but excluding the well lot and all improvements thereon other than dis- tribution lines crossing it, at such time as it is unable to operate such system in compliance with any other legally issued by the State Board of Health pursuant to Section 62.1, Chapter 4 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended), including such rights of appeal provided for therein and by the general laws of Virginia. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. SP-387. Mackie Engineering Limited has peitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate professional office building on .55 acre zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of State Route 649 (Airport Road), near its intersection with State Route 606. Property is further described as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 17C and 17C(1), Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey read the staff recommendations commenting that the proposed zoning map indicated this area to be placed in the Industrial Limited zone which is comparable to the present M-1 zone. He stated that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors de- C- sired to approve the petition, it should be conditioned upon the following: 1. Building Official approval; 2. Site plan approval; 3. All equipment must be stored within an enclosed structure; 4. One free standing sign on the property not to exceed 10 square feet and not to exceed a height of 6 feet; and 5. One wall sign only on the primary structure not to exceed 20 square feet. Mr. Humphrey stated if there were alterations to the building, the matter would have to come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Carr stated that the use seemed to be compatible with the airport area. Dr. Sams moved approval of the request with the five "5" above mentioned conditions, which was seconded by Mr. Easter and carried unanimously. SP-392. Mildred Hart Ewell has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a two-family dwelling on part of 36 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of State Route 29 South, about 1 mile south of its intersection with State Route 692 at "Crossroads." Property is further described as County Tax Map 98, Parcel 8, (part thereof). Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Dr. Sams asked that the records show that he disqualified himself from discussion on voting on this matter. Mr. Humphrey read the staff report commenting that if the Planning Com- mission and Board of Supervisors desired to approve this petition it should be conditioned upon the following: 1. County Building Official approval; 2. Minimum setback from Route 29 South of 100 feet; 3. Minimum of four (4) off-street parking spaces provided; and 4. Health Department approval. Mr. Ewell stated that he would not be living on the property and that there was another living unit on the parcel, which would make a total of three rental units. Mr. Rinehart stated that for reasons of setting a precedent in the area, he was very much against the request. Mr. Easter moved for denial of the request as it was his opinion that this request if approved, would set a precedent in the area. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. SP-393. William C. Cason has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a two-family dwelling on 3.53 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of State Route 250 East, opposite the intersection of State Route 731. Property is further described as County Tax Map 79C, Section 2, Block A, Lot 5. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey read the staff report stating that the applicant desired to add to his present single family dwelling. He also stated that the deed restrictions for Shadwell Estates subdivision stated that the lots can only be developed for single-family dwellings. He stated that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors wished to approve this petition, it should be conditioned upon the following: 1. County Building official approval; 2. Minimum to two parking spaces per dwelling unit; 3. Health Department approval. Mr. Rinehart stated that he would be in favor of the request, since there was already a precedent in the area, if the applicant could have the deed re- strictions lifted. Mr. Rinehart moved for the deferral of request until the deed restric- tions could be lifted. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unani- mously. It was noted that this could be taken up on August 19, 1974, if the deed restriction question had been clarified. SP-400. Charlottesville Broadcasting Corporation has petitioned the Al- bemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a radio tower on .0574 acre zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of State Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) about 1000 feet northwest of its intersection with State Route 631 (Rio Road). Property is further described as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 18 (part thereof). Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report commenting that if the Planning Commis- sion and Board of Supervisors approved the petition, it should be conditioned upon the following: 1. Final approval from FAA; 2. County Building official approval; and 3. No other structure be located within a radius of the tower of 330 feet. Mr. Tucker noted that he had not received the written comments from FAA, however, they had stated that they did not believe this would have any im- pact on the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport. He stated that Mr. Vince Tolson, Manager, Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport, stated that he did not see how this would interfere with the airport. The applicant, Mr. Ross, WINA, stated that this request was to give bet- ter service to the County on radio station WQMC/FM. He stated this tower would increase the coverage by 95%. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the request conditioned upon the three (3) staff recommendations. Dr. Sams seconded the motion which carried unani- mously. It was noted that this was subject to the written conditions of FAA. Springdale Easement Request - request for a 20' right-of-way. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the request subject to no subdivision of tracts #1 and #2 using this 20' right-of-way can be made without approval of the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Briarcliff Apartments - review of Phase One The Commission was told that a Mr. Pete Wingfield, a nearby property owner asked that the matter be brought back before the Commission so he could give the Board his input concerning runoff from the proposed develop- ment. Mr. Humphrey read the Commission an impact report of the development re- garding drainage. Said report was prepared by the Assistant County Engineer, Ashley Williams and is on file. Mr. Pete Wingfield stated that his main concern was the drainage. He stated that the additional drainage from this project would ruin his yard and possibly go over the top of the bridge to his house. He stated that the drainage might also overflow another bridge on Sunset Road. He stated that it did not seem fair that they would have to suffer the blunt of al the runoff. Mr. Buddy Thompson, resident of the City of Charlottesville, and an ad- joining property owner to Moore's Creek also expressed his concern about the City. Mr. G. Fornes was also concerned about drainage onto his property. He expressed concern about damage to his spring. He expressed his feeling that the applicant should also show what the plans are for the adjoining property. He said he would if necessary get an injunction to stop the mud, water, and debris from running onto his property. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that they had already given approval of Phase I and that the County had no right to require offsite drainage. He stated that the only thing they could do would be to require riprapp at the discharge point. Mr. Huffman noted that the problem was caused way before you get to Mr. Wingfield's property. He stated that they would be more than happy to take other reasonable measures to keep from damaging other property. Mr. Carr stated that in his opinion, all the Commission could do in light of the discussion, would be to ask the County Engineering Department to take another look at the situation and to discuss with Mr. Aubrey Huffman other reasonable measures that might be taken to protect the property. He asked Mr. Humphrey to inform the Planning Commission of the outcome. There being no further business, the meeting was adjoined. It r M Jd11n L. Humplirey ecre August 5, 1974 This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held at 7:30 p.m. in the County Executive's Conference Room, 4th Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr. Louis Staley, and Mr. Jack Rinehart. Mr. Carr called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. Lake Albemarle - Mr. Humphrey noted that the Commission was concerned with whether it would qualify for Conservation? He pointed out to the Commission the designated area that was owned by Virginia fisheries. Mr. Rinehart noted that he would refrain from voting on this. Mr.�.Humphrey also told the Commission that the area outside of the Conservation zone would fall within the Agricultural Limited zone. Mr. Carr noted that if the owners of the lots could meet setbacks and health dept. approval, the lots could be built upon regardless of the zone, because they were non -conforming. Mrs. Craddock stated that she was of the opinion that contour lines should be followed and that the area be put in conservation, and she so moved. Mr. Carr stated that he was inclined to leave the area as it was, to see if someone would buy it and develop it. Mrs. Craddock's motion died. Mrs. Craddock made another motion, recommending that the area that drained into Lake Albemarle with the exception of the RS-1 lots (area on Map 41A) be zoned Conservation. Mr. Easter seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Historic Districts - Mr. Humphrey asked the Commission if they wanted to designate any historic areas at this time? He noted that �- the majority of the landowners did not want their land designated as historic. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that at the present time, they would recommend only those areas that have been made a part of the state and federal register, Mr. McClure entered the meeting at this time. Mr. William Walker Stevenson objected to extending the historic districts beyond the actual site of the buildings. Mr. Carr suggested that it be designated as 2 mile from the edge of the structure. Mr. Tucker suggested that possibly "historic landmark" would be a better term, since all historic areas :were not necessarily buildings. Mrs. Craddock suggested that possibly the staff should contact Mr. Junius Fishburne for the exact wording. Density - Mr. Humphrey noted that he was particularly concerned with the 10 acre lot size in the agricultural zone. He stated that an extension agent was of the opinion that the minimum acreage for an agricultural venture such as a vegetable farm was 5 acres. Mr. Rinehart stated that he was of the opinion that the Commission should stick with their recommendation of 10 acres and thought that 10 acres was a reasonable amount. It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend 10 acres for Agricultural. Several Commission members stated that it would be helpful to know how much RR was already developed. Mr. Easter stated that he was still very concerned about strip residential zoning. Mr. Easter stated that he would rather see smaller parcels of land with greater setback requirements. 9 After further discussion along these lines, it was suggested that Mr. St. John be contacted to see if larger setbacks could be required. (Mr.Rinehart suggested 150' for agricultural, and 100' for conservation and agricultural limited.) It was noted that possibly this could be justified from a safety standpoint. Mrs. Craddock was also asked to contact Mr. Dinsmore White of the Piedmont Environmental Council to see if he had any solutions to the problem. Mr. Carr stated that at the present, he could not see any solution that was legal, practicle and fair. Individual requests for consideration - Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that the staff was going to prepare a map for general distribution. Mr. Carr suggested that the public be charged $1.00 for these maps, that the staff would have to complete a study and analysis, etc. He stated that at this point it looked like it would be November before the Planning Commission could hold public hearings on the ordinance. The Commission suggested that they have review work sessions, so they could stay up to date on the ordinance and so that the continuity would not be lost. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned until 7:30 p.m. at Piedmont Virginia Community College. o3n L. Humphrey, S c etary j M August 12, 1974 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held at 7:30 p.m. in the County Court House, Court Square, Chalrottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Louis Staley; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Dr. James Sams; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and call the meeting to order. SP-391. W. K. Smith hs applied for a Special Permit to place a mobile home on 2.03 acres zoned A-1. The purposed is temporary housing while constructing a conventional dwelling. Property is located on the east side of Route 810 on State Route 668 (0.1 mile from Route 810). Property is described as County Tax Map 14, Parcel 48A. White Hall Magisterial District. Mrs. Scala read the staff report commenting that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors desired to approve this petition, it should be conditioned upon the following: 1. County Building Official approval; 2. Minimum setback from Route 668 of 100 feet; 3. Adequate evergreen screening from Route 668 as determined by the Planning staff; 4. Skirting around the moibile home from ground level to bade of the mobile home; 5. Time limit of three years and the mobile home is to be removed from this property at the end of that period; 6. This permit is issued to the applicant and is non-transferrable. Mr. Smith commented that the Building Department would not let him obtain an electrical permit to hook up a well to water his stock. Mr. W. M. Madison told the Commission that he had also received another request for a mobile home in that area ( George W. Shifflett). He stated that this lot and Mr. Smith's lot had been sold to them by Mr. George E. Shifflett. He questioned whether or not Mr. George E. Shifflet was going to continue to sell these lots off for mobile homes. Dr. Younger, an adjoining property owner, read the pertinent paragraphs from his letter of complaint. He requested that the Commission if they desired to approve this request, that it be for only one year. He stated that he was concerned with the mushrooming effect of mobile homes. Dr. Sams asked Mr. Smith if he owned any other land. Mr. Smith replied that Mr. Shifflett was not going to sell off any more lots for mobile homes. He stated that he had first choice, if Mr. Shifflett decided to sell any more land. Mr. Smith told the Commission that there were other mobile homes in the area. Mr. Younger stated that there were no mobile homes in the area south of Route 668 ( Brown's Cove ). At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Rinehart stated that approval of this mobile home would definitely set a precedent and that he was ready to initiate Mr. Carr's suggestion of doing away with mobile homes, except in mobile home subdivisions and mobile home parks. Mrs. Craddock moved for denial of the request as this was primarily an agricultural and residential area, recognizing the opposition to the request. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion. Dr. Sams expressed concern over Mr. Smith's doubt that he would be able to complete a conventional dwelling within 3 years. Other Commission members expressed similar feelings. Mr. McClure noted that the applicant would have to be paying on real estate plus $45.00 per month for renting the mobile home lot. The motion for denial carried by a 6-2 vote with Mr. McClure and Mr. Staley voting against the motion. A brief work session was held on the merits of recommending that mobile homes be allowed only in mobile home subdivisions and mobile home parks. R It was suggested that the County Attorney be contacted to see if this approach would be legal. Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor, stated that he mentioned this possibility to the Board of Supervisors, and thought that they were ready to deal with it. Mr. Goode Love suggested that they encourage individuals to promote mobile home subdivisions, with public water and sewer. Mr. Staley suggested 1 acre lots, with their own water and septic systems. He also suggested cutting down the standards for the roads to make ownership less expensive. Mrs. Craddock questioned whether mobile home parks, etc. would encourage people to move here just to live in the parks. Mr. Carr noted that it had been mentioned recently that zoning was in opposition to poor people and that they would have to keep this in mind. Dr. Sams commented that he thought that there was a great deal of prejudice against trailers. He stated that he thought they were influenced more than they should be. He stated that he thought they needed input from residents that were ultimately involved. He also stated that Commission members only had heresay on these problems. Mrs. Joan Graves offered to make available to the Commission information that the League of Women Voters had on low cost housing. Mr. Lloyd Wood suggested that Mr. Gordon Wheeler be contacted to see what was being done about low cost housing. load Mr. Rinehart made a motion that the Planning Commission consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would prohibit mobile homes except in mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions, and that Mr. Carr call Mr. Wheeler to see if the committee being formed to investigate low-cost housing could conduct a study ( to see what could be done to encourage mobile home subdivisions being developed, other low-income housing, etc. ). Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion. Mr. Easter stated that he recognized the problems, but that he was not ready to vote to prohibit mobile homes from being located in the County except in mobile home subdivisions and parks. Dr. Sams and Mr. Tinsley concurred with Mr. Easter wholeheartedly. Mr. McClure stated that they were going to have to find a solution to getting mobile home parks developed ( and subdivisions ) before they could exclude them throughout the County. Mr. Rinehart attempted to re -phrase the motion stating that he would like a study to analyze the mobile home situation with the idea of having mobile homes in the subdivisions and parks only. Several Commission members were not in agreement with motion. Dr. Sams offered a substitute motion that Mr. Carr, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Wheeler ( or any two ) discuss the possibility of establishing a committee or sub -committee to study the problem of low income housing including mobile homes in the County. Mr. Staley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. L. August 19, 1974 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on August 19, 1974, at 7:30 p.m. in the auditorium of Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlot- tesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Dr. James Sams; Mr. Louis Staley; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Roy Barksdale; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Mr. Carr called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. Mr. Carr announced that SP-393 William Cason was to be deferred until September 3, 1974 as the desired information had not been obtained at this time. He also noted that Pantops Dodge site plan had been deferred until September 16, 1974. Mr. Rinehart moved that consideration of for one week (August 26, 1974). Mr. Tinsley ly. Off -Street Parking the minutes for the month of May be deferred seconded the motion, which carried unanimous - Dr. Sams moved deferral of the amendment so that the Planning Commission could have time to review it. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion. After asking whether there were any comments from the public, the motion to defer carried unanimously; deferral date being on August 26, 1974. Entrance to Vlaviano's Expresso Restaurant Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that according to Mr. St. John, County Attorney, the present valid site plan did not have an entrance on Route 29 North. Mr. Easter disqualified himself from voting on the matter. Mr. Lowry told the Commission that Mr. St. John had not had a chance to see the memorandum that he had just presented to the Commission. He stated that he did not parti- cularly desire for the Commission to take action on the item tonight. He stated that at the time the lessee signed the agreement to lease the Expresso, the site plan showed an entrance on Route 29, and that when a revised site plan was submitted, the lessee was not notified. He explained further the contents of the memorandum that he submitted to the Commission. Mr. Tinsley moved that consideration of this request be deferred until next week (August 26, 1974) so that the Commission could have time to review the memorandum. Mr. Lowry also requested that site plans of Charlottesville Shopping World and the furniture store on Route 29 be made available to the Commission, as these were similar cases. M 4L-) West Woods request for individual wells Mrs. Scala read Mr. Bailey's letter of July 24, 1974, which stated that the Albemarle Service Authority was in a position to serve that area, since the water main between Stillhouse Mountain and West Leigh is now in use. She noted that Mr. Bailey had told Mr. Foster that two routes were open with regard to the water supply. The first by the way of Ballard Road, which would have the advantage of connecting directly to the 12" main and the disadvantage of additional length and the second and shortest which would be entirely within West Leigh. Mrs. Scala stated that she had been presented with a plat of four lots along Ballard Road (for individual wells) and assumed that this was what Mr. Foster was asking for approval at this time. Mr. Foster stated that it was not feasible for the Service Authority or the developer to extend the transmission main to 48 lots at this time. Mr. Foster attempted to explain Mr. Bailey's comments at this time. Mr. Rinehart stated that he would like to have Mr. Bailey compute the cost of the most expensive method for installing the water line. Mr. Scribner noted that the Service Authority charged a fee to hook individuals onto County water. Mrs. Louis Scribner noted that the applicant was already changing the re- quest, in that during the original hearing, it was stated that there would be a water line up Ballard Road instead of through West Leigh. Mr. Rinehart moved deferral of the request so that they could have the County Engi- neer's thoughts on an escrow account for each lot, the number of lots, etc. He stated that he did not feel that the Commission had enough information to take action on the request at this time. The item was to be deferred until August 26, 1974 with Mr. Bailey and a representative of Albemarle Service Authority also being present. Mr. Tins- ley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. SP-374. T. Eugene Worrell Mr. Rinehart did not participate on discussion or voting on this matter. It was noted that the County Attorney, Mr. George St. John had said that the matter was properly before the Commission. Mr. Humphrey stated that he would like to re -iterate the staff comment which was: If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this petition, it should be conditioned upon the following: 1. Only the main structure shall be used for professional offices and any addition to this structure for office purposes shall require an additional special use permit; 2. Any use of this property shall be limited to professional offices and these office! shall be further limited to the legal, accounting, data processing, and executive professions; 3. Preservation and maintenance of all vegetation on the property; 4. Administrative approval of a site plan for the office building to insure ade- quate provision of parking; and 41 5. Assurance that deed restrictions will pose no conflict for this property to be used as a professional office. He stated that in consideration of this request, the Commission should consider the intent of the A-1 Agricultural zone. He stated that the staff suggested that the intent of the "professional office" in A-1 zone is to provide services to rural communities and suburban areas and not to permit office activities which in no way offer a direct service to these areas such as a doctor's or dentist's office. Secondly, this requested use is not near any existing commercial zone which would tend to indicate a change from a rural/suburban area to an intense urban/ commercial area. He stated therefore, that the staff was of the opinion that the proposed use would tend to change the character and establish a pattern of development (that of large lot residential land use and agriculture activity). Mr. St. John told the Commission that he did not see how the Commission could adopt a definition at this time, when the matter was before the Commission, but would have to act on the petition on what was presently in the ordinance. Mr. McClure stated that in his opinion the "professional office" was devised to allow professionals to have offices in their homes. Dr. Sams stated that in his opinion the intent did not require that the office be part of the physical residence, but that the office would be primarily to serve the sur- rounding area (or immediate area). Mr. Tinsley concurred with Dr. Sams. He stated that he did think the intent included professional office -type buildings in the agricultural area. Mr. Carr said that he had placed a broadier definition on this type of arrangement. He stated that he thought that this type of dwelling could be adapted to this type of use, but did not think that he could vote for approval of this request, with the 4.4 acres only. Mrs. Craddock stated that they could place certain restrictions on the special permit which would preserve open space and put the dwelling to a good use. She stated that she thought the Planning Commission should say that approval of this permit is very definitely not going to set a precedent. She stated that she hoped they could encourage the acreage to be increased, but was ready to vote for the special permit. Mr. Easter stated that he would have a hard time supporting a motion for approval if the immediate residents were against it. Mr. Barksdale stated that he would like to disqualify himself from voting on this matter. Dr. Sams moved for denial of the request on the basis that the request does not fall within the definition of professional offices within the present zoning ordinance. Mr. McClure seconded the motion. Mr. Easter questioned whether the applicant could re -apply under another category if the permit were denied. It was noted that he could. The motion for denial carried with Mr. Carr and Mrs. Craddock voting against the motion. Mr. Evans summarized the presentation of the last meeting. I// Mr. Gouldman stated that when they came back to request an amendment to the pre- sent ordinance for corporate executive offices, then they would be taking out some of the flexibility in approving a special permit. Mr. Chamberlain read what he considered an appropriate definition for the permit that was requested, which is on file. Mr. St. John stated that if a larger area was required, the special permit would have to be re-advertized. Mr. McClure made a motion that if the Board of Supervisors decided not to go along with the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial, the Planning Commission would like to recommend that the following conditions be placed on the permit: 1. Only the main structure shall be used for professional offices and any addition to this structure for office purposes shall require an additional special use permit; 2. Any use of this property shall be limited to professional offices and these offices shall be further limited to the legal, accounting, data processing, and executive professions; 3. Preservation and maintenance of all vegetation on the property; 4. Administrative approval of a site plan for the office building to insure adequate provision of parking; and 5. Assurance that deed restrictions will pose no conflict for this property to be used as a professional office. 6. Maximum of 15 employees. 7. That the applicant and Planning Staff reach an agreement on a buffer zone (a mini mum of 15 acres which includes the 4.4 acres) 8. That the permit will expire if the property is sold or transferred to a party owner other than Worrell Enterprises. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Regular Items: Wardell Ward - Request for a 25' right-of-way to serve one 2-acre parcel. Land lo- cated on the west side of Route 627, about 2/3 mile north of Esmont. Mr. McClure noted that a note should be put on the plat that there will only be three lots from this subdivision. Dr. Sams moved approval of the request conditioned upon Mr..McClure's note being put on the plat. Mr. McClure seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Walter Young - Request for 50' right-of-way to serve 18.6 acre tract. Mr. Young requested that the petition be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. McClure moved for withdrawal with prejudice, which was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unani- mously. McNeely - Request for a 20' joint access easement to serve two 19-acre parcels. 4 3 Mr. Easter and Mr. Rinehart disqualified themselves from voting or discussion on the matter. Mrs. Scala told the Commission that the staff questioned why the easement was ex- tended along the boundary of the property instead of just up to Lot 2. Mr. McNeely replied that they desired to use this easement as a joint access. Mr. Tinsley moved for approval of the plat with a note being put on the plat that any further subdivision would have to come back before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Monticello Home Builders - Request for two access easements, to serve four and five 2-acre lots respectively. Located on the south side of Route 715, about 1 mile south- west of Keene. Mrs. Scala told the Commission that all nine (9) lots would be served by two access easements. Mr. McClure noted that this would then qualify for a Farmer's Home loan. Mr. Willis Jones stated that he was opposed to concentrated development in the community. Mrs. Madeline John Mortis said that she was not notified. Mr. Booker Reeves stated that he was concerned with the size of the neighborhood increasing. Mr. Rinehart moved for denial of the request, which was seconded by Mr. Tinsley. Mr. Easter commented that the developer could put in "9" different driveways if he wanted to. Mr. Rinehart consequently withdrew his motion. Dr. Sams moved for approval of the request stating that he considered this approach to be the lesser of two evils, stating that the deeds should speak to road maintenance which would have to be approved by the Planning Office. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, with Mr. Rinehart voting against the motion and Mr. Tinsley voting against the motion. The motion carried. Tuckedaway - Preliminary site plan for general store and shops on Route 250 West at the I-64 interchange. It was noted that this was a preliminary site plan which was sort of a "feeling out" process. Mr. Max Evans explained to the Commission that they were proposing specifically shops, cottage industry, cottage industry, etc. He stated that the Plummers planned to live on the property for several years. Mr. Rinehart suggested that when they presented a more final plan to the Commission that they should allow parking for not only the retail space but extra parking for visitors, etc. Mr. Tiffany questioned the location of his 201 right-of-way in relation to the property. He stated that his only comment was that preliminary plans should not be used for some and not others. Stonehenge Subdivision - Section 1-9 lots Mrs. Scala told the Commission that this completed Phase 1 for 53 lots instead of the approved 54 lots. Mr. McClure moved approval of the plat which was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously. Hidden Knoll - Site Plan for eight rental units. Located at the intersection of Route 631 and Route 706. Mr. McClure disqualified himself. Mr. Huffman told the Commission that he had suggested to the owner (Harvey Hague) that the land be subdivided so that he could sell the property in the future if he wanted to, but that the applicant desired not to do so. Dr. Sams suggested that a note be put on the plat stating that the owner had been advised that the property would not meet future requirements for subdivision. Mr. Rine- hart moved approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. That two parking spaces be shown for each home. 2. The road should be improved to a 20' width as shown, and maintained as a dust proof surface. 3. Health Department approval must be obtained for septic systems and wells. 4. And it be noted on the plat the owner had been advised that the property would not meet future requirements for subdivision. (This is to be a standard note for this type plat). Dr. Sams seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Moore Brothers Site Plan - located on the south side of Route 708. Mr. Easter disqualified himself from voting or discussion on this matter and left the meeting. Mrs. Scala told the Commission that the staff recommended deferral until written communication was received from the Corps of Engineers. Mrs. Scala read the conditions of the Special Permit to the Commission. She read a progress report on the site plan that was presented to them: 1. Screening might be needed from State Route 708. 2. Flood information is needed. 3. Fill permit needs to be obtained from the engineers. 4. Drainage swales aren't shown as being paved or riprapped. 5. The screening must be maintained. 6. Grading permit must be obtained and show proper siltation from drainage basin 7. De -acceleration lane needs to be shown. `/- 3 Mr. Ed Bain, attorney for the applicant, requested that the Commission approve the site plan subject to no problems with regard to flood plain by the Corps of Engi- neers. Mr. Matt Rittberg told the Commission that he had spent four hours in the Corps of Engineers office talking with Mr. Philpott and Mr. Hicks. He stated that the Corps had no information on whether the area would flood or not, or whether it was in the flood plain. He stated that the Corps want alot of study done before they would allow filling in the area. Mr. Rittberg suggested that they defer any action until the Corps of Engineers could say whether the area was in the flood plain or not. He also suggested that an east bound de -acceleration lane was needed. It was noted that the screening may have to be moved back per Highway Department recommendations. Mr. Carr suggested that all conditions be complied with and that a letter from the Corps of Engineers be in hand before the item went to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. McClure moved deferral of action on the site plan until September 3, 1974 so that the Commission could review briefly the Corps of Engineers comments. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. It was noted that there would not be any public discussion other than that concerning the flood plain. Georgetown Veterinary Hospital addition site plan - located on the west side of Georgetown Road Mr. Easter disqualified himself. Mrs. Scala noted that this property was located in an R-3 zone and that the applicant had been to the Board of Zoning Appeals to obtain a variance so that they could expand. 1. A signed affadavit had been obtained which certified that the property had been used for grazing in the past. 2. Mrs. Scala noted that the addition would connect to public sewer and they would obtain water from an existing well. 3. Parking spaces need to be delineated on the site plan. 4. Engineering Department approval of the method of drainage would be needed. Mrs. Gladine Burkett, an adjoining property owner, stated that she did not have any objection to the request. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the request conditioned upon screening along the southern and northern boundaries back to parcel 2B as required by the Planning staff. He noted if there was a misunderstanding, then the matter should come back to the Planning Commission. He also noted that parking spaces should be delineated on the site plan and that the method of drainage should be approved by the Engineering Department. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. WIN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ohn L. Humphrey S cretary �r Fri August 26, 1974 This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on August 26, 1974, at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisor's meeting room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Dr. James Sams; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Louis Staley; Mr. Roy Barksdale; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Super- visor. Mr. Carr called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. Mr. Rinehart moved deferral of the two sets of minutes (beginning with May 6, 1974 and July 29, 1974). Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Humphrey handed out the minutes of August 19, 1974 to the Planning Commission. Mr. Humphrey gave a progress report to the Commission regarding work on the zoning map and zoning ordinance. Off -Street Parking (from motion of intent of the Board of Supervisors upon request by the Board of Zoning Appeals). Parking requirements for various businesses were discussed. Mr. Carr noted that "business area" needed to be better defined. Mr. Rinehart suggested certain requirements for interior area and another requirement for space utilized outside. Greenhouse and Nurseries Enclosed Retail Area - one (1) per each one hundred (100) square feet of retail sales for the first five thousand (5,000) square feet and one (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet of retail sales area above five thousand (5,000) square feet. Green- house Sales Area - one (1) space per each one thousand (1,000) square feet and one (1) space for each five hundred (500) square feet of greenhouse sales area above one thousand (1,000) square feet. Exterior Nursery Sales Area - one (1) space per each five thousand (5,000) square feet of exterior nursery sales area. It was noted that the following sentence should be added to 11-7-4. "All permitted uses requiring site plan approval shall have entrances constructed in accord with the specifications of the County Engineer and the Virginia Department of Highways and be ap- proved by the Albemarle County Planning Commission." 11-7-7(3) "In addition, when accessory activities such as the rental of automobiles, trucks, and trailers of all types, are involved on site there shall be provided suitable area to accomodate the highest number of rental units expected at any one time." The preceding sentence was added to parking requirements for "Automobile Service Stations." After further discussion, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Rinehart moved that the corrections be made in the article and presented to the Commission on September 3, 1974 for approval. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Vlavianos Expresso International Restaurant Mr. Payne of the County Attorney's Office told the Commission that the site plan without access on Route 29 North which was recently amended stands as it is. He noted that the lessees of the restaurant was of the opinion that he should have been notified of these hearings. Mr. Humphrey noted that the Commission had the right to review and amend any site plan and that the staff still recommended against the approval of an entrance on Route 29 North to the restaurant for safety reasons. Mr. Carr made note that Mr. Payne of the County Attorney's office has said that the actions to date by the Commission have been in keeping with the policy and law of the County. He noted that the question was whether or not the Commission desired to review a suggested amendment to the April 1, 1974 site plan. Dr. Sams stated that he was of the opinion that the Commission should not reconsider the site plan at this time or at a later date, and should support the site plan as it stood. Mr. Lowry stated that he thought that the subject was already opened before the Com- mission three meetings ago. Mr. Tinsley stated that he was of the opinion that the problem was between the Vlavianos and Virginia Land Company. Mr. Carr stated that he thought that Mr. Lowry should discuss the matter with the County Attorney. Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor, stated that the question was whether the Commissio desired to reconsider the site plan or not. Mr. Rinehart moved that the Commission review the site plan that Mr. Lowry or the applicant desires on its own merits. The motion died for lack of a second. Dr. Sams moved that the Commission stand on the initial site plan dated April 1, 1974 Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion. Mr. Payne noted that the phrase, "moved on the advise of the County Attorney" should be added to the motion. It was the consensus of the Com- mission to do this. The motion carried. West Woods - request for individual wells. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer spoke to the Commission reiterating his com- ments of August 26, 1974. He stated that County water to serve the subdivision would depend upon the willingness of the developer to spend the money. He noted that this could be done in a minimum of 6 months, and that they recommended the route along Ballard Road. He also stated that if no thought was given to the fire fighting capabilities, 4" mains would probably serve the subdivision. He noted that they would recommend the use of 6" mains along the main street and 4" for the branch streets for domestic use only. He also stated that in order to reasonably guarantee sufficient money be placed in escrow to meet construction costs at some future date, we advise that a designed water main be cost appraised on today's market, a date for completion be projected and an allowance for inflation, based on the price -change data from the past two years be added. Wate inc i 1-��-.f within the property could be built now or, if not, this cost must also be included in the escrow fund. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that if they desired to approve the request, it should be after evidence has been submitted for the entire subdivision as to the capa- bilities of the land and after determination by the state geologist of the property's adaptability for individual wells and central wells. Mr. Morris Foster told the Commission that from a practical standpoint County water was not available at this time. He suggested that it be incorporated into the deeds that if a well was found to be non -producing then the contract or deed would not be binding. After further discussion, the public hearing was closed. Dr. Sams stated that there was evidence lacking that there was sufficient ground water to merit approval and therefore moved for denial. He noted that the request could be re -heard in its turn if such evidence was obtained. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Foster wanted to know if they had to go the entire public hearing route, when they obtained the necessary evidence. It was noted that the property owners would be re -notified and that the request would be re -heard in its turn from the beginning. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that a motion of intent to move the townhouse ordi- nance to the subdivision ordinance was needed. Mr. Rinehart so moved, which was seconded by Mr. Tinsley, and carried unanimously. Mobile Homes Mr. Tucker questioned the Commission as to their intent when they adopted the ad- ministrative approval of mobile homes as to whether approval could be for vacation mobile homes as well as year round. Mr. Carr stated that he would not like to amend the article at this time, but would like for it to be brought back to the Commission within 30 days if the problem was not solved by the revision of the mobile home section. Mr. Carr told the Commission that he had talked with Gordon Wheeler and another member of the Board about a more restrictive mobile home ordinance and that the Board was very anxious to hear the Commission's views on this. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. John L. Humphrey, Se�Yetary, r