HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 19741215
March 4, 1974
This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission held on March 4, 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; Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Dr. James Sams, Mr. Louis
Staley, Mr. David Carr, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mr. Jack Rinehart,
Mr. Peter Easter, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Mr. Gerald Fisher,
Supervisor, was also present.
Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and established that a
quorum was present.
Dr. Catlin suggested that North Corporation, Southland Corporation,
and Hillcrest be deferred for an hour until the applicant was present.
This was in agreement with the Commission.
Dr. Catlin announced that SP-329 Edwin G. Lee was being deferred
as Mr. Lee was sick and could not be present. Several citizens voiced
opposition to the request .Dr. Catlin announced that SP-333 Mr Porter had
been withdrawn.
Deferred items:
A) Badger Powhatan site plan -
Mr. Easter stated that he would like to note that he was disqualify-
ing himself from discussion or voting on this item and that he was
leaving the room.
Mr. Humphrey noted that the applicant through the staff had been
requested to find additional information to justify the additional exit.
He stated that the staff had not received any additional information
but possibly the applicant had something to add now.
Mr. Aubrey Huffman and two representatives from the company were
present.
1216
Dr. Catlin stated that he thought the area for service drives
should be provided.
A representative explained to the Commission that the company was
looking for a way for their chemical powders to be unloaded and that
possibly the truck would be making two or three trips per week.
Dr. Catlin stated that he would like very much to control the
number of entrances along this undeveloped portion of 29.
Mr. Carr reminded the Commission that the original location of
the building was inproperly located. Dr. Catlin noted that: the footings had
been poured before the site plan came to the Commission; that being
the reason for the limited frontage shown on the site plan.
It was noted that possibly the number of exits should be
limited to 3 or 4 per week and that there be a gate or something across
this exit.
Mr. Tinsley stated that possibly the plan could be re -worked to
see if a service drive could be acceptable.
Mr. Humphrey suggested that the plan go to the Site Plan Review r;
Committeewith the highway department and then be brought back to
the Planning)Commission.
After further discussion, Mr. McClure moved that the matter be
deferred which was seconded by Mr. Carr and carried unanimously.
B) Hamilton Subdivision -
Mr. McClure asked that the records show that he was disqualifying
himself from discussion and voting on this matter and left the room.
Upon questioning by Dr. Catlin, it: was noted that all lots would
have percolation tests run on them before the plat came back before
the Commission, as this was only a preliminary plat.
Dr. Catlin noted that if all lots did not have sufficient
water for wells, that the applicant would have to come back before
the Commission for a special permit.
1217
Mr. Humphrey stated that preliminary approval should have the following
conditions:
1. Health department approval
2. Driveways to Lot 1, Block A, and Lot 1, Block B must enter
onto Foxhall Road.
He stated that before final approval could' be given,road bonds
must be submitted, and percolation tests run on each lot.
Dr. Catlin stated that he was willing to go along with tentative
approval for Blocks A and B, but had reserves about C.
Mr. Carr told Mr. Bell that the Commission would probably like
to see 40,000 square feet of lot area outside of the flood plain and
if percolation tests were on the border line, they would also like
to see room for a backup system for septic and drain field.
Mr. Carr moved approval for Blocks A, B, and C, subject to
1. Health Department approval
r' 2. Driveways to Lot 1, Block A, and Lot 1, Block B must enter
onto Foxhall Road.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
a) ZMP-297. Lydia C. Leake has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to rezone 20 acres from A-1 Agricultural
to M-1 Industrial. Property is situated on the east side of
Route 649 and the west side of the Southern Railway at Proffit.
Property is further described as County Tax Map 46, Parcel 38
(part thereof). Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey read the staff report commenting that the property
was one step away from infringing on an established residential
setting, however, since the M-1 zone was established not only to
stand alone as a separate area, but to locate near residential areas,
the staff is of the opinion that it could fit into the area. The staff
would notehowever that to rezone any further land east of this property
(tir.r could result in the disruption of the "Proffit area" as a residential
setting. He told the Commission that after viewing the property, again that day,
he would recommend denial.
1218
He stated that the rear portion of the property near the railroad
could be developed, but that the M-1 zone should not extend any further.
Mr. Peatross, attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant -
had contracted to sell this property to Mr. Claude Cotten. He noted
that Mr. Cottenowned adjacent land which was already zoned M-1
Industrial.
Dr. Catlin reminded Mr. Peatross that any plan of the area at
this time, was completely immaterial, since this was only a request
for rezoning.
Mr. Max Evans showed the Commission a schematic plan of the
property and noted that the additional land would allow a spur to
be developed that would otherwise be economically unfeasible.
Mr. Lester Terry spoke in opposition to the request being
concerned with the poor condition of the roads in the area.
Mrs. Ray Fisher, Jr. read a petition signed by 160 residents
of Proffit in opposition to the request. She stated that there.would
be an overload of traffic on Route 649.
Mr. Humphrey read a letter from Mrs. Louise Fisher in opposition
to the request.
Mr. Peatross noted that the property in question was in a growing
area and that the times would dictate that the roads be improved..
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Rinehart suggested that maybe the request. for rezoning was premature
as there was already 48 acres of unused M-1 land.
Mr. Carr noted that this property had access to the railroad
and would like to look at this property.
Mrs. Craddock moved that the petition be! deferred for two
weeks so that members could have a chance to view the site.
Mr. Carr
seconded the motion which
carried unanimously.
Deferred
items: ZMP-285 Southland
Corporation and ZMP-290
1219
North Corporation
Mr. Humphrey showed the Commission plans of what he considered
to be needed in the area for sometime to come. The lots in question
would be in the CL area. He noted that there was already a large
amount of B-1 in the area.
Mr. Carr stated that he was in favor of rezoning this piece
of land but thought the businesses needed to be orientated to the internal road.
Mr.Humphrey noted that he thought this was strictly highway
orientated and that until such time as they could have the more
restrictive CL, he stated he would hate to see a piece -meal development.
Mr. Carr noted that only the two lots were before them at
this time, not the entire quadrant. He asked the Commission if they
were asking that the entire quadrant be put before them, and if they
were, were they going to wait luntil the property could be rezoned U or were
they going to zone it B-l?
Dr. Catlin stated that he was of the opinion that the property shnuld
be zoned B-1 as the applicant had a, use for the area and that he
was thinking in terms of a neighborhood shopping area, but at the
same time, the Commission was working on /n�ew zoning map and should probably
wait until that time and then zone it CL.
Mr. Easter stated that he did not know if this was the proper
time to bring it up, but the entrance shown was only a 60' r-o-w
and wondered if it should not be a little wider.
Upon questioning by Mr. Rinehart, it was noted that with a
70' r-o-w as the lots were platted was unbuildable.
Mr. Carr stated that he was of the opinion that the Commission wanted
to see 6 to 8 acres put before them.
Mr. Carr made a motion to defer action on the matter until
March 11, 1974. Mr. Staley seconded the motion, which carried unani-
mously.
1220
Deferred item: SP-309 Hillcrest (Dr. Charles Hurt)
Mr. Humphrey read the staff report to the Commission stating
that the staff considered the request to be premature, since
sewer would not be available until 1978 or 1980. Mr. Humphrey noted
that conditions of approval if granted should be: 1) The compliance
with the general. land use concept noted on the plat dated February 1974
entitled, "Development Plan-Hillcrest" and marked received by the
Planning Office dated 2-21-74, as modified relative to the cul-de-sac
of an existing road as noted. 2) Submittal of appropriate subdivision
plats as required under, the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance,
submittal of site plan as required by the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, submittal of Highway approved plans prior to any development
taking place. 3) A detailed master plan showing trunk/collector
and lateral sewer and water lines; storm water lines and structures.
Bicycle and pedestrian ways are to be submitted to the Planning
Office prior to any development taking place. 4) Adherence to the
density in the appropriate areas as indicated on the general land
use concept plan noted in item #1. The density is not to exceed 2.57
units/gross acre exclusive of the area leased to Tandem School.
5) Homeowners' Association Agr&ement using the uniform documents
as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.. 6) Approval of the impoundment
facilities which retains the existing lake, by the Thomas Jefferson
Soil and Water Conservation District, as being adequate according
to their standards. 7) That the area indicated for Private Club and
recreation use in the amount of 10 acres be for the use and enjoyment
of those who reside within the development as a non-profit operation.
8) That only that area indicated on the Soil Analysis Report dated
January 3, 1974 prepared by Mr. Earl Brunger, Soil Scientist, be
developed on septic tanks. The remaining areas are to await the
availability of sewer/service capacity as may be granted by the Albemarle
1221
Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
9) Any approval of the plan or subsequent plans, plats, or site plans
does not constitute a guarantee of water or sewer service by the
Albemarle County Service Authority, or the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority. 10) All necessary easements for utilities shall be deeded
to the County Service Authority. 11) That prior to construction of
roads which are to be brought into State System, road plans will be
approved by the Highway Department. No roads are to be built until
construction bond is established with the approval of the highway
department for the road extending from Route 720 to Route 742.
He stated that the Albemarle County Service Authority was
preparing a policy orf which sewer connections may be distributed
during the interim period in which the AWT plant is to be designed
and built. Such a policy would require a developer to schedule his
needs and to build accordingly. He stated that at the present,no one new the
capacity_that would be available at the old Moores Creek Plant. , (This
information was obtained from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer.)
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that if they wished to approve
the request at this time, he would advise tieing a time limitation
to its approval for a period of four years, at the end of which time
if nothing had been started, the applicant would have to come back before
the Commission for re -approval.
Dr. McGee, president of Piedmont Virginia Community College,
stated that the college at this time did not want to have a road
from the development connecting to the community college(that they
wanted a cul-de-sac). He stated that he did not want to see anything
/and
that would be detrimental to the college's ,cultural center would like to
withhold any additional comments until -he had time to review
the plans further.
Mr. Bob Jefferson explained briefly the immediate sewer plant
1222
he believeJhis company could install (from Environmental Systems, Culpeper,
Virginia), He stated that the system would provide the same quality
of systems that would be available in the proposed AWT plant.
There was an extensive discussion on Item #7 concerning the
private club. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that the club now
operating at Four Seasons was so exclusive that most of the people
residing there could not afford to belong, and would like for this
club to be primarily for the people in the development.
Mr. Hartman was concerned with the sewer and water situation
and would like these questions answered before any development took
place.
The public hearing was then closed and the matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. McClure suggested preliminary approval with no construction
started until public water and sewer was available and unless con-
struction was started within 4 years, the request would have to come back
before the Commission for re -approval.
Mr. Carr stated that he was interested in taking out Item #7
regarding a non-profit club. He stated that within the development, areas
were going to be set aside for re2reational purposes.
It was mentioned by some members of the Commission that swimming pools
would be provided at the apartment areas.
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that the County had been highly
criticized for the way in which the club was set up in Four Seasons
Mr. Humphrey suggested that in Item #3 that areas for active
recreation in connnection with apartment areas and also in the open
area should be included.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not think the Commission could dictate
how the operation on the 10 acres would be run, and that in this
case, this 10 dcreeshould riot be included in the overall density of the plan.
1223
Dr. Hurt stated that he did not object to a non-profit
organization but objected to limitations of membership to residents
of the PUD only.
Dr. Hurt stated that he was willing to accept approval on
the basisthat the PUD must be served by public water and sewer only.
Mr. McClure moved approval based on deleting Condition #7,
adding recreation areas to Item #3, leaving the density at 2.57
units gross and that it is to be considered exclusive of the 10
acre club property and the commerical and Tandem School. He noted
that this approval was for a period of 4 years, at the end of
which time if they had not started construction, the applicant would have
to come back before the Commission for re -approval. (Conditions on pages
1220 and 1221)
It was noted that all grading should be done in accordance
with a grading permit, and that the intention of Mr. McClure's
motion was that public water and sewer be provided for the whole plan,
which would so revise Item #8.
Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
h) REGULAR ITEMS: ZMP-298 Mr. and Mrs. William Keith Woodard
have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to
rezone 2.0 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential.
Property is situated on the east side of Route 657, (Lamb's Road)
Property is further described as County Tax Map 45, Parcel 19B,
19C, 20 (part thereof). Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey read the staff report to the Commission commenting
that the parcel had been before the Commission and Board of Supervisors
on several occasions under request for R-1 and R-2 zoning. In June
1972, the Commission had recommended RS-1 in lieu of the R-1. The one
acre zone (RS-1) meets the objective of the Comprehensive Plan for the
immediate area.
IR
1224
.y
After a brief discussion, it was ascertained that they would be
dividing the acreage for two houses. Mr. McClure moved approval
of the request which was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously.
c)ZMP-299. Robert L. Trainum has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to rezone .51 acres from R-3 Residential
to B-1 Business. Property is situated on the north side of Route 631
(Stagecoach Road) near its intersection with Interstate-64. Property
is further described as County Tax Map 76, Parcels 54J(1) and 54J(2).
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey read the staff report to the Commission stating that
the parcel was a narrow piece of land sandwiched between B-1 to the
north and south and R-3 zoning to the east and west. He stated that the
staff was of the opinion that a B-1 zone is proper under this request
and that it was compatible with the existing zoning.
Mr. McClure noted that on the new zoning map.,the parcels were already desig-
nated.CL. After a brief discussion, Mr. Tinsley moved approval of the request
which was seconded by Mr. Easter and carried unanimously.
d) SP-326. Michael and Elizabeth Garstang have petitioned the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a stable and tack
room on 5.715 acres zoned R-1 Residential. Property is situated on
the south side of Glenaire Drive in Glenaire Subdivision. Property
is further described as County Tax Map 57B, Parcel 45A. Samuel
Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey told that the Commission if they wished to approve
theiequest, they may wish to place a limit on the number of horses allowed
on the property.
Mr. Garstang asked the Commission to place a limit of no less than
4 horses since there were four members in his family and all were avid
riders.
Mr. Easter moved approval of the request with a limitation of
4 horses on the property at any one time. Mr. Staley and Mr. Carr seconded
the motion. It was noted that if the use became a nuisance to the neighbor-
hood, it could be brought back before the Board if the Board so desired.
The motion carried unanimously.
1225
e) SP-329. Mr. Edwin G. Lee, Jr. has pptitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to locate a duplex on 64 acres zoned A-1
Agricpltura.l. Property is situated on the east side of Route 633,
about 1 mile east of Covesville. Property is further described
as County Tax Map 109, Parcel 59. Scottsville Magisterial District.
This item had been announced at the beginning to the meeting as
being postponed as the applicant could not be present at the meeting.
f) SP-330. Sarah M. Wolford has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 4.79 acres zoned
A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 29
South, and the west side of the Southern Railway, about 1 mile
south of Covesville. Property is further described as County Tax
Map 108, Parcel 36. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey read the staff report stating that if the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this petition, it should
be conditioned upon Building Official approval, and landscaping around the
structure to the satisfaction of the Planning and Zoning Department.
Mr. McClure moved approval of the request with the following
conditions: 1) Building official approval, 2) landscaping around the
structure to the satisfaction of the Planning and Zoning Department,
3) for a period of 5 years 4) for the applicant only and not transferrable.
Mr. Staley stated that "the dwelling on the property should come down"
be added to the conditions. Mr. McClure and the applicant agreed with this.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
g) SP-331 Jimmy M. Stargell has petitioned the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to locate a duplex -on 96 acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 630,
about 3.5 miles from its intersection with Route 717. Property
is further described as County Tax Map 119, Parcel 7. Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey read the staff report stating that the applicant intended
to live in one portion of the duplex during the summer months and rent the
other portion of the duplex year-round. If the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors approve the petition, it should be conditioned upon
Building Official approval.
After a brief discussion, Mrs. Craddock motioned approval of the
request with the following conditions: 1) Building official approval,
1226
2) and for the applicant only and not transferrable to subsequent
owners of land. Mr. McClure seconded the motion which carried unanimously..
h) SP-332. Stephen K. Crickenberger has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to locate a temporary mobile home
on 3.018 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the
west side of Route 606, near Chris Greene Lake entrance road.
Property is described as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 7 (part thereof).
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey read the staff report to the Commission stating
that"if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve the
petition, it should be conditioned upon Building Official approval;
a 30 foot setback from the access road, removal of as few trees as
possible, and removal of mobile home from the property 30 days after
completion of construction. Since this petition is for a temporary
mobile home while a permanent dwelling is constructed, you may wish to
place a time limit upon this petition.
Mr. Crickenberger wanted to know why the permit had to be set
thrity feet from the right-of-way. He stated that he would not be living
in the mobile home. He stated that a Mr. and Mrs. Short wanted to live
there for 12 to 2 years and put a septic tank in instead of rentinga
which would benefit him when he built his home.
I. A Mr. Dancy told the Commission that the Crickenberger's
did not have legal access to the property.
After further discussion, it was ascertained that Mr. Crickenberger
did not want to live in a mobile home himself, consequently
Mr. Rinehart moved denial of the permit, which was seconded by Dr.
Sams and carried unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
M
1227
March 11, 1974
This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission held on March 11, 1974 at 7:30 O.m. in the County
Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Those members present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman;
Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Mr. Jack
Rinehart, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mr. Louis Staley, and Mr. Lloyd Wood,
Supervisor.
Those absent were Mr. Carr, Dr. Sams and Mrs. Craddock.
Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and established that
a quorum was present.
Mr. Rinehart moved that the minutes be considered at the
next work shop meeting. Mr. McClure seconded the motion which
carried unanimously. They divided the sets of minutes among the
Commission members.
Deferred item:
a) ZMP-285. Southland Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to rezone .581 acres (25,747
square feet) from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property
is situated on the south side of Route 649,near its inter-
section with Route 29 North. Property is further described
as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 36 (part thereof). Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
b) ZMP-290. North Corporation has petitioned the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors to rezone .549 acres (23,928
square feet) from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. Property
is situated on the south side of Route 649, near its inter-
section with Route 29 North. Property is further described
as County Tax Map 32, Parcel 36, (part thereof). Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Mr. McClure asked that the records show that he was disqualifying
himself from discussion and voting on these matters, and that he was
leaving the room.
Mr. Humphrey noted that the plats were to be revised so that
setbacks could be met.
Mr. Hill stated that they could live with the 50' setback.
Mri4:3
Dr. Catlin stated that he had a strong desire to see future
development off of Route 649.
Mr. Easter wanted to know if a 70 foot right-of-way would
make it unbuildable and Dr. Catlin wanted to know the same.
Mr. Hill questioned if a 70' right-of-way was required would
the item have to re-advertized and whether this r-o-w width
would interfere with water lines. Mr. Humphrey noted that the items would not
have to be advertised.
Dr. Catlin stated that there would not be room for sidewalks
within a 60 foot right-of-way.
Upon questioning by Dr. Hurt, Mr. Humphrey stated that as
far as maintenance was concerned, it would be better to have the
sidewalks within the right-of-way.
Mr. Rinehart moved approval of ZMP-285 with a 70 foot
right-of-way and the applicant agreeing that entrance to the
property would be off of future right-of-way rather than Route 649.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motioned which carried unanimously.
Mr. Rinehart made an identical motion for the approval of
ZMP-290 with a 70 foot right-of-way and the applicant agreeing that
entrance to the property would be off of future right-of-way
rather than Route 649. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried
unanimously.
There was an extensive discussion by the Commission,citizens
and Mr. St. John, County Attorney, regarding "When Does a Property
Owner Have a Vested Right In Property?"
Mr. St. John read the following questions and answers to
the Commission:
1229
1) In establishing the boundaries of certain zones, can lines
be established using contour lines (heights above sea level)
as a legal instrument defining the extent of the zone.
a) Any demarcation readily locatable is sufficient and a
contour is such if there are topographic maps available
showing the location of the contours so interested persons
can inform themselves easily. This is just as good as a
plat, if the topographic maps already exist and are available.
I rely on Anderson, Section 8.07.
b) The main concern with using a contour as a zoning boundary
is that it may result in split lots. See Anderson,Section
8.12. You will have to be sure the Board of Zoning Appeals
will act as a cushion in preventing split lots from being
rendered unusable by virtue of having one portion zoned
one way, and the remaining portion another. It is of course
more feasible to use existing streets, roads, or property
boundaries, if this can be done, but if not, the use of
contours is acceptable provided, as stated above, the Board
of Zoning Appeals will protect the ordinance from being ruled
confiscatory. See Note 19, 1974 Supplement, Anderson,
Section 8.12 (p. 176 of the Supplement).
2) Can a hypotehtical line be used. Example: "The conservation
zone will be established from the normal reservoir pool a
distance of 450 feet".
The same opinion as stated in answer to (1) above, applies
here.
3) When is there a vested interest in property. a) When a loan
has been obtained from a source based on existing zone? b) When
grading has been accomplished on property without any approved
site plan for the development thereof. c) When a site plan has
been approved for a certain type of development in keeping with
the existing zoning. d) When the subject land has been sold on
the basis of existing zone and the uses permitted therein.
a) No vested interest accrues where a loan has been obtained
a source based on existing zoning, if that if the only
change of position by the landowner.
b) When grading has been accomplished on property without
any approved site plan, no vested interest attaches unless
grading or type of grading is unique to the type of use for
which the land was previously zoned. In other words if the
grading can still be used for a purpose permitted by the
new zoning, no vested right attaches.
c) Where a site plan has been approved but no construction
or other actual work begun, under the general law no vested
right attached but the Virginia Rule under the case of Board
of Supervisors v. Cities Service Oil Company., 213 Va. 359,
enunciates that a right vests upon the filing of a site plan.
I do not believe the Supreme Court will adhere to this in
all cases, but I think each application or each rezoning
should be examined by the County legal staff because this is
1230
Z I ;).
a most complicated question.
Mr. St. John further noted that the answer to Question #1
was"yes", but that it would be very difficult; that the answer
to Question #2 was "yes" but that it would be very difficult to
do; that the answer to Question #3a was "no".. the answer to
Question #3b was "no" , the answer to #3c was "maybe" and 3d "no".
Dr. Hurt asked if there was a vested right in the property
if construction had been started prior to rezoning.
Mr. St. John replied "yes"
Mr. Easter wanted to know if a vested right was considered
on the basis of engineering costs on a piece of property?
Mr. St. John stated that it would have to be proved that
the costs were considerable.
It was noted that rezoning land without the concurrence of
the owner could not be done unless there was shown that it was
/or
clearly a mistake and there had been a change in circumstances. He noted
that "being in " conformity with the master plan" was a good reason.
Mr. Goode Love suggested that the master plan was first
adopted as a guide but this would now be saying that it was law.
Mr. Wendell Wood suggested that if the master plan was followed
in some instances but not in others that this would be arbitrary.
Mr. St. John noted that the master plan should be followed,
however the lines were not defined exactly.
Dr. Hurt wanted to know if "a vested interest" could be
defined in dollars and cents?
Mr. St. John replied that it could not.
There was a discussion on the zoning in the Route 250 East
area.
1231
It was noted that when a material was extracted
from the land,there would be a resource zone floating over this.
The staff was instructed to see if an accessory use could
be allowed in a natural resource zone and to clearly define
"asphalt plants" to see if this could be considered as an accessory
use.
M
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
1232
March 18, 1974
This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission
held on March 18, 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. Louis Staley, Mr. Peter
Easter, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mr. Jack Rinehart, and Dr. James Sams.
Mrs. Ellen Craddock was absent.
PUBLIC HEARING: Flood Plain Reports - Mechunk Creek and James River.
Mr. Humphrey presented a brief summary of the reports of the Mechunk
Creek and James River flood plain to the Commission. He told the
Commission that delineating these areas as being in the flood plain,
protected property owners and was for the general welfare of the public
and made property owners owning land in the flood plain eligible for
flood plain insurance.
It was noted that if part of a lot was in the flood plain, the
land would have to be filled to make the land 1 foot higher than flood
level and reviewed by the Corps of Engineers to ascertain what effect
it would have on the surrounding property, streams, etc., before anything
could be built on the property.
Mr. Humphrey stated that flood plain insurance covered structures
and their contents only.
It was noted that any delineation by the County of Albemarle would
not apply in the town of Scottsville.
After further discussion, the public hearing was closed.
Dr. Catlin noted that when the term 100-year flood plain limit
was used, it meant intermediate regional profile.
A motion
was made by
Mr. McClure
and seconded by
Mr.
Rinehart that
the 100-year
flood plain
limits on the
Mechunk Creek
and
James River
1233
be established as based on studies of the Corps of Engineers reports
and that the profiles, on the 100-year flood limits, as presented
by those reports, be the official guide in the placement of the said
100-year flood plain limits on all maps of the County. The motion
carried unanimously.
DEFERRED ITEMS:
ZMP-297 Lydia Leake
9
Mr. Carr noted that he thought that before this property could be rezoned
M-1, that it needed public water and sewer and would not vote for
approval without therm, and consequently he stated that he Considered the request
premature.
Mr. McClure agreed with Mr. Carr and also stated that he was
concerned with the condition of the roads.
Mr. Rinehart moved for denial of the request which was seconded
by Mr. Easter and carried unanimously.
b) Badger Powhatan Service Drive -
Mr. Easter stated that he would like for the records to show
that he was disqualifying himself from voting or discussion on this matter
and that he was leaving the room.
Mr. Huffman was present to speak for the request.
It was noted that the plan showed a fence on the exit extending
into the deceleration lane. Mr. Humphrey noted that the staff had not
yet received a reply from the highway department on this.
Dr. Catlin wanted to know how the trips through the exit could be
controlled with the fence there? He noted that it was to be used 3 times
per week.
Mr. McClure suggested that this be a temporary exit with administra-
tive appoval annually and to be eliminated if under new ownership.
Mr. Humphrey noted that he did not see any reason why the
highway department would not approve this, but stated that he did
not want to speak for Mr. Warner.
1234
Mr. Tinsley expressed his concern that the Commission was not starting
a service drive. Dr. Catlin stated that it was recommended but stated that
the) Commission had to keep in mind that the plant was incorrectly located in
the beginning and that the terrain would make it difficult to do this.
Mr. McClure moved appproval of the plan for a total of not more
than 5 trips per week using the exit') with administrative review
annually and Highway department approval, and the type of closing
at the exit to be left up to the Planning Department. Mr. Rinehart
seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS
A) Cinema Parking Lot Site Plan - south side Greenbrier Dirve.
104 additional spaces. 114 existing spaces.
Mr. Humphrey noted that the highway department suggested that the
entrance be made one way in and one way out.
Mr. Carr wanted to know why this was going to be temporary?
The staff told him that this would be overflow parking for the theatre
as the applicant was not sure the present lot would be sufficient.
Mr. Huffman told the Commission that Mr. Stroh anticipated another
use for the property at a later date.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the staff recommended 1) permanent
screening along Greenbrier Drive 2) approval of access by the highway
department 3) and for a 2 year period to let the applicant decide
what he wanted to do.
Dr. Catlin noted that the sidewalk needed to be corrected in
front of the property along Greenbrier Drive.
It was noted that if this became a permanent parking lot,
requirements
such as
landscaping,
etc.
would
be needled,.
Mr. Carr
moved
approval of
the
site
plan with the following
conditions: 1) Single entrance with the width to be determined by the
1235
Planning Commission or Planning Department in connection with the highway
department 2) adequate lighting to be determined by the Planning
Department 3) Approved for a 2 year period 4) and to correct
sidewalk in front of property along Greenbrier Drive. Dr. Sams
seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
b) Leiby/Nelson Craft Shop site plan - south side Route 250 West
Mechums River
Mr. Humphrey noted that the applicant was proposing hollyhedge screening
from the rear of the parcel around to the entrance. He stated that the
highway department said that the grade was quite steep but that there
could not be much change xirithout considerable cost.
He noted that the plan showed a 30' width entrance and that a
deceleration lane was not required.
Dr. Catlin wanted to know why the parking lot could not be put
back 50'.
Mr. Stephen Phillips representing the applicant stated that it
meant taking off the whole crown of the hill and that the applicant was trying
to keeping the site as modest as possible.
Mr. Rinehart wanted to know if there was anyway to enter the site
above the barn? Mr. Phillips replied that it was not feasible as there
was a creek there.
Dr. Catlin wanted to know if 4 parking spaces could be eliminated
so that the grade could be cut down.
Mr. Rinehart stated that he would prefer that the grade standard
of the road be met and decrease the road in width.
Mrs. Speidel speaking for the scenic roads committee of the League
of Women Voters urged the Planning Commisison to require full screenirg'
wanted to know if the parking could be located in the rear, etc. *40
Mr. Carr stated that he did not want to jeopardize the chances
1236
of 250 West becoming designated a scenic highway.
Mr. Rinehart stated that he would like for the highway department
to look at a narrower entrance, not perpendicular, and more rural
in nature.
Mr. McClure moved deferral of action on the site plan until
next Monday's work session conditioned upon communicating with the
highway department to give the planning department a chance to talk
with them about the entrance. Mr. Easter seconded the motion which
carried unanimously.
c) Charlottesville Shopping World - revised site plan
d) Joseph M. and David Wood - request for a 20' easement adjacent
Charlottesville Shopping World to serve one-4 acre parcel.
The changes on the plan were as follows: 1) 12'
:,dec,,eleration lane on the median strip 2) 50' side entrance
which will taper down to 35' 3) Piping of stream (72" pipe) parallelling
property. 4) Additional land in rear to accomodate employee parking.
5) original parking in small stream valley area to be left in natural
state which takes out 16 parking spaces. (Could be put in front of store.)
Mr. James Cosby representing Berkeley Community Association told
the Commission that they were in support of the petition drawn up between
them and Charlottesville Shopping World.
There was a question of whether or not a fire lane would be
required in frontof the building.
Mr. Rinehart commented that he thought the parking in front of
the store was not very safe.
Mr. Carr stated that it was very difficult to control and could
not be enforced.
At this time, Mr. Wood stated that he thought his request for
` a 20' easement adjacent to Charlottesville Shopping World to
serve one-4 acre parcel should be considered along with the revised
1237
site plan.
The Commission expressed concern that this might become
available for something like a small shop and stated that the Commission did
not want anymore entrances or exits on 29 and suggested that parcel B-5 become
part of Lot 17.
Mr. McClure moved approval of the plan with the agreement
between Berkeley Community Association and Charlottesville Shopping
World being a part of the approval and of the easement noting that
Parcel B-5 shown on the same plat should become part of Lot 17 in
Berkmar. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
e) R. Evans Creasy - request for a 50' access easement to serve
one - 3 acre parcel, located off Route 618.
Mr. McClure stated that it was his opinion that the courts would
uphold a right-of-way that had been used for more than 50 years and that
they might as well get 50' while they could.
Mr.McClure moved approval of the request, which was seconded
by Mr. Rinehart and carried unanimously.
f) Walter G. Verling- auto sales lot site plan - relocation of
"Monticello Motors". West side Route 29 North between Carrsbrook/
Woodbrook.
Mr. McClure asked that the records show that he was disqualifying
himself from discussion or voting on this matter and that he was leaving
the room.
It was noted that the present owner and applicant didnot wish to
comply with highway department requirements.
It was noted that the Department of Highways had suggested that
it may be necessary to move the existing entrance slightly to the
south and wanted more or less a deceleration lane. Mr. Humphrey
stated that
the highway department may consider improvement
of
the existing
entrance with a deceleration lane extending
some
1238
25' beyond the entrance.
Mr. Carr stated that whatever the Planning Commission approved
for Monticello Motors was not necessarily final approval of the development
of the remainder of the property.
Mr. Carr moved approval of the present exit/entrance with this
exit/entrance meeting highway standards; a deceleration lane from
furniture store to old entrance and along eastern boundary and the
pavement widened to 20' to back of entrance to Monticello Motors.
(It was noted that the exit/entrance would have to be 30' wide and
the deceleration lane 12'. )
Mr. Verling then told the Commission that he did not wish them to
take any formal action at this time as this constituted the finality
of his lease with Mr. Miller and that Mr. Miller would not agree to
these conditions. After further discussion, it was noted that before
Mr. Verling came back before the Commission, Le would have to work out
his problems with Mr. Miller.
g) Glen V. and Bertha L. Stutzman-request for a 50' right-of-way
to serve two -eight acre parcels. Located off Route 22.
The Commission discussed with Mr. and Mr. Stutzman the expense
of bringing the right-of-way if approved up to County standards
and told them that the back property could be served by 2 - 25'
pipestems with a common driveway which could be approved administratively
and that later if the applicant§ wished to divide the additional acreage, they
could come back and request further subdivision along a restricted road.
Mr. Stutzman stated that in this case he wished to withdraw and
see what he could work out with the Planning Department and Mr. Gloeckner.
h) James E. Smith - request for the extension of a 50' right-of-way
to serve one-13 acre parcel. Located off Route 610.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Carr moved approval of the right-
of-way with no further subdivision without coming back before the
Commission.
1239
The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley which carried unanimously.
i) Stonehenge Subdivision - 16 lots. Townhouse for sale develop-
ment located west side Rio Road.
/request
Mr. Humphrey noted that this was for approval of Phase 1, Stone-
henge including access road, utility easements and lot layout. He noted that
this plan was in compliance with the preliminary plan and that the roads
were to be maintained by homeowners association.
He stated that the only added comment he had was that "any approval
of this does not constitute sewer being available when project is
complete".
It was noted that there would be a minimum of 30' between buildings.
Mr. Tinsley moved , approval of the request with the following
conditions:
1) Approval is for 16 lots 2) Approval does not constitute sewer
being available at completion of project 3) final approval homeowner's
agreement. Mr. McClure seconded the motion.
Dr. Schubert stated that he would like very much for the
swimming pool to be moved away from the residences. Mr. Rotgin noted
that he would do everything possible to make it more bearable for the
nearby residents. He stated that reason for this location of the pool
was that they would like to use the existing house as the club house.
Dr. Catlin stated that the applicant had already received preliminary
approval and that this was not the particular time to review this.
Approval of the motion by Mr. Tinsley carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter stated that he would like for the records to show that
he was not participating in the discussion or voting on the next two
items and was leaving the room.
j) R. M. Snead - request for a 40' easement to serve one
2.81 acre parcel. Located off Park Road. Crozet.
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that this would be off of a 50'
1240
restricted road, and he did notknow the reason for the 40' width.
/serve
It was noted ,that the easement would Lot C-2 and that the reason
for the 40' easement was that part of the land was unusable.
Mr. McClure moved approval of the 40' easement to serve only
one house on Lot C-2. Mr. Staley seconded the motion which carried
unanimously.
h) Leroy Snow - request for a 50' right-of-way. Located east
side Route 627.
Mr. Carr moved approval of the 50' right-of-way to serve
only 2 lots; the 2 acre lot and the residue lot. Mr. Tinsley seconded
the motion which carried unanimously.
After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission
to convene the work session meeting on March 25, 1974 at 7:00 p.m.
instead of 7:30 p.m. and to adjourn by 8:45 p.m. if possible.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
1241
March 25, 1974
This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission
held on March 25, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. in the County Executive's Conference
Room, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Clifton
McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. David Carr, Dr. James Sams, Mr. Wilbur
Tinsley, Mr. Louis Staley, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr. Jack Rinehart, and
Mr. Peter Easter.
The minutes of November 5, 1973 through February 4, 1974 were
approved as corrected with Commission members to hand in any written
corrections.
Deferred item:
a) Leiby/Nelson Craft Shop- Mrs. Craddock expressed concern over
the grade of the entrance to the craft shop.
Mr. Rinehart stated that for aesthetic and safety reasons, that
possibly the Commission should not approve this site plan, as a parking
lot was not conducive to this site.
Mr. Easter stated that he thought the parking lot would stick out
like a sore thumb.
Mr. Carr suggested that the shop just have 12 parking spaces with
treesscattered throughout the lot.
Upon questioning by Mr. °+a, . a , .. ' s, 7r. Ft �, ,, rey nte,, "-b� th(-,
�.rh � �'h ll�.n 1 r'n., t �, t
parking requirements could be waved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The Commission discussed the possibility of parking along the road.
but Mr. Humphrey stated that the parking could not be within the right-of-
way.
Mr. Carr moved for deferral of action on the site plan and stated
that if Mr. Rinehart, with Mr. Humphrey's help, desired to study the plan
and possibly talk with Mr. Warner of the Highway Department about
1242
lessening restrictions on the entrance or about parking along the road
outside of the right-of-way. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion which
carried unanimously.
Mr. Easter stated that he was concerned about this site plan,
as the Commission had set out to approve a quaint little barn and
he did not think that this would be the end result.
Mr. McClure stated that he would like the applicant to know
that he could go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to ask for a variance
to eliminate the parking lot, if nothing could be worked out with Mr.
Warner of the Highway Department.
".r. �Tjnc.<. Tol �,)-Igave a brief introduction of the airport master plan
and pointed out to the Commission an obstruction chart of the airport
district hazard zoning ordinance. The purpose of the master plan study
is to guide the orderly and economic expansion of the Airport. He
also noted that the principal goal of the study was to prepare a 5,
10, and 20 year plan of development for the Charlottesville -Albemarle
Airport consistent with demands for air tranportation services and
facilities exerted by the users of the Airport. He also noted that
another major goal of the study was to plan for the uses of land on
Airport property and to provide policy guidelines regarding future land
uses off the Airport in areas affected by aircraft operations and ob-
struction clearance criteria as set forth by the Federal Aviation
Administration. He stated also that these guidelines would provide
for the basis for implementation, by appropriate jurisdictions, of
zoning ordinancesfor height regulation and building and housing codes
for noise.
--------------
Mr. Tucker presented the proposed Airport Hazard Zoning
1243
Ordinance to the Commission. He stated that it was an ordinance
to regulate and restrict the use of land, the height of structures
and objects of natural growth, and otherwise regulate the use of
appropriate zones and establish the boundaries thereof; providing
for changes in therestrictions and boundaries of such zones, defining
certain terms used herein, referring to the Charlottesville -Albemarle
Airport Zoning Map which is incorporated in and made a part of the ordinance;
providing for enforcement, and establishing a board of adjustment,
and imposing penalties.
Mr. Tucker noted that the hazard zoned dealt with height restrictions
onlv and that 75 feet was the maximum height of radio towers and that FAA
would have to approve them.
Dr. Catlin noted that if a structure was more than 75', that
the structure would have to be lighted or cut back, which would be
determined by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Tucker stated that he felt this should be determined on a
case by case basis.
Mr. Tucker noted that high and medium density was going to
be lessened in the area.
Mr. Easter wanted to know if this ordinance would prevent a citizen
from having fuel oil and a tank beside their house and if these items
were allowed, it should be so stated.
Dr. Catlin stated that he thought that the hazard approach zone
should be in the agricultural zone and possibly the conservation zone.
Mr. Humphrey noted that present policy and Board of Supervisors'
action had established the immediate area of the airport for industrial
activity.
Mr. Goode Love stated that he thought any residential development
in the area should be of low density.
1244
Dr. Sams stated that he thought maybe the area should be
conservation instead of using the agricultural district haphazardly.
It was also noted that Mr. Tolson stated that they had no
intentions at present of lengthing the runway.
Mrs. Craddock explained some of her corrections to the minutes
of November 5, 1973 through February 4, 1974.
Re-election of Planning Commission officers. Mrs. Craddock
made a motion to re-elect officers as the present: slate stood. Mr.
Easter seconded the motion which carried unanimously; with Mr. Catlin -
being Chairman and Mr. McClure being Vice -Chairman.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
9