Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 19741281 May 6, 1974 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on May 6, 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. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Peter Easter, Dr. James Sams, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mr. Louis Staley, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. a)UP-74-02 Debrew B. Willis has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to amend the County Zoning Ordinance to allow hospitals in the A-1 Agricultural zone with a Special Use Permit. Mr. Tucker read the staff report recommending approval of the request. The public hearing was opened. The applicant was not present and there was no member of the public present to speak to the petition. Mr. Rinehart stated that he found no fault with the request but stated that it would be wise when considering a particular request, to have proof that a hospital would be compatible with the particular A-1 zone. Mr. Tucker noted that if it was not compatible then a special permit could be denied. Mr. Carr moved approval recommending incorporation of this amendment into the zoning ordinance to the Board of Supervisors. Dr. Sams seconded the motion. Mr. Easter expressed concern that since the applicant was not present, that the Commission did not really know the intent of this request. Dr. Catlin stated that could be looked into when the applicant applied for a special permit. The motion for approval carried unanimously. b)ZMP-301. Moore Brothers Company, Inc., has petitioned the Albemarle 1282 County Board of Supervisors to rezone 4.0 acres from A-1 Agricultural to M-2 Industrial. Property is situated on the south side of Route 708, about 14 miles southeast of its intersection with Route 29 South. Property is further described as County Tax Map 100, Parcel 23A (part thereof) . The staff report was presented to the Commission stating: "In the staff's opinion, in view of the existing calamity that exists from the discharge of the Red Hill Quarry, further desecration of land along the tributaries of the North Fork of the Hardware River would not be in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare as it relates to protection of surface water and the immediate environment thereof. It would appear that the applicant has taken the staff at its word, and has located property adjacent to an M-2 activity and zone in order to locate an asphalt plant. However, we feel that the charac- teristics of the site related to the environment were not taken into consideration when selected. The location of this facility will not be compatible with the immediately adjacent property, where two single family dwellings exist in the opinion of the planning staff". Letters in opposition to the request from adjacent property owners were read. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Robert Boyle, attorney for the applicant, reminded the Commission that there was not any vacant M-2 land in the County. He read a previous staff report recommending location of an asphalt plant near to a quarry. He told the Commission, that because of an agreement between S. L. Williamson and Martin -Marietta, that they could not locate on quarry property. Aerial photographs I taken by Rip Payne of the site were presented 11 to the Commission. It was noted that Mr. Walker's home and his son's home were the only ones that could see the site, and that neither objected to the location of the quarry. It was also noted that Moore's had contracted to buy the i283 land from Mr. Walker and that trucks would not be graveling any more than 75 yards on the public highway to obtain stone. The Commission was also told that there would not be any wash -out of rock stockpiles because they would be enclosed. Mr. Matt Rittberg, father of the letter to the Commission from citizens of the area, stated that he was violently opposed to the location of the plant in this area. Mr. Rittberg also noted that the quarry should not really be in its present location as it was non. -conforming. He stated that the quarry stood a good chance of being shut down due to air and water pollution. He stated that the trucks hauling finished asphalt will travel the local roads, and re -iterated that the majority of the people in the area were opposed to the plant being located on said property. Mrs. Norma Deihl stated that she was opposed to any expansion of industrial zones on Route 708, and that the north fork of the Rivanna River should be protected. She also mentioned her concern for the safety of the children that would be attending Walton Middle School next year. She re -iterated that she was opposed to creeping industrializa- tion in the area and that it was basically an agricultural area. Mr. Blake commented that this was to be a very modern asphalt plant and that there was a great need for asphalt in the area. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Craddock commented that if the rezoning was approved and the special permit was denied, then the parcel would be open for any M-2 use. She stated since there was already 600 acres of M-2 land in the area and since the comprehensive plan indicated that this was to be an agricultural area and since it did not recognize the existing quarry and because the land was topographically unsuited for the location of the plant, she moved for denial of the request. Mrs. Craddock also noted that it would not be in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare as it related to surface water and protection thereof. 1284 There was not any second to the motion. Mr. Carr stated that the demand did not require Mr. Williamson's plant to be operated at capacity, and that there was very little asphalt from Richmond or other areas delivered to this area. He also noted that 29 South would be paved partly this summer and next spring. He noted that the Commission had discussed having this plant near a quarry. He questioned whether there would really be an increase in the amount of asphalt activity. He stated that Williamson's was operating at 30% but that it was not up to the Commission to determine if there was really a need for this type of establishment or not. Dr. Catlin stated that the location of the stone would remain fixed, however, the location of the need changed. Mr. Rinehart questioned if it were possible to control the harmful effects to the environment and he surmized that : the truck traffic would be slightly more, that the water situation could be controlled, that the air would not be polluted anymore, that the neighbors directly affected, were not opposed and that there was a need for more asphalt in the area. Mr. McClure stated if the plant was controlled by a site plan approval, then the neighborhood would not be adversely affected. Upon questioning by Mr. Carr, it was noted that Martin -Marietta would not sell any of their property. Mr. Rinehart moved for approval of the request, which was seconded by Dr. Sams which carried by a 7-1 vote, with Mr. Easter being absent from the room. Mrs. Craddock being the member voting against the motion. c)SP-350 Moore Brothers Company, Inc. has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate an asphalt batching plant 11 on 4 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural(proposed M-2 Industrial). Property is situated on the south side of Route 708, about 14 miles southeast of its intersection with Route 29 South. Property is further des- cribed as County Tax Map 100, Parcel 23A (part thereof). Samuel Miller Magisterial District. i285 The staff report was presented to the Commission commenting: "It is questionable whether the proposed 4 acre site is of adequate size to support an asphalt mixing plant. The staff feels that under no cir- cumstances should the plant be allowed to discharge waste materials into the Hardware River without prior approval by the State Water Control Board. In addition to this, the staff feels that the plant. should contain the runoff from the property into the stream to insure that the State Water Control Board regulations will not be voided, thus preventing pollution of the Hardware River. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this peti- tion, it should be conditioned upon the following: 1) No discharge of waste materials into the Hardware River without prior approval from the State Water Control Board; 2) Containment of runoff from asphalt plant; 3) Screening of asphalt plant from Route 708 and all adjacent properties (staff recommends the planting of two staggered rows of six(6) foot high evergreens on ten foot centers); 4) Asphalt plant adhering to State Air Pollution Control Board regulations; and 5) Site Plan approval. Mr. Matt Rittberg re -iterated his statements that were brought out in ZMP-301. Mrs. Deihl questioned what the capacity of the plant would be? Mr. Moore replied that it would be 150-200 tons per hour. Mrs. Deihl questioned what the estimated truck traffic would be for 200 tons per hour. Mr. Moorecommented that 200 tons per hour would be at full capacity. He stated that the trucks would probably run about 8 hours or more in the summer. He noted that a truck held 10 tons so he estimated approximately 40-50 truck trips per day. Mrs. Deihl expressed her wish that the Commission consider this a temporary location. Mrs. Joan Graves also expressed this wish. Mr. Boyle, told the Commission that the requested location would be permanent. 1286 LIM Mr. McClure moved for approval of the request with the 5 conditions suggested by the staff, also to be reviewed at the end of 5 years by the Planning Commission (to come back to Commission). Mr. Carr stated that he would like to add to the motion, "review if and when the quarry across the road cannot provide stone for this plant, that it be reviewed by the Commission". Mr. McClure was in agreement with this, and thus was made a part of the motion. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with Mr. Easter being absent from the room, and not taking part in the discussion_ d)SP-353 Harold Green has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 10.85 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 53, about 12 miles west of Fluvanna County line. Property is further described as County Tax Map 105, Parcel 41. Scottsville Magisterial District. The staff report was presented to the Commission, which statedthat if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this petition, it should be conditioned upon: 1)Minimum setback of 100 ft. from Route 53; 2)County Building Official approval; and 3)This special permit be granted only to the applicant and is non- transferrable The public hearing was opened. However, since the applicant was not present and there was no one from the public to speak to the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. moved that action on the request be deferred until the applicant could be present. (next regular meeting, May 20, 1974). Mr. seconded the motion which carried unanimously. e) SP-344 Samuel and Anita Robbin have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 1.0 acre zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of Route 690 at Greenwood. Property is further described as County Tax Map 54^A, Parcel 3. White Hall Magisterial District. The staff presented their report to the Commission commenting that the property in question presently contained a dilapidated structure which is to be torn down. The staff noted that the applicant might have 1287 difficulty placing the mobile home on the proposed site because of the steep topography. The staff recommended that if the Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors approve the petition, it should be conditioned upon: 1. County Building Official approval; 2. Tearing down the existing dilapidated structure; 3. No disruption of the existing trees along the front of the lot; and 4. This petition be granted.only_.to_..the.applicant, and is non- transferrable. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. and Mrs. Robbin were present and stated that they were willing to meet all condtions placed on the special permit. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the special permit with the previously mentioned (4) conditions suggested by the staff, and a 5th condition of a time period of 5 years. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. f) SP-345. Ashby R. Kennon has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a two-family dwelling on 2 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 676, just south of Owensville. Property is further described as County Tax Map 43, Parcel 15 (part thereof). White Hall Magisterial District. Dr. Catlin disqualified himself from voting or discussion on this matter, and left the room. Mr. McClure took the Chair at this time. The staff report was presented to the Commission, which stated that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve the petition, it should be conditioned upon: 1. County Building Official approval; 2. A minimum setback of 100 feet from the right-of-way; and 3. Removal of only those trees which are necessary for construction of the two-family dwelling. 4. That the facade of the structure have the outward appearance of a single-family dwelling. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Kennon told the Iwo Commission that the duplex was to be occupied by himself and his daughter and her husband would occupy the other half. 1288 Mr. Campbell Wade of Owensville stated that he was opposed to this request as it might set a precedent in the area. Mr.Paul Summers of Owensville and Mr. Deke Bowen also expressed opposition 'to the request. Mr. McClure suggested that Mr. Kennon ask for withdrawl without pre- judice. Mr. Kennon was in agreement with this,and therefore, Dr. Sams made a motion to accept Mr. Kennon's request for withdrawal without prejudice which was seconded by Mr. Rinehart and carried unanimously. g)SP-346. Larry W. Cassell has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 3.0 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the east side of Route 618, z mile southeast of its intersection with Route 729. Property is further described as County Tax Map 116, Parcel 4 (part thereof). Scottsville Magisterial District. The staff report was presented to the Commission which recommended that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this petition, it should be conditioned upon the following: 1) Minimum setback of 30 feet from the dirt access road; 2) County Building official approval; and 3) This petition be granted to the applicant and is non-transferrable. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Cassell was present and told the Commission that he was the landowner and would live in the /,,vt+h mobile home himself. Mr. Rinehart moved for approval the 3 above mentioned conditions suggested by the staff plus a time period of 5 years. Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. h) SP-347.Cecil R. Knight and Ruby Knight have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 36.54 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of Route 810, about 8 miles north of White Hall. Property is further described as County Tax Map 6, Parcel 19. White Hall Magisterial District. The staff report was presented and the public hearing then opened. Since the applicant was not present, Mr.Rinehart moved for deferral of the request for two weeks, which was seconded by Mrs. Craddock and carried unanimously. 1289 i) SP-348. Edward N. Hamner has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 202.75 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the: west side of Route 723 about 1/2 mile south of its intersection with Route 715. Property is further described as County- Tax Map 133, Parcel 28. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker presented the staff report commenting that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve the petition, it should be conditioned upon the following: 1) County Building Official approval; 2) Minimum setback of 100 feet from Route 723; 3) Removal of as few trees as possible; and 4) This petition should be granted only to the applicant and is non-transferrable. Mr. Hamner was present and told the Commission that he was the owner of the land and planned to live in the mobile home himself. Mr. McClure moved for approval of the request with the four conditions as recommended by the Planning staff, and a 5th condition: for a period 14 of 5 years. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. j) SP-340 Tyrone Morris, Junius C. and Rhoda B. Smith have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home on 11.91 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of Route 723, about 3/4 mile south of its intersection with Route 715. Property is further described as County Tax Map 133, Parcel 29.Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker presented the staff report commenting, that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve the petition, it should be conditioned upon the following: 1) County Building Official approval; 2) Minimum setback of 100 feet from Route 723; 3) Removal of as few trees as possible; and 4) This petition be granted to the applicant only and is non- transferrable. Mr. Morris was present and told the Commission that he planned to live in the mobile home and that the property was owned by his aunt, `"3'I17 but that his aunt would deed it to him. It was noted that the aunt's home was also on the property. Mr. Rinehart moved approval of the request, conditioned upon the 4 conditions as recommended by the Planning staff, and upon evidence that Mr. Morris has taken deed to 3 acres or more from his Aunt in a reasonable amount of time (30 days from May 22), and screening to the satisfaction of the Planning staff. Mr. Carr seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Cinema Parking Lot Mr. David Carr moved approval which was seconded by Mr. McClure. Dr. Catlin stated that if a variance/was needed ��d forfPre p�r�tection, he wouldn't object to a variance of 4 spaces. The motion for approval carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. M 1291 May 13, 1974 This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission H held on May 13, 1974, at 7:30 p.m. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr. Louis Staley, Mr. David Carr, Dr. James Sams, Mr. Wilbur'.Tinsley, Mr. Jack Rinehart, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that he had not been able to get in touch with Mr. Wendell Wood about the property around the reservoir as of yet. area. The Commission then talked about the proper zone for the Farmington Dr. Catlin commented that Farmington as developed could either be RR or Conservation. Mr. Easter was concerned with whether the statement of intent would allow them to put Farmington in the Conservation zone. Dr. Catlin stated he thought the consensus of the Commission was to leave Farmington in the Conservation zone unless the intent required it to be RR. Dr. Catlin stated that he thought that there should be a buffer zone there. Mr. Rinehart commented that he thought that a conervation zone might be a hardship on the property owners. The Commission then discussed the proper zone for the Miller School complex, and the consensus was to recommend that it be zoned for Conservation. The Dryden property near Boar's Head was put in the RT zone, ` which was comparable to the present zoning. Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that Deerwood would have to be Placed in an R-2 zone to recognize the present development. 1292 Mr. Lloyd Wood reminded the Commission, that the Board of Supervisors preferred industrial uses in that area, and did not want any more residential uses. Mr. Carr commented that he thought they should recognize the existing zoning (R-2), and place RR zoning around it. It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend Deerwood for RR zoning. The Commission then discussed the possibility of creating a new zone, instead of putting the land that they were holding in RR. Mrs. Speidel, speaking for Mrs. Martin, suggested that it be called a "Limited Service Zone", which would require growth to be in clusters. There were several suggestions for the name of this zone: 1)RU,Rural 2) Limited Service 3) Agricultural Limited 4) A-2. Mr. Carr stated that he thought that an Agricultural Limited zone made more sense than making all of the remaining land RR. Mrs. Craddock stated that the Planning Commission was now considering a lot size of 5 acres for the Conservation zone which she considered to be a complete and utter farse. She stated that: this would only encourage �tthe land) speculation, as proven in other states, and that -,'it would be built upon as residential. She stated that it was her opinion that each lot in the conservation zone should be a minimum of 30 or 40 or 50 acres. Mr. Rinehart stated that one deterent in the land developing as residential would be the present high cost of buying and developing such property. There was further discussion along these lines between Planning Commission members with the degrees in lot sizes varying as noted: RR Rural Residential 1 to 2 acres Agricultural Limited 3 to 5 acres Conservation 5 to 50 acres Agricultural 10 acres 1293 Dr. Catlin commented that the lot sizes that would be desirable from a planning point of view unfortunately were not what the public would accept. Mrs. Craddock stated that she did not think that the Commission would get a great deal of opposition to the large acreage. Dr. Sams thought that it was the proper time to have a work session with the Board of Supervisors so that they might get some idea as to what the Board was thinking. Dr. Catlin was of the opinion that the Commission should come to a decision and then tell the Board what they considered to be the right lot sizes. Mr. Staley commented that 1 acre lots should be provided for in the rural part of the County also, as larger lot sizes made it very difficult for young married people to buy property and build a home. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to consider these lot sizes and be ready to vote on them at the next Planning Commission work session on May 28, 1974. There was a suggestion made that provisions be provided for in the zoning ordinance for the sale$ of duplex units. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to allow the manufacturing, assembly and distribution of mobile homes by special permit only in the IL district, as this type of facility would be located close to residential areasin some instances. It was noted by Mr. Staley, that it might be desirable to require mobile homes to have some type of foundation cover. Dr. Sams noted that possibly this was required under theportion of the County building code that applied to mobile homes. Mr. Humphrey stated that it it was not required in the code, that possibly it could be added as a condition to the special permits. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 1294 May 20, 1974 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held at 7:30 p.m. on May 20, 1974 in the auditorium of Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlottesville, Virginia Those members present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Dr. James Sams, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr. Louis Staley, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Deferred items: SP-343 Harold Green Mr. Tucker read the staff report recommending that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors desired to approve the mobile home it should be conditioned upon the following: 1) 100' setback from Route 53 2) County Building Official approval 3) Permit be issued to the applicant only and be non-transferrable. 4) for a 5 year time period, at the end of which time the applicant would have to re -apply. 5) Skirting of the mobile home from ground level to the base of the mobile home It was noted that Mr. Green's mother was the owner of the land, and that she intended leaving the property to him, upon her death. Mr. McClure moved approval of the request with the above mentioned conditions. Dr. Sams seconded the motion which carried unanimously. SP-347 Cecil and Ruby Knight Mr. Tucker read the staff report recommending that if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors desired to approve the application it should be conditioned upon the following: 1) 100' setback from Route 810 2) Screening in front of the mobile home from Route 810 to the discretion of the Planning staff . 1295 3) That the permit be issued to the applicant only and would be non-transferrable. 4) For a five year time period at the end of which time the applicant would have to re -apply. 5) That SP-315 be null and void upon the granting of this permit. 6) Skirting from ground level to the base of the mobile home. Mr. Tinsley moved for approval of the request, which was seconded by Mr. Staley. There was a question raised of who the resident would be, and if it would be rental property. With this in view, Mr. Tinsley and Mr. Staley decided to withdraw the motion and the second. Mr. McClure then moved that they approve the permit for a period of one (1) year,at the end of which time it would have to come back before the Planning Commission, and that there be no rental of the mobile home, plus conditions, #1, #2, #3, #5, and #6 as recommended by the Planning staff. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The Commission then considered the following amendment to the present zoning ordinance: Proposed Amendment and Repeal of Article 15A-9-1 and 15A-9-2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Mr. Humphrey noted that this would eliminate location signs, billboards, on the premises, etc. He noted that location signs were now 100 square feet in size and that this amendment would eliminate them. Mr. William R. Hill asked Mr. Humphrey if art establishment sign would have to be located 30' from the property line? Mr. Humphrey stated that this was correct, unless site plan requirements were greater. Mr. Leroy Graves, Mr. Verburg, Mr. Albee, Mr. Hoss, Mr. Strong, and several others iterated their concern as owners of sign businesses, and other business establishments of the effect that this amendment would have on them and others in their situation. 1296 M Mrs. Rose Whitehill of the Citizens for Albemarle urged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the amendment. Mrs. Martha Seldon told the Commission of how James City County was attempting to solve this problem. Mr. Goode Love stated that he thought that the Planning Commission would be better off if they eliminated all signs. Mr. Leroy Graves commented that sign owners had a vested interest in their signs and thought that this amendment would not be for the better welfare of the public. Mrs. Fran Martin stated that she thought many residents of the County would like to see a curtailment of signs, as scenery was one of the amenities of the County. She stated that the tourist business depended on the scenery,not the signs. Dr. Catlin stated that possibly information centers at the entrances to the city would lead tourists to businesses and solve the problem with the signs. Mr. William Jackson, brother to the owner of the Jackson sign company, wanted to know if owners of the signs would be compensated when the signs were taken down. Dr. Catlin replied that this would be entirely up to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. McClure moved for deferral of action on this amendment for two weeks, so that the Planning Commission would have ample time to consider this. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mrs. Craddock commented that she would like for the cessation of all non -conforming signs be changed to 60 days instead of 90 days. The Commission was in agreement with this. Proposed amendment - Section 11-14 SPECIAL MOBILE HOME PERMIT 1297 Dr. Sams commented that he thought that each member of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors should be notified of an applica- tion for a special mobile home permit, and that a notification sign should be posted on the nearest right-of-way line of the property and on the nearest state right-of-way line on which the mobile home was to be located for a period of 14 days......... Mr. Easter wanted to know what would be considered legitimate public concern? Mr. McClure stated that the Commission would review the permit if they received any complaints. It was also stated that if the conditions were met, and for some reason the administrator was still not satisfied, then he should have the right to bring it before the Commission. Under Section 11-14-2, Conditions of Approval, Dr. Catlin suggested that the following underlined word be added: "The following conditions shall be met by the applicant subsequent to the administrative granting of a Mobile Home Permit and prior to the issuance of a certi- ficate of occupancy:" Mr. McClure moved for deferral of this proposed amendment for two weeks so that the Commission could review it thoroughly, which was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously. Proposed amendment concerning rental units Mrs. Martin asked Mr. Humphrey if he would define "rental units"? Mr. Humphrey stated that this amendment was referring to "single family" rental units. Mrs. Craddock moved approval of the following amendment which was seconded by Mr. Easter and carried unanimously. Upon questioning by Mr. Tinsley, it was noted that this was identical to the provision in the new ordinance. 1298 on Amend Article 2, Agricultural zone; Article 3,RS-1 zone; Article 4, R-1 zone, and Article 5, R-2 zone. Zones to provide for single family rental unit, two or less by right and single family rental units, 3 or more with special permit and site plan approval, provided density is maintained as provided for in Article 2-2;3-2;4-2; 5-2 AREA REQUIREMENTS. The following site plans were then considered: a) Eve L. Wright - request for a restricted road to serve 6 lots off Route 674 near White Hall It was noted that the cross section would have to be submitted later, and this would be conditioned upon County Engineer's approval and a homeowner's association agreement and that any final approval would have to go to the Board of Supervisors. It was stated that "any further subdivision would have to come back before the Planning Commission" should be noted on the plat. Mr. McClure moved approval of the request which was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously. b) Expresso International Restaurant. Proposed Entrance. West side of Route 29 North between Greenbrier Drive and Westfield Road. The staff told the Commission that this proposed entrance would serve the restaurant and lot #1. Mr. Perry from the highway department had stated that the site distance for this entrance was very poor. The staff recommended to the Commission that this request should not be approved. Dr. Catlin stated that it was his opinion that the Planning Commission did not want any more entrances onto 29. The Commission was told that the lepsee of the restaurant was very disturbed because there was no entrance to the property from 29. Dr. Sams moved for denial of the request which was seconded by Mrs. Craddock and carried unanimously, with Mr. Easter disqualifying himself from voting or discussion on the matter. lership Site Plan located south side c) Berlin American Motors Dea Route 250 East near intersection with Route 20 North. 1299 Dr. Catlin stated that he did not feel that they had sufficient information to act on this because the Commission was not sure where wct fey, cLcrb -+ y Ertl the storm/sewer/would go. He stated that they needed more highway comments and felt that the site plan was not complete. Mr. McClure moved approval of the request subject to the details of the deceleration lane and acceleration taper or lane coming back for discussion at the next site plan meeting, and administrative approval of the landscape plan. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion which carried unanimously. d) Stonehenge Subdivision, Section 4. Located west side of Rio Road. 9 units. It was noted that this was still a part of the 54 units that was approved in Phase I. It was noted that the staff made the following comments: that the entrance road has been re -aligned, that buildings on lots #6 and #7 should be shown 30' apart, and that a final site plan should be submitted for the recreation area and Phase I. This plan should indicate parking areas for the pool and tennis courts, pedestrian ways to serve the recreation area, screening for the pool and parking area and one tot lot centrally located to serve Phase I. The staff also noted that the County Engineer had raised the following questions: "Will the relocation of the sewer line shown on this phase allow townhouses to be built on lots 10 and 11 of Section 5 and not be inside the 20 foot easement"? and "Where will the 12" storm drain shown in Section 2 empty on Section 4"? After further discussion, Mr. Tinsley moved approval of Section 4 noting that the final site plan should included: 1. Location of pool, clubhouse, tennis courts and parkings areas in relation to property lines. 2. Pedestrian ways located from residential cluster to recreation area. 3. Screening of pool and parking areas, 4. One tot lot, located centrally within Phase One (fenced). 1300 M The motion was seconded by Mr. McClure and carried unanimously. e) Valley View Flower and Gift Shop ,Site Plan - located east side Hydraulic Road, north side Whitewood Road. The staff noted that the County Engineer had the following comments regarding drainage: 1. Roof drains will have to be shown and where they will discharge. 2. The drainage ditch on the east side of the property shall be stabilized or piped when the grade exceeds 10%. 3. These plans will have to be submitted to the consultants who are doing the designs for the proposed sewer line to check any routing and disturbance these plans have with the sewer line. The staff also recommended: 1. That an additional 10' of right-of-way for Hydraulic Road be dedicated at this time. If not dedicated, it should at least be shown as "reserved for future road purposes" on site plan. 2. That the proposed sign must meet a 30' setback from the Whitewood Road right-of-way. Approval of the site plan does not constitute approval of any signs and the reserved Hydraulic Road right-of-way. 3. That the applicant consult with Robert Warner of the Highway Department concerning location of entrances and de -acceleration lanes. 4. That a joint entrance with the adjacent store on Hydraulic Road be investigated. If this is not possible, staff recommends no entrance on Hydraulic Road. 5. That a note be added to the site plan permitting access to the adjacent property to the east should it become necessary for a service drive. 6. That a sidewalk be required along Whitewood Road. 7. That parking spaces should be delineated on site by white lines or other means. It was noted that Mr. Warner of the Highway Department was not in favor of the normal turning lane being required for the entrance off Route743 since Whitewood road enters Route 743 approximately 100 feet below subject point. He noted that a larger radius would probably be more suited. He noted that even though Whitewood Road was not in the state system, he felt that a turning lane should be required for the entrance off of Whitewood Road. Mr. White stated that the entrance on Hydraulic Road was of extreme importance to the gift shop. Mr. Wood, attorney for Mr. White, also stated that he did not think it was fair for other properties to have access on Hydraulic Road if they could not. He also stated that he did not see the need for a sidewalk on Whitewood"Road. 1301 Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor, stated that it was his wish that sidewalks be built on Whitewood Road, as there was an increasing traffic problem in that area and was especially concerned about the school children. Mr. McClure moved approval of the request with the following conditions: 1) Deceleration Lane on Whitewood Road. 2) A sidewalk along Whitewood Road, for the following reasons: a) The subject property is very near several educational facilities. b) The extra traffic generated by the business, will create a hazard to the students. 3) A joint entrance with the adjacent grocery store on Hydraulic Road, to be approved by the owners, Planning staff and Highway Department. If such a joint entrance is not possible, then the matter must be brought back to the Commission. 4) Further review of drainage by the County Engineer. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. f) Alwood Townhouses Site Plan - located adjacent to "Stonehenge" 28 units for sale. It was noted that the applicant desired to subdivide a lot to 1/3 acre to be the property of the existing house, which had public water and sewer. Miss White told the Commission that the County Engineer had made the following comments: 1) For fire protection an 8" water line is required to the hydrant. 2) Plans and profiles will have to be submitted for the sewer and water lines before construction to the Engineering Department for approval. Also there are to be submitted as -built drawings of these utilities after they are installed. 3) There is an alternate route to get water to this area through Stonehenge. This route will make a loop with Stonehenge and this property for water services. 4) The entrance to this property off of Route 631 is very narrow and has poor sight distance from both directions on Route 631. This entrance would also encourage residences from Stonehenge to use this entrance so that traffic would not be just for this area. 5) The sewer lines and water lines will have to show the appropriate easements for the Albemarle Service Authority to accept and maintain. Miss White also told the Commission that the Site Plan Review Committee had reviewed the site plan and made the following 1302 comments: 1. That a sketch of the townhouse facades would be required. 2. That the staff recommends the closing of the Rio Road entrance. 3. One tot lot should be shown. 4. Sidewalks on at least one side of the travelway should be indicated. 5. Add note: total lot area is what percentage of total site area. 6. Privacy fences or alternate plan should be indicated. 7. Cross sections of the roads should be submitted to the County Engineer for review. 8. Proposed and existing contours should be indicated, as well as plans for soil erosion control both during and after construction. The note should include "all exposed areas shall be seeded, mulched and fertilized as soon as grading is completed`-': This is necessary to secure a grading permit. 9. Information regarding sewer commitment is required. Dr. Catlin stated that he did not see what the developer would be gaining with any approval at this time, as public water and sewer would not be available for 5 years or so. Mr. McClure moved for deferral of the request for 30 days, which was seconded by Mr. Easter and carried unanimously. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Land Use Plan Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the staff would present them some suggested goals and objectives for the County for.their approval so that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District could use them in devising a land use plan for the County and surrounding area. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. M 1303 May 28, 1974 This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on May 28, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. in the County Executive's Conference Room, 4th Floor, County Office Building. Those members present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. David Carr, Mr. Louis Staley, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mrs. Ellen Craddock and Mr. Jack Rinehart. Mr. Peter Easter and Dr, Jams Sams were absent, Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. Dr. Catlin told the Commission that he would be taking a new position with the University on June 24, 1974 and would be resigning from the Planning Commission and therefore, they needed to elect a new Chairman. It was the consensus of the Commission to do this by ballot. Mr. Carr received the majority of the votes and was elected the new Chairman. Dr. Catlin stated that he preferred that Mr. Carr take over the chairmanship at this meeting. Badger Powhatan Site Plan - deferred item The Commission was told that Mr. Perry of the Highway Department did not agree with their approved 90 degree entrance, as it would require people to come to a complete stop and then proceed The Commission stated that they did not clearly understand Mr. Perry's recommendation or his reasons behind it. Mr. Love suggested that the people in Camelot subdivision be considered in the Commission's decision on this matter. Mr. Rinehart moved for approval conditioned upon State Highway * department approval. Dr. Catlin suggested that possibly an acceleration lane should be required. 1304 Mr. Rinehart changed his motion to approval with the addition of an acceleration lane to be incorporated with proper radius to get into the site. The accleration lane to run into the deceleration lane. Dr. Catlin seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Carr suggested that Mr. Tucker discuss this recommendation with Mr. Perry and resolve it. Mr. Tucker told the Commission of comments of Mr, Wendell Woods regarding his property around the reservoir and if the Commission was in agreement with Mr. Wood, the Commission would have to takecanother look at the other areas around the reservoir. Dr. Catlin wanted to know what problems a 200' buffer would cause and would that distance be considered arbitrary and capricious. Mr. Rinehart stated he would like to see a colored topo of the recommendation. Mr. Frank Patterson, who was also a landowner around the reservoir, stated that a buffer zone and density credit seemed to be reasonable. Mrs. Martha Marshaw, 2nd Vice President of the League of Women Voters, re -iterated their support of the conservation zone around the reservoir. Mrs. Frank Patterson stated that she and her husband bought the land around the reservoir because the County had zoned it R-2. She stated that she didn't see in turn how the County could confiscate people's savings, Dr. Catlin in disagreement with Mr. Wood, stated that they had to protect the reservoir regardless of how gentle the land sloped. Mr. Tinsley thought that there should be a buffer regardless 1305 M of how the land sloped (toward the reservoir or not). Mr. McClure and Mr. Rinehart stated in their opinion the Commission needed a topo to see why Mr. Humphrey, who was not present, thought a 200' buffer was adequate. Mr. Wood stated that it had never been proven what would be detrimental to the area. It was the consensus of the Commission to defer action on this area until Mr. Humphrey could be present to show them a topo map. and tell them why he agreed to a 200' buffer. Route 29 North area - Mr. Wood stated that he would be willing to down grade the land from the gate to the river to "CO". On the other property, he stated he would go to court, before he would accept anything less than the present zoning. Mr. Carr stated that there was already a ton of strip zoning in the County which needed to be re -worked at this time or they would lose the battle forever. The matter was deferred for Mr. Humphreyls comments. The area occupied by the "Garden S'pott'which Yis currently zoned$-1 was considered. After a brief discussion, and being concerned about the compatibility of a nursery in the area, Dr. Catlin moved that the Commission recommend it be put in an RT zone which would be non -conforming. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Airport area - Dr. Catlin stated that he would like to see IL in the area, then the Commission could point to vacant IL land. Dr. Catlin moved ;%w that the Planning Commission recommend the staff's suggestion. Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 1306 �%W cm CM Willoughby - zoned B-1 across from I-64. It was noted that there was a question of proper access to the property. Mr. McClure stated that it did not seem practical for B-1 Business without proper access. Mr. Rinehart stated he would not like to see IL traffic exiting through residential zones. Dr. Catlin suggested the Commission recommend that it be zoned IL, then eventually there would be industrial lands going all the way to Avon Street. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion. Mr. Rinehart stated that he was in favor of RR, except that he made a substitute motion for deferral until they were informed about proper access. It was the consensus of the Commission to dothis. Cogswell-Hausler property. Mrs. Craddock stated that in view of the topography, she would like to recommend RR for this land, with a strip of conservation. Dr. Catlin was in favor of the RR, for the area, which was in agreement with other Commission members. Albemarle Lake - Dr. Catlin stated that if the area lended itself to the intent of the CVN zone then he was in favor of CVN, if not then he would recommend RR. Mr. Rinehart stated that in his opinion, it was a matter of some CVN but thought that they needed to look at a topo of the area. Mrs. Speidel questioned why the Planning Commission had strayed from their policy of not discussing individual parcels with citizens at this time? Mr. Carr replied that Mr. Wood had been invited to make comments as they felt his input would aid them in making a decision. Article 4 (AL) Agricultural Limited Mr. Rinehart commented that he thought that limits of 5 acres would encourage cluster growth. Mr. Carr stated that he had some reservations about making the AL 1307 district 5 acres because he felt this would put a hardship on some people. He stated that he would be willing to accept 5 acres with the understanding that rezoning requests would arise even where there was not water and sewer. Mr. McClure commented that it would almost impossible to put a road in for 5 acre lots. Mr. Carr stated that he thought that the Commission needed another session to work with the problem. The Commission took a tenative vote on the lots sizes of the following zones and came to the following conclusions: Agricultural Conservation Agricultural Limited Rural Residential Carr 10 5 5 1.5 Rinehart 10 5 5 1.5 Craddock 10 10 5 1.5 Staley 10 5 2 1 Tinsley 10 5 3 1.5 Catlin 10 10 5 1.5 N 'lure 10 5 3 1.5 Majority 10 5 5 1.5 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.