HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 1973847
April 2, 1973
,: This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on
April 2, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the County Court House.
Present were: Chairman Avery Catlin, Vice -Chairman M. Clifton McClure, Mr. Wilbur
C. Tinsley, Mr. M. Jack Rinehart and Mr. Louis C. Staley. Mr. Lloyd Wood was also
in attendance.
Those absent were: Mr. David W. Carr, Dr. James Sams and Mrs. Ellen B. Craddock.
It ahould be noted that the Board of Supervisors accepted the resignation of Mr.
William S. Roudabush on March 28, 1973. At this time no new Commissioner has been
appointed.
The meeting was called to order and a quorum established.
The Chairman asked for the public hearings to commence.
1.ZMP-269.Grover W. Forloines and Son, Inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to rezone 121.005 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is
situated on south side of Route 677 (Ballard Road). Property is described as
County Tax Map 61, Parcel 135-3.Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey presented a lengthy staff report to the Commission and said this
proposal would comply with the land use and residential "objectives of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan provided that the soil base in one acre development is conducive
to septic tanks.
Mr. William Roudabush and Mr. William Gentry were present to represent the
application.
Mr. Gentry presented a booklet to the Commission outlining the propsal and gitring
some of the facts regarding it. He further stated that the developer anticipated
building about fifteen houses per year and to develop the 120 acres into 83 lots.
Mr. Gentry eleaborated on the background of Mr. Forloines and Son, pointing out that
they were quality builders as was evident from looking at Greenbrier Heights and
Nonni Hills. He further stated that Mr. Forloines had discussed his intentions with the
County Planner, Service Authority, School Administration and the Highway Department.
They have requested permission to attached to a 12" water line when it is made available.
847
Page 848
Statistics relative to school impact were brought out with mention being
made of an expansion planned for the school in the near future.
Mr. Gentry also gave statistics of traffic on Route 677,678, and 676.He said
that these roads could carry three to four times more than the existing traffic load,
according to the Resident Highway Engineer.
If the rezoning is granted, Mr. Gentry said the developer will give ROW in front
of his property on Ballard Road for future widening and will widen 100 feet east and
west of the entrance plus a 50 foot taper to facilitate a safer approach.
Mr. Roudabush presented a U.S.GS quad sheet to give the Commissioners a better
idea of the location of the property. He said only two lots would front on Ballard Road,
with the other fronting on internal streets. Further, he said it appears that the soil
is capable of handling septic tanks.
h�u nf�Y
Mr. Frank Aeeom, representing Ivy Association, spoke in opposition to the request.
Mr. Joe Gibson, a resident of West Leigh and representing the West Leigh
Property Owners Association spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Gibson elaborated
on the water problems that West Leigh has had and other subdivisions in the County
such as Montvue,Colthurst and Flordon. In each case, their wells went bad and he feared
this would happen to this development. He further felt that this was poor planning
to go into this area. He was of the opinion that a one acre lot in this particular
area was insufficient for a septic system. He pointed out too, that Meriwether School
would not be able to hold the students that this development would generate. According
to Mr. Gibson, the roads in this area would be incapable of handling 3 or 4 times more
traffic than is already there. He said this might make traffic come through West Leigh
Subdivision which would put a burden on the residents there as they must maintain their
own roads. He pointed out, too, that the Comprehensive Plan was for the year 2000 and not
1973. There would still be 27 years in which to rezone this for one acre lots to
accommodate more people. He reminded the Commissioners of the reason that the
RS-1 zoning was incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. It was not to accomodate
/not
a 100 acre development, but it was for the little man who could afford a large lot.
Page 851
Mr. Richardson elaborated on the fact that there is quite a number of persons
holding tracts for development and this approval would set a precedent for the area.
The public hearing was closed, at which time Mr. Rinehart commended both parties
for their fine presentation of facts. He said that maybe the Planner had overlooked
the possibility that this area has an established pattern different from that in the
Comprehensive plan.
Mr. McClure said that so many times the Planning Commission had made decisions
based on the Master Plan, like in Earlysville, that did not work very well. He
thought maybe the Commission should take another look at the Plan. He suggested, too,
that before a decision was made on this petition, that the members view the site
and receive a soil test report.
Mr. Tinsley, being in agreement with Mr. McClure, made a motion to postpone
ZMP-269 until a soil report is made available. Mr McClure seconded the motion.
Dr. Catlin agreed that a soil report would be necessary, but he felt too,
that the Commission should be assured of a water supply.He pointed out too, that
the Master Plan for the year 2000 and he was of the opinion that the fringes of clusters,
S uch cis 4-he-
=rate o Ivy Cluster. should be considered later and not at the beginning of the Plan.
He urged the Commission to think about the right time to rezone the fringes of Clusters.
Mr. Staley supported Dr. Catlins thoughts on being assured of an adequate water
supply,
The motion to defer ZMP-269 until a soil report is available was carried
unanimously.
There was a short discussion on the notification of adjacent property owners,
in which Mr. Louie Scribner said he was not notified although he is adjacent to
subject property.
2.ZMP-271. Page W. Foster has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone
approximately 1.2 acres from R-1 Residential to R-3 Residential. Property is
situated off Route 631 (Rio Road) in Chapel Hill Subdivision.Property is
described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 135-3. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
The staff report was presented by Mr. Humphrey, who also noted that there was
851
Page 852
some indication of a deed restriction prohibiting such subdivision of land
in Chapel Hills.
Mr. Foster was present and said that the rezoning of this land would
give him an opportunity to straighten out his property line. It was ascertained
that there was a deed restriction prohibiting further subdivision of this property.
Mr. Main, a resident of Chapel Hills, read to the Commission the
restrictions pertaining to Chapel Hills in DB 343,P 396, para.12 which said
"The lots shall not be further subdivided unless all property owners agree". Mr.
Mr. Maine stated that he was opposed to the request.
Mr. Robert E. Batten, adjacent property owner to Mr. Foster, said he
had no objections to the request.
Mrs. Lucille Collier, adjacent property owner, objected to the rezoning
to permit Mr. Foster to subdivide his property.
The public hearing was closed. Dr. Catlin said the Commission
should take action and not get involved in the legality of subdividing
the property.
Mr. McClure said that even if the Commission granted the rezoning, the
courts would still have to remove that restriction from the deed.
There was a short discussion on the reason for the rezoning, after which
Mr. Rinehart moved to deny ZMP-271. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. The motion
for denial carried by a 4-1 vote with Mr. McClure voting no.
3. ZMP-267. Alcova Associates has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to rezone 37.38 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential
Propertyis situated off Route 20 North, adjacent to "Key West" Sub-
division. Property is described as County Tax Map 62, Parcel D-1
and Parcel 49C,part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Humphrey presented the staff's report stating that the request complied
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Jack Schwab, representing Alcova Assoc. presented a map to
show the Commission his plans for the laying out of lots, etc..He stated
that they had a good well system that had been in operation since 1959.
852
Page 853
Also, that there would be adequate recreational area for the new development,
and roads would be state maintained.
Props+
Miss Arlene Pest, speaking for her father who owns.property nearby,
expressed opposition to the rezoning. She indicated that the Master Plan did not
show this use in this area, that the lots on either side of the roads would be
too narrow and the septic systems might not drain properly because of the contour
of the land.
ka1b
Mrs. Go! also felt the Master Plan differed from the staff's report.
It was her opinion that the low density designation on the Master Plan stopped
on top of the ridge rather than below at the creek.
When the public hearing was closed, Dr. Catlin stated he would like
to see the land before making a decision.
Mr. McClure made a motion to defer ZMP-267 until the Commission has an
opportunity to visit the site. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rinehart. Mr. Staley
questioned whether all of this land was out of the flood plain. The motion to
defer carried unanimously.
The chairman appointed Mr. McClure and Mr. Tinsley to view the site on
Wednesday, April 4, and report back to the Commission at their regular meeting
on April 16, 1973.
4.ZMP-268.I.J. Breeden has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone
approximately 320 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential.
Property is situated on the east side of Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road)
about 1 mile south of its intersection with Route 781. Property
is described as County Tax Map 90, Parcel 5, part thereof, and Parcel 6,
part thereof. Scottsville Magisterial District.
The staff report was presented indicating that this request was not in
keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and was premature in all respects.Further,
if the Commission decided to approve the requests, then the Comprehensive plan
should be reviewed before said approval.
*%111 Mr. B. Aubrey Huffman,representing Mr. Breeden, showed proposed plans
to the Commission. He said there would be an average of 1.4 acres per lot and
that a 100 foot ROW would run between Route 20 and Route 631.Two lakes would also
853
Page 854
be developed for recreational purposes.
Mr. Rick Carter, attorney representing adjacent property owners,
said he could echo everything that was said in the Forloines case to show
his applicant's opposition to this request —This is a rural area where the resi-
dents do not want one acre lots, this kind of development is not within the
Master Plan, the road would not be able to handle the traffic since it is narrow
and winding with a one -lane bri4ge, and further, fine country estates are located
here and this development would raise taxes and lower the values ofthese homes.
Mrs. Martin noted again that the Commission should not rezone such a
large tract of land when they are on the verge of enacting a new ordinance
and map.
Mr. George Bailey, nearby property owner, pointed out to the Commission
that there was a great need for homes in Albemarle County, He had no objection
to this development being located across the road from his property. He felt
that if this request weredenied,the prices for homes would be driven up still
further.
Mr. John Romer, nearby resident, spoke in opposition to the request,
stating that the roads were too narrow and that the proposed lots were too small.
He pointed out that there were two developments much closer to Charlottesville
which still had available houses for those persons that needed to buy a house in
that area.
Mr. Richard DeButts commented that Mr. Bailey's property was for sale so
it probably did not matter to him if the mquestwer e, granted. He stated, too, that
the road was inadequate for this development.
The public hearing was closed. Dr. Catlin said that if this entire tract
of 1700 acres is to be developed, then the Master Plan should be changed to
rdlect this before the rezoning is granted.
Mr.. Mc Clure was of the opinion that this is a problemthat they
will be faced with unless the Commission can come tp grips with the demand for
854
Page 855
ne-acre lots. He said they had to do something before all the
property on secondary roads were developed into one acre lots.
Dr. Catlin asked Mr. Humphrey if he could obtain a figure of
how many acres of RS-1 land is available before each case requesting
RS-1 zoning. Dr. Catlin said he concurred with the staff's report
that the Master Plan should be reworked if the Commission intended
to grant this rezoning. He was of the opinion that the request was
premature.
Mr. McClure suggested that the applicant be given an opportunity
to withdraw his application for rezoning, then present a plan for a
PUD.
Mr. Huffman requested that they defer the matter for 60 days so
hat the Master Plan could be redone to permit this rezoning. To the
2ommission, this seemed impossible.
Therefore, Mr. McClure made a motion to deny ZMP-268, which was
seconded by Mr. Rinehart and carried by unanimous vote of those members
present.
5. SP-244. Herbert G. Tull, III, has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to locate a consulting mechanical engineering
facility on 16 acres of land zoned B-1 Business. Property
is situated on south side of Route 738, about 1/2 mile west
of Ivy. Property is described as County Tax Map 58, Parcel
37, part thereof. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
The staff's report was presented by Mr. Humphrey. Said report
suggested six conditions to placed on the permit if it were granted by
the Commission.
Mr. Tull was present to represent his application. He requested
-hat condition #3 of the staff's report allow 8 employees instead of 6.
855
Page 856
Tull elaborated on his educational background, stating that
this was strictly a professional business. He said he presently
operated on Berkmar Drive, but he was cramped for space. He noted
that only a minimum of grading would be accomplished in order to
locate the building.
Mr. Rick Noble, resident of Route 678 and speaking for Ivy
Citizens Association, said they were concerned about the present
and future of this parcel of land. Too, he wanted to know why
Mr. Tull needed 16 acres of land on which to operate this business.
He pointed out that the sign on Route 250 advertising this property
indicated that this was an "Industrial Park". He questioned whether
this was what was intended for the property.
A mechanical engineer spoke in favor of the location as he said
there was not enough available space in the County for this particular
type of profession.
The public hearing was closed and Dr. Catlin reiterated the
conditions suggested by the staff to Mr. Tull to be sure he could
comply with them,Mr. Tull said he could meet the conditions. There
was a discussion on the access road. The road as proposed by Mr. Tull,
would go through property zoned RS-1, which would not be proper according
to the Commission. Mr. Tull said the terrain was too steep to make a road
anyplace else.
Mr. Rinehart asked what fabrication Mr. Tull did. Mr. Tull said
he did some welding and repairs and in general built whatever his customer
wanted. He described some of the items that he designed and built and
tated that he had built as many as six of one item.
856
Page 857
Dr. Catlin felt that this might be a manufacturing operation,
ind should go in the M-1 zone.
Mr. Rinehart made a motion to deny SP-244, but the motion died
for lack of a second.
Mr. Lloyd Wood said this type of use was needed and if it could be
accomplished in the B-1 zone, the request should be granted. He pointed
out that it is very difficult to get land zoned M-1. Dr. Catlin agreed
that it was a desirable operation.
Mr. Tinsley questioned the reason for having so many different
zones on this property. There was a discussion on the origination of
the zoning of this property with Dettor, Edwards and Morris. Dr. Catlin
said that at the time of the original application, Dettor, Edwards, and
Morris convinced the Commission that this would be a quiet warehousing
operation. He, therefore, was disturbed that the property was being
advertised as an "Industrial Park".
Mr. Rinehart again made a motion to deny SP-244, which was seconded
by Mr. Tinsley. The motion for denial carried unanimously by those
members present.
6. SP-247. Lawrence B. Crenshaw has petitioned the Board of
Supervisors to locate a mobile homes sales and service facility
on 0.68 acres of land zoned B-1 Business. Property is situated
on west side of Route 631 (Rio Road). Property is described as
County Tax Map 61, Parcel 120P. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Humphrey presented the staff's report, which said that if the
permit were granted, it should be conditioned upon a deceleration lane
being installed and no mobile homes to be siutated between the existing
building and the right-of-way of Route 29.
Mr. Crenshaw felt that it would be unfair to force him to place
is mobile homes behind the existing building as all his competition
would have their mobile homes further out on the road. There was some
discussion about Ward's mobile homes being placed in the right-of-way of
857
it. 29. Mr. Crenshaw said Mr. Coates had checked them and said they were
_)kay. .
Mrs. Graves commented that she hoped this lot would not be as messy
as the other one. She also informed the Commission that Monticello Motors
had cleaned up their lot very nicely. Mr. Crenshaw said that, he too, had
done some cleaning.
The public hearing was closed and Mr. Tinsley asked what the minimum
setback would be for this lot. Mr. Humphrey informed the Commission that
the minimum setback was 30 feet, but on Rt. 29, for permanent structures,
80 feet should be the minimum.
Mr. Rinehart questioned the smallness of the lot, at which Mr. Humprhrey
said that it might be impossible to get a deceleration lane. There were
more discussion on the deceleration lane with thoughts that it could run into
I -he lane for East Oil Company, which is adjacent.
IlklmlY,
Mr. McClure made a motion to approve SP-247 subject to a deceleration
lane being provided and a minimum setback of 30 feet. Mr. Rinehart seconded
the motion and it carried by a unanimous vote.
7. SP-243. Anna Melton has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to locate a permanent mobile home on 2 acres of land zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property is situated on east side of Rt. 795 in
Slate Hill. Property is described as County Tax Map 103. Parcel
63-A. Scottsville Magisterial District.
The staff's report was presented by Mr. Humphrey. Mrs. Melton was
present to represent her application.
After a very short discussion, Mr. Tinsley made a motion to approve
SP-243 subject to a 50 foot setback, approval of the Health Department
and subject to the renewal of the permit by the Commission and Board at
the end of five years. Mr. Staley seconded the motion and it carried by
,nanimous vote.
8. SP-245. Bertie J. Via has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to
NIWIII
locate a permanent mobile home on one acre of land zoned A-1 near
Agricultural. Property is situated on south side of Route 61
858
Page 8 51?
its intersection with Route 630.Property is described as County
Tax Map 126, Parcel 28H. Scottsville Magisterial District.
The staff's report was presented with Mr. Humphrey noting that
Mrs. Via had been issued an emergency permit, but now requested that
the permit be permanent. He noted too, that Mrs. Via had attended
the meeting, but had to leave before her case was heard.
There was a short discussion on the smallness of the lot.
Mr. Rinehart moved for approval for a 5-year period subject to
Planning Commission renewal and subject to a 50 foot setback and
Health Department approval for sanitary facilities. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Staley and carried unanimously by those members
present. It (,,gas Pc+cd 4-hc'-fi 4�r)"S )of WCA3 Vecovc ej pylon to :,O'V A.�
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
R
M
Secretary
859
Page 860
April 9, 1973
This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission
held on April 9, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the County
Office Building. The purpose of this meetingvas to review the permitted
use section of the proposed revised Zoning Ordinance, as prepared by the
County Planner.
The Commission considered the uses permitted in the "Conservation",
"Agriculture" and "Rural Residential" -Districts.
Ituas the consensus of those present that the uses as indicated
below be placed in the designated zoning category.
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
CVN - 5 acre minimum
1. Accessory Building
2. Agriculture -Excluding Poultry and Hog Farms
3. Conservation and preservation areas
4. Forestry
5. Graveyards, family
6. Horseshow grounds
7. Off-street parking as required by this ordinance
8. Observatories
9. Parks and Recreation Areas - Public Only
10. Hunting and game preserves
11. Flood control devices
12. Single family detached dwelling units -conventional subdivision
13. Churches, parish houses and adjunct cemeteries
14. Fish hatcheries
15.Public Utilities: poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and
related and similar facilities; water and sewer distribution lines
16. Plant nursery - wholesale
17.Home occupation
18.Professional offices
19.Rental units, two (2) or less (one/5 acres)
20.Signs as permitted in Article
(CONSERVATION DISTRICT) USES PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT
1.Boat marinas
2.Campgrounds
3.Camps-summer
4.Convents and monastaries
5.Recreation areas- private
6.Public utilities: public water and sewer transmission mains a' trunk
lines and treatment facilities,pumping stations; electrical power
transmission and distribution substations and transmission lines and
towers, oil and gas transmission pipelines and pumping stations,
Page 861,
unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro -wave and radio wave
transmission and relay towers and substations
7. Mobile homes, individual
8. Single family detached units -cluster subdivision
9. Sawmills and planning
10. Educational Institutes public or private
11. Rental Units - three(3) or more (one/5 acres)
12. Accessory Living Unit
13. Natural Resource Extraction and Processing as Limited by Article
14. Country clubs
15. Airports
AGRICULTURE DISTRICT
10 acre minimum
USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITH
1. Accessory Buildings and Uses
2. Agriculture excluding poultry and hog farming
3. Conservation and preservation areas
4. Dairying
5. Forestry
6. Graveyards, family
7. Horseshow grounds
8. Off-street parking, as required by this ordinance
9. Public utilities: poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and.
related and similar facilities; water & sewer distribution lines
10. Single family, detached units -conventional subdivisions.
11. Churches, parish homes, adjacent cemeteries
12. Customary storage of dynamite as accessory use to agriculture activity
13. Seasonal shooting ranges
14. Home occupations
15. Hunting and game preserves
16. Plant nurseries, wholesale
17. Wayside stands selling comodity raised on premises
18. Signs as permitted in Article
19. Conventional lodging units for persons employed on the premises
limited to one unit per 10 acres within the premises
20. Kennels
21. Rental units, two (2) or less (one/10 acres)
(AGRICULTURE) USES PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT
1. Agriculture related business and industry
2. Public utilities; public water and sewer transmission mains or
trunk lines and treatment facilities, pumping stations; electrical
power transmission and distribution substations and transmission
lines and towers, oil and gas transmission pipelines and pumping
stations, unmanned telephone exchange centers micro -wave and radio
wave transmission and relay towers and substations
3. Natural resource extraction and processing as limited by Article
4. Poultry and hog farms
5. Detached conventional
more than one (1) unit
single family rental dwelling units but no
per 10 acres of land.
6. Sanitary landfills
Page 862
7. Country clubs, community centers:swimming, tennis, fishing, gun and
skiing clubs and similar uses
8. Craft or cottage industries
9. Carnivals, fairs -temporary -non-profit only
10. Country Store
11. Mobile homes, individual
12. Single family, detached units- cluster subdivision
13. Sawmills and planing mills
14. Educational institutions -public and private
15. Airports
16. Rental units, three or more (one/10 acres)
17. Accessory living units
RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
2 acre minimum
USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITH BUILDING PERMIT
1. Accessory buildings and uses
2. Conservation a1d preservation areas
3. Graveyards, family
4. Horseshow grounds, temporary
5. Off-street parking as required by this ordinance
6. Public utilities, same as agriculture
7. Single family detached units, conventional subdivision
8. Churbhes and adjacent parish home and cemetaries
9. Home occupations
10. Professional offices
11. Signs as permitted in Article
12. Parks, playgrounds and athletic fields
13. Golf courses
14. Volunteer fire houses
15. Temporary events such as carnivals, fairs, non-profit only
16. Stabling for horses and ponies
17. Agriculture on 10 acres or more, excluding hog and poultry farms
(RURAL RESIDENTIAL) USES PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT
1. Airports
2. Public utilities: (same as agriculture district)
3. Natural resources extraction and processing as limited in Article
4. Detached conventional retal single family dwelling units but no
mere than one (1) per two (2) acres
5. Country clubs, community centers, swimming, tennis, fishing, gun
clubs and similar uses
6. Hospitals, clinics, sanitariums, pursing homes and rehabilitation
centers
7. Educational institutions, private
8. Sanitary Landfills
9. Public offices and other public buildings and facilities owned and
operated by national, state or local government
10. Cemeteries
11. Carnivals, fairs -temporary, non-profit only
12. Mobile homes, individual
13. Single family detached units- cluster subdivision
Page 863
14. Poultry and hog farms
15. Hunting and game presevves
16. Airports
17. Agriculture on less than 10 acres
18. Volunteer fire stations
19. Accessory living unit
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.
Secretary
Page 864
April 16, 1973
This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission held on April 16, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the
County Office Building.
Present were: Chairman Avery Catlin, Vice -Chairman M. Clifton McClure,
Mr. David W. Carr, Mr. Wilbur C. Tinsley, Mr. M. Jack Rinehart, Mrs.
Ellen B. Craddock, Mr. Louis C. Staley, and Dr. James Sams. Mr. Lloyd F.
Wood was in attendance also.
The meeting was called to order and a quorum established.
The minutes of March 12, 1973 were approved as submitted. The
minutes of March 19, 1973 were approved with a correction on page 839.
Dr. Catlin's name should be added para.4, line 3 as voting in favor of
granting the permit. The minutes of March 26, 1973 were presented for
approval. It was the consensus of the Commission that the last sentence
in para. 6 on page 844 be reworded: Also para. 8 of the same page received
some discussion. Mr. Tinsley said he was under the impression that if
a Commission member had a possible conflict of interest, he would excuse
himself and leave the room. Dr. Sams felt this would unjustly penalize
those persons sitting on the Commission who wished to represent an item
on the agenda. He felt that an attorney or architect on the Comminion
would need to present items to the Commission from the floor. After further
short discussion, Dr. Catlin suggested that this matter be brought up
under Old Business at the end of the meeting. Dr. Catlin asked Mr.
Humphrey to rewrite the paragraph and let him look at it.
Mrs. Craddock corrected Item 6 on page 2 of the March 26th minutes.
The second sentence should read: "The Commission was of the opinion
that they should be provided, .......".
09
Page 865
Mrs. Frances Martin corrected Item 7 on page 2 by changing the
word enforceable to unenforceable.
Page 3, first sentence was corrected by Dr. Catlin. The correction
was to eliminate the word "In". The minutes of March 26, 1973 were
approved with the above corrections.
1.ZMP-267. Alcova Associates has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to rezone 37.38 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential.
Property is situated off Route 20 North, adjacent to "Key West"
Subdivision. Property is described as County Tax Map 62, Parcel D-1
and Parcel 49C, part thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District.
The ep tition was deferred from the April 2, 1973 meeting to allow
Mr. Tinsley and Mr. McClure to view the property and make a report to the
full Commission for action.
Mr. Tinsley, in giving his report, said he considered the property
unsuitable for one -acre zoning. His reasons were the topographic condi-
tions, the nearby watershed of Red Bud Creek and the placing of a road
to State standards on the top of the ridge which is very narrow.
Mr. McClure said he left the property with reservations about the
rezoning, But after detailed thought and a consultation with Mr. Tom
Blue, adjacent property owner, he felt development should be allowed
up to the ridge but should not include the ridge (Chestnut Ridge). He
felt that by providing a buffer zone such as this, it would protect
the neighbors from the development.
Mrs. Craddock told the Commission that she too, had viewed the site.
She said it was a very unique piece of property. She pointed out that
there was an indefinite demarcation near the crest of the ridge indicated
on the Master Plan. It was her opinion that the Master Plan should be
adhered to. She was also of the opinion that the request for Rs-1 zoning
was premature and suggested that the applicant consider 5 acre lots with
a restricted road. Her concern was that there may be problems with sel,<,
tank systems on the small one -acre lot.
Page 866
Dr. Catlin noted that he had received a letter from Mrs. Kolb
expressing opposition.
Mr. Tinsley said he was concerned about having 20+ septic tanks
on steep slopes.
Mrs. Craddock mentioned that State maintained roads would virtually
destroy the property because of the trees. She felt the trees should be
kept for residential use.
Mr. McClure was of the opinion that it would be worthwhile for all
the Commission members to view the property. Mrs. Craddock agreed that
it would be best.
Mr. Schwab, representing Alcova Assoc., said he did not know what
was entailed in restricted roads, and that a 5 acre lot would not be
feasible with his central well system. Also, he said that percolation
tests had been accomplished by Mr. Blue so there should be no probi t
with the septic tanks.
Mrs. Craddock made a motion that all members view the tract of land
before a final decision is made on the petition. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Tinsley.
Mr. Lloyd Wood told the Commission that during his first term on the
Board of Supervisors they were constantly trying to get Mr. Schwab to
bring the roads in Key West up to State standards. Now, the Planning
Commission is telling Mr. Schwab that his roads should not be up to
State standards, but should be restricted roads. Mr. Wood felt the
roads should be to standards in order to alleviate the problems that
existed before. Dr. Catlin informed Mr. Wood that it made a big difference
if the owner bought the lot with the understanding that he would have
to share in the maintenance of the road.
The motion to defer ZMP-267 for one week carried unanimously.
Wednesday, April 18th at 5:00 p.m. was the time established to view the
site.
Page 867
SITE PLANS
1.Automatic Sprinkler Systems - addition to industrial building,
located east side of Route 29 North, north side of North Fork of
Rivanna River.
Mr. Humphrey presented the site plan to the Commission noting that
this involved a 43,000 square foot addition to the building. He said
a revised plan had been submitted in keeping with the recommendations of
the Engineering Department and a grading permit had been issued. Reser-
vations for crossing property lines to the north should be indicated on
a revised plat for future service roads.
Dr. Catlin questioned how far the building would be set back from
Route 29. It was ascertained that the setback would be 120 feet. Mr.
Aubrey Huffman, representing the site plan, said the applicant desired
to extend the building closer to Route 29 at a later date. It was noted
that there was an established policy regarding setbacks along Route 29
so that in the future the road could be expanded to six lanes. Mr. Huff-
man asked that a written statement to this effect be given him so he
could inform the applicant, ATO.
Upon motion by Dr. Sams, seconded by Mr. Rinehart, the site plan
was approved subject to reservations for crossing property lines to the
north being indicated on a revised plat for future service roads. The
motion carried unanimously.
2. Virginia Department of Highways - new residency office, located
north side of Route 250 East; south side of I-64.
Mr. Humphrey, in presenting the site plan, said the grading permit
had been issued. He said, too, that the Highway Dept. planned screening
along I-64 and all other property lines. Mr. Humphrey noted that the
site plan should also be conditioned upon approval of a deceleration lane.
Mr. Carr asked how large the tract of land was. He was informed t;
it contained 26.74 acres.
Page 868
Mrs. Craddock pointed out to the Commission that grading permits
were being granted before the site plan was approved, which meant that
the property was already graded whether the site plan was approved or not.
She felt that this resulted in a lot of ripping up of land that can never
be remedied to a certain extent. Mr. Humphrey said that generally grading
and construction take place at the same time.
Mr. Roudabush pointed out that every grading permit is not in
connection with a site plan, for instance, to level up a pasture field
requires a grading permit. He said that each permit is studied Oy the
SCS and the Planning Staff.
Mr. Humphrey suggested that if there was real concern about this
matter that a possible revision to the ordinance could clear up the matter.
Mrs. Martin and Mrs. Graves said they had been concerned about this
for some time because there are sitesall over the County that have been
graded and are causing erosion problems.
There was further discussion of this matter by Mr. Carr and Mr.
Rinehart with Mr. Carr citing an example of scared land.
Mr. R. G. Warner, Resident Highway Engineer, spoke forl.his site
plan stating that screening and a deceleration lane with curbing and
guttering would be accomplished.
Mr. Tinsley made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinehart, to approve
the site plan subject to screening along I-64 and other property lines
and a deceleration lane being provided. The motion carried unanimously.
3. Observatory Dining Facility, UVa., intersection of McCormick and
Alderman Roads
Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that this plan was being presented
to them for their information only. He explained that the University
**WK doesnot come under the County`s jurisdiction, therefore, the Commission
could take no action on this site plan.
Page 869
4. Virginia Telephone and Telegraph Co., addition to north office,
located south side of Rio Road.
Mr. Humphrey presented the plan and said that there would be no
increase in parking and no grading accomplished on the site.
Mr. Lloyd Wood said the structure is located across from the Put -Put
on Rio Road. He could see no problems involved and said this was an
effort by the telephone company to upgrade their service.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the site plan. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously by those members present.
5. Pantops Toyota, addition, (parts and service), located on the
south side of Route 250 East.
The $ste plan was presented by Mr. Humphrey and he added that there
would be three additional employees invw]ed.
Dr. Catlin questioned whether or not there would be sufficient
parking. It was ascertained that there would be.
Mr. McClure noted that there was an easement shown on site
plAn that the Planning staff was unfamiliar with. It was his opinion that
the Planning Director should find out where that road goes so that the
Commission, in approving the site plan, would not be creating an
easement. Mr. Humphrey was directed by the Chairman to look into this
matter and if there were any questions, to report back to the Commission.
Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve the site plan, which was
seconded by Dr. Sams and carried by unanimous vote.
6.Scottsville Shopping Center, revised site plan, located at
intersection of Route 6 and Route 726.
Mr. Humphrey presented the site plan to the Commission stating that
the applicant wished to void one section of the previously approved site
plan. This new plan showed the bank being relocated with a new entrance.
There was some discussion about the new proposed entrance and the,
fact that it could be hazardous due to the nearby intersection of Route
795.
Page 870
Mr. Warner, Highway Engineer, spoke on this intersection and said
that one way to ease the situation would be to use a rotary type method.
He suggested an internal movement of traffic rather than entrance and
exist at that intersection of Route 795.
Mrs. Craddock made a motion to approve the site plan subject to_-
the new entrance being closed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley
and carried by unanimous vote.
7. Albemarle Square Shopping Center, NE quadrant of Rio Road/Route 29
North intersection.
Mr. Humphrey presented the site plan listing nine conditions that
the staff recommended, if the site plan were approved.
There was discussion on the median strip that is planned for Rio
Road. The staff's report said that no cross -over or cut in said median
strip should be permitted to allow traffic to make a left turn into the
shopping center. Mr. Carr was of the opinion that a cross -over should be
allowed. Mr. R.G. Warner of the Highway Dept. said that he had rejected
the proposed cross-overs as indicated on the site plan.
Mr. Bob Howering, developer of the Center, said he had obtained
permission for the cross -over through the District Highway Office, under
Mr. D. B. Hope. Mr. Howering said the cross -over had been approved subject
to final engineer drawings, which Mr. Huffman is in the process of
preparing.
Mr. Humphrey said, too, that the Planning staff would like to see
a landscape plan as landscaping had been omitted from the site plan.
Mr. McClure moved that this site plan be deferred until=a completed
site plan can be presented.
There was another short discussion with the fact being brought out
that this shopping center would utilize the Woodbrook lagoon, therefore,
certain business, such as laundromats, etc. would be prohibited.
Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion made by Mr. McClure for deferral
Page 871
and the motion carried unanimously.
8. Greenbrier Cinema, Greenbrier Drive in Westfield Subdivision.
The site plan was presented with conditions being recommended.
There was a short discussion on the proposed entrance. After which,
Dr. Sams made a motion to approve the site plan subject to: 1) final
review and recommendations of the County Engineer regarding drainage
and retaining wall, and 2) the relocation of the western most entrance
50 feet from the intersection of the access road to Stromberg Carlson
and final review of drainage by the Highway Department. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Carr and carried unanimously.
9.Seven-Eleven Store, Greenbrier Drive
Mr. McClure asked to be disqualified from the discussion and he
left the room, due to the fact that his firm represents this site plan.
Mr. Humphrey presented the site plan noting certain conditions
that should be attached to any approval.
Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve the site plan subject to:
1) drainage being checked, 2) sign as shown on site plan in violation
of ordinance to be made to comply with ordinance, 3) a minimum of one
foot of cover for storm pipe, and 4) site plan to be revised to incor-
porate soil erosion preventive measures per recommendations of R. O.
Anderson, Area Conservationist for grading. Above motion was seconded
by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously.
10. Greenbrier Heights Subdivision, Section Four, 41 lots zoned R-2.
Mr. Humphrey presented the plat and read three conditions that
should be attached to the approval of this subdivision. He said this
was an extension of Greenbrier Heights which is located in the city.
There was a short discussion on the streets in the subdivision.
After which Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve'Section 4 of Greenbr
Heights subject to : 1) Road to be built to State Standards
Page 872
2) 15 ft. sanitary sewage easements to be indicated on subdivision plat,
and 3) grading permit on roads and standard procedure of highway plans
and bonding. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClure and carried by
unanimous vote.
11. Woodbrook Subdivision, Section 9, 21 lots zoned R-1.
The site plan was presented and five conditions to be attached to
the approval were noted. Mr. Humphrey reported that Lot 17 was too small
to meet standards for sanitary facilities if a septic tank were used.
He said that this section of Woodbrook would utilize the existing lagoon.
Mr. Tinsley said that he was under the impression that the lagoon
was at its capacity. According to Mr. Humphrey, there is a letter dated
December 1, 1972 from the State Water Control Board which says the lagoon
is not at its capacity, and a subsequent letter from the Albemarle County
Service Authority indicates that connections were granted for up to
28 units for the Woodbrook Lagoon.
The lagoon situation led into a long discussion. Mrs. Martin was
of the opinion that action should be delayed until the County has public
sewer available for Woodbrook. A lady asked if Mr. Praeger of the State
Water Control Board was the highest official to�say that the lagoon still
had capacity. Dr. Catlin informed her that this information came from
the State Water Control Board itself and not from an individual. There
was concern expressed that the developer would sell lots with public
sewer and at a later date the lot owner would have to install a septic
tank at his own expense.
Mr. Lloyd Wood said that he, personally, questioned the SWCB's
action on this. He reminded the Commission, too, that Albemarle Square
Shopping Center was going to use the Woodbrook Lagoon as soon as their
` site plan is approved.
Mrs. Craddock suggested that action be deferred on`this until
Page 873
further written communication is recieved to verify that the lagoon still
has holding capacity.
Mr. Wood thought perhaps the Rivanna Sewer and Water Authority 'O
should be questioned to a more definite sbhedule on. when the sewer line
will be ready in this area.
Mr. Roudabush asked the 'Commission to look at the date on the plat,
which showed the plat dated one year and two months ago. At that time
the Commission said that the plat should be resubmitted when the sewer was
assured. According to Mr. Roudabush, the property has been recently sold
on that basis, on the assurance of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Mr. Tinsley thought that maybe if the Commission turned this plat
down, that the developer would go to the Service Authority and hurry them
up quicker than any other way.
Mr. Wood pointed out that there has been some delay in getting the
Service -Authority set up, and that it is not working as it was thought =.
would.
Dr. Catlin said the Commission would have to believe what the SWCB
and Service Authority said and go ahead and permit the development at
this time, or wait until they see a sewer line at the property going to a
treatment plant and he felt that it would be at least 12 months before
the treatment plant would be ready.
Mr. Staley mentioned that when the shopping center came up before
the m,there was between 25 and 50 people speaking in opposition to any
more connections to the Woodbrook Lagoon.
Mr. Carr said he thought the Commission had gone the last mile. He
said he agreed with many things that had been said, but he thought the
developer had done what was required of him. Therefore, he moved for
approval. The motion for approval was seconded by Mr. McClure. The
Chairman called for a vote. Those voting in favor of approving the plat
Page 874
were: Messrs. Carr, McClure and Rinehart. Those voting against approval
were: Mrs. Craddock, Mr. Staley, Dr. Catlin, Mr. Tinsley, and Dr. Sams.
The motion for approval of Section 9, Woodbrook, failed to carry
by 5 to 3 vote. Dr. Sams, therefore, made a motion to deny the site plan,
which was seconded by Mr. Staley. The Chairman, again called for a vote
which yielded the same results, that of denial. Those voting in favor
of denial were: Mr. Staley, Dr. Catlin, Mrs. Craddock, Mr. Tinsley, and
Dr. Sams. Those against denial were: Mr. Carr., Mr. McClure, and Mr.
Rinehart. The motion for denial -carried by a -5 to 3 vote.
12. Greenbrier Drive, Westfield Subdivision, Section two.
Mr. Humphrey presented the plan, recommending Category 5, the
highest level before a dual highway. He said the question was whether
they wished to terminate the road in a cul-de-sac or make provisions for
an extension, which would tie into Branchlands.
Mr. Carr was of the opinion that the road was needed and that the
County had been depending on that extension for a long time.
Mr. Humphrey said there was a 60 ft. ROW involved and that Mr.
Bailey, County Engineer, had recommended Category 5 for the road.
Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve Greenbrier Drive with pro-
visions for extension, which was seconded by Mr. McClure. The motion
carried unanimously.
13. Fairgrove Subdivision, Route 660, 21 lots zoned A-1.
The site plan was presented with the recommendations of four
conditions. The Commission discussed the exact location of the property
as some were unfamiliar with the area. It was ascertained that there
are about 60 acres involved with Mr. James Gregg being the developer.
Mr. Humphrey said the Highway Department had indicated some concern on
the entrance.
Mrs. Craddock thought that someone should take a look at the property
Page 875
before the Commission made a decision on the matter. She volunteered to
view the property.
Mr. Carr made a motion -:to defer action for one week to give the
members an opportunity to visit the site. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously.
14. Georgianna Wright - pipe stem lot.
Mr. Hmmphrey questioned whether the Commission would approve a 20
foot ROW. He noted that the Commission had approved a 25 ft. ROW before.
He said he had a plat showing 1.912 acres with a 20 ft. pipe stem coming
off on Route 656.
After a short discussion, the Commission agreed that a 20 ft.
easement would not be sufficient.
OLD Business
The Chairman brought up the matter of Conflict of Interests which
was discussed earlier in the meeting. He asked if Mr. McClure and
Mr. Rinehart if they objected to leaving the room if there was conflict
involving them. Mr. McClure had no objections, but Mr. Rinehart did
object. He said if he left the room he would be unable to hear what
was said. It was his opinion that leaving the room should be left up
to the discretion of the involved party.
Dr. Catlin felt that discussion with any member from the floor, should
be avoided.
There was some discussion about how the public viewed a Commissioner
when representing a client. Mrs. Graves said she did not think it would
be necessary for the Commissioner to leave the room.
No set rule was established regarding this matter, but would be left
to the individuals discretion as to whether or not he would leave the room.
Dr. Sams felt that this might have some bearing on whether or not'"O
a person would serve on the Commission.
Page 876
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Secretary
M
877
April 23, 1973
This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission
held on April 23, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present were; Chairman Avery Catlin, Vice -Chairman M.Clifton
McClure, David W. Carr, Wilbur C. Tinsley, M. Jack Rinehart, Mrs.
Ellen B. Craddock, Louis C. Staley and James Sams. Mr. Lloyd Wood
was absent. Also attending were Mr. Gerald Fisher, Mrs. Ruth Miller,
Zoning Administrator; and Mary Joy White, Assistant Planner.
The meeting was called to order and a quorum was established.
The minutes of April 2, 1973 were approved with the following
corrections: Page 848. Change "Frank Ancona" to Frank Hunter; Page 849.
third paragraph, second line - change "nor" to "or"; Page 850, 2nd
paragraph change Dr. Carrie Suitor to Dr. Carrie Suter; Page 850,
change Mr. Paul Somers to "Mr. Paul Summers"; Page 851, 5th paragraph,
fourth line, change "like to" to "such as the"; Page 853, 1st para-
graph, change "Mrs. Arlene Post" to "Miss Arlene Propst"; second
paragraph, first line, change "Mrs. Cole" to"Mrs.Kolb". Last paragraph
on Page 860, add the sentence "It was noted by the Commission that the
one acre lot was of record prior to zoning".
1) At this time the Chairman called for a report from those members
who made a field inspection of property involved in ZMP-267 Alcova
Associates.
Mr. Rinehart reported that he agreed with the RS-1 request for the
south two thirds of the property which involves 15 lots; however,
the eleven lots situated .6n the ridge in the northern portion of the
request, along Redbud Creek and its tributary was not conduc*ve
to one acre development because of topograph and because of what
a 50' state maintained road would do to the ridge.
L
878
Mr. Rinehart motioned for approval of ZMP-267excluding the eleven
lots which have frontage on "Chestnut Ridge Road" as noted on a
preliminary plat prepared by Mr. Tom Blue C.E. CLS, dated 2/5/73;
Mr. Staley seconded the motion and the motion carried by a 7-1 vote
with Mrs. Craddock voting "no" by reason that the entire request, in
her opinion,should remain in the A-1 Agricultural 2 acre minimum to
maintain compliance with the Master Plan.
2. Fairgrove Subdivision - preliminary plat - This plat was
deferred from the previous regular meeting to afford members the
opportunity of site inspection.
Mrs. Craddock reported that she had visited the site and was
of the opinion that the developer was prepared to maintain the amenities
of the site.
A discussion was held on the merits of Lot 15, 16, 17 and 18
relative to good building site after septic tanks and wells are
located since most of the lots mentioned were in the lowlands, if not
flood plain of Fishing Creek. It was noted that lots thirteen (13)
through twenty-one (21) were in Phase II of the proposed development.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant should
re-evaluate Phase II with reference to lots 13-21.
Mr. Rinehart motioned for approval of Phase I involving lots 1
through 12 only, which was seconded by Mr. Carr and approved
unanimously.
3. James L. Chisholm - request for opinion relative to a division
of land.
Mr. McClure excused himself from voting and discussion on this
particular matter because of possible conflict since his law partner
was involved in the original subdivision of what is known as
"Quandary Farm".
879
The secretary reported that it was the desire of the applicant
to join with Michael B. Stewart, adjoining property owner to establish
their individual, 25 foot wide pipe stems parcels to create a restricted
road and for the Chisholms to deed off two acres to their daughter for
a housing site with access to Route 727 via the restricted road.
The history of this division of land was discussed relative to the
pipe stem lots as well as what could be done now to correct
what is considered a poor subdivision of land, caused by subdivision
regulation loopholes or inadequacies.
It was the consensus of the Commission that a joint effort, on the
part of all owners of the 6 pipe stem lots, be accomplished to determine
the most benificial approach to the existing problem that the Commission
feels exist.
After the discussion, Dr. Sams motioned to instruct the planner
to inform the applicant that it is the opinion of the Commission that
the request not be granted.
Discussion followed after which Dr. Sams accepted an amendment
motion to read. The Albemarle County Planning Commission would not
accept a 50 foot restricted road to serve the proposed division of land
in conjunction with two of the existing parcels., The motion was seconded by
Mr. Carr and passed by a 7-0-1 vote, with Mr. McClure not voting.
At this time the Chairman called for the work session on the pro-
posed zoning ordinance. The secretary reported that he was in need of
guidance relative to a definition of "light welding operations", subject
definition being involved in a use permit coming before the Board
of Supervisors on April 25, 1973.
After a discussion the Commission instructed the secretary to
880
change the "use as originally recommended to the board for "Light
Welding Operations" to "Welding Operations" under special permit
provisions.
At this time, review of the permitted use sections involved in the
R-1, R-2, R-3 and RT zones was accomplished with the following listing
of uses to be permitted.
R-1 Residential District - 1-acre
USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITH BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL
1. Accessory buildings
2. Churches and adjacent cemeteries
3. Off-street parking as required by this ordinance
4. Parks and playgrounds with site plan approval
5. Public utilities: poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related
or similar facilities; and sewerage distribution lines
6. Single family detached dwelling units -conventional subdivision
7. Home professional occupations - Class "A"
R-1 Residential
USES PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT
9
1. Country clubs, community buildings, swimming and tennis clubs
and golf courses
2. Construction facilities, temporary, in accordance with Section 28-41
3. Public utilities: public water and sewer transmission main or trunk
lines and treatment facilities, and pumping stations; electrical
power transmission and distribution substations and transmission
lines and towers; unmanned telephone exchange centers
4. Natural resource extraction and processing as limited by Article 17
5. Single family detached units -cluster subdivision
6. Educational institutions -public and private
7. Public offices and other public buildings and public facilities
owned or operated by agencies of the national, state or local govern-
ment.
8. Stabling facilities for horses and ponies.
9. Home occupation, Class "B".
R-2 Residential District - 20,000 sq.ft. Lot Size
USE PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITH BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL
Same as for R-1 District except that conventional subdivision must be
served by both a public sewer and water system and
excluding stabling for horses and ponies
USES PERMITED BY SPECIAL USE PERMITS
Same as for R-1 District except that cluster subdivision must be
881
served by public sewer and water and excluding stabling for
horses and ponies
,%rr R-3 Residential - 12,500 square feet
USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITH BUILDING PERMIT
Same as for R-1 District
USES PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
1. Same as for R-1 District
RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT
USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITH BUILDING PERMIT
1. Accessory buildings
2. Churches
3. Off-street parking as required by this ordinance
4. Parks and playgrounds with site plan control
5. Patio houses
6. Public utilities: Poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and
related or similar facilities; water and sewerage distribution lines
7. Townhouses -sale or rental
8. Residential duplex units
9. Single family detached dwelling units conventional subdivision
in keeping with the provision of the R-3 Residential District
USES PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT
1. Community buildings joint with County Club
2. Condominium housing projects
3. Construction facilities, temporary in accordance with Section 28-41
4. Country clubs, swimming and tennis clubs
5. Public offices, and other public buildings and public facilities
owned or operated by agencies of the national, state and local govern-
ments.
6. Public Utilities: public water and sewer transmission main or trunk
lines and treatment facilities, and pumping stations; electrical power
transmission and distributuion substations and transmission lines and
towers; unmanned telephone exchange centers
7. Hospitals and clinics
8. Educational institution; public and private
9. Home professional offices, Class "B"
10. Nursing or convalescent homes
11. Professional or business offices if immediately adjacent to commercial
zones
12. Schools of special instruction if immediately adjacent to commercial
zones.
13. Libraries
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
882
April 30, 1973
This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission
held on April 30, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of The County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. The purpose of this
meeting was to review the permitted use section of the proposed revised
Zoning Ordinance, as prepared by the County Planner.
Present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure,
Vice -Chairman; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Dr. James Sams, Mr. David Carr,
and Mr. Louis Staley. Also present were Lloyd Wood, Gerald Fisher,
and Mrs. Ruth Miller. Absent were Mrs. Craddock and Mr. Jack Rinehart.
Miss2White took the place of Mr. Humphrey as secretary.
It was established that the lst Monday of each month would
be for public hearings; the 3rd Monday would be for site plans; the
2nd and 4th Mondays would be workshops and any 5th Monday would be
to catch up.
The Commission also expressed their wishes that the Planning
Commission agendas be mailed on the previous Monday; that legal
advertisements be added to agendas; that a select mailing list of
agendas and legal advertisements be established; and that extra meetings
be called to work on the zoning ordinance if possible.
Mr. St. John, County Attorney, spoke on the matter of Woodbrook
Subdivision appeal to circuit court by Mr. Clabde Cotten, Inc.
The Court's decision was to overturn the Planning Commission's decision
and returned it to the Planning Commission (as a courtesy) for appro-
priate action.
Dr. Catlin wanted to see letters referred to by Mr. Humphrey.
Mr. St. John stated this evidence was brought before court. (any evi-
883
dence used by Planning Commission in their original decision plus
any additional evidence). Mr. St. John also stated that he thought
all evidence had been presented and if the Planning Commission
turned down the subdivision again, that Judge Berry would act on it
without Planning Commission consent.
r Cat.,ix�expr_essedconcern that the,reasons for the Planning
Commission's decision had not been presented to the Court and thatthe
Commission had been given no opportunity to argue its case before the Court.
Dr. Sams motioned to approve the plat keeping in mind that the stink is a
nuisance but nct necessarily a health hazard. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carr.
The motion carried unanimously with Dr. Catlin abstaining.
Dr. Catlin re uested the staff to prepare a report on the amount of land
zoned in each category.
Approval of the minutes was deferred and the staff was asked
to check the tape of the April 16th meeting.
The Commission then proceeded working on the zoning ordinance.
It was established that at the last meeting they completed through
the RTM zone.
COMMERCIAL OFFICE DISTRICT, CO DISTRICT
PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITH BUILDING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVALS
1.
Banks and savings and loan institutions
2.
Churches
3.
Clinics without facilities for overnight care of patients
4.
Clubs, and lodges, civic, fraternal, and patriotic
5.
Libraries
6.
Off-street parking as required by this ordinance
7.
Offices for business and professional use
8.
Public utilities: poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters, and
re-
lated or similar facilities;water and sewerage distribution lines;
telephone exchange and dial centers, offices
9.
Fire Stations
10.
Establishments limited to the filling of prescriptions and the
sale
of
pharmaceuticals and similar supplies, not exceeding 2000 square
feet
in
gross area.
884
USES PERMITED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT
1. Construction facilities, temporary, in accordance with Art. 28-41
2. Hospitals, medical centers
3. Funeral homes
4. Public Utilities: public water and sewer transmission mains or
trunk lines and treatment facilities, pumping stations; electrical
power transmission lines and towers, oil and gas transmission pipelines
and.,pumping stations, unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro -wave
and radio wave transmission and relay towers and substations
5. Educational institutions - public and private
6. Schools of special instruction
7. Nursery schools
COMMERCIAL, LIMITED DISTRICT
USES'PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITH BUILDING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL
1. Accessory buildings
2. All uses permitted by right in CO District
3. Fire stations
4. Parking garages and lots
5. Pressing and cleaning shops limited to (6) pressing machines and
four (4) dry cleaning machines
6. Restaurants
7. Retail service stores such as barbour shops; beauty parlors, shoe
repair shops; hand laundries, laundromats; establishments for receiving
and distributing articlesfor laundering or cleaning and blue print,
photostat, and similar reproduction establishments and printing establish-
ments not exceeding 3000 square feet in gross area.
8. Stores.for the retail sale, repair (or both) of household appliances,
musical instruments; sporting goods.
9. Sales of antiques and crafts, automobile supplies, books, cigars
clothing and and apparellof any kind, dry goods, drugs, garden supplies,
gifts, electrical goods and supplies, food and food products of any
kind including production of bakery goods for retail sale in the same
establishment but not including the killing of poultry or any other live-
stock; furniture, household furnishing and decorator's supplies, hard-
ware, florist goods, luggage and leather goods, office supplies, optical
goods, pets and pet supplies but not any veterinary servicws,
photographic equipment and supplies variety goods, toys, jewelry, liquor,
music, stationary, newsstands and similar retail establishments.
10. Radio broadcasting and television stations and studies
11. Theater (indoor)
12. Taxicab stands
13. Virginia ABC stores
14. Health spa centers
USES PERMITTED WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
1. Construction facilities, temporary, in accordance with Art. 28-41
2. Hospitals, medical centers
3. Funeral homes
4. Public utilities: public water and sewer transmission mains or
trunk lines and treatment facilities, pumping stations; electrical
power transmission lines and towers, oil and gas transmission pipe-
lines and pumping stations, unmanned telephone exchange centers,
885
micro -wave and radio wave transmission and relay towers and sub-
stations
5. Educational institutions -public and private
6. Schools of special instruction
7. Nursery schools
8. Bowling alley; roller skating and ice skating rinks; billiard
parlors and pool rooms, dance halls and similar forms of public
amusement
9. Transportation facilities such as bus terminals, railroad stations
including rapid mass transit facilities
10. Hotels and motels
11'..Automobile service stations
COMMERCIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT CG
USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITH BUILDING PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL
1. All uses permitted by right in CL District.
2. Transportation facilities, etc.
3. Hotels and motels
4. Auto Service Stations
5. Funeral homes
6. Ambulande service
7. Bakeries employing not more than 10 persons other than clerks and
vehicle drivers
8. Cabinet making shops not to exceed 3,000 square feet in gross area
9. Catering establishments
10. Retail nurseries and greenhouses
11. Establishments for the installation and servicing of the following
air conditioning, electrical service, flooring,heating, interior
decorating, painting, plumbing, roofing, tiling, ventilating, with
all materials stored entirely in buildings enclosed on all sides or
within walls or fences, supplemented by planting, as may be prescribed
by the Planning Commission
12- Frozen food lockers
13. Grain and feed supply stores
14. Machinery sales and service
15. Ice storage if not more than 5 ton capacity
16. Monument works
17. Pressing and cleaning shops
18. Printing establishments
19. Retail sale of garden material and supplies, hardware and building
materials and supplies. Areas devoted to display, sales or storage
of these materials and supplies shall be entirely within a screened
enclosure
20. Taxidermist shops
21. Upholstering establishments, furniture repair
22. Veterinary or dog or cat hospitals
23. Auctioneering establishments
24. Automobile laundries
25. Automobile parking garages, repair garages
26. Automobile, truck, boat, motorcycle, trailer sales rooms entirely
enclosed on all sides in connection with which there may be outdoor
display of vehicles (a) on the same lot therewith (b) incidental
and accessory thereto (c) occupying an area not exceeding the floor
area of the establishment of which the sales room to which such
outside display is appurtent is a part, and (d) not including the
886
display of any vehicle that is not in operating condition.
27. Farm equipment and machinery dales entirely enclosed on all sides
in connection with which there may be an outdoor display of vehicles
on the same lot as an incidental use, but not to exceed the area of
the enclosed sales room.
USES PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT
1. All uses permitted by Special Permit in CL zone excluding
transportation facilities, hotels and motels, auto service stations,
and funeral homes.
2. Commercial sports arenas and stadiums
3. Horse racing tracks
4. Mobile home and travel trailer sales and service
5. Drive -In theaters
6. Miniature golf and driving ranges
7. Wholesale commercial establishments and warehouses; moving and
storage establishments
8. Commercial processing establishments limited to 10,000 square feet
floor area that are not objectionable because of dust, smoke, noise,
odors, and heavy traffic.
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURING DISTRICT, RM
USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITH SITE PLAN AND BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL
1. Accessory Uses
2. Agriculture and forestry uses
3. Cafeterias and dining rooms serving employees of the on -site facility,
visiting customers and other owner authorized visitors, but not the
general public
4. Product sales areas for employees only, limited to four thousand
(4000) square feet
5. Recreation service uses of a non-commercial nature, limited to those
for use of employees whose work is done within the IR zone.
6. Research, design and development establishment
7. Technical education
8. Public Utilities: public water and sewer transmission mains or
trunk lines and treatment facilities, pumping stations; electrical
power transmission lines and towers, oil and gas transmission pipelines
and pumping stations, unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro -wave
and radio wave transmission relay towers and substations
USES PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT
1. Construction facilities, temporary in accordance with Section 28-41
2. Public Utilities: public water and sewer transmission main or trunk
lines and treatment facilities, and pumping stations; electrical
power transmission and distribution substations and transmission lines
and towers; unmanned telephone exchange centers
3. Research and technical manufacturing and the processing, fabrication,
assembly and distribution of products such as computers, scientific
instruments, communicator and electronic equipment confined to "light"
%Awet industrial products or components
887
4. Manufacturing, assembling or fabricating industries which are
primarily involved in the production of aircraft, aircrafts parts
or aircraft support equipment.
5. Manufacturing, assembling, or fabricating industries which are
primarily involved in the production of electronic components; pro-
fessional, scientific and controlling instruments; engineering,=
laboratory, research instruments; electronic computing equipment.
6. Assembly of electrical appliances
7. Manufacturing of coil, condensors, transformers, capacitors
8. Laboratories -pharmaceutical and/or medical
9. Manufacture of musical instruments, toys, novelties, rubber and
metal stamps
10. Manufacture and fabrication of business equipment,
11. Manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly and distribution
of products such as: Photographic equipment, drugs, fire extinquishers,
sporting and athletic goods, lithographic and printing processes,
radio and television receiving sets, watches and clocks, and optical
goods.
INDUSTRIAL LIMITED DISTRICT, IL
USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITH SITE PLAN AND BUILDING PERMIT
1. Acessory uses and structures
2. All uses permitted by right in IRM District
3. All uses permitted by sp in IRM District except construction
facilities (1) and public utilities(2)
4. Feed and seed stores
5. Wholesale businesses
6. General warehousing
7. Manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly, distribution of
products such as: die -cut paperboard and cardboard, glass products
made of purchased glass, electric lighting and wiring equipment, mobile
homes, prefabricated and modular housing and components, dairy products
baked and confectioners' goods, farm machinery, fruit and vegetable pro-
cessing, canning, storage.
8. Commercial greenhouses and nurseries
9. Soft drink bottling plants
USES PERMITTED WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
1. Construction facilities, temporary in accordance with Section 28-41
2. Public Utilities:public water and sewer transmission main or trunk
lines and treatment facilities, and pumping stations;electrical power
transmission and distribution substations and transmission lines and
towers; unmanned telephone exchange centers
3. Auto graveyard, junkyard
4. Frozen food lockers and ice manufacturing
5. Livestock sales and auctions
6. Bulk storage or gasoline, petroleum products, natural gas
7. Yards for storage of coal, lumber, building materials, contracting
equipment
8. Boat building
9. Metal works
10. Nautral resource extraction as qualified by Article
888
INDUSTRIAL GENERAL DISTRICT, IG
�Ww' USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITH SITE PLAN AND BUILDING PERMIT APPRnUAT
1. All uses permitted by right in IL District
2. All uses permitted by SP in IL District except;Auto graveyard (#2)
Livestock sales (#6)
Bulk storage (#7)
Construction facilities
Public utilities
3. Boiler shops Natural resource
4. Sawmills and planning mills
5. Septic tank sales and manufacturing and related services
6. Wood preserving operations
7. Automobile assembling painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding,
reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing or overhauling, tire
retreading or recapping
8. Battery manufacture
9. Brick manufacturing
10. Crematories
11. Cinder block manufacturing
12. Asphalt melting plant
13. Concrete mixing plant
14. Feed and seed processing mills
15. Manufacturing, compounding, assembling or treatment of articles
of merchandise from the following previously prepared
materials: lime, cellophane, canvas cloth, cork feather, felt, fiber,
fur, glass, hair, horn, leather, paper, plastic, precious & semi-precious
metals or stone, shell, straw textiles, tobacco, wood, yarn and paint.
US°E'S' P'ERMI-TTE D WI TR A SP'E'C'I'AL 'USE PERMIT
A. Construction facilities, temporary in accordance with Section 28-41
2. Public utilities: public water and sewer transmission main or trunk
lines and treatment facilities, and pumping stations; electrical power
transmission lines and towers; unmanned telephone exchange centers
3. Automobile graveyard, junkyard
4. Livestock sales and auctions
5. Bulk storage of gasoline, petroleum products, natural gas
6. Natural resource extraction as qualified by Article
7. Junkyards (screened)
8. Abattoirs
9. Acid manufacturing
10. Ammunition and explosive manufacturing and storage
11. Asphalt, hydrocarbon, or petroleum products distillation or manufacture
12. Cement, lime and gypsum and plaster of paris manufacturing
13. Fertilizer manufacturing
14. Meat, poultry, and fish processing
15. Paper and pulp manufacturing
16. Petroleum refining, including by-products
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned.
Secretary