Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 1973970 homes in the area and the type of trees on the subject property, affter which the public hearing was closed. Mr. McClure was of the opinion that if the permit were granted that it should be for a short period of time, as Mr. Brownlee's son could live on the prope+ for one year and then the mobile home might be rented out. He suggested that the permit be granted for one year with renewal each year. Mr. Brownlee told the Commission that he had seven children and that the property was willed to all of them at his and Mrs. Brownlee's death and therefore, the mobile home would not be rented out but only the children would live on the land. Mrs. Craddock agreed with Mr. McClure in that the permit should be granted only for a short period of time. There was discussion about granting the permit on the condition that the mobilehome stayed within the family. There was further discussion on the setback with Mr. Brownlee stating that there was an existing foundation that they wished to utilize as a patio for the mobile home and that was their reason for wanting to locate so close to the road. Further there is an electrical service box located at the foundation. Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve SP-268 subject to a 50 ft minimum setback with administrative approval annually, approval based on it being a member of the immediate family and approval by the Health department of a septic system. Mr. Tinsley asked the Commission if they were satisfied with the screening. Therefore, Mr. Rinehart added to the motion, "subject to existing trees remaining in front of proposed location of mobile home". 971 The motion carried unanimously by those members present. 2. SP-269. Charlottesville Oil Company has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home park, central water and central septic system on approximately 21 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on east side of Route 20 South. Property is described as County Tax Map 90, Parcels 19 and 20. Scottsville Magisterial District. Miss White presented the staff's report and a topographical map and preliminary site plan. It was the staff's opinion that this land would be unsuitable for development of this density. It was noted that the Comprehensive Plan indicated one unit per acre in this area. Mr. Phillip Dulaney, representing Charlottesville Oil Company, presented pictures to the Commission showing that the trailer park could not be seen from Route 20. He informed the Commission that some perk tests had been made and he passed around the report showing the results of these tests. Mr. Rinehart pointed out that only 2 out 6 places perked according to the tests made. Mr. hater asked if the entire court would be located behind the ridge. After some discussion, it was ascertained that the mobile homes would be located on the back slope of the ridge. A gentleman in the audience asked how far the County would have to run a water line if this development could not get water from a well. It was ascertained that public water did not reach this property, but Mr. McClure pointed out that these would be rental spaces therefore, if things did not work out right, the person could move his mobile home out. The public hearing was closed and Mrs. Craddock made a motion that SP-269 be deferred until July 16,1973 and that a sub -committee be appointed to view the site with Mr. Dulaney. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClure and carried by unanimous vote. 972 Dr. Catlin appointed Mrs. Craddock to serve as Chairman of the committee which was to consist of Mr. Staley and Mr. Easter. The committee will meet on the site at 5:30 P.M. on Friday. 3. SP-271. Calvin P. Chew, Jr. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 2.73 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the northeast side of Route 640 approximately 1/2 mile from Cash's Corner. Property is described as County Tax Map 66, Parcel 82B. Rivanna Magisterial District. Miss White presented the staff's report. Mr. Chew, father of the applicant, spoke for the application. He said his son planned to move to Virginia if he could locate a mobile home on this property. Mr. Tinsley told the Commissioners that he had visited the site. He elaborated on the surrounding area and said that he thought there would be no opposition to the request. He said there was natural screening between the road and the existing furniture repair shop located on the property. Mr. Tinsley said that he would recommend a 100 ft. setback to be in keeping with the present homes in the area. Therefore, Mr. Tinsley made a motion to approve SP-271 subject to (1) 100 ft. setback, (2) no unnecessary removal of present screening, (3)permit to be limited to five years, at the end of which time, the applicant must come back before the Commission, and (4) Health Department approval of a septic system. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rinehart and carried by unanimous vote. 4. SP-275. Donald L. Aman has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 143.36 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of Southern Railroad. Property is described as County Tax Map 22, Parcel 18B. Rivanna Magisterial District. Miss White presented the staff's report. Mr. Aman informed the Commission that he planned to build a house 973 in the future. Also, it was noted that this same proplerty was the subject of a Special Permit application for a riding stable about one month ago. Mrs. Craddock asked Mr. Aman if he would consider placing the mobile home behind the existing dwelling. Mr. Aman said he would not placd it behind the existing house because the septic field was located there and further more, there was a garbage dump that he was trying to clean up. He said he would not consider placing his mobile home in a previous garbage pit. Mr. McClure questioned whether or not the mobile home would be visible from the road. It was ascertained that it would be. Mr. Aman said that the mobile home would be located approximately 150 feet from the ROW. There was some discussion on the conditions that were placed on ' the riding stable, but there were no conditions prohibiting the mobile home. Mrs. Craddock said that she had visited the site and Mr. Aman had showed her the proposed location of the mobile home. In her opinion, it would be the easiest place to locate and the most conspicous. She felt that in view of the type of neighborhood and in view of the fact that there are no other mobile homes in the area this would be a bad location. She recommended that if the Commission granted the permit, that it should be granted for one year with a one year renewal if necessary. Mr. Tinsley asked who lived in the existing house. It was ascertained that Mrs. Watkins, co-owner of the property, resided in this house. Dr. Sams made a motion to approve SP-275 temporarily for one year, subject to Health Department approval for a septic system, 974 (2) adequate screening by leaving the existing large trees and (3) 150 ft setback. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley. Mr. Rinehart said it was his opinion that this was not an area where a mobile home .khould be placed, especially, after they had heard such opposition about the riding stable only last month. Mr. Easter said that it seemed that on 143.36 acres another location could be found. He asked how far the mobile home would be located from the houses. In reply, Mr. Aman said he wished to utilize the septic tank and well that were beside the house and that the mobile home would be placed about 30 feet from the residence. Dr. Catlin was of the opinion that if the permit was granted and used properly, it would be good, meaning that if there was evidence at the end of one year that a house had been started, then the permit could be granted for another year. Mrs. Craddock asked if that should be a requirement, that the house be started after one year. Dr. Sams was of the opinion that it should not be required. Mrs. Craddock thought, though, that there should be some comment in the motion that there has been a reason for the one year approval. Mr. Rinehart, too, thought the motion should reflect the intent of the Commission. Mr. Aman told the Commission that he thought he was being limited too much. Dr. Sams said that if the intent in this case became part of the motion, that they would have to do this for all Special Permits. Mr. Rinehart pointed out that they were trying to fit a mobile home into an area where it did not really fit. Dr. Catlin suggested that if they wanted to put the intent with the motion, that they ask the Planning staff to file a copy of the minutes 975 with the application so that the intent will be enclosed in the file. A vote was called on the motion made by Dr. Sams. Those in favor of approving the application were: Dr. Catlin, Mr. McClure, Mr. Tinsley, Mrs. Craddock, and Dr.Sams. Those opposed: Mr. Staley, Mr. Easter, and Mr. Rinehart. The motion carried by a 5-3 vote. 5. ZMP-279. Southgate L. Wynne has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone approximately 4 acres of land from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Business. The property is situated on west side of Route 29 North, about 600 feet north of its intersection with Route 250 East. Property is described as County Tax Map 78, Parcel 58-G (part thereof), Rivanna Magisterial District. The staff report was presented. Mr. Wynne said he wished to rezone the property because he now used it for pasture for horses, but it did not pay too much, therefore, he needed to get more money out of the land. Mrs. Martin commented on her concern that the applicant should wait because of the new categories for business under the new Zoning Ordinance and she was concerned that this would be strip zoning. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Wynne if he had a business in mind for the land. Mr. Wynne said he had no particular business in mind, but would use the land for the highest and best use. The public hearing was closed after it was ascertained that the property was not located in a flood plain. Dr. Catlin said his understanding for rezoning was that you rezoned land because of scarcity of zoning or you rezoned to conform to the Master Plan. In his opinion, Mr. Wynne did not have a good reason for rezoning his land. Mr. Wynne pointed out that the property where his house was, is zoned B-1 and his other property zoned agricultural. 976 Dr. Sams made a motion to deny ZMP-279, which was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried by a unanimous vote. 6. ZMP-280. Wolverley Corporation has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone approximately 34 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the west side of Route 20 approximately 2 miles south of its intersection with Charlottesville Magisterial District. Miss White presented the staff's report. Mr. John Wolf, applicant,said this was the same property on which he had gotten a special permit for a well a couple of months before. He said the well yielded 15 GPM. He informed the Commission that 16 rental units were under construction and that they were not visible from the road. He said they desired to place 17 more units to the rear of the property. Mr. Wolf said they would rent to two people only, and children would not be permitted. Therefore, the County would not be asked to pro- vide schools etc.for the development. He noted that this development would add $3400 to the County without any expenditures to it. He said he had no intention of asking the County to provide water and sewer to the area. Mr. Easter asked if the cottages would be served by individual septic tanks. Mr. Wolf said they would each have a septic tank to serve two people. A nearby property owner spoke in opposition to the request, stating 9 that the granting of the rezoning could open up the whole area to residential. Mr. Wolf said that his two existing wells would be sufficient to take care of the 33 cottages that are proposed, but he would drill another well to be sure of a water supply. The public hearing was closed and Mrs. Craddock suggested that the same sub -committee appointed to view the Charlottesville Oil Company site might view this site at the same time and report back to the full Commission. Mr. Easter, being familar with the property, said the houses would be well shielded. Dr. Catlin thought, though, that the Commission should 977 determine whether this type of density should be permitted in this area. He said they planned to rezone Marshall Manor back to A-1, and he was concerned about development with less than two acres in this area. Mr. Rinehart thought, too, that the density was too high for this area or anywhere else in the County without a central sewer system. Mrs. Craddock made a motion to defer ZMP-280 until July 16, 1973 so that a committee could look at the site. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClure. Dr. Catlin appointed the committee of Mrs. Craddock, Mr. Easter and Mr. Staley to view this site and report back to the Commission. Dr. Sams asked what the committee would be addressing itself to. The density of development was suggested by Dr. Catlin. Mr. McClure suggested that they also look at the surrounding land, as these too, might asked to be rezoned. Dr. Catlin also suggested such things as whether the topography is suitable, whether this is a suitable area to change the Master Plan and establish this as higher density. Mr. Wolf commented that he thought the Master Plan was wrong, because this land is so close to town and only 10 minutes from the UVa. Mrs. Martin questioned whether or not the Master Plan could be revised in a rezoning decision or whether the Supervisors should change it. Dr. Catlin agreed that the Supervisors should be the governing body to change the Master Plan. There was a short discussion on the proposed road to serve the development. Mr. Wolf said that he would build a road with double treatment, even though there are no requirements for the road. The motion to defer action until July 16th was carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Rinehart noted that sometime ago a committee had been appointed to study the Branchlands PUD and he asked the status of the development. Dr. Catlin informed him that the request had been withdrawn. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Saerptary 978 July 9, 1973 This was a work session held by the Albemarle County Planning Commission on July 9, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the County Court House. Those present were: Messrs Avery Catlin, Chairman; M. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; David W. Carr, Wilbur C. Tinsley, M. Jack Rinehart, Louis C. Staley, Peter Easter, and Mrs. Ellen B. Craddock. Also in attendance were: Mr. Lloyd F. Wood, Miss Mary Joy White, Mr. John L. Humphrey, Mr. George St. John, Mrs. Miller, and Mr. Rosser Payne. Dr. James Sams was absent. The meeting was called to order and a quorum was established. Mr. Rosser Payne was in attendance to talk to the Commission on clustertype development vs Planned Unit Development. He spoke on the history of Albemarle County's Zoning Ordinance and the institution of the Master Plan. He had a book which was written about PUD's and he suggested that every member of the Commission should read it. Next, Mr. Payne discussed cluster development with the Commissioners. He presented drawings of a cluster. He noted that this is "cluster country" and that it requires half the expenditures for roads, utiliti6s, etcera as other developments. Mr. Payne told the Commissionthat a cluster development is a single family subdivision only and the purpose of the cluster development is to save land. Mr. Rinehart said the Commission had been approached for a cluster, but the people have asked for a greater density. Mr. Payne said his plan did not allow for greater density. There was some discussion on open space and how it should be calculated. Mr. St. John gave a definition of open space. 979 Mr. McClure asked what other counties have a cluster ordinance at this time. Mr. Payne informed the Commission that Loudoun, Fauauier, Rappahannock and Culpeper now have this ordinance. Mr. McClure asked what could be put in the ordinance to insure that the Property Owners Association would maintain the property. Mr. Payne said this came under the State statute and was enforceable by State law. There was more discussion on the maintenance of the open space. Turning back to discussion on PUD's, Dr. Catlin asked Mr. Payne if he thought land should be set aside for schools within the PUD's. Mr. Payne said that school sites should beestablished as these PUD's would generate between 400-600 children. Mr. McClure asked Mr. Payne if he felt the Master Plan should be changed since the possibility of annexation was going away. Mr. Payne replied that the Master Plan was written with the hopes that the City and County would come to an agreement, so there would be no reason to change the Master Plan. Mr. McClure also pointed out that there is a 1700-acre tract south of town that will be coming in for a PUD ( the area is not designated for PUD's on the Master Plan). He asked if the Master Plan should be changed to comply with this development. Mr. Payne said "by all means change it if you need to". There was further discussion and elaboration on this point as at times the public has commented that the Commission should not do 'so and so' because it does not comply with the Master Plan. Mr. Lloyd Wood told the Commission that when the Supervisors adopted the Master Plan, that they made it clear that the Plan.. Could be.changed if needed. •:1 Mr. Rinehart brought up the matter of Ivy. He questioned if Ivy could be made less than a cluster area. Mr. Payne replied that Ivy would be a pressure point. He elaborated on the industrial area already there and the evidence of a water line in the future. He noted that there would be pressure to develop this area. Under Article 8A-45, Yard Regulations, there was lengthy discussion on side yard requirements. Mr. McClure noted that if the buildings were staggered, more land would be needed for depth. Mr. Carr thought it would be desirable to give a reduction in side yards if the front was staggered. Mr. Rinehart said, in his opinion,the buildings should be no closer than 20 feet. Mr. McClure commented that the Commission should know the logic behind the side yard requirements before they make a decision. Dr. Catlin asked Mr. Humphrey to check on this and report back to the Commission. Next, there was a discussion on patio houses. Mrs. Graves was of the opinion that patio houses are presently too close together. There was some question as to what a patio house really is. Mr. St. John read the defintion from the ordinance for a patio house and elaborated on their design. Dr. Catlin and Mr. McClure agreed that the definition should designate two single family units to one section. Dr. Catlin asked if a patio house should be designated as a different kind of duplex or if they should allow a whole string of them. After hearing from Mrs. Craddock, Mr. McClure and Mr. St. John, it was the consensus of the Commission that the definition of patio houses should include that 6 units would be allowed to- gether. 981 At this point in the work session, the members said they would like to see what they had done at the last workshop. Mr. Humphrey informed the Commission that the minutes were not yet reproduced for them. This led to a lengthy discussion with Mr. St. John saying he would be responsible from now on for getting the revised material to the Commissioners. Mr. St. John further said that he and Mrs. Miller, the Zoning Administrator, had the time to spend on the ordinance but they needed some guidelines. After further discussion, Mr. St. John was directed to take the lead in coordinating the Commission so they would progress more rapidly. The meeting was adjourned after it was established that a special meeting would have to be called for a work session, as all Monday's were taken up with public hearings in July. Secretary 19 St July 16, 1973 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on July 16, 1973 in the County Court House, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman;Mr. Louis Staley, Mrs.Ellen B. Craddock, Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Peter Easter, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley and Mr. David Carr. Also in attendance were Miss Mary Joy White and Mr. Lloyd Wood. Absent were Dr. James Sams and Mr. Clifton McClure. Before the public hearing on the flood plain limits, applications which had been deferred from previous meetings were taken up. 1. SP-269. Charlottesville Oil Company has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a mobile home park, central water and central septic system on approximately 21 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on east side of Route 20 South. Property is described as County Tax Map 90, Parcels 19 and 20. Scottsville Magisterial District. A committee of Mrs. Craddock, Mr. Easter and Mr. Staley visited the site and reported that the lay of the land was conducive to a mobile home park and the owner had attractive long range plans. However, they thought the question of whether this would set a precedent in this A-1 Zone should be considered and also the types of people they would like to see served in the trailer park. Dr. Catlin stated that the public hearing had been closed at the previous meeting. Mr. Easter said they would like to see a more specific site plan as far as access and recreational areas were concerned. He felt screening was not a problem. Mr. Max Evans presented the site plan to the Commission discussing access, screening, location of mobile homes on lots, etc. The health department said they could probably use one large septic tank and drain field for every two mobile homes. It was ascertained that the road would not be restricted as the land wasn't being subdivided. 983 19 Dr. Catlin motioned that the Planning Commission approve the petition with the six items on the staff report which are: a detailed site plan being submitted, evidence that the well system is adequate, the road be of a dust proof material, that the density be no more than indicated on the preliminary site plan and that it be made apart of the record, and health department approval, and removal of as few trees as possible so that they/s to a natural buffer between the trailer park and Route 20, and that the recreational area be included in the site plan. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by those members present. 2. ZMP-280. Wolverley Corporation has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone approximately 34 acres from A-1 Agricul+w tural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the west side of Route 20 approximately 2 miles south of its intersection with Route 742. Property is described as County Tax Map 90, Parcel 11. Charlottesville Magisterial District. The committee visited this site also. Mr. Easter made a report stating that they were concerned aboutthe maintenance of the roads because of the steep topography and whether the dwellings would be situated on the property in such a manner they could be sold at a later time if desired. It was also noted that the rezoning was not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and that Marshall Manor across the road was receptive to being rezoned back to A-1 Agricultural. There was also concern that there was no water and sewer. Mr. Staley motioned that the request be denied. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. Mr. Carr suggested that may be Mr. Wolf would like to withdrawlis application since there may be future study on whether plans for this area should remain as they are at present. Mr. Wolf decided to make a decisnn before the Board meeting. The motion to 984 deny carried unanimously. Dr. Catlin announced that the public hearing on the flood plain limits was now in session. Mr. Humphrey stated that the U.S. Corps of Engineers had completed six (6) reports on the flood plains of the Mechums River, Meadow Creek, Moore's Creek, North and South Fork of the Rivanna River and the main stem of the Rivanna River. He said the Board of Superviosrs adopted the Flood Plain ordinance orDecember 13, 1972, which stated before any limits could be established on the 100-year flood plain, the studies had to be completed and property owners had to be notified of public hearings. He said the purpose of the meeting was to have input from the general public regarding the lines and before the flood studies could have meaning under the provisions of the ordinance, these lines had to be established at a public hearing and approved by the Board of Supervisors. He said they also wanted to make people aware of where the flood limits are and preclude any additional development taking place such as residential and commercial ventures. Also after the adoption of the ordinance, flood insurance is now available to County residents. After the delineation of flood limits and aft6r_ provisions have been made in the building code for flood proofing structures, double coverage will be available. He noted that the Planning Department would be drawing the lines of the flood plain on the zoning maps so that the department could advise people what property is in the flood plain. He noted that the ordinance states that you may apply for a special permit to build in the flood plain, and also said that the maps designate the flood plain only, not the floodway; to establish the floodway, studies will have to be done by the Corps of Engineers. 985 The floodway is that portion which carries the highes .velocity of water. Dr. Catlin also emphasized that these maps show only the flood plain, and not that area that is completely prohibited from building in the floodway which is much narrower. Mr. Humphrey also noted that the general flood plain zone does not change the existing zone, and if someone wants to fill flood plain land, they will have to ask for a special permit. Dr. Catlin said the intent is not to prohibit your allowed uses in the flood plain, except in the floodway. He asked if members of the public would like to ask questions regarding the flood plain. Mr. Purcell Tomlin, of the Miller School area, wanted to know if the flood insurance or some governing body would give any financial assistance to property owners who cleaned up debris caused from streams and rivers on their property? Dr. Catlin replied that it was not probable. Another property owner asked if the lines on the maps were official? Mr. Humphrey replied that they were, and if there was a question on a particular section, a re-evaluation would be -.done confirming the contour lines. Mrs.Burruss pointed out their land on the map and said the house was located on a plateau, and that it was very high above the water and wanted to know why the maps didn't show this? Dr. Catlin said the maps were not final authority since they were such very small scale and the final authority is the next page which showed the profiles "the heights above the water". Mr. Humphrey said he would check on this. Dr. Catlin said the profiles show the stream bed itself and that an intermediate regional flood and the height above the stream •ID will not always be exactly positive; and finally they show the standard project flood as another height above the stream bed. /the Another property owner on Route 616,asked ho*r flood plain would affect the value and taxation of the land? Mr. Humphrey said the real estate department said they would be taxed just as they are now; A-1 and flatlands. There would be no change. It was established, after questioning from the public, that an area in the flood plain could be built on only if it were brought out of the flood plain and the lower floor would have to be 1 foot above the 100 year floor plain level. Before the land could be filled, the owner would have to apply for a permit, which would be reviewed by the County Engineer and then sent to the Corps of Engineers for approval. Upon approval,a permit would be issued and the owner would also have to adhere to other regulations of the ordinance such as area requirements, etc. When.reviewing the permit, the Corps would consider what affect it would have on the surrounding Property owners. Another property owner from the area on Route 780 questioned the truth of the location of the blue line on the maps, as his property had never flooded that far back. He suggested that the Corps of Engineers should be required to describe the meets and bounds of the flood plain. He said they should be thinking of remedial measures. Another person questioned the good of the flood plain ordinance. Dr. Catlin replied that the ordinance had been approved at a public hearing by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors last year and was now law and there was nothing they could do about it. Mr. Humphrey, upon questioning from a member of the public, said that if a structure was destroyed above 50% of its value, then it could not be replaced unless it was raised out of the flood plain. Another member of the public suggested they request money from the Board to clear streams. 987 It was also established that there was nothing about restricted sale of land in the ordinance. 9 Mr. Carr (in answer to a question by Mr. Bob Black, Miller School) said you may carry on any normal farming activity with the exception of building barns or sheds in a flood plain, but any normal activity is permitted.(such as fences, etc. ). Mr. Black also wanted to know if they were assessed on flood land in December 1972?. Mr. Simms,the County Tax Assessor, said they appraised land as farmland and bottomland. Several other property owners asked similar questions regarding the flood limits. A motion was made by Mr. Carr and seconded by Mrs. Craddock that the 100-year flood plain limits on the Rivanna River, North and South Fork of the Rivanna River, Mechums River, Meadow Creek and Moore's Creek be established as based on studies of the Corps of Engineers reports and that the profiles on the 100-year flood limits, as presented on those reports)be the official guide in the placement of the said 100-year flood plain limits on all the maps of the County. The motion of approval carried unanimously. Mr. St. John told the Commission he would be organizing material on the proposed zoning ordinance which he would forward to them, which he hoped they would go over individually, as well as in a group. He stated he would be helping Mr. Humphrey and Mrs. Miller as they could not put down their other duties to work only on the.zoning ordinance. Mr. St. John said the Commission would receive information on what they had done to present in several days and the definitions would be included. A work session was scheduled for Thursday night, July 26th. Mr. John Dudley of Blue Ridge Home Builders presented a M. report to. the Commission for their information similar to the Urban Institute report done on Hollymead, only it was done for the entire County of Fairfax. A field trip was scheduled for the landfill site. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Secretary M M• July 23, 1973 This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on July 23, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Dr. Avery Catlin,Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Dr. James Sams, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. David Carr, and Mr. Louis Staley. Absent were Mrs. Ellen Craddock and Mr. Peter Easter. The following matters were reviewed: (proposed Subdivision Ordinance) 1-39 Restricted streets - In no event should restricted roads be available to lots or subdivisions of less than 2 acres; that 2 acres is an acceptable dividing line and provisions may be made for this to apply to cluster alternates where the density is no greater than one dwelling unit per 2 acres, subject to Special Use Permit procedure. 1-52 Definition of Agricultural Purposes Define difference between access and easement and public road. The Committee seems to feel that the existing 1-52 is alright with some reservation - some want 10 acres exempt and some want 5 but all agree it should be at least 5 acres. 8-4 Commission in favor provided it can be done. 9-2; 9-2-1; 9-2-2 OK 3-15 It is essential the Commission require that services be "extended" in a technical sense if State Code 157-1.466 will allow it. The work session was adjourned. Secretary IR 990 MINUTES OF WORK SHOP PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 26, 1973 This was a work shop meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on July 26, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room, in the County Office Building. Those present were:Messrs M. Clifton McClure, Avery Catlin, Wilbur C. Tinsley, M. Jack Rinehart and Mrs. Ellen B. Craddock. Also attending were Mrs. Ruth Miller, Mr. George St. John and two law students. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Avery Catlin, and a quorum was established. The following conditions of the Zoning Ordinance were discussed: 1. Note: Specify under General Provisions, Special Use Permit, that unless a time limit is expressed the use will run with the land. 2. Frontage: Proposed change with respect to general requirements of r minimum frontage work out procedure to avoid Special Use Permit where possible. Put in regulation on lot width actual building line and define building line. 3. Private Access Ways: If allowed, the number of lots to be served must be specified. The consensus of the Planning Commission members was that the private access should be 50' wide. 28-201 Corner lot definition -write out recommended change and mail to Commission. 28-12D. Open Space (define) 28-156 Should read as in Zoning Ordinance 19-3 Ok 19-4 Ok 19-5 Ok 19-5-3 (d) Ok 19-5-4 Ok 19-6-3 Ok 991 19-7 Re -draft and mail to Commission 19-12 Utilities (1) Should (2) be in (3) Subdivision Ordinance The work session was adjourned. Secretary .., JULY 30, 1973 This was a regular meeting held by the Albemarle County Planning Commission on July 30, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Office Building. Those present were: Chairman Avery Catlin, Vice -Chairman M. Clifton McClure, Mr. David W. Carr, Mr. Wilbur C. Tinsley, Mr. M. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Louis C. Staley, Dr. James Sams and Mrs. Ellen B. Craddock. Also in attendance were: Miss Mary Joy White, Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, Mr. John L. Humphrey, Mr. George St. John and Mr. Lloyd F. Wood. Mr. Peter Easter, Commissioner, was absent. The meeting was called to order and a quorum was established. Eight sets of minutes were presented to the Commission for their approval. The minutes of April 16, 23, and 30, 1973 were approved as corrected. The minutes of May 7, were approved as corrected. The minutes of May 14, 1973, were approved as presented. The minutes of May 21 were approved with corrections and May 30th. were approved as presented. The Planning staff was requested to reproduce the minutes of June 4th. again and resubmit them for approval. At this time a public hearing was held on Northside Elementary School, which is proposed to be located near Albemarle High School. Mr. Humphrey presented the matter to the Commission, stating that he did have a site plan. Mr. Humphrey noted that the School Board proposes to locate a new elementary school in the general area known as the Berkeley -Westfield Area. Specifically the Board has selected the site presently containing Albemarle High and Jack Jouett Junior High. The site contains approximately 200 acres and is located at the inter- section of Hydraulic Road (Route 743) and Lambs Road (Route 657). 993 Mr. Humphrey pointed out the reason for the public hearing. Under Section 15.1-456 of the Virginia State Code "Legal Status of Plan", no public facility shall be constructed until it has been reviewed and approved by the local Planning Commission relative to approximate location, character and extent thereof. 9 Mr. Humphrey listed the advantages and disadvantages of the site, then he told the Commission that the staff could not recommend the site as proposed by the School Board. He said the Planning Department was of the opinion that the best site, considering distances, site preparation and proximity to center of service area is more readily available in a site owned by the School Board located on Whitwood Road. He noted, though, that if the Commission did approve the proposed site, that it should be contingent upon the re -design and construction of Lamb's Road to intersect Whitewood Road to eliminate the jog intersection and to assist in prevention of possible loss of life in the future. Mr. Carl VanFossen, Chairman of the School Board, said that he regreted that the Planning Staff had taken this position. Mr. VanFossen talked on how little grading would be done, how the school will adapt to the site and how little traffic is on Lamb's Road. Since the schoel is adapted to the site, it would be very costly and time consuming if another site had to be selected. He noted that the School Board had found clusters of schools to be very desirable. Mr. James Cosby, representing Berkeley Community Association, said they were in favor of the school being located on Whitewood Road as suggested by the Planning staff. He noted that there is a general lack of open space in this area and that a school would help deter this. Mr. Cosby questioned whether or not a site preparation estimate had been given for the Whitewood Rd. site. He felt this site had not been given 'Iva) enough consideration. 994 Mr. Cosby said that if the Planning Commission did approve the site proposed by the School Board, then the Berkeley Community Assoc. would recommend that the County should retain the site on Whitewood Rd. as open space for the people. Mr. Rinehart expressed concern that the school site had been selected without any help from the Planning Dept. He felt that there was friction between the two departments which should not be there. Mr. Van Fossen said that he had prepared a statement on Mr. Rinehart's concern. He said that the School Board feels that the site selection is their responsibility; and according to Section 22.72 of the Va. Code, Attorney General's opinion #260, "It is the right of the School Board to select a school site". Mr. Humphrey replied that there was no friction between the department's simply a matter of time. Because of the School Board's deadline he was not notified until a few weeks prior to the hearing at which time he told Mr. Van Fossen verbally that he did not think he could recommend approval of their proposed site. Mrs. Martin asked Mr. Wood if plans had been made to sell the site on Whitewood Road. Mr. Wood said he knew of no plans to sell, further the property belonged to the School Board, so the County Supervisors could not sell it. Mr. Van Fossen indicated that there were no plans to sell. Mr. Carr asked if the property could be sold without a public hearing. It was ascertained that it could. Mrs. Robert Levy, resident of Berkeley, said that she would prefer the school to be located on Whitewood Road as this would permit her children to walk to school. Dr. Catlin asked Mr. VanFossen for some indication as to how many children walk and how many ride buses. Mr. VanFossen indicated that there were very few children that walked to school. 995 Dr. Sams said that Mr. Humphrey had made statements earlier during the meeting that this site on Whitewood Road could be utilized for public use for such things as fire stations, etc. Mr. Humphrey said there were other needs in the area, but that the school would be their first choice. He felt that the open space would be necessary for community facilities. Dr. Sams asked if a fire station and school could be located on the same tract of land. Mr. Humphrey said that it could if different entrances were used. Dr. Catlin asked Mr. Van Fossen if the School Board was willing to make Lamb's Road and Whitewood Road cross Hydraulic Road without a jog. Mr. VanFossen said they were willing to do this, so there was some discussion on how to do it and Mr. Humphrey said that the Highway Dept. should be consulted. Mr. Ken Carson of Four Seasons, was concerned that the site might be inadequate for the school population in about 10 years. Mrs. Craddock informed the Commissioners that she had visited both sites and that she was in favor of the Whitewood Rd. site. She noted that it is more in compliance than the other site. She was of the opinion that there would be more open space, good for walking distances and she felt that before the Commission made a decision that they ought to have a comparison of building expenses on both sites. She pointed out that no figures had been presented for the Whitewood Site. Mr. Rinehart said that he had not visited the site, but to him it was important that the schools be built in a complex such as the School Board proposed. This way the schools could draw on each others facilities and make more use of their facilities. It was his opinion that the Whitewood Rd. site could be used for a park to serve the people. Dr. Catlin said he failed to appreciate the additional distance that .m one would have to go, because the two sites are so close together. He noted that the pedestrian traffic is probably less than 1%. He doubted if there would be very much time difference in the busing, and too, he agreed with Mr. Rinehart on his idea of grouping schools. Therefore, Dr. Catlin said he would hesitate to change the School Board's plans, but that in the future he hoped that the School Board would communicate with the Planning Dept. much earlier. Mr. Carr agreed with Mr. Rinehart and Mr. Catlin, then he said that he was left with the definite feeling that the horse was already out of the barn before this came to the Commission. He commented that he hoped this would not happen again. Therefore, Dr. Sams made a motion to approve the proposed school site as described by Mr. VanFossen. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion. The motion for approval carried by a 6-2 vote with Mrs. Craddock and Mr. Tinsley voting no. At this time Mr. Humphrey presented the school site plan for the Commission's approval. He pointed out that the Site Plan Committee had reviewed and corrected the plan, but that something should be done to bring Lamb's Road and Whitewood Road together without a jog on Hydraulic Rd. Dr. Catlin agreed that something should certainly be done about these roads. Mrs. Craddock asked about the disposition of sewer. Mr. Humphrey informed her that the school would tie in with a line crossing Berkeley. This would tie into a treatment plant by pumping operation. The sewer system is expected to be ready by Jan, 1974 and the school plans for opening are Aug. 15, 1974. Mr. Rinehart asked if any provisions had been made for landscaping. He pointed out that some of the county schools have not been very well landscaped. 997 Mr. VanFossen replied that there was a lack of funds, but he noted that the area is mostly wooded and would thereby have natural screening. Mr. Rinehart said he would like to see something in the budget for landscaping of schools. Mr. McClure was of the opinion that you would really have to fight for money to be set aside for screening as the School Board's budget is cut each year. Mr. Carr was concerned that the Commission required a private sector to have a landscaping plan and yet they were about to approve this plan without a landscaping plan. Mr. Humphrey suggested that consideration be given to a hiring a landscaping architect as this has been know to save money by having the school fit the site. Mr. Harvey Bailey commented on the sewerage facilities. He said that the January date is for the up -dating of the sewerage plant, but that the interceptor will not be in at that time. He noted it would probably be August, 1974 before it could be used. Mrs. Craddock made a motion to defer the site plan until a landscaping plan could be prepared for the Commission to review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rinehart. Mr. Carr said that before he could vote on that motion, he would like to know if funds could be made available for landscaping. Mr. VanFossen said the School Board did not have the money, that they needed to ask the Board of Supervisors for approx. $18,000 to complete the school, so if the Board of Supervisors would give them the money, they would be happy to do the landscaping. There was further discussion on the matter of landscaping, with Mr. Rinehart being of the opinion that the site plan should be turned clown, with the Commission knowing that they would be overruled by the Board of Supervisors, but at least it would be made clear that the Commission thought that certain funds should be set aside to get good advice on planning school sites. Mr. McClure noted that the site plan would not go before the Board so it would be up to the Commission to make the best decision possible. Mr. Wood commented that when recommendations are placed on private sectors, it has to be funded some way, so they should place either a condition or a strong recommendation on the School Board to accomplish the landscaping. Mrs. Craddock asked that her motion to defer the site plan be withdrawn and she made a new motion to approve the site plan subject to a landscaping plan being developed and submitted to them and subject to every effort being made to intersect Lamb's Road and Whitewood Road at the same point. Mr. Rinehart seconded this motion and it carried by unanimous vote. SITE PLANS 1. David Wyant-restricted road request to serve one 9 acre parcel and residue acreage. West side Route 810; North side Moorman's River. Miss White presented the plat to the Commission, noting that a statement should be put on the plat, stating that the restricted road was not intended to subdivide the residue acreage. After a very short discussion, Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the plat subject to the statement above. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried by unanimous vote. 2. Robert M. Mussellman-private access easement request to serve one 14 acre landlocked parcel and Mussellman property. North side of I-64 East; at intersection of Route 616. The plat was presented by Miss White. There was some discussion on the states nt on the plat which read: "easement may be changed by the parties involved". Mr. Morris Foster, surveyor, explained that the .•• present easement is very winding and that the owner might at some time in the future wi h to straighten the road. Mr. McClure made a motion to approve the plat subject to a state- ment being added to the plat to the affect that any further subdivision of this land along this easement must be approved by the Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carr and carried unanimously. 3. Charlottesville Shopping World -site plan for shopping center. West side Route 29 North at Berkeley entrance. Mr. Humphrey presented the site plan, elaborating on its various aspects. He said that the staff would recommend approval of the site plan conditioned upon proper sewer facilities being made available, parking spaces at a ratio of 5.9 spaces per 1000 Sq. Ft. of area and finalized building plans being presented. Mr. Bailey noted that sewerage facilities should be ready sometime early in 1974. Mrs. Martin asked what would happen if they are ready to use the sewers before the plant is ready. Dr. Catlin said that a condition could be placed on the site plan that it not go into operation until sewer is available. Mr. Bailey said there were two things that the Albemarle Service Authority would like to make clear. treatment plant is available and (2) (1) They cannot connect until the if it is not available when the developer thinks it should be, there is no liability attached to the Albemarle Service Authority. Mr. St. John, attorney for the County, said he thought it was very important for the Commission at this time to condition this appli- cation upon the availability of the sewer. There is a danger that the developer could assert that this was approved with the understandivVJ that the sewage was going to be available, and that is not the case. 1000 Mr. McClure suggested that it be approved conditioned upon the utilities being made available and conditioned upon an agreement being reached between the developer and the Service Authority. Mr. Roudabush was of the opinion that the Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until the sewer was available. But, Mr. St. John said this was not spelled out in the ordinance. There was further discussion on this point with Dr. Catlin saying that the Commission could not guarantee the developer that he would have service at any particular time. Mr. St. John emphasized the same thoughts and said that the developer must proceed at his own peril. Mr. Rinehart asked if there could be some safe target time to guarantee service. Mr. Bailey answered no. He said the Service Authority would rather that the treatment facilities be well along towards completion before an owner came in and asked for service. Mr. Rubin, the developer, said that this conversation was refuting the letter that he had received. His understanding from the letter that he had received from Mr. Ray Jones was that sewer would be available by July, 1974. Mr. St. John pointed out that the letter could be read two ways. He said that the letter did say that sewer would be available by July,1974 and could be used as a letter of committment. Dr. Catlin suggested that if Mr. Rubin did not want to take the risk of not having sewer available, then he hould withdraw his request until sewer is made available. Mr. James Cosby, speaking for Berkeley Community Assoc., said they werWrb*osed to the shopping center. If the site plan was approved, he had some conditions that he would like to see placed on it. He noted that the developer had agreed to a 20 ft. buffer zone and Mr. Cosby asked that this be shown as one of the conditions. He said, too, 1001 that they were concerned about the access to Dominion Drive. He did not know the capacity of this road, so Mr. Gerber, traffic consultant from New York, employed by Mr. Rubin, gave a report on the traffic situation on Dominion Drive. Mr. Gerber said that the peak hour for traffic would be 4:15 to 5:15 P.M. A 24-hour count showed 26.92 cars entering this street. It was his opinion that there that would be no problems at all in terms of entering or exiting going west. He noted therewould be no problems at all as this access would be mainly for the people in Berkeley. Mr. Cosby said that their concern was that the beautiful trees along this street would have to be cut in order to put that access into the shopping center. Also, they were opposed to removing the trees to put in a right turn lane to enter Route 29N. Mr. Cosby said that if the access into the shopping center from Dominion Drive had to be there then they would like for it to be a two-way access. Next, Mr. Cosby voiced concern that if the access were permitted, in the event of parking overflow from the parking lot, the people would be parking on Dominion Drive which is only 30 feet wide. Mr. Gerber informed the Commission that he had recommended that "No Parking" signs should be placed on Dominion Drive from the access to Route 29 so that this very thing would not happen. Mr. Roudabush told Mr. Cosby that they would have to take two trees out in order to put the access in, but that they would plant ten more trees along the road. Mr. Cosby now talked on the parking requirements. It was the Berkeley Association's opinion that the site plan was 523 parking spaces short, according to Zoning Ordinance under Sections 11-7 and 11-7-8. In summary, Mr. Cosby said there were some alternatives that 1002 they were not opposed to. (1) Reduction of the number of buildings, (2) Have an access over to Berkmar Drive which is already zoned commercially. Mr. Kose, resident of Dominion Drive, expressed concern about the access from Dominion Drive into the Shopping center. He asked how this would affect people on Dominion Drive, how would they get out of their driveways, and what about the children that play in this area. Mrs. Martin questioned how the site plan could be approved if it did not have the proper amount of parking. Mr. Humphrey informed her it could be approved subject to the building site plan being presented so that they will know how many parking spaces are needed. If they did not have enough spaces, they could ask for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. John Smith, resident of Berkeley, commented that it took a long time to get the pine trees along Dominion Drive. He pointed out that they were not asking for anything on the corner lot, so if the shopping center access was denied, then access would have to be denied to the corner lot. He noted too, that Dominion Drive would be too narrow to handle service trucks for the center. Mr. Rick Scholls asked if the median cut had been approved. It was ascertained that it had. Mr. Gerber pointed out that the morning peak hour for traffic in which right turns were involved, would have nothing to do with the shopping center as it would not be open at that time. Mr. Gerber thought that the right hand turn lane could be made without disturbing the trees. One other point was that to close that accessway from Dominion Drive would put all the residents of Berkeley out on Rt. 29 where they would have to make two left hand turns, which could be very 1003 dangerous. Mr. Cosby refuted Mr. Gerbers comment that the right turn lane could be made without cutting trees. Also, he said that if they needed that accessway to the shopping center so bad, why not put up a sign that said "No left turn". That would prove that the access was for the residents of Berkeley. Mrs. Levy said her main concern was that Dominion Drive would be used as a service entrance. She said she would not mind going onto Rt. 29 if it would mean keeping the traffic off Dominion Drive. Two other ladies spoke to the same concern as that of Mrs. Levy. Mrs. Purcell, adjoining lot owner to the rear of the parking lot, asked for a reiteration of the border line and buffer that had been asked for. She wanted to know if trees would be cut in the buffer zone or any- thing constructed in them. She was concerned about her view in the winter months when there are no leaves on the trees. 1.14) Mr. Roudabush said the buffer would not be disturbed except to put grass and plant trees in bare spots. There was some discussion, in which it was ascertained that the undergrowth would be removed,much to Mrs. Levy's distress. Therefore, Mr. Rubin said he would like to go on record as saying he would not touch the buffer zone for any reason. Mr. Don Bent, also a Berkeley resident, said he felt the shopping center was a lot better than some other things that could be put there, so he felt the only thing to do was be sure that the development was attractive. The hearing was closed to the public. Mrs. Craddock asked if any consideration had been given to an entrance and exit of Berkmar Drive. Mr. Rubin said he had not looked into it. There was a lengthy discussion on the parking situation, and whether or not this site plan could legally be approved. 1004 Mr. Cosby said that according to the Zoning Ordinance, one space ,per 100 sq. ft. of area was needed. Mr. Carr asked about trash disposal. Mr. Rubin said there would be a garbage compacter for the grocery store so that trash would never reach the outside. The other stores would have dumpsters. Mr. Carr was of the opinion that these dumpsters should be screened. Mr. Rubin said he had no objection but he thought this was the purpose of the 20' buffer strip. After further discussion, Mr. Rubin said he would be willing to write into the lease that no trash could be placed outside the buildings, that their trash would be kept inside in barrels. This would apply to all stores that did not have a compacter. There was discussion on a decel and accel lane being combined on Rt. 29. Mr. Gerber was of the opinion that this would be a very weak move. After further discussion on this point, Mr. McClure made a motion to approve the site plan subject to seven conditions which he listed. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Craddock. Mr. Carr did not think it would be reasonable to make a condition that the parking had to comply to the ordinance with 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of sales area. There was discussion on amending the ordinance in this respect and on obtaining a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The following conditions were established and the motion carried unanimously: (1) Utilities being available prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or connection to the sewage line on the South side of Dominion Drive, also, upon agreement with the Albemarle County Service Authority. (2) That any white pines on the south side of Dominion Drive which might be removed by the requirement for the right turn lane, be replaced. rr.rr.■ 1005 (3) That "no parking" signs be placed from Rt. 29 to the eastern margin of the Lot Ik in Berkeley. (4) That the parking spaces shall comply with the requirements of our ordinance, unless the Board of Zoning Appeals grants a variance. (5) White pines be planted in bare spots of buffer zones, and that the buffer zones be seeded. (6) That tenants which back up to Berkeley keep their trash inside, to be written in lease. (Except those with compacters). (7) That consideration be given to a deaccelerationlane along Rt. 29 to Dominion Drive. 4. STONEHENGE TOWNHOUSES- revised site plan for 193 units total; 54 units in Phase One. West side Rio Road. Mr. Humphrey presented the revised site plan which had been deferred from June 18, 1973, meeting to (1) relocate drive, (2) relocate swim pool, (3) clarify sewer problem and be reviewed by the Site Plan Committee. Mr. Humphrey said that there would be no access off of Rock " -Drive, the swimming pool had been relocated and he said that Mr. Bailey would speak to the question about sewer. Mr. Bailey explained to the Commission that the Albemarle Service Authority had adopted a policy that no additional increase would be added to the treatment plant until it was upgraded. He noted that one of the conditions for approval of this site plan should be that no Certificate of Occupany may be issued until the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority states that there is capacity to treat this development. Also there is no guarantee that a date will be set for such. There was some discussion, with Mr. Humphrey stating that the Director of Rivanna Sewer Authority said that as of today the plant is at its capacity. Mr. Rotgin, due to the lateness of the hour, dispensed with part Of his presentation. ffl 1 • He presented to the Commission copies of two letters. One letter,dated 6/15/73, was from Mr. Ray B. Jones of the Service Authority recommending deferral, the other letter was from the City showing approval for sewer taps for 54 units. He notedthat the Cityhad adequate utilities and he felt that a public utility like the City would qualify as being adequate. He asked the Commission if this complied with the Ordinance. He was of the opinion a precedent had been set when the Planning Commission approved Westgate. At that time the Commission said they did not feel it was within their jurisdiction to say who would supply the utilities as long as they were adequate. Mr. Rotgin pointed out too, that the City would provide free taps, whereas, the County would charge an $850 tap fee for each unit next year when they might have utilities. Mr. Rotgin said that he had heard from a reliable source that the City would not charge the County for any lines constructed after July 1, which Mr. Bailey refuted saying there was no such agreement. Mrs. Martin was of the opinion that it would be unfair to approve this plan after Branchlands had withdrawn because of the same reason. Mr. Jack Tagert, attorney representing Mr. Rotgin, related the job of the Commission and reiterated what Mr. Rotgin had said regarding City utilities. Mrs. Schubert, an adjoining property owner, was of the opinion that only Phase I should be approved at this time. She also commented on the dangers of Rio Road. Mr. Rotgin, at this point, passed around pictures to show screening of recreational facilities. He noted that there would be 350 feet as a buffer from the tennis courts. He also stated that their committment for City sewer was made prior to July 1, 1973 and he had talked to Mr. 1007 Williams of the Rivanna Sewer Authority, who had told him that he thought the Authority would honor committments made before July 1 whether by the City or County. One nearby resident spoke on the road, stating that Rio road was very dangerous and would be even more so with this increased traffic. Miss Ellen Nash, co-owner of the subject property, informed the Commission that the property was zoned R-2 before the surrounding property owners built their homes, therefore, they could not have expected the land to remain forever undeveloped. Mr. Tagert emphasized how Mr. Rotgin had acted on the recommendations made at the last meeting, especially regarding the road. He requested that the Commission take action at this meeting as this was the second time they had appeared before the Commission. Dr. Catlin asked if they intended to have the whole plan approved or just approved in phases. Mr. Rotgin said they desired to have the entire plan approved. Mr. Rinehart suggested that they accept the 54 units and limit the others. Mr. McClure said he did not see how they could be turned down, but he would like to have the 54 units designated before they were approved. Mr. Humphrey pointed to a plan showing Phase I, dated June 18, 1973. Dr. Catlin asked if the approval could be conditioned upon the Certificate of Occupancy not being issued until adequate sewer is made available. It was ascertained that this could be conditioned upon the sewer plant being up -graded. Mrs. Craddock mentioned the road again and another lady from the audience commented that there would be more traffic than ever because of the proposed dual highway. 1008 Mr. McClure asked Mr. Humphrey what he thought about approving the 54 units. Mr. Humphrey responded that it would be proper by tying it to the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Tagert asked the Commission to approve the whole plan as they had adhered to the ordinance. He asked if his understanding was correct that the Commission intended to approve only 54 units and condition them upon the up -grading of the plant being completed. Mr. Carr said that was correct as far as he was concerned. Dr. Catlin, too, said he thought it would be poor planning to let Mr. Rotgin tap in until that up -grading have been completed. Mr. Rotgin added that he would be happy to walk out with 54 building permits. But, he noted that the City made the committment and if the City and the Authority said they could tap in, then he could not see the restriction being placed by the Commission that they could not tap in until the up -grading of the plant had been completed. Mr. Carr asked Mr. St. John to comment on this. According to Mr. Rotgin he has a committment from the City to tap in, but the Planning Commission wishes to restrict that committment until the plant has been up -graded. Mr. Carr asked if the Planning Commission could legally place such a restriction. Mr. St. John said he felt Mr. Rotgin should know the answer to this as he felt it would happen. Mr. St. John said he felt it was within the power of the Commission to put this limitation on the site plan and to disregard the fact that the City might go ahead and authorize him to tap into the sewer. He spoke of a case similar to this in Fairfax, in which the ruling was that the Board of Supervisors cannot prohibit someone from tapping in, but in this case he felt the Commission could do this. Mr. St. John emphasized that all the documents 1009 before the Commission at this time and the letter from the State Water Control Board should be made a part of this record. He said that there ought to be a finding in the documents that unless the Commission imposes this condition this development will constitute in their opinion, danger to the public health safety and welfare of the people based on these documents. In speaking about the road, Mr. St. John said this was a different situation and something should be resolved about it right away. He noted it would not be fair to approve 54 units and then turn down the rest later because of the road. After a short discussion on the road, Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the site plan for 54 units, Phase I, subject to the Certificate of Occupancy not being issued until the plant has been up -graded. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rinehart. Dr. Catlin said it had been pointed out to them that all proper evidence was before them at the meeting to constitute this a danger to public health, safety and welfare. There was further discussion between Mr. Bailey and Mr. St. John as regards responsibility being passed on to different governing bodies. Mr. Carr pointed out that his motion did not suggest that this Commission could not be overruled by someone else. He asked if Phase I had a proper road to Rio Road. After some investigation, it was determined that there was no road from Phase I. Mr. Rotgin said he was under the impression that the whole plan was going to be approved and they would get building permits for 54 units. Mr. Rinehart suggested that the whole thing be approved as long as it was all tied to the up -grading of the plant. Dr. Sams agreed that there was no reason to limit it to 54 units. 1010 After further discussion on this point, Mr. Carr withdrew his entire motion and Mr. Rinehart made a motion to approve the whole subdivision contingent upon Certificate of Occupancy issued only after the Meadow Creek Treatment Plant has been up -dated, with Dr. Catlin adding that a determination of that up -dating should be a statement from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Board. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sams. Mr. Rinehart said that a letter stating the work to be done to up -date the plant should be added. Mr. McClure was of the opinion that Mr. Rinehart should also incor- porate the reason for not having a h©.okup until the plant is up -graded. Therefore, Mr. Rinehart's complete motion was to approve the entire subdivision contingent upon the Certificate of Occupancy being issued only after the Meadow Creek Treatment Plant has been up -dated, said up -dating to be described by a letter from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, because the Planning Commission feels that the overloading of the plant is not in the best interests of the County as regards health, safety and welfare. The motion carried unanimously. 5. Black Industries -site plan for construction equipment storage yard. Board of Zoning Appeals requested Planning Commission review. South side Route 250 East at intersection of Route 794. The plan was presented by Miss White, who said the plan was satisfactory to the Site Plan Review Committee. After a short discussion, Mr. McClure made a motion to approve the plan, which was seconded by Mr. Carr and carried unanimously. 6. Dammann property -access easement request to serve one 11 acre parcel. East side Route 20 North near Eastham. Miss White presented the plan. There was some discussion on the width of the easement. Mrs. Dammann said she thought it was 30 feet. Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the easement for at least 25 feet, 1011 which was seconded by Dr. Sams, and carried unanimously. 7. Rush Estates -preliminary subdivison plan for 16, 2 acre lots. East side Route 708 between Route 637 and Route 29 South. The plat was presented by Miss White. After a short discussion, it was approved by the Commission, subject to driveways for lots 1 and 16 open onto Stockton Road. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. Secretary 9