Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 19731041 September 5, 1973 This was a special meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on September 5, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. at Jack Jouett Junior High School, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Peter Easter, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr. Louis Staley, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Dr. James Sams, and Mr. David Carr. Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor, was also in attendance. Mr. Clifton McClure was absent. Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and aquorum was established. Mrs. Craddock motioned that discussion of the minutes be deferred until after the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tinsley and carried unanimously. 1%11 SP-281. The City of Charlottesville has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a sanitary landfill on property containing 50 acres. Property is situated on the east side of New Route 20 approximately 1/2 mile off 250 East. Property is described as County Tax Map 62, Parcel 24 (part thereof), Parcel 28 (part thereof), Parcel 27 (part thereof), and Parcel 26 (part thereof). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Carr asked that the record show that he was not parti- cipating in the public hearing. Mr. Humphrey read the applicant's request and gave the staff's recommendation as follows: "The only element going for this location is the short distance for hauling relative to the needs of the City. In the opinion of the staff, this location is not compatible, relative to roads, present and future land use, historic aspects of the area, soils, topography and with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the conservation of the amenities of Albemarle County. If the staff 1042 had to choose between this site, the Massie site and Willoughby, this site would be third choice." The hearing was then opened to the general public. Dr. Catlin emphasized that this was a public hearing on the Cason site only and that people would have to refrain from commenting on any other site. Mr. Roger Wiley, City Attorney, presented the City's application with the Assistance of Mr. Guy Agnor, Director of Public Worksand Mr. John Greene. Mr. Wiley said that the impact on the surrounding area was the most important item to be con- sidered in a public hearing of this type. Mr. Wiley read from the Special Use Section of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wiley assured the public that the City was absolutely committed to insuring that any landfill they had within the County is situated and operated in a way that will not be detri- mental to the character and development of adjacent lands. He said that one attempt to protect the adjacent property owners was a lease agreement with the owner of the proposed site, who would also be an adjacent owner. He also stated that the landfill operation would be in compliance with state regulations regarding landfills and that the regulations had been specifically incor- porated in the lease agreement. The lease also states that the City would clear only a portion of the site at a time as needed for operation of the landfill. It was established that the access road to the site would be brought up to state standards and that the operation of the landfill would also comply fully with the new Virginia. Erosion and Sedimentation and Control Law. A copy of said lease may be found in the Special Permit file. 1043 Mr. Agnor then proceeded with the presentation of the application which he said originated from the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors to appoint a site selection committee (joint). Said committee selected the Cason site as a possibility for a landfill operation along with several other sites.He noted that a sanitary landfill is a controlled and regulated means of waste disposal which is checked by the Virginia Department of Health. He also stated that the operators would have detailed records of waste disposal and that there would also be moni- toring of adjacent wells and streams. The City estimated that there would be 25 trips per day by City collection trucks and 100 per day by private citizens. The hours of operation would be 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Saturdays; and that City collection trucks would make their 1st trip at 10 a.m. and the second would probably be made around 3 p.m. A deacceleration lane is also planned at the entrance to the operation. Mr. E. 0. Gooch, who was employed by the City, made approx- imately 40 borings to determine ground cover. The borings showed that if you moved a short distance from rocks found at a shallow depth, it was possible to either drill to the 20 foot depth or drill very close to that depth, which suggested that the rock encountered at the shallow depth might be residual boulders that could easily be moved. A report submitted from the State Water Control Board said there would be minimal effects on water supplies in the area and proper engineering would have to take place. Mr. E. R. Deane, a nearby property owner, made a statement 1044 in opposition to the site saying that his land was in the flood plain and that he was concerned about drainage onto his property from the landfill, etc. Mrs. Cynthia Alling, a resident of Key West and a member of the Sacagawea Garden Clubypresented a petition voicing opposition. Mr. Forbes Reback, attorney for the Stony Point Road Association and residents of the area, presented a program which was also in opposition to the request. Mr. Reback presented two petitions to the Commission in opposition to the Cason site with an aggregate number of signatures totaling 650. He also read from Section 11-13-3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Reback noted that/soll survey completed by the Soil Conservation Service listed five soils on the Cason site, each of which had severe limitations for use as a sanitary landfill. He also pointed out that there were many historically valuable properties near the site such as: Franklin , Buena Vista, Windy Knoll, etc. Mr. H. G. Goodell, P.H.D., made a report on the "Environmental Evaluation of the Cason Property". The conclusions of the report were as follows: "Operationally, the site will be difficult (expensive) to maintain. The bouldery soils are hard to work, difficult to compact, and marginally thin. The fact that the Catoctin schist outcrops will have to be worked around, that deep soils are in pockets, and that drainage and erosion are extreme problems indicate that almost any other location available to the City of Charlottesville would be more suitable for its fill location." Mr. Reback presented the report prepared by Mr. Homer G. 1045 Smith, Jr. Consulting Forester. The report drew the following conclusions: "From the standpoint of proper land use, this area should remain in timber growth to prevent further soil erosion and sedimentation to the streams and future flood potential to the Rivanna River. As forest litter continually builds up on this site, the surface runoff is virtually eliminated except on extremely steep slopes and prevents excessive runoff during periods of heavy rainfall to the land areas below. It is this writer's opinion that the establishment of a landfill within the hollows, as proposed, would constitute serious erosion problems if the trees and vegetation are removed from these steeper slopes. It is also questionable that adequate topsoil would be available to properly cover the cells used for waste disposal without incorporating the plastic material which would be inaccessible during periodsof wet weather". Mr. Michael J.Demetsky, P.H.D., P.E., made a report on the "Evaluation of the Effects on Local Roads of Traffic to a Sanitary Landfill at the Cason Property" which concluded: "This investigation reveals significant problem areas related to the traffic projected to travel to a sanitary landfill at the Cason property: 1) Pavement conditions on Route 20. 2)Narrow 10 foot lanes on Route 20 3)8% grade along the Cason frontage to Route 20. 4) Traffic movements along Route 20, i.e. slow -moving, deaccelerating, and entering truck traffic. 5) The increased accident potential along Route 20. 6) Limited access routes from the city. Additional problems include those associated with providing an environmentally acceptable access road to the landfill from Route 20. These factors lead to the conclusion that the Cason site is 1046 inadequate as a sanitary landfill in view of traffic and high- way considerations. Most of the problems stated would be non- existent or considerably reduced by a landfill site accessible from a major multilane highway which, in turn, can be accessed at a number of peripheral points from the City of Charlottesville'. Dr. C. Sherman Grove, Jr., P.H.D., P.D. gave a report comparing Va. standards to proposed operation of a sanitary landfill on the Cason site: His conclusion was that the Cason site is absolutely unsuitable as a sanitary landfill for any governmental agency, including the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, that the possibilities of heavy erosion, leading to siltation, and of dangerous and damaging water pollu- tion could be excessive, and that air pollution from dust and odors was highly probable. He also concluded that noise pollution would be certain from consideration of the potential heavy truck traffic to and from the proposed site, that aesthetic and property damage would result, not only to the contiguous properties, but also to the nearby area of Key West, and this in turn will lead to economic damage, and that traffic on State Route 20 would be heavily disrupted and serious accidents would be likely to occur. Mr. Rosser Payne, A.I,P., Planning Consultant, and author of the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County also reported to the Commission with regard to the Cason landfill site complying with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In his report he stated that he was amazed that the Cason site could have received any attention at all, that the joint site selection committee did not fully evaluate in every technical detail each of the twenty- five (25) or more sites reviewed, presenting a comparison of at least five (5) sites for recommendation by the Planning 1047 Commission to the Board of Supervisors in order of feasibility and plan criteria, and that any site could come to a public hearing without the complete range of technical reports necessary for use as a basis in proper decision making. He stated that in his opinionIthe granting of a special use permit to the city for a landfill operation would not serve to promote the public health, safety and general welfare because of steep slopes, timber and soils loss, traffic and access problems, environmental damage, damage to the scenic and historic values of the immediate area, and in summary, based upon the technical reports submitted, would do violence to the premises, goals and objectives of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and should be denied. Mr. Reback then read a letter that had been written to the Daily Progress by Professor Charles M. Davidson expressing great dismay that the City had to seek a site outside of the City limits for their landfill operation. After reading the above mentioned letter, Mr. Reback con- cluded his presentation. Mr. Peter Coals, when asked if he wanted to speak, said his feelings had already been voiced by the previous speakers and did not have anything further to add. Mr. Edgar F. Currier, Jr., Attorney for 500 persons in the Willoughby area, spoke to the Commission, stating that the residents of the Willoughby area were also prepared to defend their interests and as far as they were concerned the land in that area was not available for use as a sanitary landfill. Mr. Frederick Hart spoke in opposition to the Cason site being primarily concerned with the conservation and historic preservation of the area. 1048 At this time, the hearing was closed to the public, and opened for discussion among Commission members. Mr. Jack Rinehart stated that he thought that the facts presented thus far outweighed the operation of a landfill on the Cason site, but that it would be difficult to make a decision on this site, since they couldn't compare this site with any other site. He suggested that a joint committee be formed to pick sites and then turn it over to the Planning Commission to obtain a Planning point of view. Dr. James Sams stated that he thought the proximity of the Cason site to the City had to be considered, but that he was also concerned about the expense on the City. Mr. Agnor then gave an estimate of $4.10 per ton of waste material. Dr. Catlin stated he agreed with Mr. Rinehart's comments and stated that many of the arguments against this site could also be used on probably all others. Dr. Catlin thought in order to make a decision, it would have to be on a compartive basis. He said one solution would be to ask the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to also be responsible for the disposal of solid waste by 1) making a recommendation of what type of solid waste disposal should be used 2) recommending a group of sites,,if landfill method of disposal was decided on 3) ask for Planning Commission's review 4)and then make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Peter Easter was in agreement with Dr. Catlin and Mr. Rinehart. He asked the City if they would like to x&LhdEaw SP-281, so that the Cason site would not be restricted from any further site studies. Mr. Easter motioned to defer action on the Cason site and that a jointcommittee be formed to pick 1049 a suitable type of disposal process to be followed and then bring selected sites back to the Commission for review. Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor, noted that the'Board of Supervisors had a public hearing scheduled for the next Wednesday, September 12, 1973, and asked Mr. Humphrey if the Planning Commission deferred action on the Special Permit application could the Board legally hold their scheduledpub$c hearing on the 12th of September? Mr. Humphrey said in that case, the application could not be heard by the Board until 60 days had expired. At the end of the sixty days, the application would, if the Planning Commission had taken no action, be sent to the Board with an automatic recommendation of approval. Mr. Wood said that he thought it was the intent of the Board of Supervisors to get some kind of recommendation from the Planning Commission, whether it be approval or denial. Mr. Wood said that he thought the problem of selecting a land- fill site had been deferred enough. Mr. Wood, speaking to the situation of appointing a committee stated that sometime ago the city and dounty appointed a committee and said committee evaluated and studied at great lengths some 25 sites. The committee was composed of members of City­.C©uncil,_City Engineering Dept., County Engineering Dept., and members of the Board of Supervisors. The committee narrowed the possibilities of a site for a landfill operation down to four (4) sites; those being the Massie tract, Willoughby, Cason site or contin- uance of the Ivy site. Mr. Wood stated that he thought that they had already gone through the process of selecting a joint committee, etc., and were now at the public hearing stage. 1050 Dr. Catlin stated that the Planning Commission didn't realize that the Commission had four sites to consider. The Commission thought they had only the Cason site to consider at this hearing. Mr. Easter reiterated that the reason he asked that the petition be withdrawn was so that this site would not be excluded if a joint committee was formed to make a study of the sites. Mr. Wood said he didn't know if it was legal to hold a public hearing on all sites and then recommend one, but if the County's legal staff had given them the correct advice, then the Supervisor would hold public hearings on more sites other than the Cason site and Massie site.,and would approve a site for a landfill operation by process of elimination as soon as possible. He again reminded the Commission that if they deferred action on the City of Charlottesville's application, then the Board of Supervisors would not be able to hold their public hearing on the 12th. Mr. Francis Fife, Mayor of Charlottesville, told the Commission that the application on the Massie site was still before the Board of Supervisors without a final decision having been made. Mr. Fife stated that the City desperately needed a decision on this application, even if it be denial. He stated that he didn't want a denial, but would rather it be denied than to be deferred indefinitely to save time; as the City was under a Court order to get something done regarding solid waste dis- posal. Mr. Fife also stated that if this matter was referred back to the Council and Board of Supervisors, then they would be going over the same road as they had been for the last 12 months. 1051 Mr. Peter Easter retracted his motion in view of complications mentioned by Mr. Wood and Mr. Fife. Mr. Jack Rinehart addressed Mr. Fife, stating he realized the City's urgent need for a landfill, but wanted to know if this could come back to the Commission in a comparative manner? Mr. Fife said he understood that the only way it could come up in a comparative manner, would be that the Board could have public hearings, defer each site, and then have several sites before them to decide on. He stated that under the present legal machinery, he didn't see how several sites could come before the Commission in a comparative manner unless referred back to them by the Board. Mr. Humphrey, County Planner, said it would behoove the Board, in relation to the adopted Master Plan, if they would refer all the sites back to the Commission for a comparative study and instruct the /tofficomeo up with a priority list. Dr. Catlin said he couldn't see why the Board couldn't ask the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the desirability of specific sites for a landfill, but he was not sure of the legalia.spects of this suggestion. Dr. Catlin suggested a deferral until the next Monday meeting on September 10, 1973,which would not cause a delay regarding the Board of Supervisors public hearing on the 12th of September. He stated that this deferral might give members of the Commission an opportunity for dicsussion with the Board of Supervisors or a way of improving their recommen- dation to the Board. Dr. Sams said he thought the Commisson would certainly be able to commit themselves to making a decision on this Special Permit request, however, he needed time to come to a conclusion. 1052 Dr. Sams motioned to defer action on the City's application until Monday, September 10, 1973. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously by all members present. Dr. Catlin stated that they would look at the minutes at the next meeting, if it was agreeable with everybody. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourndd. Secretary 1053 September 10, 1973 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held at 7:30 p.m. in the County Court House, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; Mr. Jack Rinehart, Mr. Peter Easter, Mr. David Carr, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, and Dr. James Sams, Mr. Louis Staley, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Absent was Mr. M. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman. Dr. Catlin called the meeting to order and quorum was established. The Planning Commission deferred action on the minutes until Mrs. Craddock could go over them with the Planning staff. SP-281. The City of Charlottesville has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a sanitary landfill on property containing approximately 50 acres. Property is situated on the east side of New Route 20 approximately 1/2 mile off 250 East. Property is described as County Tax Map 62, Parcel 24(part thereof), Parcel 28 (part thereof), Parcel 27 (part thereof), and Parcel 26 (part thereof). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Carr asked that the records show that he was not going to participate in this phase of the meeting. It was noted that the Commission was to consider the Cason site only in making their decision on the above mentioned Special Permit. Dr. Sams stated again that he thought that the information submitted thus far was against the Cason site being used for a sanitary landfill operation, and moved that the Special Permit be denied on this basis. Mr. Rinehart said that since the Commission could not compare this site to any other site, he would also suggest denial but thought the Planning Commission should have some input to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Rinehart seconded Dr. Sams motion, which 1054 carried unanimously by all members present. Dr. Catlin read two recommendations which he thought should be presented to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Staley said he thought the recommendations should also include any sites which may be under consideration in the future as well as sites presently being considered. The recommendations were motioned for approval by Mr. Rinehart, seconded by Mrs. Craddock and carried unanimously. They were as follows: If requested by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission will be glad to advise the Board on the relative merits, from a planning point of view, of such sanitary landfill sites as are under consideration or may in the future be under consideration by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission recommends again to the Board of Supervisors that solid waste disposal be a joint community effort by both city and county, and that determination of the most appropriate disposal facility and responsibflity for its operation be vested in a non -political body such as the RivannaService Authority or a similar new authority. 1055 Mr. Carr returned to participate in the remainder of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. ZMP-278. Walter A. Young has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 5.189 acres of land from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the south side of Beagle Gap Road about 1/2 mile west of Route 691. Property is described as County Tax Map 54, Parcel 41I(l). White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey read the staff report noting that the property in question had been before the Commission on numerous occasions, and that the staff would recommend approval, however, the Commission and Board would have to re-evaluate the County's policy established during the previous hearing on this request relative to having this property served by a road in the state secondary systems. He stated that during the month of August, the road viewers refused or denied the efforts to have this road put into the state system. Mrs. Nash, attorney for Mr. Young, stated that this property " had just been acquired within the last year or two and did not think it had been brought before the Commission before by the applicant. Mr. Young stated that there was only a small fraction of approximately 200' where 2 cars could still meet each other. He stated that Mr. Shifflett, a landowner on that road, had agreed to give his part of the right-of-way. Mr. Young stated that he had already deeded the state a 40' right-of-way up to Mr. Shifflett's property. Mr. Carr wanted to know who,<was going to the bring the road into the state system and if it was going to be brought up to state standards? Dr. Catlin wanted to know if they could get a statement from Mr. Warner, resident Highway Engineer, to present to the Commission? 1056 Mrs. Nash replied that she did not know when this could be done. Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisorg said that the road viewers had voted not to take this road into the state system. Mr. Carr said he thought the problem was whether the property owners wanted to bring the road up to state standards or not. Mr. Humphrey said previously right-of-ways had been 50' in width with 20' pavement and apparently they were now accepting 40' right-of-ways and 18' pavement. Mr. Rinehart said he thought the petition would have to be denied on the basis of the problem with the road but khould be worked out as this was in keeping with the village concept of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Carr moved that the petition be deferred until the Commission could be advised that the right-of-way does exist and is in compliance with set standards and secondly to get Mr. Warner's views on how this road could be brought into the state system, etc. Mr. Staley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously be all members present. 2.SP-283. Franklin Jones has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 3 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on west side of Route 663, 2 1/2 miles southeast of Nortons- ville. Property is described as County Tax Map 18, Parcel 29A. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey read the staff report stating that if the Commission recommended approval of this petition, it should be conditioned upon health dept. approval and setback 100 feet, if possible. Also, that some type of screening along the back property line may be needed. Mr. Jones' brother was present to speak for the petition 1057 stating that the mobile home would be occupied for 2 years by Mr. Franklin Jones' sister. Mr. Stephen Phillips, adjacent property owner, said that a Mr. Robert Jones had lived in a mobile home for 4 years and had now built a permanent home which is now an asset to the(community. He requested that the Commission approve this petition with a yearly or two year review. Mr. Rinehart motioned that the petition be approved with the following conditions: 1) 2 year approval with administrative approval yearly up to aattotal of 5 years 2) 100' setback 3) Health Department approval of a septic system and 4)screening left to the discretion of the Planning Department 5) and that the permit be voided if and/or when Mrs. Hazel Roberts, landowner's sisteramoved from the mobile home. Mr. Carr seconded the motion which carried unanimously , be all members present. 3. SP-284 Franklin Jones has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on 10.9 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated at the intersection of Routes 604 and 817. Property is described as County Tax Map 19, Parcel 40A-1. White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey read the staff report commenting this property consisted of several large tracts with screening along the fence line. Dr. Catlin wanted to know if this would be a permanent mobile home? Mr. CarrollJones stated that he would be renting the property from his brother. Said rental would be for approximately 3 acres. He stated that Mr. Franklin Jones, would be returning to build a home for himself at which time the mobile home would be removed. Mr. Rinehart motioned that a temporary permit be granted 1058 for 2 years with 1 year administrative approval which would be restricted to the occupant, Mr. Carroll Jones. The motion also included a 100 foot setback and Health Department approval of a septic system. Dr. Sams wanted to know if granting the permit since the land was being rented was contrary to the commission's policy. It was ascertained that it was not since it was being kept in the family, etc. Mr. Easter seconded Mr. Rinehart's motion which carried unanimously by all members present. 4. SP- 286. Albemarle County Service Authority has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a water transmission line from Stillhouse Mountain west on Barracks Road to the Vepco right-of-way west of Colthurst; then in a westerly direction north of Farmington to Ivy Creek; then southwest along Ivy Creek to West Leigh. Jack Jouett and Samuel Miller Magisterial Districts. Mr. Humphrey presented the staff report recommending approval. Mr. Ray Jones, Executive Director of The Service Authority, was present to present the application. He stated that the line was being located so that it could be tied into Colthurst and could also later serve Farmington. It would also solve flow and pressure problems in Farmington. He said this was also in the proposals of the Rivanna Service Authority's projects and would be eventually owned by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Bailey reiterated Mr. Jones statements. Mr. Jones stated that in July and August, 141 loads of water totaling 187,000 gallons were hauled to West Leigh and Flordon. Mrs. Sally Collins wanted to know if the size of the line would be more than needed by the subdivisions involved and if they /M a smaller line. Dr. Catlin said growth was going to be controlled by following the Master Plan, rather than the water line routes. 1059 Mrs. Craddock wanted to know how the Planning Commission could deny growth along these water lines? Mr. Carr was of the opinion that subdivisions involved could be expanded butdid not believe that there was a hard fastened rule as far as denying growth along waterlines and that approval of future developments should be based on the Master Plan. Mr. Rinehart motioned that the petition be approved. Dr. Sams seconded the motion, which carried unanimously by those members present. 5. SP-287. Christopher Taylor has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a public garage on 3 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on west side of Route 795, about 1/2 mile north of Scottsville. Property is described as County Tax Map 131, Parcel 65. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey read the staff report stating that this was a low density residential area and did not believe that there was a real need for this type of operation as this area was served by the town of Scottsville. Mr. Taylor presented a sketch of their proposed garage which was approximately 100 feet from Route 795. Mr. Kirk Spencer, adjoining property owner, noted that there was a very limited amount of space there and therefore, he was in opposition to a garage being located there. Dr. Sams was of the opinion that this would change the character of the area and would consequently be a mistake. Mrs. Craddock motioned that the application be denied. Mr Tinsley seconded the motioned which carried unanimously by those members present. 6. SP-291 Lorraine M. Schroder has petitioned the Albemarle "%AW County Board of Supervisors to locate a temporary mobile home on 3.83 acres of land A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on south side of Route 743 near Earlysville. Property is described as County Tax Map 31, Parcel 38(9). Rivanna Magisterial District. 1060 Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that this was in a residential area divided into 3 and 4 acre parcels. Subject property being wooded. Mr. Tinsley motioned that the application be approved for an period of two years subject to the following conditions: 1) Health Department Approval 2) 50' setback 3) as few trees removed as possible Mr. Rinehart added "with one year administrative approval" to the motion. Mr. Staley requested that the motion read 100' setback instead of 50' setback. Mr. Tinsley's revised motion read as follows: - "to be approved for a period of two years subject to the following conditions: 1)Health Department approval 2)100'setback 3)as few trees removed as Possible 4)one year administrative approval at the end of the two years. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion which carried unanimously by those members present. 7. Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a second skeet field on 71.5 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on west side of Route 631 Old Lynchburg Road about 6 miles south of Charlottesville. Property is described as County Tax Map 89, Parcel 84. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey read the staff report stating that a Conditional Use PErmit in September 1968 for a clubhouse and indoor range had -been approved and that the applicants wished to add a sea)nd outdoor skeet field. He told the Commission that the staff recommended approval. Mr. Calvin Dodd, a member of the Board of Directors for Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club, told the Commission that they were requesting a second skeet field in order to be able to hold national matches; He stated that it was a wooded area and was well 1#40 screened and that the club would also be meeting the safety requirements of the National Rifle Safety Association. 1061 It was ascertained that the noise factor involved would not be a great deal more than the noise caused by the present skeet field, and that hours of operation each particular time would be less as there were two ranges available for shooting. Mr. Ronald North, a member of the club, spoke in favor of the petition. Mr. Rinehart motioned that the petition be approved, which was seconded by Mr. Easter and carried unanimously by those members present. 8. SP-294. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate an interceptor sewer line from Albemarle High School pumping station to the existing Meadowcreek interceptor. Jack Jouett and Charlottesville Magisterial Districts. Mr. Humphrey read the staff report commenting that this request was for the improvement of the Berkeley treatment plant. The intent being to connect to the Meadowcreek interceptor in order that surplus from the Four Seasons area can bypass the Berkeley plant. The Berkeley plant would continue to be used in conjunction with the b[eadowcreek Plant until the new advanced waste treatment plant is completed in 5-6 years. The Meadowcreek plant isscheduled for updating by April 1, 1974. In addition to the improvement of the existing line, a new line will be created to serve Albemarle High School, the Jack Jouett Jr. High School, and the proposed Northside Elementary School. The new line would be sized to serve other development in the area. It is expected that this interceptor line would be completed after the Meadowcreek plant is updated. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey and Mr. Ray Jones were present to speak 11*° for the application. 1062 Mr. Bailey stated that the State Water Control Board was very much concerned with the treatment plant now serving Albemarle High School and that the Health dept would not approve sewer disposal for the new elementary school unless the request was approved. He stated that the sewer plant was now exceeding double capacity and the access load has been converted into the Berkeley Treatment Plant. He told the Commission that the Berkeley plant did not have sufficient capacity to handle these areas. After further discussion by the CommissLon, Mr. Carr motioned that SP-294 be approved. Mr. Easter seconded the motioned which carried unanimously by those members present. 9. SP-295. Ray and Velma Shifflett have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a permanent mobile home on .36 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on west side of Route 627 in Porter's Precinct. Property is described as County Tax Map 128A-1, Parcel 35. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey read the staff report stating that the area consisted of small residential parcels and that the subject property was just beyond the end of state maintained Route 757. He stated that the area was densely wooded. Dr. Catlin questioned Mrs. Shifflett about the termination of state maintenance on the road. Mrs. Shifflett stated that the state maintenance of the road went past her property. It was ascertained by the Commission members that Mrs. Shifflett's property was landlocked; however, Mrs. Shifflett told the Commission that she had access to the property from two different points by consent of her neighbors. Mr. Rinehart motioned for approval of the petition for a period of 5 years conditioned upon health dept. approval. 1063 Dr. Sams seconded the motion which carried unanimously by those members present. ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREAS Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that the ACSA wished to broaden their jurisdictional areas. He said that the intent generally complied with the Comprehensive plan with the exception of the area known as "Biscuit Run". He recommended to the Commission that they recommend approval to the Board excluding the area known as "Biscuit Run", except the urban area section as shown in the Master Plan. He told the Commission that there would be a legal description drawn up after the general concept was approved. Mr. Jones told the Commission that a jurisdictional area was an area that the Board of Supervisors delegates the authority to construct, finance or acquire (according to Code). He stated in the four -party Service Authority agreement, there is a section exclusive of the Biscuit Run area in which there are existing facilities owned by the City, which there is an agreement within the contract that these areas will be appraised by two consulting engineers. He said that Albemarle County Service Authority has the option after 6 months after the receipt of the appraisals to buy or give up an area. He stated they had to be within their jurisdictional area before they could consider exercising an option. He told the Commission that within the large area concerned, they did not have too much to say if it was not in their jurisdictional area. He also told the Commission that the Moore's Creek interceptor was going in that area and as the situation currently stands, 1064 the County would not be able to use it. Dr. Catlin wanted to know if Mr. Humphrey could elaborate on the letter from Mr. Gerald Fisher, Supervisor, with regards to the Pantops area? Mr. Humphrey replied that Mr. Fisher had not communicated directly with him. Mrs. Craddock was of the opinion that Mr. Fisher was concerned because of the steep topography in the Pantops area. Mr. Humphrey stated that the bulk of the Pantops area was not included in the request for jurisdictional area. /if Mr. Jones told the Commission that the County did not serve the area, then the City could serve it, with rights being purchased from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. After further discussion among Commission members, etc., Mr. Carr motioned approval of the jurisdictional area as sub- mitted excluding the Biscuit Run section not in the urban area. Dr. Sams seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mrs. Craddock asked that the reason for excluding the Biscuit Run area be shown in the minutes: the reason being, a need for an environmental study of the Biscuit Run area before a decision could be made to incorporate it in the jurisdictional area. Mr. Henry Stone presented a proposed plan for improving Emergency Medical Services in Health Distirct 10. This was done because in order for the Division of Biomedical Engineering to obtain the necessary funds from a private foundation, they needed the cooperation of the Planning Commission. The proposal included three way communications in rescue vehicles, medical care facilities, etc., training courses for personnel, development of a homogenous computerized data base, etc. 1065 Mr. Easter and Dr. Catlin questioned Mr. Stoneybeing concernedwith whether there were any factors involved in the proposal that would be detrimental to the County. After ascertaining there would not be, Mr. Tinsley motioned that the Commission approve the proposal. Mr. Easter seconded the motioned, which carried unanimously by those members present. After a short discussion, it was the consensus of Commission members to let Mr. Humphrey and Dr. Catlin come to an agreement as to what matters would be taken up an the 5th meeting in October. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Secretary 1066 September 17, 1973 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on September 17, 1973 at 7:30 p;m. in the Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those present were: Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman; M. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Dr. James Sams, Mr. David Carr, and Mr. Louis Staley. Also in attendance were Miss Mary Joy White, Senior Planner and Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., Assistant Planner. Absent were Mr. Wilbur Tinsley and Mr. Jack Rinehart. Miss White presented site plans to the Commission. a. D.N. McGee - request for 2 access easements each to serve one - 2 acre parcel. Said road has been in existance for a long time. The Planning staff recommended approval under the following conditions: 1) That the easement be 25' wide and specified on plat 2) That easement be ended at place shown on the plat Mr. McGee was there to speak for his application and noted that the reason for this request was so that parcels could be divided for his children to be able to build homes nearby. After discussion by the Commission members, Mr. McClure motioned that the request be approved with the following conditions: 1) Easement would be 25' in width and specified on the plat. 2) That the easement be restricted to serve the 3 lots (Mr. McGee's lot and his two children's lots). Mr. Carr seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 1067 b. J. H. Williams- site plan for commercial and office space. Located west side of Route 29 North; north side Airport Road (Route 649). Miss White explained that Mr. Williams had already renovated the existing offices there and had plans for additional commercial uses. She stated he intended to add onto the existing house and increase parking spaces. Also that he intended to utilize the existing well and septic system. In a letter from Mr. Warner, Highway Resident Engineer, the following was noted: That Mr. Williams installed pipe on said property and had graded on the highway right-of-way without a permit. The pipe installed was a 30" pipe and drained into a 15" pipe. The letter stated that Mr. Williams knew he needed a permit but failed to get one. The staff recommended that Mr. Williams be, required to adhere to- Highway:Department regulations and that a deacceleration lane be required across the front of the property. Miss White said that possibly Mr. Williams was intending to locate a Harley- Davidson motor cycle shop on the property, which is not included as a use under the present zoning ordinance. In a similar situation, Mrs. Miller, Zoning Administrator, ruled that any applicant desiring such a shop would be required to make application to amend the ordinance. However, a more recent letter from Mr. St. John, County Attorney, stated that it was his opinion that the definition of automobiles should include motor cycles since in Webster's dictionary it is defined as a 4-wheel passenger vehicle/ and since sale of trucks has also been sold under automobile sales classification, but that the final decision should be left up to the Planning Commission. 1068 Miss White said the staff recommended that a deacceleration lane be included in this site plan and that the land that had already been graded be seeded as soon as possible and that the plans comply with Highway Dept. regulations. Mrs. Craddock wanted to know how much grading had been done on the site and what the planning staff did about penalizing persons in violation of the zoning ordinance? Miss White, in answer to Mrs. Craddock's first question, replied that no one from the staff had actually measured the area already graded, but estimated it to be a fair amount. Dr. Catlin, in answer to Mrs. Craddock's second question, replied that the Commission was only concerned with the Planning aspect and that any violations of the Zoning Ordinance should be turned over to the Commonwealth Attorney for further action, by the Zoning Administrator. Mrs. Craddock said she would like to see a definite date for the deadline of re -seeding the graded area instead of "as soon as possible". Dr. Catlin agreed that a definite date as it related to the development of the project should be agreed upon. Mr. J. H. Williams, said that Mr. Keister of the Highway Department, had visited the site that afternoon, and stated that he (Mr. Williams) did not need highway dept. approval. Dr. Catlin asked Mr. Williams if he had a letter stating that he did not need highway dept. approval. Nr. Williams replied that he did not have a letter from Mr. Keister, but stated that all work involving highway matters was done in Mr. Keister's presence or that Mr. Keister checked the work. 1069 Mr. Williams presented a letter to the Commission from his neighbors, Gerald and Annette Kirby, voicing approval of the construction. It was ascertained that there was sufficient parking space even with a deacceleration lane. Upon questioning by Mr. Carr, Mr. Williams stated that the present drain 18�which ran into a 36" drain. Mr. Carr wanted to know if a 30" drain ran into a 15" drain as Mr. Warner's letter stated? Mr. Williams replied that there was no 15" drain; that the smallest drain used was a 24" one which ran into a 30" drain. Dr. Catlin said he thought the site plan committee was more qualified to review the technical aspects and should have gone over this site plan more thoroughly. Mr. McClure said he would like to know the reason for differences in opinion of the Highway Department personnel, as it had come up in other incidents recently. Dr. Catlin wanted to know definitely whether the Planning Commission's policy was to require deacceleration lanes on Route 29 North and Route 250? The consensus of the Commission was that this policy had been established. Dr. Catlin asked the feeling of the Commission with regards to motor cycle sales? The staff was asked to draw up an amendment to include this in the ordinance . Mr. Carr motioned to defer action on the site plan so that Mr. Williams could acquire a correct site plan to be referred back to the site plan review committee to work out specific details of the plan. Mrs. Craddock said that she would set a date to visit the site with Mr. Williams. l 4/ ` 1070 Dr. Catlin told Miss White to direct the site plan committee to study whether there was a need for or whether there should be three entrances to the property. Mr. McClure seconded Mr. Carr's motion which carried unanimously. c. Key West Subdivision, SEction 5, 12 lots zoned R-1 Residential; 25 lots zoned RS-1 Residential. Average lot size 1.31 acres. Miss White noted that the Northern part was recently rezoned to RS-1 and that the smaller lots R-1 was existing zoning. Miss White said that the staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) Percolation tests to be completed on each lot 2);Standard road bond being set 3) Roads be of state construction standards Mr. Tom Blue was present to represent the applicant. with the threeMconalfrolu nso soteeddaboove.approval of Section 5, Key West. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously. d. Waffle Shoppe site plan. Located south side of Route 250 West near University Heights. Mr. Huffman, speaking for the site plan, stated that it was located by the Shell Station and the Independent Gas Station. Information from the Highway Department stated that the site plan had been dicussed with Mr. Huffman's office and that the curvature around the east side of the property had been extended to the property line as requested. The staff recommended that the canopy extending over the 30' setback in front of the building would have to be adjusted to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Huffman stated that the deacceleration lane extended to the curvature on their property and was constructed in a manner so that it could be extended further by the developer of the lot 1071 adjacent to this property. It was ascertained that there would be 16 parking spaces which was sufficient to comply/ tfiehZoning Ordinance. Dr. Catlin was concerned with the setback as far as how the future developer of the adjacent property would be affected. Mr. Huffman replied that with regard to this particular site, there was very little that could be done but to ptAce the structure to one side of the lot or the other. Mr. Carr stated that in his opinion, the present location of the buildhg was not particularly desirable, but was acceptable. Mr. McClure motioned that the Waffle Shoppe site plan be approved with proper front setback (30') being met including the canopy and that city water and sewer be utilized. The motinn was seconded by Mr. Easter and carried unanimously. 5. Ivy Gardens Apts., Phase Three site plan. Located north side of Old Ivy Road (Route 754). Miss White stated that there would be 168 units in Phase Three on 6.5 acres, which was an average of 29 units per acre which is approximately the same density as the other 2 phases. She said that the access was from the existing entrance of Old Ivy Road and that the University of Virtinia had recently constructed a road to the east side of the property; there being 10' between the property line and the road. The staff recommended that the several retaining walls to be constructed be approved by the County Engineer before they are built. Miss White stated the applicant said he would be complying with the Soil Ehosion Ordinance. Mr. Thomas R. Wyant, architect representing the applicant, said that Phase 3 was all garden apts. similar to those of the previous Phases (1 & 2). 1072 Upon questioning by Dr. Catlin, Mr. Wyant stated that the agreement, made 4 years ago with the Cityjallowed for water and sewer connections for Phase 3. Dr. Sams motioned that the site plan for Phase 3, Ivy Gardens, be approved with the condition that the retaining walls be approved by the County Engineer. Dr. Catlin seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Tucker informed the Commission that the Planning Dept. was in receipt of the Water Quality Management Plan (Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission). He read briefly the intent of the plan to the Commission stating that the Planning staff had not yet had time to study it in detail. Dr. Catlin asked Mr. Bob Abbott, Executive Director of the Commis&on, if this plan included the disposal of solid waste in any form. Mr. Abbott replied that it did not. Mrs. Fran Martin was concerned that the plan leaned toward a sewer line to the Earlysville cluster instead of a waste treatment disposal plant. She+commented that a waste treatment plant would help preserve open space areas. She watited to know the reasoning behind the statement that a waste treatment plant would cause a radiation of development around the area and suggested the Planning Commission consider this in their review. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the planning staff would be sending portions of the above mentioned study to them for review involving the Charlottesville -Albemarle County area and that public hearings on the plan would be held by the TJ Planning District Commission in November. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Secretary 1073 September 24, 1973 • This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on September 24, 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, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr Peter Easter, Mr. Louis Staley, and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Also in attendance were Mr. George St. John, County Attorney and Mr. Bob Tucker, Assistant County Planner. Those absent were Mr. David Carr and Mr. Jack Rinehart. The following was discussed and approved for inclusion in the new Zoning Ordinance: ARTICLE 13 PERMANENT MOBILE HOME PARKS AND MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISIONS 13-1 PERMANENT MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT MHP 7 Dwelling Units Per Acre STATEMENT OF INTENT This district is designed to accomodate mobile homes in a planned neighborhood on lands containing not less than ten (10) acres. All MHP districts shall be served by sanitary sewers, sewage disposal facilities, adequate highway access and a public water supply. In mobile home parks, no space shall be rented for residential use except for periods of 30 days or more. 13-1-1 Use Regulations 13-1-1-1 Uses Permitted By Right 1) Accessory Buildings 1074 2) Churches 3) Mobile home parks as defined in this ordinance. 4)Off-street parking as required by this ordinance. 5) Parks and Playgrounds. 6) Public Utilities: poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters, and related or similar facilities, water and sewerage distribution lines. 13-1-2 Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit Within Mobile Home Park District 1) All community service or recreational buildings which are integral components of the mobile home park. 2) Condominium housing projects. 3) Construction facilities, temporary, in accordance with Section 28-41. 4) Educational institutions. 5) Fire stations. 6) Home professional occupations. 7) Nursery schools. 8) Public schools, public offices, and other public buildings, and public facilities owned or operated by agencies of the national, state, or local govern- ment. 9) Public utilities: Public water and sewer trans- missions; 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. 1075 10) Swimming and tennis clubs. 13-1-3 Area Regulations 13-1-3-1 Minimum Lot Size 1) Mobile homes - 4000 square feet space per unit. 2) Mobile homes - other than parks - same as R-3. 3) Other permitted uses - no regulations. 13-1-3-2 Maximum percent lot coverage (Parks) 1) 80% of mobile home park site including mobile home lots, off-street parking and streets. 2) Other permitted uses - 80%. 13-1-4 Setback Regulations 1) Minimum of 25 feet from mobile home park property line of r.o.w. of anv Dublic street 2) Minimum of 15 feet from interior streets, walks or common areas. 13-1-5 Yard Regulations 1) Minimum lot width - 40 feet. 2) Distance between mobile homes - 15 feet to end to end 15 feet to side to side 3) Distance between mobile home and any central sevvice or recreational building - 50 feet. 13-1-6 Height Regulations Buildings may be erected up to fifteen (15) feet in height except that: 1) A public or semi-public building such as a school or church may be erected to a height of sixty (60) feet from grade provided that required frort, side limit after which such permit shall expire or renewal may be necessary. 107� There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Secretary 9