HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 17 81 PC MinutesFebruary 17, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
February 17, 1981, Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Norma Diehl, Chairman,
David Bowerman, Vice-Chariman, Corwith Davis, Jr., Allan Kindrick, Kurt
Gloeckner and James Skove. Other members present were Mr. Frederick Payne,
Deputy County Attorney and Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Planner. Absent from the
meeting was Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting
to order.
The minutes of January 20, 1981 were deferred until January 27, 1981.
Frank L. Hereford Site Plan - requested deferral until March 24, 1981.
Mr. Bowerman moved for deferral until March 24, 1981.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion.
The motion carried with a vote of 5-1, with Mr. Gloeckner abstaining.
Airport Center Final Plat - located on the north side of Route 649, east of
Route 606 and the Charlottesville -Albemarle Airport; a proposal to divide 9.8
acres into 7 lots with an average size of 1.4 acres for light industrial uses.
Rivanna District (Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that approval of the plans
for the private road had been received from the County Engineer. He also
noted that the applicant has indicated that since this is a commercial operation
and will be different from a subdivision, they prefer a private road. He also
pointed out that usage may vary because of the type of business which might
locate in this area.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if there was any public comment.
Joan Graves stated that one of the conditions of approval of the special use pt=it
for Swift Air Delivery was that the entrance had to be upgraded if the Swift Air
building itself were used more extensively. She questioned if a subdivision
at the same site would mean that the entrance should be upgraded. She also
inquired if there were any commentsfrom the Highway Department concerning the
entrance.
IN
Ms. Imhoff replied that the condition for Swift Air Delivery was Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation review and approval of the entrance,
not specifically the enlarging of that entrance.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Highway Department had approved the entrance.
Mrs. Graves asked if there was a condition on SP-80-37 pertaining to the
expansion of the Swift Air building.
Ms. Imhoff replied that one of the conditions of approval for SP-80-37 Swift
Air Delivery was as follows:
• No expansion of building beyond 12000 square feet without Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation approval of amended entrance in accordance
with Highway Department standards.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the problem the Commission had with this plat was
private road versus public roads.
Mr. Skove asked Mr. Roudabush if the road would be built to Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation standards.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the base and pavement would be built to highway
standards, noting that the County Ordinance requires base and pavement for
traffic to be over a standard equal to thirty --five (35) residential lots.
Mr. Davis inquired if the entrance would meet state standards.
Mr. Roudabush replied that this is a commercial entrance and would be approved by
the Highway Department.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the staff comments stated that the turn lane should be
widened to twelve (12) feet and lengthened to two hundred (200) feet if possible,
and asked if there were any plans to accomodate this.
Mr. Roudabush stated that there is an existing two hundred and forty-five (245)
foot turn lane which complies with highway standards. He also noted that the
taper is only twenty-five (25) feet because if it were longer it would go beyond
the property line.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt the Commission should discuss the question
of the public roads versus private roads.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that his main objection :is the cross section of the road,
that was presented, was for four (4) inches of stone and no pavement. He also
stated that if the road was built to state standards, except for the geometry,
he had no problem with this.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the cut off point for the number of commercial lots
for a private road should be decided. He noted that there should not be a
problem with these lots, but with more lots there could be problems.
8?)
Mr. Kindrick questioned if it were easier to control a maintenance agreement
among commercial developers rather than in a subdivision.
Mr. Payne replied that it might be easier to control, but it is difficult
to determine who is responsible for damage to the road. Mr. Payne noted
that given the variety of uses .t. would be difficult to get an equal
distribution of maintenance costs.
Mr. Davis stated that the applicant is trying to keep as many lots as he can
with a commercial lot in the rear. Mr. Davis also noted that at the time of
the rezoning request the land in the rear of the property was not suitable for
light industrial zoning.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Pietsch which of the lots would be removed if a public
road were required.
Mr. Pietsch stated that in order to keep the 40,000 square feet required for the
septic system, he had the following options:
• reduce the four lots in the middle to three lots;
• move the lot line on the rear parcel;
• move the lot line on parcel seven;
Mr. Roudabush asked the Commission to examine this plat as if it were for a
shopping center. He noted that there would be individual owners and that the
development would be similar to a shopping center except it is industrial rather
than retail.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Skove moved for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Note and locate all streams;
b. Written Health Department approval;
C. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance;
f. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and County
Engineer approval of road plans for acceptance of Wahoo Drive into
the state system;
g. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
a commercial entrance;
h. Staff approval of the redesign of the lot lines to meet the minimum
area requirements.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-2, with Mr.
Gloeckner and Mr. Kindrick abstaining.
M
Henry Javpr Warehouse Facility Site Plan - requests indefinite deferral.
Mr. Skove moved for indefinite deferral.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
River Heights Hotel and Office Center Site Plan_- located on the west side of
Route 29 North (southbound lane), south of the South Form Rivanna River and north
of Route 659; proposal to locate a 250-room hotel and office center on a 20.89
acre parcel. Charlottesville District. (Tax Map, 45, Parcel 68D(2), and portions
of Parcels 68D(1) and 68D(3).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl inquired ii there was any pukulic coaLn«cnt5.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that it had been indicated that there was an obstacle in the
median which blocks sight distance as one enters the crossover, this should be
removed as part of the development of the entrance.
Mr. Rouuauusa stated that when this project was Ueyun, ne- nau ciieckeD with
the Planning Department for a Description of the rezoned property, which was
measured from the highway right-of-way. Mr. Roudabush noted that the sketch
which was used in the discussion of the rezoning, did not take into account
the fact that the highway department had bought: a 65' wide strip of land across
the frontage of this property. He noted that lie had met with the Planning
Department and the Zoning Administrator and had arrived at a rear property line
which he felt showed the proper depth of zoning from the highway.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the applicant had tried to accommodate the site plan to
this new interpertation of the proper depth in zoning and location of the rear
property line. He noted the following changes in the orginally submitted site
plan:
• replaced the parking which would have been located on property zoned R-15;
• shifted the tennis courts;
• ommitted the swimming pool which must be setback 75' from any property line.
Mr. Roudabush noted that there is an application pending for the rezoning of
the 65' strip of land located along the rear property which is now zoned R-15.
Mr. Roudabush noted that the applicant had not been aware of the change in the
Zoning Administrator's interpertation of the correct depth of the rezoned property
and location of the rear property line. He also stated that there have been
several changes made on this site plan since it was first submitted. He noted that
rebuilding of the south bound lane would not take place for sometime, stating
that the entrance will not meet sight distance requirements until this project
takes place. He stated that in order to meet sight distance requirements the
entrance was moved opposite the existing crossover.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the Highway Department had informed him that the
culvert should be increased to four hundred (400') feet. This would mean
more grading into the side of the hill, as indicated by the planning staff
but could be accommodated.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the area on the site plan marked "Future Development"
is zoned Highway Commercial.
Mr. Wood stated that he had tried to meet the recommended conditons of the staff
and Commission. He noted that the main concern of the Commission was the
crossover on 29N. He stated that he had an arrangement with the adjacent property
owners to locate the road at the existing crossover without having to relocate
the crossover. He also noted that it was determined at the first Planning
Commission review of this site plan that the zoning line needed to be extended
65' in depth, and noted that he had applied at that time for the rezoning
of this strip.
Mr. Wood stated that in reference to condition #d in the staff report (fire
official approval of emergency access routes around the hotel), Ira Cortez,
Fire Marshall, stated at the site review meeting that this was not necessary.
Ms. Imhoff stated that condition #d will be required until more detailed hotel
plans are submitted which might determine that this condition is not necessary.
Mr. Greene, representing the applicant, stated that he had reviewed the storm -
water calculations with the County Engineer. He noted that the portion of the
property that is within the detention area will be served by a detention pond.
He also noted that any future development would require a separate detention
pond.
Mr. Greene pointed out to the Commission the streams running through the area.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the streams would be running under the road.
Mr. Green replied that there are pipe culverts that collects drainage from the
parking lots and another culvert which collects the drainage from the eight
acre parcel, entering through a box culvert under Rt. 29N.
Mr. Davis asked what the zoning was on the 65' wide strip of land located
along the rear property line.
Mr. Greene replied it was zoned R-15 and HC (Highway Commercial).
Ms. Imhoff questioned who controlled the land north of the highway commercial
strip.
Mr. Wood replied that this was under contract to another party at this time,
noting that they will have joint rights--of--way.
Mr. Payne stated that there should be a condition of approval to record an ease-
ment for the entrance road over the adjacent property.
�%w
Mr. Payne stated that assuming this site plan was approved, this parcel
would be sold and there should also be a condition to the effect:
"County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for the entrance road,
stormwater detention facilities, and drainage easements."
Mr. Wood stated that rather than wait for the rezoning of the 65' wide strip,
to occur, he hoped that the Commission would approve this site plan and allow the
staff to administratively approve any change, such as the location of the
swimming pool. He also noted that the tennis courts would be located where they
were shown originally on the first site plan submitted.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if there was any public comment.
Mr. Roosevelt inquired of Mr. Greene if there would be any detention facilities
for the pipe that drains the parking lot and enters into the 15" pipe under
Rt. 29.
Mr. Greene replied "no."
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the staff had received a traffic study analysis
of accidents along Rt. 29, from Rio Road to the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the staff had received this information, noting that it
was difficult to discern where the accidents occurred.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he had received a schematic drawing indicating the
reported accidents since January 1, 1975 to September 1980 on Rt. 29. He
presented this drawing to the Commission, asking them to note that this
is over a four and one half year period. He also stated that that the
existing crossover itself, currently used by the Carrsbrook traffic, there has
been in four and one half years only one accident related to the crossover.
Mr. Bowerman :inquired of Mr. Roosevelt, what type of traffice volume would the
highway department need in order to require the installation of a traffic
signal at this crossover.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the minimum justification, in order to install a
traffic signal, is to have five hundred (500) vehicles per hour, on the main
lane, and side traffic coming in at around one hundred and fifty (150)
vehicles for an eight (8) hour period.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if Mr. Roosevelt could make an estimate based upon
what is proposed here.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the preliminary figures run in the range of 17,000
cars assuming there is no rear access from the property. He noted that
installation of a traffic light using this figure would depend on the
direction of the traffic. He also noted that projecting full development
it may be possible that a traffic light will be needed, however, more time
is required to study the necessary data.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the seventeen thousand (17,000) vehicle figure, mentioned
by Mr. Roosevelt, was based on.
�7
Mr. Roosevelt replied that this figure is based upon the full development
of all property that will be served by this road, to its highest feasible
level.
Mr. Davis stated that the hotel had been moved back from Rt. 29, noting that
the plans were drawn up and a model had been built for a seventeen (17) story
facility. He noted that with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance, there
is a thirty-five (35) foot height requirement for buildings, which meant
he had to get a variance for the additional height. (STAFF NOTE: Mr. Wood
did not have to obtain a variance. Buildings may be up to sixty-five feet
in height. Buildings over thirty-five feet in height require additional
setbacks from property lines.)
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that a restaurant was proposed for the area marked
"Future Development."
Mrs. Diehl clarified that the Commission is being asked to approve this site
plan as submitted, with the intention that if the rezoning is granted the
applicant will revert to his original plans. She also noted that the applicant
is asking the Commission to give the staff authority to approve any changes
on the site plan.
Mr. Wood explained the changes in the location of the pool and tennis courts
to the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he favored the first plan submitted. He also stated
that the site plan presently under consideration could be approved subject to
the conditions of the staff and staff approval of the first plan and also
subject to the rezoning of the sixty-five (65) foot wide strip of land.
Mr. Bowerman stated he did not agree with approving the site plan subject to
conditions because he would like to see the following concerns addressed:
• submit a site plan which takes into account the rezoning of the sixty-
five (65) foot wide strip of land, to the Commission so that a clear
picture could be obtained;
• the question of the entrance road plans which should be approved by the
Highway Department prior to the plat approval. He noted that there are
some steep grades and some alignment problems which the Highway Department
should address before plat approval.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the County Engineer had reviewed the Soil Erosion
Plans. He also inquired if this could be accomplished before the plan would be
reviewed again by the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that the County Engineer would normally review the plans at the
site review meeting.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she had a problem approving this site plan now because of
the lack of information needed by the lghway department. She also noted that
there are othere issues she would like to see addressed before Commission approval.
Mr.Skove inquired if the road would be built to state standards.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the road could not be accepted into the state system
because of the geometrics of the curve.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Highway Department needed some idea of the
useage of the R-15 tract. He asked Mr. Wood if he could provide the highway
department with some preliminary figures for the proposed density of
development of the R-15 zoned property.
Mr. Wood replied that he did not know at this time what this tract would
be used for.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that Mr. Wood is willing to develop the road to the
maximum useage of the R-15 parcel.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if it were possible to put a buffer of some type between
Rt. 29 and the eastern boundary of the parking lot and still retain sufficient
parking spaces for the hotel complex.
Mr. Wood stated that there is presently a buffer here.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the hillside would be disturbed.
Mr. Wood replied that no major grading will be done. He also noted that
the entire complex will be developed with a terrace effect and that the trees
would be maintained where possible to create a more pleasing effect.
Mr. Roudabush noted that the highway will not be relocated. He also noted
that the highway department bought the strip of land along Rt. 29N for
slope readjustment, not because the road was to be relocated. He pointed out
that on the first plan submitted the applicant had shown landscaping on this
strip of land and the staff pointed out that this was the highway right-of-way.
Mr. Davis stated that Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation will
require the entrance road to be built to state standards.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that as long as the entrance road could be built
at the crossover to the general standards and does not have to be relocated and
substantially revised, this plan would be acceptable. He also noted that the
Commission does not have all the necessary information at this time. The
Highway Department has also pointed out the following discrepancies: alignment
is not correct, the radius is not correct. and there is a problem with the
location of the stream. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to see these
concerns addressed before the Commission acts on this site plan.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he had nothing against the concept or the need
for such a :hotel complex, but he felt that the Commission should have all
the necessary information in order to make a valid judgement on this submittal.
Mr. Bowerman moved for deferral until such a time that the rezoning is
accomplished and the applicant submits to the Commission a site plan which
would reflect the change in zoning. Mr. Bowerman also stated that he would
9
like to see the following concerns addressed:
• comply with condition #L of the staff report (The Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation approval of a commercial entrance and
road plans for acceptance and maintenance into the State Highway
System) at least to the extent that Mr. Roosevelt is satisfied with
the design standards and the layout of the road;
• would like to see all road plans prior to final plat approval;
• would like to see how the area marked "Future Development"
would be accessed as part of the total development;
• County Engineer approval of preliminary road plans, with special
attention to the environmental impact on the site, noting that this
is a heavily wooded area and that the natural features should be
protected.
Mr. Gloeckner asked that condition #L of the staff report (as mentioned by
Mr. Bowerman) be modified to the submittal of preliminary alignment plans
to satisy the highway department prior to Planning Commission review of the plan.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he needed Mr. Roosevelt's guidance in this matter.
He feels that whatever Mr. Roosevelt needs to make a valid decision on
whether the road can be accepted into the state highway system should be
required.
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that Mr. Bowerman was not asking that the applicant
complete the road plans for acceptance prior to Commission approval of this
site plan.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion for deferral, noting that the entrance on Rt.
29 is a matter of concern.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the applicant should apply for the
rezoning and then resubmit the site plan and meet any conditions imposed
by the Commission at this meeting.
Mrs. Diehl inquired of Mr. Payne if this was a proper approach.
Mr. Payne stated that the applicant is entitled to an answer within sixty
(60) days, noting however, that there was no application pending for the
rezoning which means the applicant could not possibly receive an answer
on this in sixty (60) days.
Ms. Imhoff stated that if the applicant submitted an exact description on
this property by Thursday (February 19) the Planning Commission could
review this on March 10 and the Board of Supervisors on March 18.
Mr. Payne stated that if the applicant wants this site plan reviewed within
the sixty (60) day time limit, without waiting for the rezoning, he has a
right to require this. Mr. Payne also noted that if the Commission moved
for deferral of this site plan, it could be deferred for sixty days. Mr.
Payne stated that he did not feel that the Commission could delay the
applicants site plan by waiting for the rezoning request, because the
rezoning goes beyond the parcel in question.
�O
Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission approved this site plan as
submitted, the applicant could build the hotel as shown on the Commission
approved plan. Mr. Payne noted that the applicant would not be required
by law to make the changes in the tennis courts, swimming pool, as mentioned.
He noted, however, that the applicant could submit to the Commission an
amendment to this plan.
Mr. Bowerman inquired as to when the sixty day period requirement for
action on a plat/plan began.
Mr. Payne replied this sixty day period was measured from the date of
filing, which was January 20, 1981. He also noted that the Commission
has until March 20, 1981, to take action on this site plan.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt that the County had presentee. the applicant
with the rezoning question, due to an incorrect interpretation of the original
rezoning line.
Mr. Payne stated that in this case the Zoning Administrator does not make the
ruling, rather that this is the realm of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner inquired if the Commission could overrule the Zoning
Administrators decision.
Mr. Payne stated that the Zoning Administrator had not made a decision; he
had issued an advisory decision.
Mr. Payne explained to the Commissioners that the zoning ordinance states
than any development which requires a site plan can not have a building permit
issued for :it until the Planning Commission has approved the site plan. He
also stated that once the Planning Commission has approved the site plan
then any features shown on the site plan shall be deemed prima facie
in accordance with the ordinance.
Mr. Wood asked if the Planning Commission could determine where the
correct zoning line is located.
Mr. Payne replied that the Commission had. the right to make this
determination.
Mr. Wood stated if the Planning Commission made this determination,
in his opinion it would solve the problem..
Mr. Skove stated that the applicant would have to get a variance from the
Board of Zoning Appeals for building setbacks from residentially zoned
property.
Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission approved this plan, which Mr.
Vaughn obviously disagrees with, the Zoning Administrator would not
issue a building permit for this site plan.
Mr. Davis stated that he agreed with the zoning administrators second
opinion, the depth of the property should be measured from the center line
of Rt. 29 rather than from the strip of property owned by the highway department
noting that six hundred and fifty feet (650') from the old right-of-way
line was explicit.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Commission does not know at this time if the
parking is adequate.
Mr. Payne stated that the parking would have to be redesigned.
Ms. Imhoff stated that Mr. Roudabush has indicated that parking is adequate,
noting that there is a problem with one isle of parking which is too close
to the rear property line. She stated that the Planning Commission could
add a condition of approval to read: "compliance with parking setback
requirements."
Mr. Bowerman withdrew his motion for deferral.
Mr. Bowerman moved for deferral until the following items could be properly
addressed:
entrance or access to the area labeled "Future Development"; to be
shown on the plat;
• approval of a commercial entrance and road plans for acceptance and
maintenance into the State Highway System (to the satisfaction of
Mr. Roosevelt). Road plans should also take into account not only
this development but future development in the R-15 and adjacent
R-15 property.
• County Engineer approval of road plans with regard to the basic design
of the interior roads and compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff
Control Ordinance.
Mr. Skove inquired as to the staff's recommendation for the Bikeway Plan.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the staff would like the applicant to dedicate land
in the flood plain or give an easement to the County across this area for a
bike path.
Mr. Skove inquired of Mr. Wood if there would be any difficulty in obtaining
an easement across this area for a bike path.
Mr. Wood replied "no."
Mr. Bowerman added to his motion for deferral of this site plan a notion
that this plan be heard by the Planning Commission no later than March 17, 1981.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
The motion carried with a vote of 4-2, with Mr. Gloeckner and Mr. Kindrick
dissenting.
qz
Windrift,Section 3, Final Plat - located off the west side of Route 664, north of
Route 666; proposed division of 105.86 acres into 30 lots with an average size of
3.5 acres. White Hall District (Tax Map 18, portion of parcel 19).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Greene, representing Dr. Helm, addressed the concerns of the staff with
reference to the recommended conditions of approval for this plat. He also
stated that the Runoff Control Ordinance would not have to be met because of
the size of the lots, noting however that a report would be submitted to the
County Engineer for his approval.
Mr. Greene stated that all the conditions of approval had been met on Section II,
noting that no bond had been posted and construction has been delayed because of
the weather.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the staff needs notification of these conditions having
been met for Section II. of Windrift.
Mr. Greene noted that an additional bond had been requested for Windrift, Section I,
and this will be provided.
Ms. Imhoff clarified for the Commission that the fire official would like to see
some type of surfacing on the access road when the reservoir is constructed.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if there was any public comment.
1Ir. Jim Fesler, representing the adjacent property owners in Windrift Section 1,
stated that on June 28, 1980 a petition was submitted to the Board of Supervisors
requiring the developer of Windrift (Dr. Charles Helm) to bring Spring Lake Drive
up to the standards which would permit it to be accepted into the state secondary
road system, prior to the commencement of a road to serve Windrift Section II. He
noted the following reasons for this request:
• each season since construction of Spring Lake Drive, snow has been
removed and the road sides have been mowed at the expense of certain
Windrift I property owners;
• certain drainage ditches have not been completed, the pavement has settled
in places, and there are numerous bare areas where erosion has begun;
♦ the developer failed to remove windrows of stumps, trees and debris
resulting from construction of the road, as requested at the time of
completion by the State Highway Department;
• the developer is presently indebted to certain individuals who have
provided services.
Mr. Fesler submitted a copy of this petition along with pictures showing the
condition of the roads in this section of Windrift.
Ken Holick, an adjacent property owner in Windrift I, stated that he would
like to see Spring Lake Drive accepted into the state secondary road system.
Joseph Dick, an adjacent property owner in Windrift I, stated his concern
about the debris left behind with the completion of Windrift I.
�3
09
Mr. James Main, an adjacent owner, stated that he did not want to see Spring
Lake Drive neglected because of any future endeavors on the part of the applicant.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Dr. Helm stated that he did not understand the connection between Windrift
III and Windrift I, but he would address the concerns of the adjacent owners.
He stated that an adaption of the road in Windrift II had been discussed,
noting that when this was first completed Windrift II was designated as a Type
I road. He also stated that the repairs to Windrift I will be completed at the
same time as the road into Windrift Section II is built.
Mr. Skove questioned if condition #K in the staff's recommended conditions
of approval would solve the problems of the adjacent owners. (CONDITION #K -
the applicant is put on notice that Windrift, Section III, Final Plat will not
be signed until an adequate bond has been posted for the road in Section I
to bring it up to the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation's
standards for acceptance).
Ms. Imhoff stated that the bond needed to be increased in order to cover the
increased cost of the construction of the road. She also noted that the
County would be able to call the bond if the applicant does not adhere to the
required road improvements.
Mr. Payne ascertained that the applicant was willing to post a bond in the
adequate amount as required by the County.
Mr. Fesler noted that there is currently a bond for road repairs and the
road has not been repaired.
Mr. Payne stated that there is a time limit on the issuance of bonds.
Mr. Fesler asked what happens to road repairs that are incurred during this
time limit, noting that the developer is required to maintain the road until
such time as it is accepted into the state secondary system.
Mr. Payne ascertained that there was a covenant in the chain of title where
by the developer binds himself to maintain the road until accepted by the state.
Mr. Payne explained to Mr. Fesler and other adjacent owners the obligations
that Mr. Helm was under when he posts a bond. He also explained that the
Director of Planning is aware that time is critical and that the date for this
bond should be kept to a reasonable minimum.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the applicant was sent a letter on January 5, 1981,
stating that the bond needed to be increased.
Mr. Bowerman explained to the Commissioners that at the site review meeting
the County Engineer stated that the applicant had been un-cooperative in
bringing the road up to standards required by the Highway Department, noting
that this is why the road had not been accepted into the state secondary system.
qy
Mr. Gloeckner stated that a condition of approval could read:
"the road in Section I is to be bought up to state standards before
a grading permit for Section III is issued."
Mrs. Diehl noted that one of the condition: of approval for Windrift
Section III, Preliminary Plat was for a soil scientist report to be submitted
to the Commission before final plat approval. She noted that the soil scientist
report had not been received and expressed her desire to review the report as
this property is located within the watershed.
Mr. Greene stated that the question concerning the final level of the Buck
Mountain Creek reservoir had to be addressed which had left insufficient time
to stake the lots and road as required by the soil scientist.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if a condition of approval was added to read:
"no grading permit to be issued until all conditions have been met, including
health department approval" this would guarantee that health department approval
had been received prior to any construction.
Mr. Davis moved for deferral until the soil scientist report requested in
preliminary plat approval for Windrift Section III has been submitted to
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was a sixty (60) day time limit by which the
application had to be acted upon, measured from the date of submission, which was
December 26, 1980.
Mitchell Toms, representing the applicant, stated that there were sixteen
(16) sites selected for soil testing, all above the flood plain. He also
stated that normal health department approval is needed, noting that the
applicant can show that they meet these requirements.
Mrs. Diehl explained to Mr. Toms that the soil scientist report was
required as part of the approval of Windrift Section III Preliminary Plat.
Mr. Toms stated that the reason this report. was not submitted was because
it was not determined what would be allowable with the buffer zone as far as
the design of the lots.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the applicant should obtain the soils scientist report
and health department approval before coming to the Commission for final
approval.
Mrs. Diehl asked Dr. Helm if he was willing to waive the sixty (60) day
requirement.
Dr. Helm replied "yes."
Mr. Davis reiterated his motion for deferral adding:
"to be heard by the Commission no later than March 24, 1981."
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Carrie Lou Lamb Preliminary Plat - located off the end of Route 769, southeast
of Route 20 North; a proposal to divide one 2.0 acre parcel leaving 8.22 acres
in residue. Rivanna District (Tax Map 62, parcel 87).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, explained that the purpose of
submitting a preliminary rather than a final plat was due to his concern
whether the Planning Commission would approve a division on a 20' right-of-way.
He noted that there was no feasible way to widen this existing right-of-way.
He questioned whether a private street commercial entrance is required, noting that
this is an extension off of state road 769.
Mrs. Diehl asked why the applicant is requesting a waiver of the maintenance
agreement.
Mr. Foster replied that the road would only serve one parcel. He also
noted that the difficulty in trying to obtain an agreement with the adjacent
property owners.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Davis inquired if condition #a of the staff's recommended conditions of
approval (compliance with the technical requirements of Section 18-52 of the
Subdivision Ordinance) listed all the technical requirements needed.
Ms. Imhoff replied that this technical information was requested at the site
review meeting and no revisions had been received for this plat.
Mr. Davis inquired if this plat should show the breakdown of allowable divisions.
Ms. Imhoff stated that assignment of division rights would be required on the
final plat.
Mr. Foster asked if the Commission could allow the staff to handle the final plat as
an administrative approval, after all the technical requirements of the preliminary
plat have been met.
Mrs. Diehl asked if Mr. Roosevelt was familiar with this plat.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he did not know if the entrance was on the state road.
and noted that there was a potential of five (5) lots which could use this
private right-of-way. He also pointed out that improvements at the connection
with Rt. 769 would be needed for example additional widening, etc.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. Compliance with the technical requirements of Section 18-52 of the
Subdivision Ordinance;
b. Health Department approval prior to the Planning Commission review
of the final plat;
C. County Engineer approval of the road specifications for the end
of Route 769 to parcel A;
Ro
d. Virginia Department of Highways & 'Transportation approval of a
private street commercial entrance at the end of Route 769.
2. Waiver of a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned if the Commission had the authority to grant administra-
tive approval of the final plat.
Mr. Payne replied that the Commission has granted administrative approval of plats
in extenuating circumstances, noting that in his opinion this was questionable.
Mrs. Diehl recommended adding to the conditions for approval the following:
e. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement.
Mr. Kindrick seconded Mr. Gloeckners motion for approval with the conditions
of the staff and adding "County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement."
The vote was unanimous for approval.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. (Copy of report attached).
The following is a list of statements and concerns stated by both
the public and the Commissioners, with regard to the attached report.
Mr. Skove ascertained that Section 5.3.2.2 applies only in a mobile home park.
Mr. Gloeckner recommended that Section 10.3.1 remain as currently stated in the
ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could recommend that the ordinance be
amended excluding Section 10.3.1.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment.
Mrs. Graves questioned the wording of Section 4.14.8 of the staff report,
stating that "future" in her opinion would mean anyone who occupies an
industrial zoned parcel.
Mr. Payne stated that prior to occupancy of the premises, one must submit a
certified engineers report. He noted that the change in this section requires
an engineers report only if requested by the County Engineer.
Mrs. Diehl questioned if the County Engineer had a set of guidelines he
follows in determining whether an engineer's report is needed.
Mr. Keeler replied that this is outlined in the ordinance.
With no further comment from the public Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearings
S°7
M
Mr. Gloeckner reiterated that Section 10.3.1 should remain as currently
stated in the ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if there was an acreage figure for Section 10.3.1.
Mr. Payne stated that as this section of the ordinance is written now, one
could have six (6) lots including residue. With the recommended change one
could have only five (5) lots including residue, unless the residue was over
twenty-one (21) acres.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that in order to have six (6) parcels one must have thirty-
one (31) acres, divided into five (5) two acre lots with a twenty-one (21) acre
tract residue. As this section is written now one could have five (5) two
acre lots with residue of any size as long as the residue is greater than
two (2) acres.
Mr. Gloeckner also stated that he felt the change in Section 10.3.1 allowed
no lattitude for any existing tracts with this type of deferential.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Gloeckner why he felt that six lots is more appropriate
than five lots.
Mr. Gloeckner replied that six lots allowed for more latitude.
Mr. Payne noted that the change in Section 10.3.1 was in the residue. He also
noted that the difference in residue was between ten (10) and thirty-one (31)
lots.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the change in Section 10.3.1 precludes anyone from
dividing anything more than twenty-one (21) acres.
Mr. Payne noted that the way this section is now written the exemption is for
twenty-one (21) parcels, if when the twenty-one (21) acre parcel is created
all the parcels created are twenty-one (21) acres.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Board intended for the residue to be greater
than twenty-one (21) acres.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that in the opinion of Mr. Payne the language as
written for Section 10.3.1. was not written by the suggested revision and
would be difficult to enforce.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that this Section 10.3.1 is best stated as currently
written.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the following:
98
1) Section 4.6.1--LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS
Lot width shall be measured at the building setback line, and shall be the
same in dimension as required frontage for the district in which such lot
is located.
2) Section 4.11.2--R EESSeRY-BHILBINGS STRUCTURES IN REQUIRED YARDS
No portion of any accessory building structure shall be permitted in any
required yard; provided -however; -that except as herein expressly provided:
(NOTE: Additional wording of this section has been made new section as follc.7s.)
4.11.2.1 If no utility or drainage easements or other easements are
adversely affected, accessory buildings structures or portions thereof may
be erected no closer than five (5) feet to adjacent lot lines in the case
of detached buildings structures, or to a common wall in the case of attached
buildings structures; but provided further that no such building structure
shall be located within any yard required by section 4.6.3.
Section 4.8:4 - (Entire section to be repealed and readopted as section
4.11.2.2 with the same wording.)
4.11.2.2 PUBLIC TELEPHONE BOOTHS
Public telephone booths may be located within required yards, but no closer
to _any _street th.,n the existing right-of-way line. or right-of-way reservation
line, provided t,,at:
A. Su h b__oot_hs rlial.t be equip}red for emergency :service to the public without
B. The loe ition of evory Ixxoth shell ile detormin(•d by the Zoni.nq Administr,:t.Or
to ensure that the same will not adversely affect the safety of the
adjacent highway;
C. Every such booth shall be subject to relocation, at the expense of the
owner, whenever such relocation shall be determined by the Zoning
Administrator to be reasonably necessary to protect the public health,
safety and welfare or whenever the same shall be necessary to accommodate
the widening of the adjacent highway.
4.8.5 - FENCES, MAILBOXES, AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES (This section to be repealed
and readopted as section 4.11.2.3 but with the amended wording as set out below.)
4.11.2.3 FENCES, MAILBOXES, AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES
Fences, free-standing mail and/or newspaper boxes, signs advertising sale or
rent of the property, and shelters for school children travelling to and from
school shall be permitted in all districts and shall be exempt from all set-
back and yard requirements except as otherwise provided in section 4.4. For
the purposes of this section, the term "fence" shall be deemed to include
free-standing walls enclosing yards and other uncovered areas.
9
3) Section 4.12.6.6.2, subsection (qq): Amend as follows:
C.,
-Testing, Repairing, Cleaning, Servicing of Material, Goods or Products:.
One (1) space per two (2) employees on the main shift, plus one.(1) space per
each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area open to the public, for
customer parking, but in all cases a minimum of two-(2) customer parking spaces.
4) Section 4.14.8 CERTIFIED ENGINEER REPORT SUBMITTAL
Each future occupant of an industrial character shall submit, to as required
by the County Engineer, as a part of final site development plan approval,
a certified engineer's report.....
Section 26.7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Each future occupant of an industrial character shall comply with standards
set forth in section 4.1.4 and submit, to as required by the County Engineer,
as a part of final site development plan approval, a certified engineer's
report....
Section 5.2.1 CLEARANCE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED
Except as herein provided, no home occupation shall be extablished without
approval of the Zoning Administrator. Upon receipt of a request to establish
a home occupation, Class B, the Zoning Administrator shall refer the same to
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for approval of entrance
facilities. In -addition and the Zoning Administrator shall determine the
adequacy of existing parking for such use. No such clearance shall be issued
for any home occupation, Class B, except after compliance with section 5.2.3
hereof.
Section 10.2.2 - Add public garage by special use permit in the RA zone.
Section 15.3 - Delete minimum lot size and minimum frontage requirements
in the R-4 district as was done in R-6 and others.
Section 26.5 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS
Section-i6-5-}--a---Por-indastria}-ases;-one-{}}-parking-spaee-sha}}-be
provided- for -each -employee -on- the -me or-mark-shi€t--
b---Per-of€ice-uses; -ene-{}}-par}�ing-spaee-shall-lie-previeleel-€er-eael�-t3�ree
3�tugdred-sedenty-€ive-{3�5}-square-€eet-ef-net-€leer-area-
e---Par-eemmereial -uses , -one -{1}-pa rking- spa ee -shall -be -provided-€er-eaeh
ex+plopee-and-{1}-parking-spaee-shall-be-pray*ideel-€er-eael�-twe-hr�xdred-{288}
square-€eet-e€-net-€leer-area.--
Seetion-2675-r,?. All other off-street parking and all off-street loading
space requirements shall be in accordance with section 4.12.
Section 5.3.2.2 Mobile home lots served by either a central water or
sewerage system shall consist of thirty-tl�et�saxd-{38;8A8} forty thousand
(40,000) square feet or more and shall have a width of•one hundred (100)
feet or more.
Section 5.3.2.3. Mobile home lots served by neither a central water or sewerage
system shall consist of forty-tkousamd-{487888} sixty thousand (60,000) square
feet or more and shall have a width of one hundred thirty (130) feet or more.
/ ♦ y.1
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion of Mr. Gloeckners which carried unanimously.
Mr. Skove moved to defer Section 10.3.1 which reads as follows:
13) Section 10.3.1 Regulations in section 10.5 governing development by right
shall apply to the division of a parcel into szx-�6}-er-ewEr-lets-er-paeels--_
}xe}nding-a}}--resi�ine-pereels five (5) or fewer lots of less than twenty-one
(21) acres in area and to the location of six-46} five (5) or fewer dwelling
units on any parcel in existence at the time of adoption of this ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman seconded this motion which carried unanimously.
Mrs. Diehl stated that at the next Planning Commission meeting (February 24)
the Commission would review the annual report submitted by Mr. Skove.
The Commission adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
4
i
Be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
proposes to amend the Albemarle County Zoning ordinance as relates to the
following:
1) Section 4.5.1--LOT WIDTH MEASUREMENTS
Lot width shall be measured at the building setback line-
and shall be the same in dimension as required frontage
for the district in which such lot is located.
•2) Section 4.11.2--AG GESSGRY-PUILBINGS STRUCTURES IN
REQUIRED YARDS
No portion of any 'accessory building structure shall
be permitted in any required yard; ppev ded-hewever -that
except as herein expressly provided: (Note: Additional
wording of this section has been made new section as follows.).
4.11.2.1 If no utility or drainage easements or other
easements are adversely affected, accessory btu=ldings
structures or portions thereof may be erected no closer
than five .(5) feet to adjacent lot lines in the case of
detached buildings structures, or to a common wall in the
case of attached.b_!-Idings structures; but provided further
that ne-suek ildin shall-be-leeated-with=n-any-yap-
c tit( .,C- required-b eeb1en-4-6-3 .d se-b
rrSection 4.8.4 - (Entire section to be repealed and
<' Fi readopted as section 4.11.2.2 with the same wording.)
4.11.2.2 PUBLIC TELEPHONE BOOTHS
Public telephone booths may be located within required yards,
but no closer to any street than the existing rift -of -way
line or right-of-way reservation line, provided that:
A. Such booths shall be equipped for emergency service to
the public without prior payment;
B. The location of every booth shall be determined bit the
Zoning Administrator to ensure that the same will not adversel.v
affect, the safoty of the adjacent hi r'rway;
C. Every
such booth
shall be
subject
to relocation, at the
expense of
the owner,
whenever
such relocation shall be
dot oriilxiod
by the uoninf;
Administr itor
to be reap onabl,y
necessary
to protect
the public
health,
safety and welfare
t
on
shall
or whenever the same/be necessary to accommodate the
widening of the adjacent highway.
4.8.5 - FENCES, MAILBOXES, AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES (This
section to be repealed and readopted as section 4.11.2.3 but
with the amended wording as set out below.)
4.11.2.3 FENCES, MAILBOXES, AND SIMILAR STRUCTURES
Fences, free-standing mail and/or newspaper boxes, signs
advertising sale or rent of the property, and shelters for
school ch:Ldren travelling to and from school shall.be
permitted in all districts and shall be exempt from all
setback and yard requirements except as otherwise provided
in section 4.4. For the purposes of this section, the term
'fence" shall be deemed to include free-standing walls
enclosing yards and other uncovered areas.
3) Section 4.12.6.6.2, subsection (qq): Amend as follows:
-Testing, Repairing, Cleaning, Servicing o*_'�' Material2Goods
or Products: One .(1) space per two (2) employees on the maim
shift, plus one (1) space per each five hundred (500) square
feet of floor area open to the public, for customer parking,
but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer parking spaces.
4) Section 4.14.8 CERTIFIED ENGINEER REPORT SUBMITTAL
-Each future occupant of an industrial character shall submit,
to as required by the County Engineer, as a part of final site
development plan approval, a certified engineer's report. . .
Section 26.7 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Each future occupant of an industrial character shall comply
with standards set forth in section 4.1.4 and submit, to
as required by the County Engineer, as a part of final site
development plan approval, a certified engineer's report . . . .
5) Section'5.2.1 CLEARANCE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED
Except as herein provided, no home occupation shall be
established without approval of the Zoning -Administrator.
Upon receipt of a request to establish a home occupation,
Class B, the Zoning Administrator shall refer the same to
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for
approval of entrance facilities-r--in-addition and the Zoning
Administrator shall determine the adequacy of existing parking
for such use.' No such clearance shall be issued for any
home occupation, Class B, except after compliance with
section 5.2.3 hereof.
6) Section 10.2.2 - Add public garage by special use permit in
the RA zone.
7) Section 15.3 -Delete minimum ','lot size and minimum frontage
requirements in the R-4 district as was done in R-6 and others.
8) Section 26.5 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS
Feetlen-26v5:1--aT--Fer-1ndastria1-uses,-ene-k14-park1ng-spaee
shall-be-pr.avided-fer-eaeh-empleyee-en-the-majer-werk-shlftT
b:--Fer-e€-elee-uses;-ene-kl4-parking-spaee-shall-be-previded-fer
eaeh-thpee-hundred-seventy-€ive-43794-square-feet-e€-net-€leep
area:
eT--Fer-eerumereial-uses;-ene-kl4-parking-spaee-shall-be-previ6ed
€er-eaeh-empleyee-and-ene-{14-parking-spaee-ehall--be-previded-fer
eaeh-twe-hundred-k2884-square-feet-e€-net-€leer-area.
Seetlen-26T5T2 All @Vb2kr off-street parking and all off-street
loading space requirements shall be in accordance with
section 4.12.
9) Section 5.3.2.2 Mobile home lots served by either a central
water or sewerage system shall consist of th}rty-hessand-39,888�
forty thousand (40,000) square feet or more and shall have a.
width of one hundred 100) feet or more.
Section 5.3.2.3 Mobile home lots served by neither a central
water or sewerage system shall consist of €erty-thousand-;4GTQQ84
sixty thousand (60,000) square feet or more and shall have a
wiatih_of one hundred thirty (130) feet or more.
10); Section 10.3.1 Regulations in section 10.5 governing development
1by right shall apply to the division of a parcel into s;-*464-er
€ewer-lets-e-pareels-inelading-all-residue-pareels five (5) or
fewer lots of less than twent.-one (21) acres in area and to
/ the location of BIH e4 five 5 or fewer dwelling units on any
Parcel in existence at the time of adoption of this ordinance.
l0q,