HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 24 81 PC MinutesFebruary 24, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February
24, 1981, Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Norma Diehl, Chairman, David Bowerman,
Vice-Chariman, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. James Skove, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr..
Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney and
Miss Katherine Imhoff, Planner. Absent from the meeting was Mr. Kurt Gloeckner.
Also present was Mr. 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 approved as submitted.
Spring Hill Preliminary Plat - parcels 95 and 96 on tax map 58, Samuel Miller
District; located off the east side of Rt. 786, west of Rt. 637 and south of
Ivy; a proposal to divide 674.67 acres into 16 lots with an average size of
5.81 acres leaving 581.66 acres in residue.
Miss Imhoff presented the staff report.
Will Reiley, representing the applicant, explained to the Commission the reason
they are requesting administrative approval of this plat was because when the
application for preliminary plat and the special use permit was applied for he was
under the impression that this was for the entire process. He also noted that
he felt all the criteria for final approval had been met and any other conditions
required could be confirmed by the staff. He asked that if the Commission
decided this plat could not be approved administratively, would the Commission
please put this on the agenda for March 24, 1981.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Skove inquired if the applicant.had met condition #F (the Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation approval of the location and plans for a private
street commercial entrance) listed in the staff report.
Miss Imhoff replied that the applicant had met this condition, noting however
that the highway department wanted this condition listed in the staff's
recommended conditions of approval because only preliminary entrance approval
had been received from the highway department.
Mr. Skove inquired if the Commission could legally approve the final plat
at this time.
Mr. Payne replied that the Commission had dealt with this before and found
this method of approval inappropriate.
Mrs. Diehl questioned if this plat could be put on the agenda for March 24.
1%aw'
Miss Imhoff replied that this could be put on the agenda for March 24, 1981.
Mr. Bowerman inquired of the applicant why he is requesting a private versus
a public road.
Mr. Reiley stated that with the low density in this area an unpaved road
would 1) have less runoff, and 2) is more appropriate for the low key
development proposed. He noted that the existing driveway is an unpaved
road and that this road meets or exceeds state horizontal and vertical
alignment. He also stated that the road exceeds all the slope requirements
and has been approved by the County Engineer. The paved surface at this time
is the only thing that is below the state specifications. At this time
the applicant wished to leave the road unpaved and treat it as a private road,
noting that it could be paved and deeded to the state at a later date.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the remaining acreage would be developed and if so,
would this road be the access for the remaining acreage.
Mr. Reiley replied that the applicant does plan to develop the remaining
acreage noting that at the time of the development this road would be paved
and deeded to the state.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Skove moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. Note the street name;
b. Add note: "Only one dwelling unit per lot.";
C. Written Health Department approval;
d. Compliance with the private road provisions including County Attorney
approval of a maintenance agreement;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
f. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the
location and plans for a private street commercial entrance.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Wetsel Final Plat - Parcels 24 and 33B, tax map 112, Scottsville District;
located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Rt. 20 South and Rt. 720,
north of Keene. (DEFERRED FROM DECEMBER 18, 1980).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
19
/0�
Mr. Wetsel stated that lots four and five have two hundred and fifty feet of
frontage on Rt. 720 and Rt. 20. He noted that lot number three has a dwelling
' and would not front on Rt. 20.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the lot line which bounds on Rt. 720 will be
carried straight back instead of at an angle.
Mrs. Diehl explained to Mr. Wetsel that the staff was refering to the waiver
of the double frontage requirements for lots four and five, and was not
speaking to any lot line revisions.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the change in the lot lines for parcel three was the only
change.
Miss Caperton replied that this change would add more acreage to lot number
four. She also stated that Mr. Lincoln had checked the site and found that
frontage on Rt. 20 could be eliminated for lot number 3.
Mr. Skove stated that the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance
was up to five lots for administrative approval, noting that a plat such as
this one would not have to have Planning Commission approval in the future.
Mr. Payne stated that this was correct if you eliminated the question of
double frontage. A parcel of less than five acres, fronting on only one road
could be approved administratively.
Mr. Davis moved for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
entrance locations on Rt. 720, including the common entrance
shown on the plat;
b. Staff approval of revisions to the plat to accomodate the
frontage requirements, if needed;
2. Waiver of double frontage requirement for lots 3-5.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Diehl asked if condition #2 (Waiver of double frontage requirement for lots
3-5) should be changed to 4 and 5 rather than 3, 4, and 5.
Miss Caperton stated that the Commission might want to eliminate this
condition because the plat shows lot #3 as having road frontage.
Mr. Payne stated that this condition should remain in the conditions of
approval because it allowed for change by the applicant.
R
Fruit Growers Complex Site Plan - parcel 01-65, tax map 56A(1) and parcel
02-27, tax map 56A(2), located on the north side of Rt. 240 and the east
side of Rt. 810, in Crozet, White Hall District. (DEFERRED FROM JANUARY
20, 1981).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Benjamin Dick, representing the applicant, stated that Fruit Growers was
in agreement with most of the recommendations of staff noting that there
are some conditions to which he would like to speak.
Mr. Dick stated that Fruit Growers has had trouble complying with the
zoning ordinance because of the existing buildings. He also noted the
trouble with parking and noted that a variance was obtained for area
requirements. He noted that one of the conditions of the variance is that
when public sewer is available they will have to hook up to it. Mr. Dick
noted the different uses of the buildings.
With reference to the slope, a large part of the site has been graded
over the years.
Mr. Dick noted that Mr. David Tyler proposes to open a shop area as well as
a retail area for selling of polishes etc., on the second floor. The
remainder of the space will be for storage.
Mr. Dick noted that the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department has a lot which
adjoins the Fruit Growers site and that there would be no problem obtaining
co-operative parking. He also stated that C & O Railway has been contacted
and there would be no problem in obtaining co-operative parking.
Mr. Dick stated that with reference to the storage area, they had contacted
Jesse Hurt, Deputy Zoning Administrator, and the theory behind storage is that
this is not for public use. He noted that all the merchants use this area
for storage and that the public would not have access.to this area.
With reference to Special Use Permit 79-69, Mr. Dick stated that the applicant
is willing to withdraw this if the Commission was concerned about this, noting
however, that the applicant would rather leave this permit open.
Mr. Dick stated that Rt. 240 adjoins the parking lot of the Fruit Growers complex.
He also stated that the applicant is agreeable to the recommendation of the
Highway Department for a controlled entrance, noting that they also favor putting
up a sign stating "No Entrance". with reference to the highway Department's
recommendation that a fifty (50) foot commercial entrance on the eastern end
of the site be installed, they feel this has to be seventy (70) feet in order
to allow for tractor -trailers backing up to the loading dock.
9
/0�
Mr. Dick stated that if the Commission agrees that no parking for storage
space is required and that sixty-seven parking spaces should be provided
on the site, the applicant feels that there would be no problem in obtaining
co-operative parking. He also statedthat they are willing to submit
an agreement for co-operative parking with Crozet Volunteer Fire Department
to the County Attorney.
Mr. Dick stated that with reference to the ownership and or dedication of
right-of-way and parcels shown on the plan, this could be owned by Fruit
Growers or as the staff suggested by C & O. He stated that he had checked
the deed books and had a difficult time finding who owned this, noting that
this should be resolved through title search.
Mr. Dick stated that the health department found that there was a stream
here and that no affluent was going into the stream, so it is the conclusion of the
health department that there must be a septic system in this area. He also
stated that the recommendation of the health department was to dig up the
area where the system is probably located.
Mr. Dick reiterated the conditions in the staff report that the applicant
was in agreement with.
Mr. David Tyler, the applicant, stated that he proposes to condition
re -production furniture and repair antiques. He also will sell wood
working tools and furniture polish. He noted that these will be handmade
items and can't be mass produced because of the time involved.
With no public comment, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Davis questioned if a co-operative parking agreement with the fire
department would restrict their ability to respond to calls.
Mr. Dick replied that the spaces to be used by Fruit Growers were in the rear of
the fire department, and were not used by the fire department at this time.
Mr. Skove stated that he did not understand the proposal before the
Commission and asked what the change is from what is already approved.
Miss Caperton stated that building #6 of Fruit Growers complex has not
been before the Commission, which brings the whole site before the Commission.
The applicant is bringing the whole site in for compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl inquired of Mr. Payne if the variance applied for by the applicant was
for the veterninary office.
Mr. Payne replied that the variance was sought for several uses.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the variance was given for those existing uses and any
subsequent uses, or just for the uses there at that time?
/6y
Mr. Payne replied that the variance was for uses of a retail character
at that location.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if any subsequent uses would be covered by this
variance.
Mr. Payne replied "No,because of the limitations on the variance."
Miss Caperton stated that it was her understanding that the variance
was for the buildings on the parcels.
Mr. Payne stated that the variance was for a specified number of uses
in specified locations.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she did not understand if the variance was given at
that point for the existing uses, why does it cover any subsequent use.
Mr. Payne stated that the variance did not cover any additional uses, but
if the use is of the same character, located in the same place, then this
would be alright.
Mr. Dick explained to the Commission that at the time the variance was
applied for the only septic requirement was for a bathroom for the employees.
He also noted that the Pizza House has its on septic system and the remainder
of Fruit Growers complex is served by this septic system and the unknown
system,refered to earlier. The variance did not contemplate any use other
that what existed.
Mr. Davis stated that he was not in favor of amendment #D of the staff
report (Health Department approval of septic systems and drainfields serving
all uses on the site and note drainfields on the plan). He further stated
that affluent should be stopped before it occured.
Mr. Skove suggested that "if necessary" should be added to condition #C
and #M of the staff report as suggested by Mr. Dick. (Condition #C - Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrances and
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and C & 0 Railroad approval
of commercial entrance where needed). (Condition #M - Compliance with the
Soil Erosion Ordinance.)
Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like to see an evaluation of the whole
complex as far as the health department, drainfields, etc., were concerned.
Mrs. Diehl asked Miss Caperton if the plan before the Commission at this
time was the same as the one reviewed at the Site Review Commitee. She
questioned if any of the suggestions made at the Site Review Committee had
been complied with.
Miss Caperton stated that some of the technical information had been
complied with such as: contours labeled, boundary survery referred to, etc.
She noted that the center line for Rts. 810 and 240, public water line,
drainfield locations which staff had recommended have health department
approval prior to Commission review had not been complied with.
I
/�D
Mr. Skove asked if condition #D (health department approval of septic systems and
drainfields serving all uses on the site and note drainfields on the plan);was a
requirement of the health department.
Miss Caperton stated that when this plat went to site review it was the
understanding of the health department that public sewer was available at this
time, health department approval of the septic systems and drainfields wa
recommended when it was learned that no public sewer was available.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Payne what are the standards of this site are now,
what will the site plan accomplish that can't be done at this time.
Mr. Payne replied that the precipitating cause for a site plan is the new
building, that without a site plan the building can not be occupied. The status
of this plan is non -conforming, noting that if this plan is approved a
number of improvements would be required, such as parking spaces, health
department approval of septic systems, and a controlled entrance.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if these could be expanded in terms of the usage.
Mr. Payne replied that if the number of uses were expanded then additional
parking spaces would be required.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant could submit a site plan only for the
new building.
Mr. Payne replied "no."
Mrs. Diehl asked if it were acceptable to locate a business in a building
without a septic facility.
Miss Caperton stated that this would be a requirement of the health department.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt there was a lack of information needed by the
Commission in order to make a valid decision on this plan. She was concerned
with the following:
• will the site meet the requirements of the health department;
• location and capacity of the septic systems;
• the possibility of a co-operative parking agreement, noting that
no agreement had been reached at this time;
• the location of the boundary lines with reference to Rt. 240 and
C & O Railroad.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to see the following conditions complied
with before Planning Commission approval of this site. He noted that these
conditions were critical in bringing this site in compliance with the ordinance.
• Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
commercial entrances and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
and C & O Railroad approval of commercial entrances where needed;
• Health Department approval of septic systems and drainfields serving
all uses on the site and note drainfields on the plan;
• Note the water lines on the plan;
• Note and record a parking and access easement through the Fire
Department's property. /
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Dick if there would be a problem in complying with
these requirements. 400
Mr. Dick stated that the only requirement he felt there might be some difficulty
with is the right-of-way. He asked the Commission to reschedule this for the
earliest possible hearing if they chose to defer this plan until this information
could be obtained.
Miss Caperton stated that compliance with condition #C (Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrances and Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation and C & O Railroad approval of
commercial entrances where needed) would require the applicant to apply for
a permit from the highway department, noting that the highway department
does not like to issue the permit until the Commission has approved the site.
Miss Caperton further stated that it was her understanding, that the Commission
is concerned with who owns the property.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the ownership of the property is the main concern and
that this requirement should propose no additional burden on the applicant.
Mr. Dick stated that the applicant was not in his opinion, required to
have these conditions complied with prior to Commission review.
Mr. Skove stated that if the Commission is going to require that conditions
be met before Commission review this should be done for all plans, not just
this particular one.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt that the Commission had not reviewed plans
with this much information lacking.
Mr. Bowerman stated that one of the main concerns has been health department
approval. He noted that the Commission has asked for and received approval
from the health department prior to the Commission's review.
Mr. Dick asked the Commission if the applicant could submit all the required
information asked for except health department approval. He stated that
if health department approval was obtained this could be submitted to the
Commission through the Staff.
Mr. Skove stated that health department approval maybe unique on this
particular parcel because of the existing sewer.
Mr. Bowerman moved for deferral of this site plan until the following
conditions have been complied with: (Items C, D, H, and I of the Staff Report)
• Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrances and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and
C & O Railroad approval of commercial entrances where needed; (#C)
• Health Department approval of septic systems and drainfields
serving all uses on the site and note drainfields on the plan; (#D)
• Fire Official approval of hydrant locations, fire flow, provisions
for the handicapped and screening of garbage collections, if needed; (#H)
• Note and record a parking and access easement throught the Fire
Department's property; (#I)
Mr. Bowerman also in his motion suggested deleting condition #2 of the
staff report:
• A waiver of Article 21.7.1 for parking setback is required.
Mrs. Diehl inquired of Mr. Bowerman if in his motion with reference to condition
#C, he only wanted to obtain information needed in starting the process.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to see enough information submitted so
that a determination can be made as to where the property lines are located and
who owns the property.
Mr. Skove asked Miss Caperton when this could be heard by the Commission again.
Miss Caperton replied March 17, 1981.
Mr. Bowerman added to his motion for deferral "to be deferred to March 17, 1981."
Mr. Skove seconded the motion for deferral until March 17, 1981.
The vote was unanimous for deferral.
Stuard R. Wood, Jr., Final Plat - located off the west side of Route 29
North (southbound lane), north of Route 631 (.Rio Road); proposed division
of one 2.0 acre parcel leaving 10+ acres residue, Charlottesville District
(TM: 45, parcel 112D(1)).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Wood stated that with reference to a maintenance agreement, there will be
no more traffice involved, and that there is currently a verbal agreement.
Mrs. Diehl explained that the advantage to having a written maintenance agreement
is that with any new subsequent divisions the new property owners can be included
in the maintenance agreement without any problems.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Wood if the old roadway shown on the plat connects with
the road on his property.
Mr. Wood replied that this roadway was against the property line.
�i'3
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that one could get to Mr. Wood's property from this
roadway.
Mr. Skove moved for approval subject to the following condition:
1. The plat will be signed when the following condition has been met:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for all
parcels using the road, if possible.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Webb Final Plat - located off the east side of Route 692 south of Route 637;
proposed division of a 15.0 acre parcel leaving 49.1 acres residue. Samuel
Miller District. (TM 71, portion of parcel 27).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl questioned what the exchange would be with reference to conditon
l.b. of the staff report. (b. Change the note on the assignment of property
rights).
Miss Caperton stated that the 15 acre parcel would have one development right
with a residue of three acres.
Mr. Webb stated that his residence already existed on this fifteen acre parcel,
noting that he wanted to subdivide this for his children who will also establish
residence here. He also stated that a maintenance agreement was being drawn
up at this time.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if there was any public comment.
Mr. Langman stated that he owned the land where the easement is located.
He noted that he has not been contacted by the Webb's in reference to a maintenance
agreement. Mr. Langman also stated that the Webb's do not use this easement
and in the past have made no effort to maintain the easement.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Langman if he used this road.
Mr. Langman stated that he had re -seeded this area in grass to help avoid erosion
problems, noting that he only used this road in order to get to his farm
animals. He also stated that the Webb's have a right-of-way which enters onto
Route 637, which in his opinion is the ideal place for the right-of-way because
the land is level compared to the entrance on Route 692.
lIq
Mrs. Diehl asked Miss Caperton if she had any comment from the County Engineer
concerning this road.
Miss Caperton replied "no."
Mrs. Diehl asked what the typical requirement from the County Engineer would
be for a road such as this.
Miss Caperton replied that all roads for less than six (6) lots are subject to
the County Engineeils approval, noting that there are no standards for this. Miss
Caperton stated that a typical recommendation might be that the road should be
ten (10) feet wide with three (3) inches of stone for two parcels.
Mr. Webb stated that he did not plan on using this road for two or three years,
noting that he could not obtain a right-of-way from his father because it would
be too close to the house causing a decrease in the retail value of his home.
He stated that he did plan to enter from this right-of-way and stated that
he would like to keep right-of-way for future use.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman stated if the requirements of the County Engineer are not met,
noting that the applicant would not use this road for three years, then the
plat could not be signed. If this can not be put to record what is the solution?
Miss Caperton stated this could be bonded.
Mr. Payne stated that it was unfeasible to have a bond for three years for a road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant was aware of this.
Mr. Webb stated that he was not aware of this, noting that if this is a condition
then he will have to comply at this time in order to put this plat to record.
Mr. Skove inquired as to how long the applicant could wait befor meeting
all of the conditions.
Mr. Payne stated that there was no time limit as such but these conditions
would have to be met before this could be put to record.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the time limit if for recording a plat.
Mr. Payne state3there was no time limit unless the plat is signed.
Mr. Payne explained to the applicant that this plat could be approved with
the recommended conditions of the staff. He noted that one of these conditions
requires some improvements to the road. These conditions can either be met or
bonded, noting that a bond for three years is unfeasible and would not be
approved.
Mr. Webb inquired what the average time is for a bond of this nature.
Mr. Payne stated that the average time for a bond of this nature is one year.
Mr. Payne stated that a deed could not be obtained until this plat has
been signed and put to record. After the plat has been signed the applicant
has six (6) months to put this to record.
Mr. Webb stated that if he understood this he could post a bond for six (6)
months and preceed with getting the deed and other paper work accomplished,
as long as the remainder of this work was bonded.
Mr. Payne stated this was correct and pointed out to Mr. Webb if he did
not complete the work within the time limit of the bond he could loose the
money involved.
Mr. Skove moved for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of the road;
2) County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement;
b. Change the note on the assignment of property rights.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Hydraulic Road Garden Court Townhouses Site Plan - located on the southeast
side of Hydraulic Road (Route 743), south of the intersection with Rio Road
(Route 631); proposal to locate 53 townhouse units on a 4.307 acre parcel
with a density of 12.3 units per acre. Charlottesville District, (TM 61,
parcel 13).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Browne, the architect for this project, explained to the Commission
the design of the buildings. Mr. Browne stated that he had worked with the
highway department on the right-of-way and they have allowed one hundred
and fifty foot (150') decel lane. He also noted that in the event that the
highway department should abandon this right-of-way he felt that the Condominium
Association should be allowed to obtain this property.
With no comment from the public Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Skove inquired if condition #F of the staff report was going to be built
to state standards. (CONDITION #F - the maintenance of roads, parking areas,
open space, recreational areas, drainage and appurtenant structures shall be
conducted by the homeowner's association).
Miss Caperton replied that this would not be built to state standards because the
state would not allow varkina off the travelway.
Mrs. Diehl asked what size of recreational area is required for a
development of this type.
Miss Caperton statedthat the requirement is for fifty (50) square feet per unit.
She also noted that the size was dependent on how this was approved, such as
fifty square feet for playgrounds per unit or passive and active recreational
space. / /�
Mrs. Diehl asked if there is a bonus for pedestrian walkways.
Miss Caperton replied that there is a bonus which is 5% amounting to over
two units.
Mrs. Diehl asked for the location of these pathways.
Mr. Browne stated that it is just a matter of moving the paths around, noting
that this becomes more of a garden area. He also stated that he did not plan
to put in a tot lot but if this was required it could be done in another area,
he would like to keep this area as adult open common area. He also noted
that the highway department liked the one way movement of traffic.
Mrs. Diehl stated that it was her impression that bonuses for pedestrian
walkways was for when there was an extensive system that more or less connected
area within an area. She noted that she could not collaborate the bonuses for
a pedestrian walkway with the walkway thru this landscape area.
Mr. Browne stated that he thought this was a different type of recreational area.
Mrs. Diehl stated that if the ordinance requires a recreational area, she does
not understand the rational for getting a bonus to put a walkway in this area.
Mr. Browne stated that he would have to submit a detailed landscape plan to
the staff for their approval.
Mrs. Diehl stated that Mr. Browne had mentioned that there would be solar, but
had not mentioned what would be solar.
Mr. Browne stated that solar water will be built into the roof.
Mrs. Diehl stated that there were few solar units aligned with the large
wall to the south.
Mr. Browne stated that if one considered the design of the unit with a slab
at the lower level, this slab will warm up and is obviously the best way for these
to be pointed is due south.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission should determine whether this
should be active or passive recreation, or both.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she liked the idea of a garden area, noting that active
playground equipment could damage this area. She stated her concern for the
location of the tot lot.
Mr. Browne stated that there was available space for the tot lot.
Mr. Skove stated that he would like to re-examine the bonuses for pathways
at a later date.
117
Mr. Davis moved for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Building permits will be issued when the following conditions have
been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the
commercial entrance;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
C. Compliance with the stormwater detention provisions;
d. Staff approval of landscaping plan which shall comply with Article
17.5.1 and Article 32.0 of the Zoning Ordinance;
e. Dedication of 25 feet from the center line of Rt. 743 by separate
deed or plat (if property is not needed by the Virginia Department
of highways & Transportation, it is understood that it may revert to
the condoi«ildLua assuciation with Highway Department approval) ;
f. The maintenance of roads, parking areas, open space, recreational areas,
fire hydrant, drainage and appurtenant structures shall be conducted by
the homeowner's association;
g. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
h. Staff approval of recreational facilities (active and passive);
i. Provide pedestrian walkways apart from vehicular rights of way for
staff approval;
j. Only these areas where buildings, roads, utilities, or other improvements
are to be located shall be disturbed; all other areas shall remain in
a natural state;
2. Certificates of occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have
been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow;
b. Subdivision approval for the condominium regime to include:
1) homeowner's agreement;
3. Trees shall be maintained within the 20 foot rear yards whrer possible,
or the provision of new trees if a significant amount are lost during grading
and construction.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he favored active recreational area leaving the open
space in the center for the adults. He noted that the staff could allow less than
fifty feet per unit for the active area by allowing part of the center area to
be passive recreational area.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Diehl stated that with reference to the passive recreational space being
available in the garden area, this seems to be giving a bonus for providing the
area and then using this area to satisy the recreational requirements.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt that both the County and the residents would
benefit from the bounus.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
J/z
Buck Mountain Subdivision - Request to relocate driveway for lot 28.
Miss Caperton stated that the plat was approved by the Planning Commission
in January 1980 and signed in May of 1980. She noted that the plat was
approved and signed with the joint entrance between lots 28 and 29. The
applicant is requesting a separate access for lot #28, the access for lot
#29 would remain as the shared entrance because this is the best location for
this access. Miss Caperton noted that since the Planning Commission approved
this plat with the joint entrance shown on it, the Commission must approve
the amendment to the plat.
Mr. Clark, representing the applicant stated that lot #28 is a nice lot for
a residence, and that lot #29, in his opinion would not be sold for building
purposes because of the deep ditches, drainage problems, etc. He stated that
the shared entrance detracts from lot #28.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Davis asked if lot #30 had been sold.
Mr. Clark replied that lot #30 had not been sold, noting that lot #29 in the
future might be added to lot #28 or lot #30 as additional area.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Clark if he had any objection to a shared entrance between
lot #29 and lot #30 so that the number of entrances would not be increased.
Mr. Clark stated that he had no objection to this, but in his opinion because
of visability the highway department would not approve this.
Mr. Bowerman moved to approve the request to relocate the driveway for lot #28.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL FEE FOR DEFERRED ITEMS:
Miss Caperton asked if the Commission could require additional fees for
notification to adjacent owners on items which are deferred several times.
Mr. Payne replied that the statute permits requiring additional fees for
newspaper ads, etc., but the ordinance does not provide for this. He further
stated that the ordinance might be amended to speak to this, but he has not
reviewed this.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the only alternative would be to deny the deferral.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance could be amended in the fee section if
you get an idea of how often this occurs.
Mrs. Graves stated that if the Director of Planning certified that the letters
had been mailed from the Planning Department, this would be acceptable and
site plans could be sent via regular mail.
Miss Caperton pointed out that the cost of certified mail is $1.40 per letter.
Mr. Skove inquired as to why this could not be sent via regular mail.
Miss Caperton stated that the ordinance requires site plans to be sent
certified.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Commissioners's should think about this and that
they might have to speak to this again at a later date.
Discussion of Planning Commission's review of the University of Virginia
Medical Center Relocation Staff Report:
Mr. Tucker stated that the members of the Commission received a staff report
on the relocation of the medical center in last week's packet. He stated
that the Board of Supervisors would like the Planning Commission to review
this report and submit their recommendations to them.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Commission had several alternatives which are as
follows:
1) to hold a work session and review the staff report;
2) to hold a public hearing giving the public a chance to speak.
Mr. Tucker noted that if the Commission chose to hold a public hearing, the
Board of Supervisors has indicated that they would like to be made aware of
this so that they could attend the hearing.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission at this time was discussing the
two alternatives given by Mr. Tucker not the staff report itself.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he favors a public hearing, he was concerned if
the Univiersity would participate.
Mr. Tucker stated that if the Commission requested someone from the University
be in attendance, in his opinion they would comply with the request.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt there would be more participation in a work
session opened to the public.
Mr. Tucker stated that as he understood this, the University hired a consultant
to prepare the plan which we are reviewing at this time. The University has
hired a second consultant to review the plan submitted by the first consultant,
noting that they are looking for comments from the County.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission would not hold a second work
session after the second consultant's report, but hopefully some of the material
submitted by the Commission could be included in the consultant's report.
Mr. Skove stated that he favored getting public input in something of this
magnitude.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he also favored getting public input especially
if the comments submitted by the Commission have a chance of being incorporated
in the consultant's reconsideration of the plan.
/ZO
Mrs. Diehl stated that the only advantage to holding a work session would be
the University personnel involved would be more likely to participate. She
asked Mr. Tucker if he felt the Board of Supervisors would hold a public hearing
if the Commission chose to hold a work session.
Mr. Tucker replied that he thought the Board of Supervisors would hold a
public hearing.
Mr. Davis stated that past public hearings with the University have not
been very successful.
Mr. Kindrick asked what time frame the Board of Supervisors is asking of the
Commission.
Mr. Tucker stated as soon as possible, because the University is in the process
of hiring another consultant and their review should start soon.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he favored a public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman stated that at public hearings, issues that might be overlooked
in a work session are explored.
Mr. Skove stated that he favored having a public hearing and then have a
work session, if necessary.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the City plans to hold any hearings.
Mr. Tucker stated that he thought that the City has already held some
informal meetings.
Mr. Skove stated that it might be possible to hold a joint meeting with the
City on this.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the only concern she has with that is that it would
be difficult to center in on the County's concerns over impacts on the Blue
Ridge site.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was a concensus of what type meeting to hold.
Mr. Skove recommended holding a public hearing, and decide after this hearing
whether a work session is necessary.
The recommendation of Mr. Skove was the unanimous feeling of the Commission.
Mr. Tucker suggested the following dates for a public hearing:
March 10, March 24, March 31.
Mr. Tucker noted that this will be advertised as a public hearing.
The Commission chose to hold the public hearing on March 10.
Mr. Tucker stated that he will notify the University that the Commission would
like to have someone attend the public hearing.
Mr. Tucker stated that a copy of the initial consultant's report was available
in the Planning Department.
121
Adoption of a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
provide for an Airport Master Plan element.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Airport Master Plan has been completed and the
Staff has reviewed this plan and made a report. He noted that the Commission
may want to review the report prepared by the Staff before adopting a
resolution.
Mr. Tucker stated that he felt that whenever there is a planning document
relating to County activities it should be made a part of the overall plan
for the County.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the Commission would review the Airport Master Plan
at this time.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Staff has prepared a report summarizing the
Airport Master Plan which will be submitted to the Commission for their
review.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to provide for this development was required at this time.
Mr. Skove stated that he felt that this plan should be reviewed and if possible
made a part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. He was concerned about the
possibility of a conflict in the Airport's plan and the requirements of
our Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tucker stated that this could be adopted as a separate plan as the
"County's Airport Master Plan." He also noted that the City will be
reviewing the plan also.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if there was an advantage on incorporating this into
the Comprehensive Plan rather than adopting it as a separate plan.
Mr. Tucker stated that if incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan it would
have more authority.
Mr. Payne stated that in his opinion this could be adopted except for
certain sections which the Commission might want to delete. If the Airport
wanted to implement a section deleted by the Commission, they would have to
come before the Commission for review.
Mr. Skove moved to adopt the resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan to provide for an Airport Master Plan element.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
1980 Annual Report from the Planning Commission:
Mrs. Diehl stated that this is the report prepared by Mr. Skove, and given
to the Commissioners for their review at the last meeting.
9
/ZZ
Mr. Tucker suggested the following change:
Change Capital Investment Plan to Capital Improvement Program.
Mrs. Diehl stated that it was her impression that the review of the
Comprehensive Plan would begin this year and suggested that this section
be re -worded.
Mrs. Diehl stated that this report is something that is stated in the Code
of Virginia and she felt it was a good idea and should be submitted to the
Board of Supervisors.
**A COPY OF THE 1980 ANNUAL REPORT IS ATTACHED.
GENERAL DISCUSSION:
Mr. Bowerman stated that he had been contacted by Mrs. Huckle of the League
of Women Voters, she stated that the League was concerned that there was a
lack of communication between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Staff.
Mrs. Diehl stated that it was her impression that it has been the policy of
the Commission in the past to not get directly involved with any particular
organization.
Mr. Payne stated that this was the practice in the past and it is best to
continue this practice, noting that it would be difficult to meet with one
group and not give the same consideration to another group.
Mr. Bowerman stated that in his opinion it was not the proper form to conduct
County business outside the confines of the Commission or the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would review the report prepared by the League
and report back to the Commission.
PRIVATE ROADS:
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the Commission should hold a work session
concerning private roads.
Mrs. Diehl stated that this was on the agenda for March 31.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Staff had prepared a report concerning private
roads, which was submitted to the Commission in December. He noted that this
was discussed but no resolution was derived.
Mrs. Diehl stated that this was a statistical report showing the number of
private roads which had been divided.
Mr. Skove stated that he would like to see some direct input from
the highway department concerning private roads. He also noted that
the Division of Forestry has some difficulty with private roads. Also
some input from the Housing Coordinator.
Mr. Payne that the Commission might consider the private sector, such as
a realtor or a banker. Noting that a banker might have some suggestions
as to how much money would be available for private roads versus public roads.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the Staff could contact the various organizations
mentioned and prepare a report to be presented to the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she was concerned with contacting only a few select
groups because this would cause other agencies to question why there comments
were not called for.
Mr. Tucker ascertained that the Commission wanted him to contact the
Highway Department, Division of Forestry, Housing Coordinator, County Engineer,
for their comments.
Mr. Skove stated that there was information available from other Counties
showing their position.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like to review this information.
The Commission adjounred at 10:25 p.m.
t W. Tucker, Jr., Sec
ZN
1980 ANNUAL REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
l
The Code of Virginia states that local planning commissions shall make
recommendations and an annual report to the governing body concerning the
operation of the cc.-nission and the stutus of planning within the jurisdiction.
f
The report is a brief summary of what the Albemarle County Planning Commission
has done in the last year and some of the planning problems which will. be
addressed in the future.
II. 1980 ACTIVITIES
A. Work Load During 1980 the Planning Commission was heavily engaged in
examining and reviewing current development within.the county. The Commission
met 45 times for an average of.three to four hours per meeting. The Commis-
sion considered the following types of actions:
Zoning Map Amendments 27
Zoning Text Amendments 10
Site Plans 63
Subdivisions 161
In addition to curiant development activities listed above, the Commission
devoted several meetings to such matters as consideration of the county
recreation plan and to the capital improvement plan.
B. Meeting Schedule The Commission held several special meetings, but for
the most part was able to meet its work load at the regularly scheduled
Tuesday evening meetings. There were no problems with the timing or location
of meetings.
C. Personnel and Organization The size of the Commission was reduced from
nine members in 1979 to eight members in 1980 and to seven members in 1981.
1980 . ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNITG COMMISSION
Page 2
The reductions were made by eliminating two seats which were traditionally
filled "at large," leavini one member from each of the six magisterial
districts and one "at large."
There were no ghanges in the organization of the Commission..
D. Expenses The Commission does not have a separate budget. Salary payments
to the eight members totaled $19,200. Other expenses are included in the
budget of the planning departm::nt and are not individually identified, as
they were either minimal or nonexistent.
III. PLANNING PROBLEMS
Albemarle County has most of the planning tools such as a Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Capital Improvement Plan which are
traditionally used for land use planning. In addition there are.special ordi-
nances for such problems as storm water runoff in the urban and reservoir areas.
The challenge for the.future will be in making sure the existing ordinances and
plans are both current and working together, as well as anticipating long-term
problems.
A. Zoning The Commission was not actively engaged in the review of the new
zoning ordinance in 1980. However, it is likely that some difficulties with
the text or with the administration will become apparent as the Commission
works with the new ordinance in 1981. When sufficient experience has been
accumulated, the Commission will make recommendations for appropriate amend-
ments.
B. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in September, 1977.
The Commission intends to start the State -mandated review process this year
for action by September, 1982. Detailed results of the 1980 census should
IZ(,
1980 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 3
be available in 1961 and will1be used during
the Plan review. While an
ture at this time, the Commission
overall review of the plan -may be Prema
will identify some specific areas of the Plan which should be reviewed in
view of the Plan.
depth and establiSjz a mechanism for re
Ar C. Subdivision Ordinance
The Subdivision Ordinance is due for an overall
review. The Commission will review the problem of private roads and
roads built to Virginia
recommend amendments concerning when and where
Department of Highways and Transportation standards will be required.
Capital Improvement
ital Improvement Plan Commission review of the
D. Cap but is still superficial. An
Plan has had more depth in'recent years,
ful, especially of
effort will be made to make Commission review more meaning ents such as utilities,T
that have a direct bearing on future land
improvem
atterns.
etc.,
together w'_th
site plans, g
E pt-her- Items - Review of subdivision plats, take much of the
roblems will probably
attention -to several of the above p there are some
Commission's time and energy during 1981. Nevertheless,
potential long-
term issues which the Commission hopes to begin considering.
population and development
--- Tse�s related -to long-term impact of increased poP plan;
comprehensive transportation
vn groundwater supplies; an overall, - and a housing plan will become
energy- efficient land use -and site planning;
continues to grow and become more urban
more and more important as the county the
in character. While none of these issues is urgent at this time,
sion believes it would be wise to address some of them at an early stage.
Commis_
/zl