HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 12 81 PC MinutesMay 12, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 12, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David
Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Allan Kindrick;
and Mr. Richard Cogan. Mr. Corwith Davis was absent. Other officials present
were Mr. George St.John, County Attorney, and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant
Director of Planning.
Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was
present.
Mrs. Diehl explained that Mr. St. John was present at the meeting in place of
Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The minutes of February 17, 1981, were approved with corrections from the
Commission.
ZMA-81-16 Martha F. Brown - Located on the west side of Route 659 (Woodburn
Road) at its intersection with Route 631 (Rio Road), County Tax Map 45,
Parcel 27, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone 2.4 acres
currently zoned RA Rural Areas to CO Commercial Office.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He added that the Highway Department was
recommending additional dedication; ranging from 35 to 80 feet at the southern
end of the Brown property, in the event that future improvements were made to
the intersection of Woodburn Road and Rio Road.
Mrs. Diehl asked how much acreage was left outside the watershed after allowing
for this dedication.
Mr. Keeler said that the exact amount had not been determined, but that the
dedication did not constitute much area. He said that he had gone out with a
member of the Engineering Department to inspect the property and that they had
estimated the amount to be about one acre, outside the watershed.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Ed Bair, stated that he represented the contract purchaser, a group of two
dentists and two physicians, who wished to put a medical building on this
property. He explained that the petition for a rezoning included the entire
2.4 acres of the tract because it had not been determined exactly how much
acreage was in the watershed at the time of filing. Mr. Bain explained that
the medical/dental building would be located on the ridge line, draining away
from the watershed. He added that a main waterline existed far to the rear of
the property. Mr. Bain said that the applicant would be happy to limit the
zoning of CO to the acre outside of the watershed.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. When there
was none, she announced that the matter was now before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked Mr. Keeler to clarify the zoning on property between the
applicant's property and land zoned commercial.
Mr. Keeler explained that there was a strip developed residentially on Rio West.
Mr. Gloeckner asked where the Service Authority jurisdiction stops.
Mr. Keeler replied that the jurisdictional lines generally followed road boundaries,
in this case Woodburn and Rio.
Mr. Gloeckner asked whether this property, since it had sufficient frontage on
Rio, could not be served at least with water by the Service Authority.
Mr. Bain added that a main line runs just behind the property.
Mr. Keeler explained that the Board had acted on this issue and determined that
any property within the watershed not already served by the Service Authority
would not be included in the Service Authority jurisdiction. This would require an
amendment to the jurisdictional area.
Mr. Skove said that the use seemed appropriate to this area, although he did not
know how to handle the watershed issue.
Mrs. Diehl observed that although the rezoning could not be conditioned, the
Commission could reduce the amount of acreage in the petition.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the boundary of the rezoned portion be set by the
watershed boundary. He asked Mr. Bain whether one acre would be sufficient for
the proposed medical office use.
Mr. Cogan asked about the septic drain field placement.
Mr. Bain responded that staff could address that at site plan review, but that
it would be placed away from the reservoir.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Mr. Skove on the appropriateness of commercial office
use on this site. He went on to move for approval of the rezoning, subject to
limiting the area to approximately one acre, bounded by Rio Road and Route 659
and the watershed, roughly.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler whether the portion of this parcel remaining in the RA
district could be used for parking or some other use related to the CO use.
Mr. Keeler said that under the new ordinance this would not be permitted. He said
that a septic system or some other use permitted in the RA district could be
placed on that RA segment.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the parcel being elevated from Rio, whether the
applicant could actually have enough area left after providing for the Highway
Department right-of-way, adequate banking of the slope, parking, and a building.
Mr. Bain replied that although he was no engineer, from his review of the site
erne and from what he understood the Highway Department would need in the dedication,
adequate area remained. He said that the building would be modest in size.
Mrs. Diehl said that when the site plan came in she believed a close look at the
road alignment would. be required, given the corner.
When there was no further discussion, a vote was taken on the motion, which
passed unanimously.
n
When Mrs. Diehl ascertained that representatives of the next item on the agenda,
Libet Corporation, were not present, she proceeded.
Mrs. Diehl reminded the Commission of a work session scheduled for Monday, May 18,
1981, on the Capital Improvements Program; she stated that materials were included
in the Commissioners' packets.
When Libet Corporation representatives were still not present, Mrs. Diehl
announced that Zoning Ordinance amendments would be taken up.next at the public
hearing of the Resolution of Intent to adopt said amendments.
Mr. Keeler explained that these proposed zoning text amendments were either of a
hcusekeepinq nature or to remedy problems that had arisen since the adoption of
the new zoning ordinance.
The first amendment section was as follows: (quoted from Staff Report)
1. Section 2.5 requires Health Department approval of two septic
c?_ainfield locations prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff
recommends an exemption for lots of record on the adoption date of
the ordinance. In addition, staff would recommend the relocation
of the provisions of 2.5 to 4.1 AREA REGULATIONS RELATED TO
UTILITIES. Staff recommends the following actions:
a. In Section 4.7.2 change "Reference 2.5" to "reference 4.1.7"
b. Change 4.1 heading to "AREA AND HEALTH REGULATIONS RELATED TO
UTILITIES"
c. Repeal 2.5 and readopt amended wording as 4.1.6 and 4.1.7:
4.1.6 rrevi5iane et 4:nd4!V+dua4: men-lnj €or
perms-tted m-ln-lxftum -let sio" under standard, a -luster, and/or henus
a}ternat-lames sex s.n -le €a �-1 awe}}4_eFs For lots created after the
e`fective date of this ordinance, not served by a central sewer
system, no building permit shall be issued for any building or
structure, the use of which involves sewage disposal, without written
approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health
;j.,a}} approve of the location and area for both original and future
replacement septic disposal fields where pub -lie sewer }s net
reaaenab-ly ava44fthle 4retevenee-4:}} adequate to serve such use.
33�
4.1.7 In a cluster development, open space may be used for septic field
location only after the septic field locations on such lot are
determined to be inadequate by the local office of the Virginia
Department of Health.
Mrs. Diehl determined that each section of the proposed zoning text amendments
should be discussed and reviewed individually.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment.
The Vice President of the League of Women Voters read a letter from the League
voicing objection to repealing the existing Section 2.5. She stated that such
a proposed change would appear to be in conflict with State guidelines and
would dilute the Zoning Ordinance adopted on December 10, 1980. She elaborated
on the dangers of existing inadequate drainfields in several County subdivisions.
She said that under certain conditions a grandfather clause could be justified,
but not in an instance involving health, safety and welfare of County residents.
The Vice President stated additionally that the League might offer further
comment on other proposed amendments after more review. At this time she said
that objection was being raised to permitting auto repair shops by right in the
C-1 district.
The Vice President handed out a copy of the letter to each of the Commissioners.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was additional public comment.
Mrs. Joan Graves stated that it should be determined how many lots might be
involved , also their size and location. She said that she was worried about
how this amendment might be in conflict with the runoff control ordinance
requirements in the watershed.
Mrs. Graves asked whether Section 4.1.7 applied before or after a septic field
was located and the lot developed. She said that it made a difference because
there could be unworkable lots being allowed to use the open space. She said
that the language was not very clear.
There was no further public comment, so Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was
now before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler how this proposed amendment would dovetail with
the runoff rontrol ordinance.
Mr. Keeler said that he believed there was some confusion about these proposed
amendments. He added that no change would be involved in the Commission's
review of subdivision plats. He explained that the intent of this amendment
was to grandfather in -those previously approved lots, lots previously approved
by both the Commission and the Health Department prior to requiring two septic
field locations. Mr. Keeler explained that if these lots were not exempt from
the current requirement, a building permit could conceivably be denied on a
lot that had Health Department approval. This would require the property
owner to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance.
3�
Mr. Keeler continued, saying that the runoff control ordinance was not
irrr affected at all. All future approvals would require two drainfield locations,
he added.
Tor. Keeler stated that the wording in 4.1.7 was the existing wording in the
ordinance, that staff was not changing that wording at all. Again, he said,
the lot would not exist if the Commission, having been satisfied that two
drainfield locations existed, had not approved it.
Mrs. Diehl asked why previously approved subdivision plats would be affected.
Mr. Keeler said that they would under the existing ordinance, if a property
owner afj,)Ii_ed for a building perinit and had only one drainfield location approval
from the 'Health Department.
Mr. Gloeckner explained that this delemma came about from previously approving
subdivision lots with a broad brush. He said that actual, factual drainfield
locations were an issue when a building permit is applied for.
Mr. Keeler again explained that this requirement of two septic field locations
was a fairly recent one. He said that it would not be possible to ascertain
exactly how many previously approved lots existed that would be affected by
this amendment.
Mr. Skove said that when discussion had taken place about changing the zoning
ordinance, he thought that the future was being addressed and not the past.
Mr. Gloeckner concurred with Mr. Skove, saying that the two -site requirement
in his opinion was not retroactive.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether a property owner had due recourse through the 3oard
of Zoning Appeals if the ordinance was left as is.
Mr. Keeler replied that he did.
Mr. Gloeckner asked whether anyone had gone through this process.
Mr. Keeler replied not to his knowledge.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any sort of tally of how many lots existed
in -the County that would be affected.
Mr. Keeler responded no.
Mr. Skove asked whether a inspection was made to determine two septic field
locations existed each time a building permit was applied for.
Mr. Gloeckner doubted that the Board of Zoning Appeals could ever turn down
a property owner with one previously -approved drainfield location.
Mrs. Diehl said that she liked the idea of reviewing these cases on an individual
basis, because she believed that in certain instances there could be a health
hazard. She added that the Health Department itself warns that drainfields can
fail after about seven years; she said that having two sites was reasonable in
view of the life span of a drainfield.
Mr. St. John asked to point out to the Commissioners that in fact, these lots
of record with one approved drainfield location, were legally non -conforming
lots with a right by law to a building permit. He explained that subjecting
property owners of these lots to the Board of Zoning Appeals process was in
effect a needless procedure, because they were entitled to a building permit
and could not be denied one. He added that this amendment would save staff
and applicants time and effort.
Mrs. Diehl said that she understood and that what was being argued was a moot
point.
Mr. St. John concurred, saying that yes, some of the property owners of
previously approved lots, would qualify for a building permit under the new
ordinance by in fact having two sites, while all the others would be required
to go through the Board of Zoning Appeals process, but would have to be granted
a variance because under the law they had a right to a building permit.
Mrs. Diehl said that she believed the wording in 4.1.7 implied that the septic
field could be located in openspace before the cluster development was developed.
She believed it could be interpreted either before or after cluster development.
Mr. Cogan suggested that the wording express failure of the septic field, rather
than speaking to inadequate septic: fields, and that its location be outside of
the open space.
Mr. Gloeckner said that his preference would be to have all the septic systems
in the open space and make the individual lots smaller.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler for some language to clarify the use of open space
in a cluster development.
Mr. Keeler offered: In a cluster development no open space shall be used for
septic fields until all septic field locations on lots have been determined by
the Health Department to have failed.
Mrs. Diehl wondered about using inadequate instead of failure.
Mr. Cogan said that a site could be inadequate before locating a septic field.
Mr. Keeler said that he preferred leaving these determinations to the Health
Department.
Mrs. Diehl still stated that she wished some intermediate language could be
worked out to solve the issue. She asked whether there was further comment.
Mr. Bowerman questioned the concept of using the open space initially for septic
drainfield location in clustering. He said that it seemed contrary to the intent
of clustering, which is to preserve open space. He said that utilities should be
present and that severe topography could reasonably allow greater clustering.
He added that the wording inadequate as recommended by Mr. Keeler would give the
Health Department more flexibility. Mr. Bowerman asked whether this amendment
would be retroactive.
Mr. Keeler replied that he believed so unless the Board had a condition against
it.
AD
Mr. Keeler said that the RA Rural Areas district did not have a clustering
'*4%W provision so that not many of these cases would probably come before the
Commission. He said that the cluster developments would come from growth
areas, such as village residential.
Mr. Bowerman said that Greencroft was the only case in point.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was a concensus on 4.1.6 and 4.1.7. When there
was no further comment, she determined that the next section should be addressed.
Mr. Keeler read from the Staff Report:
2. Section 4.3 could be burdensome and time-consuming for the Zoning
Administrator, since this would apply to all lands and activities
including farming. Historically, drainage concerns have been
addressed in subdivision, site plan, run-off control, road plan,
and soil erosion/grading plan reviews. Since no other mechanism
exists for review prior to activity, it is likely the Zoning
Administrator would be placed in a corrective role, attempting to
settle disputes between neighboring property owners. The staff,
after consultation with the Zoning Department, recommends deletion
of section 4.3.
Mrs. Diehl asked for public comment concerning this proposed amendment.
When there was none, she declared the matter to be before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl said that she did not remember earlier discussions of Section 4.3.
Mr. St. John remarked that he did not believe the Commission had been involved
in discussing this matter, but that the consultants had addressed this issue
and it had been recommended to delete but had gone on through to be adopted in
the new Zoning Ordinance inadvertently.
Mrs. Diehl determined that there was a concensus to approve this amendment and
proceed to the next section.
Mr. Keeler read from the Staff Report:
3. In order to avoid confusion in the interpretation of yard measurement,
Staff recommends the following wording which is similar to Section
4.6.4 Rear Yards:
4.6.3.1 Front yards of the depth required in the district shall be provided
across the full width of the lot adjacent to the street. Depth of
a required front yard shall be measured from the right-of-way line
of the street in such a fashion that the rear line of such yard shall
be parallel to the street Light -of: -way. Areas in parking bays shall
not be considered as part of the street or access easement for
purposes of determining front yard depth
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment. When there was none, she
stated that the matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned the last sentence regarding parking bays, saying that
to him it would be logical to include these bays as part of the street.
��l
Mr. Keeler explained that for purposes of determining the depth of the front
yard, you would not consider the parking bays as part of the access easement.
Tie explained that the concern is building separation from the travel way.
Mr. Keeler added that a later amendment would address setback regulations.
Mr. Keeler said that this amendment would apply to townhouse developments where
parking bays might take up area that otherwise might be front yard. Mr. Keeler
explained that as long as the depth of the front yard met the requirement, i.e.
adequate depth from the travel way, part of that could be a parking bay, which
is not considered part of the travel way.
Mrs. Diehl determined that there was a concensus to approve this change.
Mr. Keeler proceeded to the next section in the Staff Report:
4. Notice for special use permits and rezoning petitions is now sent
by first-class mail, as provided in the State Code. Staff recommends
amendment of provisions for mobile homes and site plans for notice
by first-class mail:
5.6.1.1 a. By sending of a eerti-Eyed first class letter to the last known
address of each adjacent property owner; and
first sentence of
32.3.2 Notice of a site development plan submission shall be sent by
reej}stered or eer#}-f}ed first class mail to the last known address
of all owners of property adjacent to the development.
Additionally, Mr. Keeler explained that the State Code had recently changed
to allow special use permit and rezoning petition notices to be sent first
class and this amendment would provide that all notices be sent first class.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment.
Mrs. Joan Graves wondered whether an address correction request was on the
envelope and if not, would that be a good idea.
Mr. Keeler said that addresses were obtained from the Real Estate Department.
He stated that the Code of Virginia required that notice be sent to the last
known address. Mr. Keeler said that if the Real Estate Department did not have
a correct last -known address, he would suppose that person was not paying taxes.
However, Mr. Keeler said that the Code requirement was being met when notice
was duly sent to the address on record.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. When there was not,
she asked Mr. Keeler what happened when certified letters were returned. She
was informed that nothing more than checking with Real Estate was done, to insure
that the address on record was _�ccuratelV transcribed.
Mr. Keeler explained that there were many complaints related to the expense of
certified mailings. He said that a sizeable savings was already in effect from
not sending special use permit and rezoning notices certified. He added that by
keeping down the mailing costs, application fees could be kept lower.
There was a concensus on this amendment, and Mr. Keeler proceeded to the next
section.
3q2
5. "Hospitals; nursing homes; convalescent homes" are listed by right
and by special use permit in the HC district. Staff recommends
these uses be repealed as user by right. Staff recommends deletion
of #19 of 24.2.1.
Mr. Keeler explained that this was an oversight in the draft, a housekeeping
detail, that listed these items both as a use by right and by special use
permit.
Mrs. Diehl determined that there was no public comment or discussion by the
Commission necessary. There was a consensus to approve this amendment and
proceed.
Mr. Keeler explained that the next proposed amendment was also of a housekeeping
nature, consisting of the omission of a. word:
6. Section 5.7.1: Last sentence of temporary mobile home provisions
should read:
In any event, any such permit shall expire three (3) years from the
date of issuance; provided, however, that the zoning administrator
may, for good cause shown, extend the time of such expiration for
not more than two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each.
This amendment was also approved as proposed by consensus, with no comment from
the public.
Mr. Keeler proceeded to the next amendment, reading from the Staff Report:
Certain public utilities should be added as uses by -right in the
Flood Hazard Overlay District. Section 30.3.3.1 includes special
requirements for location of utilities in the flood plain. Staff
recommends the following addition:
30.3.5.1.1 BY RIGHT WITHIN THE FLOOD:9AY
5. Electric, gas, oil, and communication facilities, excluding multi -legged
tower structures, and including poles, lines, pipes; meters, and related
facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewage collection lines and
appurtenances, excluding pumping stations and holding 'ponds, owned and
operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Mrs. Diehl asked for public comment. When there was none, she asked the
Commissioners if they wished to speak. Mrs. Diehl asked whether transmission
lines were not included.
Mr. Keeler replied that they were not, that transmission lines were by special
use permit. He said that the Federal Emergency Management agency had been
consulted with regard to this amendment, to make sure that it was consistent
with the flood insurance regular program.
Mr. Gloeckner asked what communication facilities might be. Mrs. Diehl said
lirr+ that would be telephone and telegram poles, but that larger structures such as
towers were permitted only by special use permit.
There was approval by concensus, and Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to proceed:
8. Churches and adjunct cemeteries were permitted by right in the A-1
district and are now by special use permit in the RA district.
While Section 31.2.4.5 would permit church expansion within existing
property boundaries, a special use permit would be required for
expansion into additional land or for the location of a new church.
Staff recommends that churches and adjunct cemeteries be permitted
by right in the RA for the following reasons:
a) Churches are by right in all residential districts. Staff can determine
no peculiar aspect of churches in relation to other RA uses which would
warrant requirement of a special use permit;
b) It has been Staff experience that church building program budgets are
generally unfamiliar with development processes. The additional cost
and time involved in the special permit process would, in staff opinion,
be an additional burden;
c) Except for questions of physical development, which are addressed by other
ordinances, Staff would be reluctant to address other aspects as being
relevant. Problems could arise in public hearings in relation to the
nature of the religion, particularly in the case of an unfamiliar religion,
thus placing the County in an awkward position between public opinion and
questions of religious freedom.
Mrs. Diehl asked for public comment.
Mrs. Joan Graves stated that she believed that churches should remain by
special use permit in the RA district, being as she said she had remarked
before, business entities that can make an impact on a neighborhood. She
added that they can cause traffic and noise problems and that adjacent
property owners should be able to speak to these issues.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. When there was
not, she declared the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Skove said that churches were by special use permit in the A-1 district
and that perhaps they should be by special use permit in all residential
districts in order to be consistent.
Mrs. Diehl agreed that churches could indeed make an impact.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he had mixed emotions about how this issue should be
handled. He said that churches at times could use a lot of land and that a
new religion had been known to spring up overnight.
Mr. Skove reiterated that he would prefer a consistent ruling on churches, be
it by right or by special use permit in all areas.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether bingo required a special licensing procedure.
Mrs. Graves asked whether the public was notified.
Mr. St. John replied that a lottery permit was what covered church bingo, and
that a permit was granted by the Board of Supervisors in a public meeting. He
said that the Code did not require that notice be sent out to anyone.
91
Mr. St. John explained that a church could not be licensed. The lottery permits
were issued for one-year periods and a detailed application was filled out by
the church applying.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further questions.
Mr. Skove asked whether a church could be put on a two -acre lot.
Mr. Keeler replied that it could, this being a minimum lot, under the new
ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl determined that there was a concensus on this amendment. She asked
Mr. Keeler to proceed:
9. Additional flexibility in regulations for townhouses and other
dwellings is desirable where development involves such common use/
maintenance areas as parking bays, sidewalks, etc. which are usually
located between -the building and vehicular travelway. Staff
recommends the following amendments:
a) Change current definition of "setback" to the following:
Setback: The distance by which any building or structure is separated
from any street, road or access easement. ftd3aeeat to the iffe"t 14-ee et
the let, pareel, er pertiea thereat eft w7hjeh s,deli hujj lag or et�aete e
4:8 leeated.
b) Amend 4.6.3.3 as follows:
Street line for measurement of required yards adjacent to streets.
Required yards and setbacks -shall be measured from a line parallel to the
street lot line(s).
c) Add the following:
4.6.3.4 As to any yard adjacent to a street, road or access easement, the
yard requirements of this ordinance shall be deemed to have been complied
with if the setback shall be not less than the minimum yard dimensions
required thereby.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was no oublic or Commission comment on this
proposed change and a concensus to approve it. She directed Mr. Keeler to
proceed:
10. Amend the C-1 district to include "automobile, truck repair shop"
as a use by right. "Automobile service station" is currently a
use by right in the C-1 district but no provision is made for a
purely repair -type operation. Staff recommends the following:
22.2.1 b. 22 Automobile, truck repair shop
Mr. Keeler explained that this use should be permitted in C-1 district, either
by special use permit or by right.
D
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment.
Mrs. Joan Graves stated her oppostion to this amendment, saying that C-1 was
seen as a little better than Highway Commercial and was applied to areas
adjacent to residential neighborhoods for that purpose. She said that this
use would be an intensification. She said that she believed the case of
Whyte Store in Earlysville had involved a proffer and that she saw no need to
make a sweeping change of this nature. She said that she had not found this
use in the old ordinance, not even under B-1.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. When there was none,
she announced that the matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked whether an automobile service station could do the same things
that an automobile truck repair shop could do.
Mr. Keeler said that it could, but that the sale of gas was a requirement of a
service station. He said that this amendment would provide for those who did
not wish to sell gas.
Mrs. Diehl asked about body work. Mr. Keeler said that provisions for body
work were spelled out in a separate part of the ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl said that she had problems with having this use by right in the C-1
district. She elaborated that the differences between a service station and
a repair shop were significant.
Mr. Kindrick pointed out that a body shop could add a gas pump and be in
compliance.
Mr. Gloeckner asked where repair shops were allowed by right. Mrs. Diehl
answered in Highway Commercial. Mr. Gloeckner said that he was bothered that
usually a small shop would provide service to local customers, and in Highway
Commercial districts there was probably more of an instance of truck stops.
Mr. Gloeckner said that a small repair shop would not necessarily want to sell
gas and become a larger business, in effect a distributor for a large oil
company.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he tended to agree with Mrs. Diehl, that from the
start a repair shop has the potential to generate more noise than a service
station, by virtue of the intense use, tools, heavier work. He said that he
had no problem keeping this use by special use permit.
Mr. Gloeckner said that this would force people in rural areas to come into
Charlottesville for repair work because there was not enough Highway Commercial
in the County. Mr. Bowerman said that this was assuming a special use permit
were denied.
Mrs. Diehl said that if there was a need felt by the community, it would act
in favor of someone applying for a special use permit.
Mrs. Diehl said that she felt that by making this use by special use permit
it was giving the small businessman a viable option.
9
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners to show whether there was a concensus to
make the repair shop use a use by right in the C-1 district or a use by special
use permit.
She determined that there was a concensus to make it a use by special use
permit in the C-1 district. The amendment was thereby changed to so read.
Mr. Keeler proceeded to the last proposed amendment, reading from the Staff
Report:
11. Correct the language of criteria 6 of 10.5.2.1 of the RA district
as follows:
c) within one-half mile ei the Fteier eresereadq of a Type I village or
within one-half mile of the major crossroads of a Type II village as
described in the comprehensive plan.
Mrs. Diehl said that this amendment would bring the language into conformity.
She then asked for a motion to approve these proposed amendments as presented
with the one change on automobile, truck repair shop, as use by special use
permit in the C-1 district.
Mr. Skove moved accordingly for approval as described. Mr. Gloeckner seconded
the motion, which passed unanimously.
SP-81-16 Libet Corporation - Located south of Route 738, at end of Route 679,
private road to Grassmere Farm, County Tax Map 58, part of Parcel 20, part of
Parcel 20B, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Proposal to divide 2 parcels
totaling 55.0894 acres into 5 lots with a size range from 5.000 acres to
33.3341 acres, in accordance with Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, RA
Rural Areas District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant or his representative wished to make
any comment at this time.
Mr. Jay T. Swett, the applicant, commended the Staff Report and apologized to
the Commission for being late.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment on this petition. When
there was none, she declared the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked whether the three additonal lots brought the total to 26 or 29.
Mr. Keeler replied 26. He explained that Phase I and II had been approved
with a total of 23 lots and that the applicant was now requesting to take 2 of
those previously approved lots and make an additional 3 lots out of them.
Mr. Skove asked whether any of the newly formed lots would be less than 5 acres.
Mr. Keeler replied no.
Mrs. Diehl remarked that she recalled lengthy discussions previously with
regard to the road into Grassmere. She recalled having a problem with only
20 lots on the road, which was narrow. She said that concessions had been
granted at that time and since then, 6 more lots were being developed along a
road that did not meet the private road width requirements.
Mr. Swett explained that initially when this application came before the
Commission, the road was only 12 feet wide in places. He said that a condition
had been placed on the subdivision to widen the road to 16 feet wherever possible
with a minimum of 14 feet, which had been done.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler whether this met the private road ordinance
requirements.
Mr. Keeler replied that a width of 18 feet was required in the ordinance
as well as some surface treatment.
Mr. Skove said that he felt the road into Grassmere was probably a little
better than the State road leading to it.
Mrs. Diehl agreed, siting the segment going over the railroad tracks as being
the worst part.
Mrs. Diehl asked about the private road meeting the ordinance requirements.
Mr. Keeler said that he had been addressing the public road and that he
understood from the County Engineer that the private road was adequate to
serve the additional lots.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further comments.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that although the interior private road of the subdivision
was not currently primed and double -sealed, with the additional lots this would
be required.
Mr. Skove remarked that this change did not substantially alter the character of the
area and he would move for approval with the condition recommended by staff:
1) Development of Grassmere Farm subdivision shall be limited to 26 lots.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which passed unanimously with no further
discussion.
Mr. Swett asked whether the Commission had agreed to allow staff to approve
the actual lot lines without coming before the Commission again.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. St. John for his opinion.
Mr. St. John said that he would have to research the answer.
Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Skove recalled another similar case where Mr. Payne had
advised the Commission against setting a precedent of administrative approval.
�4
Nor. St. John apologized for not having the answer, but pointed out that it was
rrr not a question of whether the Commission should or should not administratively
approve the lot lines, but was a question of whether authority for doing so
existed. He said that he would find out and let the Commissioners know.
Mrs. Diehl thanked him and proceeded to the next item on the agenda.
Public hearing on the Resolution of Intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance
of the Albemarle County Code.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report, explaining that these were housekeeping
amendments and/or amendments that would bring the ordinance into compliance
with the Code, to make it consistent with the Code.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment on any of the proposed
amendments. When there was none, she stated that the amendments were before
the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked how, on the Table, prime and double seal came to be required
on so low a number of lots served as 6.
Mr. Keeler replied that he believed that Dan Roosevelt of the Highway Department
at the second work session on private roads, had informed the Commission that
standards were going to change, requiring this treatment when vehicle trips per
day reached 50 or more.
Mr. Gloeckner recommended changing the requirement on roads serving non-residential
and non-agricultural uses to include a minimum CBR subgrade of 10, saying that
the surface treatment was ineffectual if there was not sufficient base.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he understood it was cheaper to maintain a prime
and double seal than a graveled, unsurfaced road.
Mr. Gloeckner asked about relief for the applicant in cases of large lot sizes.
Mr. Keeler said that these requirements could be modified on an individual
basis. He said the applicant should request a recommendation be made by the
County Engineer to the Planning Commission as to whether paving is necessary.
Mr. Gloeckner wondered about putting a second note on the Table, pointing out
that relief could be sought for lots of larger size. He said that this
information was not contained in the ordinance and therefore not generally
known.
Mrs. Diehl said that she did not believe any problems had come up about this
issue.
Mr. Bowerman asked why this table was changed, to protect the property owner or
the County, for the economics of surfacing roads.
Mrs. Diehl said that she thought all of these factors had prompted adjusting the
Table.
�4
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that actual usage of the road rather than lot size
should determine the surface requirements.
Mrs. Diehl said that she felt comfortable with how the Commission had been
handling the private road issue, to date. She pointed out that requests for
waivers have been made with the ordinance as it reads today.
Mr. Cogan said that a developer might go for more lots because the additional
expense is minimal between 6 - 10 and 11 - 20. He stated that the expense of
putting in a road is a major consideration to a developer.
Mr. Skove wondered about making a distinction between existing lots and new
lots.
Mr. Keeler said that the Commission had the flexibility to weigh each case on
an individual basis.
Mr. Cogan concurred that in struggling for more language, flexibility might be
lost.
Mr. Cogan moved to recommend the suggested changes in the Subdivision amendments,
retaining 9 18-30 as currently written and adding the CBR requirement to the
private roads table.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (See attachments.)
Mrs. Diehl asked about whether the grading permit was reconmended to be
included cinder the Soil Erosion Ordinance, in a letter of January.
Mr. Keeler replied that this was correct and that the Deputy County Attorney
was preparing suitable language. He thought it was due to go to the Board later
in May.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there was no further business, and the meeting
adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m. Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. St. John for
providing counsel.
Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr.
Se retary
260
March, 1981
In
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
TO THE
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
§ 18-19
Bonding requirements.
ccordance with
(d) The
15.1-466
ions of this section shall be construed en a
f the Code.
§ 18-30 /0
Public street, or a street , �
Every subdivision lot shall front on an existing P li and built r bs ; J subdivision plat and maintained or design, except tE'� `�
dedicated by the nt of highways and transportation
maintained by the state departure provisions of this
that private roads shall be permitted in accOrdance with the
frontage on such street shall not be less thanthe o zoning ordinance.
�}dam
chapter. The g red by
� peel-at-the-l4l 4:ner tbaek-lie that required
'on ma be reduced for frontage on cul-de-sacs. When a new subdivision
This regulate Y Tatted street, the subdivider shall dedicate at least
abuts one side of an existing orb make such street comply With the menimuYn width
half the right-of-way necessary
Ater.
fixed for the same by
§ 18-53 the commission
(b) A decision on the final- plat shall be render bplat.
wjthin y-€eve s____ days after the filing of the
§ 18-55 (k)
ature panels shall be provided as €el:
bnt-then-ene-ale-e-the-ee�°peri
Sign}}e-land-lygn-the
-ee�mty- of the county planning
_}ettes�il}e; for the
design chairman of
}its- -the-Eity designated agent of the Board of supervisors.
.mlission and the
m
1
SUBDIVISION AMENDMENTS
Section 18-36. Private roads.
Under Section 18-36 (b) (3), make the following additions:
(3) The fee of such road is to be owned by the owners of lots abutting
the right-of-way thereof or by an association composed of the
owners of all lots in the subdivision, subject in either case to
an easement for the benefit of all lots served by such road; ; and
(4) Such subdivision shall not be located in the urban area or in an
community or type I village as designated in the Comprehensive Plan; and
(5) The average and minimum lot sizes in such subdivision shall comply
with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
Under Section 18-36, after (a), (b) and before (c), insert (bl) as follows:
(bl) In addition to the foregoing, the Commission may approve a subdivision
served by one or- more private roads in which it shall determine that
the same is in compliance with paragraphs (1) , (2) and (3) of 9 (b) ,
but not in compliance with paragraphs (4) and/or (5) of
case in which the Commission shall determine that (1) the app va any
l of
such roads will alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant
degradation to the environment of the site or_ ad'acent properties
which would be occasioned b the construction of public roads; (2) the
approval of such roads would significantly contribute to the physical
security of the residents of such subdivision;
identifiable reason, the general publcintrestr as)oTor a specific,
proprietary interest of the subdivider, would be better servesed dobyhthe
construction of such roads than by the construction of public roads.
In the case of any such approval, the Commissi
on ma such
assurances from the subin a form acceptableytoether
divider County
Attorney as it may determine to be necessary to protect the
interest with respect to such roads, p� C
R
�
(D r w : 1
r• Fo n � rz (
n w F-n r- •
!n (D
n z rt sv
rt Ki LQ
m n ti I
Fx' (D 0 rt
H i
rt
C w£ in w
N
N C w LQ L
H w m
F- (D m m
F, O In
C H H• t-h �3'
K �3 w
((DD � w O H
m n
�ro n m 0
O KQ, F_
rt. `0
((DD rt � ~"C
O (D (D £
• M Y• ((DD i3rt'
n
Fl-
rt rt K (D
(DnarO
g in w o
O rt �l C '
rmt � m
ol rt P.
K K O
((DD l
KMi, m ((DD O
r• O 1-0 M
M �
� � O
r (D [rrJ
(F UA C w H
r• K in
C m (D
m � w n
r m
macro
m rt
UI
rt
o w
rt
M
En a z
En
V)
rt
�
m
Krti
�
Q.
n
I�
m r
mom
m
rt
o
C
rt n
o
(D
O�
E
::s
N
Q�
NI
I•"'
FJ
N
n
r+
H
OK
z
i
1
1
1
0 Or
O-
�
W
N
h+
3
K
ti
O
O
Ln
0 m
I.,
CT]
(D
En
(D
w
w
z
a
m
d�
r•
z
a
r
cn
rt
x
ro (D
m
K
r
PA
(D
m
�
•
o
1-1
F,
_
O £ C7 H
t1i En
E
_
E
r•
¢ w
(DQ
W
N K (Oj
m
r
(D O O
M (D Kt
I
tlh
M
M
m rt
v
O
M
N
v
m
m
O
rt
a
rt rat w
(�D
rt,rr
tyi
Fl-
w O n
O
C
w
Fl
(D
(D M m
1✓
F
max£
o
r
m rt
rl
m m
H
Fh w m
K
H
rt
G1+ w
~
n�
a
rt
(a'
10
tin
C
nwn
�•
��
m
w or m
m
a.
ct p1
O
R-
1
r
I
r-
� m
(D 0
m
CL O
O
�:s
a
M K M
:j
m rt
M
N
�
rt wt
En
rt
G
H.
r�
(D
(�D
CD
O
O
En
H.
p, r• m
m
(n
(n
m (D
O
oj : C
0
P.
rt
o
P,
(D o to
(D
1-0 Ki r
ro
rt �
ti
rt
o+
frtD
K
En ro
ce
ro
m a z
m a z
z
m cn
m K
m
KC
m
.Q :$ m
O
X m C
w r-
W
R.
t
r o. (I
_ a r;
rt
b � �
~
Fi
r
(D
(D
C of K
C K
K
m m w
O
m
I
a O M
a O rr
m
m ro
K a
K
a
r C .a
F✓ G a
.Q
m rt m
1
m Cr a
(D CS a
G
F✓
-
,1R
I
rt m K
rt m Ft
K
m ti
r• O
M
m
m a+
m 01
ty
" O w
tr
m"
a b
rt
M
►� Fl
FH
H�
H ti
r Ki
H. m m
m m
O
O
m £ rt
rt
ri-
K m
K m
ti. N
m
{�lGt1(t �'►G�
t
COG-z�1 i1 �<i' J /Y�<L�G��!!t/l�(��
�I��'I