HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 02 81 PC MinutesJune 2, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 2, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David
P. Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Allan Kindrick; and
Mr. Richard Cogan. Mr. Corwith Davis and Mr. James Skove were absent. Other
officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy 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 ascertained from Mr. Keeler that the first two items on the agenda
would be reviewed simultaneously.
ZMA-81-17 S. G. Spangler Farm Supply, Inc. - Located on Route 20 South in
Scottsville, approximately 1,200 feet north of the intersection of Routes 20
and 726. County Tax Map 130,'Parcel 48, Scottsville Magisterial District.
Proposal to rezone 2.573 acres currently zoned VR-Village Residential to HC
Highway Commercial.
ZMA-81-18 Samuel G. and Judith A. Spangler - Located on Route 20 South in
Scottsville, approximately 1,400 feet north of the intersection of Routes 20
and 726. County Tax Map 130, Parcel 49, Scottsville Magisterial District.
Proposal to rezone 1.022 acres currently zoned VR-Village Residential to HC
Highway Commercial.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to make any comments at this
time.
Mi7. Spangler presented the Commissioners with photos taken today. He stated
that the current business had been established in 1971, the buildings constructed
in 1959, and taxes paid to the County last year in excess of $4,500. He said
that a considerable amount of money had been spent to relocate the storage
tanks around which a dyke was placed. He stated that this reservoir was large
enough to hold an average week's rainfall and the contents of the largest
storage tank. He added that a six-foot high chain link fence was around the
property. Mr. Spangler stated in closing, that as could be seen from the
pictures taken today, no residences were visible from his property.
Mrs. Diehl announced that the public hearing was now open and comment would be
received from those wishing to speak.
Mrs. Cheria Dorrier stated that she lived in the surrounding area and would
have provided better maps if she had known how poor the exhibited maps would be.
She said that surrounding land was owned by several -generation families and
'err consisted of farmland and home sites. She specifically mentioned four lots
zoned VR, owned by Ed Dorrier to the south of the Spangler property. She
A 7
described the neighborhood as primarily agricultural. In the winter
Mrs. Dorrier said that the Spangler property was clearly visible from the
fifty acres she and her husband owned and had farmed for years.
Mrs. Dorrier said that when Mr. Spangler purchased this property, he knew
it would have limited business use because all of the surrounding area was
zoned for agricultural and residential uses. She further stated that it
was allowed a business use because of a grandfather clause in the ordinance.
Mrs. Dorrier said that business uses on these two parcels was incompatible
with the character of the area. She said that she had a petition signed by
other property owners in the neighborhood protesting this request.
Mrs. Dorrier suggested that she had worked well with Mr. Sam Spangler on
a committee to improve Scottsville, but that since ownership by the applicant
she had noted a change. Mrs. Dorrier stated that it was her understanding that
a business use allowed by a grandfather clause could continue to operate in its
existing state at the time an ordinance was adopted, but that it could not
grow. She questioned whether the Spangler expansion had been approved at each
stage of development, by the Zoning Administrator. She noted excessive number
of parked farm equipment, trucks, machinery displayed on the property; an
additional building in the front and the storage building in the back of the
property had been expanded.
Mrs. Dorrier continued, saying that five tanks exist with liquid fertilizer in
storage. She stated that two lots were bought from a Mrs. Mahone recently,
property that was zoned residential. Mrs. Dorrier stated that the Spangler
Farm Supply Company displayed farm equipment and parked farm vehicles on
this land as an expansion of their existing business. She questioned
whether this was permissible. Additionally she voiced the concern of herself
and other neighbors about the danger of chemical spills from the liquid
fertilizer storage tanks. Mrs. Dorrier questioned whether the proper authorities
had inspected the construction and installation of these storage tanks. She
questioned whether the water control authorities had inspected the property
for spillage and runoff. Mrs. Dorrier stated that runoff from this land
drains into a little creek that in turn runs into Miller Creek, then into
Totier Creek, which shortly becomes the public water reservoir for Scottsville.
Mrs. Dorrier said that she and Sam Spangler met with Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
when the new 'Zoning Ordinance was being drawn up. She stated that there was
never any mention of rezoning the Spangler property at the number of meetings
held at that time and during which recommendations were drawn up for the new
Zoning Ordinance. She stated how shocked she was to hear that the Planning
staff was recommending approval of this rezoning request. She implied that
Highway Commercial along this stretch of Route 20 threatened to turn this road
into another 29 North. Mrs. Dorrier also questioned the reasoning she had
been told, that this rezoning would only make legal something that already
existed. She questioned how this came about, if the property in fact was never
legally zoned for business. Mrs. Dorrier asked how a property could become
commercial and then be zoned to fit its use. She said that she did not believe
the Zoning Ordinance worked in this fashion. In closing, she asked that the
following questions be answered by the Planning and Zoning Departments.
3qs
Mrs. Dorrier also stated that she was submitting a petition of people w:Zo
also objected to this rezoning request.
Her questions were: 1. What rights did Mr. Spangler receive under the
grandfather clause when he purchased this business for expansion and growth?
2. Have all the zoning requirements been met that apply
to his property?
being met?
3. Are the requirements of storing dangerous chemicals
Mrs. Dorrier continued to state her opposition to this rezoning, based on
incompatibility with the area; knowledge of the applicant of the limited
business use of this property at time cf purchase; rezoning to Highway
Commercial would not be part of the land plan of the area; spot commercial zoning
is against the principles of good land planning; increased commercial zoning on
a scenic highway is not good; dangerous traffic conditions would be increased.
Mrs. Dorrier urged the Commission to deny these applications and stated that she
wished her questions to be answered.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mrs. Dorrier and asked whether there was further public
comment.
Mr. Spangler stated that he would like to clarify one matter, which was that
before December 10, he understood that he was under A-1 and operating properly
within that zoning.
Mrs. Diehl thanked the applicant and said that if there was no further public
comment, she would like Mr. Keeler to explain the status of the property and
permitted uses under A-1. She declared the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler answered that since he was not with the County in 1971 he could not
answer these questions. He stated that he had looked for records and not been
able to document much but had found a conditional use permit for the State
Inspection Station. He said that an effort was being made to get all possible
data onto maps and that he might have overlooked or missed a site plan.
Mr. Keeler asked Mr. Payne whether he had a zoning ordinance from 1971.
Mr. Payne replied that he had a copy in his office which he would be happy
to go and get.
Mr. Spangler stated that he had a copy of one written previous to 1971 when
he bought the land.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners whether they had any questions or comments.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant whether he intended to expand.
Mr. Spangler responded that he thought every business had to plan for the
future; at present he stated that he had nine employees.
Mr. Cogan said that this type of business was needed in a farming area. He
thought it offered a convenience to nearby farmers and a service to the community.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he had no problem with the operation, but thought
that some of the questions should be answered to the satisfaction of Mrs. Dorrier.
349
Mrs. Diehl asked about the placement of the reservoir on the new lots.
Mr. Spangler replied that it was A-1 at the time of purchase and was needed
in order to place the reservoir on it.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was business use on that adjacent parcel at
this time, and Mr. Spangler replied that there was.
Mrs. Diehl asked about construction of the silos and any runoff. She asked
whether the reservoir and runoff control devices had been installed in order
to retain chemical as well as water runoff.
Mr. Spangler replied that they wFre as required by Architecture, Health and
Safety.
Mr. Gloeckner asked whether the applicant had gone through any County agency,
such as the Engineering Department, and Mr. Spangler replied that he had not.
Mr. Bowerman observed that he thought he could go along with the rezoning of
the two -acre parcel, but that he did not believe he would be willing to extend
that to the recently purchased one -acre parcel.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne whether the runoff retention use on the smaller
parcel could be allowed to continue under Village Residential zoning.
Mr. Payne replied that if it were lawfully nonconforming, it could continue.
Mrs. Diehl asked about how the scenic highway designation requirements
might affect this property if it were rezoned.
Mr. Payne replied that this was immaterial, as the property is in the overlay
district. He added that if '.he retaining pond were lawfully constructed at
the time of construction, it would be legally nonconforming if rezoned now.
Mrs. Diehl said that she was thinking in terms of pursuing Mr. Bowerman's
line of thinking, that is, to rezone the larger parcel but not the smaller,
if the retention pond could continue as a lawful use but no business use be
allowed on the smaller parcel.
Mr. Payne responded that this seemed like a proper approach, limiting use of
the smaller parcel to only those uses permitted under Village Residential
and prohibiting any business use on this parcel, but allowing the retention
pond to continue.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was a site plan, and Mr. Keeler replied that
there was not.
Mr. Spangler protested that his property was A-1 until it was improperly
rezoned without his notification.
Mrs. Diehl asked him whether he had received permits to expand his farm
buildings and to install silos.
Mr. Spangler answered that he had not built any new buildings and that there
were no silos, but metal storage tanks.
0
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Spangler when he had purchased the smaller parcel.
He replied that he would have to check his records, but that it was over two
years ago and he would never have purchased additional land if he had thought
he would be prevented from using it for business expansion.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to explain again why with this rezoning the
Commission could not require compliance with the scenic highway designation.
Mr. Payne explained that because it was a non -conforming use in existence,
before the scenic highway designation was made, it continued as a non -conforming
use, regardless of its zoning status.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that any new building construction would have to comply
with the scenic highway requirements.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were additional questions or comments from the
Commissioners.
Mr. Gloeckner said that his original opinion had not changed, that this use
was proper and acceptable, but that he was concerned that if the property
changed hands and Mr. Spangler moved, Highway Commercial zoning would allow
all the uses permitted under HC.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Spangler if he intended to keep the current operation a
feed and seed farm supply business. He replied that he did.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant would have time to address the matter
before it came before the Board, if the Commission should decide to deny the
application, based on its concerns about possible expanded business uses on
the property.
Mr. Payne and Mr. Keeler replied that the applicant could so address the
matter.
Mr. Bowerman stated that while he was comfortable with the existing use of the
property, he would have problems endorsing expanded use beyond that in existence.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant whether he would be willing to spell out his
intentions with regard to future use of the property.
Mr. Spangler replied that he believed he had already done so, that he was a
tax payer who paid the salary of the Planning Commission, and that the
Planning staff had already studied the request and made a recommendation for
approval.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler about how a site plan could be required. She
explained that she would be more comfortable with making a decision if a
site plan could be reviewed.
Mr. Keeler explained that only if additional intensification of use took
4 place, requiring a building permit and additional parking, would a site plan
r be required. Or, he explained, if the Highway Department determined that
intensification of use required an improvement to the entrance, a site plan
would be required.
YD/
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of ZMA-81-17, the rezoning of Parcel 48,
consisting of 2.573 acres, subject to Mrs. Dorrier's questions being
answered prior to Board review of the application.
Mr. Payne advised Mr. Gloeckner to separate the action by making two
separate motions, so that the Commission could request the answers to
Mrs. Dorrier's questions directly from the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Keeler
had pointed out that the Zoning Administrator was the proper party to address.
He further explained that zoning was a division under Building Inspections,
a separate department from Planning.
Mr. Gloeckner made a new motion for approval of ZMA-81-17, which Mr. Kindrick
seconded. There was no further discussion and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner made another motion that the questions posed by Mrs. Dorrier be
answered by the Zoning Administrator, it being the duty of the Planning staff
to advise the Zoning Administrator of Mrs. Dorrier's specific questions and
concerns. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman, which passed unanimously
with no further discussion.
Mrs. Diehl stated that action must now be taken on the smaller parcel,
ZMA-81-18, on which the retention pond is located.
Mr. Gloeckner asked whether this parcel was a subdivision lot before
Mr. Spangler bought it.
Mr. Keeler and Mr. Payne explained that originally this property had been
part of Bellevue Subdivision, a subdivision that existed around 1911. The
Board of Supervisors vacated the plat in 1974, Mr. Payne said, and a number
of the subdivision lots were combined.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant whether he intended any further use on the
smaller parcel, other than displaying his farm equipment and for the retention
pond.
When Mr. Bowerman was satisfied with the applicant's response, he moved for
denial of the rezoning application, saying that the nonconforming use currently
in existence was suitable. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, saying that when
the time came for expansion of use on the property, a site plan would be
required along with a rezoning application. When there was no further
discussion, a vote was taken on the motion, which passed unanimously, and the
rezoning request on ZMA-81-18 was denied.
Mrs. Dorrier objected to the June 17, 1981, date for the Board of Supervisors
review of these applications, saying that she would be out of town.
SP-81-21 Mary H. Leavell - Located in the Ivy area on Route 787, approximately
2/10 of a mile from the intersection of Routes 708 and 787, west. County
Tax Map 57, Parcel 51, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Proposal to locate
a tennis facility (non-public) on part of 85 acres in the RA district, in
accordance with Section 10.2.2(4) of the Zoning Ordinance.
4
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
�o Z
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if she wished to make a statement at this time.
Mrs. Leavell said that the tennis court was located in a dell on the farm of
86 acres that she and her husband own. She explained that she would be the
only instructor of tennis, that she intended to teach about fifteen hours per
week to small groups, numbering no more than six students at a time, between
the hours of 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Mrs. Leavell said that she and her husband had
resided on this property for twelve years and were designing this tennis project
for residents of the community, most of whom would be in easy walking distance.
She said that no advertising was planned and that large groups were not desired.
Mrs. Leavell asked that the Commission reconsider Saturday classes, explaining
that it would be a hardship for some of her older students if they could not
take lessons on Saturday, since during the week would be inconvenient. She
said that she would be willing to limit the hours on. Saturday. She asked, in
completing her statement, that the neighbors who had attended the public hearing
in her support, stand to make their presence known.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there would be public comment concerning this petition.
Mrs. Carolyn Engelhard identified herself as an adjacent owner. She stated
that she and her husband could see the tennis court from their home and could
clearly hear noise from it. She proceeded to read into the record the letter
addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, on May 31, 1981, from Dr. Victor H. Engelhard
and Carolyn Long Engelhard (on file in SP-81-21), voicing objection to SP-81-21.
Mrs. Engelhard explained her concern about the extent of the proposed tennis
facility and how it might affect the rural character of the setting for their
home.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment.
Mr. William Gray stated that his property was much closer to the tennis court
than that of the Engelhards and he wished to state that he viewed the project
as upgr_adinr,, the neighborhood and less harassing than hunters,cows and
horses, which are permitted.
Dr. Victor Engelhard said that in response to Mrs. Leavell's contention that
most of her students would be local, within walking distance, he had friends
in Free Union, about twelve miles away, who had received Mrs. Leavell's
brochure. In addition, Dr. Engelhard pointed out that the brochure gives
directions to the farm from Charlottesville.
Mr. Fred Manson spoke in support of Mrs. Leavell_, saying that his two
daughters were going to take lessons from her.
Mr. Beckwith said that he and his wife were neighbors of Mrs. Leavell and
were delighted with her proposed project.
Mrs. Nancy Gray said that she would add her support to her husband's earlier
comments. She said that they live across from the Leavells and view the
tennis academy as an asset to the community, containing nothing detrimental.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any further public comment. There was
+✓' none, and the applicant did not choose to make a final statement, so Mrs. Diehl
declared the matter before the Commission and the public hearing closed.
Ya3
Mr. Bowerman asked how far the Engelhard house was located from the tennis
court. It was established that about a quarter of a mile lay between the
house and court, each of which was located on a hill, with a valley inbetween.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the brochure indicated that lessons were slated to begin
in April. She asked Mrs. Leavell whether in fact she had begun to give tennis
instruction.
Mrs. Leavell replied that it was her understanding from discussions with
Mr. Ron Keeler that it would be proper to have guests come for instruction
if no payment were made.
Mrs. Diehl asked approximately how many people were coming for instruction on
a daily basis. Mrs. Leavell replied eight.
Mr. Gloeckner asked Mrs. Leavell what hours might she wish if Saturday
instruction were permitted. Mrs. Leavell replied ten to two.
Mr. Cogan suggested that Saturday lessons be allowed, but that no artificial
lighting be allowed at any time. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant's
hours were supported by Mr. Cogan or the regular weekly hours. Mr. Cogan
replied that the Saturday hours proposed by the applicant, 10 to 2 p.m.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval, subject to the conditions recommended by
staff with the amendments made by the Commission on Saturday hours and no
installation of artificial lighting. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman asked about limiting the special use permit to two acres, as
recommended by staff. It was determined that this could become the sixth
condition:
1) Limitation of one tennis court;
2) Not more than 21 hours of lessons per week, limited to Monday
through Friday, between the hours of 9:00 a.m, and 7:00 p.m., and on
Saturday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
3) The court shall not be open to the general public. This permit
issued to allow only private lessons as described in Condition #2;
4) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
the entrance. Staff approval of parking facilities;
5) No artificial lighting for tennis;
6) Special use permit to be applied to two (2) acres of the property,
exclusive of any dwellings, and this area is to be described by plat with
appropriate metes and bounds and shown to the Planning Department within
thirty (30) days of June 2, 1981.
Mrs. Diehl said that the traffic within the last two years had certainly
increased on Route 787 and that the residents should be aware of this trend
and the probability of continued increase.
A vote was taken on the motion, which passed unanimously with no further
discussion.
0
SP-81-18 Claude W. Cotten - Located on Route 20 North in Stony Point, just
beyond Stony Point School. County Tax Map 48, Parcel 15, Rivanna Magisterial
District. Proposal to locate a small private schocl on rear of property
(existing building) on part of 40.84 acres in the RA district, in accordance
with Section 10.2.2(5) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to make any comment at this
time.
Mr. Cotten said that he was speaking in behalf of his brother and his wife,
owners of the property. He stated that the kitchen would be converted to the
school .room. Mr. Cotten said that the kitchen was built according to code
requirements and was inspected, although the other buildings were constructed
prior to their being inspections. He said that a wall would be modified
according to recommendations made by Ira Cortez, to better insure a fire wall.
He said that if this petition were approved by the Board, a corridor was
going to be constructed to provide cover in connecting the rest rooms to the
school room. Mr. Cotten said that eventually there would be grades K-12,
but initially probably there would be grades K-8 or 10.
Mr. Cotten said that the butane tank for the existing stove and even would be
turned off, as recommended by the Fire Marshall, while school was in session.
He said that Highway Department recommendations on moving the entrance would
be followed as well.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any public comments.
Mrs. William Craddock asked what sort of a school it might be, since it is
unaccredited.
Mr. Cotten responded that there would be an established curriculum and that
the standards of the school would probably exceed those of accredited schools.
He explained that the curriculum was that of May Carden. He added that the
teacher currently being considered was certified and that the school could be
certified if desired.
Mr. Gloeckner asked about the school year, and Mr. Cotten replied that it
would be from September through spring. He added that Christian meetings took
place at the facility year round.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the entire school would be contained in one room.
Mr. Cotten said this was correct, that improvements were being made, a second
door installed, carpeting placed on the floor.
Mrs. Diehl said that all of the students of all the grades would be together
with one teacher and one helper. Mr. Cotten confirmed her understanding.
Mrs. Diehl added that a fire wall and fire doors would be required. Mr. Cotten
said that a fire wall was in existence and the additional door would fulfill
the fire requirements.
Mrs. Diehl asked about availability of water. Mr. Cotten responded that there
were two wells on the property with adequate supply for large groups.
ayv
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval, subject to conditions as recommended by
staff, saying that it was a very interesting concept in education with
historical precedent. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Cotten asked to inform the Commission that this would be a non-profit
operation.
A vote was taken on the motion, which passed uanimously with no further
discussion, to recommend approval of SP-81-18, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Fire and Building Official approvals of the building for use as
a school;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance to Route 20 North and County Engineer approval of paving
specs for entrance road and parking area;
3. Fire Official approval of exterior safety features such as emergency
vehicular access and fire lanes;
4. Written Health Department approval to include review of water supply
for potability and adequacy of restroom facilities;
5. Enrollment shall not exceed 25 students.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter of whether or not to waive a site plan
requirement would next be addressed.]
Mr. Kindrick said that if staff thought it could be waived as long as the
approval was subject to all of the recommended conditions, he was in
agreement with staff.
Mrs. Diehl said that she would prefer to see a site plan, so that she could
see that all of the conditions of approval had been met before the school
went into session. She asked whether there were further comments or questions.
Mr. Cotten asked how a site plan would cover more than those conditions already
attached to the special use permit. Mrs. Diehl answered that a site plan
requirement would give the Commission an opportunity to satisfy itself that
all the special use permit conditions had been met prior to the school going
into session. She expressed belief that this was a sort of safeguard, since
no State agencies would be inspecting the school.
Mr. Gloeckner asked it the Health Department would be checking the potability
of the water supply annually.
Mr. Cotten responded by saying that extremely large septic fields had been
installed. He was not certain whether the water itself had been tested but
said that he would be glad to have it tested. Mr. Cotten also offered to
check back with the Commission to show that the conditions had been met.
Mr. Payne advised Mrs. Diehl that action was necessary only if the site plan
was to be waived; if it was not to be waived, no action need be taken, he said.
you
Mr. Gloeckner moved to waive a site plan requirement, as recommended by the
ti Planning staff, if the five conditions of approval were met on the special
use permit, and subject to yearly review by the Health Department of the water
supply and Fire Official approval of the continued use of the buildings,
annually, and in accordance with Section 32.2.2.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further
discussion.
There was a five minute recess at this time.
The next item on the agenda, Mrs. Diehl announced,would be under OLD BUSINESS,
a discussion of the updated _Proposed Historic Preservation Overlay District
Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler gave the Commission some background information on the Historic
Preservation Committee's proposal for a historic preservation zoning district.
Mr. Keeler explained that Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Chairman of the
Committee, had requested a meeting with the Planning Commission in order to
bring the Commission up to date on the various provisions of the Ordinance.
He explained that this preservation ordinance was deferred, due to the activity
on revising the zoning Ordinance, and was now being brought back.
Mr. Keeler explained certain features of the ordinance. He said that any
construction within the designated overlay area would require architectural
errreview and any specifically designated historic building would require a
permit in order to be raised, but would not otherwise affect rules and
regulations pertaining to different zoning districts.
Mrs. Diehl said that she saw this meeting as an opportunity to refresh every-
one's memory and become reacquainted with the ordinance, perhaps setting a
future date for another work session. She asked Mr. Dorrier to speak at this
time.
Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. thanked Mrs. Diehl and told the Commission that
to set the record straight, he wished to inform the Commission that this
Committee had been formed by the Board of Supervisors in November of 1977
and had met throughout 1978. Mr. Dorrier stated that the Committee worked
closely with Mr. Payne to develop an ordinance that came before the Commission
in late 1978. It was eventually deferred, he said, due to the work on
revising the zoning Ordinance. At that time, Mr. Dorrier said, the preservation
ordinance was given back to the Committee. He said that it had been about two
and a half years since the ordinance had been discussed. Mr. Dorrier said that
several people had come to him recently asking about the status of this
ordinance. He said that he thought it best to bring the ordinance back before
the Commission along with some amendments making it more of a voluntary sort
of arrangement. Mr. Dorrier said that he thought it appropriate for the
Commission to give the Committee some direction or indication that the Committee
should proceed.
Mr. Dorrier said in summary that the ordinance would preserve and protect
historic building, set up an architectural review board, which would issue
H07
certificates of appropriateness on any major revisions to buildings within
the district as well as take an inventory of all buildings in the County 100
years or older. He said that there would also be a tasteful marker placed
in front of designated buildings. This Committee would deal with problems
and issues related to preserving older buildings, Mr. Dorrier continued. He
said that this designation would not affect the existing zoning of properties
but would not allow anything incongruous to the historic district. He
explained that this would not preclude anything commercial, but would ensure
that it be in keeping with the district, as has been accomplished in the
Court Square area and in Williamsburg.
Mr. Dorrier said that Mr. Henry J. Brown drew up the amendments he was
distributing to the Commission. These amendments would among other things,
Mr. Dorrier explained, make the designation subject to the owner's agreement.
As to why an ordinance is needed, Mr. Dorrier said that in talking with
Mr. Jeffrey O'Dell, who is compiling a history on Albemarle County, it had
come out that there were 800 historic structures or sites in Albemarle. He
said that there were approximately 25 landmarks out of 200 estates in Albemarle.
Mr. Jeffrey O'Dell is with the Virginia Landmarks Commission, Mr. Dorrier
added.
Mr. Dorrier next addressed the tax advantages of setting up districts. He
cited Federal and State laws that allow owners of historic buildings to
make improvements and amortize over a period of time of five years the cost
of rehabilitation. Mr. Dorrier said that he could also depreciate at an
accelerated rate and get some tax advantages from that.
He mentioned that the City had just killed a measure to provide a tax break
on renovated property. The State law, Mr. Dorrier explained, offered a tax
break for renovation of not less than forty percent of a residential building,
consisting of a ten-year deferral or exemption from any increase of real
estate tax, on property within districts set up by counties that would have
historical value. On commercial structures, Mr. Dorrier said that the
percentage of improvement would have to be a minimum of sixty percent.
Mr. Dorrier said that these breaks encourage renovation and preservation and
might entice adjacent owners to join a district.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether other members of the public wished to speak before
there was general discussion of the ordinance.
Mrs. Virginia Moore stated that she had been a member of this Committee, but
had been in Alexandria during some of the last meetings and was not involved
in the final wording of the ordinance. She regretted this and said that she
had a lot to say now that she had a copy to examine. Mrs. Moore said that to
her the need was doubleheaded - one, to protect buildingsof historic value
and two, to sell the idea to the public. She said that a document such as
this needed to be much clearer. She suggested that the purpose of the ordinance
should be radically rewritten, but in clear vivid English that could be
understood. Mrs. Moore said that if the ordinance could not be sold, it might
as well be forgotten. Mrs. Moore said that even the title of the ordinance
concerned her, taking issue with the word district. She pointed out that
zoning is designated by zone, and she suggested that historic preservation
area might be used. She added that district connotes a number of buildings.
Mrs. Moore stated that she had gone through the entire ordinance trying to
eliminate two words where one could be used, changing the words building or
structure to just building, or demolish or raise to just demolish. She stated
L1%
that lawyers will tell you that even a will written in good, clear, concise
unambiguous English is as legal as a will written in "legalese." She said
'err✓ that this was the sort of language she would hope the ordinance would be
written in.
Mrs. Dorrier said that she would spare the Commission any further opinions,
with one final point. She said that the main means of historic preservation
is set back, which she stated is true throughout the country. And yet, she
said that in this ordinance there is only one slight reference to it with no
elaboration whatsoever. In closing, she suggested using an ideal minimum set
back of 200 feet, to be modified in certain topographically -warranted situations
or at the discretion of the architectural review board. Mrs. Dorrier said
that the use of set back was a vital tool for historic protection.
Mrs. Diehl thanked her and asked if there was further public comment.
Helen Craddock said that in working out the ordinance the greatest stumbling
block had been trying to establish an area for historic protection, for
example, in the case of a birth place such as that of George Rodgers Clark -
how much of the farm should be preserved. Mrs. Craddock said that it was
difficult to determine whether out buildings and farm acreage should be
included, whether the view of the birth place should be protected from the
roadway, etc. She said that this was a problem to be thrashed out, and she
suggested that the Committee work on this issue, perhaps getting advice
from other counties and states.
Mr. C. J. Elder asked to speak in agreement with Mr. Dorrier's earlier
suggestion on providing tax incentives to property owners preserving historic
buildings. He stated that he had a copy of a bulletin published by the
Secretary of the Interior, which sets down very clearly guidelines on
recommended and not recommended acts of historic renovation. Mr. Elder said
that he thought anyone could understand the language in the bulletin and
that if a local ordinance was to tie in with a tax code, these guidelines
would have to be followed in order to qualify for any tax advantages. He
thought that perhaps the Committee and Commission would like to study this
bulletin.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Elder for his remarks.
Mr. Gloeckner said that several tax credits were being discussed.
Mr. Elder clarified that he was speaking of Federal income tax credits,
simply an amortization of capital improvements. Under this reform act of
1976, to encourage historic restoration, a businessman may write off the
improvement over the following five years, instead of over the life span of
the existing building, which is usually twenty or twenty-five years.
Mr. Elder explained that this was a tremendous incentive to a businessman.
He said that any restoration project would have to meet three provisions of
the act, must be a certified structure and either listed individually in the
National Register of Historic Places or located within a certified district
as listed with the Secretary of the Interior of historic significance. The
last provision is that the structure must be located in a historic district
so designated by local or State statute. Mr. Elder said that it was surprising
that local businessmen had not worked to bring about a local ordinance to
establish historic districts in Albemarle County, because currently the Federal
tax breaks could not be taken advantage of.
W/
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Committee wished to have some direction from
the Commission, some feedback, and stated that two points had held up
progress previously: (1) how to delineate a historic district and (2)
whether it should be a voluntary or involuntary ordinance.
Mrs. Craddock asked whether a property owner could refuse to have his
property designated a historic district.
Mrs. Diehl said that as she understood the ordinance as it was written
today, the Board of Supervisors would so designate a historic district and
there was no appeal procedure provision for someone to remove his property
from a historic district.
Mr. Dorrier pointed out that the amendments made such placement within a
designated historic district a voluntary act on the part of the property
owner.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Committee members were aware of any other
counties having put a similar ordinance into effect and whether they were
satisfied with it.
Mr. Dorrier replied that Loudon, Prince William, Fairfax had such ordinances.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether this ordinance differed drastically from any of
these.
Mr. Dorrier replied that in Loudon it was voluntary, but once a property
decided to become part of the historic district, it could not be removed.
Mrs. Diehl clarified that the size of the district could vary substantially
but participation by a property owner was voluntary.
Mrs. Moore stated that Jeffrey O'Dell who is doing the current survey of
buildings in Albemarle County aged 100 years or older, had recommended that
the Committee read the Prince William ordinance. She said that she had the
name of someone at the Virginia Landmarks Commission who could send the
Committee ordinances from various localities, as well as the Prince William
one. Mrs. Moore pointed out that many Albemarle landmarks were estates well
protected on all sides by their own land, but in some instances there were
landmarks protected on three sides, but vulnerable on the fourth to close
proximity to a road. Mrs. Moore stated that Albemarle landmarks were assets
and treasures to be protected. She said that the owners of landmarks were
a secondary concern. She continued, saying that landmarks were of aesthetic
and cultural significance to the County, providing commercial and economic
benefits. She stated that these landmarks provided a quality which gave the
area great appeal and attracted people to this County. Mrs. Moore said that
you cannot increase historic buildings. She said that they decrease naturally,
by fire and vandalism. Mrs. Moore said that these historic buildings are
memorials of the history of the County, vivid reminders of a rich past, and
very great assets of the County. She said something much greater was at stake
in preserving old homes than protecting the owners from something modern and
ugly coming to close to them. She said that this was not understood by a lot
of people when discussion of a historic preservation ordinance came up.
dN
OR
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners for their comments and suggestions to the
Committee.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he had no problem making the ordinance voluntary, but
many historic structures were not individual buildings, items such as bridges.
He asked at what stage something becomes historical.
Mr. Dorrier replied that he believed generally the ordinance spoke to
structures over 100 years, but less than that at the discretion of the
architectural review board.
Mrs. Moore added something unique and architecturally significant or with
architectural merit. She added that she did not think a voluntary ordinance
would have any strength.
Mr. Cogan said that he thought it would have to be voluntary, he did not
believe that an owner could be forced into a historic district or an adjacent
owner. He added that incentives should be offered, a job of the Committee
and Commission. Mr. Cogan said that he attended some earlier meetings of
this Committee, prior to being a member of the Planning Commission, and he
remembered Henry Brown voicing his opinion that it would almost have to be
a voluntary ordinance in order to pass. Mr. Cogan said that the Committee
could go beyond creating an ordinance, pointing out tax benefits and advantages
perhaps receiving tax deductible contributions for buying up historic
property or vacant land adjacent to historic sites. Mr. Cogan suggested
developing criteria for being part of a historic district, making the idea
attractive as an exclusive sort of designation for which one had to qualify.
He said that he thought the Committee could pursue other avenues to gather
support for the idea of preserving historic places.
Mrs. Diehl said that the Committee had worked long and hard on this ordinance
which was involuntary, and which would be her personal preference, but based
on what she was hearing, she did not know whether an involuntary ordinance
would work in Albemarle. Mrs. Diehl added that she also had problems with
the word district. She stated that as a first step perhaps the Committee
should work on developing a voluntary type ordinance and examine in more depth
ordinances from other areas.
Mrs. Craddock wondered about using the word site instead of district.
Mrs. Diehl said that she wanted to examine the Comprehensive Plan relating
to historic preservation, for some guidance in exploring how to best go
about this.
Mr. Bowerman said that he liked the idea of making it voluntary and that he
agreed with Mr. Gloeckner and Mr. Cogan. He said that he saw the need to
create a mechanism so that an owner of a landmark could apply for and receive
a designation. He said that yes, the County, the State, the nation benefits
from a historic landmark, but that the owner should receive some ecnomic
benefit. Additionally, Mr. Bowerman said that he would like to see a
mechanism in the ordinance providing for the architectural review board to
initiate historic designations on public items, such as bridges and in
certain extreme cases, abandoned dilapidated buildings. He said that he
would not want to rule out all County input on historic designations.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further comments.
V/
Mr. Gloeckner said that perhaps the Board of Supervisors should be approached
with the idea of creating incentives, because rules and regulations could
not be developed without knowing what they might be. He said that any
restrictions on historic property and adjacent properties would be unpalatable
unless the incentives were known and in place at the same time. Mr. Gloeckner
suggested that the Committee present a two -headed spear, an overlay site with
its rules and regulations and also a benefit/incentive package along with it
for Commission review.
Mrs. Moore asked whether these incentives would always be financial.
Mr. Gloeckner replied no. Mr. Cogan said that probably they would primarily
be financial, speaking realistically.
Mrs. Moore said that she would hope to call on people's sense of aesthetics.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Committee had now an idea of where the Commission
stood on this matter or whether there were any more specific questions.
Mr. Dorrier thanked the Commission and said that it had been most helpful.
He said that he would try to get copies of other rural ordinances along with
maps and try to investigate how property owners were enticed into historic
districts.
Mr. Gloeckner offered to have the Commission help establish site size and
define a site.
Mr. Dorrier said that when the Committee decided to meet, he would send an
invitation to the Commission. Mrs. Diehl thanked the Committee for its
attendance.
Under NEW BUSINESS, Mr. Keeler explained that a Resolution of Intent was
needed to incorporate provisions related to entrances within 500 feet of
crossovers. He explained that this provision had been omitted from the new
Zoning Ordinance inadvertently.
Mr. Bowerman made a motion to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to incorporate the substantive provisions of that original provision
17-3-8.01. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no
discussion.
Mr. Payne said that he thought that the Commission might be interested to know
that Senator Michie had requested him to prepare some legislation related to
requiring developers to make improvements to public roads, as a result of the
Hilton case. Mr. Payne said that this proposed legislation would go in the
form of a bill to the General Assembly and would provide the authority which
the Supreme Court had said was lacking in the Hilton case.
Mr. Keeler said staff would appreciate not being asked to explain action
taken by the Board of Supervisors and believed that the correct person to
address this matter was the ex-officio member, but that action memos from
the Board are sent to the Commission.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
C,
/(�� h4) 'L�g, . eql-
Rc ert W. Tucker, Jr.
Secretary
2M
June 9, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 9, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A.Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David
P. Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove;Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Corwith
Davis; Mr. Allan Kindrick; and Mr.Richard Cogan. Other officials present were
Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident
Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; Ms. N. Mason
Caperton, Senior Planner; Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Acting County Engineer; and
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning.
Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was
present.
SP-81-20 Willoughby Corporation / Later reassigned to be ZMA-81-22 Willoughby
Corporation - Located on the south side of Harris Road in Willoughby, off of
Fifth Street Extended. County Tax Map 76M(2), portions of Parcels 5A, 5B, 6B,
6A, 7 and 8, Scottsville Magisterial District. Proposal to amend the original
Planned Unit Development for Willoughby to locate 154 duplex units on 19.0
acres, with a gross density of 3.42 dwelling units per acre, with 24.0 acres
in open space and 2.0 acres in roads.
Ms. Caperton gave the Staff Report and handed out an addendum which gave the
Comprehensive Plan recommendation and school impact information. Ms. Caperton
amended the Staff Report under suggested recreational facilities, suggesting
instead of Baseball diamond, that Play fields be provided. She also said that
the Commission might want to consider requiring a grass strip between joint
driveways in order to break up pavement with so many'curb cuts. As Ms. Caperton
read the suggested conditions of approval, she amended the third condition to
include the underscored sentence:
3. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans for acceptance by the State (Part I or II, as referenced
in J. Ashley Williams' letter dated May 20, 1981, to Roy Parks), to include
sidewalks on the northern sides of Harris Road and Canary Lane. These comments
are to be amended to reflect tertiary road standards in Option or Part II.
Ms. Caperton read the fifteen conditions of approval and added two additional
conditions:
16. Removal of the temporary package treatment plant prior to plat approval
of the two affected lots.
17. Revise the plan to allow for two (2) parking spaces per unit. Driveway
entrance locations for each lot will be reviewed with the final road plans.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr.Roosevelt or Mr.Williams wished to make any comments
at this time.
4/3
Mr. Williams said that he would like to give a little background on his
letter to Mr. Roy Parks of May 20,1981. He said that his recommendation was
based on traffic analysis of Phase II and III,based on subdivision standards
of the Highway Department. He explained that the difference between I and II
was that in I parking would be allowed on the street and in II the width would
not permit parking on the street. The III option left the design of Harris
Road and Canary Lane as they were on the first two proposals and allowed cul-
de-sacs to be designed with wide shoulders and grass -lined swales.
Mr. Williams said that there had been a number of complaints on drainage and
erosion problems in Phase I. He said that his recommendation was to go with
curb on one side and curb with sidewalk on the other side in a development of
this density. Each of the cul-de-sacs would have curbing around it, he said.
In discussions with the Highway Department,Mr.Williams said that it had been
agreed that thisoverall concept was a better design for this type of development.
Mr. Williams said that Phase I was totally unacceptable to him.
Mr. Roosevelt said that he thought that Mr. Williams was going to go over the
changes made in a meeting held earlier in the day on II. Engineering Department's
Alternate Proposal #1. Mr. Roosevelt explained that under B Canary Lane the
36' Face to Face was changed to 30' Face to Face. Under C Roads 1-10, he
continued, Roads 1-4 and 6-10 would have 24'Face to Face, curb and gutter, 30'
right-of-way, Road 5 to remain the same.
Mr. Roosevelt said that the Highway Department recommended I. of J. Ashley
Williams' memo attachment, because of the density of the development and because
there was no agency to enforce the no -parking on streets requirement. He said
that the 24' curbing would take care of drainage problems but not the parking
problem.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether all of the Commissioners had been able to note the
changes as stated. Ms. Caperton passed around the noted changes.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roy Parks if he would like to speak at this time.
Mr. Parks stated that he had no problem with the overall recommendations, except
with some of the conditions concerning roads. He said that he had not understood
from Ms. Caperton that she had needed information on the area on the other side
of the river. He stated that he thought she had been requesting updated data on
this side of river. Mr. Parks said that as far as he was concerned there was no
phase on the other side of the river, only the project now before the Commission.
Mr. Parks said that when this project was started, it had been believed that a
road and a bridge were going in. He said that two lawsuits had been lost, and
there is no chance of building another phase across the river. He said that this
land was in the hands of a realtor to sell to the higher bidder. Mr. Parks said
that it was news to him that a right-of-way was being recommended and the
construction of a road or bridge. Ms. Caperton clarified that leaving right-of-
way was part of Condition 6, with construction of the access being required at
the time the remainder of the PUD is developed. Mr. Parks wondered whether any
condition placed on this petition would obligate a future seller and if so, it
would probably prevent the sale of that property on the other side of Moore's
Creek and cause problems at a later date. He said that there were a number of
industrial uses in the area, as well as some property zoned for industrial use,
and that problems from truck traffic could be envisioned if a road were put in.
HN
Mr. Parks said he had no difficulties with the recreational facilities
fir.• suggested in the Staff Report and in fact thought they should be provided.
Mr. Parks said that Highway Department standards were used in submitting all
the road plans, the only difference being whether curb and gutter and sidewalk
were to be included. He said that this feature doubles or triples expenses.
He said that some of the complaints earlier stemmed from confusion and
misunderstanding over contractural agreements as to who was to do the work.
He said that corrections had been made within the last few days. Mr. Parks
said that now there are no erosion problems and the recently seeded swales
are taking hold. He took issue that phone calls of complaint should affect
the cost of this proposed housing. Mr. Parks also questioned whether actual
residents wanted curb and gutter and sidewalk, when it drove the market price
up $7,000 or $8,000, and cost the developer $1,500 to $2,000 additionally per lot.
Mr. Parks said that the width of Route 250 to Richmond is only 20 feet, more
narrow than the width proposed for the cul-de-sacs. He said that Route 250
had been a major artery for most of this century and most County roads such as
Hydraulic were not as wide as the roads proposed in this plan. In fact, he
stated, it would put one of the cul-de-sacs almost twice the width of the road
to Richmond. He again stated that Highway Department standards had been used,
although not to urban standards, since this was a PUD.
Mr. Parks said that they had agreed to partial curb and gutter, but said that
the little cul-de-sacs should be left as designed. He also agreed to separation
of road and pedestrian walkways. As a result of a meeting yesterday with Mr. Coburn
alternate III was recommended.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Parks about staff concerns for parking.
Mr. Parks apologized for the drawing which did not illustrate the proposed 3 spaces/
vehicles per unit. He also added that a 25' road is the most dangerous road to
build because it tempts people to park on a road that is not sufficiently wide
to permit parking. A 20' road does not encourage this parking and is thereby a
better choice, he stated.
Mrs. Diehl thanked him and asked whether there was public comment at this time.
Mrs. Charles Drew stated that she resided on Quince Lane and that erosion
problems existed with a neighbor's patio. She stated that soil washed out from
under the patio and that Mr. Wade had provided railroad ties to correct the
loss of soil and that the neighbor had had to do some work himself. She
additionally cited erosion between the driveways of this neighbor and herself,
saying that the neighbor had also worked on this problem, putting in a pipe
where a gully had formed.
Mr. Parks said that this was absolutely true. He explained that the swale was on
-he wrong lot, and no grading plan had been required. Mr. Parks stated that for a
development of this density a grading plan should be required because of the
problem with elevation of the building site. He said that Quince Lane had a
major problem because the swale had been forced in the wrong place; he said that
in his opinion for any development of density greater than single-family
detached, a grading plan should be filed before issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Roosevelt asked to respond to some of Mr. Parks' comments, in particular
to his remarks comparing Willoughby roads to the road to Richmond. He stated
that the sections of 24' and 36' are curb and gutter and not rural sections
with shoulders. He said that the road to Richmond does not have parking
problems either, and that in this case the two issues were drainage and parking.
Mr. Roosevelt said that he predicted that as the development grew, residents
and visitors were going to start parking on the streets along the shoulders,
cause ruts and drainage problems to start. Mr. Roosevelt doubted that there
could be any chance of accommodating three cars, and that two could not park
abreast. He explained that parking one car behind the other would not a
convenient arrangement and would result in one car being parked out on the
street.
Mr. Roosevelt predicted that in a few years people in this development would not
be happy with what they had. He said that this swale concept might cause a
drop in resale value. He said that if everyone were willing to live with the future
very real possibility of dissatisfaction and complaints in order to provide low-
cost housing today, the County Engineer and Highway Department would not be able
to do much about it later.
Mrs. Suzanne Breeden said that she was also a resident of Quince Lane and wanted
to concur with the statements just made by Mr. Roosevelt. She said that due to
the steepness of some of the driveways, some residents were already parking in
the street, because to back down their drives meant dragging the bottom of the
car. She said that if someone was parked along the median strip or island,
someone coming down Quince Lane at times could not get through.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further public comments.
Mr. Parks said that he wanted to make the point again that the elevation be
established on the grading plan.
Mrs. Diehl stated that if there were no further comments, the matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked Mr. Roosevelt to explain whether I, II, and III on Mr. Williams'
memo were all acceptable to the Highway Department.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that they were, but not all acceptable equally, VDHT
preference being I.
Mr. Gloeckner said that his problem was the overall idea of a PUD, if Mr. Parks
was asking to delete part of the land from the design. He wondered whether this
would really continue to be a PUD. He also spoke to the access having changed.
He asked staff for guidance on what it wished from the Commission.
Ms. Caperton responded that the whole plan would have to be amended again, if
that portion across the Moore's Creek would not be developed. She said that
the access being recommended was being done so because it was on the approved
plan and as such should be maintained.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he thought relief should be granted the applicant.
Mr. Payne said that the question was whether the land on the other side of
Moore's Creek would remain a part of this PUD and that the answer was up to
the Commission, ti.e only choices being to develop it as part of the PUD or
not develop it. Staff is recommending,.stated Mr. Payne, that the opportunity be
preserved to develop this in accordance with the PUD plan. Unless the Commission
or Board allowed this developer or another to develop it otherwise, as it exists
now it is part of the PUD. This would require a separate action, Mr. Payne said.
Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that this proposed connection would affect all of
the Highway Department figures. He said that he had not realized that this
was part of the PUD and he did not believe that Ashley Williams had known this
either. Mr. Roosevelt said that traffic from this access would require further
examination of the possible impact.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he seriously doubted that this bridge and road would
become a reality, since the bridge cost could be $200,000 to $300,000, and for
this reason believed that the entire plan should be looked at again.
Mrs. Diehl wondered how the Commission could act on a recommendation by Dan
Roosevelt to eliminate the 50 foot right-of-way, saying that she believed the
Commission had to act on what was before it.
Mr. Cogan asked whether a comparison was made with the part in the City, if the
density is different.
Mr. Parks said that the density was half. This section would be almost double.
Mr. Cogan asked how the roads were in the City section, and it was determined
that they were built to the standards in II. Mr. Cogan asked how they could
have afforded it economically.
Mr. Parks replied that they had paid for it; he said that this housing was more
costly but it sold. He described the eye brow design that had been installed -
and stated that there had been length discussions with the City over putting in
the 36' the City described.
Mrs. Diehl voiced her concern about the on -street parking problems.
Mr. Davis asked whether the concept of swales could only be used when the roadway
was narrow because the runoff is too excessive.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that the concept of swales was a modification of the normal
rural cross section. He explained that the shoulder of the road went right into
the swale with no steep ditch as with a gutter. He also said that drainage went
over the driveway instead of under.
Mr. Gloeckner asked about a rolled curb on one side, whether it would be
acceptable.
Mr. Roosevelt said that this allowed entrances to be installed after installation
of the rolled curbs but any change caused problems,as in Four Seasons.
Mr. Skove said that he was inclined to go along with I.
Mr. Cogan expressed the dilemma of the developer not having enough density
to justify the cost of some of these requirements, yet from the standpoint of
economics there was not a low enough density to justify the kind of road the
developer was proposing. Mr. Cogan asked Mr.Davis if he had been contemplating
yid
a wider road accommodating the parking.
Mr. Davis replied that he had and also had wondered whether a wider road
*400
required underground drainage.
Mrs. Diehl said that she was sympathetic to the economic aspects but felt
that an urban development deserved urban fixtures.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he was inclined to go with Ashley Williams's Alternate
#1, dropping the Face to Face from 38' to 36'. On Canary Lane, he said that he
would reduce the Face to Face from A to cul-de-sac from 36' to 301. On Roads 1-
10 the measurements would be as stated earlier by Mr.Roosevelt.
Mr. Gloeckner asked about the 24' measurement, how Mr. Williams arrived at this
figure. Mr. Williams replied that it was a tertiary design of the Highway
Department and on -street parking is prohibited.
Mr. Cogan observed that as short as some of these cul-de-sacs were, there would
probably be very little cross traffic.
Mr. Bowerman asked what Mr. Gloeckner was achieving by dropping two feet from
the Highway Department specifications for Harris Road, a dollar savings?
Mr. Gloecker responded that this made it consistent.
Mr. Bowerman asked about Canary Lane, dropping to 30' and the same in the last
category, C Roads 1-10.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he had not decided on the last category.
Mr. Davis said that he thought all roads on the cul-de-sacs should be 30'.
Mr. Cogan concurred with this, as did Mr. Bowerman.
Mrs. Diehl said that she recollected that the Commission was going to require
sidewalks on the other side of the road at a later phase.
Ms. Caperton responded that it had not been made a staff recommendation due to
the fact that Harris Road could not be extended and therefore did not go any-
where.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any other questions concerning the
conditions.
Mr. Davis asked whether condition two had to remain. Mrs. Diehl asked whether
anyone wanted to tack on a motion.
Mr. Gloeckner asked Ms. Caperton if she had amended one of the conditions to
require open space to be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots platted.
She responded that this was correct and additionally repeated the new conditions
16 and 17.
Mr. Payne said that one technical matter needed to be addressed. He said that
technically this petition represented a zoning map amendment, rather than a
special use permit. He said that the procedure was identical, the advertising
requirements the same, etc. But since the PUD's before adoption of the new
Zoning Ordinance were by special use permit in the A-1 district, but since
adoption of the new ordinance were now zoned PUD, this represented an amendment
to the zoning map and should therefore be a ZMA petition.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this petition, subject to the amended
conditions of approval recommended by staff. Mr.Bowerman seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Following were the conditions of approval:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 154 duplex units on 45.0 acres. Location
and acreages shall remain substantially the same as the approved plan (except
where revisions are required to meet conditions contained herein. Open space
shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved on a final plat.
2. Amend the overall PUD master plan to reflect all changes, approved
land uses, road alignment, recreational uses, etc. Submit three copies to the
Planning Department prior to final plat submittal for Phases II and III.
3. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans for acceptance by the State in accordance with the
following:
I. VDH&T Subdivision Road Standards (as modified by Planning Commission)
A. Harris Road
From existing portion to A:
From A to B:
From B to C:
From C to end of cul-de-sac:
36' Face to Face
Cat. V Pavement
50' Right -of -Way
36' Face to Face
Cat. IV Pavement
50' Right -of -Way
36' Face to Face
Cat. III Pavement
50' Right -of -Way
36' Face to Face
Cat. I Pavement
50' Right -of -Way
Sidewalk and curb combination along north side of road with curbing on south
side. S-5 surface course. On -street parking allowed.
B. Canary Lane
From Harris Road to A: 30' Face to Face
Cat. III Pavement
50' Right -of -Way
y19
From A to end of cul-de-sac: 30' Face to Face
Cat. I Pavement
50' Right -of -Way
Sidewalk and curb combination on west side of road with curbing on east side.
S-5 surface course. On -street parking allowed.
C. Roads 1-4 and 6-10:
Ro ad 5 :
30' Face to Face
Cat. I Pavement
40' Right -of -Way
30' Face to Face
Cat. II Pavement
40' Right -of -Way
Curbing on both sides of road. S-5 surface course. On -street parking allowed.
4. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Provisions prior to final plat
review by the Planning Commission.
5. Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service
Authority.
6. Note a right-of-way of sufficient width to serve as access to the
commercial and residential uses across Moored Creek from Phases I, II, and III
and reduce the open space by that amount. The right-of-way shall be dedicated
to public use on the final plat. Construction of the access will be required at
the time the remainder of the PUD is developed.
7. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the
maintenance of recreational equipment, open space, drainage and appurtenant
structures.
8. No grading shall occur prior to final plat approval.
9. Staff approval of active recreational facilities to comply with the 50
square feet per unit requirement in the Zoning Ordinance prior to Planning
Commission review of the final plat.
10. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans.
11. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow.
12. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
13. Only those areas where roads, utilities, buildings, or other improvements
are located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state.
14. Evidence of an adequate building site on each lot shall be provided
prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat.
In
�Z0
15. No buildings shall be constructed on slopes greater than twenty-five
percent (25%).
16. Removal of temporary package treatment plant prior to final plat
approval of affected lots.
17. Revise the plan to allow for two (2) parking spaces per unit. Driveway
entrance locations for each lot will be reviewed with the final road plans.
ZMA-81-19 William and Alvin Breit - Located on eastern side of Route 29 North,
opposite Camelot subdivision, approximately 1,200 feet north of North Fork
Rivanna bridge crossing. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 5F, Rivanna Magisterial
District. Proposal to rezone 6.87 acres currently zoned RA Rural Areas to LI
Light Industrial.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time. Mr. Breit
said that he had no comment at this time, but would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment. When there was none, she
declared the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked whether the Service Authority had opposed the expansion of the
Camelot plant, having had some problem with putting things in series.
Mr. Keeler replied that this was correct, and with the wisdom of time other
parties had seen that this was not the most desirable alternative. Mr. Keeler
said that he now understood that there was a possibility of extending an
interceptor and that negotiations and discussion was currently taking place.
He said that expansion of the plant did not appear to be desirable to anyone.
Mr. Keeler said that extending an interceptor would require Planning Commission
and possibly Board review, for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Skove asked about how great a distance was involved. Mr. Keeler said that
it would be about a mile from where the interceptor currently ends.
Mr. Skove asked whether this would involve crossing the Rivanna. Mr. Keeler
replied that he was not certain whether a pump was intended or the use of gravity,
which . would involve a distance of much more than a mile. He said that he
actually knew no more about it than the fact that an interceptor was considered
more favorable than expansion of the plant.
Mr. Gloeckner asked whether the intended use of the applicant would cause the
plant to reach full capacity.
Mr. Keeler replied that he did not believe that the applicant had an intended use
for his property. He explained that the applicant was only seeking to return his
property to its original Light Industrial zoning. Mr. Keeler said that when the
err Board rezoned property at the time it adopted the new Zoning Ordinance, its policy
had been to take any property zoned commercial or industrial off the map, if such
property was outside of a growth area and had no approved plans in existence.
vzi
Mr. Keeler additionally pointed out that the Board had made it known at the
time the new zoning was adopted, that by eliminating some commercial and
industrial zoning, the Board was not necessarily saying that it should not be
there. Mr. Keeler explained that individual property was not examined and the
rezoning was done in a broad overall sweep, based on the criteria he had already
mentioned. He said that examining 17,000 pieces of property would have presented
the Board with quite a burden.
Mr. Skove said that he had no problem with the application, if the sewer question
were resolved.
Mr. Gloeckner concurred, saying that he really saw no other use for this property
but light industrial. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of ZMA-81-19, which was
seconded by Mr. Kindrick.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any discussion. She said that she would like
to mention that this was a case where grading had already taken place.
The motion was then passed unanimously, with no further discussion.
ZMA-81-21 E. Morris Chisholm - Located on Route 743 near Earlysville, approximately
9/10 of a mile south of the intersection of Routes 743 and 660. County Tax Map 31,
Parcel 23, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone 10 acres out
of 548.001 currently zoned RA Rural Areas to LI Light Industrial. PROFFERED.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to make a statement.
Mr. Mike Boggs explained that the purpose of the request was to provide expanded
office space for the present office personnel and to make current operations
conforming.
Mrs. Diehl asked about whether any of the proffered activities would cause any
safety hazard to the nearby airport operations.
Mr. Keeler replied that they would not.
Mrs. Diehl asked how much of the ten acres was currently in use.
Mr. Boggs replied that about eighty percent.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the area was still wooded as shown on the displayed
plan, and Mr. Boggs replied that it was.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the application, subject to the PROFFER as
specified in E. Morris Chisholm's letter of May 1, 1981, addressed to the Zoning
Department. Mr. Kindrick seconded themotion.
Mr. Davis observed that he believed the Board would have a hard time approving
this application because the property was RA land. He said that his preference
was to use special use permits in cases such as this. Mr. Davis said that if
it did not continue in the hands of Chisholm, he would worry about the uses
C
a rezoning would allow to new owners.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne whether this request could be handled as a special
use permit.
Mr. Payne replied that it could not in the RA district.
Mr. Gloeckner and Mr. Kindrick remarked on the use as proposed being the best
possible use of that property. They observed that it was well kept and should be an
example to other construction firms.
A vote was taken on the motion for approval, subject to the applicant's proffer,
and it passed unanimously with no further discussion.
SP-81-25 Richard Freedman - Located on south side of Westfield Road, approximately
500 feet west of the intersection of Westfield and Route 29 North. County Tax Map
61W, Parcel 01-Al, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Proposal to locate a
veterinary office and hospital on .840 acre zoned C-1, in accordance with Section
22.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He stated that the last recommended condition
of approval could be eliminated because the Building Official had already reviewed
the building plans for adequacy of sound -proofing.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he wished to speak at this time.
Mr. Freedman's attorney stated that his client had no problem with the
recommended conditions of approval and believed that he could meet them. He said
that Mr. Freedman would be happy to answer any questions.
There was no public comment, and Mrs. Diehl declared the matter before the
Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Building Official had reviewed what the Commission
would see at site review. The applicant's attorney replied that the Builidng
Official had examined the blue prints only.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the exterior shell of the building would be.
Mr. Freedman replied that it would be a wood frame with double thick walls on the
interior for insulation, two separate heating and cooling systems for noise control
and acoustic tiles on the ceiling of the rooms in which the animals would be
confined.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the memo from the Building Official was the official
review of the building plans. She ascertained from Mr. Keeler that his inspection
was fairly straight -,forward and simple. Additionally, she asked what steps were
taken if noise went above the maximum of 40 decibels. Mr. Keeler and Mr. Payne
said that it would be a matter for the Zoning Administrator to address, since it
would represent a violation.
qz3
Mr. Freedman said that he would like to comment on the noise factor. He said
that the Commission might not be aware of this, but sick dogs generally do not
bark. He cautioned that he was not being facetious. Additionally, Mr. Freedman
said that he was very sensitive to noise himself, which was one reason that he
did not want outdoor runs and why the building would be soundproofed not only
from the outside but also from the inside.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he had no problem with this application and would move
for approval, subject to the four staff -recommended conditions of approval,
eliminating number five:
1) Compliance with Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2) No boarding or grooming except as necessary for medical treatment;
3) No outdoor runs or other outdoor animal confinements;
4) Site plan approval.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Mrs. Diehl said that Mr. Keeler had an item under OLD BUSINESS.
Mr. Keeler explained that in approving Phase I of the Ednam PRD, one of the
conditions had been County Attorney approval of homeowners'agreements to include
maintenance of open space, roads, parking spaces, etc. Mr. Keeler said that this
site plan condition was to have been met prior to issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant was requesting that compliance with this
condition be deferred to the certificate of occupancy stage.
Mr. Payne explained that there would really be no problem until subdivision of
the land. He said that the homeowners' agreements would number probably three and
were expected to be extremely complex.
Mr. Kindrick moved to delete the condition as contained in the site plan approval
numbered l.g and to add this same condition to those conditions to be met prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, numbered 2.e.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m.
19