HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 02 82 PC MinutesMarch 2, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
March 2, 1982, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room 5/6, Albemarle County Office Building,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were
Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David P. Bowerman, Vice Chairman; Mr. James
Skove; Mr. Allan Kindrick; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; Mr. Richard Cogan; and
Mr. Carl Williams. 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.
The minutes of May 5, 1981, were approved as submitted.
ZMA-82-1 Bruce D. Campbell WITH PROFFER - Request to locate professional medical
office and personal residence on property consisting of 3.75 acres zoned RA Rural
Areas, County Tax Map 29, Parcel 29, White Hall Magisterial District. Request to
rezone to Commercial Office, limiting use to professional office use. Property
is located at intersection of Routes 665 and 601, with frontage on Route 601, in
Free Union.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report and informed the Commission that the Health
Department had said that as long as the soil was found to be suitable and all
waste would be domestic -type sewage ("i.e. no chemical or industrial waste"),
there would be no problem obtaining Health Department approval.
Mrs. Diehl inquired whether a site plan would be required for this proposed use.
Mr. Keeler replied that it would.
Mr. Wendall L. Winn, Jr., attorney, and William Roudabush represented the
applicant.
Mr. Winn said that he would be happy to answer any questions. He added that after
checking with the applicant, he could assure the Health Department that there
would be no lab located in the office and therefore no chemical waste generated by
this medical practice. Mr. Winn said that Mr. Roudabush had a couple of
schematic drawings to show the Commission.
Mr. Roudabush described the topography of the site and stated that the soils had
already been examined and the Health Department had determined that they were
suitable for the septic system. Mr. Roudabush said that Dr. Campbell's proffer
indicates that he would limit his professional area to not more than 3,000 square
feet and initially would only be erecting a 1,200 square foot building for offices.
Mr. Roudabush pointed out the driveway and parking areas on a drawing. He said
that representatives from the Highway Department in Culpeper had visited the site
and worked out with the applicant a suitable entrance with a. concrete island and
with a fast right turn lane. He observed that no problems were anticipated in
receiving County approval on a site plan.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Roudabush and asked whether there was any public comment at
this time. When there was not, Mrs. Diehl declared the matter to be before the
Commission and asked whether any Commissioners might have questions.
qq
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roudabush whether the scale on one of the schematics was
drawn with the initial 1,200 square foot building. Mr. Roudabush replied that
it was the darker portion on the drawing with a lighter, shaded portion indicating
the building should it ever be expanded to the 31F000 square feet proposed.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to reiterate the applicant's proffer.
Mr. Keeler responded that it was actually in two parts: one, limiting uses under
CO to professional offices and two, to limit the professional offices floor area to
3,000 square feet.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this proffer was contained in the letter of February 4.
Mr. Keeler added that it should be noted that through telephone conversation with
the applicant's attorney, Mr. Winn, it had been determined that the word "medical"
office should be amended to read "professional" office and this change in the
letter had been duly recorded and dated by Mr. Keeler.
Mrs. Diehl said that it was then to be assumed that uses other than medical were
anticipated in this building.
Mr. Winn responded that he did not believe the applicant, Dr. Campbell,anticipated
any other uses but wished to leave that option open.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether it was known at this time whether the building would be
one or two stories.
Mr. Winn replied that plans were not really that far along, as far as archtectural
designs were concerned. He added that initial indications from the applicant were
that probably a one-story building utilizing passive solar concepts would be designed.
Mr. Skove observed that the proposed use was an appropriate one in his opinion for
this location. Mr. Cogan added that he was comfortable with the proposal and
believed a clear indication had been made to the Commission on the proposed use.
He then moved for approval of the rezoning with proffer. Mr. Skove seconded the
motion, which passed uanimously with no further discussion.
ZMA-82-2 Polly B. Hogshead WITH PROFFER - Request to rezone 5.75 acres zoned VR
Village Residential to C-1, County Tax Map 130A-1, Parcel 70, Scottsville Magisterial
District. Property is located on Route 737, approximately 300 feet west of
Route 20 South, in Scottsville.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to make any comments at this time.
Ms. Catherine J. Womack, attorney for the applicant, explained that the Comprehensive
Plan, as stated by Mr. Keeler in the Staff Report, recommends low -density residential
development for this area. However, Ms. Womack continued, the applicant has through
her proffer demonstrated her intent to maintain the character of the neighborhood
and keep it compatible with what is already existing in the area.
Ms. Womack agreed with Mr. Keeler's comment in the Staff Report that most of the
uses proposed by the Hogsheads could be accomplished as a home occupation. She
added, however, that one problem with this alternative was the size of the house.
IN
Ms. Womack explained that the requirement of floor space for home occupation
was not to exceed twenty-five percent of the floor space of the home and this home
was extremely small and therefoin not practical for establishing a home occupation.
Ms. Womack explained that the second reason this proposed use would not fit under
the home occupation category was the need to sell fabrics by the bolt. Ms. Womack
stated that the sale of this fabric was necessary both to Mrs. Hogshead and to her
students and that by buying it in bulk she could sell it to customers at a profit.
Ms. Womack said that also by stocking bolts of fabric at her shop, trips to
Charlottesville would not be necessary. She added that at present there was no
shop in Scottsville offering the variety and selection Mrs. Hogshead would.
Ms. Womack further explained that while this use did not fit the home occupation
category, neither did it exactly fit C-1 zoning. She stated that the applicant
had severely limited the C-1 use by her proffer. She said that in her opinion
approval of this application would not harm the Comprehensive Plan at all and of
the many goals and objectives of the Plan that this use would further, she would
like to mention three:
Encourage land use arrangements and densities that
facilitate energy -efficient transportation systems
and reduce the need for and utilization of the
private automobile.
Promote location of small scale commercial areas to
reduce automobile dependency and dependency on large
center.
Permit intensive small scale commercial and service
establishments to develop within country villages
both in commercial areas and mixed with other uses
where appropriate.
Ms. Womack stated that this use would provide a service to the area without putting
the neighborhood in jeopardy. She stated that the Hogsheads were aware of the
Highway Department recommendations and comments and were prepared to make the
required improvements. She mentioned that two small, inconspicuous signs would be
used on the property, one marking the entrance and one on the side of the home
giving the name and hours of the business. Ms. Womack provided the Commission
with several photographs taken from adjacent property and a copy of an article
describing a similar enterprise in Berryville where Mrs. Hogshead was employed.
Ms. Womack additionally passed out pictures of Mrs. Hogshead's handiwork and
offered to answer any questions the Commission might have or to make changes to
the proffer at Commission suggestion, if such would make the proposal more acceptable.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. or Mrs. Hogshead wished to speak at this time.
Mr. Hogshead asked to mention a couple of items related to their application. First,
he informed the Commission that samples of Mrs. Hogshead's sewing were displayed
on the front row and that she had made the clothing they were wearing tonight. He
stated that Mrs. Hoghead had quite a reputation as a talented seamstress, receiving
requests for her custom work from as far away as Washington, D.C., Warrenton, Free
Union. Mr. Hogshead said that their goal was to return to Scottsville, to the
home that had been in Mrs. Hogshead's family for forty years, and pursue their
professional careers in Scottsville.
irwe Mr. Hogshead showed the Commissioners photographs of Mrs. Hogshead's current business
in Berryville, containing interior shots of how the machines were set up and bolts of
fabric. qq
J
Mr. Hogshead explained the scale of business they envisioned by estimating five
to ten customer visits per day to the house, and an additional UPS delivery two
or three times a week, in a small UPS truck. He said that alternative sites had
been considered, including George Dansey's property, which could be purchased but
was very expensive and beyond the scale necessary for the business they planned.
He said that another potential site considered was a vacant store in the shopping
center, which also was beyond the scope they envisioned. Mr. Hogshead said that
there were a couple of empty buildings in downtown Scottsville, on Route 6, but
they were in very dilapidated condition and located in the flood plain. Mr. Hogshead
said that he checked with a multiple listing agent in Scottsville and there was no
commercial property available in Scottsville.
Mr. Hogshead said that they had spoken to all six adjacent property owners, and only
one person had voiced any opposition to the proposal. Mr. Hogshead said that they
had been in touch with her over the past few weeks and she had requested that
Mr. and Mrs. Hogshead meet with her in Alexandria. Mr. Hogshead explained that her
primary complaint concerned the signs, and also added that they intended to travel
to Alexandria to meet with her.
Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Hogshead and asked whether there was any public comment at
this time.
Mrs. Cleveland spoke in favor of the proposal, explaining that their property
adjoined the Hogshead property. She said that she had known Mrs. Hogshead's parents
for years, that they had always maintained their home nicely, and that this use
would be an asset to the area.
Mrs. Diehl declared the matter before the Commission and the public hearing closed,
when there was no further public comment.
Mr. Davis said that he had visited the site and was in favor of the petition. He
said that it seemed important to him that Scottsville have some organic growth
within it and offer goods and services that would keep people from having to go to
Charlottesville for everything. He suggested that this was a perfect use for that
home and with the proffer would not really consist of C-1 uses and would in fact
offer a service responsive to citizens' needs. Mr. Davis also stated that this use
would not cause any change in the character of the area.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained from Mr. Payne that the proffered zoning would go with the
land. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler whether a site plan would be required.
Mr. Keeler replied that technically one would be required, but certain site plan
issues were included in the proffer. He said that the matter of requiring a site
plan could be discussed, but this might be one of those cases where, providing the
Highway Department approves the entrance, Staff might be able to approve the parking.
Mrs. Diehl said this was her concern, the relationship of the parking to the entrance.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that technically a site plan was required and these issues could
be addressed at a later date.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of the Hogshead rezoning request, subject to the
applicant's proffer as outlined in Ms. Catherine J. Womack's letter dated March 2,
*404
1982, addressed to Mr. Ronald S. Keeler. Mr.-Skove seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously with no further discussion.
qI
SP-82-3 Haley, Chisholm and Morris, Inc. - Request, in accordance with Section 10.5.2
of the Zoning Ordinance, to subdivide 141.10 acres zoned RA Rural Areas into 21 lots
with an average lot size of 6.72 acres. County Tax Map 62B2, Parcel 1 (38.68 acres),
Parcel 2 (5.00 acres), County Tax Map 62, Parcel 49C (one tract of 92.01 acres
and one tract of 5.41 acres), Rivanna Magisterial District. Property is located
off of Route 20 North, behind the existing Key West Subdivision, western boundary
the Rivanna River.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Additionally, Mr. Keeler stated that he had
received this afternoon a memo from the Fire Official which said that Mr. Cortez
had met with Mr. John Schwab, Mike Boggs and Captain John Hood of the East Rivanna
Volunteer Fire Department. Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Cortez recommended three
additional conditions:
1. Cross connect the existing hydrant systems to improve the fireflow and
reliability in Key West;
2. Install a dry hydrant in accordance with NFPA standards at the lake;
3. Maintain a separation of 100' or more between structures.
Mr. Keeler further stated that only Lot 6 would have access onto Key West Drive
and all other lots would have access to new private roads leading to Wildflower
Drive, referring to the exhibited plan.
Mr. Keeler said that in the past there had been a lot of discussion on having Key
West Drive taken into the secondary road system. He said that problems concerning
verticle and horizontal curvature, as well as the fact that the road crosses a dam,
had prevented its being accepted previously. He added that although the Highway
Department exercised some flexibility on the question of curvature, it would not
on the issue of crossing a dam unless the road connected to another road already
within the State system elsewhere. Mr. Keeler said that the Highway Department, if
it took the road into the secondary system, would only be responsible for the road
surface and would have no responsibility in the event that the dam were washed out
to replace the dam. Mr. Keeler suggested that such a connection to another State
road might be possible by going through the Subdivision to Wildflower Drive.
Mr. Keeler said that Staff recommended at least an emergency access to Key West
Drive off of the private road, so that if anything happened to the dam, residents
along Key West Drive could have access out over Summit Road and Wildflower Drive.
Mr. Keeler added that the applicant did propose to upgrade Key West Drive to private
road standards, which according to the Subdivision Ordinance required 6" base and
prime and double seal with 16 feet travelway. Mrs. Diehl determined from Mr. Keeler
that this pertained to the entire length of Key West Drive.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time.
Mr. Ed Bain, attorney for the applicant, said that Mr. Mike Boggs and Mr. Roger
Ray from Snow and Ray, were also present on behalf of the applicant and would be
happy to answer any questions. Mr. Bain indicated that his comments would be
limited, since the Staff Report had been quite complete, listing as it had the
criteria for a special use permit application. He indicated that the applicant
was willing to meet the three additional conditions proposed by Mr. Cortez, the
Fire Prevention Officer. Mr. Bain also indicated that the applicant was willing
to provide the emergency access from Key West Drive to the private roads, but
stressed that this would be an emergency -only access, to be used in the event that
'164W something happened to the dam. Mr. Bain further stated that once that segment of
Key West Drive was upgraded to private road standards, the maintenance and upkeep
mot
of both Key West Drive and the emergency access would be the respgn*ibjljty Qf
the homeowners. Mr. Bain said that he believed about nine or ten of the twenty
homeowners had already signed the maintenance agreement.
Mr. Bain said that a major portion of the proposed Section Six was already
envisioned in a plan that was never platted or developed, dating back to 1959,
which called for 19 lots. Mr. Bain explained that at this time the proposal
included an additional ninety-seven acres and a proposal for 21 lots, in effect
adding two lots. Mr. Bain stated that the agricultural land in the floodplain
consisted of Lot 14 and Lot 18, which under one ownership could continue to be
farmed.
Mr. Bain stated in response to some of the property owners' concerns about the
road, that they should be assured of its completion since the applicant would bond
it after first completing work on the private roads. He concluded by saying that
he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mrs. Diehl thanked him and asked whether there was any public comment at this time.
Dr. Keats stated that he lived at the summit of the ridge. He said that although
he and his wife had no objection to the proposed development, per se, all of the
residents were very concerned with the condition of the road. Dr. Keats stated
that the road at present was nearly impassable. He said that school buses and
delivery trucks would no longer travel up the road. Dr. Keats expressed concern
that the petition stated that the road would not be developed until twelve of the
lots were sold, which he added could mean several more years of having the road
in its current state. Dr. Keats said that he hoped this condition might be
discussed further.
Mr. John Hood said that he was the person mentioned in Ira Cortez's memo concerning
fire protection for Section Six. Mr. Hood stated that he had lived in Key West
for fifteen years and the water system for Key West was dependent on the development
fof the entire subdivision. Mr. Hood pointed out the water lines on the exhibited
plan and stated that houses going up the ridge generally had booster pumps to
ensure adequate water pressure. He said that developing this additional phase of
Key West would greatly reduce the miles the water had to travel, bringing it down
to probably less than a half mile. Mr. Hood said, in effect, this development
would greatly enhance fire protection for the entire subdivision. He concluded that
for this reason, finishing the missing piece on the water line, he was very much in
favor of this proposal.
Mrs. Diehl asked for further public comment.
Mrs. Pat Keats identified herself as living at the end of Key West Drive. She
asked for assurances that the amount of the bond to be posted be adequate to
cover every realistic cost associated with its completion.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any further comment. When there was not, she
asked Mr. Bain if he would like to make any concluding statement.
Mr. Bain responded with reference to the bond that the County Engineer, under the
provisions of the Ordinance, would determine and set the appropriate amount. He
added that the reason work on Key West Drive could not begin until the sale of a
certain number of lots, was financial. Mr, Bain said that available funds had to
n
rerr
wi
logically be used on the private roads so that the lots could be sold. Mr. Bain
assured the Commission that proper bonding procedures would be followed and the
existing Key West Drive would eventually be brought up to private road standards,
but the cost was estimated to be between $50,000 and $75,000.
Mrs. Diehl determined that there was no further public comment and declared the
matter to be before the Commission. She asked the Commissioners for their questions
or comments.
Mr. Cogan asked for a clarification from Mr. Bain concerning when the bond would
be posted. Mr. Cogan said that he believed Mr. Bain had indicated that no bond
would be posted until this developed portion had been completed.
Mr. Bain responded that the bond would be posted up front, initially, but that no
work would begin until later.
Mr. Davis asked on what basis these additional private roads were being proposed
in this subdivision.
Mr. Keeler replied that he believed the proposed development met the criteria of
the Subdivision Ordinance, one being that the density be consistent with that
recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Davis observed that 21 lots was a pretty good size division and he believed
that private roads were generally acceptable in cases of economic need or because
of topography. Even though the lots were fairly large, he continued, it was a
rather intensive development, especially when the existing private road could not
take school buses or receive mail delivery.
rrY
Mrs. Diehl asked whether the question of State versus private roads was an issue to
be addressed at this point or at the site plan stage.
Mr. Keeler replied that it could be discussed at this point. He mentioned that one
favorable aspect to having private roads was that this was a ridgeline development
and a State road would require a fifty foot right-of-way, a requirement that would
mean more clearing.
Mr. Payne addressed the Commission, saying that the road issue need not be worked
out at this time. He also pointed out that one of the recommended conditions of
approval called for upgrading Key West Drive to private road standards, which he
said obviously meant addressing the road issue at least with regard to this road.
Mr. Davis said that he did not have any difficulty with this requirement and would
not expect Key West Drive to be improved beyond private road standards, but that he
would question building new roads and believed that at some point he would have to
be in favor of having State roads.
Mrs. Diehl observed that in this area it appeared that topographically it could be
difficult to build a State road. Mr. Davis responded that the applicant had not
indicated this.
Mike Boggs asked to respond, and Mrs. Diehl asked him to speak. Mr. Boggs explained
that the whole intent in building private roads was economics. He said that with
the small number of lots available on all of the land, plus the very narrow ridge
line and setback requirements, a State road would probably require disturbing about
twice as much property, causing more erosion, less preservation of forest, and a
/oU
cost increase of perhaps two-thirds more than the cost of a private road,
Mr. Boggs said that the topography and the small number of lots. proposed in
relation to the total amount of property were basically why private roads were
planned instead of State. VAO
Mr. Davis remarked that from looking at the County Code it did not appear to him
that private roads could even be considered if more than twenty lots were served.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that in this case there were not more than twenty lots being
served by the new private road, because one lot was served by Key West Drive.
Mr. Boggs said, if he could clarify the road situation some, that one lot was
actually being taken away from Key West Drive and one added to it, so that the
traffic on Key West Drive would not be affected. He said that concerning making
a "T" up to the ridge line, the grade was extremely steep and he was not certain
that a State road could even be constructed there.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further questions concerning the roads.
Mr. Davis asked whether the Comprehensive Plan in fact did not call for no
development along ridge lines.
Mr. Cogan said that the development really parallels the ridge line, below it.
Mr. Keeler mentioned the Ashcroft development and stated that this issue had
been most unwieldy in that case. He added that there is a formular that can be
applied to determine that no roof top be above the ridge line in locating building
sites.
Mr. Davis remarked that problems with private roads come up all the time.
Mr. Payne responded when Mrs. Diehl asked the Commission whether there were
additional concerns on the road issue to be expressed, saying that he did not
believe the subject needed to be addressed at this time. Mr. Payne said that
the record would show that the Commission was undecided on the matter at present
and might or might not approve private roads.
Mrs. Diehl then said that questions would move on to other areas of concern.
Mr. Skove said that he had one more question on roads. He said that it appeared
from the CATS study that the Route 20 - Rio Road connector might well affect
this development. He added that voting for this plan might be construed as a vote
against the CATS proposal.
Mr. Keeler said that it should be known that this alignment was the only one not
endorsed by the CATS Policy Committee. He explained that although the idea of
L a connector was supported, no alignment was specified and the issue was left open.
Mr, Skove responded that this could still be a problem, since without knowing the
location of the future connector it could not be determined whether this plan was
viable. He also mentioned that the longer the County waited to adopt the CATS
plan, the fewer options it would have open to it.
Mr. Payne suggested that there was not much that could be done as long as it had
not been adoped into the Comprehensive Plan and even reasonable certainty would
not constitute grounds for a stay. 1400
!D/
Mr. Skove said that he had reasonable certainty that the connector would not have
the alignment proposed in the CATS plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler about incorporating Mr. Cortez' suggested conditions
into the recommended conditions of approval on the special use permit. Mr. Keeler
responded that this would be agreeable. She asked Mr. Keeler to read the memo again.
She ascertained from Mr. Bain that the applicant did not have any problem with these
conditions.
Mr. Skove asked about the adequacy of the well and water supply for this development.
Mr. Keeler said that his understanding was that the supply was adequate, being
around 280 gallons per problem, but that the problem had always been with pressure
and flow because of the great distance and because it was not a loop system. He
added that he did not know whether this system had been tested under the County's
central well standards.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions or comments.
Mr. Kindrick said that he had no problems with the application with the addition of
the Fire Official's conditions and that he had no problems with private roads. He
moved for approval of the special use permit, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development limited to 21 lots consistent with the preliminary plat "Section 6
Key West by R. 0. Snow and R. W. Ray, Inc., dated 2-1-82;
2. Compliance with private roads provisions for Key West Drive;
3. Central well approval for the upgrading and extension of the present Key West
system;
4. Cross connect the existing hydrant systems to improve the fireflow and reliability
in Key West;
5. Install a dry hydrant in accordance with NFPA standards at the lake;
6. Maintain a separation of 100' or more between structures;
7. Provide emergency access from Key West Drive to connect with private roads,
such emergency access to meet Fire Official and County Engineer approvals.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Resolution of Intent, adopted by the Planning Commission, to amend 23.0 COMMERCIAL
OFFICE DISTRICT and 5.0 Supplementary Regulations in relation to dwellings in
commercial districts.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mrs. Diehl called for public comment and when
there was none, she declared the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked with regard to c. under 5.1.21 DWELLINGS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS,
c. Not more than one (1) dwelling shall be permitted per business establishment,
whether it could not theoretically be possible to have twelve business establishments
within one 2000 square foot structure.
Mr. Keeler replied that he supposed this was possible and that Staff had always
endorsed the principle of mixed -use districts. He gave as an example, the Corner
at the University and the downtown Mall, where he stated residential uses existed
over commercial establishments. Mr. Keeler said that the demand in the County had
been quite limited. He said that technically he believed that yes, you could have
twelve businesses and twelve dwellings on the same property.
ICZ
Mr. Skove said that he supposed his real question was what the definition of a
business establishment was.
Mr. Keeler said that the Zoning Administrator had interpreted business establishment
to mean building, as in the Henry J'avor site plan, regardless of the number of
separate businesses that might be inside.
Mr. Payne said that under this interpretation you could have one building with
twelve businesses in it, one dwelling. Mr. Payne said that he did not agree with
this interpretation.
Mr. Keeler said that this amendment was really meant to cover situations in a
rural area where a business might want a night watchman.
When there were no further questions or comments from the Commissioners, Mrs. Diehl
asked whether everyone was ready to take action.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of the amendments as follow:
1. Delete "Dwellings (reference 5.1.21)" from 23.2.1#6.
2. Add to 23.2.1 as a separate use:
"10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21)"
3. Amend 5.1.21 as follows:
5.1.21 DWELLINGS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
a. Dwellings in commercial districts are intended primarily for owners
or employees of establishments including night watchmen;
b. Such dwelling may be located individually or in the same structure
as the commercial use, subject to Albemarle County building official
approvals. Such dwelling may be a mobile home authorized in
accordance with the requirements of 5.7 TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME
PERMIT;
C. Not more than one (1) dwelling shall be permitted per business
establishment.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further
discussion.
Resolution of Intent, adopted by the Planning Commission, to amend 22.3 Additional
Requirements of the C-1 Commercial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public
comment on this Resolution. When there was not, she declared the matter before
the Commission. When the Commissioners had no questions or comments on the
proposed changes, Mr. Skove moved for approval as outlined by Staff:
22,3 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the requirements contained herein, the requirements of
section 21.0 commercial districts, generally, shall apply within all C-1
districts; provided that the commission may modify, vary or waive the
requirements of sections 2174 21.6 and 2178 21.7 in a particular case
upon finding such action would be in keeping with the character of the
area and that alternatives proposed by the applicant would satisfy public
interest at least to an equivalent degree.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
*40
{ 0—�
Mrs. Diehl announced that the next item was under OLD BUSINESS:
River Heights Hotel/Convention Center Site Plan
number of required parking spaces in accordance with
PARKING of the Zoning Ordinance.
Request for reduction in
4.12.4 COOPERATIVE
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report and explained that the applicant had determined
that 989 parking spaces, as recommended according to the County's Zoning Ordinance,
were actually excessive. In a study prepared by Rabun, Hatch and Dendy Architects,
Mr. Keeler said it had been calculated that 729 parking spaces would meet the
parking requirements of the complex. Mr. Keeler added that this reduction in the
number of spaces would save some large trees and if in fact no more spaces would
be necessary, Staff was in favor of the reduction and consistently endorsed
limitation of impervious coverage of pavement along with maintaining existing
landscaping.
Mr. Keeler said that the Commission could authorize reduction of parking under
4.12.4 of the Ordinance. He added that he was not certain of exactly how many
spaces the applicant wished ultimately.
Mr. Roudabush said that he would begin the presentation, but that his associate,
who had not yet arrived, would display a plan for the parking area. He explained
that in calculating parking needs, the firm that had conducted the study had taken
into account floor space for each use proposed at the convention center and the peak
for each use. Mr. Roudabush said that Mr. Tucker, Director of Planning, had
advised that the applicant put together data to support this reduction of parking
in a meeting held some time earlier. He said that grading had begun on the site
and a lot of mature oak trees were avoided. He said that some two hundred eighty-
eight trees were actually identified individually on a plan that was sent to the
architects, who developed a parking scheme that wrapped around these trees,
forming a random pattern rather than long, parallel lines of parking. Mr. Roudabush
said that the applicant requested this reduction and the spaces thereby saved would
be utilized in the landscaping plan. He said that the consultants had found the
number of spaces required by the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to be much higher
than any other locality's with which they had worked. Mr. Roudabush said that the
500 spaces for the office building would be available at night and the motel spaces
free during the day would be full at night.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roudabush if he, then, was requesting a reduction from 989 to
729 spaces. Mr. John Greene of Mr. Roudabush's office, said that the reduction
was for 737 spaces.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment on this request. When there was
none, she declared the matter to be before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the request was for a reduction from 989 spaces to 737,
dropping 252 spaces. Mr. Bowerman said that he had two questions, one being the
parking being used for meeting rooms; he asked whether some of the parking had been
transferred from the hotel use to the meeting room use. Mr. Roudabush replied that
this was correct. Mr. Bowerman asked whether there were any percentage figures on
how many people staying at the hotel might be using the meeting rooms. Mr. Roudabush
said that he did not have that information available. Mr. Bowerman determined,
however, that this rationale was behind the allocation of parking space, the
assumption that a certain number of hotel guests would make up part of the meeting
room users. Mr. Bowerman said, secondly, that the close proximity of the parking
for both uses was a factor and he asked how close the parking area vacated when the
/G�
office building was not being used would be to the hotel. Mr. Roudabush said that
he did not believe the distance would be over 300 feet. In answer to a question
from Mrs. Diehl concerning where most of the parking would be eliminated,
Mr. Roudabush indicated most spaces would be dropped to the west of the office
building, a location furthest from the hotel site.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the forty percent figure for occupancy of the hotel
restaurant at 6:30 p.m.
Jack Sanford explained some of the design in saving trees and developing a random
pattern to the parking lot.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler whether on commercial office use, visitors to these
offices were taken into account or whether parking was only based on employees
working in these offices. Mr. Keeler said that the formular was a flat figure
based on net floor area. Mr. Keeler said in this case there was a pretty high net
figure.
At this time Mr. John Greene explained the illustrated parking plan (which had not
been brought to the meeting before this time). He said that fifty-four trees could
be saved by eliminating seventy-seven parking spaces. He said that eighty-six
additional spaces had been eliminated, allowing for more landscaping of the site.
He pointed out undesignated parking spaces that might occupy space to be used in
the future when the road was extended or for stormurater detention expansion.
Mr. Cogan asked whether, assuming the study should turn out to be inaccurate, some
sort of provision could be made to install additional parking if needed at a future
date. He mentioned that often studies turned out that way and people ended up
parking on medians and in aisleways. He suggested that there be some assurance
that this would not happen at this complex.
Mr. Greene said that there were eighty-six spaces that did not affect trees so they
could be put back as appearing on the original. Mr. Cogan asked whether this could
be noted as reserved space. Mrs. Diehl asked whether this would not interfere with
the road extension and stormwater detention Mr. Greene had previously described.
Mr. Greene responded that the detention pond could be constructed as originally
planned. Mr. Cogan reiterated that his concern was to provide for a possible
future need in a way compatible with the overall plan.
Mr. Roudabush indicated that they could go back to some of the landscaped areas and
reclaim them for parking. He added that one point had been omitted from his earlier
remarks on the study. He said that these architects had found one aspect of the
Ordinance requirements to be inadequate and that was the provision for hotel employee
parking. Mr. Roudabush said that thirty spaces had been designated for hotel
employees on the recommendation of the consulting firm. It was determined that these
spaces were included in the 737 calculation.
Mr. Bowerman observed that Mr. Cogan's remarks were well taken and by making a
provision for reserving additional parking space at this time, it could prevent
substantially altering the site plan and causing a large problem.
Mr. Davis reviewed the previous rezoning of a strip of property behind the proposed
tennis court. He added that it only mace sense to save the trees and not cover the
ground with asphalt, if a safety valve were provided.
Mrs. Diehl said that she could agree with this approach, also, but observed that it
was quite a drastic drop in spaces, 252.
Mr. Kindrick asked whether approval could be granted with a reservation of space
set up on the last lot.
Mr. Payne responded that he would suggest that gross parking areas be delineated
as reserved on the actual plan with a note to the effect that such areas marked
"reserved" to be reserved for future parking expansion in the event that the Zoning
Administrator determines that the same is necessary to accommodate parking demand
upon occupancy.
Mr. Keeler suggested giving the applicant more time, rather than saying "upon
occupancy."
Mr. Payne said that whether it was upon or after occupancy, his thinking in making
it contingent upon the determination of the Zoning Administrator was based on giving
the Zoning Administrator the authority to respond to complaints if there were any on
inadequate parking facilities.
Mr. Kindrick said that this was generally agreeable to him but he would suggest
tieing it to a time frame, such as three years, because he doubted that occupancy
would come about quickly or all at once upon completion of the complex.
Mr. Payne said that it could read at any time after occupancy.
Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Bowerman asked whether the additional reserved spaces would total
eighty-six, even with the pond and road extension.
Mr. Jack Sanford stated that his figures were incorrect earlier because the plan
showed 901 spaces, making a reduction of 164 spaces, to reach a total of 737. he
clarified that the Atlanta study had shown 989 spaces for the peak hours, based on
the County's requirements.
Mr. Bowerman went over the figures again and determined that the 737 figure was what
the consultants recommended for this facility and that the number of spaces being
reduced was therefore 164 instead of 252.
Mr. Keeler calculated that there were fifty-four in one area, eight in another and
the remainder could be picked up at random points, one or two at a time. Mr. Cogan
observed that the plan showed a much nicer looking parking lot.
Mr. Cogan made a motion to approve the reduction request, reserving sixty-two spaces
at this time for future parking use upon the determination of the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Cogan also specified that should the applicant wish to make other use of this
reserved space, other than for expansion of parking, he would have to come back
before the Commission.
It was determined that Mr. Cogan's motion, in fact, contained recommendation that
Mr. Payne's language be incorporated into the approval as a condition, allowing a
reduction in parking spaces to 737 spaces while reserving 62 parking spaces to be
delineated on the plan, subject to: Areas marked "Reserved" to be reserved for
future parking area expansion in the event the Zoning Administrator determines
same is necessary to accommodate parking needs any time after occupancy.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Continuing under OLD BUSINESS, Mrs. Diehl announced a review of zoning text
proposals to provide for "hydroelectric power generation" to determine if a
Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance would be warranted.
Mr. Keeler read the proposed additional regulations, referring to the meeting of
February 9, 1982, when the Commission directed the Planning Staff to come up with
suggestions on regulating this use. Mr. Keeler said that after discussion, the
Commission should decide on whether or not to adopt a Resolution of Intent to take
these proposed amendments to public hearing.
Mrs. Diehl asked what rechannelization meant. Mr. Keeler answered to remove a stream,
for example, to achieve a greater velocity over the turbines by constricting a channel.
Mrs. Diehl inquired about addressing the magnitude of an operation. Mr. Keeler
responded that in his opinion only two types of cases would probably come up, one
would be a small operation using an existing dam that would be economically feasible
and the other type would be a Vepco type operation resorting to pump storage in all
probability.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that Mr. Keeler contemplated small-scale operations such
as the applicant from Advance Mills.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Keeler did not anticipate a person actually constructing
a dam on a stream or river in the County. He said that perhaps someone would.
Mr. Payne said that he seriously doubted that anyone would attempt to dam the
Hardware because its flow was so seasonal. Mr. Keeler said that it was also
designated as scenic.
Mr. Williams asked whether there were any water generation plants in Albemarle.
Mr. Keeler replied that there were none to his knowledge. He said that he was not
sure about the Woolen Mills at one time. Mr. Payne said that there might have been
hydroelectric power there, but that there certainly had been a coal fire plant.
Mrs. Diehl told the Commission that this issue was being addressed at their own
request and a decision had to be made on whether to adopt language into the ordinance
to regulate this activity.
Mr. Kindrick said that he would be in favor of adopting a Resolution of Intent and
moving ahead with the process, although he suspected that something might inadvertently
be left out until a couple of cases had come before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan wondered about adding new damming after pump storage and rechannelization
in the wording contained under "d" in the Staff Report.
Mr. Payne said that any construction of a dam within the flood plan required a
special use permit. Mr. Davis said that the Corps of Engineer governed regulations
on flow for building small dams in little streams.
Mr. Kindrick moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance
with the language suggested by Staff regarding hydroelectric power generation.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, with no further discussion.
Mr. Atkins requested that he be allowed to ask a question. Mrs. Diehl responded
that he could. Mr. Atkins asked whether he had to wait for all of the required
Federal approvals before proceeding. Mr. Payne indicated that he could pursue the
two concurrently and said that should the Commission approve his application, it
would be conditioned on receiving the required Federal agency approvals.
/6 �
Under NEW BUSINESS, Mrs. Diehl stated that the next item on the agenda was a
request for a Resolution of Intent to amend Sections 31.2.4.2, 32.6.6, 33.2.1,
34.5 and 35.0 of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to fees.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Payne additionally explained that the
purpose of these proposed amendments was to remove the various, scattered references
to fees in the current ordinance and place them altogether. Mr. Payne said that
another amendment was to provide, according to the Statute which is mandatory,
that an applicant should be required to pay for any expenses incurred beyond the
amount of the fee charged in all cases where public notice is published and
adjacent property owners notified.
Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners whether they had any questions or comments.
When they did not, Mr. Davis moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to so amend
the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously
with no further discussion.
Proceeding under NEW BUSINESS, the next item was another request for a Resolution
of Intent to amend 18-54 of Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle County, entitled
Subdivision of Land, to provide for expiration of final plats.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Payne further explained that the purpose
of the proposed amendment was to allow eighteen months from the date of approval
to put a plat to record.
Mr. Davis asked whether this was not a long period of time. Mr. Keeler responded
that it was consistent with other provisions in the ordinance.
Mr. Williams asked whether this amendment if approved would be retroactive.
Mr. Payne responded that should the amendment be ultimately approved, it would
mean that as of the day of approval of such amendment, an applicant would have
18 months to meet all conditions of approval and have his plat signed.
Mr. Kindrick remarked that some existing plats would be lost through passage of
this amendment. Mr. Payne concurred that this was true.
Mrs. Diehl asked how it was anticipated to notify all outstanding plat holders.
Mr. Keeler responded that this would be a problem because not all existing
subdivisions were in Planning files, since many subdivisions had come about before
the existence of the Planning Department. Mr. Keeler and Mr. Payne added that
most plats had been put to record at the time of the two major zoning changes.
Mrs. Diehl asked what recourse someone might have. Mr. Payne and Mr. Keeler
answered that it would entail a resubmittal and another approval. Mr. Skove
asked whether Planning or the County Attorney's office was regularly notified
by the Clerk's office when a plat was put to record.
Mr. Keeler replied no and that there had always been a problem and that usually
it was through Real Estate that Planning became aware of illegally recorded plats.
Mr. Skove moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend Chapter 18 Subdivision of
Land, as outlined by Staff. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously with no further discussion.
Continuing under NEW BUSINESS, the next stem was a review of the Health Department
letter of February 4, 1982, addressed to Mr. Tucker, concerning setback requirements
for well and septic systems from adjoining properties. NINO
Mr. Keeler gave the background on this issue, explaining that Supervisor C.
Timothy Lindstrom had requested the Board to discuss revising the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances to require a fifty -foot setback from property boundary
lines for all well and septic systems. Mr. Keeler indicated that the Health
Department did not favor this concept and that inclusion of such a provision in
the ordinance would require that many other regulations be changed.
Mr. Payne mentioned that in such subdivisions as Key West, where there are non-
linear lots, this stipulation would complicate the situation. Mr. Keeler added
that when locating a well or septic system it was equally important to place it
100 feet from a dwelling. He said that all Health Department approvals show the
well 100 feet from the house.
Mr. Davis remarked that no permits were required to drill a well. Mr. Cogan stated
that there had to be 100 feet between a well and a septic system.
Mr. Skove suggested that such a new regulation might be applied to new lots.
He added that in his opinion the septic field location was more critical.
Mr. Keeler said that he believed there would be an increase in central well systems
if such a regulation went into effect and that it would be hard to impose a setback
regulation if it were not to protect the well and septic system.
Mrs. Diehl asked what action from the Commission was in order.
Mr. Keeler added that many existing lots would not have sufficient area to locate
a well or septic system 50 feet from an adjacent boundary. He also stated that
he would be reluctant to see more Health Department requirements incorporated into
the County ordinance. Mr. Keeler said that road frontage would be affected also
and many lots would have to be reworked, as well as regulations in certain districts
amended.
Mr. Skove remarked that he would like to think over the matter further.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained from Mr. Keeler that Staff had only brought forward the
Health Department's letter for the Commission's review but had not prepared a
comprehensive report on the implications of such a regulation. Mrs. Diehl asked
whether it would be appropriate for Staff to prepare a summary statement addressing
how such an amendment might affect the ordinances already in effect, and send such
a statement along with the Health Department's letter to the Board. She pointed
out that should the Board desire a more thorough review, it could then request it.
Mr. Cogan objected that this would not reflect the Commission's position. He
established that Mr. Kindrick had made a motion. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Kindrick
to repeat his motion. Mr. Kindrick said that he moved to have the Health Department
continue to regulate the location of well and septic systems. Mr. Cogan seconded
the motion. Mr. Kindrick said that part of his rationale behind this motion was
that the Health Department was currently reviewing its regulations and might
incorporate changes in April that would make any County amendment in conflict.
Mr. Davis asked about sending along to the Board in addition, the suggested
summary statement with illustrative diagrams on locating well and septic systems.
There was a consensus to do this, with Mr. Skove opposed. The motion carried with
Mr. Skove opposing, and there was no further discussion.
I
Further NEW BUSINESS was a request for a Resolution of Intent to amend the Natural
Resource (NR) district to provide the following by special use permit:
o Mining and milling of uranium and other radioactive materials;
o Extraction of oil and natural gas;
o Coal mining;
o Deep mining.
and a request for a Resolution of Intent to amend 30.4.3 PERMIT REQUIRED of the
Natural Resource district as it relates to the requirements of Title 45.1 of the
Code of Virginia.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report and explained that these proposed amendments were
to protect the County with some interim provision on extraction activities while
the State reviewed the entire issue and initiated regulatory legislation.
Mr. Keeler further explained that by making these activities by special use
permit, the County could review each on a case by case basis. Mr. Payne added
that at present these activities were by right and someone could put in a rock
quarry and suddenly begin to mine uranium. This amendment would prevent such a
change, he stated.
Mr. Williams asked whether in the Code such use was by right. Mr. Payne responded
that there was a very elaborate permitting process for coal mines and that he
was only familiar with Chapter 16 of 45.1 of the Code.
Mr. Davis moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Natural Resource district.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Additionally,
Mr. Davis moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend Section 30.4.3, and
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which also carried unanimously with no further
discussion.
The next item on the agenda was an update on the Monticello Wesleyan Church.
Mr. Keeler said that the church had met all the conditions of approval on its original
site plan and footings had been issued, but no building permit yet because of
amendments needed on the building plans. Mr. Keeler gave some information on
the landscaping with specific plant and tree numbers and types, as well as a
description of the buffer. It was determined that some of the pine seedlings
constituted a part of the church's runoff control program. Mrs. Diehl expressed
concern that other ground covering be provided. Mr. Keeler said that approval for
a dry hydrant had been received.
Mr. Kindrick asked whether these dry hydrants were available for general fire
protection in the County or limited to the specific protection at a given site.
Mr. Keeler replied that he believed they were for general fire protection.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like the Commission to go over its Annual Report,
since there had not been time at their previously scheduled meeting. She asked
for comments or suggestions. She commended the organization and format.
Mr. Skove commented under IV.B. that the Commission should continue to be vigilant
//0
in monitoring the accomplished reduction in conditions of approval.
Mrs. Diehl mentioned that she had spoken with Jerry Fisher during the past week *410
and it was not anticipated that an ex-officio member would be appointed in the
near future. She added that the new Board member, Pat Cooke, might attend some
Planning Commission meetings.
Mrs. Diehl expressed a concern about V.C. - whether it was appropriate to include
these shared sentiments in an annual report for public record.
Mr. Skove, Mr. Kindrick and Mr. Cogan all stated their definite opinion that it
was indeed appropriate. Mrs. Diehl acknowledge their position, saying that she
had wanted to make certain.
Mr. Skove said that under VI.B. he would be just as happy to settle for an annual
meeting. There was some general discussion on how frequent a joint meeting
might be held.
Mr. Keeler offered to correct some of the figures provided in the Annual Report
with regard to the number of zoning text amendments, etc. Mrs. Diehl thanked him
for this help in doublechecking all of the numbers on the list of petitions
heard by the Commission in 1981.
Mr. Skove moved to adopt the 1981 Annual Report and forward it to the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no
further discussion. (Attached)
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:55 p.m.
Rob�rt W. Tucker, Jr.
Secretary
!t/
1981 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
I. INTRODUCTION
The Code of Virginia states that local planning commissions shall make
recommendations and an annual report to the governing body concerning the
operation of the commission and the status of planning within the jurisdiction.
This report is a brief summary of what the Albemarle County Planning Commission
has accomplished during the past year and some of the planning problems which
will be addressed during 1982.
IT. PERSONNEL AND ORGANIZATION
The Commission is composed of seven members, one member from each of the six
magisterial districts and one member appointed "at large." One commissioner
was appointed during 1981.
III. EXPENSES
The Commission does not have a separate budget. Salary payments to the
seven commissioners amounted to $16,800 for 1981. Other expenses are included
in the budget of the Planning Department and are not individually identified,
as they were either minimal or non-existent.
IV. 1981 ACTIVITIES
A. Work Load
The Commission regularly meets three to four Tuesdays per month and
schedules additional meetings and work sessions as necessary. During
1981, the Commission met forty-six (46) times for an average of three or
ALBa4ARLE COUNTY PLANNING CMISSION
Page 2
four hours per meeting. The Commission considered the following types
of action:
Zoning Map Amendments
Special Use Permits
Comprehensive Plan Review
(15.1-456)
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
*Zoning Text Amendments
*Subdivision Ordinance
Amendments
Site Plans
Subdivisions
29
37
5
5
18 (1 from public)
13
54
73
The above development activities were considered by applying the new
Zoning Ordinance, which became law in December of 1980.
Overall, the work load of the Commission was down somewhat from 1980.
This was undoubtedly caused by generally poor economic conditions for
the construction industry and because there was a rush of activity
prior to the passage of the new Zoning Ordinance in December, 1980.
Other activities included a review of the Capital Improvements Program
and reconsideration of the Private Road Provisions of the Subdivision
Ordinance. The Private Road Provisions were amended as a result of this
review. Also, the first work session was held on the review of the
Comprehensive Plan, which must be updated.
* Only one application for zoning text amendment was reviewed.
Many amendments were of the "housekeeping" type intended to "fine tune"
the new Zoning Ordinance. Likewise, many amendments to the Subdivision
Ordinance resulted from the new Zoning Ordinance. This level of activity
is not expected to continue in the future. ���
1981 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COWiIY PLANNING CMISSION
Page 3
B. Accomplishments
The Commission was largely successful in its attempt to reduce the
number of conditions which are attached to approved site plans and
subdivisions. And the Commission will continue to monitor the
number of conditions on approvals in order to maintain this reduction.
With the cooperation of the Planning staff and applicants, many necessary
items, such as Health Department and County Engineer approvals, are now
routinely being complied with, prior to Planning Commission review.
This has not only speeded up the review process, but should reduce the
number of resubmittals caused by unforeseen problems.
V. 1982 PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND PROBLEMS
A. Comprehensive Plan Review
The Commission will review the Comprehensive Plan for the years 1982
to 1987 and conduct at least one public hearing on it before
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors late this summer. NSajor
areas of review will include land use updates in each of the neighborhoods,
application of the CATS to a review of transportation planning and goals,
and a study of the Crozet community with respect to the potential
unavailibility of the Crozet sewage interceptor.
B. Other Reviews
The Planning Commission will conduct work sessions and review the
following items during 1982:
1. Charlottesville Area Transportation STudy (CATS)
2. Capital Improvements Program
3. Secondary Road System Six -Year Improvement Plan, 1982 - 1988
//Y
1981 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING CWJISSION
**MW11 Page 4
C. Concerns
On more than a few occasions, violations of the Zoning Ordinance have
been brought to the attention of the Commission during its normal
conduct of business. The violations themselves, the way in which they
occurred, and the manner in which they were "corrected," have given the
Commission serious concern. This concern centers on how effectively
the Zoning Ordinance is being enforced and also about the way in which
it is administered and interpreted.
It is the intention of the Commission to pursue these matters and
identify whatever problems exist and do whatever it can to see that
they are promptly corrected.
VI. RECCM�ENDATI ONS
A. The Commission believes that the Supervisor who is appointed as liason
to the Planning Commission is a very important member of the Commission
and makes a substantial contribution to the planning process. The
Commission encourages the Board to fill this position.
B. The establishment of quarterly or semi-annual joint meetings of the
Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission, to discuss planning
problems and share ideas. These meetings could result in better
planning and improved communications.
%5