HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 03 83 PC MinutesMay 3, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, May 3, 1983, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room 7, Second Floor,
Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David P. Bowerman,
Chairman; Mr. James R. Skove; Mr. Allan B. Kindrick; Mr. Timothy
Michel; and Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, as well as Miss Ellen V. Nash, Ex-
Officio. Messers. Corwith Davis, Jr. and Richard P. Cogan, Vice -
Chairman, were absent. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick
W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. R. Keith Mabe, Principal
Planner; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning;
Mr. Fred Kruger, Director of Data Processing; and Mrs. Betty Koehler,
Director of the Jefferson -Madison Regional Library.
Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order after establishing that a
quorum was present.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FY83-84 THROUGH FY87-88
Mr. Keith Mabe presented information on the.County's CIP, explaining
that the proposed 1983-1984 capital budget reflected earlier Planning
Commission recommendations and a corresponding shift in funding.
Mr. Mabe remarked that as in previous years the Commission's ranking
of projects had been helpful to the Board of Supervisors. He added
that the issue of critical health and safety needs continued to be
foremost in the ranking of priority among the programs and projects.
Mr. Mabe explained that he had some additional information on how
many funds might actually be available in the CIP budget. He said
that the $661,000 figure reflected the amount that would be out in
the FY83-FY84 budget this year, but additionally there were Literary
Funds and monies from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
expected to be placed in the current CIP budget.
Mr. Mabe explained that the dry hydrants were given urgent priority
after further information was sought from the Jefferson Country Fire
Fighters' Association.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there were any comments or additional
points participating boards or agencies might want to make.
Mrs. Betty Koehler stated that the Jefferson -Madison Regional Library
needed to request $10,000 for furnishings for the Crozet branch
library. Mrs. Koehler explained that according to library records
the $8,500 figure, shown by the County as previously allocated, was
never received. Mrs. Koehler further stated that the City of
Charlottesville handles the library's bookkeeping.
Mrs. Koehler told the
amount for roof repair
been received and the
significantly.
Commission that
on the central
amount required
since requesting the $22,500
library, bids for the work had
for patching would be reduced
/A Y
Mr. Bowerman asked for some clarification on the disputed $8,500.
Mrs. Koehler responded that according to Judy Gough in the Finance 14004
Department of the County $8,500 was appropriated in 1979, but that
neither the library's nor the City's records showed such an
appropriation. She reiterated that this was a matter to be cleared
up, but that she wanted to go on record for requesting the $10,000
for furnishings for the library branch being built by the Perry
Foundation.
Mr. Skove remarked that it was still unclear to him. Mrs. I:oehler
e:>plained that the money would have been appropriated if the branch
had been constructed by Stanley Wilcox in 1979, but since it was
not, she did not believe money for furnishings was appropriated.
Mr. Skove responded that he wondered whether in any event this was
a capital expense or more of an operational expense. Mr. Mabe said
that it would be a capital expenditure, according to guidelines, if
the expense was over $5,000 and for permanent fixtures.
Miss Nash brought up the question of appropriated versus actually
paid out. She pointed out that Judy Gough had said the $8,500 had
been appropriated. Mr. Mabe explained that based on the records he
had seen, examining line items for the end of 1980, $8,500 was paid
out and was specified for library furnishings.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was further comment from submitting
agencies.
Mr. Fred Kruger, head of the County's Data Center, explained that
due to a six-month lag in time from the manufacturer and the time
required to put out for bids, it could take eight to ten months to
obtain a computer disc drive in-house. Therefore, Mr. Kruger asked
that the funds for the disc drive be approved for next year so that
it could be installed as capacity was reached. Mr. Bowerman
ascertained that the dollar amount was $26,600, which Mr. Kruger
was requesting be given a higher priority in order to be funded.
When there was no further comment from department heads or agencies,
Mr. Bowerman asked for public comment. There was none, and
Mr. Bowerman declared the matter to be before the Commission.
Mr. Mabe gave the Commission some more figures on how much money
might actually be available in the CTP budget: approximately
two million dollars in recovered monies, $860,000 from the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority, $260,000 from the Literary Loan fund
and $20,000 to $40,000 from the Scottsville Library.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the $600,000 was included in these
figures. Mr. Mabe replied no, that the $661,000 amount represented
the County contribution for this year. He explained that normally
the County puts in a million dollars. Mr. Mabe also cautioned the
Commission that the total might be misleading, since a certain
level had to be maintained in the ongoing CTP budget.
/9 9
Mr. Bowerman remarked that in adding up all possible funds, it
appeared that conceivably the ranked projects could be funded.
+64O, Mr. Mabe responded that Education's project requests had still to
be reviewed, that they might go into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Mr. Bowerman asked how to handle the question of the $10,000 for
the Crozet library furnishings. Mrs. Diehl added that she would
like to have some clarification on the discrepancy. Mr. Bowerman
and Mrs. Diehl concurred that the figure on the roof of $22,500
could be dropped to $1,000, based on Mrs. Koehler's estimate of the
cost of a partial repair instead of an entire roof replacement.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Mabe whether he wished to leave the $1,500
library furnishings figure in the CIP until the questioned $8,500
was clarified, or whether he wished to adjust it in light of
Mrs. Koehler's request for $10,000.
Mr. Mabe responded that $10,000 was in his opinion a fairly
accurate estimate on what it would cost to furnish the library;
he added that Mrs. Koehler was preparing a list of actual furnishings
to provide the Board when the request was reviewed.
Mr. Bowerman asked when these recommendations might bo to the Board.
Mr. Mabe replied that it the Commission approved them tonight, they
would be forwarded to the Board. Mrs. Diehl asked about the Commission
reviewing Education's projects later.
Mr. Mabe explained that lengthy discussions had been beld as to
how much longer to wait. He explained that CIP review had been delayed
until now and he understood that it might be even longer before the
School Board was able to look over Education's funding requests.
Mrs. Diehl added that each year review of the Capital Improvements
Program was pushed back further and further. Mrs. Diehl said that
she was willing to forward these recommendations, since she had pretty
well made up her mind on their priority. Mr. Skove concurred, saying
that Education would have to make a strong justification for school
project requests.
Mr. Kindrick questioned item #21, Western Albemarle Track Paving.
Mr. Mabe informed the Commission that he had found out today that
this project dated back to 1978 and the company originally providing
the materials had gone out of business; he added that the track
needed to be upgraded in order to prevent further deterioration.
Mr. Mabe remarked that should the Commission so choose, it could be
dropped back a year.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Central Library - Roof project
could be moved forward to become item #13 and the Greenwood Community
Center Heating Improvements could become item #14, thereby changing
the sequence of items #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #23, #24 and
#25 to become items #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23 and
#24.
There was a brief discussion on the the Court Square Complex project.
Mr. Mabe explained that there was a certain cash flow necessary to
be shown, certifying that funds existed. Mrs. Diehl ascertained
that this would be the case even if the project were phased.
/3a
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there were any other projects other than
the twenty-five listed that the Commission might want to include.
Mrs. Diehl asked on item #25 whether the amount of County funds
needed was still not known. Mr. Mabe explained that there was
some concern about the amount. He said that $25,000 had been
appropriated previously and a request made a couple of years ago.
Mr. Make said that help was expected from the Fire Commission, as
well as through private fund-raising efforts. There was some
discussion of a revolving loan fund with annual appropriations in
ad,dit On. to funds: generated' by) repayment of loans
Mrs. Diehl recalled that her original impression had been there
would be very minimal contributions required from the County and
City, that the training center would be primarily funded by State
funds. Mr. Mabe suggested that the amount believed to be forthcoming
from State funds had been underestimated.
Mrs. Diehl asked about the construction of a two-story cinderblock
house. Mr. Bowerman recollected that it was to be a tower. Miss Nash
and Mr. Kindrick concurred that it was to be a tower for controlled
practice burns.
Mr. Mabe said that the $25,000 appropriated by the Board last year
was for grading and site preparation on the I-64 property.
Mr. Mabe explained that due to crucial contract discussions with
the City, Mr. Agnor had requested that the fire engine request
be moved back. Mr. Bowerman ascertained from Mr. Mabe that
the engine would be kept in the City but would serve the County.
Mr. Kindrick asked about the $24,000 figure for the dry hydrants,
and Mr. Mabe explained that this figure represented $8,000 per
district. There was a consensus to add the fire engine, which had
been listed last year as a high priority item, as item #26, after
item #25, the computer disc.
Mr. Michel asked about what figure was being left in for the Crozet
furnishings; Mr. Bowerman replied the $1,500 figure for the time
being. It was reiterated that the roof amount was being reduced to
the estimate for repair of $1,000 (Central Library - Roof/$22,500).
Mr. Skove remarked that no matter what, the priorities might chana_e
when the school requests were reviewed. Mrs. Diehl added that it
disturbed her not to be able to review all the project requests at
one time.
Mr. Skove moved to recommend approval of the ranking of the twenty-
six projects and to pass these on to the Board; Mr. Kindrick seconded
the motion. Mr. Skove voiced his concern that in effect there would
almost have to be another review when the Education projects were
evaluated and priorities shifted to incorrorate any of those items.
Mrs. Diehl agreed that two separate reviews resulted, but added that
she would not want to delay forwarding these recommendations.
The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
SP-83-20 Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority - Request in accordance
with Sections 30.3.5.2.1.2 and 30.3.5.2.1.4 for approval of Part 2
fir, of the Crozet Interceptor (pumping station and sewer line). Line
beginning near its connector with Morey Creek Interceptor, running
westward generally following Ivy Creek, through Ivy, continuing west
along Little Ivy Creek and terminating near its crossing with the
C & O Railroad.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority, said that he believed Mr. Keeler had covered the
second part of the Crozet Interceptor pretty well. Mr. Williams
stated further that this was one segment of a long-range project
committment by the City, County, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
and the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Williams said that
the project consisted of some 30,000 feet of pipeline, an 18,000
foot gravity main, force main and two pumping stations. Mr. Williams
said that he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Bowerman said at this time he would open the meeting for public
comment; he asked that each speaker identify himself for the record
before offering comment.
Mr. Rick Richmond introduced himself as a land owner in West Leigh.
Mr. Richmond stated that the alignment of the interceptor followed
Route 250 with a turn that went through a portion of West Leigh
before returning to 250. Mr. Richmond said that this means the
line would be coming through a very quiet, nice residential
neighborhood, within thirty feet of his house. Mr. Richmond contended
that it might be cheaper to relocate the line. He stated that he
had requested further cost -analysis and was not satisfied that this
alignment was the most cost efficient. Mr. Richmond acknowledged
that should the line be straight, the cost of a pumping station would
be involved, which with the proposed alignment would not be necessary
due to gravity flow.
Mr. Richmond suggested that it was his understanding that this
public hearing was to seek approval of a special use permit to bring
a sewer line through the flood plain. Mr. Richmond stated that he
did not believe the County Zoning Ordinance allowed such a line and
suggested that this issue would have to be clarified or corrected
before this body could act. Mr. Richmond said that he and many of
his neighbors had concerns about the private roads, which are
maintained and paid for by the property owners. He pointed out that
although the interceptor would travel through their subdivision, the
property owners would have no benefits from it and would have no
right to connect to it. Mr. Richmond suggested that the the property
owners adjacent to the road connecting West Leigh subdivision to
Route 250, which he described as a private road outside of the
subdivision, had never been notified of this hearing. Mr. Richmond
asked that procedurally the hearing be put in proper order and
secondly, suggested that no project of this magnitude should be
allowed to disrupt a residential subdivision if another route could
be found that would avoid a neighborhood. Mr. Richmond ended his
remarks by saying that he did not believe a conscientious effort had
been made to find an alternate route.
�3a
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was further public comment; when
there was not, he declared the matter to be before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman requested the Deputy County Attorney to address a
couple of issues raised: 1. Whether the location of a sewer line
in the flood plain was properly addressed in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Payne replied that he believed the matter was properly before
the Commission, that there were two sections of the Ordinance which
address lines such as this one; he mentioned Section 30.3.5.2.1 on
water -related uses and use number four under this same section.
Mr. Pavne said that especially in light of the language quoted
in Mr. Keeler's Staff Report and the legislative history,
he believed water and sewer transmission lines were definitely_
intended to be included in these sections.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne whether, if the line crosses a private
road, which is jointly owned and maintained by residents of West
Leigh, notification to all property owners would be required.
Mr. Payne replied that he did not believe maintenance was the
question at hand, but the question of ownership was relevant. He
suggested that Mr. Harry Marshall might be able to clarify the road
situation. Mr. Payne said that it was his understanding that the
roads in West Leigh were privately maintained but dedicated to
public use.
Mr. Harry Marshall, counsel to the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority, read from Title 15.1-478 of the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Marshall stated additionally that there were annotations on two
recorded plats of Tlest Leigh, Section Two, Deed Book 385, Page 519,
:Mating that all s4rr etsinWest Leigh are subject to a fifty -foot
width dedication. Mr. Marshall observed that it was apparent
therefore, the roads were not owned by the residents of West Leigh.
Mr. Marshall also stated that although the ownership of the streets
had been turned over to the County government, this in no way
obligated the County to construct or maintain the streets until such
time as they were accepted into the State system, which he said had
not yet taken place. Mr. Marshall referred to Title 15.1-479 of the
Code of Virginia as the authority for his last statement.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne whether, based on what he had heard,
notification of property owners as questioned by Mr. Richmond was
an issue before the Commission. Mr. Payne responded that the
property owners don't own the road. Mr. Bowerman ascertained,
therefore, that the matter was properly before the Commission.
Mr. Richmond attempted to address the Commission. Mr. Bowerman
asked Mr. Richmond for his comment. Mr. Richmond stated that neither
Mr. Marshall or Mr. Payne had answered his question concerning the
notification of property owners. Mr. Richmond stated that he was
asking about the road connecting Route 250 to the West Leigh
subdivision, not the internal West Leigh roads.
Mr. Payne stated that he would not be able to answer questions
concerning this road. Mr. Marshall remarked that he was familiar
with the road and believed it had been in existence since 1925.
Mr. Payne ascertained that the road in question was the segment
from the approximate proposed location of the pumping station to
the railroad. Mr. Bowerman asked how this matter could be addressed
or whether it could be addressed tonight.
Mr. Payne replied that the character of the road would have to be
made known and he could not provide that information.
Mr. Paul Shoop of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority asked to
speak and Mr. Bowerman, saying that if it would serve in the
interest of clarification, permitted him to.
Mr. Shoop explained that it was his understanding that the parcel
in question was owned on the east by West Leigh residents and
individual property owners otherwise.
Mr. Payne said that he did not know who had been notified but there
was no obligation in the Statute requiring notification of owners
of less than fee -interest in the property. Mr. Payne added that
ownership of an easement would not require notification; he said
based on what Mr. Shoop had stated, presumably those property owners
were notified and that would be sufficient.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether by chance the owners of this parcel were
present. When there was no response, Mr. Marshall stated that he
believed the owners to be John T. and Ola Adams. Mr. Marshall said
that the Rivanna Authority had notified the Adams; Mr. Bowerman
ascertained that the Commission had also notified the Adams and that
he would therefore proceed with the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority, why a different route was not selected,
a straight line as suggested by Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Williams responded that Mr. Richmond was correct that there could
be a forced -main solution/pumping station. However, he continued,
the problem was cost and not just the initial construction cost but
the expense of waste water treatment in twenty years when the
Morey Creek interceptor system is no longer adequate. Mr. Williams
explained that this gravity -flow design was chosen with future
development in mind, being the cheaper solution in the long run.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Williams whether it was correct that those
property owners through whose property the line came did not have
access to the line. Mr. Williams replied that he could only partially
answer that question, since the Albemarle County Service Authority
provided retail service, but Mr. Williams said that it was his
understanding that West Leigh was not within the jurisdictional area
for public sewer at this time, but was eligible for water and could
potentially be served in the future.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained from Mr. Keeler that the only way West Leigh
could be served would be through action by the Board of Supervisors
to amend the service area of the Service Authority.
/.34
Mr. Bowerman asked whether any of the Commissioners had questions
or comments. Mr. Skove responded that he wondered whether any
additional condition or conditions might be necessary concerning
possible bonding of some of the proposed work. *40
Mr. Bowerman stated that he believed Mr. Keeler had indicated
bonding would be addressed at site plan stage. Mr. Payne
observed that the usual practice with a public utility company such
as the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, was to have the contractor's
performance bond tied into the County's soil erosion bond. He
further stated that Rivanna did not usually post a bond or surety
and the County in effect went after the contractor if anything went
wrong. Messers. Payne and Skove agreed that money should be
readily available in the event of any problems during construction.
Mr. Skove reiterated his opinion that the Commission's concern about
adequate bonding should be known.
Mrs. Diehl questioned whether Best Management Practices was
included as part of condition one related to County Engineer review
and approval. Mr. Payne said that he was not certain in this case
whether it was advisable to include it as a requirement in condition
one, because it was conceivable that some aspect of Best Management
Practices might be in conflict with the Soil Erosion Handbook.
Mrs. Diehl asked about requiring consideration of Best Management
Practices in condition one, because she explained that as written
the official issuing a grading permit did not have this spelled
out as a guideline. Mr. Payne said that he believed the conditions
as written ensured following the Best Management Practices.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Shoop whether the alignment before the
Commission tonight was the same as what had been before the Commission
in December. Mr. Shoop confirmed that there had been no change.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler about details on the pumping station.
Mr. Keeler said that although he did not have an architect's
drawing, river crossings were indicated on the plat and there were
three different types. Mr. Keeler provided some technical details
on sizing and materials to be employed.
Mr. Bowerman inquired specifically about the manholes. Mr. Keeler
responded that there were a couple of different types - some requiring
venting, some with rubber gaskets, some with thrust locks at curves.
Mr. Shoop informed Mr. Bowerman, in response to a question concerning
the appearance of the manholes, that those on properties generally would
be flush to the ground, except for those required to be vented
by the Health Department. Mrs. Diehl ascertained from Mr. Shoop
that when crossing rivers, the line would be below stream.
Mr. Shoop described the pumping stations as designed to have brick
facades and i�ietal roofs. Mrs. Diehl asked how large the buildings
would be. Mr. Shoop replied approximately twenty feet by forty.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there were any further comments or
questions. When there were none, Mr. Skove moved for approval of
SP-83-20, subject to the following conditions and with the
136'
stipulation that particular attention be given to the construction
bonding in this porject, given its scope and location in the flood -
plain, to ensure immediate correction should problems occur in the
future:
1. County Engineer review and approval in accordance with the
requirements of 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance;
2. Staff approval of site plan for West Leigh pump station to
include a landscape plan and facade treatment;
3. Watershed Management Official review of contractor specifications
and grading permit to be guided by construction Best Management
Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, and
State Water Control Board;
4. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no
further discussion.
SP-83-14 James L. Harlow - Request in accordance with Section 5.6.1
to locate a mobile home on County Tax Map 89, Parcel 87B,
consisting of 18.9 acres zoned Rural Areas, Scottsville Magisterial
District. Property is located on the southeast side of Route 631,
approximately one and one-half miles south of its intersection with
Route 706.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. When the applicant had no
additional comment, Mr. Bowerman opened the meeting to public
comment.
Mr. William Palmer identified himself as the owner of lot four.
He said that it had been brought to his attention that there were
already seven mobile homes in the area. He said it was his personal
opinion that mobile homes tend to depress property values and are
detrimental to the area.
Mr. Palmer said with regard to this particular application, he was
concerned about possible future clearing for pasture which could
destroy the natural screening. He objected that should the natural
vegetation disappear, it was left to the Zoning Administrator's
discretion to determine additional screening and adjacent property
owners would not have an opportunity to voice their opinion on
suitable buffering. In addition, Mr. Palmer observed that he saw
no driveway, sewer line or other details on the plat. He ended by
saying that mobile homes deteriorate in time.
Mr. Gary Tingley introduced himself as a bordering adjacent property
owner. He said that he did not have much to add to Mr. Palmer's
statement except to seriously question Staff's estimate of 250 feet
and 300 feet from the east boundary and public road respectively.
He suggested that the mobile home could easily be located on almost
nineteen acres so as to not be visible from the Woods development.
Mr. Tingley clarified that he was not a resident of Lyon Woods.
Mr. Palmer was requested to point out his lot four on the tax map.
1-34,
Mr. Harlow stated that the road had already been cut into his
property from Route 631 and that Health Department approval of
a septic field had been obtained. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that
in fact the road had not actually been constructed.
Mr. Keeler read from Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to
show all the requirements that must be met in order to locate a
mobile home on this property.
Mr. Bowerman declared the matter to be before the Commission and
the public hearing closed.
Mrs. Diehl determined that the area referred to in condition three
was a buildable area of the parcel.
Miss Nash asked Mr. Keeler about the visibility of the mobile home
from Mr. Tingley's property, located across the road. Mr. Keeler
responded that due to dense growth the mobile home would not be
visible, as well as due to being set back some three hundred feet
from the road.
Mr. Skove wondered whether seasonal loss of leaves might not affect
the buffer of trees. It was established that pines and hardwoods
made up the natural screening; Mr. Keeler said that he had inspected
the site and saw no problem of visibility.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant whether it would ever be necessary
to clear land in front of the mobile home or behind it for
pastureland. Mr. Harlow indicated that should any clearing be
done, he could use other portions of the land and leave sufficient
screening around the mobile home.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she was satisfied that with the conditions
as written by Staff, the adjoining neighbors were protected,
specifically with condition three. She therefore moved for aonroval
of the special use permit, subject to the following conditions:
1. Except as otherwise provided in these conditions, compliance with
Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Mobile home to be located a minimum of 250 feet from Lyon Woods
and 300 feet from Route 631;
3. Existing wooded areas adequate for screening between Route 631
and Lyon Woods to be maintained in a natural state or stockade
.fencing, vegetative plantings or other method of screening to
be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further
discussion.
/3'1
SP-83-15 Tommie L. or Rebecca M. Collier - Request in accordance
with Section 10.2.2(31) to operate an upholstery shop on County
Tax Map 55C, Parcel A32, consisting of +0.4 acre zoned R-2 Residential,
White Hall Magisterial District. Property is located on the south
side of Orchard Drive in Orchard Acres Subdivision.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. When there was no further
comment from the applicant, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Robert Johnson identified himself as adjacent to the applicant's
property. He stated that he was unaware of any other home
businesses in Orchard Acres and that he would suggest such a
proposed business was out of character with a strictly residential
area. Mr. Johnson said that he understood that a 1,500 square
foot building could be built with two employees. He said that he
would not like to see a precedent started in a residential
neighborhood and any business would always cause a certain amount of
additional traffic, noise and debris. Mr. Johnson said in closing
he did not think the proposed use was appropriate within a
subdivision.
When there was no further public comment, Mr. Collier stated his
intent to comply with all of the rules and regulations of the County.
Mr. Collier said that his business would not cause additional
traffic, since customers would not come to his place of business
and he would not have parked cars or materials outside on the
property.
Mr. Bowerman thanked the applicant and said that if there was no
more public comment, the matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler explained that there were two types of home occupation.
He added that any resident of Orchard Acres could have a Class A
Home Occupation by right Mr. Keeler explained that the only reason
Mr. Collier had to apply for a special use permit was because he
wanted to use an outside building; Mr. Keeler said that if the
applicant had chosen to have the business within his home he could
have it by right.
Mr. Michel determined from Mr. Keeler that home occupations were
permitted in any subdivision of the County regardless of lot size.
Mrs. Diehl said that she was satisfied with the proposed use, since
all of the applicant's equipment would be stored inside. She moved
for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Building area limited to 400 square feet;
2. No employees;
3. Compliance with Section 5.2.2.1 of the zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no
further discussion.
ZTA-83-1. Request from Gerald L. and Annette Kirby to ariend
Zoning Ordinance to allow "motor vehicle sales" by special use
permit in C-1 Commercial District.
SP-83-19 Dewey Morris - Request in accordance with Section
proposed in ZTA-83-1 to locate a late model used car lot on County
Tax Map 32A, Parcel 01-B-1, consisting of +1 acre, zoned C-1
Commercial, Rivanna Magisterial District. Property is located in
Clover's Airport Acres, in closed gift shop and service station
on west side of Route 29 North, at its intersection with Airport
Acres Road.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mrs. Annette Kirby explained
that only one person lived adjacent to this property and had
requested that no screening be installed to block a view of the
highway. Mrs. Kirby said that the tennant, Mr. Morris the
applicant, would beautify the property and help look after it.
Mr. Keeler added that no objections to this application had been
received.
Mr. Morris said that it was his intent to move late model cars
from his present lot located one mile south on Route 29 up to the
signal light at Airport Acres in order to have better visibility.
Mr. Bowerman asked for public comment. When there was none, he
declared the matter to be before the Commission.
Mr. Skove asked where auto sales were permitted, in which zoning
districts. Mr. Keeler replies? Highway Commercial; he explained
that the applicant had two choices - to amend the Zoning Ordinance
to allow car sales under C-1 or to request rezoning of the property.
There was some discussion about the appropriateness of auto sales
on Route 29, and Mr. Bowerman remarked that there had been an
attempt to limit Highway Commercial zoning.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of ZTA-83-1, which Mr. Michel seconded
and which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Mrs. Diehl moved for approval of SP-83-19, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Staff approval of either stockade
height) or white pine plantings (5-6'
northern and western boundary lines;
2. Staff approval of parking plan.
displayed only on paved areas,
3. No pennants, streamers or strings
fencing (six (6) feet in
in height; 20' o.c.) along
Vehicles shall be parked and
of lights shall be permitted.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no
further discussion.
R
NEW BUSINESS - None.
OLD BUSINESS
�%We Mr. Keeler asked the Commission for a consensus on which
alternative to follow, in response to a memo addressed to the
Commission from Mr. Tucker, dated April 28, concerning twin
trailers passing through Albemarle County on state highways.
Following a general discussion among the Commissioners, several
points were raised (contained in the attached letter from Mr. Tucker
addressed to Mr. Harold C. King, Commissioner, of the Highway
Department) and a consensus formed to draft a letter stronger in
tone than that contained in Mr. Roosevelt's memo of April 22
addressed to Mr. J. C. DuFresne. (See attachments.)
Mr. Keeler told the Commission that the road situation on Riverbend
was in good shape and that the County Engineer was meeting with
representatives concerning stormwater detention and drainage plans.
Mr. Keeler added that more expertise would be sought by Mr. Edwards.
The meeting adjourned at approximately ten o'clock.
obert W. Tucker, r.
S cretary