HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 19 85 PC MinutesMarch 19, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on Tuesday, March 19, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson;
Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel and Mr. James Skove. Other
officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning
and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner;
Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; and Mr.
Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Mr. Richard
Gould, Mr. Richard Cogan and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio.
Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the August 21, 1984 and March 5, 1985 meetings
were approved as written.
ZMA-85-2 Blakey Hurt/Larry McElwain - Request to rezone 1.6910
acres (vacant) from R-4, Residential to C-1, Commercial.
Property, described as Tax Map 61W2, Parcel 45 (part) is located
on the east side of Greenbrier Drive approximately 700 feet
from the intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Whitewood Road.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler stated the applicant was going to request deferral
on this item. However, it was determined there was public
comment on the proposal so Mr. Keeler proceeded with the staff
report and the public hearing.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Blakey Hurt, the applicant and seller, addressed the
Commission. He stated he was requesting deferral because the
buyer, Mr. David Wood, was out of town. He stated he felt this
property meets goal No. 9 of the Comprehensive Plan, i.e. the
County should look for "convenient, accessible and attractive
commercial concentrations in a variety of locations." Mr. Hurt
feels that because this property is adjacent to commercial
property (at the intersection of Commonwealth and Greenbriar)
it should be able to develop commercially. He also pointed out
that the rezoning is for 1.7 acres, not 3 acres, as referred to
in Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the residential
property already abuts C-1 zoning and he felt this lot would
lend itself better to landscaping and buffering. Though he
stated he would like for the rezoning to be approved, he
indicated he was not opposed to considering a compromise
solution as suggested by staff.
Ms. Lisa Sessoms, representing the contract purchasers, addressed
the Commission. She stated the purchasers were in favor of
deferral to allow time to consider alternatives and the special
March 19, 1985 Page 2
measures that were mentioned in the staff report.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Joan Atkin, an adjacent property owner, addressed the
Commission. She expressed interest in hearing the alternative
suggested by staff. She disagreed with Mr. Hurt's statement
that the adjacent property was already next to C-1 zoning.
She indicated that the area in question is now wooded and the
adjacent property owners were led to believe, at the time of
purchase, that this would remain a common area, with no
development. Ms. Atkin confirmed that this had been a verbal
understanding.
Mr. Jim Garvey, an adjacent property owner, confirmed Ms.
Atkin's statement regarding the verbal agreement pertaining
to the common area. He also expressed interest in knowing
what the intended use is for the land once it has been rezoned.
He suggested that the owner of the land might give a proffer
for concessions to the Minor Ridge Subdivision in terms of the
use and development of the land.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Ms. Lisa Sessoms stated
she was not aware of the purchasers' plans for the land.
Mr. Hurt stated he too was interested in knowing the intended
use of the land. He stated he had discussed the possibility
of office condominiums with the purchasers. However, he too
stated he was unsure of the intended use and thus one of the
reasons for requesting deferral.
Responding to Mr. Bowerman's request, Mr. Keeler presented
an alternative plan which staff felt might further the
interests of all concerned, i.e. the buyer, seller, adjoining
property owners, and general public. (A copy of this
alternative is attached to the staff report filed with these
minutes.) Mr. Keeler explained that he felt this alternative
would address some of the concerns of the adjoining property
owners, whether or not this land is rezoned. He stated it
would make these properties more developable and would also
address matters of public concern in terms of access to
Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that Mr. Keeler
was referring to the two existing C-1 zoned lots. Mr.
Keeler stated this alternative would require some variation
from the literal interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan,
but if all interest would be served, staff can determine no
inpropriety in consideration of such an approach. Mr. Keeler
suggested that the applicant meet with the property owners
to address their concerns, and also meet with the Highway
Department in regard to establishing limited access to this
property in a location that considers this intersection, and
also to decide on a realignment of the curvature at Greenbrier
Drive.
March 19, 1985 Page 3
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt that a limitation on usage in this
area might be appropriate since it is next to a residential
area and is zoned C-1, which can be a fairly intensive use.
He encouraged communications between the seller, purchaser and
the property owners to try to develop a plan that would serve
everyones' best interests.
Ms. Diehl moved that the public hearing on ZMA-85-2 for Blakey
Hurt/Larry McElwain be continued on April 9, 1985.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
SP-85-7 Edgar Robb Subdivision (Colston) - Request to subdivide
144.537 acres into 12 parcels of 6-16 acres. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 33, is
located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of State
Routes 708 and 637. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. She added that additional
materials had not been received in time for staff review, and
the County Engineer also has not had time to review and comment
on criterion No. 9.
Ms. McCulley confirmed that this parcel could develop, by right,
to eleven lots.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Rick Thompson, representing the applicant, Mr. Robb,
addressed the Commission. He addressed the nine criteria stated
in staff's report and offered the following comments:
--The Soil Conservation Service has stated the soils
are acceptable for agricultural use, and thus septic use also.
--It is only 10 minutes away from Barracks Road Shopping
Center and should not be considered remote from facilities
as suggested in staff's report.
--Regarding effects on capital improvements, he stated
the development would generate approximately $23,000/parcel
in taxes for the County.
--He disagreed that the intersection at Rt. 708 and Rt. 637
was deficient, since the traffic from this development
would be coming from the south where there is no problem,
not from the north, where there is a sight distance
problem.
--If developed b right (i.e. five 2-acre lots with 250 feet
road frontages many more entrances would be created onto
the road.
--Regarding vegetation, he stated approximately 60 acres
on the steeper slop is mature woods that has been timbered
recently, and approximately 21 acres on the north side
of the creek is in relatively new growth. He estimated
that as much as 13 acres of wooded land might be removed
during construction.
--Resulting impervious cover would not be more than 24% of
the total property (paved driveways, paved roads, patios, etc.)
March 19, 1985
Page 4
--Most of the property will remain quasi -agricultural,
and will retain its rural character. He stated, however, the
lots would not be large enough for intense agricultural
uses. Thus, there would be less problems with siltation
and fertilizer run-off than if the property were left in
agricultural usage.
--Most of the land will be maintained in natural forest
growth.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. John Higginson, an adjoining property owner, addressed the
Commission. He indicated he was in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Robert Finley, a neighboring property owner, addressed the
Commission and indicated he was in favor of the proposal.
He felt this development would keep the rural atmosphere of
the community and would be a much more desirable usage than
what might be done with the property.
Mr. John Redick, an adjacent property owner, addressed the
Commission and spoke in favor of the development.
Ms. Webber, a neighboring property owner, addressed the
Commission and indicated she was in favor of the proposal.
She added she felt all the neighbors were in favor of the
proposal. She also stated the property could never be a
working farm because the land has been abused and neglected.
She felt the only logical use for this land was this type of
development.
Referring to Ms. McCulley's comment that the Ragged Mountain
range has an average slope of about 27%, Mr. Thompson stated
that included a very steep area, and if that were excluded,
the average slope would be under 25%. He also stated that
the Evans, on Ragged Mountain Farm, are also infavor of the
development. Mr. Donnelly confirmed that staff had received
a letter to this effect from the Evans. Mr. Thompson pointed
out that they are the single largest adjoining landowner,
surrounding the property on both the northeast and southeast.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had considered staff's
suggestion that the lots be relocated with nine lots to the
north of the creek and only one lot on the actual hillside.
Mr. Thompson stated the applicant
keeping with the character of the
equal acreage to all the lots.
felt his proposal was in
area and would also give
-�;-7
March 19, 1985
Page 5
Ms. Diehl stated she could understand the neighbors' support
of the proposal; however, she felt this property meets
few of the criteria for granting a special use permit. She
felt it met only criteria 7 (capital improvements) and 8 (traffic
generation). She stated she could not support the proposal at
this time without comments from the County Engineer, particularly
in regard to criterion 9.
Mr. Skove agreed with Ms. Diehl. He too sympathized with
the neighbors' position, but stated the criteria had been
established and must be considered as a means for judging
such proposals.
Though Mr. Michel indicated he was in agreement regarding
the criteria, he felt a much worse use could occur for this
land that is allowable, and he indicated he was in favor of the
proposal. He added that he hoped the applicant would
consider moving one or two lots down into the flatter land.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Michel.
He felt it would be easier to maintain such a large piece
of land if several owners were involved.
Regarding staff's statement that the parcel could be
divided into 11 parcels by right, Mr. Payne stated that
though this may be theoretically possible, it may not be
practical. He explained the number "ll" had been arrived
at by multiplying 5 x 2 = 10; subtract 10 from 144 = 134;
divide remaining 134 by 21 = 6. He suggested another
possibility which would produce larger, though fewer, lots.
He confirmed there are by rights division to this property
where the majority of the lots would be large. He stated
Ms. McCulley's number (11) had been a theoretical maximum which
may or may not be practical.
Mr. Michel stated he felt this was simply asking for one
additional lot, since 11 are allowed by right.
Mr. Payne stated this is roughly a 10-acre subdivision. He
reminded the Commission that is one thing that had been
specifically rejected in the Ordinance, since it does not
preserve the farm character. He said, if the Commission
wished to think of it in that manner, that is why the RA
Ordinance was written the way it was, i.e. to require larger
areas, 20-acres plus, which are more nearly practicable for
agricultural and related uses. He pointed out that the
Commission may find that it is appropriate in this case, and
he offered this information only as background.
Mr. Skove moved that SP-85-7 for Edgar Robb Subdivision (Colston)
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.
:�?sV
March 19, 1985 Page 6
Mr. Bowerman requested further discussion since he could see
reasons for granting the special permit, though he agreed that
the criteria had not been met.
Ms. Diehl stated that since there is not that much difference,
why ignore the criteria that have been established. She added
that the proposal meets only two of the nine criteria listed.
Mr. Skove agreed.
Mr. Michel stated he understood Ms. Diehl's thinking, but he
still felt this was a better use than what could possibly be
done by right.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Skove and
Ms. Diehl.
Mr. Bowerman called for a vote on the previously stated motion
for denial of SP-85-7 for the Edgar Robb Subdivision.
The motion passed with Mr. Skove, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Diehl
voting in favor of denial, and Mr. Michel and Mr. Wilkerson
voting against.
The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors
on April 17, 1985.
SP-85-8 Edgar Robb - Request to locate a country inn on ±6.0 *04
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. (Conversion of existing historical
structure). Property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 33, Lot 1,
is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersections of
State Routes 708 and 637. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Donnelly gave the staff report. He added that the applicant
had submitted additional information but the staff had not yet
had time to review the information.
It was determined a main issue of this proposal is whether or not
this structure has ever served as an inn. Mr. Donnelly stated
staff would be able to recommend favorably on the application if
such previous use could be determined.
Mr. Payne stated he had reviewed the additional information
very briefly, and he had not seen any definitive evidence that
the structure was,or was not, an inn.
Mr. Keeler stated the applicants, the Elders are attempting to
have this building placed on the Historic Landmarks Registry
and the preliminary report from that commission will not be
available until April 15, and this is scheduled to be heard by
the Board on April 17. He stated staff feels that this matter
must be dealt with very carefully, i.e. basing approval on
representations as to the historic character of a structure.
March 19, 1985 Page 7
Mr. Keeler also stated the main consideration in this matter is
the importance of this to the architectural and historical sig-
nificance of the County. He stated staff is hesitant at this
time without some sort of written verification from either the
Virginia Landmarks Register or the National Register of Historic
Places.
It was determined the report from the Virginia Landmarks Register
would be available on April 15, but it would not actually be
placed on the Register at that time.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Rick Thompson, representing the applicants, addressed the
Commission. He stated he was an architectural historian and
had done extensive research on this building. He offered the
following comments:
--A deed trace has been done as far back as 1850.
--Two structures existed on the property and can be docu-
mented through the will of Richard Woods (1801) and
through insurance records (1799 and 1805).
--Those insurance records show drawings of the structure
and give dimensions, locations, etc.
--A description in the insurance records describe the
structure as a "dwelling and tavern".
--Order Book records (1791 and 1793) "ordinary" licenses
were issued to Richard Woods.
--The insurance records show conclusively (Mr. Thompson felt)
that the house was in existence in 1799 and 1805.
Mr. Thompson stated he has been in contact with Mr. Jeff Bodel
(Virginia Historic Landmarks) and Mr. Bodel is familiar with the
house and feels it is imminently qualified both through its
architectural characteristics and its historic importance and
its association with persons of local historic importance. Mr.
Thompson added that the applicants only plan dining facilities
to serve the resident guests and have no desire to open a
restaurant, though he pointed out a restaurant is permitted
under criteria 27 of what is available by special use permit in
RA areas. He said what is contemplated is essentially a Bed and
Breakfast arrangement. He also stated the applicants will not
be residing in the inn. He stated that he had no doubt the
property would receive Historic Landmark designation, and he
explained that without such designation restoration would not be
economically feasible because it would not qualify for tax
credits and and could not be operated as a quasi -commercial
enterprise.
Mr. Thompson stated there were no problems with the conditions
outlined by staff. Regarding No. 3--No expansion beyond the
original limits of the structure --he stated it might be necessary
1-9r
March 19, 1985 Page 8
to go beyond the original structure to provide for modern con-
veniences, such as a bathroom.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Higginson once again addressed the Commission and
stated the chimney on the structure is dated 1809.
Mr. Keeler suggested the following as an additional condition
of approval which he felt would satisfy the issue of the
building's possible historic significance:
e Planning Commission has recommended favorably on
this petition under representation by the applicant
that written verification from the Virginia Historic
Landmarks Commission will be presented to the Board
of Supervisors at their public hearing as to the
historic/architectural/cultural significance of the
structures and that the same received substantial
usage as an inn.
He explained this condition would mean that if the applicant
does not receive a favorable written statement from the Virginia
Landmarks Register by the April 17 Board meeting, the Board date
would have to be postponed.
Mr. Payne pointed out that in the past the Commission has been
more inclined to approve this type of usage if it is a return to
a historic usage. He said that in this case, the structure
may be found to be architecturally and historically significant, but
not significant as an inn. He said he felt Mr. Keeler's condition
requires that both of these factors be determined.
Mr. C.J. Elder, the contract purchaser of the property, addressed
the Commission. Having gone through this before with the 1740
House, he stated he is familiar with the process and he is very
encouraged that the structure in question will receive Historic
Landmark designation. He explained a Preliminary Information
report has been filed with the Virginia Landmarks Commission
and the matter will be heard by the State Review Board on April
16. He emphasized that the actual determination will not be made
on April 16, but it will be determined if the property is worthy
of nomination. He explained the entire process would take 3 or 4
months.
In view of the time involved with this process and the fact
that the applicant had indicated the project would not be
economically feasible without the official designation, Mr.
Bowerman suggested that adding a condition which would require
that this designation be obtained in order for the special use
permit to be approved would satisfy the Commission's concerns.
Mr. Payne stated he did not feel this was proper since he felt
it was not proper for the Board to delegate its legislative
��i
March 19, 1985
Page 9
authority to another body. He explained the difference in the
condition stated by Mr. Keeler and what was being suggested
by Mr. Bowerman is that Mr. Keeler's is a data condition and
Mr. Bowerman's a determinative one.
Mr. Elder confirmed that approximately 99% of all requests that
are determined worthy of nomination do actually receive the
designation. He also indicated that he would have no problem
with a condition requiring Historic Landmark designation;
however, he indicated he would have a problem with a condition
that would require that previous use as an inn must be proven.
The following neighboring property owners addressed the Commission
and indicated they were strongly in favor of the proposal: Ms.
Elizabeth Webber, Mr. Robert Finley and Ms. Jan Redick.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was in favor of the petition. He felt
Mr. Thompson's information had shown that at some time in the
past an inn did exist on this site.
It was determined no current definition for "country inn"
exists in the Ordinance.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt the proposal does not meet
criteria (2) and (3) as stated in the staff report, but that it
does meet criterion (1) and she indicated she was in favor of
the application.
Mr. Michel suggested that condition (1) be changed to read
as follows:
• Structures, and/or any expansion thereof, to be restored
to the architectural character of the period, in accordance
with the guidelines established by the National Register
of Historic Places.
Mr. Payne indicated this was acceptable. He added that the
purpose of this condition was to insure the preservation of the
building in its historic character.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-85-8 for Edgar Robb be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
(It was determined that staff's original condition (3)
could be deleted.)
1. Structures, and/or any expansion thereof, to be
restored to the architectural character of the period,
�%Or in accordance with the guidelines established by the
National Register of Historic Places.
: �R
March 19, 1985
Page 10
2. Approval is limited
travellers with no
to serve residents
3. Site Plan approval.
to four (4) rooms for overnight
restaurant facilities beyond that necessary
of the inn.
4. Approval of signage at site plan review to ensure signs are
of a design appropriate to the architecture of the period.
5. Building and Fire Official approvals.
6. Planning Commission has recommended favorably on this petition
under representation by the applicant that written verifi-
cation from the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission will be
presented to the Board of Supervisors at their public hearing
as to the historic/architectural/cultural significance of the
structures and that the same received substantial usage as an inn.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.
Regarding the addition of condition 6 (previously referred to as
condition 7), Mr. Bowerman stated he was in favor of omitting the
last three words since the applicant has indicated it would be
3-4 months before final determination can be made as to the usage,
and he understood that Mr. Payne had suggested that that not be
included as a permanent condition of the approval because it
would be delegating authority to another legislative body.
Mr. Payne pointed out that while it is possible that an inn
may have existed on this site, this particular structure may
have never actually served as an inn. He felt the information
that had been presented was sketchy and should be researched
further, and that is the intent of condition 6. He confirmed
that this condition would guarantee that it must be determined
that the structure was used as an inn.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he was still concerned that the informa-
tion required by condition 6 would not be available by the time
the matter is heard by the Board, thus they will not be able to
make a determination.
Mr. Michel stated he felt Mr. Thompson would be able to furnish
further information to satisfy the Board.
Mr. Thompson stated he felt this structure was documented as
a tavern as well as any structure could be documented for the
18th century.
Staff indicated they were satisfied with the conditions as
previously stated.
In answer to Mr. Skove's inquiry, Mr. Keeler explained that
Bed and Breakfast can only be offered within a single-family
home which is being used as a dwelling, and guest cottages cannot
be used for this purpose.
V7;?
March 19, 1985
Page 11
Mr. Payne stated the main issue here is that a commercial use
allows preferential tax treatment, and Mr. Keeler pointed out
that the structure cannot be used as a dwelling if it is to be
eligible for the tax.
The previously stated motion for approval of SP-85-8 was
unanimously approved.
The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on April 17,
1985.
The meeting recessed at 9:30; reconvened 9:40.
ZTA-85-1 and STA-85-1 Amendments - FEES - Resolution of Intent
adopted by the Board of Supervisors to amend the Zoning Ordi-
nance and the Subdivision Ordinance as they relate to fees.
Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. She stated it was the Board's
decision to adopt a Resolution of Intent to recover 50% of the
cost of zoning and subdivision fees, based on the fact that the
public good of planning is enough to justify that general revenues
should cover 50% of estimated costs. She confirmed that this
meeting was a public hearing for the amendments and that they
are to be voted on at this meeting. She further explained that
everything that is collected in fees goes into the general budget
and does not really affect the department's budget. She added
a greater part of the cost of reviewing applications will
come out of fees rather than general revenues. Regarding family
divisions, she confirmed that a subdivision which is eligible
for administrative approval will have an advantage, but a
subdivision that requires Commission approval will fall under the
regular filing fees.
Mr. Keeler stated he felt staff is authorized to approve almost
all family divisions so he did not feel the fees would create
a hardship. He stated it was hoped the fees might cut down
on the amount of waiver requests that are seen.
Mr. Davenport added that staff provides a lot of steering -type
information to the public for which no fee is charged.
Regarding the amendment to the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 7,
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Ms. Davenport confirmed
that this too was part of the public hearing and would be acted
upon.
It was determined the Board was considering changing the fees
each year. However, the Planning Commission recommended that a
fee schedule revision should be undertaken no more often than
every two years.
The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the matter
was placed before the Commission.
March 19, 1985
Page 12
Mr. Skove moved that ZTA-85-1 and STA-85-1 be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval as follows:
The Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance, Section 18-43,
shall be amended as follows:
(a) Preliminary Flat. The subdivider shall pay a fee
at the time when the preliminary plat is filed.
Such fee shall be in the form of cash or a check
payable to the "County of Albemarle, Virginia,"
the amount thereof to be determined in accordance
with the following schedule: ,
(1)One
hundred dollars base fee plus one dollar
per lot.
�34
(2) Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or
not a preliminimary plat for the same property
has been filed previously, shall be subject to
the same requirements; provided, however that
no fee shall be required for the review of a
preliminary plat of any subdivision involving
three or fewer lots.
(b) Final Plat. The subdivider shall pay a fee at the
time the final plat is filed. Such fee shall- be in
the form of cash. or a check payable to the "County of
Albemarle, Virginia," the amount thereof to be determined
in accordance with the following schedule:
(1) Administrative approval; Flfteen-dellaps-€e?
g#ads-eea�a�a#ag-���ee-e�+-less-bets-��tts-�e�
de##ars-€ems-f#eke-xspeetet-#€-wa��axted.
Twenty-five dollars, including family divisions.
(2) Commission aa-beard-a€-super#semis approval:
-€eF-p-1a#s-eenta#�#ag
��ee-ems-less-�s�s;-pets-ewe-�:e��a�s-gem-�e�
0ne hundred and
fifty dollars base fee plus one dollar per lot.
C3)' Exempt plat: Ten dollars.
(4) Coridominium Plat Fifty dollars base fee plus
one dollar per unit..
March 19, 1985
Page 13
(5) In addition to the foregoing, in the case of
any plat on which is shown any road to be
dedicated to public use, or any private road,
the subdivider shall pay to the county a fee
equal to the cost of the inspection of the
construction of any such road. Such fee shall
be paid upon completion of all necessary
inspections, and shall be deemed a part of the
cost of construction of such road for purposes
of section 18-19 (8-28-74, Section 3; 11-10-76,
3-2-773 12-14-77., 12-1-82.)
(c) Waiver request of Subdivision Requirement: Twenty-
five dollars.
The Albemarle County Zoning ordinance in Section 35.0,
entitled "Fees," shall be amended as follows:
35.0 FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made
1%WW to the zoning administrator, the commission, or the board of
supervisors -shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth here-
inafter, to defray the cost of processing such application.
a. For a special use permit:
�:---Fey-ages-e�he�-than-i�d��ic�aa�-meb�le-hex�es---$59T99r
1.
Mobile home and home occupation -
$20.00.
2.
Rural area divisions - $125.00.
3.
Commercial use - 125.00.
TIndustrial
use - 125.00.
5.
Private club recreational facility
- $125.00.
7.
!4obile home park or subdivision -
$125.00.
7.
Public utilities - 100.00.
. All other uses - M .00.
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance, - �29:99 $50.00.
c. For amendment to zoning map - $125.00 plus $1/acre.
�T---peg-pa�ee�s-teta��r�g-less-bhea-€��e-�5�-aeres---a92-99:
�e�-��8�-ae�es---�7�z98T
.
,gz
March 19, 1985
Page 14
d---Fey-agpea�s-e�-etbe�-app�=®at�e�s-te-the-beard-a€-se��i�g
appeals --- 428Y98Y
d.1.For requests for a variance to the board of zonin
appeals -
'r50 - 00.
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals - $20 00
eY--�e�-s=�•e-de�e3�epr�e�►t-p�aa-�e��ew=--
1Y--�a�-pa�se�s-teta�iag-less-than-€��e-��3-ae�es---�59Yt%CY
4-bat -lee s-4ha.a
----tea-4•�8}-ae�es---���Y89T='
3Y--�e�-pa�ee�s-beta���g-mere-tba�-tea-��s�-ae�es---��99-98
----peas-$2Yb'e—peg-ae�e-63�-past-the�ee€-e�e�-tea-4•�8•}-a9�esY
9
e. 1. For site development plan - $200.00.
2. For site development plan waiver - .100.00.
3. For site development plan amendment:
a Minor - alterations to parking,circulation
building size, location - '25.00.
b) Major - planning commission review - $50.00.
f. For relief from a condition of approval from commission -
50.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice
required under Chapter 11, Title 15.1 of the Code shall be
taxed to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall
exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section. Failure
to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the
denial of any application. '
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Skove moved that Section 7-4, subsection (d), of the Albemarle
County Code, in Chapter 7, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control,
be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7-4. Submission of plans and s2ecifications.
(a) Same.
(b) Same.
(c) Same.
(d) Upon the submission of any plan submitted pursuant to
Section 7-3 of this article, the applicant shall pay to the
County a fee of 4weR#y-€1ve-dejjav9 seventy-five dollars (4',
to cover the cost to the County to'review and to act upon sucil
plan. For each and every erosion control ins ection necessitated
by this plan, a fee of twenty-five dollars 2 .00 shall he paid
by the applicant.
1 —4.2 7
March 19, 1985 Page 15
on
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
CPA-85-2 Comprehensive Plan - Resolution of Intent adopted by
the Board of Supervisors to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include
provisions for citizen requests for Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that since the applicant will be supplying
the information, staff could go through that information fairly
quickly and, based upon that information, make comments on it to
the Commission. He confirmed that he would like for the initial
review to be done by staff.
Ms. Imhoff stated she envisioned a preliminary -type review.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt staff's role would be easier than
it has been since the information will have to be supplied by
the applicant (rather than compiled by the staff).
It was determined that the proposed review schedule should be
changed to place the Site Review Meeting after the Planning
Commission Meeting to Determine Requests to go Forward.
Mr. Donnelly stated this would allow staff to set aside a block
of time within the work program to deal with these twice a
year rather than dealing with them one at a time and interrupting
the schedule.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Skove moved that CPA-85-2 be recommended to the Board of Super-
visors for approval as follows:
POLICY PROPOSAL:
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests, made by the public
shall be reviewed twice annually. The Planning Commission or
the Board of Supervisors may initiate a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment study at any time as deemed appropriate.
2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications may be filed at the
Department of Planning and Community Development on or before
the first Tuesday, respectively, of the months of March and
September.
lit
March 19, 1985
Page 16
The application for requesting a comprehensive plan amendment
shall consist of the following. It shall be the applicant's
responsibility to submit., in writing, a response to each of
the criteria specified in this report, including justification
for the requested change. The criteria are outlined herein
as items A through E. An application form would be prepared
by the Department of Planning and Community Development,
summarizing the guidelines of each criteria point and provide
a framework for a written response to be prepared by the
applicant. This application in full would then be submitted
directly to the Planning Commission for determination regard-
ing the adoption of a resolution of intent to amend the Com-
prehensive Plan. Should the Planning Commission adopt a
resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan pursuant
to an application, such application would then be forwarded
to staff and the Site Review Committee as applicable.
In addition to the application, it is the responsibility of
the applicant to submit,in a timely fashion to the Planning
Department, additional information which is required for
review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Such
additional information may include, but is not limited to:
slope studies,'soil studies, engineering calculations and
profiles, preliminary site plans, etc. The applicant will be
informed of what specific items will be required prior to the
scheduled Site Review Committee meeting.
3. Notice of Comprehensive Plan Amendment submission shall be
sent by first class mail to the last known address of all
owners of property adjacent to the development. In any case
in which the property so adjacent is owned by the applicant,
notice shall be given to the owners of the next adjoining
property not owned by the applicant. Mailing to the address
shown on the current real estate tax assessment books of Albemarle
County shall be deemed adequate compliance with this requirement.
No Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be approved within ten
(10) calendar days of the date of the mailing of such notice. -
The notice shall state the type of use proposed, specific lo-
cation of development, appropriate county office where the
site development plan may be viewed, and date of Comprehensive
Plan Amendment public meeting.
The applicant shall reimburse the County the cost of postage
for notification of adjacent property owners incurred during
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process.
March 19, 1985 Page 17
4. Prior to the deadline for Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests,
the Board of Supervisors, or its agent -(the Planning Commission)
should hold a public hearing for the purpose of discussion and
to entertain public comment on the Plan, in general. This
public hearing would also provide a public forum for Planning
Commission/Board of Supervisors requests to'amend the Plan.
The date, time and purpose of the public hearing should be
advertised in the newspaper in advance.
5. Within ninety days of the application deadline, the Board of
Supervisors shall take action to approve or deny Comprehensive
Plan Amendment requests initiated by the public. Prior to the
Board of Supervisors review of Comprehensive Plan Amendment
applications, the Planning Commission shall review all Compre-
hensive Plan Amendment requests and make recommendations to the
Board. The Technical Site Review Committee shall be consulted
for recommendations as necessary.
6. No public Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications will be
processed within six months prior to the expected date of
adoption of a major five year Comprehensive Plan revision.
CRITERIA FOR THE REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS:
A. The Comprehensive Plan provides a long range guide for direction
and context of the decision -making process for public and pri-
vate land uses.. The Comprehensive Plan is general in nature
rather than attempting to identify specific geographic locations.
The Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan suggests the relation-
ship of recommended uses to general areas. Proposed amendments
to the Land Use Map should be reviewed for compliance with
the general plan rather than area specific or parcel -specific
requests for a change in the recommended use. The purpose of
the Land Use Map is to provide and plan for a balance of
land uses, equipped with adequate utilities and facilities,
in a comprehensive, harmonious manner. Any proposed change in
the Land Use Map will be evaluated for protection of the
health, safety, and welfare of the general public rather than
the proprietary interests of an individual.
B. The merit of Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests shall be
largely determined by the fulfillment of support to the goals
and objectives specified in Chapter 9 of the Comprehensive
Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan Standards outlined in
Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan.
C. A primary purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map
is to facilitate the coordination of improvements to the
transportation network and the expansion of public utilities
in an economical, efficient and judicious manner. Comprehen-
sive Plan Amendments,which direct growth away from designated
growth areas shall be discouraged unless adequate justification
.360
March 19, 1985
Page 18
is provided. .Amendments to the boundaries of growth areas
may be considered appropriate if the request is comprehensive,
proposes to follow a logical topographic or man-made feature
and is supported by adequate justification (i.e., neighborhood
is built out). No Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be con-
sidered in areas where roads or utilities are non -tolerable
or inadequate unless the improvement of those facilities is
included in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal.
D. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments shall be evaluated for
general compliance with adopted County plans, policies,
studies and ordinances and to determine.if corresponding -
changes are necessary.
E. Except as otherwise provided, the following conditions may be
considered in the evaluation of a request to amend the Compre-
hensive Plan:
1. Change in circumstance has occurred (i.e., external fac-
tors, policy change, etc); or
2. Updated information is available (i.e., census information); or
3. The adoption or development of subsequent portions of the
Comprehensive Plan (i.e., CAT Study or Stormwater Detention
Plan) ; or 4004
4. A portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible (i.e.,
Route 631/Route 742 connector road); or
5. The preparation of the Plan as required by Article 15.1-447
of the Virginia Code was incomplete or incorrect information
was employed.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
It was determined a Board date has not been set for this matter.
Note: Ms. Diehl left the meeting at 10:05.
ZTA-85-2 Dwellings/Industria]_ - Resolution of Intent adopted
by Planning Commission to amend LI, Light Industry district to
permit dwellings under certain circumstances.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Joan Graves suggested the amendment should speak to the
possibility of a mobile home being used for this purpose.
,5,3l
March 19, 1985
Page 19
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Skove moved that ZTA 85-2, to amend the Light Industrial
zone to permit dwellings under limitations, be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows:
1) Amend 5.1.21 as follows:
5.1.21 DWELLINGS IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
a. Dwellings in commercial and industrial,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 main use, subject to Albemarle County building
official and fire official approvals;
C. Not more than one (1) dwelling unit shall be permitted per
establishment.
2. Amend the LI, Light Industrial District as follows:
27.2.1 BY RIGHT
15. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21).
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he felt Ms. Graves' concern was a valid
one and suggested that the words "may be located individually"
be deleted from 1(b).
After a brief discussion, it was determined that rather than
amending l(b), 1 (d) should be added as follows:
d. No mobile home shall be permitted as a dwelling unit
for any period in excess of six months.
Mr. Payne explained that the addition of 1 (d) allows a mobile
home in this district, but only under this special classification.
He emphasized that itt��rnot intended that mobile homes be per-
mitted for some use/than a dwelling, except as they are otherwise
already permitted.
Mr. Bowerman confirmed this to be the intent of the Commission.
'"%e Mr. Skove confirmed that the addition of l(d) was included in
his motion and the previously stated motion was unanimously
approved.
March 19, 1985
Page 20
Western Albemarle Shopping Center - The applicant is appealing
Planning staff denial of the revision which deletes the berm
along the frontage of Rt. 250. Tax Map 56, Parcel 17.
White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler stated this had been withdrawn.
State Highway Department's Report to the MPO - Ms. Imhoff gave
a brief summary of the report made by the State Highway Department
to the MPO.
She stated this was a final document which looked at a series of
alternatives for addressing both the regional and the local
travel problems on Rt. 29. She stated 9 alternatives had been
proposed as follows:
1. Widen Rt. 29 to a six -lane divided road from Rt. 250
Bypass to Rt. 649 (Airport Rd.), and create grade -
separated interchanges at Hydraulic and Rio Roads.
(6.2 miles; 16.5 million dollars)
2. Widen Rt. 29 to a six -lane divided road and construct
one-way, two-lane service roads directly adjacent to
either side. (21.5 million dollars)
3. Widen Rt. 29 to six -lanes and develop a series of external *00
service roads on either side by linking existing residential
and commercial streets to form continuous routes.
(14.5 million dollars)
4.
Widen Rt. 29 to eight lanes. (15.7 million dollars)
5.
Reconstruct Rt. 29
to a 4-lane, divided, limited access
roadway, flanked by
service roads on either side. (28.7
million dollars)
6.
Reconstruct Rt. 29
to a 4-lane, divided, limited access
freeway flanked by
service roads. (34.8 million dollars)
7.
Construct a 4-lane
divided, elevated roadway over the
medium of existing
Rt. 29. (68.5 million dollars)
8.
Construct a by-pass
route to the east of Rt. 29 linking
Pantops Mountain.
(varying costs depending on how long
the roadway, 8.4 -
24 million dollars)
Ms. Imhoff noted that not a lot of detail was offered on
this which staff found surprising. She stated it had
been discovered aneastern bypass basically pulls traffic
off the McIntire Parkway and does not pull it from Rt. 29
since the traffic on Rt. 29 is mainly local traffic.
g'.5F 3
March 19, 1985
Page 21
Regarding the Meadowbrook Parkway, it was assumed that it
would be completed (to Rio Road). Ms. Imhoff stated there
is no time table for studying the Meadowbrook Parkway, but
it is in the CAT study.
She also stated the City is very interested in the connector
road.
9. List of management improvements such as: Improving
exising bus service, creating park -and ride lots, etc.
It was determined that none of the alternatives, including the
Eastern Bypass, could effectively solve what is believed to
be a continuing worsening problem. It was determined that
alternative 1 was most highly recommended because of the lower
cost and it was suggested that TSM measures that would require
minimal costs be implemented.
It was finally recommended that the County look at land use controls
and limit development on the corridor (Rt. 29).
Ms. Imhoff pointed out almost all the alternatives could be
accomplished within the existing right-of-way on Rt. 29, except
where interchanges occur.
The Commission indicated they would like staff to research
the following:
--The possibility of working with the City to attempt
to get them to re -consider certain possibilities.
--Iiow the turning movements would work in the 8-lane
proposal.
Ms. Imhoff stated it is still the feeling of the State Highway
Department that a western bypass would solve the problems, since
it was felt that less than 20% of traffic would use an eastern
bypass.
Mr. Bowerman indicated this still would not solve the problems
on Rt. 29.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:35 p.m.
DS
JA.J,k P L-J26 -_
0- James R. Donne l Secretary