HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 27 87 PC MinutesOctober 27, 1987
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 27, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr.
Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John
Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner;
Mr. Mike Armm, County Engineer; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 and established that a quorum was
present. The minutes of October 6 and October 13 were approved as submitted.
Hickory Ridge Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 43 lots from a 134 acre
parcel. The plat proposes residential uses, with an average lot size of
0.35 acres. This proposal represents the third phase of the Hickory Ridge
PUD. Property, located on the northwest side of St. Rt. 665, at its inter-
section with St. Rt. 662. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Tax Map
30, Parcel 38. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. The report concluded: "This subdivision
plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance.
It is staff's opinion that this proposal is commensurate with the original,
**'"' physical design of the PUD masterplan." Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
Note: Mr. Pullen made the following correction to condition l(d): "County
Engineer approval of ee�ae-deeae-gas-e-es�g-ee��eee�-eea
runoff control plans." He made the following correction to condition l(g):
"Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way dedication and
issuance of street intersection permit and road and drainage plans."
There was a brief discussion about staff's proposal for Lot 20. The staff
report explained: "As indicated by the original PUD master plan, Lot 20
of the current proposal was to be designated as open space. Since Lot 20
currently retains a dwelling unit, staff has recommended that subsequent to
locating septic and well sites on this lot, Lot 20 be reduced to 1.37 acres....
This recommendation will increase the open space within the current proposal,
as per the intent of this master plan, and is in accordance with Section 4.1.3
of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Cogan expressed some concern about the unusual
shape of Lot 20 as a result of staff's suggestion.
Mr. Pullen confirmed that the area acquired by the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority as easements for the reservoir was still included in the
open space. He pointed out that certain limitations, as stated in the
staff report, would apply to those areas. Ms. Diehl asked if this should
be noted in the conditions of approval. Mr. Horne pointed out that this
is a part of the easement document and the applicant has agreed to these
fir,, limitations. It was determined Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would
enforce these regulations.
7"4
October 27, 1987
Page 2
Ms. Diehl asked staff to explain why it is felt the open space area is insufficient.
Mr.Pullen explained that the area is small, is close to a river bed, and much
lies in 25% slope area, thus making it basically unusuable. Therefore, staff
felt it did not meet the intent of the Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that it is just one area that is at issue.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler how he felt about the resulting double frontage on
those two lots that are affected by the open space issue. Mr. Keeler replied
that he felt this was immaterial because of the depth of the lots and the
grade on the lots.
There was some confusion about the Virginia Department of Transportation
requirements. Mr. Cogan felt the staff report indicated that VDOT would
require a turn and taper lane for all three entrances, even the one serving
only 3 lots. Mr. Keeler agreed the VDOT comments were confusing, but he
stated he did not think they were recommending a turn and taper lane for
the entrance serving 3 lots. It was decided VDOT requirements needed to
be clarified before review of the final plat.
Mr. Michel asked if the number of lots being proposed was the same as was
originally proposed for this area. Mr. Pullen responded, "Roughly."
Mr. Cogan asked if the elimination of the small piece of open space would
have any effect on the overall acreage as proposed in the original PUD.
Mr. Pullen replied that it would not.
Mr. Horne added: "You have to remember that this PUD, by virtue of the
Buck Mountain Reservoir --this design is now sort of defunct in most of the
major senses. So we are going along section -by -section now trying to maintain
as much of the overall intent when major sections of this have become quite
different than what the original design ever was to be."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. James Gercke. He offered little additional
comment except to state that the applicant had no objections to the suggested
conditions of approval.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Charles Saver, representing the Hickory Ridge Property Owners Association,
addressed the Commission. He asked if there was a limitation on the number
of commercial lots that could be developed "in that area." Mr. Cogan responded
that only one commercial lot is shown and its use is limited to those
uses allowed by right in the Zoning Ordinance or by special permit. Mr. Saver
also asked who would be required to upgrade the roads. Mr. Cogan responded
that either the owner of the property or the developer would upgrade the roads.
Mr. Keeler added that it was a requirement of the PUD that the roads be
upgraded and staff has taken the position that before any further approvals
are granted, the developer "has to make arrangements to get all the existing
roads into the State system."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
7,c--
October 27, 1987
Page 3
Staff again confirmed that they would clarify VDOT requirements before
review of the final plat.
Mr. Cogan asked that when Lot 20 boundaries are redrawn, staff should work
with the applicant to try to arrive at a shape that is not too unusual.
It was determined the Health Department would enforce setback requirements
between wells and drainfields.
Mr. Michelfelt condition 1(a) should also include well locations. It was
decided 1(a) would be amended to read: "Health Department approval of well
location and 2 septic locations on each lot."
Mr. Gould stated that the application was in order and moved that the Hickory
Ridge Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
(a) Health Department approval of well location and 2 septic locations on
each lot;
(b) Issuance of an erosion control permit;
(c) County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and calculations;
(d) County Engineer approval of runoff control plans;
(e) Show existing wells and septic fields for buildings on lots 20 and
24;
(f) County Attorney approval of homeowners open space maintenance
agreement, to include access to open space by all residents of
Hickory Ridge PUD;
(g) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
dedication and issuance of street intersection permit and road
and drainage plans.
2. The final plat must be approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Keeler asked for a clarification of the Commission's intent on condition
1(a). It was determined the requirement was intended to require approval of
one well location and two septic locations on each lot.
Branchlands Retirement Community - Phase IV, Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal
to locate 32 townhouse units to be served by 60 parking spaces. The total area
of the proposal is located on 6.0 acres, and will be served by an internal
private road. The property is located in the Branchlands PUD, Planned Unit
Development, on Greenbriar Drive, east of Rt. 29. Tax Map 61Z, Section 3,
Parcels 4 and 5. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report outlined the following three
major issues to be addressed by the Commission: (1) Proposed construction
on critical slopes; (2) The proposal's consistency with conditions of the
PUD; and, (3) Screening from adjacent properties.
A ,
October 27, 1987
Page 4
Staff's comments on these three issues included the following:
(1) Construction on critical slopes: "The applicant has requested a
modification of Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow
construction on slopes in excess of 25%. The County Engineer has
commented: ... 'We can support allowing the grading of these
slopes if the applicant is willing to limit clearing on the project
to the extent shown on the plan and provide additional landscaping
to help restabilize the finished grades upon completion of
construction.' ... Based on the County Engineer's recommendation, staff
recommends approval of this request."
(2) Consistency with conditions of the PUD: The plan proposes grading
and construction in close proximity to properties in Chapel Hill and
Greenbriar Subdivisions, with some grading proposed up to adjacent
property li(ne)s. Condition A.1 for the Branchlands PUD ...
also states that 'location and acreages of various land uses and
residential densities shall comply with the application plan....' It
would appear the intent of the PUD is to limit construction activity
near the adjacent properties in this area. The Commission must make
a positive finding that this proposal is in accordance with the
conditions of the PUD and application plan."
(3) Screening from adjacent properties: "The conditions of approval for
the Branchlands PUD also require that '(f)encing and/or appropriate
screening along Chapel Hill Subdivision boundary may be required by
the Planning Commission at the time of final approvals.' Staff
recommends that a vegatative screening be installed along the eastern
boundary of the site adjacent to Chapel Hill and along the southern
boundary adjacent to Greenbrier Subdivision."
The staff report concluded: "Staff opinion is that this proposal is too
intensive for this site, requiring construction and grading activity to
occur in close proximity to adjacent properties and requiring buildings to
be constructed on critical slopes. ... The plan, however, will meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance if the Commission approves the modifi-
cation of regulation, and is determined to be consistent with the intent
of the Planned Unit Development."
Mr. Cogan asked if the Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum buffer width.
Mr. Benish explained there is no required buffer between two residential
zones.
Ms. Diehl expressed some concern about the boundary lines for the recreation
area. Mr. Benish explained that the measurements were approximate.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Ron Langman was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Langman read
a detailed statement addressing the three issues outlined by staff. Highlights
of this statement are as follows:
91
nn
October 27, 1987
Page 5
(1) Construction on critical slopes: Mr. Langman indicated the use of
basements would cover this issue adequately.
(2) Consistency with conditions of the PUD: He stated it was his understand-
ing that the application was a general plan and guideline. He stated
that PUD application plans have been modified by site plans many times.
He stated: "The road alignments, buffers and densities are not what
is existing in reality today, hence the plan itself is outdated."
He stated it is a hardship on the PUD to be tigttly bound by a very
general plan almost seven years old. He pointed out the following
specifics related to the PUD document: (i) On the application plan
the area at the top of the hill was identified as a recreation area,
but at the present time it is not needed for that purpose. He stated
that currently approximately 134,000 square feet of recreation area
has been provided. In the future, tennis courts and garden areas
will be developed in the floodplain area. He stated that, currently,
if all 312 units had been developed in Branchlands, the development
would already have approximately 430 square feet of recreation area
per dwelling unit which far exceeds what the PUD has set as a guideline.
(ii) In Section A-8 of the PUD, the developer will supply fencing
along property lines as has been done between the church and Branch -
lands. (iii) "Section A-10 identifies a total density of 312 units
in Branchlands. It has been generally agreed in the past by the
planning staff that this equates with 11.71 dwelling units per acre
in Section C of Branchlands. The application shows certain densities
for certain vaguely defined areas. Already this has been modified
by existing site plans. The current plan only shows at this time
a density of 5 units per acre, well below the allowed density."
(iv) "Section D-2 of the PUD says Section 20.8.6 setback and yard
regulations shall be established at time of final approval as
opposed to establishment at time of rezoning. This clearly
indicated that setbacks, which is the real issue here, were not set
by the application plan, but at the time of final approvals for
each area or site plan." Mr. Langman stated further: "Each of
these sections was in the PUD document itself to provide greater
clarity to an application plan which has already undergone consider-
able modification. It has always been my understanding that the
written text of the PUD superseded the application plan which was
only used as a very sketchy planning tool."
(3) Buffering: Mr. Langman stated that the intent of the application
was to supply buffering between single-family and multi -family
properties along the top boundary. He stated: "We are willing
to supply adequate buffering of several types, but we should
have the use of the developable land needed by the Branchlands
community. We are concerned about the screening of neighbors'
properties and we have brought a plan which demonstrates how we
can remain sensitive to their properties through minor modifications
to our plan." (Mr. Langman called the Commission's attention to
a "colored plan." He also presented photographs showing existing
buffering.) He indicated that hedges have been planted which
grow very quickly and are very effective. He added: "In addition
I'll do pine bufferings." He stated the developer has been
very successful in planting trees very close to dwellings and
keeping the trees alive. Regarding other critical areas, he
Ao
October 27, 1987
Page 6
stated: "We will install buffer strips as soon as grading is
complete. We won't wait until the very end of development."
He stated: "The closest building that we're proposing to the
rear property line is 85 feet (lower corner of the orange set
of buildings). The closest house to the side property line is
25 feet and at that location existing trees would remain right
to the side of the building. ... We will be able, in that
area, to eliminate any grading, so the trees will stay right
up to the building itself. The neighbor's house on that side
is in excess of 300 feet from the proposed townhome on that
corner and in excess of 450 feet from the road down below and
it is a very heavily wooded lot. The change in plans for
radial parking (on the cul-de-sac) would allow us to save more
trees along that side. Of course, eliminating the cul-de-sac
entirely would save even more trees and grading, but because
of the fire chief's concerns, we even have to enlarge this
cul-de-sac for fire truck turning. In addition, the road
...that is in issue here that is very close to the property
line, was added in order to provide access for fire trucks.
The actual usage of that road will be quite low --there are
only 14 dwellings along that road...."
Mr. Langman made the following objections to two of staff's suggested
conditions of approval:
1(f): "Planning staff approval of revised site plan (deletion of note
indicating 'future phase of development')." He stated he had no
special plans to develop the area indicated as "future phase of
development," but he stated he may return to the Commission at
some time with plans for this area.
2(b):"Access Road #2 is constructed to the satisfaction of the County
Engineer, or ZMA-80-26 and SP-80-63 are amended to delete the requirement
of such road." He stated he felt that Access Road 2 would be eventually
deleted. He asked that this condition be reworded as follows: "Access
Road #2 is to be built at the time that the vehicle trips per day approved
for Greenbriar Drive from the entrance of Branchlands Drive to the
connector road is surpassed." Mr. Langman stated it was his intention
to connect to the collector road (Hillsdale).
Regarding letters of objection which had been received from Ms. Pamela Johnson,
and Mr. and Mrs. Kivistik, adjoining property owners, Mr. Langman indicated
he was very aware of these concerns and he was trying to resolve the issue
to everyone's satisfaction. He stated that the current Branchlands Drive, as
now constructed, is 10 feet from Ms. Johnson's property line, at the corner.
He stated, "I will build a fence at this location for safety purposes if
the Commission requires that. I did at one point mistakenly cut some trees
off of Ms. Johnson's property. I have planted other trees and I have brought
photos to show the current status. ... At the time this was not construction
activity but tree pruning and clearing along our garden area. Ms. Johnson's
house is at the top of the slope and I do not feel that with buffering that
we are proposing that she will be bothered by the low traffic volume on this
private drive. There will be no access to Chapel Hill from Branchlands at
any time. I have no intention of doing that." Regarding other letters of
concern, Mr. Langman stated: "I am willing to provide a buffer zone as
requested along these property lines of 15 feet of ungraded, undisturbed
area on the upper level and that's marked on these plans. In addition,
A L2
October 27, 1987 Page 7
any disturbed areas outside of those 15-foot buffers would be immediately
planted with pines and ." (It was determined that the upper
Slow areas referred to by Mr. Langman meant the top of the hill.) Mr. Langman
also stated that the three "fingers" shown on the plan would remain
undisturbed.
Mr. Langman concluded: "I will work at the administrative level to redesign
the plan to be consistent with the buffers we have proposed. I would specifically
request the plan not be deferred. ... I stand ready to do my part to ensure
that the neighbors of Branchlands are adequately protected and buffered from
Branchlands Village. We can work with the Planning Staff, if the Commission
grants approval, with the condition that we work out the buffers in a way
satisfactory to planning and engineering staff."
Mr. Mark Osborn, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He explained that the road segment which has the cul-de-sac was designed
to meet State Class One requirements to allow for emergency vehicles.
Regarding the issue of 25% slopes, he stated that other developing areas
similar to this have gained approval by using urban cross sections and extensive
storm drainage systems. He stated there would be no problems with unstable
slopes after the project is completed.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Pamela Johnson, an adjoining property owner, repeated her concern about
the proximity of the road to her property line. She stated the road was
so close she did not feel it could be screened adequately. She also
pointed out that the upper level of housing was also very close to her
property line. She stated that the original plan had indicated that
buildings would be much farther from property lines that is now the case.
Mr. Ole Kivistik, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission.
He, too, was concerned about the close proximity of the road to his property.
He also felt the project has developed quite differently than was originally
represented.
Mr. Fred Rhinehart and Ms. Margery Brown, residents of the Branchlands
Village spoke in support of the application.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Mike Armm, County Engineer.
Mr. Armm addressed the Commission. Regarding the issue of development
in areas of 25% slopes, he stated that most of the 25% slope that exists
on the site was created by earlier grading and is not naturally occuring.
He stated that the type of unit that is planned works well with steeper
slopes because it terraces along the grades. Additionally, he asked that the
applicant work with staff on the issue of retaining walls and ground covers
to ensure that steep slope areas are well stabilized.
Mr. Cogan asked if the cul-de-sac was absolutely necessary, since it takes
�r up a lot of space. Mr. Armm confirmed that the cul-de-sac was needed to
provide adequate turn -around space for emergency vehicles.
'9n
October 27, 1987 Page 8
Regarding the issue of the cul-de-sac taking up some of the buffer area,
Ms. Diehl asked if some or all of the parking could be rotated down to
the southwest area thus moving it further into the developer's property
and away from the property line. Mr. Armm responded that he would
not have a problem with this suggestion, but it would probably make the
parking area less accessible to the dwelling units.
Mr. Benish explained that the applicant had tried to keep the parking away
from the steep cut area.
Mr. Langman indicated he was willing to work with staff to perhaps shift
the parking or road slightly. He stated it might be possible to rotate
the parking at the cul-de-sac so that it is closer to the dwelling units.
Regarding the road that is close to the Johnson property, Mr. Langman
stated, "I could easily put a fence up there and I could install it
before construction so that would be a guarantee that we wouldn't be
crossing over."
Mr. Stark asked for a description of the type of fence that would be
installed.
Mr. Langman responded that the fence would be identical to that shown
in the photographs, i.e. pressure treated material with rounded tops,
five feet high. He confirmed that the fence would go all the way along
to the cul-de-sac area, if necessary. He noted, however, that he
would like to avoid creating an enclosed compound -type development.
Mr. Langman indicated, in response to Ms. Johnson's concerns, that
he would be willing to provide fencing even along "that upper area."
Mr. Bowerman asked for further details on Access Road #2. (Note: Condition
2(b) stated: "Access Road #2 is constructed to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer, or ZMA-80-26 and SP-80-63 are amended to delete the requirement
of such road.") Mr. Benish explained that it was his understanding that
Access Road #2 was included in the Comprehensive Plan to provide a second
access, in particular to Sections C and D, in the event that Greenbriar
Drive was overtopped in a heavy storm. He stated: "Since the collector
road is now being installed and a connecter between the collector road
and Rt. 29, this road really isn't of that much importance, but it is
specifically tied, its construction, to private road standards, is
tied to development in C and D. And that's why the condition that the
road be built or the conditions of the rezoning be deleted, or the PUD
be deleted to require this road."
Mr. Langman stated that all the owners of the property have been working
steadily for three years to change the PUD, but because so many people are
involved, it is a complicated process.
Mr. Bowerman recalled that at the time of the original review it was
unknown how the back portion of the property would ultimately develop
and an attempt was made to try to tie all the property together so that
there would be some control over development. He stated that there was
concern at that time that there would be no access to the property in
the event something should happen to Greenbriar Drive. However, since
this plan shows other access besides Greenbriar, and there are other
access points also, the necessity for Access Road #2 has changed over the
years. He felt it was no longer as necessary as it once was.
n
�12
October 27, 1987
Page 9
It was determined the Commission was not in favor of amending condition
2(b) as suggested earlier in the meeting by Mr. Langman.
Mr. Horne added that a lot of improvements have been deferred over the
years when they were really intended to be installed at the time of
development. He stated it is staff's position that these items
should not continue to be deferred --they should either be built or the
PUD should be amended to delete them. He stressed that continual
deferral of these items is making the issue very complicated.
Mr. Horne stated that staff has stated repeatedly that they would support
a deletion of Access Road No. 2, but they will not support piecemeal amendment
to the PUD.
It was the consensus of the Commission that condition 2(b) would remain as
stated in the staff report.
Mr. Michel stated he had no problem with the 25% slope issue, based on the
County Engineer's comments. He also felt the issue of the close proximity of the
the upper road to adjoining properties could be dealt with through cooperation
and the use of adequate screening. Regarding the applicant's request for
amendment to condition l(f), Mr. Michel stated he could not support the applicant's
request and felt the condition should remain as stated in the staff report.
Mr. Cogan stated he hoped the road could possibly be shifted more than the
2 feet stated by the applicant.
Ms. Diehl stated she agreed with Mr. Michel. She also pointed out that
the applicant had heard the Commission's concerns about buffering and she
felt he would respond accordingly.
Mr. Stark indicated he was concerned about the fencing. Mr. Cogan stated
that staff was calling for both vegetative screening and fencing. Mr. Cogan
stated the fencing would be carried out as shown on the site plan.
It was decided condition 1(e) would be amended as follows: "Planning staff
approval of landscaping plan, including the location of vegetative screening
along Chapel Hill and Greenbriar subdivision boundaries."
Mr. Horne clarified that it was the Commission's intent, in critical areas,
to have installed the equivalent of an opaque screen. Ms. Diehl asked
that the safety factor be considered when deciding the type of screening.
Mr. Cogan stated it was his desire that there be a five-foot fence in addition
to vegetative screening.
Mr. Michel moved that the Branchlands Retirement Community Phase IV, Preliminary
Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are
met:
a) County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations;
b) County Engineering approval of retaining wall design;
?J
October 27, 1987
Page 10
c) Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer
plans;
e) Planning staff approval of landscaping plan, including the location of
screening along Chapel Hill and Greenbriar subdivision boundaries;
f) Planning staff approval of revised site plan (deletion of note
indicating "future phase of development");
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions
are met:
a) Fire Officer final approval;
b) Access Road #2 is constructed to the satisfaction of the County
Engineer, or ZMA-80-26 and SP-80-63 are amended to delete the requirement
of such road.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
It was determined the Commission had no objection to administrative approval
of the final site plan.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 9:05 to 9:15.
Discussion of League of Women Voters Letter on Septic Systems - Ms. Reba
Cromwell, representing the League of Women Voters, went over a document
prepared by the League which made suggestions for improvement of septic
systems. The League supported the Commission's proposal to add a
Groundwater Protection objective to the Natural Resources goal of the
Comprehensive Plan. The document pointed out the following suggestions
which were in addition to those which have been discussed by staff and
the Commission:
"(1) Strengthen standards for distance to rock and rock outcropping,
to seasonal water table, to impervious strata and to free-standing
water.
(2) Include cesspools and privies in the distances from wells.
(3) Study the advantages and disadvantages of the County having its own
health department or its own sanitarians.
(4) Consider licensing of sewerage system contractors so there would be
quality control during construction.
(5) Develop a public education program to promote awareness of
responsibility for proper maintenance of on -site disposal systems --
not only for homeowners but also for commercial and industrial bus-
inesses which use septic systems for disposal."
Ms. Cromwell pointed out the following error in the League's document:
Page 2, paragraph 3: "For instance, Virginia's minimum separation distance
of rock and impervious strata from trench bottom is one one 4:aeh foot. The
great majority of other states require at least four 4:aehes feet."
-22
October 27, 1987
Page 11
ZTA-87-13 - The Albemarle County Planning Commission had adopted a Resolution
of Intent to amend 3.0 definition of "agriculture" as it relates to poultry
and livestock and to define "home garden" as an accessory residential use.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He explained that the Zoning
Administrator had originated this amendment in order to distinguish between
agriculture and accessory residential activity such as home gardening.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel moved that ZTA-87-13, to amend 3.0 definition of "Agriculture",
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows:
1. Replace existing definition of agriculture:
FXTgTTNr,
Agriculture: The tilling of the soil, the raising of
crops, horticulture, forestry and gardening including
the keeping of animals and fowl, and including such
agricultural industries or businesses as fruit packing
plants, dairies, orchards, nurseries, wayside stands or
similar uses.
Aariculture: Horticulture, viticulture, silviculture
or other gardening which may involve the tilling of -
soil for the raising of crops; the keeping of livestock
and/or poultry; and/or agricultural industries or
businesses such as but not limited to orchards, fruit
packing plants, dairies, nurseries, or wayside stands.
2. Add to 3.0 Definitions:
H014E GARDEN: An activity accessory to residential
usage of a property involving the cultivation of
flowers, vegetables, fruit and/or other plants
primarily for the consumption or enjoyment of the
residents of such property, but expressly excluding the
keeping of livestock and/or poultry.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
3,1
October 27, 1987
Page 12
ZTA-87-14 - The Albemarle County Planning Commission had adopted a Resolution
of Intent to amend 27.0 Light Industrial zone to permit certain warehousing and
wholesaling uses by right.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained that staff had originated this
amendment in order to provide more reasonable and permissive zoning regulation
and to reduce unnecessary public hearing.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman moved that ZTA-87-14, to amend 27.0 Light Industry District to
permit warehousing and wholesale uses by right, be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval as follows:
1. ADD 27.2.1.17
27.2.1.17 Warehouse facilities and wholesale businesses
not involving storage of gasoline, kerosene
or other volatile materials; dynamite
blasting caps and other explosives;
pesticides andpoisons; and other such
materials which could be hazardous to life in
the event of disaster.
2. Amend 27.2.2.5 and 27.2.2.6 as follows:
27.2.2.5 Warehouse facilities not permitted under
Section 27.2.1.17.
27.2.2.6 Wholesale business not permitted under
Section 27.2.1117.
3. ADD TO 3.0 DEFINITION:
WHOLESALE BUSINESS: An establih sment for the sale and
distribution of goods and merchandise to a re-r-ailer for
resale as opposed to sale directly to the public.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
John Horne, Secretary
9
14—