HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP000000404 Minutes 1973-10-22 1099
.
October 22 , 1973
•
This was a work session of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission held on October 22 , 1973 at 7 : 30 p .m. in the County
Office Building, Charlottesville , Virginia.
Those members present were : Dr . James Sams , Mr. Peter Easter,
Dr. Avery Catlin, Chairman ; Mrs . Ellen - Craddock, Mr. Wilbur Tinsley,
Mr.. Louis Staley, and Mr . Jack Rinehart, and Mr . Lloyd Wood, Supervisor.
Mr. George St . John, County Attorney, was also in attendance.
The Chairman established that a quorum was present . At this time,
the Chair recognized that a discussion had been held previously
on the meetings held on - October 8 , 1973 in conjunction with the
site plan submitted by Mr. Jim Whitt for a hi-rise apartment building.
At that time, the Commission had instructed the staff to evaluate
the needs for sidewalks in this area along Whitewood Road. The
Chair recognized Mr. Humphrey, the secretary, who presented recommendation
regarding sidewalks in general and specifically the location of
sidewalks along Whitewood Road . The staff ' s recommendation was that
sidewalks be installed along the property presently to be developed
by Mr. Whitt and in conjunction with the hi-rise apartment project ..
The staff also noted in view of the density that is expected in the
area, there will be needs for pedestrian ways in this area. The
staff also indicated that in the location of any sidewalk within the
right-of-way of a state maintained road , the normal requirement
would be that the sidewalk be located within the right-of-way parallel
to and abutting the common line between the private property and
the public right-of-way . In the case of Whitewood Road, the sidewalks
should be located no closer than 6 ' from the edge of the pavement
on either side of the road . At this time, the Commission discussed
Lloo
the matter and accepted the staff recommendation for the installation
of the sidewalk in conjunction with the proposed hi-rise apartment . ,r 1
It should be noted and made of record that at the request
of Mr. Easter, he excused himself from the discussion on this matter.
There was a discussion between the County Attorney, Mr. St . John,
and Mr. Dave Wood, Attorney for the applicant regarding the legality 1
of requiring sidewalks at this time. The County Attorney informed . 9
I
the Commission that in his opinion, that the provision requiring
sidewalks in connection with this development was under the
authority of the Planning Commission. At this time, Mr. Rinehart
i
made the following motion that the site plan known as Whitewood Apt, I
Phase II
to be developed by Mr. James Whitt on Whitewood Road be approved gi
as submitted with the condition that sidewalks be constructed along I
f
the south side of Whitewood Road in conjunction with the development
of the apartment construction and that the sidewalk be constructed �.%
to the same standards as that of the. sidewalks presently in place
located along Greenbrier Drive just south of this property. Said f
standards being those of the City of Charlottesville. The sidewalk I
is to be located within the right -of-way and abutting the common
'property line of the public road and the private property involved
_ _ ----------_____ _ _ __ i
in this project. The motion was seconded by Dr. Sams and was approved-
by unanimous vote of those members present .
At this time, a dicussion was held regarding studies within t.
the present urban area for bicycle trails and sidewalks. It was the i,
• . consensus of the Commission that such" a : study should be accomplished
f
to assist in the future planning of this area with reference to 1
the circulation of vehicles and pedestrians. At this time, Mr. Rinehart
r
made the following motion which was seconded by Dr. Sams, that %f
1
the staff be instructed to study the urban area to ascertain the
r
I
i
1101
needs for sidewalks and pedestrian ways as well as bicycle trails .
KM
K_) The motion carried by unanimous vote of those members present.
The Chairman instructed the staff to prepare a resolution
regarding policy related to: bicycle paths and sidewalks in conjunction
• f
with the plans that are to he submitted for approval in the future.
Said draft of resolution to be submitted to the Commission as soon
as possible for their consideration.
At this time, the Chairman called for the work session regarding
the revision to the County Zoning Ordinance, however, prior to any
discussion on this matter, the Chairman noted further comment may be
warranted on the proposed mobile home subdivision and mobile home parks
as submitted by the staff and County Attorney. The Chairman noted
that the Commission had made provisions for a mobile home subdivision
to be a floating district to apply in any residential zone. Further
changes were relatively minor.
At this time, Mr. Tucker explained a change the staff had made '
to bring to the attention of the Planning Commission. that change
being the approach in providing for mobile home subdivisions in all
zones. The staff had suggested and shown the provision to provide for
mobile home subdivisions through a special permit provision in each
zone. Mr. Tucker noted that the staff had done this prior to the
/recommendation
submittal of Mr. St. John' s being 'received by the staff . A general
discussion followed on the staff' s suggested provisions for mobile
home subdivisions. A discussion was held on the advantages and the
disadvantages of having the mobile home subdivison an individual
floating zone as opposed to a special permit provision. Dr. Sams
) also questioned about uniformity throughout the ordinance relative
to the requirement pf a PUD under a special permit as opposed to
a rezoning petition. The Chairman noted that Mr. Humphrey was not here
at the present time and was expected back., and that possibly this could