Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 31 77 PC Minutes& May 31, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted work session on May 31, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those items on the agenda included the discussion of the definition of "subdivision"(private roads), Gravel roads, North slopes, and the RPN designation. Those members in attendance were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Paul Peatross; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Peter Easter; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Mr. Leslie Jones was absent. Other officials present included Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Carlos M. Montenegro, Planner; Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and Mrs. Opal David, ex -off icio. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Mr. Carr noted that the Planning Commission minutes of May 17, 1977 are scheduled for review. He asked if any corrections or additions were proposed. Mr. Peatross noted that on page 4 that the minutes stated a motion to be on the floor but did not indicate who had made the motion. There were no further corrections or additions. Mr. Carr stated that the minutes stand approved as corrected. 'Col. Washington entered the meeting. W.F. PAULETTE AND SON SITE PLAN AMENDMENT Mrs. Scala presented the staff report to the Commission noting the location, proposal and history of this development. Mrs. Scala stated that the applicant wishes the amend this site plan to include the following changes: 1) relocating the main sales building about 10 feet to the east, 2) relocating the storage buildings in the rear, back about 20 feet closer to Route 737; and 3) to increase the space between the back buildings by about 10 feet, making them 40 rather than 30 feet apart. Mrs. Scala informed the Commission that the moving of the main building will necessitate the rearranging of the parking spaces. She noted that the staff has suggested changes in the parking plan and the applicant has agreed. She noted further that a commercial entrance is now shown on this plan. Mrs. Scala told the Commission that the applicant wishes this amendment to his original plan to accommodate grading changes on the site. Mrs. Scala stated that the staff recommends approval of this amended site plan subject to Highway Department approval of the entrances and staff approval of the parking layout. Further, she noted that Mr. Anderson, the applicant, is present and that all the adjacent property owners have been notified of this proposed amendment. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the amendment is not that much of a change in that respect, the applicant has upgraded the entrance and the screening has remained. Mr. Easter asked if the objections of the adjacent property owners have been resolved. Firs. Scala stated that they have. W.F. PAULETTE AND SON SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, CONTINUED Mr. Anderson, the applicant, stated that the entrance on Route 737 was constructed according to State Highway specifications and will not be used as a primary entrance. He stated that to his knowledge there have been no objections of the adjacent property owners. He stated that he will be improving this site by removing the drainage that is caused by his development, and the existing drainage. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Roosevelt, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, if all the necessary approvals have been met or are in the process of being met. Mr. Roosevelt stated that is correct. Mr. Gloeckner recommended approval subject to the two conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. There were no further comments or discussion. DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, entered the meeting. Mr. Carr noted that this is a deferred item, the definition of subdivision, private roads. Mr. Keeler stated that there has been no new development on this item, he said that he had sent all the information that he had collected from other counties on private roads. He stated that at the previous discussion of the definition of subdivision, it was his feeling that it had gotten confused with private roads; the staff feels that they are two separate issues and should be addressed separately. Further, he informed the Commission that the main discussion on the definition of subdivision was whether or not the requiring of minimum pipestem width of 25' was an improvement. For the Commission's information, Mr. Keeler read the definition of subdivision as it is written in the ordinance. Mr. Carr stated that there were two basic items of discussion, one being the dis- cussion of the pipestem width requirement, the other was the review of all subdivision plats. Mr. Keeler noted a summary of the definition of subdivision, that any time there is a division of a resubdivision, one or more parcels that is less than five acres, is considered a subdivision. Further, if any of the parcels have less than 25' of road frontage, it is also considered a subdivision. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Keeler to tell the Commission why these changes are proposed. Mr. Keeler stated that it has been the staffs experience that there has been advantage -taken of loophole exemptions by taking two exemptions to avoid the requirements of the sub- division ordinance. Additionally, at this point, there is no minimum frontage required on a parcel on a state road; the assumption is that if all the parcels are over five acres, the property owners will enter into some sort of agreement, but that the County has no review of such agreement. Further, if each parcel has a minimum of 25' of frontage on a state road, access to the state road is available through their own property. Mr. Gloeckner asked Mr. Keeler if this means the Commission will have to review everything that is submitted under five acres. Mr. Keeler said that the Commission already does that. He stated that the way the exemption, sales or exchange exemption is stated, is that if a parcel already has less than 25' of road frontage, it is considered adequate. The sale or exchange of the property does not cause that road frontage to be under 25'. 3�5 DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION, continued Mr. Payne stated that this amendment has essentially two parts, 1) the basic definition of subdivision, and 2) the two exemptions, which are considered loopholes, in that both parts of this amendment are not totally independent. He stated that if the application applies to one of these parts, it will also apply to the other part. Mr. Payne further stated that the two exemptions are the sale or exchange between adjacent land owners, and the deed of trust provision, which in his opinion is obsolete and has been eliminated. Col. Washington asked Mr. Payne what the difference is between the current ordinance and the proposed language on the addition of one piece of property to another. Mr. Payne stated that it is more specific; the existing language states basically, that it is not a subdivision to have a sale or exchange between adjacent property owners where no new building site is created. He stated that the problem with that is that it is very ambiguous by a new building site. Secondly, Mr. Payne added that neither parcel involved in the exchange can be less than five acres. Thirdly, a third parcel cannot be created. Col. Washington stated that he can understand the staff's reason for wanting to amend the wording of the definition of subdivision, however, he said that he feels the staff will become involved in too much administration. He stated an example, noting that some subdivisions should not have to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Barksdale added that if the Commission adopts this amendment, the possibility of having private roads will either have to be ruled out, or the amendment will have to be reconsidered if the decision of having private roads is made. Mr. Payne stated that is entirely incorrect. He said that the ordinance reads if it does not front on a state road, then it does come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Barksdale stated then, that anything that does not front on a private road will not have to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Payne stated that is correct.. Mr. Gloeckner stated that anytime an application is brought before the Planning Commission, it costs the client alot of money. Mr. Carr asked the Commission members why the ordinance was written in such a way, that it was not considered necessary to include the statement of the private roads. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the ordinance was thought to be adequate, however because of the loopholes used to avoid the Planning Commission being discovered, it is questionable that the ordinance is adequate. Mr. Gloeckner stated that an example of this very thing is Brunley Road; the intent of the subdivision ordinance is not being abided by. Mr. Carr stated that in existing situations such Brunley Road, can this occur: Mr. Payne stated that it can occur on any existing easement. Mr. Carr added that if the road were adequate, it would not be of concern to the Commission. Further, he stated that if the road were inadequate, such as this case, the Commission will be concerned. Mr. Gloeckner stated that this amendment should be considered by the Commission in the respect that the loopholes would be stopped, the subdivisions would be done the way they were intended to be done. He stated that applications for subdivisions of five acres or less bothers him.. Mr. Tucker noted that that is the problem that the Commission should be aware of; if someone finds out that they have to go before the Commission for review of their application, the applicant may decide to further his plans, to consolidate his review. M DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION, continued Mr. Easter stated that he is concerned about the work load of the Commission and the staff. Mr. Gloeckner asked if it could be stopped with administrative approval if the intent is being met. Mr. Payne stated that this is a thought, some type of middle -ground could be used to complete administrative approval, for example, having the staff approve '.everything fronting on existing state roads. Mr. Barksdale added that it would be less costly and time consuming for the developer. Mr. Carr asked about the fee basis. Mr. Barksdale stated that it would be less costly not to have to come before the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner added that the staff's review requires approximately two weeks, the Commission action will require approximately two months, depending on the submittal dates. He said that it is not necessarily the expense of the'surveyor or engineer, but the time delay is annoying to the public. Mr. Tucker noted that the Commission should be concerned about how much subdivision is allowed on any road; eventually the roads will have to be improved, the more burden and impact that is placed on the roads, the more upgrading and improvements will be required. Further, the Highway Department does not have the funds for these improvements, therefore the County and the developer will be responsible for the improvements. Mr. Keeler noted that in one particular instance, an applicant has maintained an old County road for some time. Further, subdivision is continually occurring along this road, therefore, the applicant wishes the property owners to enter into some sort of agreement for the maintenance of this road. Mr. Keeler stated that as long as anything of five acres or greater along these old County roads that are not maintained, is exempt, the problems of this nature will continue. He said that the staff is having a great amount of difficulty trying to determine if an easement is existing or if it is new. He said that there is no clear distinction between the two. problem could be eliminated completely. He explained that if a new access easement is created, then it is size. The proposed amendment would not address the issue Mr. Payne stated that this that the existing ordinance reads a subdivision, regardless of its of a new access easement. Additionally, Mr. Keeler stated that anything over five acres is exempt along an old County road or existing easement, however that is determined. None of the property owners along the road have any say in the matter, and as Mr. Tucker indicated, this may be of importance. Mr. Mike Boggs stated that the question is, when something of this nature comes to public forum, what will the Planning Commission's reaction be, will the subdivision still be allowed with a maintenance agreement or will the developer be required to upgrade the road? Mr. O'Neill from the public stated that the 25' pipestem being required in order to subdivide five acres or more is in his opinion, a mistake. He stated that this is not encouraging the developer to develop five acres or more. Mr. Bill Clover from the public stated that the Commission would be.serving the public tremendously if one of these decisions possible administratively. He reinterated that the cost and time saving for the developer and the Commission would be substantial. Mr. Carr stated that he understands the problem that is before the Commission, but he added that he is not sure that he agrees with the solution. He asked Mr. Keeler whether or not it relates with the discussion that Mr. O'Neill has presented. DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION, continued Mr. Keeler stated that it relates not only to 5-acre parcels, but also to 2-acre parcels. He said that the staff indicated to the Commission that with the recent amend- ments to the private contracts section in the ordinance, that the staff doesn't have the concern over restricted or private roads that existed before. He said that it requires that the deed state plainly that the County or the Virginia Department of Highways has no responsibility for the maintenance of the road. Mr. Carr asked Mr. Roosevelt from the Highway Department how many old abandonned roads are no longer maintained by the State or County. Mr. Keeler noted that there are quite a few in the southern part of the County. Mr. Roosevelt stated that there are no figures to indicate this. Mr. O'Neill from the public stated that a restricted road, in his opinion, is not much different from a state road that is not dedicated. Mr. Tucker stated that the specifications for the restricted road was repealed, however the allowance of the term "restricted road", a private road of 10 or less lots, is still in the ordinance. He said that the Commission still has the ability to approve a private road, and review it without any amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Payne stated that the term "restricted road", until August of last year, was a public road, dedicated to public use but not maintained by the Highway Department nor was it built to Highway Department standards. He said that this led to several problems, among them, the proposition of being dedicated and accepted to public use, it was a public road and if your property fronted on it, you had virtually the absolute right to use it. He stated that what this amendment was designed to do, was to make restricted roads of higher construction standards so that they were essentially identical with the Highway Department's roads. In essence, the staff indicated to the developer that he may have a restricted road, however he may as well make this road as such that it will be accepted into the state system so that he will not have to maintain it. In conclusion, Mr. Payne said that the term "restricted road" is obsolete in Albemarle County, because it is completely uneconomical to build. Further, he noted that the ordinance has a provision for approval of private access easements, and that is what the Commission has been using to approve these type subdivisions. Mr. Carr stated that he feels it was never the intent of the County to expand the use for that purpose. He stated that the expansion of that provision to allow developers to develop their land on a private road with a committed agreement for the maintenance of the road is the intent of the Commission. Mr. Carr asked the Commission members what their reaction is to the data that has been received by the staff on private roads from other counties. Dr. Moore noted that in his opinion, all the counties that were studied have tried to avoid the private roads wherever they can. Mr. Easter said that the maintenance of these private roads should be spelled out as to whose responsibility it is, not necessarily whose responsibility it is not. He stated that this could keep the cost of the houses at a minimum and in addition, prevent highways from being constructed in conjunction with the small, unimproved state highways. Mr. Payne stated that it has been his policy to allow the developer to have any type of maintenance agreement that he wishes, as long as it is specified in this agreement the procedure that will be taken to maintain the road. Mrs. Graves asked if the homeowner's agreement is a part of the individual deed. Mr. Payne said that it varies, more commonly than not. 308 r DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION, continued Mrs. Graves stated that she feels that is where the problem arose, the Commission accepted agreements that weren't understood in the first place. Mr. Payne stated that a common title examination would reveal the agreement in detail. Mr. Easter stated that this has been of concern to him also, that the examiner would discover details after the contract is signed. He said that the landowner would purchase the land and sign the deed without knowing what exactly is expected of him, in the maintenance of the road. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Payne if there is any way the Commission can let the land- owner know this prior to the signing of the deed. Mr. Payne said that to a certain extent the answer is no, however, if the deed were particularly objectionable to anyone when the title is examined, that person could object on the grounds that it wasn't marketed. Mr. Gloeckner suggested a note be placed on the plat regarding the maintenance of the roads. He said that the purchaser is more likely to look at the plat to see what the property looks like, than he is to examine someone else's deed. Mr. Bill Clover from the public stated that from his experience that there aren't many purchasers today that will sign a contract subject to any recorded easements or deed restrictions without knowing what they are. Dr. Moore stated that he would have to dispute that statement. He said that he feels there are a lot of intelligent people that make the mistake. Mr. Keeler noted that the Commission does not wish to go into the aspect of the definition of subdivision that requires 25' of road frontage. He stated that would exempt anything over five acres. He stated that the Commission is reviewing parcels for which the Commission determines new easements that are created. For example, an eighty -acre piece of property that is divided into two forty -acre tracts is submitted and the front parcel grants an easement, the Commission can review that but it will not be reviewing the pipestems; the applicant can subdivide enumerable five acre parcels, taking two exemptions and never have to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Carr stated that he is more concerned about the development of the old county roads with no committments for maintenance. Mr. Payne stated that it doesn't make any difference if it is an old county road or an existing farm road, neither of them are reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Carr stated that an old county road with two or three land owners along it is more likely to have more extensive development than an old farm road. Further, Mr. Carr noted that he had hoped that the utilization of the approval of private roads by the County with certain limitations would promote the development of some of the land that is not now used for residences for various reasons: 1) it is too costly to build a road through it that is required, and 2) it won't happen if the road has to be built, and 3) the road is not adaptable to that type of situation. Mr. Carr noted that the new ordinance states that we want to utilize some of the unusable land for residences to serve the farm land and other land for other purposes. Further, if private roads are to promote the utilization of some of the land that is in fact unusable for residences, it will be a good decision by the County. Mr. Gloeckner suggested limiting private roads to 20 lots with no extension. Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission wishes to encourage this type of use of private roads this whole section will have to be reworked. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he can't conceive many 5-acre subdivisions in the County, with the price of land. Mr. Carr agreed. Mr. O'Neill from the public agreed also stating that he would like the Commission to exempt the 5--acre lots from the 25' pipestem. DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION, continued Col. Washington told Mr. O'Neill that he doesn't understand the problem that is concerning the 25' pipestem. He stated that a single access would be more reasonable; too many pipestems create odd shaped lots which are prohibited by the ordinance. Mr. Tucker noted that the only advantage is that it will end up in one road. Col. Washington stated that you can end up with only one road on an easement basis to serve those same lots. Mr. Tucker stated that they in effect create an easement; each property owner gives a portion of his land as an easement. Mr. Keeler stated that as of now the ordinance doesn't require any minimum frontage, it requires road frontage; five acres with road frontage or on an existing easement is exempt. He said what happens is that the applicant puts the five foot pipestem to record which is exempt, the next day the applicant comes in and records the easement. He stated that if this is alright with the Commission, then the pipestems should be removed; he stated that in his opinion that is very poor use of the land. Col. Washington stated that he thought the purpose of width of road frontage was so that another driveway would not be necessary every 25'. Mr. Payne noted that the amendment states that if less than 25' of pipestems are used, it must be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Clover from the public added that there is a lot of good land in the County that does not front on a state highway. Further, if this land is developed it will allow the people to do so for less money. Mr. Gloeckner asked Mr. Clover what the demand for 5-acre subdivisions is. Mr. Clover said that the demand is mainly for 10-15 acre subdivisions for more privacy. Mr. Stevenson from the public agreed, privacy is in demand as well as an inexpensive access. There were no further comments or discussion. Per. Payne added that some action must be taken on this item today. DISCUSSION OF GRAVEL ROADS Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report to the Commission stating that Mr. Payne has a letter available from the Attorney General stating opinions and answering questions to several items of this subject matter; the first one referring to the Board of Super- visors' action of Spotsylvania County which amended the subdivision ordinance in that before approving a subdivision plat the Board of Supervisors will consider whether existing public roads serving the development are adequate for the resulting increase in traffic. In the event that, in the Board of Supervisors' opinion, such road or roads will be inadequate, the Board of Supervisors will require assurance and satisfaction that the roads will be made adequate to accommodate the increase in traffic, with a condition of such attached to the plat. Mr. Montenegro stated that the Attorney General gave an affirmative answer to this. Mr. Montenegro stated further that the Attorney General was asked whether, in his opinion, the County can require the developer to pay capital cost in lieu of the dedication of the land for road improvements. The Attorney General answered negative. N 3/o DISCUSSION OF GRAVEL ROADS. continued Mr. Payne told the Chairman that some time ago he had drafted an ordinance based on this opinion, which is very similar to the language that was approved in the 140) ordinance for Spotsylvania County. Mr. Barksdale added that paved roads should also apply to the amendment. Mr. Gloeckner agreed. Mr. Payne stated that the language is perfectly suitable and covers a very broad range, including dirt and paved roads. Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department commented that the Highway Department's criteria for hardsurfacing a gravel road is 50 vehicle trips per day. He stated that according to Mr. Montenegro's figures in his report to the Commission, it is calculated that there are currently 80 miles of road that have more than 50 vehicle trips per day, and 20 miles of this has more than 100 vehicle trips per day. He stated further that he has recently submitted a 6 year plan to the County, indicating that the Highway Department will hardsurface 15 miles of gravel road in this 6 year period. Dr. Moore noted that the Highway Department requires the dedication of land. Mr. Roosevelt stated that is correct. He said that before a gravel road will be upgraded to hard surface, sufficient width right-of-way along the proper alignment must be available. He stated that this dedication will be easier than payment. Mr. Gloeckner asked Mr. Roosevelt what the timetable is for improving substandard hard surface roads. Mr. Roosevelt stated that his department has tried to set the high volume hard surface roads as first priorty, when funds are available. Mr. Easter asked if the Highway Department will ask for an increase in the gas tax to supply these funds. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he has no indication that the gas tax will be increased for this reason. Mr. Carr asked if the various counties or localities get funds from the Commission for repair of roads, etc. in relationship to their contributions. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the distribution is based on a fairly complicated formula which weighs the area of the county, miles of road, traffic volume, vehicle registration, need and population to determine the overall factors. He stated further that more urban counties are not receiving the same amount of money back that has been put into the caucus, rather the rural counties are benefitting. By the same token, Mr. Roosevelt said that primary and interstate funds are and will continue to go to the urban counties rather than to the rural areas so that overall, it is a complete system. Mr. reeler asked Mr. Roosevelt if a massive number of people living on dirt roads have been asking that their roads be upgraded at the annual public hearings. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the majority of the people are requesting that the gravel roads be upgraded to hard surface roads. Mr. Roosevelt informed the Commission that the determining factor of whether or not you want the road you live on to be graveled are 1) how physically close your house is to that road and 2) the volume of traffic to remain at a minimum of 50 vehicles per day. Mr. Keeler added that the safety of the road is also a determining factor. Mr. Keeler asked Mr. Roosevelt to break down the number of accidents per million miles traveled on a gravel road as compared to the others; he said that he is not convinced that gravel roads are currently less safe than hard surface roads. Mr. Roosevelt agreed stating that poor alignment is also a problem. Col. Washington added that the traffic volume is of concern also. 9 DISCUSSION OF GRAVEL ROADS, continued Mr. Stevenson from the public stated that he had sent a letter to Mr. Carr expressing that he felt the cost to the developer is too high to adequately improve the road to the Highway Department's requirements. Mr. Gloeckner stated that if the road is upgraded, the alignment should be improved. Mr. Wood from the public noted that the gravel roads are needed to provide lots for people who cannot afford to live elsewhere. Further he stated that he does not agree with the fact that the developer should be required to maintain the road; this is shutting the door on development. He asked where the money is going for the improvements of the road. Mr. Easter said that the funds are prorated now on a certain formula - there is not as much give and take anymore. Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department stated that the funds have always been allocated on a formula. He said that until 1964, it was based on the population, area of the county, road mileage and how many miles were traveled. After 1964, when the first increase of the gas tax was presented, the formula was changed to include needs. He said that in 1966, when the last gas tax was presented as 9(�, the formula has remained the same until this last year when it was changed again and the money was consolidated, resulting in more money available to the urban counties for improvements. He said yes, there is money available for the improvement of 52,000 miles of road - the money is estimated at a half of a billion dollars. Mr. Roosevelt informed the Commission that the secondary road system.of Albemarle County, by a 1973 study, indicates that there are over 400 miles that do not meet minimum highway department standards, and that it would require approximately 60 million dollars for these improvements. Mr. Roosevelt further informed the Commission that eventually there will be only enough money to maintain the roads and no money for the improvements. He said that on the secondary system the highway department should be spending, in his opinion, 60% of the money available for maintenance and 40% for the improvements. Mr. Roosevelt said that in his opinion of the Comprehensive Plan discussion, the County's philosphy is to forget the lower class road as far as improvements are concerned, and put any money that is available into the heavy volume roads. The gravel roads should be improved as the development is proposed, otherwise the people that build in these developments will expect the improvements after the development is underway and there is no money for these improvements. Mr. Clover from the public stated that roads are not being built to burden the highway department in any way. He said that the maintenance of these roads should be the burden of the developer. Mr. Roosevelt asked who will be willing to take the abuse that this causes. He stated that the cost is approximately $1,700 per mile to maintain these gravel roads. He stated that an example of this is Airport Acres Subdivision. Col. Washington stated that when a proposal is made, an increase in traffic is suspected. Further, he noted that distance is also a factor. Col. Washington used Mr. Stevenson's application as an example, stating that the preliminary was approved, the final is subject to that which is decided on the road. He said that if the individual property owner has a low frontage and the Commission requires him to improve it, which he agrees with, but the result will be odd shaped lots. 13i? A, - DISCUSSION OF GRAVEL ROADS, continued Mr. Gloeckner added that in this case, the developer should make sure that the alignment meets the Highway Department's requirements. Mrs. Graves asked what the cost would be for these requirements. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he will not go into the cost of private contracts. Mr. Keeler noted that Mr. Montenegro had stated in the staff report that upgrading the dirt roads would be approximately $100,000 per mile as compared to $200,000 for a new road. Mr. Carr stated that he has some basic objections in having the private developer develop the existing county road. Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance that he prepared based on the Attorney General's opinion does not answer the question of whether or not the developer will be required to make a given improvement. He said that it does provide the Commission with a mechanism for requiring some improvement if it is thought to be necessary. lie stated that in his opinion, this would give the Commission more f lexability as to what improvements should be made and are necessary. Mr. Payne suggested a resolution of intent to amend the ordinance to include this provision; this would have two favorable consequences, 1) a mechanism could be provided for addressing this question in each particular case, and 2) it would allow greater public input, and allow the Commission to understand the attitude of the public in requiring this kind of thing. Mr. Carr stated that once this is written into the ordinance, that determination is made by an appointed body. Mr. Payne stated that in some cases it will be difficult to establish to a possibly hostile court, not that it is lawful to do it, but that the ordinance permits it. He said that if something of this language is not written into the ordinance, the Commission will be standing on very weak ground in trying to require it. Mr. Tucker added that if the ordinance is amended, the Commission must be very careful where these requirements are made. He said that even a greater hazard could be created if the requirements are not made equal. amongst all developers. Mr. Carr stated that in his opinion, that is a valid argument. �W) Mrs. Graves asked if these requirements are speaking mostly to the upgrading of the roads. Mr. Gloeckner said that this is the most expensive part of the whole improvement process. Mr. Barksdale added that the developer doesn't know what improvements are to be made until the Commission informs him of their requirements. Mr. Montenegro added that the issue of safety, but how is the safe standard for the particular roads determined. Mr. Gloeckner stated that if the road is graded and made wider, the tendency will be for the traffic to increase its speed. Mr. Montenegro added that Mr. Payne's suggestion of amending the ordinance could be a good one in that each case is dealt with individually. Mrs. Graves said that the individual property owners should be considered. She said that they will be quite upset to buy a lot and find that the Highway Department will need some of their land for improvements. Mr. Keeler said that this will double the money that will have to be used for the improvements. Mrs. Graves expressed that she would like the Commission to have minimum requirements for improvements. Mr. Carr noted. that some decision on gravel roads should be made as there is an application pending in regards to this discussion. He said that this application was deferred so that this discussion could take place. There were no further comments or discussion. Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session - May 31, 1977 Discussion of RPN Mr. Keeler stated that the staff placed this item on the agenda, due to the questions that Mrs. Graves had concerning the RPN ordinance. He noted that when this was presented to the Commission, it was presented as an alternative to develop- ment in an existing zone. Mr. Keeler stated that he had reviewed that tape and felt that it was misleading, in that an RPN/R-1 would only occur if the property were already R-l. de said he doesn't believe that excludes going from A-1 to RPN/R-1, just eliminates the one step of standard rezoning. Further, he said that he believes it to be a logical thing to do in that if another applicant wished to go from A-1 to say, R-3, that the Commission would be reluctant to approve the first rezoning petition on the applicant's statement that he would come back with an RPN in the future. Mr. Keeler stated that the staff wishes to simplify this; there is nothing in the RPN designation that states that an upzoning cannot occur through an RPN application. Mr. Keeler noted that one of the areas in the RPN designation that Mrs. Graves and the staff have dispute is Section 19-2-3, where there is a list of a number of items to be shown on the preliminary plan. The staff requires only those items on the plan that are essential for the review of the plan. Mrs. Graves feels that every- thing that is listed should be shown. The Zoning Administrator, as well as the staff, feels that if everything listed is required to be shown, the result would be absurd. Mr. Keeler stated that he doesn't feel it is the staff's position to impose these " things upon the applicant; rather the staff should make recommendations to the Planning` Commission and Board of Supervisors. ' A Mrs. Graves stated that the ordinance reads "shall provide". If this is not the case, the wording of the ordinance should be changed. Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance should require whatever pertains to the particular application. Mr. Gloeckner added that the requirements should be addressed individually for consideration. Mr. Peatross stated that Mrs. Graves is concerned that some of these items are required and some are optional. Mr. Barksdale added that the Commission decides which of these items are required to be provided by the developer. Mr. Dick, Zoning Administrator, agreed that each item should be addressed individually and to let the Commission decide if the item is required. Mrs. Graves noted further that she had read the statement of intent for the R-1 zone; the intent of the zone does not go with the RPN designation, the RPN is a floating zone. She said that she doesn't accept this and wishes for the Commission to discuss it. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he doesn't agree either. His impression was that the zoning was to stay the same and that clustering was to occur. Mr. Tucker stated that he thinks where the confusion is, is that we do continue to use A-1, RS-1, R-1,R-� and R-3 as zoning categories, but we are only talking about the densities that are allowed in that zone. The uses that are allowed are specified Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session, continued - May 31, 1977 ,;5/� under Section 19-3, Uses Permitted. Further, everything that is allowed in the R-1 zone cannot be done because you have RPN/R-1, only that which is allowed by the RPN; the R-1 only speaks to the density. Mr. Gloeckner stated that what his concern is, is jumping two or three densities. He stated that if the rezoning was for RPN to A-1, there is no jumping densities involved, and the idea is to cluster and to keep green spaces, shorter roads, cul-de-sacs, joint roads, septic fields, etc. But if the rezoning were for A-1 to RPN/R-1, which quadruples the density, it will still get the benefit of clustering. Mr. Payne stated that unless it is assumed that the ratio of the various categories is not changed, which would be an absurd assumption, then you know that some of the A-1 land in the County is going to be R-1, RS-1 or whatever it might be. The question is, do you want to permit the situation where you can increase the density, knowing what is being proposed, and not knowing whether or not a site plan will be presented? In other words, if you think in a particular case, the increase in density is inappropriate, then it should be denied. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the Commission should give the staff some guidelines, that if the rezoning were from A-1 to RPN/R-1, the density jump can only be 2 or 3, but not five. Mr. Tucker said that is the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. Those guidelines are the ones the staff should follow. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he voted that the A-1 land would not be made high -density residential land. Mr. Carr noted that it was also voted for a plan for the utilization of a piece of property as opposed to a rezoning. Mr. Keeler stated that when the RPN designation was presented, it was such that there are a lot of developments which are called Planned Communities, and they are not. He stated that the only one that is a Planned Community is Willoughby, everything else is considered a Residential Planned Neighborhood, therefore provisions for that were made. Further, there are not a lot of developments considered Planned Communities that are A-1 density. Mr. Gloeckner said that the difference between the Residential Planned Neighborhoods and the PUDs is that no commercial development will be allowed. Mr. Keeler said that it is allowed. Mr. Gloeckner said that the Commission didn't want it that way and decided to make it an option, whereas the PUD requires it. Mr. Easter said that he thinks it should be written into the ordinance that when an RPN was submitted for consideration allowing a slightly greater density, that it would further encourage them to submit a site plan. Mr. Payne stated that if there are restrictions placed upon what can be applied for, then you are not allowing the County to grow because you are refusing the straight rezoning. ou will either be forced by the court or by the circumstances, to approve these straight rezonings. Mr. Payne stated further that unlike the straight rezoning, he can limit the RPN; he can limit it by his application, or the Commission can limit .it by amending his application. If the application, at a later date, is submitted for an even higher density zone, the Commission has no alternative other than. to permit the applicant to apply and review his plan. The applicant could also apply for R-3, however, the Commission could deny this application on the grounds that the density is too high. Mr. Carr stated that when an application is made in an A-1 zone for an R-3 rezoning, the density jump is that such it is not fair to other applicants applying for a rezoning in less density zones. .315 Albemarle County Planning Commission Work Session - May 31, 1977 Discussion of RPN, continued Mr. Gloeckner stated that he believes.:the A-l/RPN zone has the same density that the A-1 zone has, only that it is clustered, the applicant has many breaks by not having to build long roads, all short cul-de-sacs, he only has to drill one well one septic field is required, etc. lir. Gloeckner stated further that the applicant can then come back to the Commission and request an even higher density, and still have many benefits. Mr. Barksdale added that the Comprehensive Plan should be used as a guide, preventing such spot zoning. Mrs. Graves stated that the ordinance should read what it, in fact, implies. Mr. Keeler noted that as a professional planner, he tries to inform the applicant fairly, as to what his application entails, whether or not it is recommended by the staff. Mr. Dick added that he feels it is wrong to lead the applicant to believe that his application will be approved, when it is known administratively, that it will not be recommended. Mrs. Graves stated that she has another point of interest for the Commission to consider. She noted that the definition of institution, to the extent that they are designed and intended to serve the residents of the RPN district, is of concern to her as interX etted in the ordinance. She stated that in the original proposal, institutions were listed as non-residential uses of the religous, cultural, recreational character. Further, she stated that she had interpretted this to be such as churches, however, the wording in this particular case, could cover so many things. Mr. Payne stated that he doesn't feel this to be a problem. He said the Commission should know the definition of institution, and further, perhaps the ordinance should be amended to include the definition of institution. Mr. Gloeckner stated that another concern of his regarding the RPN, is that it was his opinion that they would be individually owned residences, regardless of whether the zoning was A-1,R-1,R-2, etc. He said that it bothers him to use the point of single - ownership to determine the size of the road. There were no further comments or discussion. DISCUSSION OF NORTH SLOPES Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report to the Commission. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff feels that the proposed Comprehensive Plan in its recommendations e. with respect to development on north slopes are adequate to control such develop- ment. Col. Washington stated that the Comprehensive Plan should be more specific in the area of discussion of north slopes. The Commission members decided to address this issue at a later date. The definition of subdivision was defe14. The meet'ng adjourned at 11:05 p.m. rre ntil June r Robert W. Tucker, Secretary