HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 28 78 PC Minutes#/Z
March 28, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
March 28, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William
Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. James Huffman;
Mr. Layton McCann; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Dr. James W. Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves. Absent
was Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mrs. Mary Joy
Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Easter established that a quroum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Ford Motor Company Site Plan:
Mrs. Scala stated that this item had been deferred from March 21, 1978, in
order to obtain a plan of utilities in relation to the proposed road improvements.
The County Engineer was also requested to comment on restricting the rate of storm
runoff. Mrs. Scala read Mr. Bailey's comments into the record. She stated that
the staff had visited the site with representatives of the applicant and it appears
that a Centel pole with underground lines would be difficult to grade around or
relocate - the estimated cost of relocating the pole would be $5,000. The applicant
has proposed a change in the entrance location which would permit greater stacking
distance from Route 29 to the entrance. The staff recommended approval subject to
several conditions.
Mr. Jim Hill, on behalf of the applicant, stated that he is willing to follow
the new entrance location and the requirements of the Virginia Department of Highways.
There was no public comment on the site 'plan.
( Dr. Moore and Mrs. Graves entered the meeting.)
Col. Washington questioned the paved storage, noting that the applicant, at the
previous meeting, had stated that he wished the storage area to be gravel. In addition,
Col. Washington noted that he feels the County should have a policy for requiring_ the
minimum amount of paved area on any site plan.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed that he did not feel it necessary to pave the entire site
and moved for approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions, noting
that the plan he was addressing is the red line drawing:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance;
2. Engineering Department approval of drainage and pavement specs for public areas.
Storage areas to be gravel of sufficient depth;
4. Fire Official approval;
5. Service Authority approval;
6. Dedication of 25' from cneterline of Route 649.
Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
413
Ednam Village Phase II:
At the request of the applicant, Mr. Vest moved that any discussion and
action on this plan be deferred until April 25, 1978. The motion, seconded by
Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously, with no discussion.
John W. Hudson Final Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is located
off an 18' wide access easement on the north side of Route 53 between Simeon and Nix.
The proposal is a division of one 3-acre lot. This parcel originally contained about
25 acres. In 1974, a plat of 8.6 acres was recorded, leaving about 16 acres. In 1976,
the Planning Department stamped a plat as exempt which showed a 5-acre parcel being
divided. That division actually created this 3-acre parcel as well as about 8+ acres
residue. The 3-acre parcel was created illegally, since it should have been approved
by the Commission. In 1977, the Commission approved a plat dividing 4-acres from the 8+
acre residue. That division actually created a 4+ acre residue, also illegal since it
should have been shown. The plat showed 8 acres residue which was obtained by adding
together the two remaining parts of the residue.
The staff noted that the applicant now wishes to convey the 3-acre parcel and to
have it properly approved. Since the last submittal, commercial entrance requirements
have been added to subdivision approvals of this type. The existing entance does not
meet sight distance standards. There may be an alternative access to Route 729, where
the existing entrance could be improved to meeting commercial standards. Staff is
not sure if the road still connects to this alternate entrance. Also, there would be
no way to require persons living on this road to use the Route 729 entrance. Staff
could not recommend waiver of the commercial entrance requirement. Should the Commiss
choose to waive the requirement, the staff recommended several conditions of approval.
Mrs. Scala also read into the record two letters of opposition to the subdivision.
Mr. Eater asked the number of dwelling units using the road.
Mr. Freeman said that two houses and a trailer currently have access over the road,
Mrs. Graves stated that in her opinion the entrance and the maintenance of the
road are the two problems.
Mrs. Sharon Hart, an adjoining property owner, said that she is afraid that if
the subdivision is approved, another mobile home will be located in the area. She
also addressed the lack of maintenance on the road on the part of Mr. Hudson. Mrs.
Hart felt that he should be responsible for this maintenance.
Mrs. Diehl established that the existing right-of-way is not a through road.
Mr. Payne noted that the owners of the two unnumbered lots on the plat should
bind themselves to the maintenance of the road.
Mrs. Graves suggested also that a note be added to the plat, if it is approved,
stating that the proeprty is to be maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator.
Mrs. Hillary, another adjoining property o,+finer, also addressed the condition
of the road, stating that any maintenance that had been done had been taken care of
by her husband and her, not Mr. Hudson. Therefore, she opposed the further subdivision
of the property.
114
Furthermore, Mrs. Hillary noted that the road is in such terrible condition because
Mr. Hudson persists in driving a two -ton truck over the road daily. She said that
it has been so muddy lately that she and her family have had to walk to their house.
Mrs. Scala said that the best thing that could happen would be for the owner
to upgrade the road out to Route 729 and build the entrance to commercial standards.
Mr. McCann moved denial of the plat.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion.
Col. Washington said that if another plat is submitted to the County at a later
date, it should clear up the problem of the two lots at the same time.
Mr. Vest said that in his opinion something should be done to help the other
landowners in the area.
Mr. Easter said that if another plat is submitted, Mr. Hudson himself should
be present to clarify some of the questions raised by the Cuiwni.-�-sicn.
Mr. Gloeckner felt that through the various approvals the County has been aware
of what has been going on and therefore, he felt that the plat should be approved.
Mr. Huffman said that he feels that both residue lots should be treated as "one."
Mrs. Graves suggested notifying other county departments in order that no building
permits, etc. are issued by default.
The motion to deny carried by a vote of 8-1, with Mr. Gloeckner dissenting.
Grace Phillips Preliminary Plat:
Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, stating that the A-1 property is located
on the east side of Route 20 North on an existing private 40' right-of-way. The
proposal is the division of one 2-acre lot, leaving a residue of about 21 acres.
The staff noted that there are about 5 houses served by this private drive. The applicant
is requesting a wavier of the commercial entrance requirement, since he cannot obtain
the required sight distance. Sight distance measures about 500' to the north and 300'
to the south. The landowner to the south will not permit grading on his land since his
septic system may be affected. In keeping with past recommendations, staff could not
recommend approval of this waiver. IloTj,7ever, the staff did recommend several conditions
if the Commission granted the wavier.
Mr. Payne noted that the residue will be a pipestem, unlawful under the existing
Zoning Ordinance. He stated that this problem could be cured by changing the lot line.
He asked who owns the fee$ of the existing 40' road.
Mrs. Scala replied that she does not know who owns that fee. She also stated
that if the Board of Supervisors approves the amendments it will be considering the
following evening regarding pipestems, there will be no problem with the preliminary.
Mr. Payne said that each of the owners own land adjacent to the right-of-way.
Mr. Payne said that if that is the case, the lot lines are not shown running to the
center of the road, as they should be.
q1s
Dr. Moore said that he feels the County needs to know the situation of the
right-of-way prior to the time of final plat approval.
Mr. Payne, the applicant, stated that tie would like to begin construction
on the house by the time school begins.
Mr. McCann said that he is not concerned about the sight distance for only
one lot, however he would not like to see further parcels su�)divided at a later date.
Mrs. Graves moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Note on plat: "No further division without Planning Commission approval."
3. Show amount of residue acreage;
4. Maintenance agreement to be approved and recorded;
5. Entrance improved to commercial standards less sight distance.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Shadwell Mountain Preliminary Plat Amendment:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating the the A-1 property is
located at the end of the I-64 frontage road near the intersection of Route 250 East and
I-64.
He reviewed the history of the plat for the Commission, reading the conditions
of approval on the preliminary submitted January 24, 1978. This proposal is to divide
a 138.30 acre tract into 15 parcels, the smallest being 4.4 acres, the largest
20.4 acres, average size 9.22+ acres. All the parcels will be served by a privately
maintained road and access easement. Access to this site is solely by way of the frontage
road. As a result of staff recommendations, the applicant also proposes to join the 73.83_
acre residue of the original 212+ acre tract to an adjacent property, which if developed,
will have access directly from Route 250 East. In the previous application, the
Planning Commission determined that in their opinion the additional development at the
end of the frontage road did not warrant the improvement of the frontage road. By the
most recent traffic counts available, the frontage road now carries 87+ vehicle trips per
day. The frontage road is presently a 16' wide paved surface with shoulders and
guardrails. If the Planning Commission determines that this proposal is substantially dif:
erent from the previous application and would cause a hazardous situation, then the
staff recommends that the frontage road be upgraded to a Category I, Class B standard
of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance. With this in mind, the staff recommended
approval subject to several conditions. He also noted for the record that with
approval of this preliminary, the frontage requirement would be waived for all fifteen
lots.
Mr. Clifton McClure said that he was available for any questions, and that the
road will be built with surface treatment.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions.
He noted for the record that he does not feel that this proposal is substantially differen
from the previous application.
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. County Engineering Department approval of private road specifications;
241 In
3. Grading permit;
4. A maintenance agreement for the maintenance of the access easement shall be approved
by the;County Attorney's Office and recorded with the plat;
5. The applicant is to certify or provide evidence that the property has legal
access to a public right-of-way.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. with no further business.
%-C� ' //V
W. Tucker, Jr. - Se
OR
M
9