Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 09 79 PC Minutes,2oZ_ January 9, 1979 The Albemarle.Planning Commission held a regular meeting January 9, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington, Chairman; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Jim Skove; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman. Other Officials present were Mr. Ronald Keeler; Assistant Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton; Planner; Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, Ex-Officio. Col. Washington established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of December 5, 1978, December 12, 1978, December 18, 1978, and November 28, 1978 were approved as written. The minutes of December 11, 1978 were deferred until January 16, 1979. BLUE RIDGE ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT - proposed subdivision of 12 lots, approximately 2+ acres each; located on State Route 692 near Greenwood. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Jim Wootton, the applicant'.s representative, was present. Miss Caperton read a letter into the record from Lemuel and Dora Clements. The Clement: are opposed to the subdivision because of the condition of the roads, the availability of water, and their concern that raw sewage might affect the water supply. Col. Washington asked if any information had been received from the Highway Department concerning the road capacity. Miss Caperton noted that Mr. Coburn, Highway Department, was present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Coburn noted that the Highway Department consider roads either tolerable or non - tolerable. He stated that this is based on the level of maintenance that is necessary to provide a reasonable amount of service. Mr. Coburn stated that 691 to 692 is at capacity and 692, as of the 1978 count:, is:.over capacity with 469 vtpd.. Mrs. Graves asked if Daniel Ford is the owner of the property. Mr. Wootton noted that he is. Mrs. Graves moved to reopen the public hearing, which was closed at the December 21st Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Wootton asked Mr. Coburn if he knew what the percentage of change in vtpd would be without the addition of 12 lots. Mr. Coburn noted that the Highway Department allows 7 vtpd per resident, which would increase the vtpd by 84. He noted that depending upon the direction of travel the percent- age of increase on 619 would be 70% to the west and 30%.towards Batesville. Mr. Finley, an adjacent owner stated that he has driven the roads in this area for years_ and they are in bad condition. Mr. Peatross, a representative of the adjacent owners, requested that the Commission enforce the subdivision ordinance, if they should chose to approve this subdivision. He not,cJ '..'-it if the Commission does not require that the frontage of this property be improved with this subdivision that it will not be able to force the developer to improve the frontage if he should decide to develop the residue. Dr. Moore asked what type of improvements are needed. Mr. Coburn stated that Highway Department can determine exactly what improvements would be necessary to bring the road up to standards. He noted that he did not have that information available at this time. Mr. Wootton stated tht the Planning Commission needs to focus on the issue that is before them.not on any previous plan, which has no bearing on this item. He noted that the Commission can not expect the developer to carry the burden of the public. Mr. Wooten also stated that the ownership of land has certain rights and he believes these rights should be upheld by the Commission. Mrs. Graves asked Mr. Payne to point out the section in the subdivision ordinance that applies to substandard roads. Mr. Payne noted that Section 18-39(0) speaks to this. Mr. Payne read into the record: "The Commission shall consider whether existing public roads that will serve" the proposed subdivision are adequate to accomodate the increase in traffic which may reasonably be expected to result from the development of such subdivision. In the event, that, in the opinion of the Commission, such roads will be inadequate therefore, the Commission may require that such roads be improved so as to accomodate such resulting traffic as a condition precedent to approval of such plat." Mr..Skove asked if the Commission could require off -site road improvements. Mr. Payne noted that this would depend upon the impact of the subdivision on the roads, in some cases improvements have been required some distance from the site. Mr. Huffman asked how long a road will remain nontolerable before the Highway Departmel will do something to correct the situation. Mr. Coburn stated that the Highway Department developes a six year plan to improve roads. When the road will be repaired depends upon how bad the condition of the road is and hbw high a priority the Board of Supervisors places on the road. Col. Washington stated that he understands that the Staff and the Highway Department have not specifically recommended improvements on Rt. 691, but they have recommended a turn lane and taper on Rt. 692. Miss Caperton stated that it is recommended that a fence be relocated and grading of slopes to -achieve adequate sight distance as well as a turn lane and taper. Mr. Coburn read the Highway Department's recommendations into the record (letter of z6 l December 6, 1978, Site Review Comments): "550 feet of sight distance is necessary for the commerical entrance. The existing sight distance can be improved by relocating the fence and grading the slope. We recommend the frontage of this property be graded, such that the shoulder break point is 15 feet from the centerline of the existing road. If this is done sight distance may be improved to the necessary length. This should be verified by the developer prior to approval. The length of the turn lane is adequate, it should be 12 feet in width. Adequate right of way should be dedicated along the turn lane in order to properly maintain the shoulder and ditch." Mrs. Graves asked if condition 5 (concerning Highway Department approval) as worded, included all of the necessary improvements. Mr. Keeler suggested that wording be added to include the Highway Department's site review recommendations. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the seven conditions. Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like to see the Highway Department's recommendations at the site review meeting be included in condition 5. Mr. McCann seconded the motion with the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval; 2. County Engineer approval of private road plans; 3. Compliance with Run-off Control Ordinance, if necessary; 4. Grading permit; 5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commerical entrance, turn lane and taper, and frontage development in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation letter of December 7, 1978; 6. County Attorney's office approval of a maintenance agreement; (incuding residue); 7. Provide a name for the private road. Mr. McCann's motion carried with a vote of 7-2. Dr. Moore and Mrs. Graves dissented. There was no further discussion. WAVERLY PRELIMINARY PLAT (Formerly Gersanndy Preliminary Plat) - proposed subdivision of 73 lots with an average lot size of 3.55 acres; located south off Route 614 (White Hall Road) west of Owensville. Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the discussion on this item. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Boggs repre- sented the applicant. Mr. Skove asked if schools buses are allowed to use private roads in this state. Mr. Keeler noted that there are some private roads in the County that buses use. Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission approves this item something should be stated in the conditions of approval to speak to snow removal. Mrs. Graves moved to reopen the public hearing, which was closed on the December 21, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 2()S Mr. Harris, an adjacent owner, noted that he is concerned with the incompatibility of such a large subdivision with small lots in this area. He noted that he believes the roads will become over capacitated and Meriwether Lewis school will become over burdened. Mr. Harris stated that his principal objection is density. He stated that he would like to see the preliminary plat denied and the subdivision resubmitted with larger lots. Mr. Lincoln noted that the density is already below what is allowable for the acreage involved. Ms. Kennan, an adjacent owner, stated that she is concerned about the water supply. Mr. Boggs stated that the roads will be developed above private road standards. He noted that the developer is concerned with the impact upon the schools, but this subdivisio will be developed over a 10 year period and he hopes the over enrollment in the schools will be improved by that time. He also noted that he does not feel this is a good reason to deny this subdivision. Ms. Thomas, an adjacent owner, stated that Rt. 614 is in poor condition and she would like to hear Mr. Coburn's comments on this matter. Mr. Coburn stated that Rt. 614 is classified as nontolerable and currently has 1,081 vtpd. He noted that 500 additional vtpd would be generated by the subdivision. Mr. Coburn also noted that the Highway Department has no plans at this time for upgrading Rt. 614. Mrs. Diehl asked what this area is classified as in the Comprehensive Plan. Col. Washington stated that is some places the roads are along a crest of the ridge and the homes would be located below the level of the road. He asked what would be the affect on the septic system and the wells. Mr. Boggs stated that the septic systems will be located in the front or side yards and the developers will have septic approval for each lot. Dr. Moore asked if the staff had done a slope analysis. Miss Caperton stated they have a slope analysis, but she did not have it with her. Mr. Lincoln had a slope analysis, which he made available to the Commission. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he thought Mrs. Diehl is concerned about the steepness of the grade on some of the lots. Mr. Keeler noted that a lot with a 25% or greater slope can not be graded. Mr. Boggs stated that lots that are on steep slopes are wider to allow for a septic system. Ms. Summers, an adjacent owner, stated that there is a water problem in this area. She noted that one of the gentlemen had mentioned there were several running streams in this area, but for the pass three summers these streams have dried completely up, including Rocky Run. Ms. Roman, an adjacent owner, stated that she has children enrolled in the schools in the area and is interested in the impact this subdivision will have on these schools. Miss Caperton stated that at the elementary school level a temporary mobile clas lmd room will be required, at the middle school level permanent mobile classrooms will be required, and at the secondary school level there will be very little impact. MAE N Mrs. Diehl stated that she was under the impression that Meriwether Lewis and Henley were not experiencing the decrease in enrollment, as some of the other schools in the County are. Mr. Keeler noted that in the Meriwether Lewis District there are 1.6 children per household enrolled in the schools. Mrs. Diehl noted that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Agricultur,�r- Conservation. Mrs. Graves asked if there will be any changes between the preliminary and final plats because of the water shortage and when these items will be addressed. Mr. Payne stated that he doesn't believe there is anything in the Ordinance that speaks to the quanity of water as opposed to the quality. Mr. Keeler noted that the Commission has the right to require that availibility of water be verified before approving a plan. Mr. McCann moved for approval. Mr. Lindstrom questioned the double frontage for lots 1 and 2, since Dunmore Road is a state road. Mr. Keeler suggested that a note be on the plan that requires lots 1 and 2 to enter on interior road. Mr. Payne suggested that condition 6 state: "All lots must enter on internal roads." Mr. Skove stated that he is concerned with the scale of this development, but it complies with the subdivision ordinace and he can not see any reason it couldn't be approved. Mrs. Diehl stated that she could not support this subdivision, since it is over taxing the roads and schools and the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend a development of this nature.in this area. Mrs. Diehl also noted that she did not feel the topo was suitable for this development. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which failed with a vote of 3-5. Mr. Vest, Col. Washington, Mrs. Diehl, Dr. Moore, and Mrs. Graves dissented. There was no further discussion. ZMA-78-22. VIRGINIA VERMICULITE, LTD. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 0.94 acres from A-1 Agriculture to M-2 Industrial. Property is located south of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad and just west of Route 615. County Tax Map 51, Parcels 15 and 15A. Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that the applicant has requested deferral until March 6, 1979. He noted that this request was received within less than a week of the meeting and the Commission can take public input on this item. He also noted that the applicant was not present. Dr. Moore asked if the Board of Zoning Appeals could change the 100 foot setback before the Commission could rezone the property. Z0 Mr. Payne stated that the Board of Zoning Anpeals can only grant a variance for zoning that exis s : Mrs. Graves stated that she does not feel that the County and the public should -.4) have to spend time discussing items that don't conforrn. to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Payne stated that as long as a person wishes to rezone his property the County has no choice but to accept their application. Mr. Keeler read a letter into the record from Mr. Lindsay Harrington, an adjacent owner, that was in opposition to this rezoning. Mr. Harrington's letter stated that he is opposed to this rezoning because of asbestos, depreciation of property valuse, increase truck traffic, and noise pollution. Mr. Peatross, a representative of the adjacent owners, stated that this parcel can not meet the setback requirements and this is reason enough to deny this request. Mr. Block, an adjacent owner, stated that this rezoning wouldn't have any economic benefit to the County and taxpayers would have to maintain the roads. Ms. Romiere, an adjacent owner, stated it would be inappropriate to have any industrial use on this tiny parcel, which would be using a dirt road, a hazardous railroad crossing and would be a health hazard to the residents in this area. Mrs. Graves moved for denial of this rezoning request.'->c'c;ruse the a--l.i_cant requested deferral less than a week prior to the Commission's meeting. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 10:15. j Robe t W. Tucker, Jr. - Secr tary FE