Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 30 79 PC MinutesJanuary 30, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting, January 30, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Dr. James Moore; Mr. Layton McCann; Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Jim Skove; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner was absent. Other Officials present were Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; Mr. Donald Gaston, Senior Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of January 9, 1979 were approved as corrected. The minutes of December 19, 1978 were deferred until February 6, 1979 and the minutes of January 16, 1979 were approved as written. EARL BEACH FINAL PLATS - located on Route 618, south of Woodridge. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Raymond Spradlin, Mr. Claude Spradlin, Ms. Janet Bennett, and Mr. Buddy Bolton, the applicants of both plats, were present. Mr. Hilton Patterson, their representative, was present. Mr. Coburn stated that he had met with the applicants on -site to discuss the frontage improvements that are needed and the estimated cost. He noted that the Highway Department is recommending that the road be widening to allow the shoulder catch point at 15 feet and the ditch at 18 feet. Mr. Coburn stated that there is 1,500 feet of road frontage that needs to be improved and the estimated cost for these -improvements would be $3.00 per foot, with a total estimated cost of $4,300.00. Mr. Bolton stated that he had visited the site with Bill Chisholm, in order to have a second estimate. Mr. Chisholm informed him that $3.00 per foot was a reasonably estimate. Mr. Bolton noted that these road improvements would add $700.00 to the price of each lot, which would be a 20 percent increase. He noted that on a 33 year mortgage the purchaser would be paying about $2,500 more per lot. Mr. Bolton noted that there is a telephone cable running along the frontage of property that will need to be moved. He also noted that the Rt. 618 is considered tolerable and will remain tolerable with the addition of these lots. Dr. Moore asked what the estimate of $700.00 per lot is based on. Mr. Bolton stated that Mr. Chisholm had informed him that the miminum cost per lot would be $600.00 and this would not include the cost of moving the telephone cable or seeding. Cola Washington asked Mr. Coburn if he knew the telephone company's rules concerning moving cables. Mr. Coburn stated that any phone cables that are located in the Highway Department's right-of-way the telephone company move at their expense. He noted that usually they ' 5z- plant the cables at the edge of the right-of-way, not on the right-of-way. He stated that he is not sure of their policies concerning cables on private property. Col. Washington asked Mr. Coburn to speak to the roads again for the benefit of the Commission. Mr. Coburn stated that Rt. 618 is currently considered tolerable. He noted that he believes the vtpd are low enough that the addition of 8 lots would only bring the road to the boderline of tolerable or nontolerable. Col. Washington asked if widening the road would improve the sight distance. Mr. Coburn stated that widening the road would improve the sight distance, but that is not the problem. He noted that currently all eight lots have adequate sight distance. Mr. Bolton stated that the amount of traffic on this road is such that the Highway Department would not have the funds to upgrade the road, for at least 10 to 20 years. Dr. Moore moved for approval of both plats with the following conditions: Plat on Rt. 618 (Janet Bennett applicant) 1. A shared entrance shall be located for lots 1 and 2 and the entrance to lot 3 shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation before a building permit is issued; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of frontage improve- ments as recommended in their letter of January 3, 1979. Plat on Rt. 618 (Monticello Home Builders applicant) 1. Shared entrances shall be located between lots 5 and 6, and 7 and 8 and the entrance to lot 4 shall be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation before a building permit is issued; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of frontage improve- ments as recommended in their letter of January 3, 1979. Mr. Huffman stated that on November 20, 1978 and _November 28, 1978 the Commission approved subdivisions that were located on Rt. 618 and Rt. 622, that were not required to improve the road frontage. He asked Mr. Coburn if frontage development would become a standard recommendation from the Highway Department. Mr. Coburn stated that the Highway Department are constantly reviewing their recom- mendations to the Planning Commission. He noted that the Department was recommending road improvements., at one time, on subdivisions that would have a large impact on the roads in the area. He stated that the Highway Department will be requiring minimal frontage improvements on the smaller developments, as of, December 6, 1978. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion. Mr. McCann stated that he is in favor of the subdivision, but can not support a motion that would increase the cost of low income housing. Mr. Skove stated that he would support the motion, because if the road improvements are not made by the developer the burden will be shifted to the taxpayer and the public. S,3 Mrs. Diehl stated that she would support the motion, eventhough, she is not in favor of stripping,the.roadways. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-2. Mr. McCann and Mr. Huffman dissented. There was no further discussion. JIM PRICE CHEVROLET AMENDED SITE PLAN - proposed deletion of curbing and stripping; located on the west side of Route 29 between Rio Road (Route 631) and the south fork of the Rivanna River. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. The applicant's representative was not present. Col. Washington stated that the site plan shows a steep enbankment. Mr. Gaston stated that he had visited the site after rain and there wasn't any problem with soil erosion. He noted that the applicant has complied very well with the soil erosion ordinance. Mrs. Graves moved for deferral until the applicant or their representative was present. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. W. R. BARKSDALE, JR. FINAL PLAT - proposed division of 9.094 acres into 3 parcels at 4.083, 2.005, and 2.006 acres; located east off Route 693 just south of Route 635 near Batesville. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Barksdale, the applicant, was present. Mr. Barksdale noted that the purpose of this subdivision is to allow his daughter to built upon on of the parcels. Mrs. Graves moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Comply with private road ordinance including: a) County Engineer approval; b) Maintenance agreement; c) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation entrance permit. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. McCann stated that he feels if one subdivision is required to improve the roads along their frontage that all subdivisions should have the same requirement. Mr. Coburn stated that because of a shift in the Highway Department's right-of-way along the property, frontage improvements are not required. There were no further comments. JOSIE BELL MARTIN FINAL PLAT - proposed division of 4.462 acres from a larger parcel; located at the north end of Route 698 near Heards. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Blankenbaker, the applicant's representative, was present and had no comments. There was no discussion among the Commission. Mrs. Diehl moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval; 2. Comply with private road ordinance for two (2) separate easements including: a) County Engineer approval; b) Maintenance agreement. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. WOOD PROPERTY PRELIMINARY PLAT - proposed division of 4.9 acres into 2 lots at 2.0 and 2.9 acres; located east off Route 663 approximately one-half mile north of Earlysville. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Bolton, the applicant's representative, was present. Mr. Payne disqualified himself from discussion of this item. Mrs. Graves asked if this plat is proper, since there, isn't any technical data on the plat. Mr. Gaston stated that when an applicant submits a preliminary plat they are usually trying to get an idea of how the Commission would react to the proposal and what they would like to see. He noted that in this case the applicant is interested in the Commission's reaction to the entrance road. Mr. Bolton stated that this parcel was originally part of a 10 acre parcel, which is currently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Wood. He noted that they are in the process of a divorce and are selling the property. Mr. Bolton noted that he has Highway Department and Health Department approval at this time. He also noted that if he is required to moved the right-of-way his contact for the property will fall through. Col. Washington asked what is the topo of the area. Mr. Bolton stated that the topo is rolling. Mrs. Diehl suggested that the Commission not, vote on this item, but give the applicant their suggestions on the plat. Mr. McCann asked Mr. Gaston why the Staff brought this plat before the Commission if there wasn't enough information for the Commission to act on. Mr. Gaston stated the Staff have brought plats similar to this one before the Commission in the past on which no action was taken, but the applicant received comments from the Commission on, Dr. Moore stated that he does not object to the subdivision, but he does object to the lack of technical information. 0� Mr. Bolton asked what type of information is required. Mrs. Graves stated that a vicinity map is required. Mr. Bolton stated that he would like to meet with Staff and supply the Commission with the information that would be needed for preliminary approval. Dr. Moore stated that the adjacent owners are missing. Mrs. Graves moved for deferral for one week. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 7-0-1. Mr. McCann abstained. There was no further discussion. LEONARD RAINES ESTATE FINAL PLAT - proposed division of 38.646 acres into 3 lots of 12.882 acres each; located south of Route 663 approximately one mile east of Nortons- ville. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Thurl Raines, the applicant, was present. Mr. David Dickey and Mr. Ray Snow, the applicant's representatives, were present. Mr. Skove asked what is the distance from Rt. 663 to lot 3. Mr. Gaston stated that it is approximately one -quarter of a mile. Mr. Dickey stated that the applicant objects to two of the conditions that have been placed on his plat. He noted that there is no possible reasons for extending the right-of-way to 30 feet. Mr. Dickey stated that there will be no additional use on this property and the power company currently has an easement along this right-of-way. He also noted that the name "Ridge Road" was recorded on the deed to this property in 1940. Mr. Raines stated that he has no intentions of developing the property. He noted that the only reason for this subdivision is to divide the estate among the heirs. Mrs. Graves asked if this subdivision is approved could the parcels then be divided into 5 acre lots without coming back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gaston stated that it would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. McCann asked what were the original conditions of approval. Mr. Gaston stated that all of the conditions were waived except for "all technical data supplied as required by the Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance." Col. Washington asked if there will be any additional use on the roads. Mr. Snow stated that there won't be any additional use. Col. Washington asked if it would be reasonable to approval this subdivision with a condition that a maintenance agreement is waived until homes are built on the parcels. Dr. Moore asked if now is the only time to get the additional right-of-way. Mr. Payne stated that now would be the most pratical time, but it is not the only time. Mr. Dickey stated that it would be impossible to deed a right-of-wav to expand the road when the right-of-way along that road has already been deeded to a power company. Mr. McCann stated that he was inclined to agree with the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. He noted that at that time the Commission felt this was a hardship case and waived the conditions. Mr. Vest stated that he could not see where this is a hardship. He noted that the Commission is not asking the applicant to build a road, but only to deed a right-of-way. Dr. Moore stated that he felt the Commission would be landlocking the parcel if they approved this subdivision without an adequate right-of-way. Mr. Payne stated that generally a landowner does not have the right to deed another right-of-way over the power company right-of-way, but they can deed a right-of-way subject to the first right-of-way. Mr. Dickey stated that he conferred with Mr. Raines and he would not object to deeding a 30 foot right-of-way subject to the power company's right-of-way, if he is not required to build a road. Mr. McCann moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Waiver of scale; 2. Provide additional right-of-way -- 15 feet from centerline along western property boundary; 3. Health Department approval. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. Mrs. Graves made a subsitute motion with the following conditions: 1. Waiver of scale; 2. Provide additional right-of-way -- 15 feet from centerline along western property boundary; 3. County Engineer approval of road plans and obtain a grading permit; when the road is required by further subdivision of any one of these three lots; 4. Health Department approval; 5. Provide commerical entrance as required by Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation; when required by further subdivision of any one of these three lots. Col. Washington suggested that the same wording be added to condition #5. Mr. Coburn stated that he has looked at this entrance several times and each time it has been in very bad condition. He noted that it is badly in need of improvements, but the Commission can not require them because this is an existing entrance. Col. Washington suggested that condition #5 be deleted. (Commerical entrance) Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. ;25i Mr. Gilmer, an adjacent owner, requested that the members of the Planning Commission look at the road before reaching a decision. He requested that these items not be approved and add 360 additional vtpd to the already heavily traveled road. Mrs. Graves asked if there is any residue acreage. Ms. Holowinsky noted that the whole parcel is being subdivided. Mr. Amato stated that in 1973 the Highway Department wished to improve Rt. 785, but since they only had a prescribed easement they had to have the property owners permission. He noted that several owners would not agree to this. Mr. Amato noted that if Rt. 785 is ever going to be improved someone will have to meet with the property owners, as a group, in order to reach a decision. Mr. Roosevelt, stated that Rt. 785 is a local road, which in order to improve it 30 feet of right-of-way will have to be dedicated to the Highway Department. He also stated that Mr. Payne would probably agree with him that the Commission could not place a condition on a developer that he could not fulfill. Mrs. Graves asked if condition #3 is the Highway Department's recommendation. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the Department only recommended that the road needs improvement. Col. Washington stated that he would not be in favor of approving either of these subdivisions unless the developers would work together collectively to get the roads improved. Mr. McCann stated that he does not feel the Commission could not approve these subdivisions, since these are legal subdivisions and the developer has no legal control over the frontage of the property. Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could deny these subdivisions if they felt they would endanger the health, safety and welfare of the public. RIVERSIDE PRELIMINARY PLAT - proposed division of 73.8+ acres into 23 lots with an average lot size of 3.3+ acres; located east off Route 785 north of Route 649 and south of the Rivanna River, north fork. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Tom Sinclair, represented the applicant. Col. Washington noted that if the density for the subdivision was greater the applicant would reduce the cost per lot for water and road improvements. Mr. McCann stated that he felt figures for cost of improving the roads and running public water to the subdivisions should be brought in together. He also noted that if road improvements are required on one subdivision they should be required for both. Col. Washington noted that he would not be in favor of voting on either item. He stated that the developers should work together concerning concept and cost of these subdivisions. Mr. Payne stated that assuming the Highway Department can not acquire the necessary dedication, that is needed, another alternative would be to acquire slope easements, -"3' which would merit improvements along the 30 foot easement. Mr. Roosevelt noted that the road from ditchline to ditchline would still have to be within the 30 foot prescribed easement. Mr. Payne stated that slope easements might be more favorable with the adjacent owners, because they -would just allow the easement to slope, to allow for maintenance of the road. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he felt sure the Highway Department would not bear the cost for the additional right-of-way. Mr. Lee, the developer of Riverside, stated that he doesn't feel he has the legal right or the capital to improve Rt. 785. Mr. Amato stated that he would be willing to met with Mr. Lee and the adjacent property owners to see if any agreement can be reached concerning the road. Mrs. Graves asked it` :.here are suitable building sites on these lots because of the slope. Mr. McCann noted that the Health Department will have to approved each lot individually for septic. Mr. Carr, an adjacent owner, stated that he feels the members of the Planning Commission should look at the roads before a decision is made on these subdivisions. Mrs. Graves moved for deferral of both items for one week. Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Col. Washington stated that he would like to see some figures for public water and he would like the applicant's to consider a higher density. Mrs. Graves stated that she would like to see a slope analysis for Riverside. There was no further discussion. JIM PRICE CHEVROLET AMENDED SITE PLAN (CONT. Ms. Holowinsky, the applicant's representative was present. There were no comments from the Commission. Mr. McCann moved for approval of the site plan as shown. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. CHARLES HURT FINAL PLAT - proposed division of one acre from larger parcel; located on Route 250 approximately ? mile east of Route 20. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Tom Sinclair, the applicant's 257 DOUBLE C CORPORATION AMENDED SITE PLAN - proposed alteration of the building site; located on the north side of Rio Road (Route 631) just west of Route 29. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Ron Carter, the applicant, was present. Col. Washington asked Mr. Gaston if there isn't sufficient landscaping on -site or the landscape is not being maintained. (condition 4) Mr. Gaston stated that the landscaping is not being maintained. Mr. Carter noted that he did not have any problems with any of the conditions, except for condition 1. He stated that he does not wish to change the drainage pipe because he noted the Highway Department has approven plans for the same type of drainage pipe he now has installed. Mr. Roosevelt stated that the Highway Department is requesting the 15 inch pipe because when the grading of property takes place when Rio Road is upgraded, the Highway Department will then have to construct additonal storm sewers to conrol the drainage. Mrs. Crenshaw, an adjacent owner, stated that the drainage from this property has ruined the road entering a trailer court, that she owns. She noted that the water drainage is so bad on the western side of the property that red dirt stands in the applicant's parking lot. Mr. Carter stated that the road to Mrs. Crenshaw's property has deteroiated over a period of several years. He also noted that Mrs. Crenshaw's road is a private road that has not been maintained. Mrs. Diehl moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Show and install 15 inch drainage pipe along Rio Road as shown on previously approved plans; 2. Show and replace railroad ties with concrete curbing as noted by the County Engineer; 3. Show culvert pipe and rip -rap for drainage from new parking stalls as recommended by the County Engineer; 4. Note tha all landscaping shall be maintained, and in a healthy condition, and replaced immediately if it should die. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. PINERIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT - proposed division of 99+ acres into 21 lots with an average lot size of 4.7 acres; located west off Route 785 and north of Route 649. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Ms. Holowinsky and Mr. Steve Amato, the applicant's representatives, were present. Mr. Gaston read the Service Authority and the Highway Department comments from site review meeting, as follows: Service Authority comments: "The economics of serving this subdivision with Z�, 0 public water should be considered. Water is available along Profit Road and extends a short distance along State Route 785. Also obtaining water from U. S. Route 29 should be considered." Highway Department comments: "We would recommend that the lots shown as A-J be incorporated with this subdivision plat. Route 785 from Route 649 out to this site as well as its entire frontage is in need of improvement. The 1978 count taken on this section listed approximately 200 vehicle trips per day. This subdivision will generate and additional 200. Plan and profiles should be developed for Route 785 indicating a proper design for this road. The entrance as currently shown does not have adequate sight distance on the existing road." Mr. Gaston noted to the Commission they may wish to consider Pineridge Preliminary Plat and Riverside Preliminary Plat together, because of adjacent locations. Ms. Holowinsky stated that the estimated cost of bringing public water to Pineridge would be $4,000.00 per lot, running water lines along the shortest route. She noted that she had spoken to Mr. Cortez, Fire Prevention Officer, and he had agreed that this would not be a reasonable cost. Ms. Holowinsky also noted that lots A-J are recorded lots. Mrs. Diehl asked the distance from the subdivision to the paved portion of Rt. 785. Mr. Coburn stated that it is .2 miles. Mrs. Diehl asked the width of the highway Department's right-of-way. Col. Washington asked the applicant's reason for such large -.lot size. Mr. Amato -stated the reason for larger lots was to blend the subdivision in with other residential lots in the area. Mr. Amato also noted that it will cost approximately $42,000 to $50,000 for the private roads in the subdivision and providing public water and sewer will cost approximately $90,000. Mr. McCann stated that he would like to know the estimated cost per lot if Pineridge and Riverside shared the expense of providing water and sewer. Mr. Sinclair, the representative for Riverside, stated that the basic problem with providing a centralized public water system is the cost of water line for such larger lots. Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like to see some additional estimates and some base figures before taking any action on these items. Mr. Smith, an adjacent owner, stated that the only objection he would have to either subdivision is the additional traffic. Mr. Smith noted that the road is not wide enough to carry the additional traffic. and the road is not a state maintained road. Mr. Roosevelt, Highway Department, stated that the Highway Department has a 30 foot prescribed easement, which is similar to a power easement. He noted that there isn't any dedicated right-of-way. Mr. Smith stated that the road actually runs through his property. He noted that three school buses have wrecked on this road and there have been numerous automobile accidents. representative, was present and had no comments. There were no comments from the Commission. Mr. McCann moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Central water is provided; 2. Health Department approval; 3. Access only to Hansen Road 100 foot right-of-way. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further comments. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Gaston passed out information on tolerable or non -tolerable roads and he also provided the Commission with school bus and postal delivery policies on private roads. Resolution of Intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for Commission review of all subdivisions in urban area. This item was deferred. Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance (Article 17) to provide for administrative approval of minor site plan amendments. This item was deferred. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m. M 19