Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 13 79 PC MinutesFebruary 13, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting, Tuesday, February 13, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Layton McCann; Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Jim Skove; and Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman. Those members absent were Mr. James Huffman and Dr. James Moore. Other Officials present were Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistnat Director of Planning; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; 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. WAVERLY SUBDIVISION PLAT Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Bain,,andtMr. Lincoln, the applican*t's.representatives, were present. Mr. Roger Davis, the applicant, was also present. Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from discussion on this item. Mr. Skove moved to reopen the public dicussion. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Bain stated that the Staff recommends approval of this subdivision based on its compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. He noted that his clients feel this subdivision does comply with the Ordinance subject to the conditions of approval and should be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bain also commented that regarding the Commission's concern about the condition of the road, none of the secondary roads in Albemarle County are adequate according to the Highway Department's figures. Mr. Summers, an adjacent owner, stated that the size of this subdivision would Odd an additional burden to Rt. 614, which is currently substandard. He noted that there is a water problem is this area, which would be compounded by this subdivision (in wet summers creeks dry up to a trickle). Mr. Summers stated that he feels the Rivanna Service Authority would be very concerned about the run-off into the Mechum's River caused by the subdivision. He further stated that the Planning Commission needs to determine how this subdivision will the affect the general welfare of the County. Mr. Roy Harris, an adjacent owner, stated that he is concerned with the incompatibility of a 73 lot subdivision in a rural area. He stated that the Commission should consider the problems with the run-off from this site 20 years from now. Mr. Harris stated that he would advise the applicant's to consider resubmitting a plan with lots of 5 acres. Mrs. Deihl asked why the Staff dropped their recommendation for state roads. Miss Caperton stated that the applicants agreed to have snow removal included in thair maintenance agreement and the roads will be built close to state standards. Mrs. Diehl stated that this subdivision has over 35 lots and aren't state roads required over 35 lots. 1� Mr. Tucker stated that state roads are not required, but it is required that they are built to state standards. Mr. Skove asked if the developer has to provide proof that the soils, in the subdivision, can handle septic systems. Mr. Tucker stated that the Ordinance does not require proof of this unless the there is a subdivision of 25 lots or more with 2.00 acre lots. Mrs. Diehl asked if -proof that the lots can handle a septic system can be required. Mr. Keeler stated that since this subdivision is located within the watershed the Health Department would require a soil study before approval is given. Col. Washington noted that there is a problem along Rt. 614 of the shoulder crumbling because of a lack of base. He asked Mr. Coburn if anything can be done to alleviate this problem. Mr. Coburn stated that this is a difficult problem to remedy within the existing right-of-way, without overlaying the existing pavement. Mrs. Diehl asked if there are any other problems with the road, other than the width. Mr. Coburn stated that the width of Rt. 614 is not adequate. Mr. Coburn stated that the Highway Department has widened Rt. 601 to its intersection with Rt. 614, which has caused the traffic to speed up. Mr. Coburn noted that the best means of maintaining Rt. 614-is to repave the road with asphalt. He stated that the bridge across the river has been reconstructed and the approaches. are adequate..to handle the traffic. Mr. Skove asked if the Commission can deny a subdivision because it is not compatible with the area. Mr. Payne noted that the only way the Commission can deny a subdivision is if for some reason it does not comply with the requirments in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to explain the following: Section 18-14. Mutual responsibility "There is a mutual responsibility between the county and the subdivider to divide and develop land in an orderly manner in accordance with the intent of the comprehensive plan." Mr. Payne stated that if the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend this type of development in a rural areagthen the Subdivision Ordinance needs to be amended to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Graves stated that problems with roads come up with each subdivision. She noted that if there is not enough road frontage or there are several entrances on a road you will have problems, which are intangible. She noted that overcrowding of schools is also intangible and she is aware that the Meriwether school district could be redistricted. Mrs. Graves stated that she does object to the contours and soil of this subdivision. She stated that she feels this subdivision has lots that can not be built upon because of slopes and problems with locating septic fields. Mrs. Graves noted that she had talked with a gentleman from the Soil Conservation Service and they were concerned with the drainage and the septic systems in this subdivision. She stated that she could not support this plan until some of these questions have been answered. Mr. Davis, the applicant, stated he has contacted a soil scientist, to do a soil /.5 study, but was informed that this could not be done until lot lines have been established. Mr. Lincoln, the applicant's representative, noted that his firm had a soil scientist out on the site and 3 holes had been bored on 6 lots. He noted that the soil scientist did not run into any problems. He noted that lots 25, 22, 21, and 32, were among the lots drilled on. He noted that he feels there are suitable sites for spetic systems. Col. Washington stated that if each lot is considered separately for run-off control and soil erosion wouldn't this change the amount of measures that need to be taken to prevent run -off - Mr. Keeler stated that the amount of imprevious area (5%) would equal the same amount whether each lot is considered separately or as a whole. Mrs. Diehl stated that she believes several of the lots need to have soil studies to determine if they are viable lots. Mr. Skove asked if the future purchaser has any way of knowing -.if a lot has a suitable site for a septic field. Mr. Davis, the applicant, stated that it is his understanding that t-o Health Department approvals are required. Once when the plat is ,approved by the Planning Commission and again when the lot is sold. Mr. McCann moved for approval. Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like to see soil studies prior to taking action on this subdivision. Mr. Keeler stated the Commission normally approves a final plat subject to Health Department approval, but if the Commission choses Health Department approval can be required prior to the final plat going before the Commisssion. Mr. Vest stated that he would have to support a motion for approval, because all the applicable data has been supplied and can see no reason not to approve this subdivision. Mr. Skove stated that the fault is with the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances, because they do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that this subdivision has all of the required technical data and the Commission has no choice but to approve it. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicants would consider 5 acre lots around the perimeter of the subdivision. Mr. Lincoln noted that this.would recluire using•up many good home sites in order to have 5.acre lots..around.the perimeter of the subdivision. Mrs. Graves called for the question. The motion failed with,a vote of 3-3. Mrs. Graves; Mrs. Diehl; and Col. Washington dissented. Mrs. Diehl stated that she feels very strongly about the critical slopes, but if slope studies are done to establish whether suitable building sites are availble she would be willing to reconsider this subdivision again. Mrs. Graves stated that she is concerned with the slopes and pollutants running off into the reservoir. �P Col. Washington stated that he could support a motion to approve this plat with 30 continguous lots all adjacent to Waverly Drive. He noted that if the applicants are willing to provide soil studies for this subdivision it would help them reach a decision concerning whether to approve the remainding portion of the subdivision. Mrs. Graves moved for denial until the developer can bring in a plat with some of the Commission's concerns answered. Mrs. Graves withdrew her motion. Mrs. Diehl moved for denial for the following reason: "The topography of the plat, in question, includes many critical slopes. We do not have the benefit of detailed soil studies and as the critical slope areas may endanger public health, safety, and welfare we therefore move for denial until soil studies are done to the Commission's satisfaction." Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which failed with a vote of 3-3. Mr. Skove; Mr. Vest; and Mr. McCann dissented. Mr. Payne stated that the simplest solution would be to defer this item, but the applicant has the choice of taking this plat before the Board of Supervisors. He noted that another alternative would be to amend Mr. McCann's motion to include additional conditions of approval. Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could approve a portion and deny the remaining lots, but they would have to give specific reasons for this alternative. He noted that the applicants could withdraw; the preliminary plat and submit a final plat. Mr. Payne finally noted that the Commission could take no action, but the applicant always has the choice of taking this matter to the Circuit Court. Mr. McCann stated that reasons for denial have been stated and will probably NAW only accomplish changing lot lines. He noted that this is not going to make much difference in what the Commission will see when this plat returns. Mrs. Graves moved to reconsider the Waverly Subdivision. Mr. McCann seconded the motion„ which carried unanimously. Mr. McCann moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Run-off Control Ordinance and Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance and improvements on Route 614; 3. County Engineering Department and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans; 4. Written Health Department approval; 5. Compliance with private road requirements; 6. Soil studies to determine the suitability of septic drainfields to be provided by a soil scientist approved by the Health Department. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 4-0-2. Mrs. Graves and Mrs. Diehl abstained. There was no further discussion. 9 / F' NORTHWEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ELDERCARE GARDENS FINAL PLAT - located off the north side of Commonwealth Drive; plat showing street dedication and property of the Eldercare Gardens. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Sinclair, represented the applicant and had no comments. There was no discussion among the Commission. Mr. McCann moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the road plans; 2. Commercial entrance approval for Northwest Drive; 3. Fee of $40.00 due. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS_TO ROUTE 29 NORTH Mr. Jack Paige, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, made the presentation. Mr. Paige noted that the Rt. 29 corridor from Rt. 250/Rt. 29 Bypass to the Greene County line is divided into four sections: They are as follows: Rt. 250 Bypass to north Charlottesville City Limits; north Charlottesville City Limits to Rio Road; Rio Road to the South Fork of the Rivanna River, and the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the Greene County line. Mr. Paige stated the proposed improvements for each section as follows: Rt. 250 Bypass to Charlottesville City Limits (Hydraulic Road): This section of Rt. 29 would be treated as an urban street. The existing Rt. 29 roadway should be upgraded to a six -lane divided facility accomodate this type of traffic. Rt. 29 should be widened to including curb and gutter. There are three existing crossovers within this portion which should be closed to improve traffic operations and safety. Crossover #1, Angus Road should be closed to reduce turning conflicts at the intersection of Angus and Rt. 29. Crossover #2 should be closed in order to prevent turning conflicts with through traffic. This crossover currently serves only U-turns. Crossover #3 should be closed. This cross- over serves a drive-in theater and a motel, both of which have access from Hydraulic Road. Closing this crossover will reduce turning conflicts and improve the traffic flow and safety of the roadway. Crossover #4, Hydraulic Road, should remain open. Projected traffic counts for the year 2000 indicate that an interchange will be required at this intersection. Due to the existing development in all intersection quadrants, an interchanc should be considered unlikely at this time. The best solution at this time would be to upgrade the existing intersection, which may include dual left turns and free -flow right turn lanes at appropriate locations. Charlottesville City Limits (Hydraulic Road) to Rio Road: This section of Rt. 29 should be developed to six -lanes divided by curb and gutter constructed within existing right- of-way. In addition, a corrdinated signal system should be installed. These signals should be located at Hydraulic Road, Sperry Rand northern entrance, Greenbrier Drive, proposed Branchlands entrance, Shopper's World/Fashion Square south entrance, Fashion Square northern entrance, and Rio Road. At these intersections, right and left turn lanes should be provided, where needed, dual left and free -flow right turn lanes should also be provided. Right turn lanes should be provided at Berkmar Drive, Dominion Drive, Westfield Drive, Sperry Rand entrance, and Stromberg Carlson entrance for southbound traffic. The existing development along the northbound lane from the Post Office to the Branchlands crossover indicates the need for a continuous right turn decelaration/ accelarat on lane. The Peyton tract should have a single access at the Sperry Rand traffic signal., A right turn lane is needed along the Kmart property and the southern entrance to Kmart should be closed. Branchlands should have direct connections to Rio. Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rt. 29 at the Branchlands signalized intersections and a righ turn only connection north of Westfield Drive. There are 8 crossovers (#5-#12) within this section of Rt. 29. Crossovers #5,6,10,11, and 12 would be signalized. Crossover #7 should be closed. Crossover #9 provides access to Dominion Drive. A signal is not recommended because of the spacing between the traffic signals at Branchlands and Shopper's World/Fashion Square is not sufficient. If the crossover at Dominion Drive becomes a source of accidents or causes operational problems, the crossover should be closed and a connection from Commonwealth Drive to Berkmar Drive be constructed. As traffic volumes increase along Rt. 29, the amount of turning traffic at the intersection of Rio Raod and Rt. 29 will also increase. If this volume of traffic exceeds the inter- sections's maximum capacity, an interchange will be required. If an.interchange is constructed at Rio Road, the northern entrance to Fashion Square will have to be closed. Rio Road to South Fork of the Rivanna River: This section of Rt. 29 should be developed to six -lanes with curb and gutter, as development occurs. An additional lane serving as a turning lane should be added where needed. This segment of Rt. 29 contains 6 crossovers (#13-#18). The crossover serving Albemarle Square Shopping Center should remain open unless the location causes operational or safety problems or if the Rio Road intersection is upgraded to an interchange. The crossover at Woodbrook Drive should be reconstructed to allow for two-way operations. Crossovers 15 and 16 should be closed to allow for adequate spacing between crossovers. A new crossover (#17) should be constructed to serve the Carrsbrook area and any existing and future development west of Rt. 29. The enterchange for the Western Bypass is located on the south side of the river and to the west of Rt. 29. This proposed enterchange would close crossover #18, which is used for U-turning traffic. After the construction of the Bypass, the existing northbound lanes would serve as a service road for the adjacent properties east of Rt. 29. South Fork of the Rivanna River to the Greene County Line: This section of Rt. 29 should be six lanes divided, but the additional lanes should be added as development occurs and would initially serve as turning lanes. Crossovers, along this section of Rt. 29, should be located at sites which provide adequate sight distance with a minimum spacing of 1,250 feet. Major access to Rt. 29 should be oriented to the established crossovers, and entrances should be discourage within 500 feet of a crossover. If additional crossovers are constructed they should have a minimum of 1,250 feet of spacing and may require substantial regrading of the mainline. There are 28 crossovers in this section of Rt. 29. Crossover #19 - should be closed. This crossover serves as a U-turn for Rt. 643. Crossover #20 - should be closed. This crossover should be closed in order to provide adequate spacing between crossovers. Crossover #21 - should be closed. This crossover serves only U-turns and does not have adequate sight distance. Crossover #22 - should remain open. Crossover #23 - should remain open. Crossover #24 - should be closed. This crossover has inadequate sight distance. Crossover #25 - should remain open. Crossover #26 - should be closed. This crossover has inadequate sight distance and serves only U-turns. Crossover #27 - should be closed. This crossover has inadequate sight distance and serves only U-turns only, Crossover #28 - should be reconstructed to replace crossover #27. A crossover at this location would provide better spacing and would serve future development . too close to . on_both sides of Rt. 29. Crossover #29 -'should be closed. This crossover 1SThis crossovertserves primarilysUctu�n- and has inadequate sight Crossover #30 - should remain open to serve Rt. 649. Crossover #31 - should remain open. Crossover #32 - should remain open. Crossover #33 - should be closed. This crossover serves U-turns and does not have adequate sight distance. Crossover #34 - should remain open. provide for spacing Crossover #35 - serves a commercial enterprise, but should be closed to p and sight distance. Crossover #36 - should remain open. Crossover #37 - should remain open. ossover should be closed to maintain adequate Crossover #38 - should be closed. This cr crossover spacing. to Crossover #39 - should remain open. This crosThisoceossoverdwillabe the openmajor eaccess tpoint development along for the GE plant. Crossover #40 - should remain open. Crossover #41 - should be closed to maintain adequate spacing of crossovers. Crossover #42 - should be closed to maintain adequate spacing of crossovers. Crossover #43 - should be closed to maintain adequate spacing of crossovers. Crossover #44 - should remain open. In crssover Crossover #45 - should be closed. aThis eospacinghof crossovers thisas inadequate crossover distance. crossovershould be order to maintain closed. Crossover #46 - should remain open. Mr. Paige summarized the Highway Department's pcs resentation as follows: This corridor thin the study is designed to provide a progressiono fprojerelievetthelaccompanied•29 highwayrcongeto stion. accommodate the future growth in traffic andCity The first priority is the interconnected gnal system intersectionnimprovementsaonoRteS2g11eCharlot- Limits to Rio Road. The second priority is tesville City Limits to Rio Road and widen Rt. 29 to six lanes with additional turn lanes where needed - Charlottesville City Limits to Rio Road. The third priority crossovers with adequate sight distance er crossoveaovide swith uadequate.sight distanceth Fork of the RivannaRivsouth The fourth priority is to prowlP Priority Fork of the Rivanna River to theG�henRivannaYRiver•The to sixflanaspprovidingstuornwlanesRt 29 from Rio Road to South Fork ofRio where needed. The sixth priority warrantedsandctherseventharated priorritytisctonwidentRtt. 29 to Road and Airport/Profitt R , to y cts six lanes - South Fork of theBRinofRiver29 a the Greene C are developed with a Western Bypass as major key projects for the corridor. If these major facilities are not built, the level of service throughout ltethatrtheseidor will recommendati ns aredeteriorate maximumeven reasonableseven priorities listed. It is felt ass and the Residents improvements that can -be accomplished with or without the Western Bypass Collector. Mr. Dorrier asked where the funds for these projects are'com ng from. Mr. Paige stated that the Highway Department will need to get a committment from the Board of Supervisors on this �)ropdsal or coney similar ir.V,Order" to- determine an estimated cost and from where: the funds will come. There was no futher discussion: C,?D NEW BUSINESS: Request for resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for Commission review of all subdivisions in the urban area. Mr. Tucker noted that the public is not aware of the Commission's verbal policy of reviewing all subdivisions in the urban area. He noted that this has caused problems with individuals bringing plats in to be administrative) a must go before the Commission. Y pproved and being informed they Mr. McCann stated that he was unaware of this policy. Mr. Tucker noted that these plats have been coming before the Commission for the past six months. Mrs. Graves stated that by amending the Subdivision Ordinance this will guarantee that the Commission wiil.see these subdivisions. Mr. Gloeckner moved for a resolution of intent. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Request for resolution of intent to amend Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for administrative annrnuAi of minor site plan amendments. Mr. Tucker noted that if Staff is allowed to administratively approval minor amendments to the site plans, it would prevent these items from coming to the Commission and would save time involved with this. ' Mrs. Diehl moved for a resolution of intent. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Request for resolution of intent to amend Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance and the .Land Subdivision and 'Devel®pment Ordinance; to,4ncrease €he:n from 10 copies to zu copies. umbe-LOf r ri.4s submitted Mr. Tucker noted that this amendment would allow for copies of items submitted to be available to the Commission members prior to meetings. Mr. Vest moved for a resolution of intent. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion Mrs. Graves stated that she would like to see resolutions of intent to include a member of the Soil Conservation Service on the Site Plan Review Committee and to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for subdivisions going before the Site Review Committee. Mrs. Diehl moved for a resolution of intent to include a member of Conservation Service on the Site Review Committee. the Soil a/ M Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Mrs. Graves moved for a resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to require that subdivision go before the site review committee. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Col. Washington informed the members of the Commission that he had drafted a letter to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Planning Commission's desire to rewrite the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that he feels the Commission needs some guidance from the Board of Supervisors concerning this matter. Col. Washington further noted that he believes by.the.fi.rst of March:the.Commis_sion will.be able to giveztheir,recommendations concerning the Proposed.Zoning Ordinance.to the.Board,of.Supervisors. . � The Planning Commission discussed the status of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance and utilities as related to the Proposed Ordinance. There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. -- Secretary I� 19