Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 20 79 PC MinutesFebruary 20, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting, Tuesday, February 20, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Col. William Washington; Chairman; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Vice -Chairman; Mr. Jim Skove; and Dr. James Moore. Those members absent were Mr. Layton McCann and Mrs. Joan Graves. Other Officials present were 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 December 19, 1978, January 30, 1979, and February 5, 1979 were approved as corrected. The minutes of January 22, 1979 and January 24, 1979 were approved as written. WOOD PRELIMINARY PLAT - deferred from January 23, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Bolton, the applicant, was present. Mr. Payne disqualified himself from discussion on this item. Mr. Gaston noted that the additional information which was requested by the Planning Commission on January 23, 1979, has been supplied. He noted that the conditions of approval remain the same. Mr. Bolton stated that he would like the right-of-way to remain in its existing location, because the topo in this area is better suited for a road. He noted that he does not wish to establish a joint entrance with the adjoining parcel. Mr. Bolton further noted that he has received Highway Department and Health Department approval, at this time. Mr. Skove asked if the only reason the Staff is requesting a joint entrance is in case the adjoining parcel developes similarly. Mr. Gaston stated that it is the Staff's opinion that one entrance would better serve the two lots. Mr. Huffman stated that since Mr. Bolton does not have control over the adjacent property and has expressed, no desire to purchase this property and also because of a stream located on the adjacent property, he moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval; 2. Comply with private road ordinance. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. c;;�3 PINERIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT - deferred from January 23, 1979 Planning Commission meeting Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Amato, the applicant's represent- ative, was present. Mr. Gaston presented the County Engineer's estimates on the cost of installing public wateron this and the adjoining subdivision (Riverside). Individual wells - cost per lot - $2,000 - $2,500 (each subdivision individually) - cost per lot - $1,800 - $2,000 (subdivisions jointly) Public water - cost per lot - $4,478 (subdivisions as proposed and including lots A thru J) - cost per'lot - $3,447 (subdivisions with a 2.5 acre average lot size) - cost per lot - $1,828 (subdivisions with 40,000 square feet average lot size) Mr. Amato stated that it was his impression that the Commission's main concern was the condition of Rt. 785 and its ability to handle the additional traffic generated by this subdivision. He noted that if the density is lowered to decrease the cost of installing public water facilities then the usage on Rt. 785 will be increased. Mr. Amato stated that this, as well as, keeping the subdivision compatible with other development in the area were the reasons for the larger lot sizes. He noted that with an additional cost of $4,478 per lot, to install public water, the price of the lots would increase to the point they could not be sold. He noted that with the cost of improving the road, install public water, and other on -site improvements would cost about $135,000, which is over half of what the property is asseted at ($225,000). Mr. Amato stated that he had met with the property owners on Rt. 785 and they all expressed an interest in seeing Rt. 785 improved. He commented that according to the N. J. Crawford plat (original owner of these properties) the Rt. 785 is not in its proper location. He noted that the majority of the owners agreed that if right-of-way is dedicated down the property line they would be willing to dedicated 10 feet to the Highway Department. Mr. Amato noted that he had met with the owner of Riverside and was informed that he does not have the capital to invest in upgrading the Rt. 785 to the standard that has been requested. He noted that the Commission must reach a decision on what is a reasonable amount of upgrading needed to satisfy the property owners. Mr. Heinz, an adjacent owner, stated that if right-of-way is dedicated along the property lines instead of the dedication favoring one man's property then the owners along Rt. 785 would not have any objections to the road being upgraded. Mr. Smith, an adjacent owner, stated that he agrees with Mr. Heinz and feels something should be done to improve this road before any action is taken to increase the traffic flow. Mr. Cohen, an adjacent owner, noted that he is concerned with the long term effects of road improvements. He noted that the Highway Department has done a very poor job of maintaining the road upon which he lives. He stated that he is concerned with how much of the road Mr. Amato's clients will have to upgrade and will the state maintain this portion of the road. Mr. Cohen also noted that he feels the complete road is a concern. Mr. Heinz stated that property owners along the road who own tractors have been plowing the roadway. He also stated that the Highway Department usually plows Rt. 785 after all other county roadways have been cleared. Mr. Amato stated that his clients are willingly to improve Rt. 785 to a reasonable point, but can not bear the expense of improving Rt. 785 by themselves. He noted that he feels the Highway Department should share the cost of having Rt. 785 T upgraded. Col. Washington asked if at the last meeting Mr. Roosevelt, Highway Department, stated that at one time the Highway Department had the funds to upgrade Rt.785, but several of the property owners, along the roadway, would not agree to dedicate the additional right- of-way needed. Mr. Gaston stated that this is correct. Dr. Moore asked what would be the Highway Department's position if the developer agreed to bearing the cost for a portion of the work to upgrade Rt. 785. Mr. Gaston stated that he could not speak for the Highway Department, but possibly the developer and the Highway Department could work out an agreement where_each..would bear some of the cost. Mr. Amato stated that he feels there is a substantial agreement among the landowners, to dedicated the right-of-way needed, if the dedication is made along the property lines. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval; 2. Frontage improvements to including curbing and vertical and horizonal improvements approved by County Engineer; 3. Re -name private roads and comply with private road ordinance. Col. Washington stated that in the past the Commission has approved subdivisions with parcels cut-off from the subdivision, and considered residue, which left very little frontage along the highway for improvements. He noted that full frontage development had been required, on these subdivisions. Mr. Skove stated that he does feel the Commission should approve this subdivision unless the State maintains this road. Dr. Moore noted that this road seems to be too inadequate to handle the additional traffic that would be generated by this subdivision. Mr. Vest stated that he feels this road should be brought up to state standards, which would be tothebenefit of everyone involved. Mrs. Diehl asked if the Commission could require that right-of-way be dedicated, in order to bring Rt. 785 up to state standards. Mr. Payne noted that the applicant does not have the authority to dedicate any right-of-way, except along his frontage, unless he can persuade the other owners to do so. i4r•.< Huffman seconded, the motion, which failed with a vote of 2-5. Col. Washington, Mrs. Diehl, Dr. Moore, Mr. Vest, and Mr. Skove dissented. Mr. Skove moved for denial, because the access to this subdivison and the one adjacent, on Rt. 785, would cause conditions that are injurious to the public safety in that the traffic generated by this development on Rt. 785 would be such that they exceed the limits of prudent safety. Dr. Moore seconded the motion. a5 Mr. Payne suggested the following would make this subdivision approvalable: This subdivision will be approval if the condition of the road including the width of the right-of-way is,sufficent to make the road reasonably adequate for the traffic existing on it and to be added by the proposed subdivision - The Commission accepted Mr. Payne's statement. Mr. Skove's motion carried with a vote of 5-2, with no further discussion. RIVERSIDE PRELIMINARY PLAT - deferred from January 23, 1979 Planning Commission meeting Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Lee, the applicant, and Mr. Sinclair his representative were present. Dr. Moore noted that the map shows Rt. 785 crossing a river, but he thought the road came to a deadend. Mr. Cohen, an adjacent property owner, noted that the road does deadend. He stated there is an old road, which appears to have been abandoned for at least 15-20 years, that goes on further. Mr. Lee stated that he is willing to comply with the Commission's wishes, but he does not have the capital to invest in improving Rt. 785. Mr. Van Derveer, an adjacent owner, stated that he is concerned because the topo in,this subdivision is not suited for development. He noted that at one time he was interested in purchasing this property, but did not because of the topo. He further noted that Rt. 785 is in very poor condition and could not handle the amount of traf- fic that would be generated by this development. Mr. Sinclair stated that he believes the road is the main concern of the Commission and this is one of the reasons the developer would rather not provide public water. Col. Washington stated that he feels the Commission should not treat Pineridge any different than Riverside. Dr. Moore moved for denial. (Same reason for denial as Riverside) Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Col. Washington stated that it has always been his estimation that the Highway Department will never admit that a road is dangerous. Mr. Skove stated that if there is a history of school bus wrecks on a road, he would believe the road is unsafe. The motion carried with a vote of 5-2. Mr. Huffman and Mr. Gloeckner dissented. There was no further discussion. WAVERTREE HALL FARM FINAL PLAT - proposed redivision of 20 lots with minimum lot size of 2.0 acres and located west between the intersection of Routes 672 and 637. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. representative, was present. Mr. Foster, the applicant's a6 Col. Washington noted that he felt since the rezoning requests on this plat had not been acted upon by the Board, maybe the Commission should defer action on this item. Mr. Gaston stated that this plat is to prevent a lapse in time, in case the Board should deny both of the rezoning requests. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the plat looked straight forward. Mrs. Diehl asked if this plat was the same as the rezoning request (ZMA-79-02) that the Commission had recommended that the Board deny. Mr. Gaston stated that he is not familiar with the rezoning request. Mr. Gloeckner stated that this subdivision plat is another alternative that the applicant will have, depending upon the Board's action. Col. Washington stated that he personally would rather not take any action on this plat until the Board had acted on the previous requests. Mrs. Diehl asked if deferring this item for one week would be a problem. Mr. Foster stated that he doesn't see any problem with bringing the plat back in a week, but he doesn't feel it should come back to the Commission next week. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval for lots 5-15 and 16-23 and 14A: 1. Comply with private road ordinance including: (a) maintenance agreement; (b) County Engineer approval; (c) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval. Conditions of Approval for lot 14A only: 1. Waiver of scale; 2. Health Department approval. Conditions for lots 5-15 and 16-23 only: 1. These amended plats are conditioned on the denial of the amendment to the RPN and the rezoning to A-1. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 5-2. Col. Washington and Mrs. Diehl dissented. There was no further discussion. NORTHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD FINAL PLAT - proposed division of 20.452 acres into 8 lots with 2.557 acres average lot size; located southwest off Route 600 just south of Route 747. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Graff, the applicant's representa- tive, was present. Mr. Graff noted that the County Engineer has approved road plans for this subdivision (condition la.). C>?J2' There was no discussion amoung the Commission. Mrs. Diehl moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Comply with private road ordinance including: (a) road plans approved by County Engineer; (b) maintenance agreement (same as for lots 1 and 2). Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. ASHMERE FINAL PLAT - Lots 6-21 proposed division of 124.99 acres into 17 lots with average lot size of 5.72 acres; located west off Route 729 and south of Route 732. Mr. Gaston represented the applicant. Mr. Foster, the applicant's representative, was present. Col. Washington asked the status of Rt. 729. Mr. Gaston noted that the turn lane has been constructed and the road up to the property line of the subdivision has been constructed. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Comply with private road ordinance including: (a) maintenance agreement (same as for lots of previous final plat); (b) County Engineer approval of road plans and grading permit. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Col. Washington noted that he is concerned that lots are being put to record, along the frontage of a parcel, and leaving no control over the frontage. He noted that in these situations the Commission can not required the necessary frontage improvements to upgrade the roads. There was no further discussion. STEPHEN GELLETLY FINAL PLAT - lots A, B, C - proposed division of 3 lots from 14.63 acres with average lot size of 4.87 acres; located west off Route 729 south of Route 732. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Foster, the applicant's representa- tive, was present. Mr. Foster stated that he feels his client would object to condition #1 (frontage improvements), because of the cost involved for a 2 lot subdivision. Mr. Skove asked what is the total frontage on lot B, on Rt. 729. Mr. Gaston stated that the frontage is a little over 1,000 feet. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions: 129 1. Private entrance permit as required from Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; 2. Health Department approval; 3. Comply with private road ordinance. Mr. Huffman stated that if frontage improvement (shoulder at 15 feet, ditch at 18 feet) are standard requirements of the Highway Department he would have to support them. Mr. Gaston read the Highway Department's site review comments (letter of February 8, 1979) into the record, as follows: "Entrance location shown, while the best along the property does not have adequate sight distance for commercial standards. Grading along the slope across Route 729 to the south would be required to improve the sight distance. If this can be accomplished and the plan approved we recommend that frontage improvements to Route 729 be required placing the shoulder break point at 15 feet from existing center line of the road, with the ditch at 18 feet." Col. Washington .asked how much sight distance does the proposed entrance have. Mr. Foster stated that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation measured the entrance and found that there was not enough sight distance for a commercial entrance. He noted that the applicant is asking for approval of the existing private entrance. Mr. Gloeckner noted that the applicant could redraw this plat and it would not have to come before the Commission, but he also stated that if this plat did not come before the Commission they could not get the 30 foot dedication. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which failed with a vote of 3-4. Mr. Huffman, Col. Washington, Mrs. Diehl, and Mr. Skove dissented. Mrs. Diehl moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Frontage improvements of Rt. 729 placing the shoulder break point at 15 feet from centerline with the ditch at 18 feet from the centerline; 2. Private entrance permit as required from Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; 3. Health Department approval; 4. Comply with private road ordinance. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Mr. Gloeckner noted again that this plat does not need to come before the Commission and the only reason it is before the Commission is because of a joint access easement. Mr. Gaston noted that the staff tries to structure conditions of approval around Site Review comments but in this particular case he believes Mr. Gloeckner is correct. Mr. Payne stated that since both lots are over 5 acres and have 120 feet road frontage, he doesn't know why this subdivision is before the Commission. Mr. Payne noted that if the Commission takes action on this plat the only effective action they would be taking is to approve the easement dedication. He stated that this is not a subdivisions under the terms of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mrs. Diehl withdrew her motion. Dr. Moore moved for approval with the acceptance of the dedication. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussioi NO, IGA Crozet Addition Site Plan - proposed expansion of existing food store; located north off Route 240 east of Route 810 in Crozet. Mr. Gaston noted that the applicant has requested deferral until March. Mr. Vest moved for deferral. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. DAGLIESH. /DRAKE FINAL PLAT - proposed division of 27.751 acres into 2 parcels of 13+ acres each located northwest off Route 776 and south of the Buck Mountain Creek. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Dalgliesh,_ the applicant, was present. Col. Washington noted that this subdivision is near the area that the.Comprehensive Plan recommends as a new water supply for the County. Mr. Dalgliesh stated that he is concerned about the Highway Department's plans for the road. He noted that this portion of the property does flood and he is concerned that if the grade of the road is raised it could have hazardous affects on the drainage. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval; 2. Dedicate 25 feet from centerline along entire road frontage of Rt. 776; 3. Show 10 foot reservation beyond road dedication to allow for future road improvements to Rt. 776; No building within the 10 foot reserved easement; 4. Comply with private road ordinance including: a) maintenance agreement; b) County Engineer approval. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. Col. Washington asked the applicant what is his proposed use for the property. Mr. Dagliseh stated that he and Mr. Drake brought this property jointly, in order to build residents upon it. Mr. Gloeckner's motion for approval carried unanimously, with no further discussion. CLIFFORD NAPIER FINAL PLAT - proposed division of 5.75 acres into 2 parcels of 2.0 acres and 2.75 acres; located at the south east corner of Routes 622 and 773. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Patterson, the applicant's representative was present. Mr. Patterson noted that the applicant would like to subdivide the property to give to his son. He also noted that the applicant has Health and Highway Department approval. Mrs. Diehl moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Lot #2 to enter from Route 773 only; 2. Improvement of Route 773 as recommended and approved by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; 3. Clear owners title. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. BOCOCK FINAL PLAT - division of 222+ acres leaving residue of 400+ acres; located southeast off Skyline Drive north of Beagle Gap. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr.` Lincoln, the applicant's representative, and Mr. Bocock, the applicant, were present. Mr.,Gaston read letters into the record from the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club and the National Parks Service. (attached) Mr. Lincoln stated that the applicant's main concern is with the private road requirements. He noted that Beagle Gap Road is 2.0 miles and serves 6 parcels; 5 of which belong to Mr. Bocock. Mr. Sinclair stated that Mr. Bocock is subdividing the property in order to sell a tract to his cousin. He further noted that it would cost approximately $100,000 to upgrade this road for the use of possibly one residence. Mr. Bocock stated that the Appalachian Trail is in Augusta County. He also noted that there is a reserved easement further down the mountain, which is the Blue Trail. This trail is on a temporary basis. Col. Washington stated that if the private road only involves one individual he can not see where compliance with the private road ordinance is necessary. He noted that this road predates the Civil War and the cost to improve this road would be a burden. Col. Washington suggested that condition #4(comply with private road ordinance) be deleted. Mr. Gaston stated that the Staff's only concern it that the applicant be aware of the importance of this trail. Mr. Payne suggested that condition #2 and #3 should be deleted since the Appalachian Trail is located in Augusta County. Mr. Vest moved for approval with the following condition: 1. Health Department approval. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. NORTH PINES PRELIMINARY PLAT - proposed subdivision of 361+ acres into 131 lots, average lot size 2.63 acres; located on the west side of Route 606 north of the North Fork Rivanna River. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. McKee, the applicant's representa- tive, and Mr. Wendall Wood, the applicant, were present. Mrs. Diehl asked if the increase in the number of lots was due to any recommendations made at site review. Mr. Gaston stated that he was not aware of any such recommendations. Mr. McKee noted that in order to comply with condition #1 (loop road with two entrances) would involve steeper grades and approximately 1000 feet of additional road would need to be constructed. This construction would cost approximately $50.00 per foot. Mr. McKee noted that there is no precedent for two entrances. He commented that he is aware of other subdivisions, that were larger, that have been approved with only one entrance. Mr. McKee also stated that concerning the Staff's recommendation that North Pines be resubmitted as an RPN, that the applicant would rather not follow this recommendation, because the Planning Commission have not been looking upon RPN's favorably. Mr. Skove asked if the construction of the loop would reduce the number of lots. Mr. McKee stated that it would. He noted that most of the lots have suitable building sites. Mrs. Diehl noted that the setbacks are not shown on the slope analysis. Mr. McKee stated that the setback is 75 feet in most areas, except along the cul-de-sac where it is in excess of 75 feet. Col. Washington asked if the applicant has any concept of phasing this development. Mr. Wood stated that Phase I would ba along the border of the property and Phase II would probably be along the cul-de-sac. He noted that he has a contract with a developer for 100 lots, with the possibility that 3 lots per month will be developed. Mr. Wood commented that it would probably take 3 to 5 years to develope the entire subdivision. Mr. Wood noted that hisreasons for not resubmitting this subdivision as an RPN is because it would involve a zoning change which is costly and would be a waste if the RPN is not approved. He also noted that the public is demanding 2 acre lot subdivisions and he is trying to meet this demand. Mr. Skove asked the Staff's reasons for recommending that the road be looped and that there be two entrances to this subdivision. Mr. Gaston stated that basically safety is the concern. He noted that a larger number of lots are being served by only one entrance. The second entrance is mainly to allow for emergency access in the event that one of the entrances should be closed for some reason. Mr. Gaston read the Highway Department's comments from their letter of February 8, 1979 into the record as follows: "Apparently my office has not received requested information concerning the location of the main entrance road nor the property in general adjacent to Route 606. The entrance location needs to be examined for adequate site distance needed for a commercial entrance. A deceleration lane as indicated by the note on the plan will be required, 200 foot, 12 foot wide with a 200 foot taper. We would recommend frontage improvements across Lots 1 and 131 placing the normal shoulder at 15 feet from the existing center line, with the ditch at 18 feet. We will reserve our recommendation for Lot 114 bordering Route 606 until it can be determined the limits of that property bordering 606. This is due to the location of the truss span bridge crossing the north fork of the river. The bulb in the right-of-way created on Lots 31 and 32 at the end of the state road is not proper. A different type of turn around should be provided. Either sufficent right-of-way should be dedicated at an intersection to allow for a pull and back turn around which will allow a turning movement to be made totally on dedicated property or more preferably an off -set cul-de-sac with only one road continuing. General comment depending upon the location of the property and the intersection of the proposed entrance road in relation to the G. E. Property and the planned improvement to Route 606. If this property is south of the planned improvement, Route 606 shoul be improved out to the improved section." CLU .. APPALACHIAN TRAIL E 1718 N STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 638-5306 February 12, 1979 RFC "virn Mr Donald Gaston //VVV7770uNT►f Albemarle County Planning Commission OF � � ,w 414 East Market Street ALBEMARLE_ Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr Gaston; I have reviewed the request of Mr Fred Bocock of Richmond for approval of a subdivision of a portion of his land on Calf Mountain, where the Appa- lachian Trail crosses the mountain near Skyline Drive. The purpose of this letter is to express objection to the subdivision proposal. 114w, The Potomac Appalachian Trail Club is a non-profit corporation whose members serve as volunteers to promote, enhance, and maintain the Appa- lachian Trail in a four -state area which includes Calf Mountain. Our club is one of several organizations which are affiliated with the Appalachian Trail Conference. Our work is devoted entirely to the public service, as recognized in the National Trails System Act. Under the Act, our volunteer members are now working closely with the National Park Service and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Division of Parks, to identify land parcels for government acquisition to preserve and protect the Appalachian Trail. For 50 years, the Appalachian Trail has crossed Calf Mountain, which is one of the outstanding natural scenic areas along the trail and is an important buffer area for Skyline Drive and Shenandoah National Park. This part of the Appalachian Trail has been designated for protection in order to preserve the continuity and scenic integrity of the trail. Relocation of the trail is precluded by topographic problems and construction feasibility. I am puzzled that a subdivision plan has been filed in Fred Bocock's name. Mr Bocock has cooperated with hikers for many years and has worked with us in designing a permanent corridor for the Appalachian Trail. He and the Scott family have been long respected for their service to the community. It is most unfortunate that a subdivision plan has been submitted in their " behalf. 03 m t approximately 1,200 feet wide which adjoins Shenandoah National • Park (as generally depicted on the attached overlay to the plat), and which will be acquired from Bocock and Hitz for this purpose. To further explain this last situation, I have contacted the following individuals to alert them to the filing of this plat. I expect you may be contacted in the near future by: Mr. Thomas Knox, Appalachian Trail Land Acquisition Office, P. 0. Box 908, Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 (304/263-4943); Mr. Randi Lemmon, Appalachian Trail Coordinator, Division of Parks, State Office Building, Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804/786-2132); and Mr. David A. Richie, Project Manager, Appalachian Trail Project Office, Harpers Ferry Center, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia 25425 (304/535-6371). I appreciate your notification of the proposed filing of this plat, and will be pleased to furnish additional information upon your request. Sincerely yours, Enclosures cc/w/copies of enclosures Mr. Knox Mr. Lemmon Mr. Richie M Robert R. Jacobsen Superintendent �3� m Fri IN REPLY REFER TO: L1425 L34 United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK LURAY, VIRGINIA 22835 February 9, 1979 Mr. Don Gaston Department of Planning County of Albemarle 411 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Gaston: Thank you so much for sending me a copy of the survey plat of 222.219 acres on Calf Mountain, between Beagle and Jarman Gaps, belonging to Frederic S. Bocock and Mary Buford Hitz. My cursory review of this plat suggests three items for your informa- tion/investigation/consideration: 1. The plat shows a coterminous boundary along its northwest quadrant with Shenandoah National Park. This common boundary appears, without close scrutiny, to be ac- curate. It is important to note that the National Park Service also holds a 400-foot wide, deeded, scenic ease- ment over the adjoining Bocock and Hitz property - the outer edge of this scenic easement being 500 feet distant from the centerline of the Skyline Drive. A copy of the development and.use restrictions contained in this ease- ment is enclosed. 2. The shape and location of this plat might sug- gest to a casual observer that vehicular access to the platted area might be available from the Skyline Drive (1) where this property adjoins the Skyline Drive right- of-way, or (2) from the Skyline Drive at Beagle Gap. Neither of these assumptions is correct, however, and motorized access must be acquired in some other manner. 3. Though not personally involved, or very knowl- edgeable about the details, I am aware of ongoing negotia- tions between Mr. Bocock and Appalachian Trail groups con- cerning the acquisition of a permanent right-of-way across this platted property for the AT. It is my understanding that a tentative agreement has been reached wherein the AT will remain on the alignment shown on the plat for ten years, but may then be relocated, upon request of the owners, onto either a deeded right-of-way or a deeded parcel of land 35 m -2- ME The plat is inaccurate with respect to the location of the Appalachian Trail. The trail, which follows the approximate county line, crosses the parcel at two locations rather than the single crossing that is shown on the plat. In conjunction with the State Division of Parks and the National Park Service, we are now reviewing proposals to relocate portions of the trail for the establishment of a permanent corridor as authorized under the National Trails System Act. It would be most premature for the County to approve a subdivision before our ongoing contacts with the landowners have been completed. I strongly urge you to suspend approval pending completion of our discussions or, as an alternative, to reserve a 2, 000- foot-wide scenic corridor and right-of-way for the Appalachian Trail. The proposed subdivision would have the effect of closing the Appa- lachian Trail on Calf Mountain and would seriously degrade the scenic quality of the corridor. Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposal. Please advise me as soon as possible of the decision on the proposal. Sincerely yours, cott ohnson Presid6nt 136 En Mr. Skove asked if whomever developes the residue on Route 606 would have to develope the road frontage. Mr. Gaston stated that he is sure Staff would recommend it. Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like to see this subdivision return as an RPN. She noted that she would like to see some figures on the roads and school impact. Mr. Payne stated that he feels the property to the north should be included in this subdivision because this subdivision, if approved, would be landlocking this parcel. Mr. Wood stated that the parcel to the north would not be landlocked. He noted that there is a right-of-way to this property but there isn't any access through this sub- division. Dr. Moore moved for approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. Payne noted that if emergency acces is a concern, a condition could be added to allow for emergency access. Mr. Huffman stated that he would not be in favor of approving another entrance unless it was for emergency access only. Mrs. Diehl noted that she would like to see soil studies prior to approval of the final plat. Mr. Gaston asked Mr. Wood if he would agree to using the existing road as an emergency access. Mr. Wood noted that he would agree with this. Dr. Moore stated that he feels condition #2 should only require upgrading Rt. 606 to the southern end of lot 154. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with the following conditions: 1. Additional access to be provided to Route 606 for emergency vehicles only; 2. Route 606 upgraded to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards from the end of the G. E. upgrading project to the southern boundary of lot 154; 3. Provide fire hydrants; 4. Health Department approval; 5. Soil Studies to determine the suitability of septic drainfields to be provided by a soil scientist approved by the Health Department prior to final plat approval. There were no further comments. PINE RUN FINAL PLAT/LOTS 9-12 - proposed division of 10.435 acres into 4 lots with average lot size of 2.6 acres; located south off Route 759 just east of Route 616. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Foster, 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 including; a) County Engineer approval; b) Maintenance agreement; 3. Comply with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommendation to make frontage improvements placing the shoulder break point at 15 feet and the ditch at 18 feet from the centerline of the road. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. NETTIE JONES PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS - proposed division of 60.644 acres into 4 lots with average lot size of 15.161 acres; located south off Route 658 just east of Route 601. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Graff, the applicant's representative was present and had no comments. Col. Washington asked how many buildings are located on the property now. Mr. Graff stated that there is one house on the bottom lot. Mr. Huffman moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval including: a) commercial entrance permit; b) frontage improvements along Route 658 placing the shoulder break at 15 feet from the centerline of the existing road with the ditch at 18 feet; 3. Comply with private road ordinance including: a) maintenance agreement to include access to adjoining property (Tax Map 44, Parcel 32) to be reserved from private road subject to Planning Commission approval; b) County Engineer approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. HATTON CANOE LIVERY SITE PLAN - proposed development of canoe livery; located on the James River at the end of Route 625. Mr. Gaston presented the applicant's request. Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from discussion on this item. Mr. Blankenbaker, the applicant's representative, and Mr. and Mrs. Schmick, the applicants, were present. Col. Washington asked the applicants if they had any plans for overflow parking. Mr. Schmick noted that they don't have any plans for overflow parking at the present, possibly in two to three years when the business will demand it. Mr. Gaston read the conditions of approval of SP-78-74 into the record as follows: 1. Site plan approval including among other requirements: a) Statement from County Engineer that the applicant's proposal for securing and anchoring all structures and portable items related to the use are reasonably adequate to insure that the same will not be carried off -site in the case of flooding; b) Signed statement by the applicant and property owner that they have read and are in full understanding and agreement with Section 9A-5-7 and Section 9A-7 of the Zoning Ordinance; c) The site plan may include a dock; 2. Use permitted under this permit be limited to existing structures on the site and any proposed docks may be approved under item "9(c)"; 3. Should any structure be damanged beyond limits of restoration as provided in Section 9A-9, the Zoning Administrator may require immediate removal of the damaged structure, if in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator the same may be hazardouse to downstream property owners or the public in general. Mr. Vest moved for approval. Mrs. Diehl asked if some additional screening may be needed. Mr. Gaston stated that considering the area floods frequently he does not believe it would'be feasible. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval of water and rest room facilities for expressed usage; 2. Comply with conditions of SP-78-74. There was no further discussion. NEW BUSINESS Col. Washington stated that he is concerned about lots being recorded along the frontage of a subdivision and leaving no frontage when the residue is developed. Mr. Payne stated that there are several things that can be done to prevent this problem. He noted that the minimum lot coverage could be increased; monitor what is being exempted from the Subdivision Ordinance; place a time limit on what constitutes a division (all divisions within a 12 month period be defined as one division). Col. Washington noted that if all subdivisions fronting on state roads be required to dedicate right-of-way this may solve the problem. There were no further comments and the meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. 39