HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 19 79 PC MinutesMarch 19, 1979
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on
Monday, March 19, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma
A. Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Charles Vest; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Skove;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner: Absent were Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Layton McCann; Dr. James
Moore; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert
W. Tucker, Jr. - Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director
of Planning; Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that
a quorum was present.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt ncted his letter of January 19, 1979, to Mr. Donald
Gaston, and also noted his response.
Mr. Keeler said that he is not sure the Planning Commission fully under-
stands the Highway Department's recommendation. One aspect is that it will make
this recommendation in every case, though the particular subdivision density might
not necessitate the frontage improvements placing the shoulder catch point at 15
feet from the center line, the ditch at 18 feet. He noted that the requirement
has to do with more than safety, and Section 18-39(o) of the Subdivision Ordinance
addresses improvements that may be required due to density, etc. At some date,
with improvements made by the Highway Department itself, these improvements will
have to take place, and if this frontage improvement has already taken place it
will be more economical to upgrade the roads. In other words, without this frontage
improvement, the Highway Department is burdened. Mr. Keeler again pointed out that
the recommendation does not just meet the status quo.
Col. Washington questioned if this requirement is reasonable in all
cases, though for consistency it is easiest to require in all cases.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that this is considered a political decision by
the Highway Department for the locality. The Commission problem is that it has to
act in terms of health, safety, and welfare; and therefore it has to have a good
reason for making this requirement. He felt that someone will have to say this
is being recommended for safety reasons and not just for the convenience of the
Highway Department.
Mr. Roosevelt said that it is more than just for the convenience of the
Highway Department - he felt it was also for the convenience of the property owner. He
said that in the future the Highway Department might not have to bother the property
owner with the grading.
Col. Washington noted that the Commission, as an.administrative body,
does not have the clout that the Board, as a legislative body, has.
Mr. Payne said that the Commission's function is to take account of the
facts of a particular case and apply this to the ordinance and make a decision.
He agreed that in some cases judgement is involved. However, he pointed out that
the Commission needs to know why the improvement is necessary for what appears to
be varying cases.
Mr. Roosevelt said that in his opinion the minimum impact of the
subdivision should require the upgrading of the frontage.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that this is a different subject from the increase
of traffic brought on by the subdivision of property. Additionally, he stated that
this recommendation could be done as an amendment to the subdivision ordinance so
that it is equitably applied.
Mr. Gloeckner said that it could also be handled as a reservation at the
time of subdivision plat approval.
Col. Washington stated that the Commission would be in better light if the
Board reacted to this and then the Commission merely carried out the administrative
process.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Board has appointed a committee to address
road improvements, but during the meantime he wanted the Commission to understand the
Highway Department's recommendation.
Mr.Skove established that this is applicable to those roads which may
or may not be listed as "non -tolerable."
Mrs. Diehl established that this is an across-the-board recommendation.
Mr. Skove said that it makes no sense to do this unless the road may be
improved at some time in the future.
Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that as long as the vertical and horizontal
alignment remain the same at the time of upgrading, this might be all right for
existing non -tolerable roads. He said that facts in every case regarding alignment,
etc. are needed.
Mr. Roosevelt did not think this could be done on a case -by -case basis.
Mrs. Graves felt that in some cases the minimum requirement might not be
quite enough and with a maximum requirement things might be a little safer and better.
Mr. Roosevelt said that any recommendation the Highway Department makes
it feels it can justify, however not necessarily require.
Mr. Coburn said that any minimum requirement should be defensible.
Col. Washington stated that pipestem lots will not make any contribution
to this - only the developers with the larger frontages will have to face the
requirement.
The Commission then engaged in a long discussion about what could and could
not be required by the Highway Deparmtent and what could be required by the county
based on the facts. It presented several hypothetical cases to Mr. Roosevelt and asked
what his recommendation would be. Mr. Payne responded to the possible legal defensibility
of each of the hypothetical cases.
Mr. Roosevelt said that he views this recommendation the same as the
requirement for 25' dedication at the time of subdivision approval. The state
code merely gives the locality the right to require a dedication and does not assign
the width.
�d�
Mr. Payne agreed that this would be an interesting point to research.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he could favor a reservation to/g?ong with the
mass grading.
Mr. Roosevelt said that if the county is not going to require the grading,
he certainly would favor the reservation, but he did not know if the ordinance would
permit a reservation.
Mr. Gloeckner said that he was counting on some discretion by the Commission
on a case -by -case basis. And if to frontage improvement is required, at least
there will be an easement for the Highway Department to use later for the improvements
in years to come. That is a real possibility that everyone can depend upon.
Mr. Coburn questioned if/problem would exist if the Planning Commission
waived those requirements based upon a review of that site for applicability to that
improvement, if the ordinance were amended for the frontage improvement.
Mr. Payne did not feel that would be a problem. He suggested that the
following wording would be appropriate: "Each subdivision fronting on a public road
shall improve its frontage such as described in Section 15-18; provided that the Planning
Commission may vary the requirement." Then the standards for varying the requirement
could be setforth - one example might be hardship. However, he pointed out that
the Highway Department has said that this should be a requirement on all plats and
the waiver has to be the exception. And that exception will be few in number or simply
not'an engineering decision.
Mr. Gloeckner agreed, stating that this would provide equity for all.
There was no further business and the Commission adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
09
19