HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 14 80 PC MinutesOctober 14, 1980
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
October 14, 1980, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman;
Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Alan Kindrick; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Charles Vest;
Mr. Corwith Davis; and Mr. David Bowerman. Absent were Mr. Kurt Gloeckner;
and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio.
Col. Washington established that a quorum was present and called the meeting
to order.
Minutes of August 19, 1980, and August 26, 1980, were approved as submitted.
Minutes of September 9, 1980, were approved subject to the editorial changes of
Mrs. Diehl. Minutes of September 16, 1980, were deferred until a later meeting.
SP-80-55A. Charles Younger - mobile home.
In the absence of the applicant, the Commission deferred discussion of
this petition until the end of the meeting.
Gazebo Plaza Site Plan:
Miss Caperton presented the staff report, bringing the Commission up to
date on matters since the previous meeting. She noted the traffic report submitted
by the applicant's representative and the memo from the County Engineer regarding the
drainage under I-64 and Route 250.
Mr. W. S. Roudabush, representative for the applicant, stated that that afternoon
the applicant had met with the Virginia Department of Highways and agreed to their
recommended conditions of approval. Among other things, the applicant had agreed to
widening the crossover.
Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department confirmed that such an agreement had
been reached.
Mr. Denver, an adjoining property owner, noted that a quick survey of area
shopping centers had revealed at least one vacant store in each center, pointing
out that shopping center competition is excessive. He also expressed concern for
the traffic congestion that would occur.
Col. Washington closed the public discussion. He noted that there are no
plans in the 10-year plan for primary roads to improve Route 250 over Pantops into
the city.
Mr. Roosevelt agreed, noting the bottleneck at Free Bridge.
Col. Washington then suggested that this stretch of Route 250 between Free
Bridge and Route I-64 should be moved to a higher priority for improvements.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that this would be decided by the State Highway
Commission, and not by any local governing body.
�s�
Mr. Davis expressed concern for the frontage road, which currently carries
215 vtpd, since the additional 8000 vtpd are bound to have some adverse impact.
Mr. Roosevelt felt that the four -lane that will be built for the frontage
road will adequately handle this traffic, however stated that the congestion will
occur at the intersection of the frontage road and Route 250. Additionally, he
stated that he sees no feasible second entrance, or alternative entrance, to the
property.
Mr. Davis agreed that the four -lane would make the remaining traffic problems
occur off -site; therefore no off -site requirements can be imposed on the approval
of the site plan because of the Hylton case.
Mr. Roosevelt
Upon questing from Mr. Bowerman,, stated that the option of a traffic light
at the intersection of frontage road and Route 250 should remain open for further
study.
Mr. Roosevelt also advised Mr. Davis that primary roads are not described as
"tolerable" and "non -tolerable" rather they are defined in terms of A-F. A being
the most desirable. He felt that in the middle of the day this stretch of roadway
would receive a C rating. Around 4:30 to 5:00 p.m., the rating may slip to E or F.
Mr. Bowerman questioned how a center of this magnitude could be proposed
for this area.
Mr. Tucker replied that this is on the fringe of the urban area. Current
zoning is different from the recommendation for low density on the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked for an explanation of the drainage plans.
Mr. John Greene, engineer, explained, pointing to the various portions of
the map.
Mrs. Diehl then ascertained that public water and sewer are necessary prior
to construction.
At the request of the Commission, Miss Caperton reviewed the recommended
conditions of approval.
Mr. Roudabush advised the Commission that the applicant had stated a desire
to fund a traffic light at the intersection when it becomes necessary and is willing
to have that imposed as a condition of approval.
Mrs. Diehl also felt that improvements to the frontage road and -Route 250
as reflected on the overlay, as well as the traffic light when determined necessary
by the Virginia Department of Highways, should be made part of the conditions of
approval.
Mr. Davis said that the long term consequences because of roadway conditions
make it difficult to support the site plan.
Mr. Skove felt it is necessary to support the site plan, with proper
conditions, because of existing provisions of the law.
Mr. Bowerman questioned if the applicant would be willing to construct
an on -site impoundment to handle runoff.
�S/
Mr. Greene stated that there is a place where such an impoundment could•
easily be constructed, however it would require approval of the adjoining property
owner as well as the Virginia Department of Highways for use of its right-of-way.
Mr. Bowerman said that he is not sure the ordinances contemplate this
sort of development on the fringe of the urban area. He felt that in the future
some sort of provisions for on -site impoundments should be made.
Mr. Skove moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met:
(a) County Engineer approval of the stormwater drainage facilities and pavement
specifications;
(b) Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
(c) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
(d) Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and handicapped provisions;
(e) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrance and improvements shown on the site plan and overlay and also
including a traffic light if deemed necessary by the Highway Department;
(f) Provide 40' scale plans to include more detailed information for landscaping
and building information, for staff approval;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following condition has been
met:
(a) Fire Official approval of fire flow.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
Mrs. Diehl felt a condition addressing stormwater runoff should be included,
asking the County Engineer to consider the possibility of an on -site impoundment; she
felt it should be part of condition 1(a).
Mr. Skove felt it was adequate as written.
Mr. Davis said that he could not support the site plan because of road conditions.
Mr. Bowerman felt that though the use is not compatible with the area, it
will serve the citizens of the eastern part of the county and also conserve energy
for those same folks.
Mrs. Diehl felt that in the future the Board of Supervisors and the County
Engineer should address impoundments in areas such as this site plan.
The motion carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Davis dissenting;.
SP-80-60. Wellagain Ltd. Partnership:
Mr. Tucker presented the staff report, reviewing the dedication and realignment
of Route 780 as shown on the aerial photo. He noted the sketch of the 10- inch
sewer line along Route 780 and the 12 inch water line. He stated it will not be
possible to connect to the sewer until the completion of the AWT Plant. Mr. Tucker
also noted that at the time of Planning Commission review of the proposed zoning
map, 14 acres of commercial land was added to the area.
Mrs. Diehl established that at this point no changes have been made in the
zoning map as prepared by the Commission.
�S7
Mr. Fred Russell, attorney for the applicant, said that for the
purposes of title insurance and the lending institution, it is necessary
to pin down the exact realignment of Route 780.
Mr. Roosevelt showed what the realignment would be on a topographic map.
He felt sure that the Highway Department could take the survey prepared by the
applicant and draw on that survey the proposed realignment.
Mr. Payne said that approval can be conditions on the dedication of
an appropriate strip, to be determined by the Highway Department, and a copy of
that plat with the appropriate dedication can be submitted at the time of site
plan review. Then there would be no more question regarding the undefined right-of-way.
Mr. Russell said that if there are any problems the site can be moved to
another portion of the property, but he would like to know that at this point.
Col. Washington felt that it would benefit the county as well as the
development to have the realignment shown on paper.
Mr. Gaston Fornes, adjoining property owner, determined from Mr. Tucker
that the exact location of sewer is know. Mr. Tucker showed him the location on
the map.
Col. Washington closed the public hearing. He asked that Mr. Payne phrase a
condition to cover the road if and when it is built.
Mrs. Diehl determined that this will not be a phased development.
Mr. Bowerman felt it is imperative to include public water and sewer at
the special permit level.
Mr. Russell agreed to that on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Davis moved approval of the special permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Building setback of 100 feet from right-of-way of Route 780. Existing trees
in this area are to be maintained to the maximum extent practical;
2. Site plan approval to include provision of access to proposed realignment of
Route 631;
3. Approval of appropriate federal, state, and local agencies;
4. Approval is for an 80-bed residential care facility. Any expansion shall require
amendment of this special use permit;
5. Dedication of 60' right-of-way for realighment of Route 780 as designated by
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation substantially in location shown
on Sketch "X" by plat received prior to issuance of building permits. If
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation shall fail to provide data
sufficient to delineate such right-of-way prior to site plan approval, the
condition shall be of no effect;
6. County Service Authority approval of public water and sewer facilities.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-0-2, with
Messrs. Vest and Skove abstaining.
:?-'IT It
Wicks Final Plat - Reconsideration:
Miss Caperton presented the staff report, noting that this plat was approved
in October, 1979, dividing the 3+ acre parcel into two lots with 67,000+ square
feet in each. The approval required the applicant to reserve land along the western
proprety line for future dedication for the extension of Greenbrier Drive. Access
to the property was on a 50-foot restricted right-of-way. The applicant requests
reconsideration so that parcel A-1 may have access on Greenbrier Drive through the
"Townwood" townhouse development. The applicant is also proposing to serve lot
A-1 with public water and sewer from Townwood. Parcel A-2, with an existing residence
will continue to have access on the 50' right-of-way and utilize the existing septic
system and well. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
(a) County Engineer approval of road specifications form Greenbrier Drive;
(b) Note the provision of public utilities for parcel A-1;
(c) Health Department approval of existing septic system for parcel A-2.
Miss Caperton showed the Commission the existing driveway on the plat.
Mr. Bowerman moved approval subject to the conditions outlined by the staff.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
North Pines Final Plat -
Mr. Tucker noted that the applicant sold lots 1-4 on this plat to General Electric
who wish these lots in one parcel. To do this, the lots should be shown as one parcel
on the original plat.
Mr. Skove moved approval of the revised plat as requested. Mr. Vest seconded
the motion which carried unanimously.
Wynridge, Phase I, Final Plat - Request for Redivision of Lot 16:
Mr. Tucker said that the property is located on the north side of Commonwealth
Drive, is zoned R-3, and developed with duplexes and townhouses. The request is
to redivde lot 16 into two lots for a single family attached dwelling unit.
Mrs. Diehl moved approval of the request. The motion, seconded by Mr. Vest,
carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Work Session - Private Roads:
Mr. Tucker advised the Commission that during a twelve month period of
July, 1979, through June, 1980, the total number of final plats approved with private
roads was 56, and the number of subdivisions approved with state roads was 16.
he noted the merits of private road provisions: (a) Hylton Case, which gives
the county an opportunity to require improvements to roads on a "piece -meal" basis
until the road is built to its ultimate design standards, at which time it could be
taken into the State System; (b) the ability to limit access and the number of
RITd
dwelling units to private road; and (c) less destruction to the natural environ-
ment and more energy efficient than state road specifications. Problems deal
with (a) maintenance, and the possibility of the County's being placed in the
position of having to upgrade these private roads in the future; (b) school bus
and postal service, since the School Board and Post Office will not provide service
along the private roads.
The staff suggested that the Commission may wish to consider limiting the
use of private roads to certain situations and areas such as large lot divisions
( i.e., 5 acres or greater ), steep terrain ( i.e., terrain which would exceed
VDH&T's maximum vertical alginment ); and rural areas only ( i.e., exclude private
roads from all growth areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan ).
Mr. Skove noted that since private roads are not recognized by the Farmers'
Home Administration for financing low cost housing, they provide no incentive for
that type of housing.
Col. Washington stated that in the early stages of the private road discussion,
they were intended for large lots and for land with steep terrain, etc.
Mr. Bowerman noted that part of the logic to the state road system is that
the Planning Commission has more idea of what will develop in the future in a particular
area.
Mr. Davis pointed out, however, that doing away with private roads
altogether could have a detrimental effect on the smaller developers.
Mrs. Diehl felt there should be no private roads in the urban area.
She also noted the average number of lots in subdivisions which
r viewe
the Commissior� wPhen it was working on the rural areas section of the proposed zoning
ordinance.
Mr. Roosevelt analyzed the statistics prepared by the staff, stating that
in the future he is concerned that the county and state will begin to hear from the
landowners along private roads, who will want their roads taken into the system.
He noted that VDH&T has very few funds to maintain existing state roadways. Furthermore,
he feels that the private road ordinance is a privilege, and not a right, noting
that approximately 9 out of every 10 subdivisions proposes the use of private roads.
He said that it costs approximately $2325 to maintain one mile of road per year, and
approximately $5,000 per mile to pave a road every five years. He said that most
roads require some sort of special treatment after a figure of 50 vtpd. He recommended
that on all closed cul-de-sacs, state roads should be required.
Mr. Payne said that if 50 vtpd is the important number, then the Commission
should consider mandatory public roads for subdivisions of more than 7 lots.
Col. Washington stated that there is some convenience to the public living
along private roads, but it would be better if all the private roads were at least
surface -treated. He suggested that there be another work session in the future to
discuss a 7-lot cut-off. Then the matter could be taken to public hearing after the
next work session.
7s4s
SP-80-55A. Younger Mobile Home -
In the repeated absence of the applicant from the public hearings,
Mrs. Diehl moved denial of the petition.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
With no additional business, the Commission adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Se retary
35�