HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 19 83 PC MinutesApril 19, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting
on Tuesday, April 19, 1983 at 7:30 p.m., Second Floor County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman, Mr. Tim Michel,
Mr. James R. Skove and Mrs. Norma Diehl. Other officials present
were Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, Ms. Mason
Caperton, Senior Planner, Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner, Mr.
Maynard Elrod, County Engineer and Ms. Ellen V. Nash, ex-Officio.
Absent from the meeting were Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman,
Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. and Mr. Allen Kindrick.
After establishing that a quorum was present Mr. Bowerman called
the meeting to order.
John Pratt Preliminary Plat —Request for consideration. Applicant
is requesting waivers of Section 18-29 (pertaining to oddly shaped
lots) and Section 18-32 (angle of side lot lines) of the Subdivision
Ordinance. Tax Map 61, parcel 69B. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. John Pratt, the applicant, stated that he can not have road
frontage on both Rt. 769 and Rt. 20, noting that the lot with the
shortest road frontage determines -the lots required width. He
stated that in his opinion Section 18-29 of the Subdivision Ordinance
speaks to the elimination of pipe stems, pointing out that he proposes
to create four lots from a ten acre parcel.
Mr. Pratt stated that he did not feel the Commission has any
justification for denying the requested waivers and asked that
they act favorably on his request.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was a plat submitted previously, noting
that Mr. Pratt has stated that the plat he submitted created an
improved lot configuration.
Ms. Imhoff explained that the present plat submitted by Mr. Pratt
is the plat he is referring to.
Mr. Pratt stated that he and his surveyor had drawn up preliminary
sketches which created pipe stem lots and noted that this is his
basis for stating that the present plat affored an improved lot
configuration.
37
Mr. Michel asked if the applicant had any objection to having four
lots served by an easement.
Mr. Pratt stated that this would mean that the lots would have to
be served by a cul-de-sac.
Ms. Imhoff explained that the applicant is seeking administrative
approval and does not want roads served by private easements.
The Planning Commission would have to review any division served
by an easement.
Ms. Imhoff explained that the staff is seeking comments from the
Commission regarding this proposal. She noted that staff has
determined that this sketch does not meet the requirements for a
preliminary plat nor have adjacent owners been notified.
Mr. Payne explained that it is the opinion of the Director of
Planning that the lots are pecularily shaped elongations, noting that
the Director of Planning does not want to waive any provisions of the
ordinance without Planning Commission approval even though the
Commission's action would be advisory only.
Mr. Payne noted that the Commission has three alternatives:
• advise the Director of Planning that the waivers should not be
waived;
• advise the Director of Planning that the waivers should be
waived; *40
• take no action, in which case this would have to go through
the normal subdivision review process.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the lot lines as shown on this sketch
seem to reduce the usable land in each lot, pointing out that a
different configuration of the lots would not be as restrictive.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the lot lines as shown on this
sketch is an attempt to take advantage of the road frontage and
to perclude Planning Commission review. He also stated that he
felt this is in conflict with Sections 18-29 and 18-32 of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
CONCENSUS:
The Commission agreed unanimously that in order for Mr. Pratt to
obtain the four lots, he would have to redesign the lots showing
internal roads, etc. and submit the plat for normal subdivision
review.
19
Edgecomb's Service Station and Used Car Sales Site Plan - Request
for waiver.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Edgecomb, the applicant, stated that he is willing to comply
with the recommended conditions of approval as outlined by staff.
Mrs. Edgecomb stated that she is unfamiliar with some of the terms
used by staff such as "ornamental and decidious trees." She also
noted that in her opinion this type of landscaping could be detrimental
to other properties in the area.
Ms. Caperton stated that she did not feel this type of landscaping
would be a detriment to other properties in the area, noting that
instead it should enhance the surrounding properties. She also
noted that there is a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance speaking
to the provision of landscaping on the site.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this
matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he could support the request to waive
Planning Commission review of a site plan with the conditions as
outlined by staff. He also noted that he felt a properly drawn
site plan should be submitted and pointed out that this could be
approved administratively.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the need for a trailer.
Ms. Caperton stated that any site that involves the sale of new or
used cars must have a certain amount of office space.
Mr. Edgecom stated that the Division of Motor Vehicles requires
a minimum of 250 square feet of office space in order to sell used
cars. He noted that they will not allow him to use the existing
office so therefore he needs the trailer for office space.
Mrs. Diehl moved for approval of this request subject to the
following conditions:
1. A building permit for the office trailer can be processed when
the applicant has met the following conditions:
a. Planning staff approval of a properly drawn site plan of the
proposal;
Stq
b. Note on the plan (and provide on the site) provisions for
lanascaping; specifically, ornamental trees shall be
provided in the grass islands at the extreme eastern and
western portions of the site and a large deciduous tree
(a maple or oak) shall be provided with a planting bed in
the center island; caliper of trees shall be a 12 to 2
inches;
C. Fire Official approval.
2. A two (2) year limit shall be placed on the approval of this office
trailer. It shall not be considred as a permanent use structure.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Site Plan - Crozet Water Treatment
Plant - Sedimentation Lagoons: Request for reapproval of expired
site plan proposing construction of two sedimentation lagoons across
from water treatment plant on Route 240 at Crozet.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this site plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. Highway Department approval;
2. Grading permit;
3. Dedication of 25' from centerline of Route 240 on Parcel 29B
on south side of Route 240, no later than May 15, 1983;
4. Replace any white pines which die.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
WORK SESSION:
PRIVATE ROADS PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE:
Mr. Keeler noted that the original intent of private roads was to
serve large lot development in areas of steep terrain. He noted
that staff has prepared several proposals intended to resolve some
of the problems encountered with the current provisions such as
density, existing easement width and private roads for developments
such as Riverrun. He also noted that compared to other localities
Albemarle County's road policies are liberal.
Mr. Keeler stated that staff has attempted to outline cases where
the Commission would generally permit private roads. Mr. Keeler
explained that the following sections of the Subdivision Ordinance
applies to private roads and noted the proposed changes and revisions
in each section (copy attached):
• Section 18-36(a)
• Section 18-36(b)
• Section 18-36(c)
pri
G'I
• Section 18-36(d)
• Section 18-36(e)
• Section 18-36(f)
• Section 18-36(g)
• Section 18-36(h).
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the following two sections are proposed
to be deleted:
• Section 18-36(b) (4)
• Section 18-36(b) (5).
Mr. Michel noted the problems concerning private roads on existing
easements.
Mr. Payne stated that Section 18-36(g) addresses this concern to
an extent.
Mr. Bowerman noted that staff has satisfactorily outlined the
concerns of the Commission regarding private roads.
Mr. Payne noted that the Attorney General does not think it is
lawful for a subdivision ordinance to include waiver provisions.
He pointed out waivers should not be relied upon noting that the
original private road ordinance was an attempt to eliminate the
regular use of waivers.
Mr. Payne commended the staff on the proposed amendments but noted
that in addition to eliminating waivers it changes the thrust of
the private road ordinance. He also pointed out that this proposal
is an attempt by staff to address several different issues, therefore,
it becomes a complicated ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the issue of private roads varies
with different counties, noting that Albemarle County has a very
liberal private road ordinance.
Mr. Byron Coburn, representing the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation, stated that the highway department continually
has requests from property owners along a private easement for
maintenance. He noted that he felt the requests for the State to
take over maintenance of private roads will continue.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the proposal as outlined by staff is a
change in philosophy and would mean that divisions of less than
twenty (20) lots would be served by private roads.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should consider whether a public
or a private road would best serve the buyer.
Mrs. Nash expressed her concern with maintenance of private roads.
Mr. Payne explained that most people will put off the maintenance
of a road until it becomes absolutely necessary to repair it, noting
that they do not realize the cost involved.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the private road ordinance has made
property developable that is otherwise undevelopable.
Ms. Caperton briefly outlined subdivision request where the applicant
has asked for a waiver of the private road provisions.
Mr. Elrod, County Engineer noted that Table 1 in Section 18-36(e)
states that width of travelway, depth of base and surface treatment
will be left to the discretion of the County Engineer. He pointed
out that he will recommend the depth of base for one to five lots to
be a fourteen (14) foot wide travelway with four (4) foot shoulders
and a ditch line. He also noted that surface treatment for one to
five lots will not be required when the slope of the road is 5% or
less. If the slope exceeds 5% then 6" of aggregated stone and prime
and double seal will be required.
Mr. Elrod noted examples whereby he felt a public road would better
serve the public.
Mr. Skove noted his concern regarding stone, etc., being washed into
the streets from driveways of 15% or greater.
Mr. Payne stated that the concern of the Commission is what is best
for the public health, safety and welfare.
Mr. Skove stated that the real estate agents should be required
to give to perspective clients literature noting the type of road,
maintenance required, etc.
Mr. Michel stated that he does not agree that driveways over 5% should
be paved.
Mr. Keeler reiterated the general idea for allowing private roads.
He noted that even for private roads the minimal standard could
result in roads that will have substantial maintenance costs and
could become a public burden.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Commission is not ready at this time
to draft a resolution of intent regarding private roads. He noted
that he would like to review the policy issue which would outline
the implications of private roads.
Mr. Payne stated that the Planning Commission could appoint a
committee to gather information and report back to the Commission
on policy decisions.
011
M
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to see something in writing
concerning the issues involved.
Mr. Payne stated that economical, social, environmental, engineering,
cost of maintenance, etc., are some issues which could be addressed
by the committee.
Mr. Keeler reiterated that these proposed amendments reflect what
has been done by the Commission as compared with how the private
roads were originally envisioned.
CONCENSUS:
It was the unanimous concensus of the Commission to appoint a
committee consisting of Mr. Keeler, Mr. Payne, Mr. Michel, Mr. Skove,
Mr. Davis and Mr. Elrod to address the policy issues and report back
to the Commission.
Borrow Areas:
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, which outlined the proposed
amendments related to borrow, fill and waste areas. (A copy of these
proposed amendments is attached).
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the definition of borrow area does not
speak to size.
Mr. Coburn explained that for highway projects there is a need for
finding a source close to the area of need.
Mr. Keeler noted the following changes since these amendments were
completed:
• The enactment of a new Soil Erosion Regulations;
• An reorganization of the review administration and enforcement
related to grading.
Mr. Payne explained that the Commission should review the text of
the proposed amendments, noting that if they approve of these amendments
then they can pass a resolution of intent.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he could support the amendments as outlined
by staff noting that public, health,safety and welfare is protected.
He also pointed out that anything over 10,000 square feet would
require a grading permit.
Mrs. Diehl asked for clarification on what is meant by a "waste area."
C?-4
Mr. Keeler read the following definition of waste area:
• Fill and waste areas shall only be for the disposal of
natural materials such as soil, rock, stumpage and the
like. Disposal of trash and garbage, as defined in 916-1
of the Code of Albemarle County, shall be accomplished in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 16 of the Code
of Albemarle County.
In the case of fill or waste activity, no such activity
shall be approved until the County Engineer has received
comment from the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management of the Virginia Department of Health. The County
Engineer may require additional information and plans from
the applicant to facilitate such review.
Mr. Elrod noted that soil and stumps is not defined as a sanitary
waste by the Health Department.
Mrs. Diehl noted her concern about the size of the area for a
waste area.
Mr. Keeler noted that a soil erosion plan would be required.
Mr. Coburn noted that topography map is required showing the site
before and after. He also pointed out that you should be required
to show how you will protect the area from erosion while the
site is under construction.
Mr. Elrod stated that there should be something in the amendments
giving the County Engineer authority to require a topography map
when necessary.
Mr. Coburn stated that he felt it would be appropriate to require
engineering information showing the volume that exists, to be submitted
to the County Engineer.
Mr. Coburn explained to the Commission the State's policy regarding
fill areas.
Mr. Payne stated that a definition of waste area should be added
to the amendments.
Mr. Michel stated that he felt the County Engineer should be able
to require additional information to determine the existence of
the 10,000 cubic yards.
Mr. Keeler stated that the staff in preparing these amendments tried
to parrell the action taken by the Board of Supervisors on`the Soil
Erosion Ordinance and provide some safe guards.
Mr. Skove moved to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance regarding borrow fill waste areas.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
4LL
Bonus Factors:
Mr. Keeler stated that staff has prepared some language which
speaks to the mechanics of applying bonus factors and the
individual bonus factors themselves.
Mr. Keeler noted that the proposed mechanics for reviewing bonus
factors would allow the Commission to review bonus density requests
in the same terms that a rezoning request is reviewed. He pointed
out that if the Commission denies the bonus requests, they have to
tell the applicant why and what he can do, if anything, to obtain
the bonuses.
Mr. Payne stated that the bonuses would still be automatic unless
the Commission determines that they are inappropriate for some
specified reason.
Mr. Payne explained to the Commission the types of situations
where the bonus factors could be denied based upon some specified
reason.
Mr. Keeler noted examples where the impact to the environment would
be a substantial reason to deny bonus factors (schools, etc.).
Mr. Keeler reiterated that the staff has attempted to address
concerns of the Commission about applying bonus factors as well
as the bonus factors themselves. He noted that the staff would
like some input from the Commission regarding the bonus factors.
The Commission noted the following concerns regarding bonuses
for location:
• the wording "religious or cultural institutions" should be
deleted
• the one-half (2) mile distance should be determined by a
public system, such as a pathway or road;
• determine what constitutes a shopping area.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would not be opposed to deleting the
bonuses for locational standards.
The general concensus of the Commission regarding bounuses for
location of the site, is to delete this section entirely.
Environmental Standards:
Mr. Keeler noted the standards for environmental bonuses as currently
outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance. He stated that he felt
bonuses for environmental standards should be on a sliding scale basis.
95
Mr. Bowerman stated that bonuses for environment could be done
on a percentage basis.
Mr. Bowerman stated that perhaps the bonus for maintenance of
trees and sufficient landscaping should be the same, noting that
20% is currently allowed for each.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Zoning Ordinance speaks to the
requirement of landscaping.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there should be one set of environmental
standards giving perference to the existing landscaping.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like to see the bonus factor
percentage for each standard decrease by approximately half.
Mr. Payne pointed out that there is a bonus for internal roads in
terms of lot dimensions.
Mr. Michel stated that he did not agree with granting bonuses for
internal roads.
Mr. Payne explained that the intent of bonus for internal roads
was to prevent stripping.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there should be a uniform percentage
for internal roads in each zone (RA, Village, etc.)
Mr. Keeler explained to the Commission how the provisions for
bonus factors work in connection with the zoning of the area.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the percentage for some of the
bonuses should be decreased, noting that other bonus factors could
be eliminated.
Mr. Keeler explained that the original intent of bonuses was to
encourage the developer to do things (such as landscaping) that
could not be required otherwise.
The Commission stated that they would like to see more bonuses
for low and moderate cost housing.
CONCENSUS:
Mr. Keeler is to prepare a report showing bonus provisions and
suggestions for the percentage of bonus in each category. When
he has completed this report he will notify the Commission and they
will hold another work session on this.
9
NNI
City Gas Division - Proposals for review of gas line extensions.
Mr. Keeler noted for the benefit of the Commission that the
letter which was sent to them earlier regarding gas line extensions
has been sent to the Board of Supervisors for their review.
(A COPY OF THIS LETTER IS ATTACHED).
NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. Michel noted his concern regarding the review process for
site plans and subdivisions. He pointed out that plans for
large subdivisions are submitted in sections and noted that
a developer should be required to have a master plan for the
development.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could simply tell the
developer that they will not review plans that are not submitted
in the proper sequence (Phase I, Phase II, etc.).
Mr. Michel asked if the Commision could legally require a more
thorough review for area impact developments.
Mr. Payne stated that all the Commission is able to do is review
what the developer wants developed.
Mr. Michel noted several examples where he felt there was a
lack of information.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there is no basis for denying development
that is properly zoned.
Mr. Payne stated that there are mechanism which address some of the
concerns outlined by Mr. Michel. He pointed out that the developers
tend to work closely with staff and incorporate their suggestions
in their overall plan.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mr. Skove asked if there was an update on the tractor -trailer trucks
using Rt. 29 and other bypasses.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Coburn, from the Highway Department,
will notify the Commission when this item will be heard.
q7
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
9