HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 07 83 PC MinutesJuly 7, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting
on ql ', July 7, 1983, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second Floor,
County office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman, Mr. Richard
Cogan, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. James R. Skove, and Mr.
Corwith Davis, Jr. other officials present were Mr. Frederick W.
Payne, Deputy County Attorney, Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Senior Planner,
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning and Mr. Maynard Elrod, County
Engineer. Absent from the meeting was Mrs. Norma Diehl, Mr. Tim Michel,
and Ms. Ellen V. Nash.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called the
meeting to order.
Pampered Pet Site Plan -
north of Shopper's World
to locate a 6,250 square
Charlottesville District.
located on the south side of Berkmar Drive,
Shopping Center and west of Rt. 29N; proposal
foot commercial kennel on a .56 acre tract.
(TM 61U, Parcel 01-14).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Barry Doffleymer, the applicant, noted that there is a recorded
easement showing the ingress and egress to this parcel across Shopper's
World. He also stated that he is willing to contribute money for
building an off -site detention basin. He noted that he would like
some figures from the County Engineer as to the amount of this con-
tribution, pointing out that it was his understanding that this contribu-
tion would be equivalent to the cost of an on -site detention basin.
Mr. Doffleymer stated that Mr. Evans, Zoning Inspector, has audited
the noise emanating from the building and has stated that the noise
is minimal if audible at all. He noted that he would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff stated that she has not had ample time to review the
easements showing the ingress and egress to this property (referred
a3a
to by Mr. Doffleymer) and stated that she would like to have a copy
of this. She also noted that condition #lf should remain in the
recommended conditions of approval. (CONDITION #lf: County Engineer
and Planning staff approval of width and location of access easement
to western parking area).
Mr. Bowerman asked what is the width of the easement.
Mr. David Wood, owner of the property, stated that a width was not
specified but pointed out that they reserved for the benefit of Lot
#14, right of ingress and egress of the roadways and streets of all
the Shopper's World property.
Mr. Bowerman questioned the amount of the contribution required from
individual property owners in this area for off -site detention basins.
Mr. Elrod stated that they have not computed a figure for this con-
tribution to off -site detention basins. He pointed out on the map
the location of this site noting the existing storm sewer systems
which drains into a tributary of Meadow Creek. He noted that they are
trying to design a detention basin for this area which would be adequate
for the storage of water in this area. He explained that they are
doing a study regarding detention basins in this area. He pointed
out that property owners in this area have indicated that they are
willing to contribute to an off -site detention basin. He noted that
in order to determine the pro-rata share for this basin, the Engineering
Department is trying to analyze the amount of future development. He
explained that their intended goal is for a developer to contribute an
amount equal to the cost of an on -site detention basin, explaining that
this has not been approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that until the Board of Supervisors approves
the study (and recommendations) made by Mr. Elrod, the Commission
can only require the applicant to meet the requirements of all pertinent
ordinances.
Mr. Elrod stated that with regard to the cost of the detention basin
and the amount contributed by each developer, he is trying to give
the developer one of the following options:
• meet the requirements as outlined in the ordinance
• negotiate the amount of contribution at a later date (after
plans have been approved)
• build an on -site detention pond.
Mr. Davis stated that the applicant has the option of either building
an on -site detention basin or agreeing to pay a pro-rata share of
the cost for an off -site basin, said contribution to be determined
at a later date.
a a3
Mr. Sam Saunders, representing the applicant, stated that they
favor an off -site detention basin noting that the site could be
better utilized if the basin was built off -site.
Mr. Davis reiterated that the Board of Supervisors has not authorized
the, building of this detention basin, only a study (which is in progress)
He noted that the option of building an on -site detention basin or
paying a pro-rata share for an off -site basin should be decided by
the applicant.
Mr. Doffleymer stated that he felt it is feasible to contribute
to an off -site detention basin. He noted that studies have shown
that Pampred Pet will not contribute heavily to the amount of runoff. He
explained that an on -site basin could be built but there is no
guarantee that this will help control runoff in the area.
Mr. Skove asked how the pro-rata share from each developer would
be determined.
Mr. Elrod stated that the formula for this is "based on the volume
of retention to the volume of water leaving the site." He stated
that either this formula should be used or require the cost needed
to meet the requiremens of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance for
an on -site detention basin.
Mr. Bowerman reiterated that with the current ordinances, the Commission
can only require the applicant to meet the requirements for an on -site
basin or contribute a pro-rata share to an off -site basin.
Mr. Cogan stated that an off -site basin benefits the applicant because
it allows for more utilization of the site without any maintenance
cost.
Mr. Elrod stated that he hopes to complete this study in the near
future and present his findings to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Cogan stated that an off -site basin would benefit the community
and noted that he would like to encourage the use of this type of
facility.
Mr. Elrod stated that one alternative would be to bond the cost of
an on -site detention basin.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the requirements outlined in the Zoning
Ordinance relating to noise level will be met by the applicant.
Mr. Davis ascertained that SP.-83-30 spoke to the noise level emanating
from the building but did not state whether the windows were to be
opened or closed.
a..W
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. A building permit may be processed when the following conditions
have been met by the applicant:
a. Add note: "Landscaping to be maintained and replaced if any
should die";
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Ordinance;
C. County Engineer approval of final drainage plans;
d. Complaince with Stormwater Detention Ordinance or County
Engineer approval of alternative;
e. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and handicapped
provisions;
f. County Engineer and Planning staff approval of width and
location of access easement to western parking area;
g. Obtain and record above -noted easement;
h. Compliance with ZMA-83-4 and SP-83-30.
2. A certificate of occupancy can be issued when the following
conditions have been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow;
b. All improvements to be planted, constructed or bonded.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Imhoff determined that if a bond was to be posted for the detention
basin, this would be required before the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
9
-ls�5
SP-83-43 Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department - By Resolution
of Intent by the Ablemarle County Board of Supervisors, on June 8,
1983, to amend SP-78-70 to remove the requirement of an emergency
connector road between Berkmar Drive and Commonwealth Drive. County
Tax Map 61-M-8, part of parcel 12-1, parcel 12-1A, Charlottesville
Magisterial District. Located on the west side of Berkmar Drive with
Berkeley Subdivision bordering on the west, consisting of 3.3 acres
zoned C-1.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Dr. Anthony Iachetta, representing the fire company, stated that the
fire company and the rescue squad do not feel that the access road
from Berkmar Drive to Commonwealth Drive is necessary. He also noted
that neither the rescue squad or the fire department can be responsible
for limiting the use of this roadway.
Dr. Iachetta noted that condition #13 of SP-78-70 (Alignment of
future road for Commonwealth Drive and Berkmar Drive for public
access, to be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways
Transportation) has been complied with. He noted that since the
Board of Supervisors has required them to establish what the future
road would be, the fourteen foot (14') access road is not necessary.
He also pointed out that in an emergency it is faster to go through
Four Seasons than Berkeley.
Mr. Bowerman noted the use of this access road by four wheel vehicles,
etc., and asked Dr. Iachetta what steps would be taken to eliminate
this.
Dr. Iachetta stated that they could build a fence here to prevent
the use of this access road.
Dr. Iachetta explained to the Commission how the fire company responds
to emergency calls, reiterating that they can make faster time on
public roads than by using this access road and going through a
residential area.
Dr. Iachetta explained that they are requesting relief from the
requirement of an emergency connector road between Berkmar Drive
and Commonwealth Drive, so that they may obtain a temporary certificate
of occupancy. He stated that he would respond to any questions or
concerns the Commission may have.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment.
Mrs. Joan Graves, an adjacent owner, stated that she felt the
adjacent property owners would be satisfied if this road were
not constructed at the present time, but noted that it should remain
in the Comprehensive Plan. She also noted the use of this
roadway and stated that she felt a fence was necessary.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that
this matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated that he could support the applicants request to
remove the requirement of an emergency connector road between
Berkmar Drive and Commonwealth Drive. He also noted that he felt
a fence would help alleviate the concerns of the adjacent owners.
Mr. Skove stated that he also could support the applicants request
to remove this requirement.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he could support waiving this requirement,
but pointed out that he felt a fence was necessary.
Mr. Keeler suggested the following wording for condition #6 to be
added to SP-78-70:
0 #6 - A fence shall be constructed, adequate to prohibit
vehicular traffic from using the right-of-way.
Mr. Cogan moved to recommend approval of this petition to the
Board of Supervisors, subject to the following conditions:
1. Substitute the following wording for condition #3 of SP-78-70:
#3 - Dedication of right-of-way for future public road from
Berkmar Drive to Commonwealth Drive to be approved by the
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation.
2. Add the following condition to SP-78-70:
#6 - A fence shall be constructed, adequate to prohibit
vehicular traffic from using the right-of-way.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-83-33 Earlysville Forest Land Trust - Request to Board of Supervisors
for relief from condition B-1 of ZMA-81-11 which requires recordation
of 100 residential lots prior to commercial development and for relief
from Section 20.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. County Tax Map 31B,
parcel C. Rivanna Magisterial District. Located at the intersection
of Earlysville Forest Drive and Rt. 743, across Earlysville Forest
Drive from Earlysville Green.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
a37
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. George Gilliam, representing the applicant, stated that they have
put eight -six lots to record, which in his opinion, establishes the
character of this development. He stated that he has no objections
to the recommended conditions of approval as outlined by staff. He
stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the
Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he has no objections to this request, stating
that he felt the applicant has substantially complied with condition
B-1 of ZMA-81-11.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he has no objection to this request and
noted that the applicant should be commended for the work done.
Mr. Kindrick moved to recommend approval of this petition to the
Board of Supervisors, subject to the following conditions:
1. Amend Condition B-1 of ZMA-81-11 to read: "No commercial use
shall be approved until eighty-six (86) residential lots have
been approved and recorded; or simply delete the condition in
entirety;
2. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors find that the
applicant's proposed modification is justified and would serve
the public purpose and therefore grant modification of 9 20.9.4
in accordance with 8.5.4(d) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Payne explained that this is not a special use permit, noting that
it is an amendment to the rezoning, therefore for purposes of indexing,
etc., it should be re -numbered. He explained that the procedure for
advertising etc., is the same for a special use permit and rezoning
application. He pointed out that the Commission should make it clear
that this is an amendment to the zoning.
013 D
Earlysville Forest Doctor's Office Site Plan - located off the north
side of Rt. 743 near the corner of the intersection of Rt. 743 and Iwo
Earlysville Forest Drive; proposal to locate a 1,4000 square foot
(1 story with basement) building on a 3.77 acre parcel in the
Earlysville Forest PUD. Rivanna District. (TM 31B, parcel C).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Dr. Andy McFarland, the applicant, stated his reasons for moving to
this area. He noted that the staff has stated that they could support
a commercial entrance onto Rt. 743 provided that the roadway through
the commercial area was designed in such a way as to discourage
through traffic to and from the residential areas. He pointed out
that he felt a through way would help consolidate this area as a
commercial area. He explained that this would be mainly be used by
patients. He stated that he would respond to any questions or
concerns the Commission may have.
Mr. Daley Craig stated that they have no objections to the roadway
connecting to Earlysville Forest, but pointed out that he is willing
to accept any constraints the staff may suggest to prevent this road
from being used as a general through way.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Kindrick questioned the location of the telephone switching
station.
Mr. Craig pointed out the location of this station on the map, also
noting that they have an entrance on Rt. 743.
Mr. Kindrick noted his concern with vehicles parking by the switching
station (after hours) and stated that he felt this building should
be accessed via the proposed road serving the doctor's office.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the telephone switching station presently
has an easement (gravel road) providing access to their property.
Mr. Gilliam pointed out that since the telephone switching station
has an easement, they would have to agree to abandon this easement
and use the new road, therefore, he did not feel this should be
made part of the conditions of approval.
Mr. Cogan stated that he has some concern about building this road
(through road in commercial area) at this time noting that they
are not sure of the type of future development. He stated that
not having this through road would, in his opinion, not be determinetal
to the operation of the doctor' office.
19
Mr. Skove suggested that condition l.f. be changed to read:
• Planning staff and County Engineer approval of private road
design to minimize through traffic.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the road could be built with speed bumps,
etc.. However, once the road is built, it will1determine how further
buildings can be put on the site.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt the road should be constructed as the
site developes and not totally installed at this time.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out to the applicant that only that portion of the
road up to his development would have to be constructed at this time.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that when the original rezoning was approved
for this site, the question of access to Rt. 743 was not addressed.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he has no objection to an entrance onto Rt.
743, but pointed out that he would like to see the road design progress
as the remainder of the site developes.
Ms. Imhoff stated that if this plan is approved with internal road
only to the doctor's office, the future road to Earlysville Forest
Drive should be shown on the plan.
Mr. Payne suggested the following wording for condition l.f.:
• Planning staff and County Engineer approval of private road
design to serve doctor's office with connection to Earlysville
Forest Drive to be shown as future road.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he has no objection to the road being built
at this time noting that he does not feel that it will create an
undue amount of through traffic.
Mr. Payne suggested the following condition, to address the concern
of Mr. Kindrick regarding the substation:
• Applicant to provide access to Centel switching equipment
location onto private road.
Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this site plan subject to the
following conditions:
1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions
have been met by the applicant:
a. Add complete note: Landscaping to be maintained and replaced
if any should die."
Z J/O
b. County Engineer approval of final drainage plans;
c. County Engineer approval of final road plans, profiles and
specifications;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Ordinance;
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
100' long, 12' wide turn lane with 100' taper commercial
entrance;
f. Planning staff and County Engineer approval of private road design
to serve doctor's office with connection to Earlysville
Forest Drive to be shown as future road;
g. Applicant to provide access to Centel switching equipment
location onto private road.
2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy all improvements
will be planted, constructed or bonded.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
AW
M
SP-83-41 Albemarle County Fair - Request in accordance with Section
27.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance to locate County Fair on 9.100 acres
zoned LI, County Tax Map 76M(1), Parcel 4A, Scottsville Magisterial
District. Located about 0.4 mile east of Route 631 (Fifth Street)
adjacent to Willoughby PUD, I-64 to the south, known formerly as the
James River Supply property.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Bill Crosby stated that he has no objections to the conditions
as outlined by staff and noted that he would respond to any questions
or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Davis ascertained that wagons used to transport people to and
from the fairgrounds last year, will not be used this year.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the woodened food bridge will be
removed.
Mr. Davis moved to recommend approval of this petition to the Board
of Supervisors, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provide physical and/or personnel traffic control measures on
Fifth Street as deemed necessary by the City Police and County
Sheriff's Department;
2. Clearing of vegetation along shoulders of entrance road. Posting
of signage along both sides of entrance road stating "No Parking.
Fire Lane." Barriers and "No access" signs to prevent access to
Old Willoughby Road on the south and area on the north where
recreational vehicle traffic has traveled over the slope.
3. Health Department approval of temporary sanitary facilities.
4. Cordon off concrete batching area. Provide cover over concrete
drainage ditch. Cordon off depressed ramp on north side of
building. In addition to other requirements of this condition,
removal or correction to the reasonable satisfaction of the Fire
Official of any hazard identified after site inspection.
5. Fire Official and Director of Planning approval of location of
individual uses, vehicular and pedestrian circulation; parking
areas, and emergency vehicular access provisions;
6. Hours open to the public limited to 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Tuesday,
August 20 thru Friday, Septembe 3, 1983; 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. on
Saturday, September 3, 1983.
7. Lighting to be directed away from I-64.
8. Public access to I-64 side of building shall be permitted only
upon provision of safety measures to the reasonable satisfaction
of the Fire Official and the Director of Planning.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ZMA-83-8 Beechtree Associates - Request to rezone 1.1221 acres from
Commercial Office to C-1, County Tax Map 61, parcel 25, Charlottesville
Magisterial District. Located on the eastern side of Hydraulic Road
(Rt. 743), just north of its intersection with Route 657.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Bob Hauser, representing theapplicant, stated that a site plan
was approved for a commercial office development. He noted that one
of the offices was classified as a health spa but in reality it is
simply a gym. He asked the Commission to grant their request for
the rezoning.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Davis asked why a spa was allowed in the Commercial Office zoning.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the commercial office district is a very
limited district, primarily office type uses that are intended as a
transistion between the commercial area and residential area. He noted
that in this case the spa was enclosed entirely within the building
and stated that he did not know if you could distinguish, unless you
lived next door, that the spa was there.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the applicant has stated that he will proffer
to limit the use of the remainder of Parcel 25 to Commercial Office
uses as provided for in the Commercial Office district, therefore, he
did not feel that this request was unreasonable.
Mr. Skove moved to recommend approval of this petition to the Board
of Supervisors with the following proffer:
• Beechtree Associates profers to limit the use of the
remainder of parcel 25 to commercial office uses as
provided for in the commercial office district.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
9
.2V3
ZMA-83-9 Commonwealth Energy Contractors - Request with proffer to
rezone 1.0 acre currently zoned Village Residential to Light Industrial,
County Tax Map 31, Parcel 36, Rivanna Magisterial District. Located
approximately 600 feet south of the intersection of Routes 743 and
663, Earlysville area, on the eastern side of Route 743.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the applicant has withdrawn this request.
Mr. Kindrick moved to accept the applicants request for withdrawal
of ZMA-83-9.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
WORK SESSION: PRIVATE ROADS:
Mr. Keeler presented a report, prepared by the Private Roads Committee
on May 26, 1983 which outlines some reasons why private roads are
beneficial and also problems that have occured. (Copy attached).
Mr. Davis stated that plats that are to be recorded with private roads
should be clearly marked that said road is to be maintained with
private funds, not by any State agency. He also stated that he felt
private roads should be identified in some manner, such as signs.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt a note on the plat speaking to the
maintenance of private roads is a good idea.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the maintenance of private roads is spoken
to in the maintenance agreement.
Mr. Bowerman stated that by marking private roads, a prospective
buyer would be forewarned that this is a private road.
Mr. Bowerman noted the reasons why a private road is necessary, and
stated that he felt the Commission has waived the provisions for
private roads mainly in the area of small family divisions.
Mr. Cogan noted the problems involved when a private road does not
comply with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Davis noted problems which have occured with private roads relating
to an average lot size. He noted that he felt the Commission should
establish a minimum lot size for private roads.
Mr. Payne explained the objective of the Comprehensive Plan noting that
in order to keep the large parcels intact the average lot size is beneficial.
,g /
Mr. Payne suggested that the Commission review private roads in the
following terms:
1. There have been a number of instances where the Commission has
been sympathetic to the need for a private road in two lot
subdivisions, not necessarily a family division. He pointed out
that you can't have a state road on less than three lots.
2. Development of existing sub -standard roads of whatever character
(old County roads, old easements etc.), when the applicant wants
to divide a parcel on the far end of a private road.
3. The urban type development, particularly condominiums where a
state road is not beneficial because of design, etc.. He pointed
out that condominiums have to have a private road because they are
owned in common.
Mr. Payne explained that the Commission should consider all the necessary
information in deciding when private roads should/should not be
allowed. He pointed out that there is no inherent right to subdivide
property unless you comply with the standards of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission should consider that Albemarle
County Subdivision Ordinance is more inclusive than other subdivision
ordinancesbecause it includes any division that does not front, for
a specified length, on a state road.
Mr. Payne stated that regarding the maintenance agreement and developers
control of the home owners association, the ordinance states that this
is to be pro rata share. He stated that he interprets this to mean
1 man = 1 vote, pointing out that sharing the cost pro rata implies
sharing the control pro rata.
Mr. Payne explained that the developers want to keep control until
the development is complete and then turn over all maintenance to the
homeowners association. He stated that he as a general rule allows
the developer a 2-1 vote, allowing the developer to keep control until
2/3 of the development is complete. He asked the Commission if they
had any comment or guidance concerning this.
Mr. Davis stated that when a developer sells property and the buyer
builds on said property, the investment in the homeowners association
represents a larger investement than what the developer has remaining.
Mr. Keeler stated that this could be a problem when developement
moves slowly or lots are put to record individually.
Mr. Elrod noted the concerns of homeowners who want the road repaired
but do not have enough controlling votes to do this, so they ask
the County to make these repairs.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could change the ordinance so
that this applies only to small scale development.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was some mechanism which could be used
by the County Engineer to force the developer to make the necessary
road improvements.
Mr. Payne stated that a road is required to be de3igned in an acceptable
fashion, built to said fashion, and a maintenance agreement established.
He noted that once this is done the County has no further authority.
Mr. Skove stated that allowing the developer to have half the
controlling power and the homeowners association the other half
seems to be in the best interest for all concerned parties.
Mr. Davis stated that he did not feel that private roads are suitable
for large scale, small lot development or more than 10-15 lots.
Mr. Keeler stated that prior to the existence of private roads, three
lots could be accepted by the Highway Department as a public road and
two lots could be served by an easement. He also noted that according
to the County Attorney's office pipe stem lots were not permitted
(according to the Zoning Ordinance). He explained that developers,
instead of going to the Planning Commission, were creating five acre
lots with 6" pipe stems, putting this and an easement over the pipe
stem to record.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission not to change the definition of
subdivision as currently outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Davis suggested the following definition for a private road:
• Only two lots can be served by an easement which is on a private
road.
Mr. Payne suggested the following definition for private roads:
• Private road is any road which is not on a State maintained road.
Mr. Payne noted that the Commission could simply allow a subdivision
which has a private road which serves only two lots.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the Subdivision Ordinance must be complied
with, pointing out that this would speak to the upgrading of the road,
etc.
Mr. Bowerman noted reasons why the Commission has allowed waivers
regarding private and state maintained roads in the past, and pointed
out that the Commission should enforce the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Payne noted that before the adoption of the private roads ordinance,
the Subdivision Ordinance allowed only public roads and restrictive roads.
He pointed out that the Commission was approving roads with easements
and waiving the requirements of the ordinance. He stated that the
Commission needs to determine when, if at all, a waiver of the ordinance
is necessary, and then stand by the requirements as outlined in the
Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Skove noted problems with maintenance of state roads versus that
of private roads. He reiterated that the purchaser should be aware
that this is a private road.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt one reason the Commission is receiving
requests for private roads is because the Highway Department has
upgraded the requirements for State roads, making the cost prohibitive.
Mr. Payne pointed out that one reason the developers like private
roads is because the cost is less than that of a State road.
Mr. Payne noted that if private roads were not permitted, growth would
be concentrated in the growth areas and away from the rural areas.
Mr. Cogan noted that private roads serve a purpose, pointing out that
the Commission needs to determine what the use of private roads would
be, how they would be compatible, etc. He also stated that he felt
the connection between private roads and the Comprehensive Plan should
be separated.
Mr. Keeler noted that if the Commission decides to delete private
roads entirely, then the possibility exists that developers will be
requesting special use permits allowing for more intensive development.
Mr. Davis ascertained that a six lot subdivision requires the road
to be primed and double sealed.
Mr. Payne noted the cost of property in the County and noted that property
fronting on a state road is more expensive than that on a private road.
Mr. Payne explained that in order to determine when a private road
should be allowed the Commission needs to consider the environmental
impact, hardship, etc..
11r. Cogan stated that a breakdown between the urban and rural areas
should be done noting situations where a private road would be
advantegeous.
n
�7 7
Mr. Elrod stated that the Commission should consider the problems
created by private roads and find a solution to said problem.
Mr. Payne noted that the existing Subdivision Ordinance allows the
Commission to approve private roads when they find that one or more
of the following reasons applies:
• the approval of such roads will alleviate a clearly demonstrable
danger of significant degradation to the environment of the site
or adjacent properties which would be occasioned by the construction
of public roads;
• the approval of such roads would significantly contribute to the
physical security of the residents of such subdivision; or
• for a specific, identifiable reason, the general public interest, as
opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider, would be
better served by the construction of such roads than by the
construction of public roads.
Mr. Payne stated that he favors the above three requirements because
they require the Commission to state a specific purpose for allowing
the private road.
Mr. Davis noted that the private roads committee discussed the idea
of allowing lots that are served by public roads to divide once without
having to upgrade the road.
r.r Mr. Payne pointed out the number of roads created would create more
maintenance problems, etc.
Mr. Payne noted that two lot subdivisions could result in stripping
of the road with shared entrances.
The concensus of the Planning Commission was to have the following
concerns addressed by staff and to hold another work session at a later
date:
• Prepare a list of circumstances where private roads should be
allowed. Also prepare a list of circumstances where private
roads should not be allowed.
• Determine what the length of a private road should be and the
number of lots to be allowed on private roads.
• Distinguish between private roads in the urban and rural areas.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m..
-8