HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 23 85 PC MinutesApril 23, 1985
I%W The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, April 23, 1985, in Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice
Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. James Skove;
and Mr. Harry Wilkerson. Other officials present were:
Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson,
Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Ms. Patricia
Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. Richard Gould and Mr. Frederick
Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the April 9, 1985 meeting were approved as written.
Taylor Auto Body Shop Site Plan - Proposal to locate 8,000 square
foot body shop with seven (7) service stalls, to be served by
twenty-one (21) parking spaces. Located on the east side of
Brookway Drive off the west side of Rio Road and adjacent to
Meadowcreek. Zoned Cl, Commercial. Tax Map 61, parcels 168D
and 168E. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report, including a review of the
original report and comments.
The Chairman asked the County Engineer, Mr. Elrod, if he had
a cost figure for improving the 560 feet of roadway.
Mr. Elrod stated the original requirements had been for 11-2" of
bituminous concrete on the roadway; however, because of the
small amount of traffic that will be using the road, he indicated
he felt if the plans were re -submitted the Highway Department would ap-
prove a surface treating, tar and gravel. He said to meet
the original requirements, the cost would be approximately
$12,000 to $13,000 and if it could be approved as a surface
treated road, that could be reduced to about $8,000. He
pointed out that was just to get the road paved up to the end
of the property, but that will not get it into the state
system. He stated if some way could not be worked out to
get the road into the state system, then he felt it ought to
]--mandatory that it be a private road.
Mr. Echols, of the Highway Department, stated he was concerned
that if the road were stopped at the property line, it would
never be completed to the cul-de-sac. He stated he had not
reviewed the question of the surface of the road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Highway Department would accept
the road up to this property line, with the parking lot for
this application used as a turn around. Mr. Echols responded
negatively, stating it would have to be a usual cul-de-sac.
lVe6
April 23, 1985
Page 2
Mr. Echols stated records do not show why the road was never
accepted into the state system. 14
In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Mr. Echols confirmed if
the applicant wished to construct a cul-de-sac, it would have
to be done on their own property because there is not enough
right-of-way left.
Mr. Elrod stated it would cost approximately $18,000 to build
the road all the way to the end with an acceptable cul-de-sac.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Doug Taylor, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He
stated he had contacted the adjoining property owners concerning
the road and only one of three had indicated they would be
willing to contribute to the upgrading of the road. He also
stated it did not seem fair that he should be required to
build the entire road.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Steven Bush, an adjacent landowner, addressed the Commission.
He questioned whether the Planning Commission has the right to
act on this application until after the court has ruled that
the property is properly zoned. He quoted from section 34.3
of the Zoning Ordinance to support his claim: "An appeal shall
stay all procedures and furtherance of the action appealed
from unless the Zoning Administrator certifies to the Board of
Zoning Appeals that by reason of facts stated in the certificate
a stay would in his opinion cause imminent peril to life or
property, in which case proceedings shall not be stayed, other-
wise than by restraining order granted by the Board of Zoning
Appeals or by a court of record on application and on notice
to the Zoning Administrator for good cause shown." He felt
this particular ordinance applies to all appeals, not just
to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated the matter is pending
before the Circuit Court, but no trial date has been set.
Regarding the road, he stated the residents of his street use
Brookway Drive as a turn around since the angle of their
street is such that they are not able to make a righthard turn
onto it from Rio Road without going past it, turning around on
Brookway Drive and coming back. He indicated he felt, as tax-
paying citizens, they had the right to use this road in this way.
He was concerned if the maintenance of this road was taken
over by the owners and made a private road, the residents of
his subdivision would no longer be able to use it. He felt
he and his neighbors had a right to expect that the road would
be properly maintained. Mr. Bush felt noise would be a
significant problem and would cause a substantial change in
the character of the neighborhood. He suggested that if the
body shop is allowed, it be required that its orientation be
changed on the lot so as to move the open bays away from
the residential area. He was concerned about bright security
lights and asked that the type of lights and their location be
restricted. He was concerned about tow trucks using the road
y& 7
April 23, 1985
Page 3
cm
at all hours. He stated that he felt automobiles that were
brought in at off hours should be placed on the applicant's property
and not on the roadway. Mr. Bush also felt that landscaping
was a significant issue and asked that it be subject to
Commission approval and not be left to staff, so that adja-
cent landowners can have the opportunity for input.
Regarding whether or not the Commission can act on the
application at this time, Ms. Patterson stated that Mr. Payne
had been consulted and his opinion is that an appeal to the
Board of Zoning Appeals does stay further proceedings or
action on the property, but an appeal from the Board of
Zoning Appeals to the Court does not.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Payne was not present due to
a death in his family and that, in his absence, based on
his opinion as represented by Ms. Patterson, the Commission
does have jurisdiction at this time
Mr. Al Garrett, an adjoining property owner, addressed the
Commission. He stated his property was located above, and
immediately behind the property. He was concerned about
the open bays facing his property. He asked that the
Commission require that the orientation of the building be
changed and that significant screening be required.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
It was determined the original application was submitted
more than 60 days previously.
Ms. Diehl indicated she was concerned about the high water
table and drainage from this property. Ms. Patterson indicated
they would be required to use an oil separator but she was
not familiar with the design of the mechanism. Ms. Patterson
stated she was not aware of any materials that would drain
directly from the surface of the lot. Ms. Diehl asked the
County Engineer how he would approach the high water table
in terms of an acceptable design to keep the operation
above the water table.
Mr. Elrod indicated he was not aware of a high water table.
Ms. Diehl referred to the soils report which accompanied the
site plan which stated that the Tlat portion of the property
is flood plain soil, poorly drained, with the water table
within one foot of the surface."
Mr. Elrod stated the site has been filled over the years and
indicated he felt the soils report probably referred to the
original ground.
)ID
April 23, 1985
Page 4
Mr. Elrod indicated he had visited the site and did not anticipate
any problems. 140
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Elrod indicated he
would be in favor of a vacation of the right-of-way, and
turning the road into a private road.
Mr. Michel indicated he too was in favor of the County vacating
the right-of-way, but he would still be in favor of a public
road.
It was ascertained there are a total of 8 lots on the property,
all of which are commercial.
Mr. Cogan indicated he did not feel the steps suggested by the
Highway Department for vacation of the right-of-way would .
be necessary if the road is a public road. Mr. Wilkerson agreed.
Mr. Michel stated it was his understanding that those steps
would have to be taken because the County would not be
requesting it (i.e. the vacation).
Mr. Bowerman stated the road has been dedicated to public use
and VDH&T would accept it if it were built to their standards.
Mr. Cogan stated that all that is required is it be built to
state standards and VHD&T will accept it. Mr. Cogan stated
further that it was his understanding that the state might
accept it at a lesser standard than what the original design
was intended to be due to the fact that it is not the
through road that was originally intended.
Mr. Bowerman stated that would also include a cul-de-sac, and
not a temporary turn around.
Mr. Skove stated he thought Mr. Elrod's idea was to
provide a mechanism where the road would not have to be taken
into the state system.
Mr. Echols (VDH&T) confirmed Mr. Cogan's understanding was
correct, i.e. that the Highway Department may accept a lesser
standard because the traffic volume may be less than what the
road was originally built for. However, he emphasized he
was not committing the Highway Department to anything.
Mr. Skove recalled that in the past roads that serve only
industrial property have not been required to be built to
state standards. Mr. Bowerman stated that these have been
private roads.
Ms. Diehl stated she thought the Ordinance allows this only
for industrial properties.
April 23, 1985
Page 5
Ms. Diehl stated she felt commercial areas were slightly
1%1W different that industrial ones.
Ms. Diehl stated there were three choices in this matter:
(1) Require that the road be completed for acceptance into
the state system; (2) Bond it; or (3) Following County
Engineer's procedure for vacation of the right-of-way.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Elrod stated that
if the Commission approved this as a private road, it would have
to be approved subject to the easement being vacated, which
would require a public hearing before both the Commission and
the Board.
Mr. Bush once again addressed the Commission to correct a
misconception regarding the use of Brookway Drive by the
residential property owners. He stated the homes which
use this road use it as a turn around and their street
does not actually turn off of Brookway Drive. He again
stressed that if the road becomes private, the people who
now use it as a necessary turn around area, will no longer
be able to do so. He again explained the sharp angle of
his street when approaching it from Rio Road coming from
Fashion Square Mall, making it impossible to make a right
turn into the street, and similarly making it impossible
to make a left turn onto Rio Road when coming out of his
street.
It was determined three of the eight lots on Brookway
Drive are undeveloped.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt it was unfair to require this
applicant to upgrade the entire road. He stated he was
leaning towards the vacation of the road and did not
feel this would prohibit the residents of the property
above this application from using the road as a turn around
since there would be no convenient way to limit its
use.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt the Commission's decision should be
based on the public interest and she could not see any
public interest to be derived from vacating the right-of-way.
Mr. Bowerman stated he did not feel there was any difference.
He did not feel a cul-de-sac would make any tangible difference.
Mr. Cogan agreed that it was inequitable to put the burden
for upgrading the entire road on this one applicant; however,
given the other problems that this application presents
because of its proximity to a residential area, Mr. Cogan
indicated he felt improvements should be made. He indicated
a maintenance agreement just states who will maintain a
road, and does not actually insure that it will be maintained,
while if the road were in the state system, its maintenance
would be assured.
April 23, 1985 Page 6
Ms. Diehl stated if the County vacates the right-of-way, it
no longer has any jurisdiction over the maintenance of the
road. Mr. Bowerman stated it would then be in the hands
of those people who participate in the maintenance agreement.
Ms. Diehl stated she would look on the vacation idea with
much less skepticism if it could be assured that all the
owners along the road would participate in a maintenance
agreement, i.e. some sort of document signed by all these
owners.
Mr. Cogan stated that would be a very complicated document.
Mr. Bowerman stated it seems that the only solution is to
require a state road, even though it meant a tremendous expense
to the applicant with the other property owners getting
a free ride.
Mr. Cogan agreed and stated he hoped the Highway Department
would permit the surfacing to be done at the lesser expense
as outlined by the County Engineer.
Regarding the re -siting of the building and the landscaping,
Mr. Bowerman stated this would usually call for a deferral
so that changes could be made, but because of the time
limitations for this proposal, action on the application
is required now.
It was determined action could be taken, subject to landscape
plans being brought back to the Commission at a later time.
Regarding the open bays on the back of the building, it was
determined two bays open at the back and the applicant
indicated he would be willing to eliminate the doors to the
rear. He also indicated he had no problems with landscape
plans to be approved by the Commission. Mr. Taylor was
also agreeable to having the comments from his April 22, 1985
letter incorporated into the approval. (These comments
addressed some of the previous concerns of the Commission
and the neighbors.)
It was determined the issue would be readvertised for
public comment when the landscape plans were submitted.
Ms. Patterson stated the applicant would probably have to change
his site plan tooif he closes those back bays.
Mr. Garrett, a neighboring property owner, stated it would
be more palatable to the residents above the property if
the parking area were moved closer to the hill (making it
less in view of the property at the top of the hill).
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt it was up to the applicant to
approach the neighboring property owners to get their comments
and suggestions.
'//
April 23, 1985
Page 7
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Taylor Auto Body Shop Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the
following conditions have been met:
a. VDH&T approval of road plans and specifications
and bonding or construction of Brookway Drive to
be accepted into the State system.
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit.
C. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications
and first floor elevation above the floodplain.
d. Vacation of drainage easement by the Board of
Supervisors.
e. Fire Officer approval of firewall adjacent of
parcel 168F and provisions for spray painting
and body repair.
f. No entrances or exits to rear of building.
g. Landscape plans subject to review and approval
of Planning Commission.
2. A certificate of occupanc will not be issued until the
following conditions have been met:
a. Fire Officer final approval of fireflow.
b. Recordation of plat combining parcels 168D and 168E.
C. Planning staff approval of method of delineating
parking and one-way travel.
3. Only seven (7) service stalls are permitted without
provisions for additional parking.
4. Compliance with letter dated April 22, 1985 from applicant
to Ms. Patterson.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out to the applicant that a change in the
Zoning Ordinance is pending in regard to auto bodv shops as a use
by right in the C-1 zone. He stated the applicant has 18 months
to get the site plan approved and all the conditions met.
Ms. Patterson added that construction must commence within 18
months.
Mr. Bowerman also stated that if anyone wished to appeal this
decision to the Board of Supervisors, they have 10 days to do so.
SP-85-16 James B. Murray, Stephen M. Murray and Panorama Farms -
Request in accordance with Section 10.5.2.1 to locate 80 lots
on a 189.10 acre parcel with an average lot size of 2.13 acres.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas. TM 31, parcel 21, Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
The Chairman stated the applicant was requesting deferral
until May 7, 1985.
�//,z
April 23, 1985
Page 8
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-85-16 be deferred until May 7, 1985.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
ZTA-85-06 - Proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include
landscaping, screening requirements and related amendments.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. She stated the County attorney
has recommended deferral until he has had an opportunity to
review the amendments.
Ms. Scala presented four drawings which she used as examples
in explaining how the amendments will be applied.
Mr. Bowerman, in an attempt to clarify the new numbers,
ascertained that 32.8.3.1 will be deleted and thus 32.8.3.3
will become 32.8.31 and 32.8.3A will become 32.8.3.2. He
also determined that under section 32.8.2.1.the word may
should be changed to shall (middle of first paragraph).
Regarding a suggestion made by Peggy Van Yahres, Ms. Scala
stated that Ms. Van Yahres had suggested that in the paragraph
relating to showing existing landscape features on the site,
the term "significant individual tree" should be defined, and
Ms. Van Yahres had suggested that it be defined as "8 inches
or greater caliper measured 12 inches above the ground."
Ms. Van Yahres had also suggested that it be the planning
staff, rather than the Commission, that should require that
"any and all such features should be preserved," because
not all the landscape plans would get as far as the Commission.
Ms. Scala confirmed if there was a question on a plan, it would
be brought to the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that an 8 inch caliper tree on a site with
only one tree would be significant, but on a heavily wood site
it might be insignificant. He said he would rather it not
be defined that closely in order to allow staff to determine
what features are significant.
Ms. Scala further explained that not everything that is shown
as existing is going to be significant enough to save.
It was determined that since staff visits the sites, they would
be able to catch something that had been omitted, either by
accident or intentionally.
Regarding the conservation plan, Mr. Michel stated he liked
this idea, but he was not sure that each applicant should come
in with a specific plan each time.
Ms. Scala stated she felt the plan could be simple, but that
a plan should be submitted.
t11.3
April 23, 1985
Page 9
She further stated she hoped the conservation plan would be
on the same sheet as the landscaping. She said the conserva-
tion plan was not intended to be something complicated, and
perhaps this section should be worded differently.
Mr. Michel agreed that the language should be tightened up.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Carol Jackson, representing the League of Women Voters,
addressed the Commission and read the following statement:
11
he support the proposal to amend the zoning ordinance with the
addition of landscaping and screening requirements. ►';c are glad
the major emphasis is on the addition of shade trec,-,. P1ajor trees
are essential to the character of the Albemarle laud',ca1+e, and
they also m:
ore readily provide the other environment,l goals of
improving air and water quality, conserving energy, and minimizing
noise and glare.
The explicitness of the proposed ordinances compared to the existing
*4W should male tnese ordinances much easier to enforce, and save time
for applicants who are often required to make these additions anyway
at tiie Planning Commission meeting which comes at the cnd of the
site planning process. The applicant then has to revise his/her plan
which causes delay for him and more review for the comity staff.
In particular, we are pleased that the screening recluircnients are
made specific to particular uses, particularly from residential
areas. The addition of Virginia Historic Landmarks to i)e protected
from objectionable uses is a good one. Also, the extra screening
and shading of parking lots will greatly improve our area, as will
the addition of street trees on public roads. The requirement of
a maintenance bond for proposed landscaping is another assurance
for these public benefits.
i
Sue Lctc i ]'resident
Mr. Blake Hurt addressed the Commission and offered the following
comments:
--The Landscaping Ordinance is a good one and landscaping
is generally worth the money.
April 23, 1985
Page 10
--He pointed out the additional cost that will be
added to each new home as a result of these
requirements. He asked the Commission to consider
whether or not the additional costs were worth the
additional benefits.
--Regarding interior landscaping on small sites (less
than 15,000 square feet), he suggested if the trees
infringe on the parking area and prevented the
required parking, then possibly they should be
allowed to be placed along the perimeter.
--Regarding section 32.8.2.3 which requires that existing
landscape features be shown on the plan and the
possibility that any or all such features may be
required to be preserved, Mr. Hurt felt it was not
possible to independently judge significant features,
since a contractor will be inclined not to show
significant features if he thinks it will prevent the
site plan from being approved. He also felt this would
be difficult to police and would create disagreements
between staff and developers. He also felt this lends
itself to arbitrary implementation. He felt this
entire section should be deleted.
Ms. Peggy Van Yahres addressed the Commission and offered the
following comments:
--She was representing Piedmont Environmental Council
as well as herself as a landscape architect.
--Basically, she was in favor of the amendments.
--Regarding section 32.8.2.3, she felt this should be more
defined, i.e. what are significant trees, what are
travelways, which ridgelines. She suggested that
trees that are 8 inches should be labeled (as described
earlier), but explained that this does not mean that
all those trees are significant. She suggested that
the term "significant" needs to be defined and suggested
that it might be desirable, at some future date, to
have a study done which would actually identify
the County's significant features.
--Regarding section 32.8.3.2, dealing with the conservation
plan, she suggested that the County make up a checklist
of what was to go into the plan. She suggested that
the conservation plan be included with the Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan since it will be those people who
will have to enforce it.
--Regarding section 32.8.51, dealing with parking lots,
she suggested if there is a hardship it might be
possible to allow an applicant to have a certain number
of small spaces (for compact cars). Then the applicant
does not have to give up his parking space for a tree
and the County still gets its tree.
--In section 32.8.6.1, regarding screening, she felt that
plantings should not be required if a fence or a wall is
required. Both should not be required and she felt the
last sentence of that section should be deleted.
--Regarding the Recommended Species List, she agreed that
a shade tree list should be required, but felt that
clearly
�/5
April 23, 1985
Page 11
CR
a general species list should not be required because
of the limitless varieties available the list would
have to be continually updated. She recommended that
there just be a "recommended" list for screening
trees and shrubs and street shrubs which would say
"includes these shrubs, but not necessarily limited
to
--She suggested that the County offer a Workshop for
applicants to explain these requirements.
Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission and offered the following
comments:
--He agreed with Ms. Van Yahres comments.
--Regarding the bonding requirement, he was concerned
that this would create an economic hardship on the small
landscape contractors.
--Regarding significant features, he stated four of the
eight features listed were man-made and he felt this
implied that things that were done a few years ago were
significant and things that are being done today are not.
He did not agree with this judgment.
--He questioned the extra time that would be involved in
securing approval from other agencies.
--Regarding the requirement that for 1/4 acre lots there
be a Homeowners Association to maintain street trees,
he indicated he was opposed to this due to the legal
costs involved in setting up such an agreement and
because it would be difficult to enforce.
--He indicated he was in favor of requiring a 6-8 foot
street tree rather than a 12" caliper street tree because of
of the additional cost that would be added on to a
home in relation to the larger trees. He felt there
would only be a couple of years difference in age
between the two sizes. He asked the Commission to
consider closely the economic differences involved
in the smaller tree vs. the larger tree.
--He suggested that something similar to the following
be added: "Notwithstanding all of the above requirements,
in no case should the applicant be required to put
more than "X" percent in open space within the site."
He suggested as the "X" percent the present ten or
twenty percent for commercial and industrial and in
the residential area, a statement to the effect that
"the landscaping requirement should not be such that
it makes it impossible to achieve the density that
is allowed by the zoning."
A citizen asked for clarification of the Recommended Species
List. Ms. Scala stated that if an applicant wanted to use
something that was not on the list, they would have to get
staff approval.
J71/41
April 23, 1985 Page 12
Mr. Craig Van de Castle addressed the Commission. He felt
the term "significant features" was being misinterpreted
by members of the public. He felt the word "significant"
was used in the sense of criteria by which the Planning
Commission makes its judgment when it considers these plans.
He asked if section 32.8.1 serves as an "enabling" statute
and if 32.8.3 would fall under a purpose of an ordinance
whose aim it is to provide for installation of plant materials.
He felt this was a very good start for a much needed ordinance.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt May 21 would be an acceptable
date for deferral. He added this would allow time for staff
to review the public comments along with Mr. Payne's comments
and incorporate these into the report. He asked that specific
attention be given to the term "significant" in section 32.8.2.3.
He felt this entire paragraph should be reviewed, though he
felt it should be retained. He also was in favor of staff
identifying what they feel are significant features and those
should be noted on the site plan. He agreed that there would
be differences of opinion in terms of what is significant, but
he felt an attempt should be made before eliminating the idea.
He also asked that the amendment be retyped in order to clarify
the numbering.
Mr. Cogan asked Ms. Scala to review the comments of the public
and summarize those and include them alongside the different
sections of the proposed ordinance.
Ms. Scala stated there were some major misconceptions which
she would like to clarify. She said this landscape ordinance
had come about in an attempt to provide streamlining and less
debate before the Commission, and not as a basis for bonuses.
It was also to allow developers to budget more easily in pre-
paring their landscape plans. It is also hoped this will
reduce conflicts with the Highway Department and the Service
Authority. Regarding requiring a Homeowners Association for
1/4 acre lots, she stated street trees are only required
for residential developments if a site plan is also required.
So single family homes and duplexes would not be required
to have landscaping. (Mr. Wagner said he had misread this.)
Regarding placing a "cap" on the open space, she felt the
ordinance will in many cases require less than the 100 or 200.
She said the point is it will be in the areas where it is
going to make the biggest impact.
The Chairman commended staff for their work on this ordinance.
Mr. Cogan moved that ZTA 85-06 be deferred until May 21.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
The meeting recessed at 9:50; reconvened at 9:55. vai
Mr. Skove did not return after the recess.
April 23, 1985 Page 13
Jack Artale Final Plat - Located on west side of Rt. 605 just
`awl south of its intersection with Rt. 604 and the Greene County
limits. Proposal to create 2 lots, one 5 acre parcel and one
9.45 acre parcel from a 14.45 acre parcel. Lots will be served
by a proposed private road currently serving two existing
parcels. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 10, parcel 8. White
Hall Magisterial District.
Ms. Joseph gave the staff report and stated that staff
was recommending approval.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Roger Ray, representing the applicant addressed the Commission.
He stated the applicant was in agreement with staff's recommen-
dations.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel moved that the Jack Artale Final Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will be signed when the following
conditions have been met:
14kr a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval of private street commercial entrance;
b. County Engineer approval of private road plans;
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Bentivar Final Plat - Located on the south side of Rt. 643 just
east of the Southern Railway overpass. Proposal to redivide
lots in Bentivar Subdivision from an existing 13 lots with an
average size of 5 acres to 27 lots with an average size
of 2.5 acres. The parcels cover 73.77 acres. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Tax Map 46, parcels 111-116 and 132-138. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Ms. Joseph gave the staff report and stated that staff was recom-
mmending indefinite deferral until the issues affecting this sub-
division are resolved.
It was determined the Education staff is concerned that the
alignment (the curve) along Rt. 643 will not be safe for
schoolbuses.
It was determined Bentivar Drive'is not in the state system.
on
April 23, 1985 Page 14
Ms. Joseph stated the applicant had informed her that they
might not attend this meeting since staff was recommending
deferral.
It was determined the applicant was not present.
Mr. Echols stated he would have no problem providing the infor-
mation staff has requested.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Bentivar Final Plat be indefinitely
deferred. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously
approved.
It was determined the Commission wished to review:i%e concerns
of the Education staff; the general lot size in the area;
the minutes from the original approval of the subdivision;
will the design of the road support these additional lots
(Mr. Echols stated that section of Bentivar Drive would have
to be upgraded due to this subdividing); and the original plat.
Marguerite J. Soule Preliminary Plat - Located on a private
road of Lake Albemarle. Proposal to locate 2 ninety ± acre
parcels from a 186 acre parcel. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax
Map 41, parcel 72. White Hall Magisterial District.
The Chairman stated the applicant had requested deferral until
after September 9.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Marguerite Soule Preliminary Plat
be deferred until after September 9. Mr. Wilkerson seconded
the motion which was unanimously approved.
Reed Rubin Final Plat - Located on an existing 30' easement
on west side of Rt. 675 `nest of Lake Albemarle. Proposal to
locate One 15 acre lot from a 151.7 acre parcel. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Tax Map 41, parcel 67. White Hall Magisterial
District.
Ms. Joseph gave the staff report and stated the staff was
recommending denial based on Section 18-36f of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Forbes Reback, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He offered the following comments:
--The dwelling on the land is in excess of 100 years
old and has been using this road from the very
beginning.
--The road is in good shape.
--He quoted the following from Section 18.37m of the
Subdivision Ordinance: "No subdivision shall be approved
unless the principle means of access thereto shall conform
to the standards of the State Department of Highways
April 23, 1985
Page 15
and Transportation, or, in the case of a private
road, to the standards of the County as set forth
in section 18.36c of this chapter, throughout its
length, including any distance between the boundary
of the proposed subdivision and an existing public
road." He quoted from section 18.36c: "In addition
to the provision of subsection B (no lot less than
five acres), of this section, the Commission may
approve a subdivision served by one or more private
roads in any case in which the subdivider, in ac-
cordance with subsection H of this section demonstrates
to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commission
that 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." He stated it would be a degradation
of the environment and the surrounding properties
to require that this be made a public road.
Ms. Joseph clarified that a public road was not being
requested, but rather a private road commercial
entrance. She stated the Highway Department requires
a commercial entrance if more than two parcels are
served.
Mr. Reback stated the Highway Department could
recommend but they could not require the entrance.
Ms. Joseph agreed but stated that it would be a
safety hazard.
--No traffic is being added on the road. The owners
of the other five acres have not built and have no
intention of building, and the applicant has no
intent of applying for a permit on the rest of
his land.
--He agreed that the private street commercial entrance
would have to be built at some time in the future
and he offered to bond the future construction of the
road.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Edward Bauer addressed the Commission and stated he was
opposed to the application because it is not a subdivision
into two parcels, but into three parcels and the applicant
should be required to follow the proper procedure for dividing
into three parcels.
Ms. Joseph explained that the original submittal had shown
three parcels, but the plat was revised and made into two
parcels.
April 23, 1985
Page 16
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that this private road serves the
parcel that was subdivided in 1982, this current 15 acre parcel
and the residue.
Mr. Morris Foster addressed the Commission. He said the main
issue is whether the Commission can find a valid reason to
waive the actual construction of the commercial entrance at
this time since that road is only serving one dwelling and it
may be several years before it will serve more. He stated
he could not see a reason for a denial of the application
and asked that it either be approved with the condition that
the commercial entrance should be built, or with the waiver.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Foster stated if
the entrance must be built, or bonded, it will be moved to
a location acceptable to the Highway Department.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Reback stated the applicant is agreeable to dedicating
the 25 foot easement as recommended by the Highway Department.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Joseph if she had any problems with
the applicant's proposal to bond the construction of the
commercial entrance. Ms. Joseph replied that she was not
sure there was authority to bond in a subdivision for a
safety issue. She also pointed out that parcels are counted
and not dwellings. She said an additional problem with bonding
is that the County Engineer has not had a chance to review
road plans and the Highway Department will have to review the
entrance plan.
Ms. Joseph confirmed a standard condition in a situation like this is
"VDH&T approval of commercial entrance."
Mr. Echols stated that for the Highway Department to give approval
a permit must be issued which includes freeing the bond.
Mr. Bowerman stated he could not see any problems with con-
ditioning it this way, including relocating the entrance.
Mr. Echols stated the bond could be held for a maximum of 18 months.
Mr. Bowerman expressed confusion as to why this was not conditioned
this way since that is the procedure that is usually followed.
Ms. Joseph stated that since the applicant chose to submit a
final plat, rather than a preliminary plat, she felt staff
could not recommend approval.
A discussion followed in which were determined the conditions
of approval which could be placed on this application.
il,-)-C
April 23, 1985
Page 17
Mr. Cogan moved that the Reed Rubin Final Plat be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The Final plat will be signed when the following
conditions have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of private street commercial entrance
and dedication to public use of 25' from State
Route 675 centerline.
b. Staff approval of road relocation and revised plan.
C. County Engineer approval of private road and erosion
control permit if required.
d. County Attorney approval of road maintenance agree-
ment.
e. Health Department approval of existing septic
location.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Cordelia Gray Final Plat - Located on the north side of Rt. 842
at its intersection with Rt. 616. Proposal to locate four lots
each measuring less than 5 acres from a 17.74 acre parcel. A
waiver request of 18-36(f) for lots B and D and waiver
of 18-36(b)(1). Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 80, parcel
74. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report and stated that staff
is recommending deferral.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Bob Downer, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He stated this property was going to go to the
applicant's brothers and sister, thus it could not be con-
sidered a family division. The configuration of the lots
has been determined by the potential for septic field locations.
He stated it was not critical that the lots use different
entrances. He stated problems with percolation tests have
resulted in limitations regarding how this property can be
used. He stated the applicant is not seeking approval
until it can be determined if Lot C will "perk", because
if is found that it will not, the lots will have to be
redrawn.
Mr. Tom Gale addressed the Commission. He presented drawings
showing the various configurations that had been explored.
He indicated Lot C has had one area approved for a drain
field, but the Health Department requires two locations
and a second location has not yet been approved. He also
stated there was some confusion as to whether this should
have been a final or a preliminary plat. He said that
it had originally been submitted as a final, but had
been withdrawn and it was his intent that this submittal
be a preliminary plat in order to address the question
of the lot arrangement. He also discussed the issue
of entrance locations and, for various reasons, stated
April 23, 1985
Page 18
he felt the only logical solution was to keep the entrance
where it is.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Gale stated he
had no objection to the Commission considering this as a
preliminary plat.
In response to Mr. Michel's question concerning the easement
on lot D, Mr. Gale stated if he moved the entrance to the
east he would be reducing the sight distance and if he moved
it to the west it would interfere with the septic area of Lot
B.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Hamm, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission.
She stated there has always been a problem with land "perking"
in this area. She also asked for clarification as to what
constitutes a "family division".
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Ms. Patterson explained
that if this were a family division the 5 acres on a private
road requirement does not apply. 2 acre lots are allowed
for a family division on a private road regardless of the
number of lots that are on that private road. She further
stated that the question of whether 18-36f applies (Any lot
fronting on any such road shall enter only onto such road
and shall have no immediate access onto any public street....)
needs to be determined by the County Attorney.
In response to Ms. Hamm's question, Mr.. Bowerman explained that
a family division is a "gift or sale to a member of the
immediate family (the natural or legally defined off -spring,
spouse or parent) of the owner of the property."
Ms. Patterson confirmed that she was not opposed to treating
this as a preliminary plat.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt it was very important for the question
of the septic adequacy of Lot C to be determined since this
could change the entire structure of the plat. He felt there
was no choice but to defer the matter.
Mr. Wilkerson agreed.
Ms. Patterson also pointed out that if this is not a family
division, then the lot sizes must be waived. Mr. Cogan added
if Lot C was not approved and this were three lots instead
of four, then this problem would be solved.
1}IZ9
April 23, 1985
Page 19
Mr. Bowerman indicated that after the concerns have been
addressed, the Commission would entertain staff approval of
the final plat.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Cordelia Gray Final Plat be indefinitely
deferred.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Terrae Land Trust Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide parcel
52B such that a 21.0 acre piece is added to and becomes a part
of adjacent parcel 43; and the remainder of parcel 52B is
divided into 5 lots ranging from 3.8 to 14.1 acres, for an
average 8.1 acres. Five lots are to be served by a proposed
state road off Rt. 682. Property is located on the northwest
side of the intersection of Rts. 682 and 787, zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Tax Map 57, parcels 43 and 52B. Samuel Miller Magis-
terial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She also reviewed the
priorities established by the Board of Supervisors concerning
the improvements of roads: (1) Right-of-way is already
dedicated; (2) In the growth areas, the urban areas and villages;
and (3) Gravel roads with the highest traffic count.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He stated he had no problems with staff's
recommendations. He indicated he felt the applicant was willing
to dedicate whatever was necessary if Rt. 682 should be improved.
The following adjacent and neighboring property owners addressed
the Commission and expressed their concern over the very
hazardous condition of Rt. 682: Mr. Justo Campa, Mr. Paul Kingston,
and Mr. John Lindner. These citizens indicated they were not
opposed to the addition of the homes as such, but were concerned
over the safety issue of the road and felt that approval should
be based on the condition that Rt. 682 be upgraded.
Those who spoke indicated there was not 100% agreement among
the neighboring property owners regarding the improvement of
the road. Mr. Kingston stated there was only one person opposed
along 9/10 of the mile, which is the most heavily travelled
portion of the road.
Mr. Lindner did state he was opposed to further development
until the roads are improved.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
M
April 23, 1985 Page 20
Mr. Echols stated the conditions of approval did not include
entrance approval. Mr. Bowerman asked if this was not automatic
on a state road. Mr. Echols responded that they still had to
apply for a permit to build the entrance and then the state
takes the road over once it meets the occupancy requirements,
but the entrance is required before the road is built.
Regarding improving Rt. 682, he stated that, to date, the right-
of-way has not been obtained to do this. However, he indicated
this has been an ongoing procedure for several years, i.e.
trying to obtain the right-of-way. He said the conditions
described by the public are fairly typical of gravel roads
and at least 1/3 of the roads in Albemarle County are gravel
roads. He added that there are many gravel roads which have
much more traffic on them than does this road.
Mr. Echols confirmed that it was conceivable that this could be
included in the Six -Year Plan, provided the proper procedure was
followed and the Board of Supervisors and the Highway Department
were agreeable to including it. He stated the plan is scheduled
to be revised again next spring and is revised every two years.
However, he stated that currently the Six -Year Plan has enough
gravel road projects included, so even if this were to be
included, it may be six to eight years before it could actually
be done. Regarding the one property owner who was opposed
to the improvement of the road, Mr. Echols stated sometimes
the alignment of the road can be shifted in such a way as to
work around certain properties.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt there was a good chance the road
could be included, provided the proper application was made.
Ms. Diehl stated that she understood the public concern about
the road, but she indicated she could not use this as a basis
for recommending denial of the application. Mr. Cogan agreed
and stated the road is a separate issue.
Ms. Diehl pointed out to the public that citizens' influence
was greater than the Commission's in relation to road improvements.
It was determined condition 1(c) would have the words "commercial
entrance" added.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Terrae Land Trust Preliminary Plat be
approved subject to the following conditions, including
administrative approval of the final plat:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
b. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage
plans;
C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of public road, drainage plans and commercial
entrance.
April 23, 1985
Page 21
d. Health Department approval.
e. Dedication of 25' from centerline of Route 682.
f. Dimension 100' septic setback from stream.
2. Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall have access only onto new public
road.
3. Waiver of Section 18-34 of the Subdivision Ordinance to
allow double frontage.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was going to vote against the plat in
view of the concern shown by the residents regarding the condition
of the road and he did not want these concerns to go unheeded
by the Commission.
The previously stated motion for approval was approved with
Ms. Diehl, Mr. Cogan, Mr. Wilkerson and Mr. Michel voting
in favor and Mr. Bowerman voting against.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
017AA4e,, 1�6121dla
James R. Donnell Secretary
DS