HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 25 86 PC MinutesMarch 25, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, March 25, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice
Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim
Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were:
Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Frederick Payne,
Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Diehl.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the March 11, 1986 meeting were approved as
written.
Colston Subdivision Preliminary Plat - Request for extension
of final plat for lots 8-12 south of the river to April 25,
1986.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The staff report was in the
form of a memorandum from Mr. Keeler to the Commission, dated
March 17, 1986. The report explained that the preliminary
plat for these lots had expired on February 13, 1986, and
staff was recommending that "the Planning Commission
authorize the staff to administratively approve the final plat
for lots south of the creek provided that the applicant
satisfy all conditions of the preliminary plat approval and
present the final plat for signature no later than April 25,
1986." Mr. Keeler indicated part of the delay had been caused
by the length of time involved in receiving the road
plans back from the Highway Department (first of December
to early March).
It was determined the final plat (for the front acreage) has
been recorded.
Mr. Cogan was concerned about the indefiniteness of the extension
period requested, i.e. 30 days from time of Highway Department
approval, since there is no way of knowing when the Highway
Department approval will be granted. Mr. Cogan suggested that
the extension be granted for "30 days from the Highway Department
approval, or a a maximum of 6 months, whichever comes first."
Mr. Cogan moved that the request for extension of the Colston
Subdivision final plat, Lots 8-12, be granted for 30
days from the time of Highway Department approval, not to
exceed a total of 6 months, whichever comes first.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
"2
March 25, 1986
Page 2
WORK SESSION
F1
Side Yard Requirements Rural Area District - Planning staff
comments on the workability of increasing the side yard
requirement of the RA zone from 25 to 50 feet.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report was in response
to the Commission's request that staff analyze the
workability of increasing the side yard requirement of the RA
zone from 25 to 50 feet. It was determined that after
studying the issue, staff feels that the existing yard
requirements appear reasonable and appropriate due to
the "logistics of locating a well, septic system and dwelling
within the lot." The staff report explained that
increasing the requirement from 25 to 50 feet would: (1) Reduce
the area available for building location from 1.1 to 0.8 acres;
and (2) Spatially and in terms of relative location to well
and septic system, siting constraints would be increased.
Mr. Payne explained that a 50-foot requirement was reasonable
for a large parcel, e.g. 21 acres, but such a requirement would
"stringently discourage 2-acre lots."
Mr. Michel indicated he was unsure as to the legality of
differentiating between mobile home requirements, which are
now 50 feet, and regular dwelling units, which are 25 feet.
Mr. Payne pointed out that this was for mobile home parks
and stated that he was not concerned about this issue because
it was a materially different operation. He stated it was
his opinion that "a reasonable distinction can be made between
mobile homes and stick -built homes." He explained that
a he felt a single -wide mobile home will always be considered
by the general public as being a less desirable neighbor
than a stick -built or modular home.
It was the consensus of the Commission that there was no
merit in increasing the requirement from 25 to 50 feet.
No action was taken.
Request for Resolution of Intent to Amend the Subdivision Ordi-
nance as it relates to Family_ Divisions and Other Exempt Divisions -
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report stated that staff
is preparing a number of amendments related to family divisions
and other exempt plats. Those related to exempt plats are confined
to content of the plat as to information necessary to:
--To insure that the plat reflects approval of the
parties concerned so as to avoid subsequent problems.
--To permit the County and others to determine the location
and nature of transactions.
�2 Ti
March 25, 1986 Page 3
--To inform that exempt plats have not been reviewed for
compliance with subdivision and zoning regulation through
a disclaimer statement.
--To insure consistency with Zoning requirements such
as the Flood Hazard Overlay District.
Those amendments related to family divisions include substantive
changes as follows:
--That family divisions on private roads be limited to
one dwelling per lot [Sec. 18-36(a)] and also comply
with Section 18-36(f); be served by an access easement of
not less than twenty feet, provided the Commission
could reduce this width in accordance with Section 18-36(g);
and be required to improve and maintain the private
road only to the extent that it be passable by
emergency service vehicles.
--Health Department approval for any lot less than five
acres in accordance with Section 18.23(a).
--Statement affixed to the plat that property shall not be
transferred for one year except in accordance with
Section 18-57(c).
--Submittal of deed or letter of verification from attorney
at time of plat approval.
The staff report stated that staff's opinion was that it was
not intended that family divisions be exempt from basic safety
requirements and therefore recommend that such requirements
are within the content of "reasonable provisions" for family
divisions as set forth in the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Payne added that he has always felt it was a major error
that family divisions be exempt since this invites the
creation of "substandard" development. He stated that, for
that reason, the County has always construed this statute
strictly.
There was brief discussion about this provision being used
by some to circumvent the Ordinance, though Mr. Payne stated
he felt abuse of the provision is rare.
Mr. Cogan asked that staff be mindful of keeping the intent
of the family division so that it still serves those who are
making a genuine family division. Mr. Horne indicated the
proposed amendments would do this but at the same time would
make it more difficult for someone to circumvent the Ordinance.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Commission adopt a Resolution
of Intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance as follows:
1. Amend regulations related to private roads and other
requirements for "family divisions;"
2. Amend regulations related to content of exempt plats;
3. Amend Section 18-30 to state that frontage requirements
" shall be as specified in Zoning Ordinance.
and to amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
1. Amend Section 4.6.6 as it relates to lot access
requirements.
a96
March 25, 1986
Page 4
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Six -Year Primary Road Improvement Plan - Review of the current
priorities for the primary roadway system in Albemarle
County. Recap of information regarding future projects and
priorities for construction.
Mr. Horne gave the staff report. He explained that the
difference in the Commission's role in this Plan and the
Secondary Road Plan is that the Commission has no control
of the Primary Road system and can only offer comments
and recommendations to the Board.
Staff was seeking comments and recommendations to the Board
of Supervisors on the following three potential future
projects:
(1) Rt. 29 North - Mr. Horne explained that the Highway
Department is considering the expansion and reallocation
of funding for this project which will result in
converting it from a 6-lane project(as it exists in the
current Plan) to an 8-lane project with a grade -
separated interchange at Rio Road. Staff has just
received plans on this proposed change and since
there has not been sufficient time to study its
effects, staff was recommending that the Commission
request that no amendment to the current projects
be made by the Highway Department until that has been
approved by the County and the Metropolitan Planning
Organization. Staff felt very strongly that this
should be the Commission's position. Though the
Commission was pleased about the additional funding
there was concern about being placed in the position
of having to make a "snap" decision on the proposed
change without more detailed analyses. There was
also concern, however, that if the Commission made
no recommendation, the Highway Department could
simply change the 6 to an 8 in the existing
Primary Plan, add a grade -separated interchange as
an accessory and add additional funding to the
existing project, thus eliminating the need for
recommendations from any other body. There was
also concern about the possibility of the money
being lost to another area if the County could
not come up with a definitive recommendation.
It was determined the Board has not taken an
official position on this project and has requested
comments from the Commission. There was much
deliberation about the final wording of the
Commission's statement on this issue. The
following position was unanimously endorsed:
"The Commission endorses the concept of
accelerated funding for Rt. 29 North. The
Commission believes the evaluation and/or endorsement
of a specific design for Rt. 29 North should be
,�2yl
March 25, 1986
Page 5
coordinated with, and supported by, the MPO and
the Board of Supervisors."
(2) Free Bridge - The Commission supported staff's
recommendation, i.e. "that funding be included in the
current Six Year Plan to begin designs for the Free
Bridge Project."
(3) Fontaine Avenue - No recommendation was made on
this project because of the uncertainty of this
development at this time. The Commission chose
not to list this as a priority this year.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
John Horn , Secretary
DS