HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 29 86 PC MinutesApril 29, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 29, 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; Ms. Norma Diehl
(arrived at 8:35); Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Peter Stark (arrived at 8:00); and
Mr. Richard Gould. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Planner;
Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of
Community Development; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and. established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of the April 15 meeting were
approved as written.
Mr. Bowerman reminded the Commissioners of the following meetings:
--Joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors, scheduled for
Wednesday, May 7, 4:00;
--CIP Work Session, Tuesday, May 6, 5:00.
Mr. Cogan expressed an interest in the status of the zoning changes for
mobile home parks. Mr. Horne stated the changes had been approved.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was concerned about how these changes would effect
the treatment of special use permits for mobile homes. He felt a different
approach might be called for in view of the recent changes so as to
encourage mobile home parks. Though Mr. Cogan suggested this subject
be discussed at the joint meeting with the Board, it was determined the
matter would be looked at by the Commission first. Mr. Horne stated he
would like to see some progress on mobile home parks prior to any
changes being made.
Possible Water Service Improvements to Southern Area Neighborhoods -
Presentation by Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority, of a consultant's report recommending a series of
major water improvements to the water distribution system south of the City
of Charlottesville.
Mr. Williams' comments included the following:
--The proposed line will tie into the existing Observatory Water
System and the South Rivanna Water System, and thus will provide
for future service if this area is to develop.
--The proposal is for 8.5 miles of transmission line, varying in
size from 18" to 24", with the bulk being 20".
--The proposal envisions a 4,000,000 gallon water storage tank on Avon
Street.
--Approximate cost is $3,575,000.
--No agreement has been reached as to whether or not the project will
be built, and there is no agreement as to how it will be financed.
Possibilities for financing include: (1) Utilization of existing
retail rate structures with cost allocated on the flow benefit basis;
April 29, 1986
Page 2
or (2) The combination of retail rate structures supplemented by
developer participation.
--The study results could serve as a master plan for long-term
transmission main improvements with construction proceeding
on a segmented basis as funds become available.
--This project was not committed under terms of the four -party
agreement among the City of Charlottesville, the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle County
Service Authority when the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
was formed. Therefore a method of financing will have to be
agreed upon by all parties.
Marguerite Saule Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create two (2) lots of 90
and 96 acres to be served by an existing private road. The total area
of the property is 186t acres. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property,
described as Tax Map 41, parcel 72 is located off of Rt. 680, approx-
imately 1.5 miles south of its intersection with Rt. 810 and two miles
south of White Hall. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated that the applicant
was requesting that the Commission waive: (1) Highway Department recom-
mendation that the existing entrance be upgraded to a private street
commercial entrance with a minimum of 450 feet of sight distance (approx-
imately 130 feet currently exists); and (2) The minimum right-of-way
requirement for a private road pursuant to 18-36(g) of the Subdivision
Ordinance (20-foot right-of-way currently exists, with a minimum of
22 feet being required). Staff comments on these two issues were
as follows:
"Sight distance: The staff does notrecommend approval of this
subdivision with inadequate sight distance. Sight distance is
a critical issue of the review process which directly involves
the public's safety, and the staff has never recommended that a
waiver be granted of a minimum standard for sight distance.
Staff would caution the Commission as to the precedent that would be
set by approving a subdivision with inadequate sight distance as
recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation."
"Right-of-way: The staff feels there are no environmental or physical
constraints which limit the applicant from constructing a public
road, therefore, the installation of a public road is recommended."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if the Commission had any flexibility in
dealing with Highway Department requirements for sight distance.
Mr. Payne responded, "As to the Highway Department's requirements, no;
as to whether you are going to exercise the County's authority over the
issue, yes. The reason for this is because the Highway Department and
the County have, to some extent, concurrent authority over the issue of
entrances on public roads. I don't know what the Highway Department's
position is as to whether or not they can and/or will exercise their
authority to require the upgrading of this entrance. In my opinion,
they certainly have the authority to do that. If you were to grant the
relief that the applicant seeks, the effect would be that the enforcement
April 29, 1986 Page 3
of the entrance requirements would be strictly up to the Highway
✓ Department. The County athorities would not take any action to deal
with that one way or the other unless, for example, the Highway
Department said they were going to withhold a permit and, in their
view, it was unlawful for the County to issue a building permit, or
something of that nature. In which case, the County would probably
honor that. It remains to be seen what the Highway Department would
do if you did grant the relief that the applicant seeks, but it would
be squarely in the Highway Department's lap then."
Mr. Benish added, "Let me point out that when the Highway Department
appraised these conditions, they appraised them as a recommendation. They
are reluctant, on existing entrances, to make requirements. Generally
speaking, they prefer for the Commission to make a decision on sight
distance when an existing entrance is already established. I think,
under their permitting process, they could require whatever distance
they want, but they tend to leave that up to the Commission."
Mr. Bowerman stated, "But in actual fact, the conditions that we
attach to an approval really say 'VDH&T approval of same' and whatever
they recommend is, historically, what we have approved."
Mr. Payne confirmed this and added, "I will say I don't think you have
the authority to set something other than what the Highway Department
says. You can say 'The plat is not going to record unless you comply
with what the Highway Department says.' You have the authority to
say 'It's between you and the Highway Department,' essentially. But
you do not have the authority to say 'You can go ahead and put this in
with half as much sight distance as the Highway Department says.' I
think that is exclusively the domain of the Highway Department to
determine what the sight distance should be."
Referring to Set C of staff's suggested conditions of approval, Mr.
Cogan stated Mr. Benish had stated thEse conditions would be
granting a waiver for the public road and also a waiver of the
sight distance. However, Mr. Cogan stated that condition I.e.
(VDH&T approval of private street commercial entrance with adequate
sight distance), implied that the Highway Department would approve it
"however they felt they wanted to approve it, and we would not be
instructing them to approve it with any particular distance, but would
actually leave it under their authority. "
Mr. Benish stated that he had explained the conditions incorrectly
and that he had not included any conditions with which the Commission
granted a waiver of the sight distance.
It was determined the only thing the Commission would be waiving with
Set C conditions was the public road and the right-of-way width.
Mr. Bowerman stated he had asked Mr. Horne to check the records on
a previous application where the Commission had been asked to waive
a Highway Department requirement on Rt. 20 South. He recalled that
*40► the Commission had denied the request, but the Board had approved it.
1
April 29, 1986 Page 4
Mr. Benish explained this had been the Maynard Wood Plat and in that
case UP -Board had deleted the requirement for sight distance conditioned
on the applicant waiving future division rights of the property. He
stated the Highway Department was requesting 500 feet of sight distance
with turn and taper lanes (310 feet existed).
It was determined the current application has two remaining division
rights, both retained by the southern parcel, and with those rights
is a total of 10 additional lots.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Robert Blodinger, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He first expressed some displeasure with the way the application had
been handled by staff and stated he had not received copies of
correspondence and staff reports. Additional comments included the
following:
--The client has no plans to further divide the property and is
willing to sell that part of the property with a deed covenant
restricting any future development of the property.
--The expense of making the road a public one would make it
economically unfeasible to sell a single tract.
--It is impossible to get the additionalfour feet of right-of-way
because neighboring property owners will not agree.
--There will be no increase in traffic on the road.
--When the applicants purchased the property from Reed Rubin, they
purchased it as two lots, very similar to this current request.
However, Mr. Rubin had never had those lots approved and
subsequently, when the applicant decided to buy 2 lots, Mr. Rubin
got it approved as one lot, showing 2 or 3 development rights on
the plat. Mr. Rubin had advised the applicants that that was
sufficient fDrfuture division. They were unaware of a sight
distance problem, which apparently did not exist at that time.
--The applicants' current request is for what they thought they
had purchased in the beginning.
The applicant, Mr. Saule, addressed the Commission. He confirmed Mr.
Blodinger's statements and stated he would never had purchased the
property had he not been under the impression it would be devisable
at some future date. He stated that when he had purchased the
property, the sight distance had been approved by the Highway Department
and the Commission. He questioned the fairness of the current
determination that the sight distance is unacceptable. He expressed
a lack of understanding of the situation. Mr. Saule confirmed that
when he bought the property it was 186 acres with two building sites.
Mr. Bowerman explained, "The difference between then and now is that
was an existing lot on an existing private road with an existing
entrance on a state highway.,, (Mr. Blodinger interrupted and stated
that was not correct.)
Mr. Blodinger stated it was not a lot, but was rather a tract of approx-
imately 500 acres which Mr. Rubin was subdividing, and when Mr. Saule was
shown the lot it was prior to the approval of the entire subdivision.
He stated, "It was not an existing lot, it was a created lot (1 of 4)
based on a contract of purchase."
2',?.,'
April 29, 1986 Page 5
Mr. Blodinger also stated the staff report was incorrect in its
requirement for a road maintenance agreement. He stated there was
in existence a road maintenance agreement "as to that entire
road an to any future increases in that road by reason of the
divisions which were given to us which divides equitably the cost
of maintaining that private road if it's increased. That agreement
is of record as to all the property owners who adjoin that road."
Mr. Benish stated the road maintenance agreement would be for the
two new parcels. (Mr. Blodinger stated that is the section for
which the agreement currently exists.)
Regarding the sight distance which existed at the time the Saules
purchased the property, Mr. Benish stated that apparently sight
distance was adequate at that time because of a lack of vegetation.
He added that there is some question as to how sight distance was
achieved at that time. It was understood that there was no easement
for the sight distance at that time.
Mr. Saule stressed that he was not aware of the sight distance issue
when he purchased the property. He also explained that some time
ago one of his workers had inadvertantly cleared some of the vegetation
at the entrance which was actually on Ms. Woodson's property and
Ms. Woodson had subsequently brought suit against him.
Regarding the maintenance agreement question, Mr. Blodinger stated
again that staff was mistaken and that the applicant does have
such an agreement "to lot 3B", the reason being that "the original
agreement whereby Reed Rubin subdivided had a provision in that
deed whereby if there was an increase in the future of that road
by the Saules (e.g. they divided their property into 2), their
burden in maintaining the road would now be divided amongst them
and the other person and that would become part of the same
road system. In other words, the same road agreement which is in
existence and which was approved by the Planning Commission, I
believe, effects the whole thing."
Mr. Bowerman stated, "If that is indeed the case, and if the plat
is approved, the Deputy County attorney would have to approve that
agreement."
Mr. Blodinger stated that what does not exist is an agreement for
that portion of the road at the beginning before it hits any of the
Reed Rubin properties.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Edward Bauer addressed the Commission. He stressed that 7 lots
already exist on the road, one of which is the Reed Rubin property.
Mr. Bauer referred to the dangerousness of the road and was opposed
to granting a waiver of the public road requirement. Mr. Bauer
confirmed that he was an adjacent property owner, though he was
``'rr rut on the road in question.
April 29, 1986 Page 6
Ms. Hester Whitcher, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission.
She was concerned that additional traffic on the road would increase
maintenance costs. She was also concerned that the maintenance agreement
does not require that possible future property owners (those further back
on Rt. 680) participate in the maintenance of the road.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Referring to Mr. Blodinger's offer to create a deed covenant restricting
the further division of the property, Mr. Cogan asked if the Commission
wanted to restrict further division, could they not require that a
note to that effect be placed on the plat. Mr. Payne confirmed that
the County does not have the authority to enforce deed restrictions,
and also confirmed that the Commission could place a note on the plat
as suggested by Mr. Cogan.
Mr. Payne added, "As a practical matter, if you have two property owners
who are not perfectly in agreement on the issue, Mr. Blodinger is quite
correct, that would prevent the deed restriction from being amended.
However, if the two property owners agree that they do not want to enforce
the restriction any longer and wish to amend it, they can do so."
Regarding Mr. Cogan's suggestion that a note be placed on the plat, Mr.
Payne stated, "(The two property owners) could not unilaterally change
that." Mr. Payne added, "The issue is, though, why is this case different
than it was last time? You had 180-acre parcel last time and two 90-acre
parcels this time. You have to ask yourself if this is materially
different than last time. The other question is whether the Commission
can waive the provisions of the private roads ordinance, and the answer
is 'You can't'."
It was determined the reason the road did not meet the private road
requirements was because of inadequate width. Mr. Benish pointed out that
the County Engineer feels shoulders and ditch are essential on this road
because it is relatively flat thus the necessity for adequate drainage.
Mr. Cogan indicated he was not opposed to a private road, but pointed out
that the County Attorney has stated that the Commission does not have
the authority to grant such a waiver and there still remains the issue
of inadequate sight distance.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the main issue was the sight distance,
and though he was sympathetic to the applicants' situation, he stated
he "could not sanction an unsafe entrance by increasing its usage."
Mr. Cogan suggested that it might be possible to grant approval of
the application, subject to Set C of staff's conditions of approval,
since this would allow the applicant the opportunity to re -negotiate an
agreement with Mrs. Woodson for additional right-of-way.
Mr. Bowerman agreed.
M
Page 7
April 29, 1986
be
le to add
Mr. Payne added that, in that case,
rovidedwthat adequateabight-of-wayhwidth
err, following to condition 2: •• P Count Engineer."
exists for installation of the road as approved by Y
ting
Mr. Cogan asked if it would
appropriate
totbeano furthertdivisionarights
that the plat would note that thereare
on either lot.
ted
Mr. Payne indicated he felt thiswas
a thefCommissionicult ewants toaimpose
f
the applicant wants to agree t �� �� roblem I have with
that condition, then that's fine. He stated, The p leA comes
this is the first -come -first -served issue, i.e. if applicant
in, has these problems with the roads, and wants to divide ivide the
ewproperty
in two 100's and the Commission agrees; the next guy
ith
a 100-acre parcel, problems with the roads, and wants to divide it once into
two 50 s; then a guy
comes in with a 50-acre parcel and wants to divide
it. Where do you cut it off?"
Mr. Cogan stated he felt without such a condition, a private road was
not a possibility. He stated he was considering the current applicant's
intent.
Mr. Horne asked Mr. Payne: "Can we, in effect, legally enforce an
agreement not to divide the land again even though the ordinance
would clearly allow the division of the land again?" Mr. Payne
replied, "To the extent that you are allowing some waiver of the
ordinance, conditioned upon that being done, yes, I think you could
do it."
In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Payne confirmed a maintenance
osition is exactly right.
agreement exists and added "Mr. Benishou divide these two original
What you do on these things, when y
parcels, there is a maintenance agreement. If they are written
properly, that agreement will contemplate further subdivision.
Mr. Blodinger has recited that this one does ... and if you approve
it, Mr. Blodinger and I will not have any trouble getting that
straight."
Re arding Mr. Cogan's suggested note on the plat restricting further
g
ated, "It doesn't hurt anything; it might e
subdivision, Mr. Payne st
marginally helpful."
Mr. Gould stated he was infavor of it being added since he felt
it was a worthwhile protection.
Mr. Michel indicated he was willing to go along with approval based
on Set C conditions, but was concerned that the Commission uld
continue to be faced with these situations, and at some point
they
would have to start saying "no."
Mr. Payne pointed out that approval under Set C conditions was
not granting a waiver, that "everything was that°itlwasna waiverwith the
ordinance." It was determined, howroad.ever,
of the requirement for a public
April 29, 1986
Page 8
It was determined if the application ever reached the final plat stage,
Commission review would be required.
Regarding condition I.e. (VDH&T approval of private street commercial
entrance with adequate sight distance), it was determined it was the
Commission's intent that VDH&T would determine the sight distance
requirement. Mr. Bowerman stressed, "That is what we always do."
Mr. Benish stated he would prefer that the 450 feet requirement be
stated in the condition so there could be no mistake that any sort
of waiver might have been granted.
Mr. Bowerman stated there was nothing different about this approval
than any other, and it was determined the condition was
as stated in the report. sufficient
Mr. Payne stated, "As I understand the Commission's action, if it
adopts Set C as amended by Mr. Cogan, the Commission is not telling
the Highway Department not to enforce its regulations and
adequate sight distance incorporates the Highway Department's
regulations, whatever they may be."
Mr. Cogan moved that the Marguerite Saule Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following
conditions are met:
a. Approval of Special Use Permit for the road crossing of
the creek and floodplain;
b. County Engineer approval of final road plans;
c. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
d. Issuance of a soil erosion permit;
e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of private street commercial entrance with adequate
sight distance.
2. Waiver of minimum right-of-way width requirement of Section 18-36(e)
provided that adequate right-of-way width exists for installation
of road as approved by the County Engineer.
3. Note to be added to plat, on each parcel, showing no further
division rights.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The regular Commission meeting ended at 9:00 p.mwas fo
a CIP Work Session at which the School Board and.
thetJail Boardwed by
presented their requests.
DS
John Horne, Secretary