HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 06 86 PC Minutes,, May 6, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 6, 1986, 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. Richard Gould;
Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr.
John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Amelia
Patterson, Planner; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. MaryJoy
Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development;
and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Wilkerson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a
quorum was present. The minutes of the April 22, 1986 meeting were approved
as submitted.
Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposed on the east side of Route 20
North just south of the Orange County line. The proposed district is
comprised of 1,136 acres. The Planning Commission must at this time refer
the proposal to the Advisory Committee.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report. The property owners in the application were
represented by Ms. Katherine Imhoff who offered no additional comment.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District be referred
to the Advisory Committee.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
It was noted that the Advisory Committee would report to the Commission on
Tuesday, May 14.
Peacock Hill Section 5, Final Plat - Proposal to create 20 lots, with an
average 1.345 acre lot size. Fourteen lots are to be served by two new
private roads off Peacock Drive; one lot is to be served by Gillums Mountain
Road; and five lots are to be served by one private road off Rt. 708. 26.9
acres for Section 5; 355 acres total project. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit
Development. The property is located on the west side of Rt. 708, north of
I-64. Tax Map 73A, parcels 29E, 29J, and 29K. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. McKee addressed the Commission. Referring to condition l.a (Peacock Drive
to be upgraded or bonded in accordance with the Virginia Department of High-
ways and Transportation comment of August 16, 1985), he stated it had been
a condition of the original approval that all of Peacock Drive be improved
at such time as 102 dwelling units are served by Peacock Drive. He noted
May 6, 1986 Page 2
that currently there are 48 dwelling units served by that road, plus the
20 units in this submittal, which does not equal the original 102 figure.
He stated, "(The applicant) has every intention of improving Peacock Drive,
the full amount, as required in the original PUD, and would just as soon
not include from Rt. 708, for 200 feet, down to the Apple Lane intersection."
The applicant felt that blacktopping this section would not be attractive
aesthetically. He asked that condition l.a be deleted, based on the original
conditions of approval. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question about
bonding that section, Mr. McKee explained this was not a feasible alternative
because of the anticipated time that it would take before the 102 lots
are built on (possibly 10 years).
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Responding to Mr. Bowerman's request, Ms. Patterson commented on the
applicant's concern: "That was discussed at the hearing for the
preliminary plat and staff's comment is that more than 102 lots are platted
yet they are not all built. The difficulty is in tying that bonding,
or that construction, with the 102nd building permit. It is difficult to
enforce that."
Mr. Keeler added, "The obvious problem here is if the lots are no longer
owned by the applicant. What do we do with the 103rd guy who comes in,
a private individual, what do we do with him?" Mr. Keeler suggested it
might be possible to require the applicant to "shade" a certain number
of the lots with no building permits issued on those lots until such time
as certain requirements are met. He stated that would at least put lot
purchasers on notice that no building permits would be issued until the road
was upgraded. `
Mr. Michel stated he would have no problem with deleting the requirement
since "it is a fairly nice road as it is," but he stated he understood
staff's concern.
Mr. Cogan stated it seemed to be more of a record -keeping problem than a
physical problem. He stated he did not think the bonding requirement would
be that expensive since it was for only a very short section of roadway.
Mr. McKee indicated he would be in favor of staff's suggestion, i.e.
to shade those lots beyond 102. He again pointed out that the original
condition of approval (1972) had been that Peacock Drive would be improved
when 102 units were built.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Peacock Hill Section 5 Final Plat be approved
subject to conditions as follows:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Peacock Drive to be upgraded or bonded in accordance with the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comment of
August 16, 1985;
b. Show septic easement in open space to serve lot No. 11;
c. Health Department approval of central well system.
System to be designed in accordance with Albemarle County Service
Authority standards;
MR
M
M
May 6, 1986
Page 3
d. County Attorney approval of homeowner documents, to include road
maintenance agreements;
e. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
f. County Engineer approval of private road and drainage plans and
computations;
g. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
drainage plans and computations and entrances in accordance with
letter dated February 6, 1986.
(Note: Staff's condition l.d, Fire Officer approval of dry hydrant system,
had already been satisfied and was thus deleted.)
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Keeler asked, "Can we give Mr. Smith the option of shading the lots? That
would be an equally satisfactory solution, I think." He stated this would be
substituted for condition l.a.
Mr. Michel indicated he was in favor of this approach.
Mr. Bowerman stated, "It was staff's concern about how to enforce it. If they
feel that they have a mechanism by which they can trigger the improvement,
that would be perfectly acceptable to me."
Mr. Stark agreed.
Mr. Cogan stated he would have no real problem with this, but he was concerned
about the possibility of something "not getting caught" and then it would
come back to the Commission after it was too late, as has happened in the past.
Responding to Mr. Bowerman's question about the aesthetic concern, Mr.
Michel stated, "It will look like the road ends at their entry, part of
it will black and part will be gray." Mr. Cogan stated, "But if it's
bonded, there will not be a difference."
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the "shading" proposal was something that "could
get lost in the shuffle."
Mr. Michel moved that the Peacock Hill Section 5 Final Plat be reconsidered.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Horne suggested the following substitute condition for l.a: "Staff
approval of an appropriate designation on the plat to enforce the upgrading
up Peacock Hill when necessary. " He stated he was not sure that "shading"
was the answer.
Mr. Cogan stated, "I think we are getting into an area of ambiguity here, and
I'm afraid of it."
It was the consensus of the Commission that the conditions of approval should
remain as stated in the staff report, with no substitution for l.a.
May 6, 1986
Page 4
Mr. Cogan moved that the Peacock Hill Section 5 Final Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions: *00
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Peacock Drive to be upgraded or bonded in accordance with
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation comment of
August 16, 1985;
b. Show septic easement in open space, to serve lot No. 11;
c. Health Department approval of central well system. System to be
designed in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority
standards;
d. County Attorney approval of homeowner documents, to include road
maintenance agreements;
e. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
f. County Engineer approval of private road and drainage
plans and computations;
g. Virginia Department of Highways and transportation approval of
drainage plans and computations and entrances in accordance with
letter dated February 6, 1986.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-86-09 Virginia Power - Virginia Power petitions the Board of Supervisors
to issue a special use permit for location of a microwave communications
facility (Sec. 24.2.2.6) on 17.2 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
Property, described as Tax Map 76, parcel 55, is located in the northwest
quadrant of the I-64/Fifth Street interchange in the Scottsville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He concluded his report with the following
statement: "They've analyzed a number of alternatives. Either you have
very high costs or you still have the need for towers either in the city,
the county or on Bear Den Mountain. So, in our (staff) opinion, the most
practical and reasonable approach, is to approve the application as they
have requested."
It was determined the tower would not be "guyed."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Richard Gottlieber, Manager of Telecommunications for Virginia Power,
addressed the Commission. He presented a drawing of the proposed tower.
He stated the tower would be a self-supporting concrete pole, 153 feet tall.
He stated the tower was designed for "hurricane loading" (110 mph winds).
Mr. Gottlieber was not familiar with the engineering details of the tower
but stated they could be provided.
Responding to Mr. Bowerman's concern about the safety factor of the tower,
Mr. Keeler stated the tower would come under a special provision of the BOCA
Code which required that it be designed for 12 times the loading. He
suggested that condition l.d. could be amended to read: "Building official
approval with particular attention to windloading and other adverse
environmental conditions."
May 6, 1986 Page 5
It was determined the tower would be highly visable from I-64, but should not
be visable from Rt. 20.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bervard Hosticka addressed the Commission and expressed concern about
anti-aircraft lighting that might be required on the tower. Mr. Gottlieber
stated the tower will comply with FAA requirements, but that since it will
be under 200 feet tall, no FAA lighting will be required.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel recalled that there had been no mention of a tower at the time
of the original site plan for the site.
Mr. Keeler stated that originally Virginia Power had planned to locate on
Berkmar Drive and the tower had been discussed at that time and was shown
on the plan, but it wasn't discussed in the report.
Ms. Diehl indicated she found it disturbing that the Commission had not
been aware of this proposal and that the tower had been added after a
site plan had been approved. She felt the "visual quality of the area
would be significantly altered" and since there were other alternatives
she was not in favor of the proposal.
Referring to the minutes of the meeting at which the site plan had been
approved, Mr. Cogan pointed out that there had been specific concern
about visual impact at that time and that concern could not now be
ignored. He stated he could not support the installation of this structure.
Mr. Michel stated he had to believe that the applicant was aware that
"this need was coming."
Mr. Gould indicated he agreed with Commissioners Diehl and Cogan.
Mr. Diehl moved that SP-86-09 for Virginia Power be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Responding to Mr. Bowerman's question as to why the other alternatives were
not as reliable, Mr. Gottlieber stated, "From a reliability standpoint, we
feel that it is critical that we maintain our own private communications
network to this site. It will be the center of our division operations
and will be the hub of all of our service restoration. From a reliability
standpoint, I think 99.8% vs. 85% in some facilities --we cannot operate
under hose conditions. It is important that we get the microwave facilities
and I would urge you to approve our application on that basis."
.a—
May 6, 1986
Page 6
Mr. Cogan stated that if the applicant was so acutely aware of the importance
of this tower at this location, they should have made that known to the
Commission at the time of the site plan.
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for denial.
The motion for denial of SP-86-09 passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on May 21, 1986.
ZTA-86-01 - Re: Lot Access - On March 25, 1986 the Planning Commission adopted
a resolution of intent to amend Sec. 4.6.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance as it relates to lot access.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report which stated the purpose of the amendment
was to clarify the text of the Ordinance.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA-86-01, to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows:
4.6.6 LOT ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
No structure requiring a building permit shall be erected
upon any lot which does not have frontage on a public or
private road as specified in theege�e}ens;-eeep-es
spee}€4wea11y-prev4!ded-}n subdivision regulations, and except
for lots lacking such frontage on the date of the adoption of
this ordinance.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
STA-86-01 Re: Exempt Plats and Family Divisions - On March 25, the Planning
Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend Chapter 18 Subdivision of
Land of the Code of Albemarle County as it relates to: a) Content of plats;
b) Requirements for "family divisions"; c) Private road requirements for
family divisions and divisions involving fewer than three lots; d) Frontage
requirements; e) Approval procedures.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report which stated the purpose of the amendments
were as follows:
Exempt Plats:
--Insure that the plat reflects approval of the parties
concerned so as to avoid subsequent problems.
--Permit the County and others to determine the location and
nature of transactions .
--Inform that exempt plats have not been reviewed for compliance
with subdivision and zoning regulations through a disclaimer
statement.
--Insure consistency with Zoning requirements such as the Flood
Hazard Overlay District (to insure continued eligibility
under the FEMA Regular Insurance Program).
May 6, 1986
Page 7
Family Divisions:
--Insure that basic health and safety considerations are
rr satisfied.
--Establish definitive roadway standards.
--Reduce Commission agenda time devoted to review of appeals
of administrative decisions.
Mr. Keeler summarized the effect of the amendments as follows: (1) They
will revise the content of exempt plats to include some materials that
experience has shown are needed; (2) They will loosen up private road re-
quirements for family divisions: and (3) They will require Health Department
approval for a family division (which is already required before a building
permit can be issued).
Referring to the fact that Table 1 (Sec. 18-36E) showed no requirements for
"Depth of Base" or "Surface Treatment" for family divisions with 3 or more
lots, Mr. Payne commented as follows: "It should not be taken as an
endorsement by the staff of inferior roads. This is here because of the
apparent policy in the statute to make this dichotomy between family
divisions and ordinary subdivisions. Anybody that does a family division
and doesn't comply with the regular subdivision standards is, in my
judgment, just plain looking for trouble. One of the problems with this
is land is not kept in a family forever. In a significant number of these
cases, what will happen is a buyer will say 'Why is it that my lot is
served by this cowpath whereas this other lot down the road has a nice
road to it?' The only answer is 'That's what the General Assembly recommends.'
But don't get the idea that staff is saying there is something wrong with the
ordinary improvements; they are not. This is an exception that is more
or less mandated by statutes and there is no real way around it."
The Commission expressed concern about this particular part of Table
1, i.e. that no requirements were shown for roadways for family divisions with
3 or more lots, since there was the possibility that an easement for such a
private road could cross other peoples' property, thereby serving notonly
the family division but other properties as well. Mr. -Payne confirmed that
the Commission could change the requirement for a Family Division with 3
or more lots with the limitation being a 20-foot right-of-way width. He
explained that staff had not recommended this because it wasn't very
manageable for any significant number of lots. It was determined the
roadway requirements for a Family Division Only (3 or more lots)- Table 1,
would be changed as follows:
Width of Travelway: 12 feet
Depth of Base: 6"-#25 or #26
Surface Treatment: Not required SEE NOTE 3
Minimum Sight Distance: 100 feet
Thus the requirement would be the same as for a 3-5 lot regular subdivision
with the exception of the width of travelway.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Stark moved that STA-86-01 to amend Chapter 18 Subdivision of Land of the
Code of Albemarle County, as it relates to a) content of plats; b) requirements
for "family divisions"; c) private road requirements for family divisions and
divisions involving fewer than three lots; d) frontage requirements; and
e) approval procedures be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval as follows:
May 6, 1986
Page 8
AMEND SECTION 18-2 DEFINITIONS AS FOLLOWS:
lad
Subdivision: The division, including resubdivision and the
establishment of any condominium regime, of a parcel of land
resulting in two (2) or more lots, parcels or units for the
purpose of transfer of ownership or building development, such
that:
a. Any one of such lots, parcels or units is less than five (5)
acres in area; or
b. Any one of such lots, parcels or units fronts less than two
hundred fifty (250) feet on a road which is part of the state
secondary highway system. (Amended 2/4/81).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following shall not be deemed a
subdivision:
a. The sale and/or exchange of land between adjoining
landowners, provided that:
1. The land so sold and/or exchanged shall be added to and
become part of an existing adjacent parcel as evidenced
by appropriate symbol and wording on the plat er
division together with signatures of both landowners
pursuant to Section 18-55(b) andferand by the
instrument of conveyance thereof; and,
2. No parcel which was five (5) acres or greater in area
prior to such sale and/or exchange shall, as a result of
such sale and/or exchange, be less than five (5) acres
in area; and,
3. No parcel shall, as a result of -such sale and/or
exchange, front less than two hundred fifty (250) feet
on a road which is part of the state highway system or
state secondary highway system; and (amended 2/4/81)
4. No additional lot or parcel shall be created by such
sale and/or exchange.
b. The division of any parcel occasioned by an exercise of
eminent domain by any public agency.
The foregoing notwithstanding all ether divisions of land shall be
deemed to be subdivisions for the sole purpose of the application
of Section 18-13(b) of this chapter.
_4�
May 6, 1986 Page 9
AMEND SECTION 18-13(b), 18-55(b) AND 18-55(c) AS FOLLOWS:
18-13(b) Every division which is not subject to review in
accordance with Section 18-13(a) or Section 18-41 shall be
submitted for review by the Director of Planning to ensure
compliance with Section 18-28 and Section 18-55 (b), (c), (h),
(o), (p), (q), (r), and (s), hereof. The Director of Planning
shall review each such plat within five (5) days of filing;
however, no such review shall be provided within two (2) days of
filing, except in such case where preliminary review by staff has
been provided.
18-55(b) A statement that: "The subdibt9ten division of the land
described herein is with the free consent and in accordance with
the desire of the undersigned owner, properties, and trustees.
Any reference to future potential development is to be deemed as
theoretical only. All —statements affixed to this plat are true
and correct to the best of My knowledge."
18-55(c) The boundary lines of the area being subdivided shall be
determined by an accurate field survey with bearings shown in
degrees, minutes, and seconds to the nearest ten (10) seconds and
dimensions to be shown in feet to the nearest hundredths of a foot
to the accuracy of one (1) in five thousand (5,000). Total acres
in each existing and proposed use parcel plus fleedplain
delineation of the Flood Hazard Overlay District of the zoning
ordinance shall be shown.
AMEND SECTION 18-30 AS FOLLOWS:
Section 18-30. Location
Every subdivision lot shall front on an existing public street, or
a street dedicated by the subdivision plat and maintained or
designed and built to be maintained by the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, except that private roads shall be
permitted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
Except for lots fronting on a cul-de-sac, the frontage en-saeh
street shall not be less than eighty-f88}-pereent-ef-the-let-width
required -at -the -building setbaek-line required 1?y the zoning
ordinance. This regulation may be reduced for frontage on public
street or private road cul-de-sacs; provided that driveway
separation shall be in accordance with Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation standards. When a new subdivision
abuts one side of an existing or plated street, the subdivider
shall dedicate at least half the right-of-way necessary to make
such street comply with the minimum width fixed for the same by
this chapter.
May 6, 1986
PIge 1.0
AMEND SECTION 18-37(M) AS FOLLOWS:
(m) Access road. No subdivision shall be approved unless the
principal means of access thereto shall conform to the standards
of the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation, or, in
the case of a private road, to the standards of the County as set
forth in Section 18-36 of this chapter, throughout its length,
including any distance between the boundary of the proposed
subdivision and existing public road.
AMEND SECTION 18-36(E) AS FOLLOWS INCLUDING RELOCATION OF TABLES I AND II
WITHIN THE TEXT:
18-36(e) All private roads approved pursuant to this section shall
be constructed with the following:
1. Private roads permitted under sections '18-36(b)(1)
18-36(b)(2) and 18-36(b)(5) shall conform to the requirements
of Table I. Private roads permitted under section
18-36(b)(3) shall conform to the requirements of Table I
except that a minimum CBR of subgrade of 10 shall be required
and the depth of base, width of travelway, minimum sight
distance and surface treatment may be increased in accordance
with the standards of the Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation for the most traffic -intensive uses to which
such land may lawfully be devoted. Private roads permitted
under section 18-36(b)(4) shall conform to the requirements
of Table II. Exeept-as-may-be required-under-seetien
�S-36fd};-there-sha��-be-ne-min�marn-standards-far-pr�wate
reads-permuted-pursuant-te-seetien-�8-36fb}f2}-er-seet�en
2. (same).
3. (same).
4. (same).
5. (same).
May 6, 1986
Page 11
on
TABLE I
Single-family detached
(Residential/Agricultural/Commercial/Industrial)
Number of Lots
Width of
Depth of
Surface
Minimum
Served by Road
Travelway
Base
Treatment
Sight Distance
SEE NOTE ONE
In addition
(VDH&T
(Except as
(In accordance
to 4 foot
aggregate
otherwise
with VDH&T
shoulders
base)
expressly
methodology
and ditch
provided)
for stopping
requirements
sight
distance
2 lots
SEE NOTE TWO
Family division
only
6" - #25
Not Required
(3 or more lots)
12 feet
or #26
SEE NOTE 3
100 feet
3-5 lots
14 feet
6"-#25
Not required
100 feet
or #26
SEE NOTE 3
6-10 lots
14 feet
6"-#21
Prime &
100 feet
Double Seal
or Approved
Equivalent
11-20 lots
18 feet
6"-#21
Prime &
120 feet
Double Seal
or ._Approved
Equivalent
NOTE ONE: Number of lots served shall mean the aggregate of all lots
served by such road segment and all lots having access over such
segment to a public road. Road segment shall mean each portion of a
private road between its intersection with other private or public roads
(see illustration).
NOTE TWO: The surveyor shall certify on the plat that the existin
and/or proposed right-of-way is of adequate width and horizontal and
vertical alignment to accommodate a travelway passable by ordinary
passenger vehicle in all but temporary extreme weather conditions,
together with area adequate for maintenance of such travelway. Such
certification may be accomplished by the following wording on the plat:
"This private road will provide reasonable access by motor vehicle as
required by Section 18-36 of the Albemarle County Code."' This
Provision includes familv divisions of 2 lots.
NOTE THREE: When slope of road is seven percent or less. If slope
exceeds seven percent, six inches of number 21 or number 21A and prime
and double seal.
ii
May 6, 1986
Page 12
AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FAMILY DIVISIONS AS FOLLOWS:
ARTIC
APPLI
V. SPECIAL PROVISIONS
'AIN DIVISION
Section 18-56. Definitions. (Family Division).
For purposes of this article, the following terms shall be defined
as follows:
ME
a. The term "member of the immediate family shall mean the natural
or legally defined off -spring, spouse or parent of the owner of
a lot or parcel of land.
b. The term "family division" shall mean the single division of a
lot or parcel for the purpose of sale or gift to a member of
the immediate family of the owner of such lot or parcel.
(10-17-79).
Section 18-57. Exemption of certain division; qualifications.
Subject to the following qualifications, any family division shall
be exempt from the requirements of this chapter and shall be subject
only to any express requirement contained in the Code of Virginia.
The following qualifications are expressly declared -to be for the
purposes of protecting the public health, safety and welfare and of
preventing the circumvention of this section, which circumvention
hereby prohibited.
a. There shall be only one such division per family member.
b. No such parcel shall be further divided except in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter.
C. No such parcel shall be transferred, except by devise, descent
or operation of law, to a person other than a member of the
immediate family of the transferor, for a period of one year,
except for purposes of securing any purchase money and/or
construction loan, including bona fide refinancing. A
statement shall be affixed to the plat that such parcel shall
not be transferred for a period of one year from date of
recordation except in accordance with this section.
d. Any such parcel which is transferred to the owner of any
adjacent parcel shall be deemed to become an integral part of
such adjacent parcel and shall be so noted on the plat
appropriate symbol and wording.
e. The requirements of Sections 18-36(a), and 18-36+d+ 18-36(d)(2),
18-36(d)(3), 18-36(d)(4), 18-36(f) as it pertains to access,
and 18-36(e)(1) shall apply to any plat submitted pursuant to
section 18-36(b)(5) of this chapter. For purposes of this
section only, the Director of Planning is hereby constituted as
agent of the Commission for purposes of administration of
secti.or 1.E3-36 (h) as it 1,71 --'-es !"ection 18. 36 (f) . _
Flay 6, 1986
Page 13
f. All parcels created by such division shall conform to the
provisions of the zoning ordinance applicable to such lot.
g. The entrance of the principal means of access for such parcel
onto any public road shall comply with the applicable
requirements of the Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation.
h. Any lot created which is less than five (5) acres shall comply
with Section 18-23 of this chapter.
i. In addition to the foregoing, aLny such slat shall comply with
Section 18-13 b of this cha ter.
Section 18-58. Procedure.
Each such division shall be registered by the filing of such
division with the Director of Planning, who shall make a
determination as to whether such division is in accord with the
provisions of sections 18-13 b and 18-57 of this chapter. In the
event that he shall determine that such division is so in accord he
shall issue a certification of exemption which shall be recorded
with the plat of such division. No such plat shall be recorded
without the attachment of such certificate. In the event that he
shall determine that such division is not so in accord, he shall
deny such certificate, giving in writing his reasons for such
determination. The Director of Planning shall act either to issue
or deny such certificate within-five-f5}-daps-of-sueh-filing in
accordance with section 18-13(b). The provisions of Section
18-43(b) shall apply, mhtat a-mutandie; to any such division.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 9:07 - 9:20.
Taylor Auto Body Shop - Request for clarification of condition of approval
relating to doors at rear of building.
Ms. Patterson explained that this matter had been brought to staff's
attention by an adjacent owner. She stated that the condition in question
had stated "No entrances or exits to the rear of building", to which
the applicant had agreed. However, the building has been constructed
with two doors to the rear of the building. She explained that one of
the doors is a 3-foot fire door which is required by the BOCA Code, and
the other door is an exit door from the spray booth and did not appear
on the building plans. She stated the applicant was asking the Commission
to determine if the condition applied to this type of door. He felt since
this was not a "service" door the intent of the condition had been complied
with. She explained that if the Commission did not agree with the
applicant's interpretation of the condition, the applicant would seek
an amendment to the plan, which would require Commission review and
notification of adjacent owners.
May 6, 1986 Page 14
Ms. Patterson read a letter from the applicant which stated the door
would remain closed except when it was necessary to remove a car from
the spray booth. He stated if the door was not allowed, the efficiency
of the spray booth would be eliminated and a considerable investment
would be lost. The letter stated that the site plan had stated that
no bays would open to the rear of the building, but since the spray
booth was not/work bay, the applicant requested that the door be allowed.
Ms. Patterson asked for a consensus from the Commission as to whether
or not the door meets the intent of the condition.
Mr. Taylor was present to answer questions. He stated that approximately
10 cars per week would be using the spray booth.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the door violated the "spirit,
intent and letter of the condition" and that it could not arbitrarily be
disregarded.
It was determined the spray booth had not been discussed at the time of
the original approval.
It was determined the matter would be scheduled for public hearing, with adjacent
property owners to be notified.
The Commission agreed to the granting of a temporary C.O. for 60 days, with
doors at rear of building to remain closed until the matter was been resolved.
WORK SESSION
Sidewalk and Pathway Recommendations: A review of the sidewalk and pathway
projects recommended in Phase I and II of the Pedestrian Obstacle Study, with
recommendations for further action.
Mr. Cilimberg introduced Mr. John McCarthy, a staff intern, who presented the
report. He stated staff was seeking endorsement from the Commission on
two issues: (1) The concept of including a pedestrian element in the
upcoming revision of the Comprehensive Plan; and (2) The concept of formulating
an adopted Sidewalk and Pathway Plan for the urban area which could be used
to obtain developer contributions in conjunction with current and planned
development activity.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt it would be appropriate to include an element in
the Comprehensive Plan dealing with Pedestrian Mobility. He was also in
favor of the concept of formulating a plan.
Mr. Michel expressed concern about the safety factor in locating pathways
off of public right-of-ways or on private property.
Im
The Commission expressed interest in the status of Highway Department's
maintenance policy for sidewalks. It was determined no decisions have
been made at this point. Mr. Horne stated that staff has been advised that
whenever a sidewalk is required in a development, a statement should be Iwo
I �f
May 6, 1986
Page 15
included with the approval which guarantees the Highway -Department that the
County will be responsible for maintenance. This would be in lieu of bonding
those sidewalks which are in Highway Department right-of-way. It was felt
this would "push" the issue and force the Highway Department to make a
decision on the matter and recognize that pedestrian usage of public right-
of-ways is a valid use in an urban environment. Mr. Payne stated that the
Highway Department has re lized that what they were requiring was "clearly
unconstitutional" and what they are now requiring is "probably unconstitutional."
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that they endorsed the concepts
presented by staff, though no endorsement was given to any specific projects
at this point.
CIP - Final Draft - Since it was determined there were members of the public
present, Mr. Horne reviewed the following priority list which had been
agreed upon at the work session held prior to the meeting:
Projected for Funding during the 86-87 Fiscal Year:
1. Ivy Area Elementary School
2. City/County Urban Park
3. Stone Robinson Elementary School - Major Renovation
4. Crozet Elementary School - Planning for a Crozet Community Elementary School
expansion, not necessarily at Crozet Elementary, including whatever
safety improvements can be funded and identified during that process
5. Burley Middle School - Roof Replacement
6. Burley Middle School - Energy Improvements
Note attached to projects 3 through 6: If the School Division cannot
efficiently administer all the major projects shown for the 86-87
funding year, the Commission feels that the Burley improvements
could be deferred to a later year, due to the fact that the School
Board has yet to finally decide on the future of Burley Middle
School.
7. Volunteer Fire Company - Advance Allocation Program
8. Scottsville Rescue Squad - New Vehicle
9. Albemarle High School - Roof replacement
10. Ivy Creek Tenant House Improvements
11. Scottsville Community Center Roof Repair
12. County Office Building Interior Renovation
13. Southern Regional Park - Planning and Land Acquisition only
14. Western Albemarle High School - Field Development Project
15. Fire Service Training Center
16. Bennington Drainage Channel
Note attached to project 16: The Commission would very much prefer
that there be some landowner participation in the cost of the project.
17. County Computer Update
Note attached to project 17: Only section Commission feels is
urgent is the payment for the lease -purchase agreement and that
all other expenditures of funds for specific pieces of equipment
should be reviewed carefully by the Board of Supervisors.
May 6, 1986
Page 16
18. Albemarle High School - Road only and whatever expansion of
that roadway for parallel parking there can be (Not for parking lot)
19. Western Albemarle High School - Resurfacing of tennis courts
Mr. Horne suggested that those persons interested could pick up a copy
of the remainder of the list (items 20 - 54) from the planning office.
He pointed out that the first 19 items included all the "urgent" requests,
and that the remainder of the projects were proposed for funding in later
years. The CIP was set for public hearing on Tuesday, May 27, 1986.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
DS
John Horne, Secretary
9
l�