HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 27 1995 PC MinutesM
6-27-95
JUNE 27, 1995
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June
27, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Mr. Bruce
Dotson; and Mr. Tom Jenkins. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr.
Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; and Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioners Vaughan and Imhoff.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of June 6 and June 13, 1995, were unanimously approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken by the Board of Supervisors at their June 14,
1995 meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
`•- Springdale Cottage Site Plan Waiver Request - Request to permit waiver of the
drawing of a site development plan for a third dwelling unit in accord with Section 32.2.2
of the Zoning Ordinance.
and
Addition to Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District - Property described as
Tax Map 28, parcel 7, contains approximately 60 acres, and is located on the west side
of Rt. 671 (Ballards Mill Road) at the intersection of Rt. 821 (Blufton Mill Road), north of
Millington. Planning Commission refers application to Advisory Committee.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Consent Agenda be
approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-95-16 The Covenant School - Petition to allow a private school [23.2.2(9)] on 9.0
acres zoned CO, Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 46F,
is located on the east side of Rt. 780 just south of 1-64 in the Scottsville Magisterial
District. This site is recommended for Office Service in Neighborhood 5.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
09
6-27-95 2
*4W Mr. Nitchmann asked if there was room for playing fields, should they be added in the
future. Mr. Fritz said the applicant's request had not included playing fields and staff
had not given any consideration to possible athletic fields. Should playing fields be
requested later, they will have to be reviewed at that time.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Copeland, Headmaster of The Covenant
School, and by Mr. Frank Cox. They briefly described the history of the school and the
present proposal, including how traffic projections were calculated and how the shuttle
bus service will operate.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Ruth Ann Mean presented a petition of support which contained many signatures.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he felt it was an excellent use for the site.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-95-16 for The Covenant School be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
om
1. Use is limited to 400 students.
2. Any expansion of the building, parking or provision of athletic fields shall require
amendment of this request.
3. Prior to commencement of the school, left and right turn lanes shall be provided as
required or recommended by the Department of Transportation.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson said he felt this was a good re -use of an existing building and he felt it
would "improve, though not eliminate, the traffic situation on the 250 bypass.
Ms. Huckle agreed it was a good idea.
The motion passed unanimously.
M
Z296
6-27-95
3
14AW ZMA-95-08 George Clark - Petition to rezone 7 acres from RA, Rural Areas to VR,
Village Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 35D is located in the
northeast corner of the intersection of Rt. 29 and Rt. 779 in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Village Residential in the Village of
North Garden.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The main issue identified by staff was "the
relationship of the entrances." Mr. Fritz explained: "The existing dwelling fronts on Rt.
779, but has a road that connects both of these. There is a crossover onto Rt. 29."
However, the applicant, in discussions with staff on June 27th, offered to proffer "the
limitation of the access of these lots to Rt. 779, with Lot 3 continuing to have access to
the crossover." Mr. Fritz concluded: "A proffer that would limit access to Rt. 779 would
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance by focusing
development on an internal road. Rt. 779 is, by all practical purposes, an internal road,
and it preserves the prevailing building pattern in the area. That was the only negative
issue we had identified and, therefore, we are able to support this request with the
acceptance of the applicant's proffer and the statement of the applicant to provide
additional proffer to limit access to Lots 1, 2 and 4 to Rt. 779 only."
Mr. Nitchmann asked what would prevent the other lots from using Mr. Clark's access
to Rt. 29. Mr. Fritz explained there would be no easement and Mr. Clark would be able
�bw to control access across Lot 3.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Leroy Yancey. He described the history of the
property and the entrance. He felt it would be a mistake to close the entrance to Rt. 29
(for Mr. Clark's Lot 3) because that would mean "farm machinery would have to cross
the northbound lane, cross the crossover and then go north or south for 1/3 a mile to
get access back onto Rt. 779 in order to reach the rest of the property." He confirmed
that Mr. Clark is willing to proffer that all other lots will have access from Rt. 779. Mr.
Yancey noted that the lot sizes proposed will "stand on their own" and Mr. Clark will
have to prove that they can, in terms of water and drainfield sites, if this rezoning is
approved. He pointed out that Mr. Clark could develop this property in three lots, by -
right, and the County would lose the advantage of the proffer which is being offered.
He felt approval of this proposal was in the County's and community's best interest
because it offers the County control over the development.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson said that given the small scale of this proposal, he did not think the
affordable housing issue was significant in this case. He felt the major issue was the
County's "intent to reexamine the Village issue in this area." In this case, though, only
one more lot is proposed (than allowable by -right), he was concerned that "if we ignore
4,4,w the likelihood that we'll change the Plan on this one, then we need to be prepared to
6-27-95 4
,%W ignore that on others." If the setbacks are one of the advantages of the VR
designation, he wondered if the applicant has considered a 3-lot VR which would not
increase the density, but would give the advantages of the setbacks.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's request, Mr. Fritz explained the differences in the RA
setbacks and the VR setbacks.
Mr. Roger Ray, surveyor for the applicant, explained that the lot width was of more
importance than the setbacks. He said: "We are more restricted by the lot width in the
RA than in the VR. RA has a lot width of 250 feet. VR carries a lot width of 130 feet....
The VR zoning affords us better building sites due to the lot width." In response to Mr.
Dotson's earlier question about a 3-lot VR development, rather than 4 lots, Mr. Ray said
he could not commit his client to such a change. But he felt Mr. Clark wanted 4 lots, "as
the Comprehensive Plan suggests that he should have."
Ms. Huckle said she had "great concerns" about this proposal. She said the property is
actually 6.4 acres, not 7 as stated in the staff report, and in the Rural Areas it has been
determined that 2 acre lots are the minimum size for well and septic. She recalled that
other North Garden residents, in the past, have had trouble locating adequate
groundwater on their property, and there is the additional problem of being able to keep
the well and drainfield 100 feet apart. She said fewer houses will mean less
11%W groundwater removal (a concern expressed by neighbors). She said she could not
support the proposal. She felt Mr. Dotson's suggestion for a 3-lot VR development was
a good one.
Comment was invited from Mr. David Hirschmann, the County's Water Resources
Manager. He said he has spoken with the applicant and though there is no guarantee
as to water quantity several years into the future, "with the 4-lot configuration, the water
would be available without severely impacting the other adjacent wells."
Regarding drainfields, Mr. Fritz said he has received a letter from the Health
Department stating "there appears to be area for suitable subsurface drainfields on
these four lots." Ms. Huckle pointed out that the well locations have not yet been
determined. Mr. Blue addressed Ms. Huckle's concern: "But the point is, they can't put
it (the well) any closer (to the drainfield) than the law allows."
Mr. Blue said that though consideration to change the growth area in North Garden is
now taking place with the Comp Plan review, he said he could support this request
because it is such a small addition and the applicant will have to prove that wells and
drainfields are possible. He asked, however, if there was any way to require that Lot
3's access to Rt. 29 be closed if the farm on the east side of Rt. 29 should, at some
future time, no longer be owned by the owner of Lot 3.
2M
6-27-95 5
Mr. Trank addressed this question. He did not think Mr. Blue's suggestion was "out of
line," though it is not the usual proffer. Once proffered and accepted as part of this
amendment, that condition would continue in effect and would run with the land. He
explained that, from an enforcement standpoint, it would be desirable to have language
requiring the applicant to provide notice to the county at such time as the farm on the
east side of Rt. 29 is sold, so that the subsequent owner of the property will be aware of
the restriction. Mr. Trank confirmed that such a restriction would have to be in the form
of a voluntary proffer from the applicant.
Mr. Blue said his support of the request was not contingent upon such a proffer, but he
wanted to make the applicant aware of this possibility.
Mr. Nitchmann noted that it appears that the private road is more in line with Lot 2 than
with Lot 3. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the lot line will have to be moved before the
subdivision plat is approved.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-95-08 for George Clark be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffer
that Lots 1, 2 and 4 will access only onto Rt. 779 and only Lot 3 will have access onto
Rt. 29 and also the proffer that all lots must be able to prove the existence of adequate
water supply.
1#0w
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
The motion passed, 3:2, with Commissioners Huckle and Dotson casting the dissenting
votes.
ZMA-95-09 Sam Enterprises, L.L.C. - Petition to rezone 82 acres from R-1,
Residential to R-4, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcels 96 and
108, is located on the north side of Rt. 250 approximately 0.6 miles east of the Rt.
250/Rt. 240 intersection at Brownsville in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for Low Density Residential in the Community of Crozet.
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff recommends
approval of this rezoning request with the attached proffers, noting that approval does
not guarantee or imply approval of any special use permit necessary for the stream
crossing indicated on the
General Development Plan."
There was a brief discussion about critical slope areas. Mr. Lilley said there may be
portions of lots which encroach slightly into critical slopes, "but given an adequate
building site and yard space in place, the critical slopes shouldn't be disturbed."
1�89
6-27-95 6
Ms. Huckle noted that there are plans for utility lines to be within the greenway 50-foot
buffer. Mr. Lilley explained: "I think they want to reserve the right if any utilities need to
cross the greenway. This is a similar proffer with what was provided with Highlands
West on the Lady Walton property." After Mr. Lilley's explanation, Ms. Huckle said: "So
this would just be for crossing the greenway and the entire length would not be
disturbed." Mr. Blue responded: "I wouldn't think so." (Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that
the entire length of the greenway had been disturbed with the Crozet Interceptor.)
Mr. Dotson recalled that there had been proffer language with the Highlands West
development which said the deeds of those lots which abut the possible collector road
would refer to the possible construction of the road within the reserved area. Mr. Lilley
said that is also addressed with this proposal by proffer No. 5.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Roudabush and Mr. Ed Campbell, engineers
for the project. (The owners were also present.) Mr. Campbell addressed an earlier
question which had been raised as to which slopes drain into the Lickinghole Creek
Basin. He pointed out the ridge line on the plan, with everything above the ridge line
going into Lickinghole and everything below going south into a culvert under Rt. 250.
Mr. Blue asked if the culvert under Rt. 250 would have to be relocated if a decision is
made to use the access road. Mr. Campbell did not think the culvert would have to be
relocated, though it may have to be extended or modified.
Mr. Jenkins asked how many houses are envisioned. Mr. Campbell said the rezoning
will allow 326 dwellings. A maximum of 190 are proffered, but Mr. Campbell did not
think it would be possible to actually achieve 190.
Ms. Huckle asked what would happen to the land that is unbuildable. Mr. Campbell
confirmed that it would be dedicated to open space and would probably be given to the
homeowners, though that has not yet been decided. He estimated the total open
space, and/or critical slopes, would be 32 to 35 acres.
Mr. Campbell felt that only the rear portions of a very few lots would be in critical slope
area, but it will be necessary to get into critical slopes to connect to the Interceptor. He
confirmed Mr. Lilley's earlier explanation about encroachment into the greenway, i.e. it
is included "just in case he has to cross it, but there is no intent to go along the
greenway." He said the water lines would not have to cross it at all and the sewer line
can go in "on this side of Lickinghole, so Lickinghole will not have to be crossed."
There will be no impact on the creek itself.
Mr. Jenkins again asked how the drainage will be handled which does not drain into
Lickinghole. Mr. Campbell explained there will be two detention basins on either side of
M
6-27-95 7
Ilikew
the entrance road. He said only a very small acreage will drain to these (8 acres on the
left, 4 acres on the right).
Em
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Lyndon Bain, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He
expressed concern about the inadequacy of the roads and the elementary schools to
handle this development.
Ms. Kelly Bain addressed the Commission. She expressed opposition to the proposal.
She felt the density was not consistent with the character of Crozet. She also
expressed concern about overcrowding of the schools. She asked that the
Commission think about "quality of life vs. a developer's desire for profit."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the school situation. She said that this
development will cost $850,000/year just from the standpoint of education. However,
she acknowledged that water and sewer do exist in this area and "that is where this
growth is supposed to go." She was very sympathetic to the Crozet residents who want
it to remain as it has been, but she concluded: "I guess this is inevitable."
Mr. Jenkins was concerned about the road issue. He said he could not support this
request if it meant he would be supporting a four -lane road. He pointed out that Rt. 240
goes all the way around Crozet and Rt. 250 also serves Crozet. He did not feel a four
lane road is needed, which will become a racetrack in a residential area.
Mr. Blue said he understood Mr. Jenkins' concern, but he understood the applicant was
willing to proffer the right-of-way for the road, if it is required at some future time. He
said: "If we vote against it we may be penalizing the applicant for doing something the
County has recommended he do when he probably doesn't want to do it either."
Mr. Lilley explained that the four -lane road of concern to Mr. Jenkins is one which is
shown in the Comprehensive Plan "as an alternative to the existing Rt. 240, between
Rt. 250 and downtown Crozet." Mr. Cilimberg added that whether or not the road will
be four lane has not yet been determined. Rather, "it has been initially laid out in an
alignment based on an assumption of the highest design that might be necessary.
VDOT will make the determination as to the type of road that would be necessary." Mr.
Cilimberg said the County has still not received the study of the current Rt. 240 through
Crozet and recommendations as to whether improvements should be made to that road
or a substitute road such as this built." He explained that a four -lane road is being
planned for so that "we don't shortcut ourselves in road needs." He stressed, however,
i%w that it has not yet been determined if it will actually be a four -lane road.
A Ire
6-27-95 8
%Yrr
Mr. Blue pointed out that this applicant just reserves a 120-foot strip of land and does
not specify it as a four -lane road. Proffer No. 5 refers to the "possibility."
Mr. Jenkins concluded: "And I want these minutes to show that I'm against a four -lane
road."
Ms. Huckle said that even if there is no further industrial development (truck traffic, etc)
in Crozet, residential development can also impact the roads. She felt it was good that
the County was planning ahead, even though the road may never be built.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed with Mr. Jenkins about the rural character of Crozet and the fact
that a 2-lane road seems to be working. He understood, however, that the applicant is
following the request of the County in reserving the right-of-way.
Mr. Cilimberg acknowledged that a "collector road" does not necessarily have to be a
four -lane road. He said that VDOT will decide on the design of the road based on the
anticipated traffic volumes. He pointed out that this rezoning will also restrict access
from these lots onto the possible collector road, thus preventing future conflicts. If 120-
feet is not needed, then the reserved right-of-way could accommodate a bike lane and
additional buffer area.
*40* Mr. Dotson said he was pleased to see that the staff report addresses "the maximum
average lot size question and preserving the efficient utilization of the land." He said he
thought the Commission should discuss that issue more in the future and he was glad
to see it appearing in the staff reports.
2M
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-95-09 for Sam Enterprises, L.L.C. be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the
applicant's proffers.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-94-25 Craig Builders, Mill Creek West - Petition to rezone approximately 80
acres from LI and PUD (Industrial) to PUD (Residential). Property, described as Tax
Map 76M1, Parcels 10 and 10B, is along the north side of Southern Parkway, north of
the Mill Creek Development and south of Interstate 64. This property is in Urban
Neighborhood 4, Scottsville Magisterial District, and is designated for Low Density
Residential in the Comprehensive Plan.
1_1� ?,:�
om
6-27-95 9
Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. The report concluded: "In summary, this proposal
is in line with the Comprehensive Plan as to land use designation and the overall
density appears compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, given the
characteristics of the property, available infrastructure, and the vicinity. The plan
appears to adequately provide for the protection of the environmentally sensitive
resources on the site, and the buffering provided appears to be adequate to protect the
proposed residences from adjacent industrial and Interstate highway uses. Therefore,
staff finds that this request can be supported."
Mr. Lilley made two additional changes to the revised conditions of approval for ZMA-
94-25, both related to the pedestrian pathway. He said No. 1 should have the words
"including pedestrian trails" added. The condition would then read: "Residential and
industrial areas with their attendant open space areas, including pedestrian trails, shall
be located in general accord with the Application Plan." The last sentence of new
condition No. 3 should end after the words "right-of-way." The last sentence would then
read: "In the event that this collector road is constructed, the developer, his successors
or assigns, shall be responsible for the removal of the portion of Grist Mill Drive median
and turn island and the 'Mill Creek West' sign proposed within the collector road right-
of-way."
Mr. Blue pointed out that the pedestrian trail is "generally" along the Biscuit Run
Interceptor, "so when they build the Southern Parkway the trail on the top of the sewer
interceptor will be there anyway."
At Ms. Huckle's request, Mr. Lilley pointed out the location of critical slopes in addition
to those along Biscuit Run. He said it has not yet been determined if all the lots will
have good building sites outside the critical slopes. However, staff is "fairly confident, if
they don't, a waiver to provide for a building site on those lots could be supportable
given the history of critical slopes in the growth areas that we've dealt with that aren't
identified as important resources in the Open Space Plan."
Ms. Huckle said: "So the easements would not apply to those lots --only to the ones on
Biscuit Run." Mr. Lilley replied: "That's right." Mr. Cilimberg added: "And those would
have to come to the Commission for the waiver."
Ms. Huckle said she had seen some lots, which were not buildable, made buildable by
a bulldozer. She did not want that to happen here.
Mr. Dotson asked if the right-of-way for the Southern Parkway was 90 feet. Mr. Lilley
responded affirmatively. Mr. Cilimberg said part of the road is four lanes now, and,
when connected, it will certainly be four lanes.
6t ,? a
M
6-27-95
10
Mr. Blue asked if the application plan is the equivalent of a proffer for a PUD. Staff
responded affirmatively.
The applicant was represented by Andrea Craig. She stressed that Mill Creek has
been successful in its efforts to provide affordable housing for the community. Mill
Creek West will continue those efforts.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said he felt this was a good extension of Mill Creek and it maintains
growth in a growth area where water and sewer are available.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-94-25 for Craig Builders, Mill Creek West,
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the revised
conditions set forth in Attachment C of the staff report dated June 27, 1995, and with
the further revisions to conditions 1 and 3 as outlined by Mr. Lilley.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle said she would support the motion with the "hope and understanding" that if
the applicant finds that a lot is not buildable he will combine it with another lot rather
than cutting a building site into the critical slopes.
The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-94-058 Airport Mobile Home Park Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate
122 mobile home units on approximately 30 acres, zoned R-15, Residential. Property,
described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 53, 54, 55, 56 is located on the east side of Rt. 606
approximately 0.6 miles south of Rt. 649. Rivanna Magisterial District, this property is
located in a designated growth area and is recommended for high density residential
(Community of Hollymead).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. He explained the item was before the Commission
because the applicant is requesting private roads instead of mobile home park road
standards. The staff report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the use of roads
constructed to the private road standards is consistent with the purpose of the
ordinance and protects the public interest. Staff supports the use of mountainous
terrain standards in the construction of the roads based on the low travel speeds in the
development."
oqy
M
6-27-95 11
The staff report stated that the Engineering Department has said that roads constructed
to the Private Road standards will be adequate to serve the development.
Mr. Dotson asked staff to explain the action taken by the Board on the special permit.
Mr. Cilimberg responded: "It only relates in that this site plan is under review but it
doesn't vest the use. The use has to have actually been established within 2 years of
the special use permit approval in order to vest that use. It has to be established in
some way. It has been anticipated by the applicant that that may not occur with the site
plan approval process because preliminary approval doesn't vest either. So after being
advised by the Zoning Department that the expiration date for that original SP was July
14, the applicant went to the Board for an extension to allow the site plan process to
conclude --a final site plan approval and building permits to be issued before beginning
development."
Ms. Huckle asked how long an extension was granted. Mr. Cilimberg replied: 'It has
not been extended. It will come to you on July 11, 1995 and the Board will hear it on
July 12. The applicant has requested a 3-month extension. That will be before you as
a public hearing."
Mr. Fritz briefly answered Commission questions about the features of the plan, e.g.
number of lots (120), size of lots, traffic patterns, parking, terrain, and road connections.
Mr. Fritz confirmed that the property would allow a maximum of 15 units/acre (R15). Mr.
Dotson said this proposal is a lot less than the maximum.
Mr. Dotson asked what would be the building types if this property were to be converted
to more conventional development at some future time. Mr. Cilimberg explained that
the approval for this use does not allow for conversion to any other use. Mr. Fritz
added that the mobile home park is proffered for 20 years. (Ms. Huckle interjected:
"15.") Because the issue tonight is road type, Mr. Dotson said he was simply
wondering if the streets could serve a different use.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of County Engineering, addressed Mr. Dotson's question. He
said the private road standard is acceptable. He said if the use were to change,
Engineering would consider the traffic generation and determine at that time whether
the roads were adequate. Mr. Dotson said: "So it is a reasonable belief that these
roads could serve a variety of uses if the uses were allowed to change." Mr. Kelsey
responded: "If the use is appropriate for that particular road, certainly." Mr. Cilimberg
pointed out that any change in use would be subject to review and the roads would be
evaluated at that time.
�y�
6-27-95
12
In response to Ms. Huckle's questions, Mr. Kelsey said each lot will have 2 parking
spaces and though on -street parking is not encouraged on rural cross sections, it is
common for on -street parking to take place occasionally.
Ms. Huckle asked what guarantees that the developer will maintain the roads. Mr.
Kelsey said it was his understanding that the owner of the mobile home park will be
responsible for all the maintenance. However, because this will be a private road, there
is really no guarantee. He pointed out that is the case with any private road in the
county. Ms. Huckle felt this is a different situation because the occupants of these lots
will be leasing the space. Mr. Fritz felt it would be the same situation as exists in any
apartment complex--i.e. a commercial arrangement where there is no homeowner's
association involved.
Mr. Blue asked if school buses will pick up on private roads, or if the pick-up will be at a
central location. Mr. Cilimberg said that decision is made by the Transportation
Department, but he did not think the fact that it is a private road would have any bearing
on that decision.
Ms. Huckle felt the reason the County favored public roads for many years was
because there are so many private roads which are not maintained properly. She felt
residents of this type of development might be more vulnerable.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that there is a standard for mobile home parks' road
construction in the Ordinance, and it anticipates that they will be private roads. What
the applicant is requesting here is "a different type of private road." He explained:
"They are still requesting private roads under a different part of the Ordinance, which
they are allowed to do. But even under the mobile home parks' provisions of the
Ordinance, it would be anticipated that those roads would be private."
Mr. Fritz clarified: "What we're recommending you do in this particular case is simply
replace the private road standards found in the Zoning Ordinance with the road
standards found in the Subdivision Ordinance. It is the only other road standards we
have."
Mr. Cilimberg attempted to clarify why this item had originally been before the
Commission on the Consent Agenda: "They were asking for a substitution of private
road subdivision standards for a rural cross section, substituting that for what is in the
ordinance for the mobile home parks. That is the request. Whereas they would have
been required to do the 20-foot curb -to -curb, they are requesting, under private road
standards that are in the subdivision ordinance, to be able to do a rural cross section
and, based on traffic volume, 18' to 22' with shoulder and ditch. That is the request."
He confirmed the Engineering Department is comfortable with that request." He
concluded: "So these standards that are in the ordinance which can be substitute
&
6-27-95 13
1�Yr•'
regarding mobile home parks, if you were to approve this request, would be substituted
with the private road provisions."
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the density in connection with the road design.
Mr. Kelsey agreed that had been a concern to the Engineering Department and that is
why this particular scheme had been worked out. He said the traffic count had been
determined by the number of dwelling units in the same manner as with a conventional
development.
Mr. Nitchmann said: "The bottom line is it meets all the requirements." Mr. Kelsey
responded: "As far as we're concerned."
The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, offered to answer questions. Addressing Ms.
Huckle's concern about density, he said 3 units/acre is not a dense development. He
noted that Briarwood Subdivision is 12 units/acre.
Ms. Huckle asked if the roads would be bonded. Mr. Wood responded that the
development would not be successful if he did not maintain it in the proper way. He
said: "We fully intend to maintain it." He invited the Commission to visit the mobile
home park he owns in Verona, VA, which is 30 years old.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Karen Strickland, an Earlysville resident, addressed the Commission. She felt
strongly that private roads should not be approved. She strongly objected to the site
plan being a Consent Agenda item.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle asked what the difference is between public vs. private roads. Mr. Fritz
questioned whether this development would be eligible for public roads because there
is only one owner. (Mr. Trank later confirmed that Mr. Fritz's statement was correct.)
He could not answer the question about the difference in design standards. (Mr. Blue
noted that Mr. Kelsey had described the standards earlier.)
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SDP-94-058, the Airport Mobile Home Park
Preliminary Site Plan, be approved, subject to the conditions presented in the staff
report.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that private roads be permitted in the Airport Mobile
Home Park development, in accordance with Section 5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
6-27-95 14
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Recorded by Janice Wills
Transcribed by Deloris Bradshaw
M
CR