HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 07 1991 PC MinutesMay 7, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, May 7, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm;
Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Richard Tarbell,
Planner; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development;
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Jim Bowling,
Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April
23, 1991 were approved as submitted.
SUB-91-021 - White Oaks Prelimina Plat - Proposal to
create fifteen lots averaging 1.42 acres from a 21.35 acre
parcel. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 14E, is
located on the west side of Route 240 approximately 1/2 mile
north of Route 250. Zoned R-1, Residential and EC, Entrance
Corridor in the White Hall Magisterial District. This
property is located within a designated growth area
(Crozet).
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The main issue of discussion was the "outlot" which was
created as a result of the platting of the right-of-way.
Mr. Keeler explained that this outlot was different in the
following the way: "Outlots are usually created from
property that is being subdivided. In this case, the outlot
is being created on adjoining property by virtue of the
dedication of the road." This was the reason for
"either/or" condition l(k)--"Combination of the outlot with
Lot 1 OR staff approval of a separate plat for this outlot
with a note stating it is restricted from development and no
building permit shall be issued on this parcel." Mr. Keeler
further explained that there is presently a restriction on
this portion of the property which would prevent any
building or other development and there is also "a
non -located easement across that strip for utilities and
roads, etc." However, the County Attorney has interpreted
that "once those easements are perfected the restriction
goes away." He stated this was the reason staff recommends
that the outlot be handled under a separate plat. He added
that the remainder of that area is governed by floodplains,
steep slopes, etc. so development would not be possible with
a permit to fill in the floodplain and a waiver to build on
steep slopes.
May 7, 1991 Page 2
Mr. Keeler confirmed that condition 1(k), as stated above,
means that either the outlot be added to Lot 1, or that it
remain with the owner of the adjoining property in which
case it is restricted from development. He further
clarified that the applicant cannot add the piece to Lot 1
without negotiating that with the other property owner.
Mr. Johnson asked if "approval should be withheld" until
this issue is resolved.
Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the condition could be
modified.
Mr. Johnson asked if it could be modified to delete the
"or", i.e. "to make sure it's approved subject to this being
combined with Lot 1." Mr. Keeler responded that was
possible, "but you would be putting this subdivider purely
in the hands of the adjoining owner because he doesn't own
that."
Mr. Johnson asked if that could "legally" be done. Mr.
Bowling responded: "I think it can."
It was determined this proposal did not require
Architectural Review Board review because these are
single-family residences and no site plan is required.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Keeler explained
that combining the outlot with Lot i would be the
preferrable option because the County then would not have to
keep track of a small, separate piece of property which is
not buildable. Mr. Keeler added that when the property to
the rear develops, this issue will likely come up again with
other small strips.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ray Nicely and Mr. Ed
Robb, the developer. Mr. Nicely pointed out the positive
aspects of the property, i.e. proper zoning, convenient
location, and access to utilities. He expressed agreement
with the staff report. He stated the applicant will attempt
to purchase the outlot property but if that is not possible
then a plat will be provided and the property will not be
developable. He suggested a third option would be to move
the entrance, which would require more grading but would
eliminate the outlot. Mr. Robb, in answer to Mr. Johnson's
question, explained that he has made an effort to purchase
the outlot, but has received no "positive information" in
response. Mr. Robb stressed that the proposal has been
planned in the best interests of the environment. He also
stated that he was willing to maintain the outlot
"perpetually ... until the road is taken over by the State."
He also stated that to move the entrance road to the north
would result in a "mess." He stressed that the
1/3
May 7, 1991 Page 3
existing 150 wide right-of-way had been designed for this
purpose and the proposed road makes use of 60 feet of the
deeded right-of-way. He pointed out that if the County had
not allowed the creation of the 150 feet easement, then
there would not be the present outlot situation which is
created by the remainder of the 90 feet width which is not
being taken up by the road. Mr. Robb expressed doubt that
he would be able to purchase the outlot. He also stressed
that the outlot could not be used for anything.
It was determined the 60 foot width included both the road
and utility lines.
Mr. Keeler attempted to clarify the discussion: "I think
when this parcel was created it was probably an exempt plat
and the only participation the County would have had would
be to certify that it was exempt. The provision in the deed
about the water and sewer lines and the road was a good
idea; but Rich has recommended to you a condition that has
an either/or part --the applicant is agreeable to it and we
feel confident that it satisfies the intent of the Ordinance
in regard to outlots because ... Mr. Robb does not control
that land. That's why we've recommended the either/or
provision. You do have the legal authority to require it to
be combined with Lot 1 and not give him an alternative, but
if you do that you are clearly making his project clearly
subordinant to the owner of the land to the rear. We feel
confident that either part of the either/or condition would
satisfy the intent of the Ordinance which is not to create
whole outlots which at some future time might invite
requests for rezoning of that one lot to make it useable for
residential purposes."
Mr. Jenkins interpreted that once the State has taken over
the road, any land that they don't take for their
right-of-way will "revert back to the owner in the back."
Mr. Keeler confirmed this was accurate.
Further public comment:
Mr. Paul Burke expressed concerns about possible traffic
problems given the speed at which vehicles travel on Rt.
250. He recommended that the outlot not be added to Lot 1
because he felt this piece might be needed at some future
time to improve sight distance and also to make access to
the property safer.
Mr. Jay McNeeley, owner of the outlot, addressed the
Commission. He disagreed with Mr. Burke's description of
possible traffic problems. Though Mr. McNeeley would not
indicate if he was willing to sell the property to the
applicant, he did say: "But I have no problem with saying
that that piece of property will not be built on and I have
no problem with saying that that piece of property will be
used for improvements for getting on and off the highway.
That's all it's good for --that and green space."
y_-/
May 7, 1991
Page 4
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler commented on the possible future development of
the property to the rear. He stated: "In review of the
entrance we want to insure that there's adequate
right-of-way in this area here to improve the turn lane in
the future depending on the number of units that develop
back there. .. Sight distance requirements at the
intersection will not change based on the increase in
traffic. ... Sight distance requirements, in both
directions, is based on travel speed and the posted speed
limit along the roadway. VDOT will not issue a permit
unless those minimum sight distance requirements can be
met."
Mr. Rittenhouse summarized the issue before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that either of the options in condition
1(k) would require the agreement of the adjacent property
owner. He noted that the adjacent property owner had
verbally agreed to part 2 of the condition, i.e. that the
property will not be developed. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that
with the options as stated, there was little incentive for
the applicant to purchase Lot 1.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the creation of an
"abandoned piece of property along an entry corridor." He
stated that he was in favor of eliminating the "or" option
of condition 1(k).
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that there would be no
homeowner's association maintaining this outlot, though the
applicant has stated he is willing to maintain the property.
He noted that there was no condition requiring such
maintenance. He also noted that if the owernship remains
with the adjoining property owner there is no requirement
for maintenance just as there is no requirement at the
present time that it be maintained.
Mr. Wilkerson felt that to eliminate the second option of
condition 1(k) put a burden on the applicant. He stated:
"If we say either you buy it or this isn't approved, then
what price have you put on that piece of property?"
Mr. Jenkins again pointed out when the property to the rear
develops there will be a small unbuildable strip all along
the river which will be owned by the same adjoining property
owner.
There was a brief discussion about the steepness of the
outlot. Ms. Huckle noted that even if it were to be added
to Lot 1, the topography might be such that even the owner
of Lot 1 might have difficulty maintaining it.
#5-
May 7, 1991
Page 5
Mr. Jenkins moved that SUB-91-021, White Oaks Preliminary
Plat, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor
shall it be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of erosion
control plans and issuance of an erosion control
permit;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff
control permit;
e. Compliance with the County policy governing
calculation and collection of fees for development of
land that lies in the drainage basin of regional
stormwater management facilities as administered by the
Engineering Department;
f. Virginia Department of Transportation
of right -of --way improvements to include, at a
a 100' long, right taper lane widening to 12'
proposed road and a commercial entrance;
g. Virginia Department of Transportation
of road and drainage plans and calculations to
on the potential development of the residue of
56, parcel 14;
h. Albemarle County Service
final water and sewer plans;
approval
minimum,
at the
approval
be based
Tax Map
Authority approval of
i. Staff approval of deed restrictions in
accordance with Gary C. McGee's letter dated April 12,
1991;
j. Deliniation of the greenspace easement 100
horizontal feet from the edge of the pond;
k. Combination of the outlot with Lot 1 OR staff
approval of a separate plat for this outlot with a note
stating it is restricted from development and no
building permit shall be issued on this parcel;
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson noted what he felt was an "inconsistency" in a
letter dated April 12, 1991 from Mr. McGee to Mr. Tarbell.
He interpreted paragraph A of the letter to say that nothing
could be done within the green space area even to the extent
of not being able to maintain the pedestrian access easement
to the pond nor being able to replace a tree if it should
May 7, 1991 Page 6
die. He felt the letter should be modified so as to say
that restoration -type planting should be allowed within the
greenspace area and also that the pedestrian access area be
better defined.
Mr. Bowling commented: "I think there's a rule of common
sense in interpreting all these things. You have to assume
that whoever is interpreting it will use some common sense."
Mr. Keeler pointed out that these issues would be addressed
through deed restrictions and not through County
enforcement.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Barrsden Hills Prelimina Plat SUB-90-151 - Proposal to
create eight lots from 141.63 acres. Lot size ranges from
6.7 to 23.0 acres with an average size of 17.7 acres. The
lots are proposed to be served by a public road.' Property,
described as Tax Map 63, Parcel 30 is located on the north
side of Rt. 610 approximately 1/2 mile east of Rt. 20.
Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial district.
This property is not located within a designated growth
area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Tarbell explained
that a note on the plat restricts access for Lots 8 and 10
to the interior road.
Mr. Johnson asked why mountainous standards were not
considered for the roads. Mr. Tarbell explained this was a
Virginia Department of Transportation matter because this is
a public road and it was noted that the applicant had
requested rolling terrain standards.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Kirk Hughes. He
offered no significant additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the commission.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Tarbell confirmed
that a bond would be required for the road.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Barrsden Hills Preliminary Plat
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor
shall it be signed until the following conditions are met:
47
May 7, 1991
Page 7
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road
plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of
stormwater detention plans and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering approval of erosion
control plans and issuance of an erosion control
permit;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of right-of-way improvements to include a commercial
entrance;
f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of road and drainage plans and calculations.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
Report of the Private Roads Committee - Mr. Keeler
presented the staff report which included recommendations
which were reached by the Private Roads Committee. Mr.
Keeler asked the Commission to adopt a Resolution of Intent
to amend the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances in accordance
with these recommendations.
The Commission discussed the report briefly. Mr. Johnson
stated he "continued to take exception to the statements
that there is a 50-foot right-of-way required by VDOT." He
referred to Geometric Design Standards for Rural Local Road
Systems, published by the Virginia Department of
Transportation, revised April 1986, which used the term
"desirable" in relation to the 50-foot figure. He suggested
that "Note 9" be included in the recommendations. He
quoted: "Right-of-way widths shown are suggested only. The
slope, design, land use, etc. will effect the normal width
to be used." He also noted that newly adopted VDOT
standards (for other than new constructton) are
"significantly different in certain cases than standards
which had been previously distributed." He stated he had
evidence that VDOT is approving roads with 40 foot
right-of-ways. He also pointed out that the width of the
right-of-way was the most significant environmental impact
concern in the construction of roads.
Mr. Keeler noted that the VDOT manual for subdivision and
street requirements was adopted within the last couple of
years. He confirmed that requirements for subdivision roads
are different than others. He also noted that the County
Engineer may sometimes recommend a different width than VDOT
because of drainage concerns.
May 7, 1991
page 8
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that VDOT would not be reviewing
private roads, so there was no way of knowing what they
would choose as a right-of-way width.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that even if VDOT changes their
policy about the application of terrain standards, there is
no guarantee that any private roads will be admitted to
their system because they would not have been involved in
the review of the plans.
There was a brief discussion about the surfacing of private
roads for 3-5 lot subdivisions. Mr. Keeler confirmed that
these are gravel roads. Mr. Kirk Hughes also commented and
explained that the stone for these roads is tested before it
is put down and it also has to be compacted. Mr. Keeler
explained that the geometrics for these roads --horizontal
and vertical curvature --would "go to VDOT standards."
With some minor amendments, Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by
Ms. Huckle, that a Resolution of Intent to Amend the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances as they relate to Private
Roads, in accordance with the following recommendations, be
adopted:
1. Private roads serve a definable public purpose and,
therefore, private road provisions should be continued in
the subdivision and site plan ordinances.
2. Certain advantages would be realized by adoption of
Virginia Department of Transportation mountainous standards
in lieu of current County travelway width and pavement
standards (Table I Rural Subdivision), however;
- current County standards should be retained for 3-5
lot subdivision;
- while right-of-way would be increased from 30 to 50
feet only areas necessary for cartway, drainage facilities,
and sight distance should be cleared. The remainder of the
right-of-way should remain in a natural state;
- building setback should be reduced in accordance with
increased right-of-way width;
- provision should be made for future possible
dedication to public use.
3. Private roads in designated growth areas (i.e.
multi -family, commercial, and industrial areas) should be
designed to Virginia Department of Transportation rolling
terrain standards. For these types of developments (and
urban single family subdivision) consideration would be
afforded under existing 18-36(c) to usage of mountainous
standards.
i49
May 7, 1991
Page 9
4. The current ordinance provisions weigh environmental
damage based on a 30% volume of grading differential of
private v. public road construction. This measure does not
adequately describe:
- the actual volume differential between private v.
public road construction;
- the differential in surface area disturbance
(particularly vegetative clearing) between private v. public
road construction.
Mr. Johnson stated he would oppose the motion "because the
provisions do not reflect current VDOT decisions and
definitions."
The motion for adoption of a Resolution of Intent passed
(6:1) with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
Review of the Six year Secondary Road Plan - Mr. Benish
presented a status interim report on the plan which is
revised every other year with the last major revision in
1990.
The Commission briefly discussed the report.
Mr. Johnson made the following comment: "I think the
Commission should be aware of the rather dramatic,
political, exuberant, etc. interest in this Moorman River
bridge. .. I don't know that the Outdoors Foundation has
taken a positive and said 'We will not,' but they are
opposing it and probably the next step is to go to court to
find out who does what to whom, but in view of the fact that
the Commissioner, Mr. Patel, rejected the plan in total, my
understanding, as it was submitted without that project,
sent it back to the County and said 'You'll have no plan
until you put that in.k. Now, recommending that we take it
out again, may not be politically appropriate."
In relation to the Meadowcreek Parkway, he commented: "With
respect to the Meadowcreek Parkway --and if there's ever
going to be any way to get around the Bypass, it's to get
the Meadowcreek Parkway built in a hurry. As I read the
papers, the preferred position is to upgrade that to a
primary road and get it out of the secondary road category
to where the State would support it. Otherwise, maybe we
just do it in the narrative or something else, but certainly
try to reject this 3-year delay in the construction as
indicated here by VDOT. I think we should take a position
as strongly supporting the Meadowcreek Parkway construction
as early as possible, hopefully within the original
planning. I don't know if we're in a position to recommend
that it be placed under the primary road category or not,
but those two points "are politically quite 'rTaiatiie. "
May 7. 1991
Page 10
Mr. Cilimberg addressed the issue of the Meadowcreek Parkway
as a primary road. He explained that VDOT has been asked to
allow consideration of construction of at least part of the
parkway under the primary system, but not the part that's
covered by the secondary program. He stated that if the
project were to be put in the primary system, it might not
be addressed for many years because of competition with
projects over the entire district.
It was determined to be the consensus of the Commission to
support the priority list as the basis for deferral and at
the same time urge that whatever can be done, within the
priority list for funding, be done to push the Meadowcreek
Parkway project forward as quickly as possible.
No formal action was taken.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:00 P.M. .
DB
J
V. Wayne ilimberg, retary
Y (
�C-/