HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 18 80 PC MinutesNovember 18, 1980
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, November 18,
1980, 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Allan Kindrick, Mr. James Skove, Mrs. Norma
Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; and Mr. David Bowerman. Col. William
Washington, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, and Mr. Charles Vest, as well as Mr. Timothy
Lindstrom, ex-officio; were absent. Other officials present were: Miss Mason Caperton,
Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Vice -Chairman, Mrs. Norma Diehl, in the absence of the chairman, called the meeting
to order, after establishing a quorum.
DEFERRED ITEMS:
Lewis Hill III/Skidmore Final Plat
Located on Parcels 181, 230-234, Tax Map 58, Samuel Miller District at the southeast
corner of Holkham Drive and Route 678, north of Ivy; proposal to add 2.57 acres to the
subdivision and redivide lots 57, 58, 59, and 60 to create lots 61 and 62.
Miss Caperton gave the staff report.
The applicant said that all requirements for the plat had been met.
The meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mr. Skove ascertained that this plat did not significantly effect the 25% of open space
in the RPN.
Mr. Davis made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Compliance with the conditions of ZMA-80-14 to include:
(1) County Attorney approval of inclusion of two lots in the Homeowner's
Agreement;
(2) Written Health Department approval of two septic field locations on each
lot; No septic field shall be sited on any slopes of 25% or greater;
b. Compliance with Section 15.1-482 of the Code for vacation of the previous
plat.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
Valmont Estates Final Plat
Located on the east side of Route 845, south of Route 726, near Totier Creek; property
described as Tax Map 136, Parcel 59 in Scottsville District; proposal to redivide Lot
24 in order to allow direct frontage on Totier Creek Road.
The staff report was given by Miss Caperton.
Mr. Bryant, the applicant, was present.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Health Department approval had been obtained on the
two lots.
3 If/ 1
Mr. Bryant said the Highway Department said there was enough space for a joint entrance
on the property.
The discussion was closed to the public. `41
Mr. Davis ascertained that Lot 19 was the only recorded lot on Mundy Drive.
Mr. Bowerman found that no part of the driveway to lot 19 had been built.
Miss Caperton cited that Lot 19 had to have a driveway, but that approval of this plat
would vacate Mundy Drive where the driveway should be. If Mundy Drive is vacated half
of the 50 feet would belong to lot 19 and half to Mr. Bryant.
Mrs. Diehl stated that this would go to the Board of Supervisors, if the Commission
passed it.
Mr. Davis mentioned. that this problem was brought about because the lots were sold.
Mr. Bryant said it was not necessary to build the road, if one driveway would do.
Mrs. Diehl established that the adjacent owners had been notified of this plat.
Mr. Davis made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions:
Mr. Davis made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of location of
shared entrance;
b. Renegotiate the March 8, 1976 Agreement with the County in order to allow
lot 24A and 24B to have direct access on Totier Creek Road;
C. Show drainage easement, if any;
d. Compliance with March 8, 1976 Agreement especially to restrictions l(d),
1 (e) , and 1 (g) ;
e. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
f. All of the 50 feet right-of-way of Mundy Drive shall be vacated and shall be
added to lot 19 and/or lot 24A. No pipestem shall be created. Access to
lot 19 shall not be disturbed;
g. Compliance with Section 15.1-482 of the Code for vacation of the previous plat.
Mr. Skove made a second to the motion.
The vote for approval was unanimous.
Crozet Temporary Sewage Treatment Plant Site Plan
Located on the south side of Route 240, south of Route 691 in Crozet; property described
as Tax Map 56, Parcel 11 in White Hall District.; proposal to locate a temporary
package treatment plat to serve the Windham Site and users of the old Crozet sewer
system.
The staff report was given by Miss Caperton.
Mr. Mark Osborne, .representing the applicant, said that the site was above the flood
plain and the ground water table and that the tank would be buried.
Mr. Snow, representing an adjacent landowner, questioned if the plant would all be
underground.
_ '�q:�
Mrs. Diehl told him that only the tank would be underground.
Mr. Osborne remarked that there would be a one story building of the outdoor building
type.
Mr. Charles Smith questioned if there would be any screening.
Miss Caperton pointed out the trees (white pines) on the plan.
In answer to Mr. Smith's questioning, Mr. Osborne said that the plant would be roughly
75 feet from the property line.
Mrs. Diehl said the unit could not be located underground.
Miss Caperton said this plan had been resubmitted in October and showed a change in the
location of the site on the parcel.
Mr. Smith suggested that the plant be relocated again, that he was looking into the
plant from his property.
Mr. Osborne said that this had been moved about 200 feet from the previous plan and that
this was done partly to satisfy an adjacent owner and to be able to bury the tank.
Mr. Dwayne Snow, representing the LDS church, wanted to know what temporary meant in
terms of the time the site would be used.
Mrs. Diehl said this would be used until the Crozet Inceptor line was in place.
Miss Caperton said this would probably be 1982.
Mr. Osborne felt that between 8 and 10 years was a more realistic figure.
Mr. Smith questioned why the plant had been moved on the lot.
Mrs. Diehl asserted that the primary concern of the Commission was to locate the tank
underground and to avoid intrusion in the area.
Mr. Smith said he agreed with the location of the tank underground, but he felt that
this could be done in a different area when the road frontage was 1200-1500 feet.
Mrs. Diehl said there would be problems with the water table, as well as other problems.
Mr. Osborne said this location was the least costly and most advantageous with the type
of unit that would be enclosed and underground, the unit was no closer to Mr. Smith's
house than the 100 foot requirement of the Health Department.
Mr. Smith questioned whether the unit had a guarantee that it would operate.
Mr. Osborne commented that this was bonded by the manufacturer and if it did not work,
it would either be replaced or modified.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that though this manufacturer had not had these units in operation
for a great length of time, this type of unit had been in operation for 25 years or more.
Mr. Snow said that his questions had been answered and he had no further objections for
his church.
Mr. Davis established the fact that the buildings would be removed when the units were
no longer needed.
Mr. Davis said that Mr. Osborne had done a good job and had addressed all of the
Commission's concerns.
Mr. Skove made a motion for approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been
met:
a. Compliance with conditions of SP-80-59, as approved by the Board of
Supervisors on October 15, 1980;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance and entrance gate;
d. Provide additional landscaping between the site and Route 240;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Dedication. of 25 feet from the center line of Route 240 by separate deed or
plat.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
The vote for approval was unanimous.
The meeting time was running a little ahead of the agenda time and all of the concerned
adjacent property owners were not in the meeting, so the Commission moved to the next item.
TOM CLAUSEN FINAL PLAT
Located on Parcel 18B on Tax Map 81, Rivanna Magisterial District; off the southwest
side of Route 799, adjacent to Louisa County, north of I-64; proposal to divide the
2.558 acre parcel leaving residue in Louisa County.
Miss Caperton gave the staff report.
Mr. Paul Peatross, representing the applicant, stated that the property was purchased
two or three years ago, which was subdivided off of a parcel in Albemarle County and
the remainder was in Fluvanna County. The County issued a building permit, then it
was revoked because the Planning Commission had not approved the plat. The plat was
before the Commission in February of 1979, at which time a question of the right-of-
way was posed by an adjacent owner. The Board of Supervisors denied the plat on
appeal because of the doubt about the right-of-way. There is now an easement signed
by all parties and the applicant had come back for the approval of the subdivision.
However, now there was a change in the requirements of the Highway Department for a
commercial entrance. He also stated that the private road maintenance agreement
needed to be waived. There were three entrances on the dirt road off of Route 799.
The adjacent property had been sold and the deed restricted development of the parcel.
Mr. Clausen would only be the fourth house on this road.
The meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mr. Skove questioned the waiver of the commercial entrance.
Mr. Peatross replied that the Highway Department now was requiring a commercial
entrance, where before it was only an approval of the location of the entrance and
not asphalting, etc. Only the legal right-of-way prevented getting the approval
in February. ,/
Mr. Davis questioned if the Commission could require a commercial entrance in Fluvanna
County.
` Mr. Payne said that the land was in Albemarle County, but because of that, the Commission
could insure adequate access to the land. He further stated that the land was right on
the line and the road almost constituted the county line.
Miss Caperton asserted that this was an existing entrance also.
Mr. Davis commented that a maintenance agreement for one person was better than having
none and he felt that the Commission should require the agreement.
Mr. Payne said this would be a waste of time. Mr. Ancona created the lot and sold off
the residue in Fluvanna County years ago. It would be difficult to require the other
people to participate in a maintenance agreement. He felt it was not fair to require
this applicant to correct an illegality that was created by a preceding owner. He
asked how many lots were on the road.
Mr. Peatross replied that there were 2 lots on the left and one lot on the right side
of the road.
Mr. Payne told the Commission that the road definitely did come to a dead end at the
I-64 right-of-way.
Mrs. Diehl asked for the Commission's reaction to the request for a waiver.
Mr. Davis felt it should be granted.
Mr. Payne said the Commission could not get a maintenance agreement from the parties,
that was part of the problem in the settlement of the litigation.
Mr. Peatross asserted that the people in Fluvanna might subdivide, because that County
did not have as many requirements for subdivision.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the commercial entrance.
Miss Caperton said the applicant could construct the entrance to the right-of-way line.
The Commission could require the applicant to just widen the entrance.
After further discussion, Mr. Kindrick made a motion for approval, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of the private road;
b. Widening at the entrance of the private road to Route 799 to private street
commercial standards to the extent possible within the existing State and/
or private right-of-way;
C. Note deed book reference of legal access on the plat (DB 701, P 429);
d. Note the County line on the plat;
2. Waiver of Section 18-7 for relief from the requirements of a maintenance
agreement granted.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
3 ) S
DEFERRED ITEM:
Milkey Property, Lots 1-15 Final Plat
The staff report was presented by Miss Caperton. After Miss Caperton had given the
Commission an up-to-date report on the plat, she read a letter from Mrs. Jane Gloeckner,
an adjacent property owner.
Mr. Jim Hill, speaking for the applicant, stated that they had worked with the neighbors,
also the Health Department. He said that it was a good idea to have the septic location
sited ahead of time. They had done the best they could do.
Mr. Bill Edgerton, an adjacent land owner, asserted that the homeowner's association
expected the area to develop, though they would rather it would not. He said there
was a problem with the water and the wells were in a marginal area. They felt that
the plan was hurriedly done and was not a good plan. The site contains 2 active
streams which the applicant had not shown on each plat. The County Engineer had
said there were intermittent streams. It was hard to identify the intermittent
streams since there was one in each swale. The slopes were not accurate and lots
6, 7, 8, and 11 have areas in excess of the 25% slope. Mr. Edgerton said the topography
map for I-64 was really inaccurate for this plat. There is no access on some lots
because of the streams and slopes.
Mr. Sinclair in rebuttal, said that the streams location was accurate and the County
Engineer had been to the site. He further stated that Mr. Brunger's topographical
information was accurate in the soil report.
Mr. David Carter, attorney for Mr. Edgerton, stated that the intermittent streams
were difficult to identify.
Miss Caperton commented that Mr. Hill had asked that the name of Willis Road be change
to Pheasant Lane.
The meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mrs. Diehl inquired why the area for the septic drainfields crossed the lot lines.
Miss Caperton said that Mr. Brunger had found each lot had enough area for one drainfield
and an alternate. The area would be at least 10,000 square feet per lot. It was
possible that the lot lines had changed since the report. She read the portion of
the letter from Mr. Brunger.
Mrs. Diehl said they were to establish two areas on each lot for septic. It was
extremely difficult to relate the soil borings to the lot lines.
Miss Caperton suggested that the ones in the back with streams had to be revised.
Mr. Sinclair said that the location of the two drainfields was done on the original
plat with a definite location for each drainfield, but after the revision, two
drainfields were still available on each lot, so they did not think it necessary to
revise the report.
Mr. Bowerman questioned when an individual purchased property for building, was
the well, septic system, etc. located before the purchase.
Mr. Hill said on Whippoorwill Hollow, they had put in wells, located drainfields,
and gotten the building permits before they were sold. There were 82 lots in
Whippoorwill Hollow. Generally he said they put in the wells and septic system.
9&?
Miss Caperton said that before the Planning Department could sign the plat, the applicant
had to have Health Department approval.
Mrs. Diehl said this was not predicated on anything but the borings by the soil scientist.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the septic drainfield could be put in a place other than where
the borings were located.
Miss Caperton said the applicant would have to get a septic permit before a building
permit was issued, for the final location of the system and drainfield.
Mr. Davis said in the previous conditions of approval Lot 14 had access from Willis Road.
Mrs. Diehl said the Board of Supervisors required one entrance for the site to be on
Ivy Farm Drive and lot 14 would have to have access on Willis Road.
Mr. Davis asserted that a subdivision of this size and type should have state
maintained roads, rather than a private road.
Mr. Hill said they had no problem with a state road.
Mr. Davis asked if the road were a state road and lot 14 had entrance off of a state
road, would this not require frontage.
Miss Caperton said that Lot 14 would have to have an easement between lots 12 and 13
and this would require a waiver of double frontage.
Mrs. Diehl said the report from the County Engineer told of running streams and the
Commission would like to know about the intermittent streams and be able to know about
the septic setback for the running and intermittent streams.
Mr. Bowerman felt the Commission's questions had not been answered: the intermittent
streams and drainfields were not located and there was a discrepancy on the slopes.
He had been out and walked the area and was not satisfied with the reports. He was
concerned with the sensitivity of the area and with the road not following the contours.
There was further discussion of the intermittent streams and also the road.
Mr. Davis made a motion for approval of the plat with the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Written Health Department approval of the revised soil report;
b. A street sign shall be provided;
C. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the private
street commercial entrance;
d. No buildings, septic systems or drainfields are to be located on slopes
greater than 25%;
e. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of the State road plans;
f. Waiver of 18-36(d) for lots 12 and 13;
g. Waiver of double frontage for lot 13;
h. Stream locations and septic setbacks from waterways shall be approved in
writing by the Runoff Control Official;
i. Lot 14 shall have access from Pheasant Road.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
Mrs. Diehl said she could not support the motion because she did not feel it met the
Zoning Ordinance, the streams were not delineated, nor the septic locations.
3 c °7
The vote for the motion was 2-3, with Mrs. Diehl, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Bowerman opposing
the motion.
After further discussion, Mr. Bowerman made a motion for deferral until such time
that the following information could be submitted:
1. The Runoff Control Officer should determine if the presence of
intermittent streams is any different than those shown on the plat of
lots 1-14 submitted on November 14, 1980 to the Planning Department.
If the locations of the streams are different, the plat and soil report
must be amended.
2. Revise the soil report to identify adequate drainfields within lot boundaries
on each lot for the plat of 14 lots currently before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
The vote for deferral was 3-2, with Messrs. Skove and Kindrick opposing the motion.
GREENCROFT PRELIMINARY PLAT
Located on Parcels 91A and 91B on Tax Map 58, Samuel Miller District, on the south
side of Route 250 West, west of Route 677; proposal to divide the 67+ acres into
14 lots with an average size of 3.7 acres and leaving 15.45 acres residue.
The staff report was presented by Miss Caperton.
Mr. Douglas, representing the applicant, had no comment.
The meeting was closed to public comment.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Health Department approval, which was based on the
soil scientist's report, was already given, but had been revised. She also established
the fact that the applicant had no objection to abandoning the easement serving the
15.155 acre parcel.
Mr. Davis noted the fact that the lot size does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
He also stated that he would like to see a state maintained road rather than the
private road as proposed.
Mr. Doublas said that the road had been calculated for a state road and could easily
be designed for and accepted into the state system.
Mr. Bowerman questioned the difference in the state and private roads.
Mr. Douglas said this would probably be a Category II road.
Mr. Sinclair said that Category I required a prime and double seal with 6 inches of
stone and this would probably be required.
Miss Caperton said the private road standards were 16 foot width with 5 inches of
stone and no surface treatment. Also up to 18% grade was allowed on a private road.
Mr. Douglas said there were slope problems and also there was Ivy Creek located in
that area. He said with the creek so close, it would be more environmentally sound
to build a private road. However, he felt that they could try a private road and
if this did not work, then it could be changed. lowd
�5cly
Mr. Skove made a motion for approval of the plat, with the following conditions:
1. The following conditions will be required for final approval:
a. Health Department approval prior to Planning Commision review of the final
plat;
b. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans for acceptance into the State Secondary system;
c. Abandonment of the existing easement serving the 15.155 acre parcel;
d. All lots shall have access only onto Rhodes Drive;
e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the
commercial entrance;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
g. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations;
h. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
The vote for approval was unanimous.
NORTHWEST LIMITED PROPERTY SITE PLAN
Parcels 44 and 44 on Tax Map 61, Charlottesville District, located on the north side
of the new section of Commonwealth Drive and east of Hydraulic Road; proposal to
locate six (6)townhouse units and 264 multi -family units with a gross density of
15.3 units per acre.
Miss Caperton gave the staff report.
Mr. Frederick Russell, representing the applicant Mr. Heischman, cited a case involving
the Board of Prince William County and said that in this case also the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation was exceeding its authority. He said the
applicant would not agree to the dedication of a 25 foot strip and also would not
agree to any off site improvements and he would register a protest if this were required.
Mr. Clevester Logan said he represented the Hydraulic Road Neighborhood Group and he
had talked with Mr. Heischman. The neighborhood group concurred with the plan, but
were concerned about the screening. They would rather have landscape screening than
fencing. They were also concerned about the athletic field. Mr. Heischman had said
he could make changes. The neighborhood group also would like to see the buildings
in the R-2 zone be of brick to be consistent with the homes in the area. A duplex
had been built recently and this had conformed to the neighborhood.
The meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mr. Skove established that Hydraulic Road was partly on an easement.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission could require the dedication of the 25 feet.
Mr. Davis found that the Commission could also require sidewalk, curb, and gutter.
Miss Caperton said the sidewalk switched from one side to the other side near the
property.
Mr. Sinclair stated that the Highway Department was asking Mr. Heischman to build
the fourth lane, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. They could only require a turn lane
and taper with a commercial entrance now. The Highway Department ultimately would
build four lanes.
51 /
Mr. Skove established that the Highway Department was recommending the fourth lane for
Hydraulic Road for about 66 feet.
There was further discussion of this road and the road improvements.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the handicapped provision and what provisions had been planned.
Mr. Sinclair said this was for the parking area, a 25% larger parking space. These
units were for rental now, but would ultimately be sold.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the stormwater detention plans.
Mr. Sinclair showed the Commission on the plan. He said the plan had to show in
detail this detention plan for the County Engineer.
Mrs. Diehl then questioned the open space and recreational area.
Mr. Sinclair said there was 125 feet of recreational space per unit in addition
to the open space.
Mr. Skove asked when the applicant had to install the swimming pool and recreational
amenities.
Miss Caperton said this could be conditioned by the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman made a. motion for approval of the plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. Building permits will be issued when the following conditions have been met:
a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
b. Fire Official approval of hydrant and dumpster locations and provisions
for the handicapped;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
d. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements;
e. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications, stormwater drainage
facilities, and curbing;
f. Provide walkways as shown on Sketch A on the plan dated November 11, 1980
NMC with County Engineer approval of surfacing;
g. Staff approval landscape plan to include extensive screening between
adjacent residential parcels and the site through landscape screening;
h. Intentions for sale or rental of the units shall be noted on the plan;
i. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial
entrance to include curb and gutter and sidewalk at the ultimate location;
j. Fee of $108.00 due;
2. Certificates of Occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have
been met:
a. Staff approval of recreational equipment;
b. Fire Official approval of fire flow;
C. Dedication of 25 feet from the center line of Route 743 by separate deed or
plat;
d. When 50% of the buildings are ready for occupancy, recreational amenities
shall be completed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Davis.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
9
L"
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA POLO CLUB SITE PLAN
Portion of Parcel 6, Tax Map 90, Scottsville District; located off the east side of
Route 631 south, south of I-64; a proposal to locate the polo club with the following
facilities: 2 outdoor fields, an outdoor arena, an indoor arena, an office, stables
and tack room, hay barn, and living area.
The staff report was presented by Miss Caperton.
Mr. Sinclair said that he and Miss Caperton had met with Polo Club officials. The
field would be lined with trees and the indoor arena would be built as soon as
contributions came in.
Mr. Dure said the site plan had not changed much, that it would be supported by funds
from the people in the area.
The meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mr. Bowerman questioned the difference in sizes of the outdoor and indoor area for
the same game.
Mr. Sinclair said there was a difference in the rules and the play of the game.
Mr. Dure said there was also a difference in the number of ponies used.
Mr. Sinclair said they might need to shift the location of the stable slightly.
Mr. Davis established that there was a slight crown to the contour lines.
Mr. Kindrick ascertained that there would be 50 parking spaces as basic parking.
Miss Caperton said the staff felt this was enough spaces.
Mr. Davis made a motion for approval, with the following conditions:
Phase I:
1. Building permits will be issued for Phase I (hay barn, office, tack room and
living area) when the following conditions have been met:
a. Fire Official approval of access for fire protection vehicles;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
C. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements;
d. Compliance with the conditions of SP-80-17;
e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial
entrance to include improvement of sight distance at the bridges by trimming
vegetation;
2. The outdoor arena in Phase I will be allowed to open to the public when the
following conditions have been met:
a. Landscaping shall be provided as shown on the site plan for Phase I;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
C. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements;
d. Compliance wiht conditions of SP-80-17;
e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial
entrance to include improvement of sight distance at the birdges by
trimming vegetation;
f. Parking spaces shall be marked.
Phase II
3. A building permit for the indoor arena in Phase II will be issued when the
following conditions have been met:
41,01
a. Fire Official approval of the fire suppression system for the indoor arena
in accordance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code and approval of
outdoor hydrant system;
b. Compliance wiht the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
C. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements;
d. Compliance with conditions of SP-80-17;
e. County Engineer approval of access and interior road plans;
4. Landscaping shall be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the indoor arena;
Phase III:
5. Prior to opening the two outdoor fields in Phase III to the public; the following
shall be complied with:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements;
C. Landscaping shall be provided as shown on the site plan and to include
additional trees on the outdoor fields;
d. Compliance with conditions of SP-80-17.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA POLO CLUB FINAL PLAT
Portion of Parcel 6, Tax Map 90, Scottsville District; located off the east side of
Route 631 South, south of I-64; a proposal to divide the 51+ acre parcel leaving
254+ acres residue.
The staff report was given by Miss Caperton.
The applicant had no comment.
The meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that it was because of the use and the private road, as well
as the fact that this was a 50 acre parcel out of the middle of the property that the
site plan was presented before the final plat.
Mr. Davis made a motion for approval, subject to the following condition:
1. The plat will be signed when the following condition has been met:
a. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Skove.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
BRANCHLANDS FINAL PLAT
Located on the east side of Route 29N, south of Route 631 (Rio Road) and north of
Westfield Road; proposed division of 74.4 acres into 8 lots with an average size of
9.3 acres, located within Branchlands Planned Community. Charlottesville District.
(Tax Map 61Z, parcels 1 and 1A).
The applicant had requested deferral of this plat.
Mr. Kindrick made a motion for deferral untilthe December meetings.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
The vote for deferral was unanimous.
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER SITE PLAN
Located on the east side of Route 780, south of Interstate 64, and north of Route 631;
proposed location of a residential treatment center of 80 beds on 6.6+ acres. Samuel
Miller District. (Tax Map 76, Parcel 46A).
The staff report was presented by Miss Caperton.
The applicant's representative, Mr. Frederick Russell, was present, as well as Mr. Tom
Wyant, the architect.
The meeting was closed to public discussion.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the stormwater detention.
Miss Caperton said the County Engineer had felt that the applicant could do as they
proposed to do on the site plan.
Mr. Sinclair said there were three parking areas and he showed the drainage areas from
these on the site plan.
Mr. Davis ascertained they did not have to observe a 100 foot setback for the tennis courts.
Mr. Sinclair in answer to a query from Mr. Bowerman, said there was a culvert under the
road and water from this would flow into a stream.
Mr. Skove established the fact that the building would be two stories, about 17 feet
tall, and would also be a brick building.
Mr. Wyant said they would observe the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman established that 40 parking spaces were required, but the applicant
was providing 68 spaces.
In answer to Mrs. Diehl's query on the Highway Department recommendations for the
entrance, Miss Caperton read from the recommendations.
Mr. Skove made a motion for approval, subject to -the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met:
a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
b. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and provisions for the
handicapped;
c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrance;
d. Note the relocation of Route 631 on the plan;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
f. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements;
g. County Engineer approval of storm drainage system, pavement specifications
and curbing (including retaining wall);
h. Note additional landscaping along the northern side of the parking lot;
L403
i. Take note that Commission is not approving the sign or its location at this time.
2. A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following condition has been met:
a. Dedication on Routes 631 and 780 shall be accomplished by separate deed or plat.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman.
The vote was unanimous for approval.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mario Scarpa/Eric Swift Preliminary Plat - Request for Reconsideration
A portion of parcel 56, Tax Map 7, White Hall District; located off the north side of
Route 810,east of Boonesville; proposal to divide a 20+ acre parcel leaving 30+ acres
residue. This was a request for reconsideration.
Miss Caperton refreshed the Commission's memory on the plat and why it was conditioned
as it was.
Mr. Skove made a motion to reconsider the plat.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous for reconsideration.
Miss Caperton gave a resume' of the staff report.
Mr. Murray, Mr. Eric Swift, and Miss Rehda Parker were present.
Mr. Murray said that new information had been obtained: the County Engineer had
looked at the road and it would have to be widened, but it could not have a deeded
30 foot right-of-way. The County Engineer had recommended that it be widened. Mr.
Swift was willing to upgrade the road but that the commercial entrance was impossible.
It really was not justified for the size of the subdivision. The maintenance agreement
was almost impossible to obtain, however, the applicant had managed to get a
maintenance agreement. A lot of people used the road, and of the five principal users,
;four had signed the maintenance agreement and the fifth would sign after some
modification of the maihtenance agreement. The road had been in existence for
generations and had been open to the public all this time. It really was an old public
road that had not been accepted into the public system. He felt the private road
ordinance did not even apply.
Mr. Payne disagreed with Mr. Murray and said this might be an old county road, but
if it were, the statute provided that it should be 30 feet in width. Also, by
definition, an old county road was a private road and subject to the subdivision
ordinance.
Mr. Davis ascertained that Mr. Payne was willing to approve the maintenance agreement,
under the circumstances, since possibly 75% of the traffic was included in the
agreement.
Mr. Murray said they would like to have the 30 foot right-of-way, but that it was not
possible. He agreed that the private road ordinance applied, but that the road was
a public road by use.
Mr. Skove ascertained that the entrance was bad, but that there had been no accidents.
The property was close to Greene County.
OR
Mr. Davis made a motion for approval of the request for amended conditions, with
the following conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. Health Department approval prior to Planning Commission review of the
final plat;
b. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement;
C. County Engineer approval of road specifications from the southern edge
of the Scarpa property out to Route 810;
2. Waiver of the 30 foot right-of-way width from the southern edge of the Scarpa
property to Route 810;
3. Waiver of commercial entrance requirements.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this maintenance agreement might help the Commission to
get others on this road to participate if there were more subdividing along the road.
The vote for approval was unanimous.
The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
I
®�:.FWJIV2xWy::sAL
W. Tucker, Jr. - Sec
I C-S