HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 28 81 PC MinutesApril 28, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 28, 1981, 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building,
Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David
Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. James R. Skove,
Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney and Miss Mason Caperton, Senior Planner. Absent from the
meeting were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman and Mr. Richard Cogan.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called the meeting
to order.
Fox Hill Final Plat - located on the north side of Route 731, north of the
intersection with Route 744, in Keswick; proposed division of 29.86 acres into
six parcels with an average size of 4.98 acres and a 29.54-acre residue parcel.
Rivanna District (Tax Map 79, parcel 12). REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO MAY 19, 1981.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for deferral of this plat until May 19, 1981.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Wynridge Condominium/Townhouse Final Plat - (previously Commonwealth Townhouses)
located on the north side of Commonwealth Drive (Route 852), west of Westfield
Road; proposed division of the eleven units on the 1.0016-acre site into condominiums.
Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Tax Map 61W, Parcel 1-B-1).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if condition l.b (Compliance with the technical requirements
of Section 55.79.58 of the Virginia Code (1980 Cumulative Supplement) and Section
18-55 of the Subdivision Ordinance) was complied with, would the technical
requirements of the plan be met.
Mr. Payne explained that the statute requires the technical requirements
listed in Section 55.79.58 of the Virginia Code.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant was aware that these conditions had
to be shown on the plat.
Carlton Ballowe, representing the applicant, stated that they were aware of most
of the conditions. He also stated that they felt that some conditions such as
boundary, limits of ownership, etc., could be more easily determined in the
condominium agreement than on the plat,
Mr. Bowerman asked if the requirements of Section 55.79.58 had to be shown
on the plat.
Mr. Payne replied that this information was in the condominium agreements submitted
for his review by Mr. Carwile.
Zq9
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that these agreements will have to meet the
satisfaction of the County Attorney before the plat is signed.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that the matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant why some of the requirements such as acreage,
werenot complied with before coming to the Commission.
Mr. Ballowe replied that the acreage was shown on the plat.
Miss Caperton stated that she obtained the 1.03 acreage figure from the land
use book.
Mr. Gloeckner asked what the surveyor meant by "corrected plat11,and if this plat was
revised to meet the conditions or was there something wrong with the boundary survey.
Mr. Ballowe stated that there was a prior survey done on this property which
was inaccurate, and he felt this wording deals with this survey.
Mr. Davis questioned the zoning on this property.
Miss Caperton stated that the property was rezoned with the new zoning ordinance,
noting that special permits were approved for residential use and that this is a
type of proffer density.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the Commission was reviewing this plat because
of the number of units involved.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. County Attorney approval of condominium regime documents to include
maintenance of parking area, roadway, landscaping, stormwater drainage
and appurtenant structures;
b. Compliance with the technical requirements of Section 55-79.58 of the
Virginia Code (1,80 Cumulative Supplement) and Section 18-55 of the
Subdivision Ordinance;
C. Fire Official approval of fire flow;
d. Staff approval of the amended site plan reflecting the condominium for
sale;
2. Plans of each structure shall be recorded along with this plat and the legal
documents, as set forth in Section 55.79.58 of the Virginia Code (1980
Cumulative Supplement).
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis stated that he was unfamiliar with the technical requirements
of Section 55.79.58.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if this plan meets with the standards set forth in the
Albemarle County Condominium Documents.
Mr. Payne stated that this is the first condominium submitted to the Commission
for review. He noted that this section relating to what should be on
the plan was photocopied from the statute and reviewed by the Staff.
Mr. Skove asked Mr. Payne which statute he is referring to.
Mr. Payne stated that he reviewed the Virginia Condominium Act. He also noted
that both the County ordinance and the State Statute apply and that this plat should
be reviewed for compliance with both ordinances.
Mr. Skove ascertained that the Virginia Condominium Act is more restrictive
than the County Ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that the Virginia. Condominium A t is generally thought of as
the state of the art statute regarding the law oil condominiurtis.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he was uncomfortable voting on this without the
technical requirements having been met and a thorough review of this plat
by Mr. Frederick W. Payne.
Mr. Payne stated that there is nothing in the documents of concern to him, and
noted that the Commission would not be setting a precedecent for other plats
by approving this one.
Mr. Bowerman called for a vote, noting the motion made by Mr. Skove earlier.
The vote was unanimous for approval of this plat subject to the conditions
as previously listed.
Grassmere Farm, Phase II, Revised Final Plat - located off the end of Route
79, south of Route 738 and Ivy; proposal to revise the previous final plat
approval and divide 107.727 acres into 12 parcels ranging in size from 3.2952
acres to 33.3341 acres. Samuel Miller Magisterial (Tax Map 58, portion of
parcel 20).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Jay Swett, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any questions the
Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Davis stated that in his opinion�if there is a note on the plat by the
surveyor stating that there is 30,000 square feet of buildable space this
should be sufficient.
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that there is an existing pond with a gravel road
on the property.
Mr. Skove questioned the number of lots served by this road.
Miss Caperton stated that there are thirteen lots in this development.
30/
Mr. Skove ascertained that lot fifteen (15) and a portion of lot one would
be subdivided at a later date.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. A street sign shall be provided;
c. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of road plans;
2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement.
d. Fire Official approval of the dry hydrant.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion,which carried unanimously.
Camelot, Section One, Block C, Final Plat - located on the south side of St.
Ives Road, west of Barnsdale Road, in the Camelot Subdivision; proposal to divide
1.18+ acres into 2 lots of 10,500 square feet each, leaving 30,492 square feet
in residue. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Tax Map 32E, portion of parcel 1).
Mr. Bowerman noted that the applicant has requested indefinite deferral of
this plat.
Mr. Skove moved to accept the applicant's request for indefinite deferral.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Minor Land Trust Final Plat - located off the northwest side of Route 852
Commonwealth Drive on the east side of Westfield Road (extended); proposal
to divide the 13.81 acre parcel (containing Minor Townhouses) and a 44,164
square foot parcel, leaving 28+ acres residue. Charlottesville Magisterial
District. (Tax Map 61W2, portion of parcel 45).
Miss Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Sinclair stated that the state has made their final inspection of Westfield
Road and was in the process of accepting it into the state system.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that only that portion of Westfield Road immediately
in front of this property, is being accepted by the state.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner questioned what was adjacent to this property on the east side.
Mr. Sinclair explained that the remainder of this is residue and noted that
this became a lot because it was not included in the financial agreement.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Compliance with the technical requirements of Section 18-55 of the Subdivision
Ordinance;
b. Westfield Road shall be bonded or accepted by the Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation for acceptance.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Birdwood Golf Course Plan:
Miss Caperton stated that the Commission had asked to be informed when
the University submittted any plans for review. She stated that perhaps
this plan could be reviewed by the County Engineer.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this conformed to the plan previously submitted.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that a rough schematic had been submitted by the
consultants for this site. He noted that one of the concerns of the
Commission was that the existing entrance not be destroyed, pointing
out that the entrance on this plan has been realigned.
Mr. Bowerman explained to Miss Caperton that the Commission should be
informed if there were any major deviations from the previously approved
plan.
OLD BUSINESS:
University of Virginia Polo Club Site Plan - request for reconsideration.
Miss Caperton presented the staff report, noting that this site plan
was approved by the Commission on November 18, 1980.
Miss Caperton stated that the Commission needed to vote as to whether or
not they wish to reconsider this site plan.
Mr. Skove moved for reconsideration of this site plan.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which was unanimous.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, representing the highway department, stated that the
currently approved plan calls for a commercial entrance with the left turn lane
lane to be thirty (30) feet wide with trimming at the bridges. He stated that
the highway department could accept the thirty foot wide commercial entrance and
trimming as a condition of Phase 1, with dedication of the right-of-way for the
overall improvements to the entrance required by the highway department. He also
noted that the construction of the left turn lane could be done in Phase 3.
Mr. Gloeckner asked Mr. Roosevelt if the highway department based their decision
on the traffic projection for this site.
Mr. Roosevelt noted that Phase 1 is the construction of hay barns, office, tack
room and living area, and Phase 2 is the construction of the indoor arena, and explained
that they did not expect large crowds with either phase. He noted the type of
facilities which will be available to the public in Phase 3 an(]Lhat a left turn
lane will be required.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the Commission could amend this plat to include
the following:
1. Thirty (30) foot wide commercial entrance;
2. Clearing of brush at the bridges;
3. Dedication of right-of-way for the overall improvements to the
entrance required by the highway department.
Mr. Sinclair stated that the Polo Club and the Alumni Association has executed
an agreement stating that the highway deparment has the right to require a
commercial entrance if necessary.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the difference between making the commercial entrance
part of the site plan approval or leaving it to the highway department as part of
its permit procedure is who will have the authority to assert pressure,if needed.
He also stated that he prefers this to be part of the site plan approval because
the left turn lane can be required in Phase 3.
Mr. Payne stated stated that he agrees that the concerns of the highway deparment
would be best enforced if made a part of the site plan approval. He noted, however,
that in his opinion the agreement by the Polo Club and the Alumni Association
is not inappropriate because it shows the affirmative consent of the applicant/owner
to make the necessary improvements.
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the agreement could be made either with the highway
department or the County.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this site plan (reconsideration) with the
following conditions:
1) Amend section I.e., 2.e, Phase 1, to include: Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation approval of the commercial entrance to include clearing of
brush at bridges, construction of the entrance to a 30 foot width, and
dedication of right-of-way for the overall improvements to the entrance
required by the Highway Department;
2) Amend Phase 3 as follows:
Add condition 5.3. - Construction of the left turn lane at the entrance in
accordance with the approval of the Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Robblart W. Tucker, Jr., ecr ary