HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 12 78 PC MinutesIs q-
December 12, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting, December 12, 1978,
7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were Col. William Washington, Vice -Chairman; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Charles Vest;
Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; P'r. Kurt Cloeckner;
Mrs. Norma Diehl; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Other Officials present were Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ben Dick,
Zoning Administrator; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at
7:30 p.m.
SP-78-68. JOE PRICE AND JEFFERSON CABLE CORPORATION
Mr. Keeler presented the applicant's request. Mr. Price, the applicant, was present.
Mr. Keeler noted that the sewer crossing on the Rivanna has been completed and in order
for Jefferson Cable to use this facility the line would have to be dug up.
Mr. Price had no comments.
Mr. Gloeckner asked what would be the difference in cost between the alternative
methods of construction.
Mr. Price stated that if the cable is run one mile further south they would need
two additional miles of cable which would be estimated at about 11 to 12,000 dollars.
Col. Washington asked how much clearance is involved.
Mr. Price stated that the banks of the river are 18 to 20 feet high and the cable
would be 45 feet above the base of the river.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she feels this is not a necessary use and would like to
see the cable run along existing telephone poles. (southern route)
Mr. Easter asked if the Telephone Company or Vepco wished to cross the river would
they have to come before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler noted that they would.
Mr. Huffman commented that he could not see what sort of effect this line would have
on the river. He stated that at 45 feet in the air no one would notice the line.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. Cleared width of easement not to exceed 10 feet. Where cable is to be located below
ground, immediate reseeding of disturbed areas is required;
2. County Engineer approval of location of utility poles in flood plain. In this review
the County Engineer may require such construction (deep footings, guy wires, etc.) as
he may deem appropriate to reasonably prevent damage to downstream properties as a
result of flooding;
3. In the event of damage which, in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, may be
) 55
hazardous to downstream property owners or the public in general, the Zoning
Administrator shall require immediate correction/removal of the damaged structure;
4. Signed statement by the applicant and property owners that they have read and are
in agreement with Section 9A-5-7 and 9A-7 of the Zoning Ordinance;
5. Utilities that in the future may wish to cross the Rivanna River would be limited to
use of the Jefferson Cable poles.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-1-3. Mrs. Diehl,
Mr. Vest and Dr. Moore dissented and Mrs. Graves abstained.
ZMA-78-21. LUVANIA SPEARS has petitoned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 0.69
acres from R-2 to M-1. Property is located on the north side of Route 240, approximately
1.2 miles east of Route 810. County Tax Map 56A(3), Parcel 4.
Mr. Keeler presented the applicant's request. Mr. Curtis Waylon, represented the
applicant (Morton's).
Mr. Waylon stated that the access to Morton's parking area is currently 20 feet wide,
which causes problems with two way traffic. lie noted that they do not wish to abandon
this easement, but would rather use this as an entrance only and the proposed easement as
an exit, in order to have circular flowing traffic.
Mr. Easter asked what was the concern of the Staff and the Highway Department over the
easement.
Mr. Keeler noted that the Highway Department wishes to separate vehicle and
pedestrian traffic, which can be done on the proposed easement. He stated that he
did not know if the Highway Department objects to two entrances on Route 240.
Col. Washington noted that he could not see any reason for not rezoning this parcel,
since the Highway Department would take care of any questions with the entrance at the.time
of site plan submittal.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval as requested by the applicant.
Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further
discussion.
SP-78-75. THOMAS G. CLARKSON has petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a Home
Occupation Class B on 2.367 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the east side of
Route 708, approximately 1 mile north of the intersection of Routes 708 and 710. County
Tax Map 73, Parcel 41A(6).
Mr. Keeler presented the applicant's request. Mr. Clarkson, the applicant, was presen
Mr. Easter asked if the kiln will have pilot lights.
Mr. Clarkson stated that it would have thermal couplings.
Col. Washington stated that he is concerned about "a little retail sale" and a
commercial entrance.
Mr. Clarkson stated that it was his understanding that a commercial entrance is not
%5�,
required if the items sold are handcrafted on the property.
Mr. Keeler stated that he had talked with the Zoning Administrator and the Highway
Department and it was determined that not enough traffic would be generated to require
a commercial entrance.
Mr. Vest moved for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Building and Fire Official approvals of studio and kiln installation;
2. Compliance with Section 16-44.1 Home Occupation: Class B.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 7-1-1. Col. Washington
dissented and Mr. Easter abstained.
ZMA-78-20. VIRGINIA SPORTS, INC. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone
2 acres from B-1 Business to M-1 Industrial. Property is located on the north side of
Greenbrier Drive approximately % miles west of Route 29 North, County Tax Map 61W, Parcel
0-A8.
Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the hearing.
Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that the applicant wished to withdraw this rezoning
request.
Mrs. Diehl moved for withdrawal.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further
discussion.
SP-78-70. JEFF SCHMICK has petitioned the Board of Supervisors for boating, canoe
livery, recreational activity, and dock area for portage (if necessary) on 14.5 acres
zoned A-1. Property is located on the north side of the James River and on the west
side of Route 625 at Hatton. County Tax Map 136, Parcel 12.
Mr. Keeler presented the applicant's request. Mr. Harry Bailes,- represented the
applicant and the applicant, Mr. Schmick, was present.
Mr. Bailes stated that the buildings that would house this operation have
survived two floods., He noted that this type of operation is the type of thing that
is good for the County and he would like for the applicant to have the right to install
a dock, if he so desires., in the future.
Mr. Huffman noted that he would like to see this special permit approved, since it
would be an asset to the County.
Mrs. Diehl stated that this would be a good use for this area and would not severely
change the appearance of the river.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. Site plan approval including among other requirements:
a) Statement from County Engineer that the applicant's proposals for securing and
anchoring all structures and portable items related to the use are reasonably
15 7-
adequate to insure that the same will not be carried off -site in the case of
flooding;
b) Signed statement by the applicant and property owner that they have read and
are in full understanding and agreement with Section 9A-5-7 and Section 9A-7
of the zoning ordinance;
c) The site plan may include a dock;
2. No canoe is to be rented without an adequate number of floatation devices for the
occupants;
3. Should any structure be damaged beyond limits of restoration as provided in Section
9A-9, the Zoning Administrator may require immediate removal of the damaged structure,
if in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, the same may be hazardous to downstream
property owners or the public in general.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion
ZTA-78-11. PIEDMONT VINEYARDS COMPANY, INC. AND FIDELITY CORPORATION have petitioned
the Board of Supervisors to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for
"country inn" by special use permit in the A-1 Agricultural District; and to provide a
definition under Section 16 of "country inn."
Mr. Keeler presented the applicant's request. Mr. Lane, the applicant, was present.
Mr. Lane stated that his only intent is to use the property as it has been used in
the past. He noted that he does not agree with condition 2. He stated that the facilities
have always opened at 7:00 a.m. and doesn't know why they shouldn't continue to open then.
Mr. Lane noted that there are lights on the tennis courts and the swimming pool, which
can be used after hours and everyone knows it is still daylight at 9:00 p.m., in the
summer. He stated that the whole Keswick project is oriented toward the sale of wine
and not the sale of beer, but in order to obtain an ABC license you must obtain a license
to sell beer. He also noted that he does not agree with condition 5. He stated that he
has a patio to which he would like to pipe music and there is a dance floor out by the pool
and he would like these poolside dances to remain a tradition.
Mr. Siterdan, an adjacent owner, stated that the entrance to the Club is narrow and
there may be problem with traffic. He suggested that the entrance be widened or have
another access to the club.
Mr. McAllister, an adjacent owner, noted that if this club becomes public a different
crowd will be involved. He stated that he would like to see the club succeed. He commented
that the roads are narrow and he doesn't want the public to use their roads. He stated
that 11:30 is a reasonable time for these facilities to -close.
Mrs. Herold, an adjacent owner, asked if there is any real difference between a public
and a private club.
Mr. Tucker noted that the only major difference is the traffic volume..
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Lane if he had any estimates of the increase in traffic.
Mr. Lane stated that the traffic would increase about 20% and can't see where the
impact on roads would be that great since the road can accomodate 40 to 50 additional
dwellings.
Mr. Dick, Zoning Administrator, stated that he needed to evaluate the- parking to
determine if a site plan would-be required.
159
Mr. Kneedler, the applicant's representative, asked Mr. Keeler if he is aware of
similar limitations on other facilities of this type.
Mr. Keeler noted that this is a special permit upon which conditions can be placed.
Mr. Farris, an adjacent owner, stated that he is concerned with the approach on Route
741, which is very narrow. He noted that this is more of a problem than the interior
traffic.
Mr. Easter stated that he was confused by this talk of vineyards and wines. He noted
that he thought the vines had already been planted. He asked Mr. Lane if he could explain.
Mr. Lane noted that it is his desire to locate a winery in the Jeffersonian area. He
stated that the soil in Keswick isn't any good for this type of operation, but he owns 30
acres on the opposite side of Route 22. He noted that they propose a minimum scale winery,
600,000 kegs, in order to gradually change the Keswick image.
Mrs. Graves asked if the selling and shipping of wine is an agricultural use.
Mr. Dick stated that the growing of grapes is an agricultural use, but he would have
to check into the manufacturing of a product from the grapes.
Mr. McCann noted that he was confused by condition 1 (riding stables and schools).
Mr. Keeler noted that the staff is recommending approval of existing facilities only
and were not aware that stables existed on the property.
-22.1 be changed to say "riding schools and
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that Section 16
stables."
Mr. Payne suggested delete "and" and insert "comma."
Mr. McCann moved for addition of "Country Inn" to the Zoning Ordinance by Special
Permit.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 8-1. (ZTA-78-11)
SP-78-76. PIEDMONT VINEYARDS COMPANY, INC. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors for
a "Country Inn" on approximately 19 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is located
on the south side of Route 731 and was formerly known as the Keswick Country Club. County
Tax Map 80, Parcels 9, 8(part thereof) and 8Z(part thereof).
Mr. Keeler presented the applicant's request.
Mr. Easter noted that there seems to be a vast difference between staff's recommenda-
tions and the applicant's desires (applicant's comments from ZTA-78-11).
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he would like to sea a,site plan for the stables.
Mrs. Graves noted that she feels this facility will be a burden --on the adjacent
landowners.
Mr. Easter noted that he would have a problem telling Mr. Lane that he could not
allow riding on roads that he owns. He also noted that he is aware of how horses can
/ 55`1
really change an area, but since this is a horse area he can't really see where there is
a problem.
Mr. Easter suggested that condition 1 remain as is, with the addition of stables
and riding school being contingent upon site plan approval.
Mrs. Diehl noted that she feels there is a big difference between public and private
stables.
Mr. Easter asked if sunrise is a reasonable hour: for sporting activities to begin.
Mr. McCann stated that he couldn't see anything wrong with that.
Mr. Easter asked if 11:00 p.m. would be a reasonable hour for closing these facilities
Mr. McCann noted that would be fine with'him.
Mr. Easter asked if serving breakfast after a dance to guests will be restricted
because of condition 2.
Mr. Gloeckner suggested that there be admission to the dining facilities after
11:00 p.m., with all activities to end at 1:00.a.m.
Mr. McCann stated that he could see no reason for condition 3. He stated that it
is not likely that anyone will be dropping in just to buy beer and leave.
Mr. Easter stated that there is no way the applicant can operate the business he
proposes with a condition restricting sale of off -premises alcohol. He suggested off -site
sale of wine only as a condition.
Mr. Huffman noted that he could not see any valid reason for condition 3.
Mr. Easter stated that the building and pool are located on a knoll and the sound
fror a public address system would carry, but most of the homes are located a good distance
from the building. (condition 5)
Mr. Tucker suggested that 40 decibels at the nearest property line would be a
reasonable limit on the noise level.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if a site plan would be required if a stable ?s included.
Mr. Payne noted that the ordinance requires a site plan.
Mr. Tucker stated that this will have to be.determined _by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Payne suggested that a condition be added requiring a site plan of all new
facilities and of exisiting facilities if required.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. Approval is for existing facilities and uses only; including riding stables/schools;
2. Hours of operation are limited to sunrise until ll:00 p.m. for swimming pools, tennis
courts, and all other outdoor recreational activity. No seating after 11:30 p.m.
in dining facilities, with all activities to end at 1:00 a.m.;
3. Building and fire inspections approval;
4. No outdoor public address system including amplified instruments shall exceed 40 decibels
at the nearest property line;
5. Site plan approval of all new facilities and any other facilities as required by
Article 17 of the Zoning ordinance.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 8-1, with no further
discussion.
M
9
on
"W
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1978
Members Present: Col. William Washington, Vice -Chairman; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Charles
Vest; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Mr. James Huffman;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Norma Diehl; and Mrs. Joan Graves.
Resolution of Intent - Administrative Approval of Site Plans and Subdivision plats.
Col. Washington: "It seems to me that it would be beneficial to the public, members of
the Commission, and in some cases to the staff, if you notified those
same people you say you are going to notified when the apolication.comes
in, if you not those same people of the action taken."
Mrs. Diehl: "Is there any way for the Planning Commission to receive prior information
or just Site Review agenda?"
Mr. Tucker: "It's not in here, if you would like for it to be included."
Mrs. Diehl: "How far ahead does the mobile home ordinance require we get our packages?"
Mr. Tucker: "You get notice of that at the same time the adjacent owners receive
notification. The deadline for the application is a certain date, when
we get that, that starts the process."
Mrs. Diehl: "Do most counties in Virginia still review site plans?"
Mr. Tucker: "I'm not aware of a percentage. Most of your urban counties do not."
Mrs. Diehl: "I wish someone would explain to me why the fees are being lowered."
Mr. Tucker: "Because we are not going to be sending notices by certified mail. We are
requesting that they be sent by regular mail and the Commission has requested
that an affidavit be signed and that in effect will be done."
Mrs. Diehl: it I'm wondering if this will affect the review of planned unit developments."
Mr. Tucker: "Basically Norma, you will be seeing the Planning Developments and when
rezoning will be coming in as RPNs, you will be seeing them for planned
commerical uses."
Dr. Moore: "I was at the Site Review Committee meeting on Thursday and it looks as if
that's going to become any type of public meeting, there is going to have
to be some drastic changes in the approach. Everybody comes in and they
have a round table discussion and it seems as if hardly any of them that
came in were completed. They weren't in any shape to present to the public
or anyone else."
Mr. Tucker: "There have been times, when the Site Review Committee have turned down
plans that were not in some shape that they could review."
Mr. Gloeckner: "One of the problems is that we have all levels of people applying and
they are coming in with some of the simplest types of site plans for
some of the simplest things, where people can not afford a surveyor,
or an engineer, or an architect, who ever does it and they try to do
it themselves and our ordinance allows it. So you have to expect at
that level a very simple, sketchy site plan and you have to use
m
F5
In
In
CM
M
some compassion for somebody like that. If you have a big site plan
where the impact is tremendous then you can insist on something that
is costly, detailed, complete. You have to use some degree of judgement
as far as, what you expect a site plan to look like."
Dr. Moore: "Under 17-7-4, where you have the rules and regulations of appeal. I wonder
if at the time of Site Plan Review, if the applicant shouldn't be allowed
to made a verbal request to send it on to the Planning Commission, if he
wished?"
Mr. Payne: "If you want to write it in you can, but I can see to possible disadvantages
to this. One is it makes the whole ordinance that much more complicated.
Second, one of the reasons you want this A s to make the staff the primary
approving body and therefore, if you give the staff more prestige in the
eyes of the applicant. You are eliminating that, by that kind of procedure,
because the applicant will say, well, I can see I'm not going to get anywhere
with you so I'll just take it to the Commission."
Col. Washington: "I also have a question on 17-7-6. Is there any risk .....you and the
technical committee and you and the applicant will keep arguing with
each other until the sixty days are up."
Mr. Tucker: "I have to make a decision within 10 to 15 days. It's the Commission that
has sixty days and that's in the ordinance now."
Mr. Easter: "The Colonel has indicated that everyone should be notified of the decision,
that was notified that the item was coming up for consideration. "
Mr. Gloeckner: "I'd like to move for approval of this thing and hash out the details
and finish up with this. The second thing I would like to do is to move
that we not continue with administrative approval of subdivisions. I'd
like to move for approval of administrative approval of site plans,
subject to including the wishes of each person on the Commission to get
in here and get it over with:"
Mr. Easter: "Does anyone have any amendments they wish to make in 17-7-1?"
(There were no comments.)
Mr. Easter: "17-7-2?"
Dr. Moore: "I have a question on signs and what type of policing will be done on that.
Do we police these things now?"
Mr. Keeler: "There is no requirement for posting a sign."
Mr. Easter: "But this wording would required it?"
Mr. Payne: "Yes."
Mr. Easter: "17-7-3?"
Dr. Moore: "Does the completeness of these applications going to be held separate
from this in terms of what comes to site plan review?"
Mr. Payne: "Well, the issue is whatever body is charged with approving the plan is
the final arbitrator of the completeness of the plan."
Mr. Easter: "17-7-4?"
cm
In
In
on
Dr. Moore: "In the first sentence this says committee recommendations and etc. What
does this article mean?"
Mr. Payne: "Article 17."
Dr. Moore: "In terms of recommendations, does that mean that Mr. Tucker will consider
recommendations that are not in compliance with 17?"
Mr. Payne: "There are some items in here that he can vary, for example the geometric
standards of the roads. You can't for example require something that is
not in the ordinance and you can't vary something that the ordinance says
you shall have."
Mr. Easter: 1117-7-5?" (There were no comments.) "17-7-6?" (There were no comments.)
"17-7-7?"
Mrs. Diehl: "Does the change from 10 to 15 days effect this time table?"
Mr. Tucker: "The Site Review Committee usually meets the first Thursday, following the
first Tuesday. Five to seven was a little tight. Simply wanted to give
us adequate time to review it."
Mr. Easter: "I have a question on U , it says should be signed by such officers
personally. Did Mr. Carr sign such plats?"
Mr. Tucker: "There were only a few occasions when he did that. He was down at the
office."
Mr. Easter: "This kind of hit me between the eyes the other night. When I took over
r as Chairman.... though I had seen Mr. Carr's signature on many plats it
never occured to me that I'd be signing plats and we got busy on things
and the staff has never called me and say we have some plats for you to
sign."
Mr. Gloeckner: "I have trouble with this signed personally by the Chairman. Lots -of
time the Chairman maybe on vacation."
Mrs. Graves: "I just can't see where this is any hesitation for someone to put their
name to something that they should be able to support."
Mr. Easter: "It's just that some of us don't have the time during the days to make
special trips to sign those things. Some of those things have to be
signed in a hurry."
Mrs. Graves: "My question is why have the signature panel if those people aren't
going to sign it?"
Col. Washington: "I don't want the Chairman to sign it. I want the Director of Planning
to sign it."
Mr. Easter: "As a practical matter_I believe it would be wise to discuss this mattar
with every new Chairman and I think we would avoid this kind of problem
in the future."
Mr. Tucker: "The easiest thing to do would be to take the Chairman off."
Col. Washington: "I would like to change #4 to "notification of adjacent owners, Board
of Supervisors and Planning Commission of the action taken."
m
Em
In
cm
rn
Mrs. Graves: "Section 17-3-2, at the top of the page says notice will be sent to
all members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors."
Mr. Keeler: "I think the Colonel is talking about notification of the.action."
Mr. Gloeckner: "Where can we put the approval will go to the adjacent owners, as well
as to the Planning Commission and the Board members?"
Mr. Tucker: "How about 17-3-2?"
Mr. Payne: "I think it would be better to but in under 17-7-4."
Mr. Easter: "Is everyone in agreement about the fees?"
Mr. Tucker: "You can leave the fees how ever you want."
Mr. Gloeckner: "How do we accomplish leaving them the way they were?"
Mr. Tucker: "Just delete item #6."
Mr. Gloeckner: "I will now move for approval to send this to the Board of Supervisors
and for this approval to be administrative as amended here.
Mr. McCann: "Second."
Mr. Easter: "Any further discussion?" (This item carried with a vote of
7-2. Mrs. Graves and Dr. Moore dissented.)
Mr. Gloeckner: "I move to withdrawn our Resolution of Intent."
Col. Washington: "Second."
Mr. Easter: "Any discussion?" (This item carried with a vote of 8-1.
Mr. Easter dissented.)
There was no further discussion.
cm
f
Rob rt W. Tucker, Jr., Se reta
vim vow