Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 07 81 PC MinutesJuly 7, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, July 7, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David P. Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Corwith Davis; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Allan Kindrick; and Mr. Richard Cogan. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner was absent. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney,and Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, as well as Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that several of the Commissioners had not had adequate opportunity to review the minutes of February 10. Consequently, the approval of these minutes was deferred to the next Planning Commission meeting. Under DEFERRED ITEMS, the next item on the Agenda was Turtle Creek Amended Site Plan - Deferred from June 23, 1981. Mr. Keeler explained that the purpose of this request was to clarify the issue of bonuses and Highway Department recommendations on improvements on Route 743. He proceeded to give the Staff Report. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Tom Sinclair, who represented the applicant, whether he had any comment at this time. Mr. Sinclair responded that he believed that bonuses had been addressed at the previous meeting and that he would be glad to answer any questions. He stated that he did not have any problems with the proposed conditions of approval. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the negotiations with the Highway Department were completed. Mr. Sinclair replied that the dedication had not been made but that he expected no problem with it. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. When there was none, she declared the matter before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl asked for further clarification on whether there was an arrangement worked out between the applicant and the Highway Department. Mr. Sinclair replied that there was an understanding between the two parties, because Mr. Heischman had the necessary land and the Highway Department was willing to do the construction if the property were donated. Mr. Sinclair said that such an agreement was to the best interests of both parties. Mr. Roosevelt concurred that this was an agreeable arrangement, but that if it did not work out, the recommended conditions of approval refer to the Highway Department vGl letters of October 1, 1980, and June 30, 1981. Mr. Roosevelt explained that in the more recent .letter the County would have to require the developer "to dedicate and construct such improvements as their powers allow in line with the recommendation contained in" the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation letter of October 1, 1980, if negotiations between the developer and the Highway Department failed. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler whether the conditions as worded would cover Mr. Roosevelt's point. Mr. Payne replied that the County could not require more than a fifty -foot dedication and a turn lane, and full frontage could not be required. He cited the Hilton Case as evidence. Mr. Sinclair said that Mr. Heischman's position was that without a site plan he would not dedicate any land. With the site plan approval, Mr. Sinclair said that the applicant intended to go forward with the agreement with the Highway Department. Mr. Payne said that a problem had been pointed out by staff, which was that since the amendments to the private road ordinance, private roads were no longer explicitly permitted in a development such as this - and perhaps there were good reasons why they should be. He explained that he and Mr. Tucker were working on a remedy. In a condominium development, Mr. Payne said that there may be reasons to actually require private roads. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Keeler about the the condition of not issuing certificates of occupancy until the condominium regime has been established. Mr. Keeler explained that certain approvals were required before any sale of the condominiums could take place. He explained that filing the condominium papers in Richmond would take some time and that staff had no problem, if this were to be a rental project, with making a change on the site plan to indicate rental units instead of sale units. Mr. Keeler explained that no certificates of occupancy could be issued if the project consisted of condominiums and all of the appropriate approvals had not been received. He added that at a future date the applicant, if renting the units at this time, could apply for subdivision plat approval, and sell units at that time. Mrs. Diehl asked about the bonuses, up to what percentage they were accumulative. Mr. Keeler replied fifty percent. He explained that the applicant qualified for twenty percent in two instances, making a total of forty percent. Mr. Keeler said that the applicant only intended to use twenty-five percent, but that in order to use those twenty-five, the applicant was obligated to fulfill all of the requirements of the total forty percent. Mrs. Diehl remarked that previously there was some concern from neighboring property about an adequate buffer along the boundaries. She asked about whether these concerns had been addressed and noted that the swimming pool had been moved from where it had been originally. Mr. Sinclair responded that a wooden fence had been proposed along the southern side and along the boundary with a Mr. Logan. Mr. Sinclair said that Mr. Logan had objected to the proposed board structure and therefore trees were added - one row of pines and one row of hard woods. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further questions or comments. When there were none, Mr. Bowerman moved for approval of Turtle Creek Amended Site Plan, subject to the conditions recommended by staff: 1. Administrative approval of a change from sale units to rental units on the site plan. 2. Building permits will be processed when the applicant has met the following conditions: a. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; b. Grading permit approval; c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance in accordance with their letters of June 30, 1981, and October 1, 1980; d. Fee of $113.00 paid; e. The wooded area shall be maintained in a natural state except where it is needed to comply with stormwater detention requirements; other disturbance of the wooded area will constitute a violation of the Zoning Ordinance; f. Dedication for 50-foot right-of-way along Route 743 to be accomplished by separate deed or plat; g. The stormwater detention areas shall be fenced if deemed necessary by the County Engineer and the Zoning Administrator; h. Note area reserved for future road improvements on Route 743. 3. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the applicant must meet the following conditions: a. Staff approval of the tot lot design; b. Fire Official approval of the fire flow; C. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for more than fifty (50) percent of the units, recreational amenities must be completed; d. Approval and recordation of a subdivision plat and the condominium documents, if applicable. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mrs. Diehl determined that Mr. Johnson, whose final plat was the next scheduled item on the agenda, was not present. There was a concensus to move this item down on the agenda. ZMA-81-20 Sallie and Joe Gieck - Located on Route 250 East, south of the I-64/ Route 250 interchange, across from the Sheraton. County Tax Map 78, Parcel 33A, Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone 13.33 acres currently zoned RA Rural Areas to HC Highway Commercial. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicants wished to speak at this time. / &3 Mr. Gieck responded that with reference to Mr. Keeler's indication that the Highway Department had some problem with the location of the entrance, due to sight distance and the 500 feet -from -the -interchange requirement, Mr. Coburn had said that the Highway Department could approve a commercial entrance. Mr. Gieck continued, pointing out that the Comprehensive Plan does not address property at Interstate interchanges. Mr. Gieck said that this property had been zoned commercial previously. He said that the land was being actively advertised and represented an investment of around $35,000. He said that the property was not suitable for housing or farming and would pose an economic hardship to them if not rezoned commercial. Mr. Gieck added that the Sheraton was directly across the highway from this property. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment. When there was not, she announced that the petition was before the Commission. Mr. Cogan asked about rezoning the entire 13 acres, since there was a steep drop in the back. He wondered whether the entire acreage would be developable. Mr. Davis asked whether there was other vacant commercial land in close proximity. Mr. Keeler replied that only one lot in Hunter Hall had been developed. He pointed out on the zoning map considerable C-1 acreage, including some Worrell property and State Farm acreage. Mr. Davis observed that 13 acres was a considerable amount to rezone without knowing how it would be used, particularly with hundreds of commercially zoned acreas already in the vicinity. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department to clarify the Department's position on the possibility of an entrance to this property. Mr. Roosevelt answered that there were two crossovers at this property. He said that one crossover was near the Interstate and a commercial entrance with turn lane there would cause congestion and interference at the interchange ramp. He said that the Highway Department would not recommend an entrance at this location. Mr. Roosevelt explained that the other crossover was built prior to an upgrading of sight distance requirements and would not today meet those standards. He said that if this rezoning request were approved and a site plan were later submitted showing an entrance at this crossover, the Highway Department would have to decide whether to close that crossover or grant an entrance. He believed that probably the recommendation would be to close the crossover. Mr. Roosevelt spoke to Mr. Coburn's comments, saying that there are possible entrance locations along the frontage of the property where sufficient sight distance exists. Mr. Keeler said that guidelines on Interstate interchanges simply did not exist in the Comprehensive Plan and such criteria would be developed in the upcoming review of the Plan. He said that pressure had always existed for commercial development of property at interchanges. 1�w Mr. Payne addressed Mr. Davis' question on whether this rezoning request had a high priority ranking. Mr. Payne stated that the statement of intent of the Highway Commercial zone, which says in part that HC be established along major highways within urban areas and communities of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman said that he had no problem with the idea of commercial use for this property, but he remembered that the entire 250 East area was to be reviewed as a package. He pointed out that the question of where commercial zoning should start in relation to 250 had to be addressed, and he would be hesitant to look at just one property before the matter had been taken up during a thorough review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Davis moved for denial of ZMA-81-20, and Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mrs. Diehl voiced her support of the motion, explaining that due to extensive commercial property already in the area and due to the topography of this particular parcel, she could not recommend a rezoning. She added that the overall area needed more review. Mr. Cogan said that he would be more comfortable if the applicant had a better idea of how the property would be used. He sympathized with the applicant's dilemma, saying that to him it made no sense to have the boundary of the urban area divide a highway, when either side of an interchange was just as busy as the other. Mr. Cogan said that perhaps the applicant could return at some future point with a specific proposed use on a certain portion of the parcel in question. The motion for denial passed unanimously. SP-81-26 Andrew Dennis Brown - Located on the northwestern corner of the intersection of Routes 6 and 630; a petition to allow an existing repair garage to include selling of vehicles (use car lot), in accordance with Section 10.2.2(37) of the Zoning Ordinance. Scottsville Magisterial District, County Tax Map 126, Parcel 28C, 3.207 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He added that the existing use of this garage was a non -conforming use and should the applicant receive a special use permit by Planning Commission approval without allowing sale of vehicles, and fail to meet the conditions of approval, the applicant's right to use the property would expire when the special use permit expired. Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Brown had any comment at this time. He did not, so Mrs. Diehl opened the matter to public comment. There was no public comment, and Mrs. Diehl declared the petition before the Commission. Mr. Davis said that he thought it best to leave this use as a non -conforming use. He said that he did not believe that auto sales would help the community nor any expansion of the existing use. Mr. Cogan attempted to explain to Mr. Brown that he could put his existing business in jeopardy by Commission approval of a special use permit without auto sales, because several conditions would be contingent on such an approval and failure to meet those conditions within 18 months would mean loss of use of the property. x65 Mr. Cogan established through questioning the applicant that he did intend expansion of the existing business, even if sale of vehicles were denied. Mr. Payne explained that the applicant could expand his business without a special use permit as long as he did not expand the building. Mr. Brown said that the garage was fifty by sixty feet. Mrs. Diehl suggested that the applicant discuss various options with Mr. Keeler after the Commission took action. Mrs. Diehl said that she agreed with Mr. Davis and could support the special use permit without sale of cars. She said that sale of cars would be an expansion of use not compatible with the area. Mr. Cogan said that he would like to eliminate non -conforming uses if possible, because they are regular problems. Mr. Bowerman said that he agreed with Mr. Cogan that by approving the special use permit without sale of cars, the County could exercise more control over the use of that .property. Mr. Davis said that by granting a special use permit the existing use was being legitimized. He said that he knew of many instances where country stores had eventually gone out of existence as communities had dwindled and the property reverted to the regular zoning of the area. Mr. Bowerman said that it was hard for him to imagine that this property would ever turn into a six -pump service station over the next twenty or thirty years. He doubted that there was traffic enough to support any such growth. Mr. Davis established that there was nothing else along the seven miles to Route 29. Mr. Keeler explained what Commission action would mean, saying that a denial would indicate that the non -conforming use should not be there under any circumstances. Mr. Keeler said that by recognizing its existence the Commission would be indicating that it provided a service to the community. Mr. Davis moved for denial of SP-81-26; Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. The motion failed with Messrs. Davis and Kindr ck voting aye, and Messrs. Cogan and Bowerman and Mrs. Diehl voting against the motion. Mr. Skove had not yet entered the meeting, and Mr. Gloeckner was absent. Mr. Cogan made a motion to approve SP-81-26, subject to the conditions as outlined by staff, including no sale of cars; Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion: 1. No sale, storage or rental of vehicles; 2. Fire Official approval including spray painting operation; 3. No outside storage of parts including junk parts and junk cars. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers; 4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation entrance approval; 5. Building Official and Health Department approvals; NWO 6. Staff approval of landscaping/screening from adjoining residences and Route 6 (plantings shall be replaced if any should die); 7. Conditions 1 - 6 shall be met within 18 months of Board approval or this special use permit and all authority granted hereunder shall become null and void. The motion passed with a vote of 3 2, with Messrs. Bowerman and Cogan and Mrs. Diehl voting for the motion and Messrs. Davis and Kindrick voting against the motion. Mr. Payne advised that the applicant seek assistance from an attorney for guidance on how to proceed, in light of the ramifications of these actions. He stated that the applicant should be advised by an attorney. SP-81-28 Olga Deanna Wood - Located off of Route 29 South, one half mile on Route 708, turn onto Route 642; a petition to locate a gift, craft and antique shop (buying and selling antiques and used furniture part-time), in accordance with Section 10.2.2(36) of the Zoning Ordinance. Samuel Miller Magisterial District (County Tax Map 88, Parcel 9A), 12.850 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He amended the recommended conditions of approval, saying that Highway Department approval of the entrance to Route 642 had already been received. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Wood, who was representing the applicant, if he wished to speak at this time. Mr. Wood said that he was agreeable to the conditions and believed that the Staff Report had been complete. Mrs. Diehl asked for public comment and when there was none, she opened the matter to Commission discussion. She said that she was familiar with the area and thought it an appropriate use. There was general concurrence by the Commission. Mr. Davis moved for approval of SP-81-28, subject to the conditions as outlined by staff: 1. No signs or outdoor display of merchandise; 2. No auctions; 3. Antique shop to be limited to 250 square feet of floor area open to public; 4. No employees other than family members. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. sP-81-30 Edward Cleveland and Sharon Davis - Located south of Route 660, at the end of Route 661, Old Rays Ford Road, adjoining Charlottesville Reservoir; a petition to permit 6 lots of less than 21 acres, one lot to be 14.51 acres, five lots of unspecified acreage, in accordance with Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Charlottesville Magisterial District (County Tax Map 45, Parcel 1), 704.580 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. yb 7 Mr. George B. McCallum, III, spoke on behalf of the applicants, when Mrs. Diehl asked if he wished to make a statement. He explained that Edward Cleveland was a mechanic in partnership with C. and P. Auto Service in Earlysville. He stated that Ms. Davis was a legal secretary. Mr. McCallum said that Panorama Farm consisted of open pastureland with two streams. He explained that the boundary line of the 14.5 tract was a natural gorge on the property. Mr. McCallum passed out a drawing and text that addressed Criteria 1, 2, 3 and 9 of the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that a building site was shown on the drawing, near one of the upper ridgeline boundaries. Mr. McCallum stated that this division had come about because of the friendship between a son of the Murrays, who own Panorama Farm, and the applicants. He said that the division was being proposed in this fashion because the Murrays could Mt fcresee what they might wish to do with the rest of their property at some future date. This particular piece of land was topographically less usable and more isolated, Mr. McCallum suggested, in relation to the rest of the farm acreage. Mr. McCallum additionally explained that since the Murrays did not wish to use one of their development rights at this time, they had offered to sell this parcel to Mr. Cleveland if he could get a special use permit. Mr. McCallum said that the applicants intended to build one single-family dwelling, about 1,700 square feet. He said that there would be about 2,500 square feet of impervious ground cover or about .3 percent of the total acreage of the tract. He said that the driveway would be gravel and the remainder of the property would be left as pastureland. He asked, in conclusion, for approval of this special use permit, and said that the applicants themselves would also be glad to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. Since there was not, she declared the public hearing closed and the matter before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne whether this petition was actually legal, correctly filed in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, as a special use permit. Mr. Payne replied that he did not believe that anything in the Zoning Ordinance would make it illegal. He explained that in effect the sixth lot was being developed before the first five. He said that he thought the Commission could require additional information if it was believed lacking, but that the Ordinance did not require a subdivision plat for the six lots. Mr. Skove asked whether the subdivision plat on this lot would come before the Commission or be approved administratively. Mr. Keeler replied that it would come before the Commission. He said that it was a peculiar situation with only about ten feet at the end of State maintenance on Route 661. He said that this would involve private road agreements with all users of the road. Mrs. Diehl asked why the division was being done this way, if you could get 38 divisions each way, why was this not being treated as a separate parcel. Mr. Payne responded that it was a question of distribution between 21+ and the under 21+. Mrs. Diehl asked, then, if it were just a matter of acreage require- ments. Mr. Payne replied that this was correct. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant should have addressed certain criteria before Planning Commission review. Mr. Payne replied that the applicant should have. Mrs. Diehl said that neither topography or soil type had been addressed. Mr. Payne said that the Commission could require such information if it were necessary to give a full review of an application. He said that the Commission had some flexibility in interpreting the Zoning Ordinance requirements on this point, requiring compliance when intensity of use so warranted. Mr. Keeler said that he understood that the Commission and Board could require information on criteria 1, 2, 3 and 9 from the applicant. Mr. Payne said that the Ordinance requires this information but does not specify who should provide it. He stated that the burden lay with the applicant. Mr. Skove said that he believed that this was a peculiar way to go about the division. Mr. Davis said that he thought the special use permit was a useful tool in some instances of division of large acreages. Mr. Cogan said that he agreed with Mr. Davis and believed that the way the Ordinance is written, people were put in the position of finding unorthodox methods. He said that fourteen and a half acres for one house is what the Commission is trying to encourage. Mrs. Diehl said that she had a question about the road. She said that when the Commission sees this as a subdivision, the possibility of five other lots using the road will not be considered. Mr. Payne said that this possibility should certainly be understood. Mr. Cogan said that the five other lots would be on the State maintained segment of the road. Mr. Bowerman said that he was going to accept this application at face value, based on his understanding that this was a privately arranged sale between friends with the owners reserving their options for the future because they did not know at this time what they might wish to do. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further comment. Mr. Kindrick moved for approval, subject to the conditions recommended by staff: 1. Not more than one dwelling unit shall be located on the 14.5 acre tract; 2. No further division of the 14.5 tract without special use permit approval. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. HGy SP-81-31 Charles R. and Sharon L. Jones - Located at Four Seasons Clubhouse, Four Seasons Drive, off of Route 631, in Four Seasons Subdivision; a petition to locate a child care center on the lower level of the Four Seasons Clubhouse, in accordance with Section 20.3.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance. Charlottesville Magisterial District (County Tax Map 61X1, Parcel 4), 11.939 acres zoned PUD-R6. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Keeler added that the Highway Department is working on requiring a commercial entrance of American Federal Savings and Loan Bank. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicants wished to speak at this time. Mr. Jones asked to speak to the conditions of approval. He said that the existing sign is not helpful or useful to them. Mr. Keeler responded that sign size was the issue being addressed. Mr. Jones questioned the third condition of approval - administrative approval of the play area. Mr. Keeler said that a plan had to be submitted and inspections made. Mr. Jones asked whether this was necessary if the State requirements were met. Mr. Keeler said that he was not familiar with how extensive the State review might be or whether in fact a site inspection would be made. Mr. Jones described the requirements he would be meeting. Mr. Jones said that he had consistently had difficulty with the question of a commercial entrance, since the property had been used commercially for seven years and no commercial entrance had been required previously. He objected to being required to put in this commercial entrance when previous owners had not been so required. Mr. Keeler asked to respond to two of Mr. Jones' points: he said that he had never known of any problem in approving a tot lot and foresaw no difficulty, and secondly, with regard to the commercial entrance, American Federal Savings and Loan in their special use permit fora daycare center had this requirement, as well as a condition on their subdivision plat, which should have been known to a prospective buyer. He added that the turn lane requirement had been upheld in an appeal to the Board by American Federal. Mr. Keeler added that Tom Gale was doing a design for the turn lane for the Bank, and Mr. Payne said that it was his understanding that the Bank had posted bond for this work. Mrs. Jones asked whether the owner or tenant could be made responsible for this requirement. She clarified that they were renting the property, not buying it. Mr. Payne reiterated that the Bank was required to put in the entrance, since it was a condition on the Bank's plat; he repeated that he understand that American Federal had either already posted a bond for the work or was in the process of doing so. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. Mr. John Dotson introduced himself as a resident of Four Seasons and employee of the YMCA. He said that the Jones were fine, upstanding citizens of the community and would improve the Four Seasons Clubhouse. Mr. Dotson said that he knew the Jones and their other day care centers. He added that the YMCA was only able to do minimal maintenance on the Clubhouse and that the property could only be enhanced with the Jones providing upkeep. M Mrs. Diehl declared the matter before the Commission, when there was no further public comment. Mr. Davis recalled that the YMCA had been before the Commission previously to ask for use of a portion of this property. Mrs. Diehl concurred that this particular property had come before the Commission several times. Mr. Skove moved for approval of SP-81-31, subject to the conditions outlined by Staff: 1. Compliance with 5.1.5 (Supplementary regulations for day care and nursery facilities) of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Limit of one sign on the property with a maximum area of four square feet per sign face; 3. Administrative approval of children's play area to include location, playground equipment, and fencing from other activities. (This approval may be sought after State licensing, if desired.); 4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; 5. Fire Official and Building Official approvals. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mrs. Diehl suggested taking up the matter of Edward Johnson Final Plat before proceeding to the Zoning Ordinance amendments. Ed Johnson Final Plat - Located off the east side of Route 744, north of Interstate 64 and south of Keswick; a proposal to divide a 10.085 acre parcel into two lots of 2.028 acres and 8.057 acres respectively. Rivanna Magisterial District (County Tax Map 80, Parcel 60). Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. He explained that Health Department approval had been received, so there were no recommended conditions of approval. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant's representative wished to speak at this time. Mr. Carter explained that due to a legal battle the original approved plat had not been recorded. Now that the legal difficulties had been resolved, this plat was being resubmitted for approval. Mr. Carter said that with the owner of the property being in dispute, or his signature, the plat had not been recorded. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this was the identical plat submitted previously. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment at this time. When there was not, she declared the matter before the Commission, Mr. Davis moved for approval of the final plat, which was seconded by Mr. Kindrick and passed unanimously with no further discussion. 7/ On June 3, 1981, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for churches and cemeteries as uses by special use permit rather than by right in all residential districts. Mr. Keeler gave 'the Staff Report. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment pertaining to the proposed amendments. There was none, so she declared the matter before the Commission. Mr. Davis objected to restricting where a church could be placed. He said that he firmly believed in separation of church and State. A bureauocracy should not define what a church is, he stated. Mrs. Diehl disagreed with Mr. Davis' concept of churches, saying that she thought more in terms of church structures. She said that she thought the only legitimate issue that could be addressed in the Ordinance would be aspects of churches as structures. Mr. Cogan said that related aspects would include amount of use a church generated. Mr. Bowerman said that to him it should be consistent; if a special use permit were required for churches in all residential districts, then he believed that it should be the same in the RA Rural Areas. He said that either way, by right or permit, he would want one consistent policy. Mrs. Diehl questioned how churches could be reviewed in any other fashion other than as structures. She asked how anyone could suggest review by sects. Mr. Payne said that this matter had been addressed in Fairfax. He said that in Fairfax some nonconformist group met in a private home, and the Zoning Administrator determined that this protestant group could not meet by right in that district as a church. Mr. Payne recalled that the court upheld that decision. Mr. Payne said that it was similar to a commercial use in a private home. Mrs. Diehl asked what specifically would be reviewed when a church applied for a special use permit. Mr. Payne replied land use considerations, traffic, parking, noise, sewage disposal. He said that Mr. Keeler had been pointing out that the type of church could not be judged. Mrs. Diehl said that she did not see any problem in having churches by special use permit if the review was directed toward traffic generation and septic facilities. Mr. Payne gave an example of how churches by right might result in a large-scale cathedral being built in a subdivision on a road that might not be suitable for the amount of traffic generated. He reiterated that the County should never be in a position of judging sects or religions. Mr. Skove observed that the traffic factor was something to consider. Mr. Cogan suggested establishing special criteria for review of churches to protect the County from being accused of refusing a church on the basis of its sect. y7Z Mr. Payne said that he believed the Ordinance already provided for this review 'r.i. and cautioned that the Commission would have to be very circumspect before trying to establish a different set of criteria, because it could cause the opposite of the desired effect. Mr. Payne said that the threshold question was whether a church was the same as an office building or a gas station. Mr. Cogan said that actually he did not believe that churches needed a special use permit. He asked whether there had been any particular problems with churches. Mrs. Diehl pointed out that often churches use their buildings over the week for many different kinds of activities, such as Boy and Girl Scouts, choir practice, group meetings, bingo, and additional services as well. Mr. Skove asked whether this implied that cemeteries were not an adjunct use of the church. Mr. Payne said that this use might be one of several that could become more problematic as the County grew and urbanized, He cited condominiums as an example. Mr. Payne said that some use that was acceptable in a rural setting might present a problem in an urbanized area. Mr. Kindrick said that until that time he just did not believe that churches should be by special use permits. He said that the issue could be reviewed again if needed at some future time. Mr. Davis wondered whether any action was necessary if the Commission did not want to have churches by special use permit. Mr. Payne said that some action was necessary, either approval of all or some of the amendments or denial of some or all of the proposed amendments. Mr. Davis said that perhaps cemeteries should be by special use permit because they could cause concern in an urban area. Mrs. Diehl disagreed, pointing out that if the criteria for reviewing churches for special use permits addressed the issue of public use, cemeteries would not fall under the same criteria. Mr. Keeler said that he believed that the Board had determined that cemeteries caused an increase in traffic. Mr. Kindrick moved to recommend that these proposed amendments not be adopted. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman said that he did not know how he felt about the issue yet. He said that he had lived in areas where churches were located and were compatible to the neighborhood. He added that he saw nothing inconsistent with reviewing churches like any other similar use on the basis of impact on the community. On the other hand, he added, he could see the possiblity of the real issue becoming not the structure itself but the use of it by a group in a certain area. Mr. Bowerman said that it could require great wisdom on the part of the Commission at times to sort through opposition, prejudices and personal opinions, in order to address the real issue of impact on the community. Mr. Skove said that there was a double check in having the special use permit process, review by both the Commission and the Board. /{73 Mr. Bowerman said that on the other hand lie was opposed to anything going in by right that could impact the community without review or attaching certain 14000 conditions. He said that even by right there were requirements that a church would have to meet and a site plan would be reviewed. Mr. Cogan said that the County had enough authority over churches for the present, as Mr. Kindrick had said. Mr. Cogan suggested studying the overall issue and coming up with a plan that might be more compatible and helpful to achieve what was desired. Mr. Payne said that the Commission might want to examine where churches presently exist. Mr. Cogan said that to his knowledge churches had become established in areas where there was no objection. He said that he saw no need to address this issue when no problems existed. Mr. Bowerman asked about the Monticello Wesleyan Church on the reservoir, whether it was a use by right. Mr. Payne replied that it was, but that this had probably triggered the suggested amendments. Mr. Bowerman said that he could understand a need to control the location of a church where a significant safety hazard could exist, such as on the reservoir. He asked about the mausoleum. Mr. Payne replied that it was in litigation, but established that the Commission had reviewed the mausoleum as a site plan. He explained that the Board determined that the mausoleum needed a special use permit. Mr. Payne said that in his opinion there was no difference in land use between a mausoleum and a cemetery, but that the Board disagreed. Mr. Skove said that a special use permit might be useful in one percent of the cases. Mrs. Diehl said that she agreed with Mr. Skove. Mr. Bowerman said that he would have great difficulty denying a special use permit to a church, unless there were great detriment to public safety or welfare. He said that it would have given him a mechanism in dealing with Monticello Wesleyan, where the Commission had very little power to correct the hazards it created. He said that he was against the motion. Mrs. Diehl called for a vote on the motion, which was a tie with Messers. Skove and Bowerman and Mrs. Diehl voting against the motion, and Messers. Kindrick, Davis and Cogan in favor of the motion. Mr. Davis asked if churches could be made by right under certain conditions. Mr. Payne replied that they could. He suggested appropriate supplementary regulations. Mr. Cogan said that he liked the idea. He said that he was not opposed to review of churches, but did not think that the special use permit process was the way to go �%H about it. Mr. Payne said that one point should be made, the theoretical basis of a special use permit is that the use requiring such a permit is inherently incompatible with that zone. It imposes the burden on the applicant, Mr. Payne explained, to prove that his proposed use is compatible or could be made so with certain conditions. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler about the time table for these proposed amendments. Mr. Keeler replied that there was no rigid schedule. Mrs. Diehl wondered whether staff could work out some proposed supplementary regulations. Mr. Davis made a motion that staff investigate the existing regulations and if so determined to be necessary, additional supplementary regulations be proposed to allow churches by right, subject to these supplementary regulations. Mr. Davis clarified that staff would address issues of public health, safety and welfare and not determine what constitutes a church. Mr. Payne asked whether the motion inferred that staff after review of existing requirements, such as Highway Department approval of a commercial entrance, might determine that sufficient regulations already exist. There was a concensus that this was correct. Mr. Kindrick seconded Mr. Davis' motion. Mrs. Diehl asked whether this action went forward to the Board. Mr. Payne said that he inferred that the Commission is deferring action. He said that this second motion was in the nature of a deferral; and the original motion which tied would not go forward to the Board. Mrs. Diehl called for a vote on the motion, which passed 4 - 2 with Mrs. Diehl and Mr. Skove voting against the motion. Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance in order to provide for control of access to multi-laned divided highways in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's recommendations in the U.S.Route 29 North Corridor Study. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mrs. Diehl determined that there was no public comment and stated that the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Skove asked if this proposed amendment was identical to that wording already in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Keeler replied that it was. Mr. Kindrick moved to adopt the proposed amendment: 32.5.8.01 Each entrance onto any public road for vehicular traffic to and from each development shall be subject to the approval of the Commission upon the advice of the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of �/7 Highways and Transportation and shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. In the case of any multi-laned divided highway, no such entrance which is not directly opposite any crossover in the median of any such highway shall be permitted within 500 feet of any such crossover except upon findings by the Commission that (1) there is no other reasonably practicable access to such development except within 500 feet of any such crossover; (2) that no reasonable means of alternative access is available to such development; and (3) that the provision of an entrance within 500 feet of any such crossover will be consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mrs. Diehl said under OLD BUSINESS that she wanted the Commission to know she had called the Crozet Fruit Growers' Site Plan before the Board, because she did not believe that they had substantially met the request of the Commission at their previous meeting. When she asked whether there was any NEW BUSINESS, Mr. Payne said that for the Commission's information the Central Virginia Electric Coop trial was set for next Thursday. Mr. Keeler said that a suit had been filed on the Proffit Exchange garage. Mr. Payne said that the adjacent homeowners had filed suit against the County and the County position was that the Plaintiff should bring in the owner, but the County did not file such a motion. Mr. Payne explained that the County would not actively defend itself, believing that the case should not go forward until the owner is brought in. When there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:45 p.m. Rober W. Tucker, Jr. Secrelary R