HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 09 82 PC MinutesN0VEMBER 4, 1982
114%W The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, November 9, 1982, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building,
Charlottesville, Va. Those members present were: Mr.
�" M Allen Kendrick; Mr. Mike Davis (arrived at
David Bowerman: r. .
�� M N Diehl; Staff
8:15); Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Jim Skove; �. Norma ~ M Ronald Keeler Planner; Mr. Maynard
members present were: r^ � t
Elrod,County Engineer; Mr. William Norris, a
official; Watershed Management
al; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Cogan.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The approval of minutes
for May 18, 1982 were postponed.
Request to
'��~l Areas to HC Highway Commercial.
rezone ''--' acres id of Route 29 North
Property is located on the eastside ,
approximately 4,000 feet north of the North Fork Rivanna River.
County Tax Map 33, Parcel 1A, Monticello - Skyline Campground,
Inc.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial
^ (1) Not consistent with the
for the following reasons: t consistent with the statement of
Comprehensive Plan; (2) No cons s intent of the HC district; (3) Adequate commercially zoned
property already exists to satisfy the commercial needs of the
Piney Mt. Village area; (4) Approval could result in similar
speculative rezoning requests; (5) Approval could encourage ƒ
filling of the the flood plain area; and (6) Reasonable use o
the property already exists.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Romanac. He described some
history of the property. He stated he had never been made aware
that the property had been down -zoned (from 8-1 to RA in 1979).
He felt the property was worthless without some type of
commercial zoning. He asked that the Commission approve the
petition so that he could "fix the recreation area."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Keeler stated that a
recreational area would be permitted in the RA area by special
permit and also in the flood hazard district, to some extent. He
emphasized that such a proposal would require substantial
engineering studies because the floodplain location is only
"approximate."
Mr~ Skove noted that though he felt this area would not remain
e s
rural forever, h till could not support the request at this
^
*MW time for the reasons stated in the staff report.
11-9-82 2
1m0 Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, that ZMA-82-13 for
Martin Romanac and George Spathopulos be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for denial.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-82-61 Monticello - Skyline Campground, Inc - Request in
accordance
.20 of the Zoning Ordinance for 12-
Rural 22 additional camping sites on 47.11 acres zoned RA ura Areas.
Property is located on 250 west, just west of Yancey Mills,
approximately one-half mile west of I-64, Crozet Exit 20. County
Tax Map 71, parcel 3, Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report stated: "For
the applicant to further pursue campsite expansion, it appears
from information available that additional applications for
County approval and/or engineerring studies would be necessary.
Staff has not encouraged the applicant to incur the time and
monetary costs of providing additional information under this
application or to pursue additional applications prior to public
hearing for the following reasons: (1) Unmet conditions of CUP
116; and (2) The extent to which current zoning regulations
would be applied to the existing campground development. For
example, application of current Flood Hazard and Scenic Highway
requirements may result in loss of existing campsites." The
�*~ report noted alternatives, i.e., variance from the Scenic
Highway Setback; amendment of the Flood Hazard Overlay District
to permit campgrounds in the floodplain; and Landfill Permit to
raise campsites above flood level.
The applicant was represented by Ms. Susan Kappes. She explained
the reasons for the request, based on the "shortages' that the
campground was experiencing and the demand because of the
location. She explained the proposal in considerable detail.
Mr. Tom Gale, engineer for the project, addressed the Commission.
He felt it was "feasible" to place camp sites in the areas
proposed. He expressed concern because the exact limits of the
floodplain are not known. He described how he would proceed to
delineate the boundaries of the floodplain.
The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the
matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Michel's question as to why some of the
campsites were not "grandfathered," Mr. Keeler explained that the
legality of the original permit is in question; therefore, "how
can they be grandfathered if the permit was never issued?"
Both Mr. Payne and Mr. Keeler described some of the history of
q4W the property. Mr. Keeler noted that there is some discrepancy
about the number of campsites because not all that show on
391
En
11-9-82 3
previous permits can be accounted for. Mr. Keeler also explained
that at the time of the approval of the permit there was very
little County staff to ensure that conditions of approval were
met.
Other issues discussed were:
--Number and capacity of drainfields.
--Location of "stored" trailers (which do not meet the
Scenic Highway setback). Mr. Keeler felt these should be moved
regardless of the outcome of this request.
--Applicant's alternatives in the event the request is
denied. (Mr. Keeler noted that the important question is: "How
much of the existing facilities do you want to come under current
regulations, i.e. do you want to review the entire development
and not just a number of sites.")
Ms. Diehl stated that she agreed with staff --that the property is
currently being used to capacity. Mr. Skove agreed.
Mr. Davis felt it was logical that the existing sites could
remain through "grandfathering" but new sites in the floodplain
will have to comply with current regulations. Mr. Michel agreed.
Mr. Michel stated he wished that "it could be approved under CUP
116, have them comply with items 1 and 6, give them a grandfather
on what's in the floodplain to date, have them pull back the
trailers that are stored on the Scenic Highway, and make them put
any additional sites up in the woods."
Mr. Keeler felt the key was whether or not conditions 1 and 6 [1.
That four -foot trees be planted along the right-of-way of Rt. 250
West and that the existing honey suckle fence be maintained; and
6. That trees be planted for the shade and convenience of the
campers where not not existing, primarily north of Stockton
Creek.] could be complied with at this time.
Mr. Michel did not think there appeared to be any attempt on the
part of the previous owner, or the current owner, to avoid
compliance with any conditions.
Mr. Payne commented that he did think there was precedent for
allowing a special permit where there was some element of it
which was lawfully nonconforming." He did not see any reason why
approval could not be granted as suggested by Mr. Michel.
It was noted that the floodplain delineations would be required.
Mr. Keeler noted that in order to allow campsites in the
floodplain there would have to be an evacuation plan and
,%NW emergency warning system. Mr. Elrod confirmed that this has been
the case in other areas. Mr. Elrod also noted that he felt the
area which was being proposed for the campsites was such that the
39a
11-9-82
F11
velocity of flow of floodwater would be low so even though there
could be property damage, there would be very little risk of loss
of life in the event of a flash flood.
Mr. Payne explained that an approval could be worded in such e
way so as to allow additional campsites but to restrict their
location, i.e. a condition stating that they could not be placed
in the floodplain. He confirmed that the Commission could also
restrict the number of campsites.
Though the staff report had referred to the conditions of
approval placed on Conditional use Permit 116 (Robert Albee,
1969), no new conditions were suggested in the current staff
report.
Ms. Diehl indicated she was in favor of conditions No. 1 and 6 of
those original conditions being attached to this permit.
There was a discussion about the type, size and placement of the
trees referred to in condition No. 1.
Mr. Michel stated he felt the trailers should be "pulled back"
because of the scenic highway.
It was determined the Commission wished to see a site plan.
Mr. Skove suggested the following condition: "No more than 'x'
number of new sites and none of these shall be located in the
flood plain." Mr. Bowerman felt the physical constraints of the
site would limit the number of sites and this issue could be
dealt with at the time the site plan is reviewed.
Mr. Payne suggested it would be desirable to include at least a
total number of campsites allowed. (There was some question as
to the total number of existing sites.)
Mr. Skove suggested that 112 be the total number of sites
allowed. He also suggested the following condition: "Health
Department approval prior to Planning Commission approval of the
site plan."
There was a brief discussion about the Fire Official's comments.
Mr. Keeler suggested the following condition: "Fire Official
aprpoval in accordance with memo of October 11th."
Mr. Skove moved that SP-32-61 for Monticello -Skyline Campground
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. No more than 112 total camp sites; no new sites to be located
in the floodplain.
S-73
cm
,no
2. Health Department approval of site plan prior to Planning
Commission approval.
3. Fire Official approval of site plan prior to Planning
Commission approval.
4. Satisfaction of conditions 1 and 6 of CUP-116 related to
landscaping to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning
Commission.
5. Trailers to be moved to conform to the scenic road setback.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed (5:0:1) with
Commissioner Davis abstaining.
SP-82-64 Albemarle Baptist Association - Request in accordance
with Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a church
on 5.087 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Property is located at the
intersection of Hydraulic Road (Route 743) and Route 657, across
Route 657 from Albemarle High school. County Tax Map 61, Parcel
6, Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Keeler read a letter from the Health Department which stated
that the determination had been made that the site had sufficient
area for a drainfield for a 50()-seat capacity. Pumping may be
necessary. (No alternate drainfield was mentioned.)
There was a brief discussion as to when the Board would make the
decision regarding the applicant's request that the site be
included in the jurisdictional area for public utilities. The
Watershed Management Official and the County Engineer were
recommending that public utilities be extended to the site in
view of the proximity to the reservoir.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Roy Thomas. In answer to
Mr. Thomas' question to Mr. Payne, Mr. Payne confirmed that the
County Attorney's office would be recommending to the Board that
the site NOT be included in the jurisdictional area based on the
County's policy of not including the watershed area in the urban
area. Mr. Thomas noted that this was the reason for the request
for the use of a private septic system. Mr. Thomas described the
anticipated use of the church. Mr. John Greene, engineer for the
project, described the site plans, including the location of
drainfields and drainage plans.
The Chairman invited public comment.
vftw
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
���
In
M
11-9-82 6
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, explained that he was
recommending connection to public sewer because the lines already
exist at the site. He had given no consideration to the legal
question of extending the jurisdictional area.
Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, stated his
main concern was the protection of water quality in the
reservoir. He concluded, however, that it did appear that the
site could accommodate a drainfield and had adequate area to meet
setback requirements.
There was a brief discussion about the possibility of pumping.
Mr. Greene felt the system could be served by gravity and pumping
would not be necessary. He noted that the system would be
located under the parking area. (Mr. Keeler later confirmed that
this was acceptable to the Health Department.)
Mr. Davis expressed concern because he felt the project was "too
intense" a use for a site in the watershed.
Mr. Skove noted the uniqueness of the location (Albemarle High
School on one side and R.E. Lee Construction on the other) and
felt it was unlikely the site would ever be used for agricultural
purposes. He could not think of a more appropriate use of the
site.
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt there were many more intensive uses
which could be placed on the site.
Mr. Kendrick noted that this proposal was "far superior to what
happened on the other side of R.E. Lee Construction."
Mr. Michel expressed concern about the possibility of pumping in
a watershed area. He stated he would be more enthusiastic if it
were certain pumping would not be necessary.
Mr. Davis felt a use of this intensity should require public
utilities. He questioned the comparison of usage to 2 single
family dwellings (which could be placed on the site by -right).
The following issues were discussed briefly:
--Potential square footage of the church;
--Possible problems with pumping systems.
Mr. Skove noted once again that he felt the proposal was less
intense than some other possible uses might be and moved that SP-
82-64 for Albemarle Baptist Association be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
Z157-
11-9-82 7
1. Only those areas intended for development shall be cleared.
All other areas shall remain in a natural state. The site
development plan shall reflect this condition as well as the
October 15 and November 2 memoranda of the Watershed Management
Official.
2. Access to the property shall be restricted to Rt. 657 in
accordance with Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
comments of October 19, 1982.
Mr. Kendrick seconded the motion.
Ms. Diehl noted that the motion included the understanding that
the approval was with the use of a private septic system. Mr.
Payne noted that if the Board should later amend the
jurisdictional area, that matter would be dealt with at the time
of site plan approval.
The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Michel
and Davis casting the dissenting votes.
There was further discussion as to whether or not to make a
statement to the Board relative to the extension of the
jurisdictional area. The Commission was fearful of making a
recommendation which could in some way negatively effect the
Board's legal position. It was ultimately decided that the
Commission would make no recommendation.
ZTA-82-16 - Indoor Kennels - Citizen request (Barry G.
Dofflemyer) to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit indoor
kennels only, by special use permit in the HC Highway Commercial
district.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff was recommending
approval of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Dofflemyer explained his reasons for making the request. He
also explained the difference between commercial boarding kennels
and veterinary kennels.
Ms. Joan Graves expressed concern about the possibility of
commercial in HC zones.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Davis moved, seconded by Mr. Kendrick, that ZTA-82-16 related
to Indoor Kennels in the HC District by special permit, be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as follows:
-5 9&
11-9-82
Add:
24.2.2 11. Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference
5.1.11).
The motion passed unanimously.
STA-82-4 - Private Roads - The Albemarle County Planning
Commission has adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the
Subdivison Ordinance to authorize the County Engineer to certify
completion of private roads in accordance with approved plans and
to require inspection fees for the same and to require marking of
private road right-of-way by the developer.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Payne noted some
changes to the proposed text which were a result of
recommendations of the County Engineer.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, that STA-82-4 related
to Private Roads be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval as presented by staff and amended by Mr. Payne. (SEE
file for final text.)
The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30
p.m.
^ .
V. Wa Y/ Cilimber cretary
Recorded by: Stuart Richard r
Transcribed by: Deloris Bradshaw 12-91