HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 03 86 PC MinutesM
June 3, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 3, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl;
Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish,
Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne,
Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of the May 20, 1986 meeting were
approved as submitted.
There was a brief discussion of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan work session,
scheduled for 4:30, June 10. It was decided this would be cancelled and
the work session would be placed at the end of the regular June 10 meeting.
Keswick Country Club Site Plan - This is a proposal to expand the existing
club house facilities to include a conference center, inn, and an additional
lodge building. A total of 48 guestrooms have been approved for this
proposed use. The total area of the site is 24.395 acres. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas. The property is located at the interchange of Rt. 731 and Rt.
744, approximately 2 mile southwest of Keswick. Tax Map 80, parcel 8 and
8Z. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. Regarding the height of the conference
center, Mr. Benish explained that after the staff report was written
the Zoning Office had verified that the building would not exceed the
35 feet maximum. Mr. Benish also stated that condition l.f. should be
added to the suggested conditions of approval: "Approval of central septic
facilities by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Roudabush was present to represent the applicant, but offered no
additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel asked for an explanation of the proposed number of guestrooms.
Mr. Roudabush explained that 6 old guestrooms and some motel -type units had
been approved originally but a subsequent amendment had permitted that those
units be torn down and new units added to other structures.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Benish confirmed he was satisfied
that the number of rooms was in compliance with the special use permits.
Regarding the fire protection system, Mr. Roudabush explained there would
be sprinklers inside the buildings and outside hydrants would be fed from
the lakes with an automatic pump system.
June 3, 1986
Page 2
It was determined a package treatment plant was proposed for sewer disposal.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Keswick Country Club Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are met:
a. County Engineer approval of public roads and drainage plans and
computations;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
and drainage plans and computations;
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. County Engineer approval of central water system;
e. Staff approval of revised plan showing maximum height of 35 feet
for the conference center;
f. Approval of central septic facilities by the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions are met:
a. Bonding and/or construction of the connector road from Rt. 731 to
Rt. 616 and the central well system for the new guestrooms/suites
(provided that the six existing suites in the clubhouse may be
renovated without compliance with this condition).
b. Fire Official approval of fire suppression system.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District - The Planning Commission is
considering a request for the establishment of the Blue Run Agricultural
& Forestal District, pursuant to Section 15.1-1511 B.5 of the Code of Virginia.
The proposed district consists of 1136.0 acres, located on the east side of Rt.
20 North adjacent to the Orange County line, and is further described as Tax
Map 35, parcels 17, 17A, 24A, 26, 26A, 26B, 26C, 28, 29, 29B, 31, 32A, and 43.
Rivanna Magisterial District. The establishment of such district has
been unanimously recommended by the Agricultural and Forestal District
Advisory Committee.
Ms. Scala gave the staff report and also read the report of the Advisory Com-
mittee. The Advisory Committee had recommended approval of the district.
It was determined the Board would set the time frame for the district, within
the 4-8 year period set by the Code of Virginia. Ms. Scala stated that
all districts, to date, have been for the maximum 8 year period.
Ms. Katherine Imhoff was present to represent the applicants. She pointed
out that Rt. 20, which runs past the district, was designated as the
Constitutional Route by the Federal government in 1975, and designation
as a Scenic Byway is also being sought.
June 3, 1986
Page 3
Dr. Young, one of the applicants, addressed the Commission and pointed out
that the district adjoins the historic district that is proposed in Orange
County and is also the "gateway" to Albemarle County.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Gould moved that the Commission accept the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and recommend to the Board of Supervisors the approval of the
Blue Run Agricultural Forestal District.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-86-26 Crozet Church of God - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2.35
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a special use permit
to allow for a church and parsonage. Property described as Tax Map 55, parcel
96A, is located on the south side of Rt. 824 approximately 800 feet west of
I-64, near Yancey Mills. Acreage of the site is .5015, zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
and
SP-86-27 Crozet Church of God - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2.7
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow a day care center in the
church. Property described as Tax Map 55, parcel 96A, is located on the
south side of Route 824 approximately 800 feet west of I-64, near Yancey
Mills. Acreage of the site is .5015, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller
Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff reports. He added that one letter from an adjoining
property owner had been received which expressed opposition to a cemetery
being located on the site. The property owner was not opposed to the church
itself. Mr. Keeler stated there are sight distance problems with the current
entrance, but it might be possible to locate the entrance in another
position. Mr. Brown, minister for the church, indicated he had spoken with
Mr. Echols of the Highway Department regarding the sight distance issue.
He stated there was no other entrance to the site, but Mr. Echols had
indicated the applicant could go through Highway Department right-of-way
to meet entrance requirements. It was determined Mr. Echols had
indicated he would grant the applicant permission to grade a small
knoll to obtain sight distance.
Mr. Brown also stated there were no plans for a cemetery to be located on
the property. He pointed out that a Confederate cemetery is already
in existence on the property, but the church has no plans to use the
cemetery further. In response to Ms. Diehl's concern, Mr. Brown confirmed
the septic field would not interfere with the existing cemetery.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
'sr
June 3, 1986 Page 4
Ms. Diehl expressed concern about the adequacy of the septic system to
handle the needs of 60 children on a daily basis. She asked that
the final approval from the Health Department state that they are
aware of the extensive use.
There was some discussion about the parking requirements. It was
determined 63 parking spaces would be required and the site could
accommodate those spaces. Ms. Diehl asked if the septic field would
have to be located under the parking lot. There was no specific
answer given to this question, but Mr. Keeler stated, "The Health
Department indicated to me that the limiting factor here was going to
be the 60 children for day care, and that's how they would review the
system." Mr. Keeler stated further that, according to regulations,
this was comparable to placing two four -bedroom houses on the site,
i.e. 20 gal./day/child = 1,200 gallons, the same as required for
two four -bedroom houses. The Commission expressed surprise at this
comparison.
It was detErmined the parking lot would have a gravel surface.
It was determined the day care facility would accept children outside
of the church's denomination.
Mr. Cogan asked what would happen if the day care facility was not granted
a state license. Mr. Keeler replied, "If they can't get it, then they
have to come back to you again because condition No. 3 requires compliance
with Sec. 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires them to be licensed."
Mr. Keeler pointed out, "In both these petitions I indicated seating capacity
to be determined by the adequacy of the septic system and the enrollment to
be determined by the adequacy of the septic system and the regulations of
the Welfare Department."
Ms. Diehl asked that extensive comments from the Health Department
regarding septic capacity be made available to the Commission at the time of
site plan review.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-86-26 for Crozet Church of God be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Site plan approval. Prior to Planning Commission review of
site plan the applicant shall obtain Health Department and Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation approvals.
2. Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy of septic system, not
to exceed a maximum seating of 250 persons.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-86-27 for Crozet Church of Good be recommended tc
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1� hf
June 3, 1986
Page 5
1. Site plan approval. Prior to Planning Commission review of the
site plan the applicant shall obtain Health Department and Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation approvals;
2. Enrollment to be determined by adequacy of septic system and regu-
lations of Virginia Department of Welfare, not to exceed a maximum
enrollment of 60 children;
3. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance;
4. This special use permit is issued to the applicant and is non-
transferrable.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
These two matters were to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on June 18, 1986.
Clarification of County's Authority Regarding Family Divisions - Report
from Mr. Keeler.
Mr. Keeler explained he and Mr. Horne had met with Mr. St. John and Mr. Payne
to discuss this issue and had arrived at the following consensus: "Compared
to what we have done in the past, the County is only limited in two ways,
both under the current provisions and under the proposed provisions. One
limitation, and this is not really a limitation, our ordinance requires
Highway Department approval of the entrance. Mr. St. John's point is that
we can't require anything more extensive than the Highway Department in the
case of existing entrances only. If the Highway Department takes the
position that they have no authority to require them to be upgraded, then
we sign the plat. We have no authority to require the entrances to be
upgraded."
Mr. Bowerman asked: "If it's a family division with an existing driveway,
the Highway Department, by the State statute, does,or does not, have the
authority to change the requirements for that driveway?"
Both Mr. Keeler and Mr. Payne responded, "They do." Mr. Keeler added, "I
just don't think that they exercise that authority." Mr. Payne stated, "They
are not consistent in their exercise of the authority." Mr. Payne clarified
that he referred to all levels of the Highway Department, "all the way to Richmond."
Referring to a memorandum written by Mr. Roosevelt to Mr. Tucker in 1983, Mr.
Keeler stated that memorandum had indicated that as a result of the Hilton
case and other situations, the Highway Department was going to be more
prudent in its written comments about what they were recommending vs. what
they can require. Mr. Keeler explained that Mr. Horne is in the process
of writing a letter to Mr. Roosevelt asking them to segregate those things
they can require from those they are recommending in every case. Mr.
Keeler explained there were two reasons for this: (1) So that we know for
sure what they can require; and (2) So that new staff will be familiar
with the requirements.
J�
June 3, 1986
Page 6
Mr. Payne added, "Mr. Horne is going to inform the Highway Department that
he wants them to tell the County whether they are going to require it or
not, and he is going to tell them if they don't require it, in the case
of family divisions, the County is not going to enforce it."
Mr. Keeler stressed that the issue of upgrading entrances was in relation
to family divisions only. He stated, "You still have the authority, in any
other case, to require an entrance to be improved."
Mr. Keeler continued and explained that the other limitation is in regard
to requiring an applicant to construct, or upgrade a road to any particular
standard. He stated, "It is Mr. St. John's opinion that the Code specifically
states that you can require a reasonable right-of-way of not less than
10 nor more than 20 feet. The Code says not less than 10 nor more than 20
for lots of 5 acres or greater. Here is where you get into something
different. These family division amendments do not, in any way, preclude
application of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance says unless
you've got access, you don't get a building permit. So we are going to
leave that section as we had originally proposed it. You may recall when
the amendments came before you that you specified an improvement to be made,
i.e. 12 foot travelway and 6 inches of gravel. We had recommended
a 10 foot travelway and, according to Mr. St. John, we can't require that.
But what we are going to require is that the surveyor certify that the
alignment he has shown, the horizontal and vertical alignment, would provide
a reasonable access for a normal vehicle, (and) would provide a roadway
that would provide that type of access."
Mr. Keeler stated those were the only two limitations. He added, "We still
have the authority to require Health Department approval, because the
Zoning Ordinance requires you to have two drain fields before you get a
building permit. I think, in all cases, we can require access to the
property because the zoning ordinance says you have to have access or you
don't get a building permit. The Highway Department, in the case of new
entrances, can require them to be constructed to their standards. We can
simply withhold signing the plat until the Highway Department has made that
determination, because that may determine where the access easement is located.
So, except in the case of existing entrances, and the actual improvement of
the road, it's just as we've always treated it."
Mr. Keeler stated it had also been discussed as to whether or not review of
family divisions should be continued, or if they should be put under the
definition of subdivision as an exemption. He stated that alternative would
be presented to the Board.
It was determined the Board would make a decision on this issue when they
reviewed the proposed amendments.
Content of Review Procedures - RA Special Use Permits: Potential By -Right
Development - Mr. Keeler presented a memorandum to the Commission explaining
this issue and requested that the Commission determine whether Alternative
1 or Alternative 2 should be pursued. The alternatives were as follows:
�7
June 3, 1986
Page 7
Alternative 1: Continue to employ theoretical by -right development
(with some error being acceptable).
Alternative 2: Require applicant to demonstrate achievable by -right
development.
The memorandum stated that "an obvious drawback to (Alternative 1) is dealing
with an unknown quantity which may result in bad analysis and bad decision.
Also, to be consistent, theoretical development should be employed in all
cases, even when the discrepancy between theoretical and achievable is
obvious."
The memo stated that Alternative 2 "would clearly establish the review
context and result in better reports/decisions. Due to the expense of
soils reports and the like, this alternative will be viewed as a burden by
applicants. Implementation of this alternative would require amendment
of 10.5.2.2 MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT."
Mr. Bowerman asked, "Why not just approach it as a special use permit
and go through all the criteria, and forget about the by -right?"
Mr. Payne stated that a lot of the criteria would not fit this type of
application.
Ms. Diehl stated that though soils are important, she felt two other
issues were more helpful in this type of review, i.e. (1) Floodplain areas;
and (2) Those areas of 25% or greater slope.
Mr. Keeler indicated staff would be able to provide this type of information.
Ms. Diehl felt being provided with these two pieces of information would
make assessments more realistic. She pointed out that soils information
would enter into the review through the Health Department approval.
It was determined the Commission was in favor of a compromise between the
two proposed alternatives of staff, referred to by Mr. Bowerman as "theoretical plus."
Staff will provide additional information concerning (1) slopes analysis
and (2) delineation of floodplain.
SP-86-18 Free Union Subdivision (Shelter Associates)- Proposal to create 12
lots from 100.13 acres. Two lots are to be a minimum of 21 acres each,
and ten lots are to average approximately 4.8 acres each. This is not a
request for additional lots, but a request for a different configuration than
by -right development. Lots 1 through 8 and parcel A are to be served by a
new public road; lots 9 and 10 are to be served by a joint driveway from
Route 665; parcel B is to access from Route 601. Zoned RA, Rural Areas,
Tax Map 29, parcels 4A and 4B. White Hall Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report.
It was determined the word "should" in staff's proposed condition of
approval No. 2, should have been "shall." (i.e. Best Management practices
shall be utilized during construction....)
5�
June 3, 1986 Page 8
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Chris Halstead was present but offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, it was determined the Highway Department
has reviewed the two entrances and foresees no problems.
It was determined the County Engineer's comments would be more extensive
at the time of the subdivision plat review.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, it was determined a permit would
be required for a private entrance for lots 9 and 10.
Mr. Michel commented this was a reasonably safe intersection.
Mr. Michel stated he felt this was a better proposal than would be allowed
by right.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-86-18 for Free Union Subdivision (Shelter Associates)
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. The subdivision shall be limited to 12 lots, two (2) of which
are a minimum of 21.0 acres, and shall be in general accordance
with the plan by Shelter Associates, Ltd. dated May 23, 1986.
2. Best management practices shall be utilized during construction.
The Watershed Management Official will review the Soil Erosion
Plan.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.
Mr. Cogan noted that the average density (12 lots on 100 cares) was slightly
more than recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on June 18, 1986.
SP-86-31 Harry L. Garth - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(28) of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow for reallocation of division rights. Property,
described as Tax Map 44, parcels 33A and 33B, is located on the east side of
Rt. 658 adjacent to the north of Ivy Farms Subdivision. Jack Jouett
Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. Staff opinion was that the proposed
subdivision better reflected the public interest than "by right" development
because: (1) It allowed for more]ogical shepe lots to be created; (2) These
lots created more logical building sites; and (3) The proposal created a
safe access that would serve both parcels.
Mr. Benish pointed out that recommended condition No. 2 should not have
been included at this time (they were Co. Engineer's conditions for approval
of a subdivision plat).
June 3, 1986
Page 9
Mr. Benish stated the Soil Scientist's Report had indicated that lots
3, 4 and 5 may have to be pumped to get to the septic fields.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stated that the final plat would be a "mirror" of that which is
before the Commission at this time and, therefore, he requested
administrative approval of the final plat.
Mr. Bowerman stated it was Commission policy to require Commission
review of the final plat if Health Department approval had not been
granted.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Sheldon Anderson, president of the Ivy Farms Homeowners Association,
addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about additional traffic on
Rt. 658 and stressed the inadequacy of this road.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Referring to the difficulty encountered in trying to read the plats that
are placed on display during Commission meetings, Mr. Cogan requested
that Commissioners be given copies of plats.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-86-31 for Harry L. Garth be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition:
1. The subdivision shall be limited to five (5) parcels and
shall be in general accordance with the plat by William Morris
Foster, dated May 23, 1966.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Foster presented a copy of Health Department approval (which he had
just become aware of). It was determined staff had not yet seen the
approval letter.
The motion stood as originally stated and did not include administrative
approval of the final plat.
Mr. Cogan stated he would vote in favor of the motion but pointed out that
he did not want to convey the feeling that just because something sometimes
makes better sense than can be done otherwise, it does not mean the
Commission has to approve it.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on June 18, 1986.
There being no further business, the meeti djourned at 9:10 p.m.
T
John Horne, Secretary
DS