HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 07 86 PC MinutesOctober 7, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 7, 1986, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard
Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; Ms. Norma Diehl;
Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were:
Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.
Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; 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 September 23, 1986 meeting were
approved as submitted.
SP-86-60 Cistercians of the Strict Observance in Massachusetts, Inc. - Request
in accordance with 10.2.2(35) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for
the issuance of a special use permit to allow for a church building and
adjunct cemetery with living quarters (convent). Property, described as
Tax Map 27, parcels 40A and 40 is located on the north side of Route 674,
two miles east of White Hall. White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Payne made the following statement regarding this application: "I don't
think this is a lawful application. It has nothing to do with the land use
merits of the case. I don't think it's a lawful application and I don't think
you can properly act on it, other than, of course, to deny it, which might
not necessarily be based on any land use criteria." He explained: "This
is a very peculiar issue. The problem, as I see it, stems from a very
unusual, and I must say somewhat arcane body of Virginia law, regarding
religious organizations. There are two provisions that I think are
applicable in this case. One is a Virginia statute that prohibits a church
or various similar religious organizations from owning more than 250 acres
in any one county. The second one prohibits the incorporation of a church,
and that's a provision of the Virginia Constitution. And I think that
there is another provision in the Virginia Constitution which provides that
the same strictures that apply to domestic corporations also apply to foreign
corporations. As I understand it, this is a Massachusetts corporation.
In a nutshell, the problem is that I don't think this corporation can
lawfully own this property and I don't think it is proper to establish a
church on 440+ acres in the (state of Virginia). It has nothing to do,
necessarily, with the Zoning Ordinance, but the problem, as I see it, is
(1) I think it is improper for the County to countenance something which,
in my opinion, is a violation of state law by exercising of its legislative
authority, and (2) I think it's probably the case that the land, and I
haven't seen the charter of this corporation but I am assuming that it is
in the nature of a religious denomination. It's improper for this
organization to own this property, and, therefore, it doesn't have standing
to make this application under the ordinance. So I suggested to Mr. Murray
this afternoon that he may want to defer this matter to see if there were
some alternative means of resolving the situation. I suppose he has chosen
not to do that. In my opinion, it is improper for the County to approve
this permit. I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong as a matter
1/7
October 7, 1986 Page 2
of land use law with this use." Mr. Payne confirmed that he had consulted
with Mr. St. John and he is in agreement with this position. Mr. Payne
also statedhe had discussed this matter with staff, but he had not been able
to discuss it with Mr. Murray until "this afternoon."
In response to Ms. Diehl's question regarding the definition of a church,
Mr. Payne stated it was his understanding that this was more in the
nature of a convent, but staff felt the term "church" was broad enough to include
the uses proposed.
Mr. Keeler asked if it would influence Mr. Payne's opinion if, for the
purposes of the special use permit, this were not called a church. Mr.
Payne replied, "Probably not."
Mr. Gould asked how the "impediments" could be remedied. Mr. Payne explained
it is not unlawful for churches to own property. It is done under trustees.
In the case of a Catholic organization, such as this, the land is usually
titled in the name of the Bishop in the state of Virginia. He stated the
nature of the use could be refined so that it's something other than
a church. He added that a convent has different kinds of land use considera-
tions than would another type of church, e.g. traffic is not a problem at
a convent.
Mr. Cogan stated he did not see any way to pursue the matter further until all
the questions have been answered.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-86-60 for Cistercians of the Strict Observance be
indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Matthew Murray, attorney for the applicant, asked for permission to
comment. The Chairman invited Mr. Murray's comments.
Mr. Murray stated he felt Mr. Payne was "grossly mistaken" in his opinion.
He pointed out that the application is for a "church building", not for a
"church." He presented a drawing of the building and pointed out a
small "corner" which would serve as the Sisters' chapel. He explained
the religious order making the application was the Trappistine Sisters,
which is the female version of the Trappist Monks. He pointed out the
monestary in Berryville, VA (Cistercians of the Strict Observance of
Virginia, Inc.), is a Virginia corporation that owns 1,200 acres of
land. He stated that staff had advised him that a special use permit
would probably be needed and that it would fall under the heading of
church building because of the chapel. He explained that the chapel that
will be used is actually an accessory use because the primary use is a
dormitory -type living situation for these unrelated nuns. He stressed
that this will be a cloistered community and "they are not building
a church." He indicated he had not been made aware of Mr. Payne's
concerns until "today". He felt the application was properly before the
Commission. He stressed the application was for "a great deal more than
a church."
. /If
October 7, 1986 Page 3
The Chairman stated he understood Mr. Murray's position, but the Commission
must follow the advice of it's counsel and it must be determined if the
application is properly before the Commission before proceeding.
Mr. Murray suggested that the Commission disregard the advice of Mr. Payne
and go ahead and act on the application. He stated that those matters of
concern to the Commission could then be addressed by the applicant before
the Board hearing. It was explained to Mr. Murray that the Board prefers
that these issues be resolved before the matter is passed on to the Board.
Mr. Murray pointed out that the applicant has been awarded an $80,000 grant
toward the building of the monestary which must be spent in 1986 or it will be lost.
It was determined a one -week delay in the application would not greatly
harm the applicant's position. Mr. Payne indicated he could not promise
that all the issues would be resolved within one week.
It was determined the item should be deferred to a date specific, rather
than indefinitely.
Ms. Diehl amended her motion�sstate that SP-86-60 for the Cistercians of
the Strict Observance be deferred to October 14, 1986.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the amended motion.
It was a consensus of the Commission that if all the technicalities could be
resolved, they were in favor of the application.
The motion to defer the matter to October 14, 1986 passed unanimously.
Mr. Horne stated he would attempt to schedule the item for the Board on
October 15.
Mr. Keeler asked that the Commission adopt a resolution of Intent to
amend the RA district to provide for a monestary/convent special use permit.
He explained that if it should be determined the use could not be defined as
a church, he was unsure how it could be defined under the ordinance.
However, Mr. Horne stated he did not think such action was necessary at
this time.
SP-86-58 Caleb Stowe Associates, Ltd. - Request in accordance with Sections
27.2.2.5 and 27.2.2.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for the
issuance of a special use permit to allow for warehouse facilities and a wholesale
business. Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcel 19A is located on the
east side of Route 606 approximately one (1) mile north of Route 649. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report stated: "Staff opinion is that
this use would not be objectionable to the area and is consistent with
current zoning, Comprehensive Plan, and the Airport Master Plan. Staff
recommends approval."
J/
October 7, 1986
Page 4
The applicant was represented by Mr. Cook, who offered no additional comments.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Michel's question about the possibility of another
use being added at some future time, Mr. Keeler explained that would be
reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and determine if a site plan were
needed.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cook to explain what the "specialty food products"
would be. Mr. Cook explained this referred to diet supplements such as
protein.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-86-58 for Caleb Stowe Associates, Ltd. be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be
heard by the Board on October 15, 1986.
SP-86-59 City of Charlottesville - Request in accordance with 30.3.5.2.1(5)
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use
permit to allow for the installation of bank erosion control structures in
the floodway of the Rivanna River at Pen Park. Property, described as Tax
Map 62, parcel 22 is located on Rio Road at the City -County line. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report stated: "The consultant's report
sites an urgency for this project since continued erosion is costly and
since a major storm could result in substantial damage to the public investment
at Pen Park." Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Staff noted
that condition 4 and 8 should be combined into one condition as condition 4,
and that a new condition 8 should be added as follows: "Posting of warning
signs upstream from site to advise canoeists and other users of construction
activity and temporary obstructions."
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that this project
could cause problems on the other side of the river.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. John Berberich, representing the City, addressed the Commission. His
comments included the following:
--A contract has not yet been awarded for the project so it is difficult
to predict the time frame at this time. He explained that a
restriction has been placed on the project which requires that the
work be done between June 1 and January 31, and that the work, once
commenced, should take 60 - 90 days.
--All non -local permits have been obtained.
It was determined the project primarily consists of rip -rap with stones averaging
300 lbs. each.
Sao
October 7, 1986
Page 5
Ms. Diehl expressed concern as to why the months restricted from
activity were February 1 through May 31, rather than March 1 through June 30
as is usually the case. She was concerned about spawning activities. There
was no definitive answer to this discrepancy.
It was determined the project would be done in two phases with the first phase
to cost approximately $160,000 and that phase I and phase II would cost
slightly over $200,000. (These were the engineer's estimates.) Mr.
Berberich had noted earlier in the meeting that the bid which has been
received was two and one-half times the engineer's estimates.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was concerned about the possible negative
effects this would have on the "county -side" of the river. Mr.
Berberich stated, "I think the work that's proposed will make (the bank cn the park
side)more resistant; I don't think it's going to create any turbulence
that kicks it back onto the other side. I think the irregularities there
are working for themselves."
Mr. Horne agreed that Mr. Wilkerson's concern was a legitimate one but
added, "I'm not sure we have a whole lot of alternative." He indicated
he felt this was "not an exact science" thus it was difficult to predict
what the effects would be.
It was determined the "investment" in danger of being lost is the Pen Park
Golf Course.
It was determined the entire project included 1,200 feet, from Meadowcreek
upstream to the inteceptor sewer, on the Park side of the river only.
Mr. Berberich stated the consultant had suggested, primarily for economic
reasons, that Phase I be completed and then monitored for a while before
continuing with Phase II.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Berberich stated that a
negligible amount of "dredging" would be required to seat the rock.
Ms. Diehl indicated she was concerned about the loss of the month of June
from the seasonal restriction in relation to spawning activities and
she was also concerned about the number of proposed stream crossings.
Mr. Berberich explained that of the three stream crossings, only one would
be constructed and used at a time, and that each one would be removed
before another one was constructed, i.e. only one would be in existence
at any particular time. He confirmed that all of the river crossings
would be removed at the end of Phase I.
Ms. Diehl was in favor of adding a condition stating that no construction
activity could take place in the month of June. This would address the
issue of the fish spawning as well as provide another month for
river activity such as canoeing.
Mr. Payne stated this would be appropriate and the applicant made no
objection to such a condition.
t v12%
Page 6
October 7, 1986
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl stated she would like for condition No. 5 to reflect the applicant's
intent to use only one stream crossing at a time and to remove each before
another is installed.
Mr. Horne suggested adding "Not more than one crossing at any one time"
to condition 5. Mr. Payne stated he felt this would be sufficient given
the representation made by the applicant.
Mr. Keeler suggested the following wording for condition 5: "Temporary stream
crossings shall be removed when no longer utilized and not more than one stream
crossing shall be in existence at any one time. All disturbed and denuded
areas shall be stabilized as required by the County Engineer."
It was determined a new condition 9 would be added as follows: "Work
to be accomplished between the dates of July 1, and January 31."
Mr. Cogan indicated he was not in favor of the proposal for the following
reasons:
--It will be unsightly.
--Could possibly be setting a precedent.
--Golf course was built too close to the river to begin with.
--Possible detrimental effect on the county side of the river.
Mr. Stark pointed out that several County residents use the golf course
as well and that the proposal is a way of protecting the Rivanna Park
as well as Pen Park. He was in favor of the application.
Mr. Cogan disagreed that the project would be protecting the property
across stream (the Rivanna Park).
Mr. Gould agreed with Mr. Stark and stated this was an opportunity for the
County to help the City protect an investment which benefits both the
City and the County.
Ms. Diehl stated she agreed with Mr. Cogan that the golf course was
built too close to the river, but she felt that investment should be
protected for the benefit of the public. She suggested the possibility
of approving the project for Phase I only to give the Commission the
chance to evaluate its effects before it is completed.
Mr. Berberich confirmed the permits he has obtained are for the entire project.
There was no support for Ms. Diehl's suggestion.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-86-59 for the City of Charlottesville be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
a94
October 7, 1986
Page 7
1. The Zoning Administrator shall issue a development permit for this project
as required by Sec. 30.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. No such permit
shall be issued until all conditions of this special use permit have been
met;
2. Approval of appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and presentation
of evidence of such approvals to the Zoning Administrator;
3. County Engineer approval in accordance with the requirements of 30.3 Flood Hazard
Overlay District with particular attention to approval of access and river
crossing plans;
4. Bonding or other mechanism by which the Zoning Administrator may cause
immediate compliance with this special use permit and all other County
regulations; the County Engineer shall make periodic inspection of the site
to insure compliance with conditions imposed herein. The County Engineer may
recommend to the Zoning Administrator such corrective measures as deemed
necessary to insure compliance with these conditions.
5. Temporary stream crossings shall be removed when no longer utilized and
not more than one stream crossing shall be in existence at any one time;
all disturbed and denuded areas shall be stabilized as required by the
County Engineer;
6. Only those areas necessary for the conduct of this project shall be dis-
turbed. Activity shall be conducted in such a manner so the
equipment shall not travel over, be parked on, or otherwise encroach
on three root systems on property of others;
7. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
8. Posting of warning signs upstream from site to advise canoeists and other
boat users of construction activity and temporary obstructions;
9. Work to be accomplished between the dates of July 1 and January 31.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
Mr. Cogan stressed that his position on the application had nothing to do
with city -county issues but was based on purely the physical repair aspect
of the project.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was in agreement with Mr. Cogan's objections to the
proposal except on the issue of it possibly setting a precedent. He felt
this proposal was "overkill" and that there must be other solutions.
The motion for approval passed (5:2) with Commissioners Cogan and Bowerman
casting the dissenting votes.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on October 15.
!113
October 7, 1986 Page 8
ZTA-86-05 - A request to amend Section 28.2.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance by the addition of: (24) motorcycle and off -road recreational
vehicle sales and service. This amendment would allow this use as a permitted
use in the HI (Heavy Industrial) District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report explained that "on April 9, 1986 the
Board of Supervisors adopted ... a Resolution of Intent to amend Section 28.0
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit the sale of off -road
recreational vehicles and motorcycles in the HI -Heavy Industrial District.
... Prior to making his decision on this matter, the Zoning Administrator
consulted with the Director of Planning and Community Development on this
matter and it was their opinion that this use was not now, nor should be in the
future, allowed in the HI zone. Mr. Horne expressed this opinion to the
Board at its meeting on April 9. Of primary concern is the mixture of retail
motor vehicle uses and client traffic with heavy industrial traffic. The
Board felt that the potential nuisance characteristics of motorcycle and
off -road recreational vehicles made this use appropriate in this zoning
district."
It was determined this use currently falls under the Highway Commercial
zone.
The staff report also explained that this amendment was the outcome of a
request by Jarman's Sportcycles to be allowed to sell and service motorcycles
and off -road recreational vehicles at the Northside Industrial Park on Route 29
North. The report stated, "This business is now in operation at this site
pursuant to authorization granted by the Board of Supervisors given at the April
9, 1986 meeting."
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission's action would in any way jeopardize
the grace that was given to this business by the Board.
Mr. Horne stated he was unclear as to how the authorization had been granted
by the Board.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he felt the decision as to whether or not this use
should be allowed in the HI zone should be based on whether or not it is
appropriate for that zone and not on the fact that a business "inappropriately"
moves to a wrong zone and makes an investment and then comes in, after the
fact, and requests that the use be allowed in that zone.
Mr. Payne advised that the Commission should consider this application as
if Jarman did not exist.
Mr. Keeler also suggested if it was felt that recreational vehicles were
inappropriate in the Highway Commercial zone because of their nuisance
value, etc., then the Commission should consider removing them from
that zone.
Mr. Keeler stated it was staff's position that retail commercial uses are
"inherently inappropriate in an industrial district."
The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
1,�V
October 7, 1986
Page 9
Mr. Michel stated the only way he could envision this usage in the
HI zone was by special use permit.
Mr. Cogan agreed. He compared this usage to an automobile dealership and
stated that it was much less of a nuisance than that use.
Mr. Payne recalled that the primary argument made at the Board of Zoning
Appeals had related to the issue of noise. Mr. Horne added that the
vehicles were considered by the Board to be much noisier when taken on
the road to be tested. Mr. Cogan pointed out, however, that once the
vehicles are taken onto the road they could be in another district entirely.
Though the possibility of making the use permitted in the HI zone by
special permit was briefly discussed, the majority of the Commissioners
were not in favor of this approach. It was determined other uses permitted
by special permit in the HI zone were of much more of an industrial
nature, e.g. airports, asphalt mixing plants, chemical manufacturing
and processing, junkyards, oil refineries, etc.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA-86-05 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for denial because the use in question is inconsistent with the nature of
the Heavy Industrial zone.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA-86-06 - A request to amend the building separation provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance to refer to the current Table 401 Fire Resistance Ratings of the
BOCA Building Code 1984 Edition.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report explained that the purpose of
this amendment was to "bring zoning provisions into consistency with
current building code requirements."
The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA-86-06 to amend the building separation provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
as follows:
A. AMEND 4.11.3 REDUCTION OF BUILDING SEPARATION AND
SIDE YARDS.
n
4.11.3 REDUCTION OF BUILDING SEPARATION AND SIDE YARDS
(Added 1-1-83).
4.11.3.1 Minimum building separation and side yards for
main structures shall be reduced in accordance
with applicable district regulations in a
particular case under the following circumstances:
October 7, 1986
Page 10
a. Such structures are located within a four (4) mile
radius of a responding fire station and in an area
where available fire flows are adequate by
Insurance Service Offices standards to permit such
reduction; or
b. All such structures for which separation and/or
side yards are reduced shall be constructed in
accordance with �'ab�e-5A�-Fire-6raeling-of-Hse
Groups Table 401 Fire Resistance Ratings of
Structure Elements of the BOCA Building Code 1984
Edition; OR its equivalent in the current edition
of BOCA Basic Building Code; OR
C. In the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County
fire official may require such guarantee as deemed
necessary to insure compliance with the provisions
of this section inclusive but not limited to deed
restriction, disclosure, and other such
instruments and the recordation of the same in the
office of the clerk of the circuit court of the
county. (Added 1-1-83)
4.11.3.2 In the case of reduction as provided in section
4.11.3.1, the following additional regulations
shall apply:
a. No such structure shall encroach on any
emergency accessway as may be required by the
Albemarle County fire official;
b. Unless constructed to a common wall, no such
structure shall be located closer than six
(6) feet to any lot line;
C. No such structure shall encroach on any
utility, drainage or other easement, nor on
any feature required by this ordinance or
other applicable law. (Added 1-1-83).
4.11.3.3 Development approved prior to the effective date
of this section shall be exempt from section
4.11.3.1 and shall comply with the side yard and
building separation regulations of the zoning
ordinance in effect at the time of such approval.
For the purposes of this section, "development
approved" shall mean: any final subdivision plat
approved pursuant to Chapter 18 of the Code of
Albemarle; any site development plan approved *400
October 7, 1986
Page 11
pursuant to Section 32.0 of this ordinance or
comparable provision of prior zoning ordinance; or
any planned development district established
pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance or
prior zoning ordinance. (Added 1-1-83).
B. AMEND 21.0 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, GENERALLY.
21.9 BUILDING SEPARATION
Whether or not located on the same parcel, main
structures shall be constructed and separated in
accordance with Table 592-Fire-Greding-of-Use
Groups 401 Fire Resistance Ratings of Structure
Elements of the BOCA Basis Building code, 1984
Edition or its equivalent in the current edition
of the BOCA Basic Building Code.
C. AMEND 26.0 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, GENERALLY.
26.13 BUILDING SEPARATION
Whether or not located on the same parcel, main
structures shall be constructed and separated in
accordance with Table 592-Fire-6reding-of-EJ9e
Groups 401 Fire Resistance Ratings of Structure
Elements of the BOCA Basis Building c-)de, 1984
Edition or its equivalent in the current edition
of the BOCA Basis Building Code.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00.
DS
John Horne, Secretary
.Qa 7
9-