Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 05 1997 PC MinutesIm 8-5-97 AUGUST 5, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 5, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent: Commissioners Dotson, Finley and Washington. The meeting was called to order at 7.00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of July 15th were approved unanimously as amended. The minutes of July 22nd were approved (3:0:1) as submitted. (Mr. Loewenstein was absent from the July 22nd meeting so he abstained from the vote.) CONSENT AGENDA - Tandem School Field House - Request for waivers to allow one-way circulation and one-way ingress/egress. Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about the stacking space for cars who will be picking up children. Mr. Elliott Fendig, representing the applicant, pointed out on the plan the area that will be available for stacking and estimated there was room for approximately 8 cars at a time. There is space for other cars to by-pass those cars which are waiting. He said he does not envision any problems with this plan. Ms. Huckle was skeptical that there would not be problems when children are being picked up. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the Waiver to allow one- way circulation and one-way ingress/egress for Tandem School Field House be approved. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 97-3 Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge WCBR - Petition to rezone ± 38.2 acres from R-10 [Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A, 7.651 acres] and R-1 and R-6 [Tax Map 78, Parcels 55A4 (part of) and 55A5 (part of) to allow for expansion of an established retirement community] Tax Map 78, Parcels 55A6, 28.39 acres] and to allow professional offices. Property is located on the north side of U.S. Rte 250E extending from Rte. 250E to Ashcroft PRD. All three properties located in the Rivanna /'X/ 8-5-97 2 Magisterial District. Properties are in Neighborhood 3 of the Urban Area and are recommended for Neighborhood and Urban Residential densities in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report explained that the petition also required special use permits for the expansion of the retirement community and for the establishment of professional offices. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning and of the special permits, subject to conditions. [NOTE: The conditions are applicable to the special permits] Mr. Keeler explained that the applicant has proposed a phasing plan, but "does not want to be tied to the chronology of the phasing plan and there needs to be more detailed planning as to building locations and footprints. Also, the ARB does not want this plan to be binding. Therefore, staff is recommending, "as opposed to building locations and sizes as shown on the plan, we are simply recommending approval of the scheduled uses." Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that this request will be subject to the review of the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Tice asked if Monticello is satisfied with this plan. Mr. Keeler said he could not say Monticello is "satisfied," but the wooded area shown on the plan is identified in the Open Space Plan as being important to Monticello's viewshed. Mr. Keeler noted that the County has never officially defined what Monticello's viewshed actually is. Clearly, WCBR is in Monticello's line of sight. The applicant has met with representatives of Monticello. (Mr. Loewenstein later noted that the definition of Monticello's viewshed was a charge given to the Historic Preservation Committee by the Board of Supervisors.) Ms. Huckle asked how much control the ARB has over building materials. She asked if brick could be required. Mr. Keeler said the ARB has more discretion titan the Planning Commission for dealing with site plan issues. He explained: "They can address motif, style, color, texture and materials, together with configuration, orientation and other limitations as to mass, shape, height and location of buildings and structures, location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping and buffering requirements, to the extent those practices are reflected in the design guidelines. Mr. Kamptner said the ARB cannot make recommendations that would conflict with the Building Code. Mr. Keeler said he understands the applicant intends to use brick. He said this plan was presented to the ARB on July 21 st. They feel the plan is not inconsistent with the Entrance Corridor District, but they were very careful in not endorsing the layout of the plan. They will see the site plans as they are submitted. 09 8-5-97 3 The applicant was represented by Michael Matthews. He said the proposal is driven by the fact that WCBR is out of space, and currently has a long waiting list. He said the applicant supports all the elements of the staff report. Mr. Henry Hennan, President and Chief Executive Office of WCBR, also addressed the Commission. He said WCBR has met with Ashcroft and Glenorchy neighbors, and with representatives from Monticello and Peter Jefferson Place. It has always been planned that the facility would provide not only for the retirement community, but also would provide services to the entire community, e.g. day care, wellness programs, and meeting rooms for physicians and others. He said the "building on the front" will be a senior services facility for the entire area. He concluded: "We concur with the staff report in its entirety." Ms. Huckle asked if the new buildings will be made of brick. Mr. Hennan said: "We have discussed that and we would prefer that be the material we use in the future." He said "natural brick" is envisioned, with no plans to paint it white. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said this appears to be a well thought-out plan. He said he can support its expansion because there is a need for this type of facility. Ms. Huckle agreed. She said she was pleased to hear the addition will be less visible than the existing buildings. Staff confirmed that lighting will be addressed by the ARB in its review of the site plan. Mr. Loewenstein added that he feels the ARB process will ensure that the site plan is at it should be. Mr. Loewenstein agreed with Commissioner Nitchmann's and Huckle's comments. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that ZMA 97-3 for Westminster Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, and that the two special permits that are the result of this petition also be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Special use permit approval for the retirement community (as distinguished form professional offices) shall not expire but shall remain in effect so long as approval of ZMA 97-03 remains in effect. The Application Plan shall be considered as conceptual only in terms of site layout of features such as building footprint, building location and road alignment. Approval shall be for uses and limitations as specified in PROJECT DATA on the Application Plan. Setbacks from internal roads and other vehicular areas shall maintain sight distances as determined by the Department of Engineering and 1'1-6 8-5-97 4 Public Works. Perimeter setbacks and yard requirements from abutting residentially zoned properties shall not be less than required for such abutting properties. 2. Special use permit approval for professional offices shall be valid for a period not to exceed five (5) years to commencement of construction. For the purpose of his condition, "commencement of construction" shall be construed to mean the commencement of construction of the office building(s). Gross floor area of the professional office building (s) shall not exceed 15,000 square feet. Professional office usage is restricted to Tax Map 78, parcel 55A as depicted in Attachment C of this report. Minimum setbacks for building and parking form Rte. 250 and external residential areas shall comply with section 21.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The wooded area on the Application Plan shown for passive recreation usage shall be maintained in a natural state except for trail and related improvements as depicted generally on the Application Plan. This area shall not be subject to general building development. 4. Access easement shall be provided to tax Map 78, parcel 55A5 (residue) and Tax Map 78, parcel 55A1 as depicted on Attachment C of this report. WCBR will not be required to participate in construction of any such access. At time of development of those properties, maintenance agreements as required by the private roads regulations of the subdivision ordinance shall be negotiated by the owners of TM 78, Parcel 55A5 and TM 78, Parcel 55A51 and WCBR. Discussion: Mr. Nitchmann said he hopes the ARB will give serious consideration to requiring natural brick. The motion passed unanimously. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 15( 1-456 Review Ragged Mountain Natural Area - Request for review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of a proposal by the Ivy Creek Foundation to establish a natural area at Ragged Mountain Reservoir. The property, described as Tax Map 75, Parcel 1, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Access to the property is from Reservoir Road (State Route 702). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is designated RA, Rural Area, in the Comprehensive Plan. It is not located within a designated development area. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. The report concluded: "This project meets the intent of several of the Comprehensive Plan's general principles, strategies and recommendations. It provides a unique opportunity for public education and recreation close to a number of population centers, without adverse impact to its primary use as /7 8-5-97 5 N%.W a water supply. Although concerns have been expressed by adjacent property owners over potential trespass, staff believes that management of the reservoir area by the Ivy Creek Foundation will actually reduce incidents of trespass and provide a mechanism for more effectively dealing with unauthorized activities. For these reasons, staff believes that this project complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and recommends favorable action by the Planning Commission." Ms. Thomas said the Water Resources Manager has reviewed this proposal and feels "any adverse impacts to the water at the reservoir can be mitigated, or eliminated, through good trail construction." Mr. Hirschman will be watching that closely. Ms. Thomas said staff feels management of this area by the Ivy Creek Foundation will reduce the incidence of trespass which is currently occurring and will offer a way to better deal with unauthorized activities. Staff answers to Commission questions included the following: --Fishing is presently allowed. Some boats (10-12) are left on the banks of the reservoir on a regular basis. There is no easy access point for launching the boats, though there is an undeveloped road which leads from the caretaker's house to the lake. --Ivy Creek Foundation will have someone overseeing the site, similar to the current arrangements at Ivy Creek Natural Area. --Because the City owns the Reservoir, the transfer of ownership of the parking lot property to the City is recommended so as not to have diverse ownership. There is also an insurance issue involved. Though he acknowledged that there are significant differences between this proposal and a pending proposal for a mountain bike facility on private property, Mr. Tice said he is struck by the differences in how staff has looked at the two proposals." He said: "it almost seems like we have a double standard." He asked why a biological natural heritage inventory is not being required for this use, as it was for the mountain bike proposal. Also, the issue of whether the trail use may be a disincentive to agricultural and forestal uses, which is one of the major goals of the Comp Plan, is a component of the mountain bike plan review. That issue is not raised with this proposal. He said he is concerned that these issues are not addressed on public lands, but they are issues on this other proposal. He pointed out that the Ragged Mountain Watershed previously was one of the demonstration areas in the State for sustainable forestry. He stressed that he thinks this proposal is a good one, but he is concerned about how staff has addressed the issues he identified and "whether or not we are applying a double standard to a public property vs. a private property." Ms. Huckle pointed out that no biking is proposed with this application. Mr. Tice said hiking can have significant impacts also. He recognized that a 456 review does not usually have conditions attached. Mr. Keeler said the Code is not explicit about conditions for a 456 review, so if there is something which the Commission feels 8-5-97 0 needs to be incorporated into the project to bring it in compliance with the Plan, such as an inventory, then staff feels it could be included in the Commission's action. He said conditions were attached in the past to power transmission line approvals. Mr. Keeler said the Open Space Plan calls for a county -wide inventory of wildlife. Ms. Thomas addressed Mr. Tice's comments. She said Ivy Creek Foundation (ICF) has proposed a very limited concept so there were some issues which did not have to be examined because the applicant had already eliminated certain possibilities, e.g. timber cutting. Also, the applicants plan is to make this a demonstration area for natural or ecological processes," and to cause a lot of erosion would be directly in opposition to what they are trying to achieve. Also, this is not a business proposal, sc there is not the incentive for the applicant to make the use as profitable as possible. She pointed out that there is nothing which precludes a timber sale at some future time. The City owns the property and is looking for revenue sources like everyone else. The applicant was represented by Dan Beeker, President of the Ivy Creek Foundation. --He corrected Ms. Thomas' described location of the parking lot, i.e. "it is before the gate, before you reach Camp Holiday Trails, on the opposite side of the road." The lot is a private field (2 acres) which has been donated to the ICF. The reason the ownership will be transferred to the City is to keep contiguous ownership with the 980 acres, and for insurance reasons. He confirmed that the parking lot does not drain to the reservoir. It drains into the creek below the reservoir. --Regarding concerns about trespass and potential damage problems which have been raised by neighbors, Mr. Beeker said ICF is not a policing organization. He believed, however, that the "organized presence" of the ICF, which will monitor the trails regularly, will reduce the problems which the neighbors have experienced in the past. He pointed out that this is public property and is not restricted to hiking. Presently, there is no formal parking area and no formal trail system, which results in people wandering all over the property. Having designated trails, well -marked, with printed maps, will encourage hikers to stick to the trails and will, hopefully, decrease trespass onto private property. There is no way to guarantee, however, that some incidents of trespass will not still occur. It is hoped that the creation of a parking lot will decrease the incidence of persons parking on private property. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), the managers of the property, have given the Ednam neighborhood authority to post their entrance and have cars towed away. --There will be no interference with the existing UVA Cross -Country running trails. --Hiking will cause some impact and some erosion. The best possible routes and construction methods will be used to avoid erosion problems. The ICF's goal is to establish a natural area that is "basically left untouched except for hiking, fishing, and passive nature observation. Pets, horses, and mountain bikes will not be allowed. "We feel it is very advantageous to set aside public areas where this does not happen, 8-5-97 7 that it is strictly allowed to evolve as it has for millions of years, basically untouched, and to have the public be able to have access to this public land." --The parking lot area will provide the only entrance and exit to the property and will be posted by ICF. It is hoped adjacent property owners will take the responsibility to post their own property. (Mr. Loewenstein said he hoped the posting will include a list of prohibited activities.) --No advertising campaign is planned for the opening of the property, but ICF will cooperate if the media wishes to cover the opening. Mr. Loewenstein said media coverage would be a good forum for explaining the new rules to the public. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Beeker if he feels the impact from mountain bikes will be greater than from hiking trails. He said ICF's concern about mountain bikes (and horseback riding) is that they cause trail erosion, disturb wildlife, and disturb hikers. He said presently, there is active use of this property by all -terrain vehicles, and illegal hunting is taking place. He said he feels these two activities present a threat to neighbors and ICF feels having a "public presence" on the property will limit these undesirable activities. Ms. Huckle suggested it would be a good idea to have a person present on the property, such as an off -duty police officer, at least for the first week or so, to enforce the new regulations. Mr. Beeker said plans are not yet that detailed, but he agreed it was a good idea. Public comment was invited. The following residents of the Ednam neighborhood addressed the Commission. They expressed concerns about the proposal and described problems which they presently experience. Sam Reilick (President of Ednam Forest Homeowners Association), Bill Ross; and Loretta Bartoletti spoke. Their comments included the following: --It is much easier to access the property from Rookwood Place in Ednam Forest than it will be from the proposed parking lot. The new access from the parking area will be a "challenging trail." Therefore, there is the potential for an increase in what is already an on -going problem, primarily illegal parking along Rookwood Place, and trespass on private property. --It is hoped ICF will include the Ednam homeowners in the deciding the location and design of trails, so that trails are not located close to existing homes. --The development of an organized trail system will result in "more and more people and exposure and potentially more problems for the residents of Ednam Forest. Presently, the "foot" traffic is modest and is primarily joggers and hikers. There is already signage which says "No Biking" and "Foot Traffic Only." --Presently hunting, and overnight camping takes place on the property. --Presently a very large deer population has caused a shortage of understory trees. Existing vegetation (mountain laurel, native azaleas) may suffer from random /"7�7 8-5-97 R1 hiking through the area. It should be strongly encouraged that hikers stick to the trails. It was suggested that ICF seek advice on how to deal with the large deer population. Ms. Bartoletti was opposed to the development of a trail system. She felt the construction of trails is contrary to the protection of a natural area. She said she would rather put up with a few poachers than with thousands of hikers. She did not feel parking on Rookwood was a problem. Mr. Loewenstein thought the fact that prohibited activities will be clearly posted and action will be taken against violators suggests there should be a decrease in problems which the neighbors have been experiencing. Though there may be more people using the property, there should be no illegal activities taking place and therefore there should be fewer problems. Mr. Reilick said he would prefer there be fewer people doing unpermitted activities, than many people doing permitted activities. He said he has not experienced problems with all -terrain vehicles and though he has heard hunters, he has not experienced any problems as the result of hunting activities. Ms. Elizabeth Murray, speaking as a resident of Albemarle County, spoke in support of the proposal. She said discussions about "growth" in Albemarle County should include "growth of the preservation of natural habitat." She asked that the County support this proposal because there need to be more areas of native habitat set aside forever. Mr. Tice asked if Ms. Murray had any ideas for controlling the deer population. Ms. Murray said the rising deer population is a continuing concern which she did not feel qualified to comment on. Ms. Huckle asked if the natural habitat would not be better preserved if hiking trails were not added and a lot more human activity was not introduced to the property. Ms. Murray said she feels there should be "growth of natural areas which are free and open to the public, where these areas can be enjoyed along with the goals of keeping an area as natural as possible." There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice asked Mr. Kamptner whether conditions could be attached to a 456 approval, i.e. if these conditions were attached, then the proposal would be in compliance with the Comp Plan. Specifically, Mr. Tice suggested the following: --The trail layout must conform generally with the proposed plan. --Management will continue to work with adjacent landowners to minimize adverse impacts in the development of trails. --Any significant expansion of trails beyond what was proposed would require another 456 review. l `/5 8-5-97 9 --The ICF conduct a general survey of natural heritage resources and design trails to avoid areas with identified resources. Mr. Tice said he feels these conditions would fall under two areas of the Comp Plan. The Plan clearly states goals to protect the County's surface and groundwater supplies. There is also a goal to protect resource protection --to protect the County's natural scenic and historic resources. He said he feels three of the conditions he proposed clearly address shortcomings of the proposal which would bring it into compliance with the Plan. Also, the Comp Plan in many places speaks to "compatibility with adjacent land uses," which is the purpose of the -condition. Mr. Kamptner said technically a 456 Review is to determine if this proposal is substantially in accord with the Comp Plan. Conditions could be attached if they address apparent inconsistencies with the Comp Plan. He said he feels, based on Mr. Tice's comments, a link could be made to the suggested conditions and compliance with the Plan. Mr. Kamptner said any significant expansion would automatically require another 456 review, so there is no need for that condition. Mr. Keeler said he feels the suggested conditions are clearly related to the environmental aspects of the Plan. He added, however, that most of the concerns expressed by neighbors deal with the operational aspects of the proposal and are not a part of the 456 Review. Mr. Nitchmann asked who addresses the operational aspects of the proposal. Mr. Keeler said that would be the responsibility of the owner of the property. Mr. Keeler did not know if any complaints have been filed with the City. He said the County cannot force the City to address operational concerns. Mr. Kamptner said he assumed there will be an agreement between the City and the ICF regarding this use. Mr. Beeker said an agreement will be forthcoming, but the proposal is that the area remain just as Ivy Creek, with the City and County each paying equal shares for the materials used, and the ICF will provide the physical labor. Mr. Beeker pointed out that a difference between this area and Ivy Creek is that the City owns this area 100%, whereas the City and County together own Ivy Creek. Mr. Kamptner said the County does not play a significant role in the City's use of City land. The County's connection is with planning and land use, so the County should impose any conditions at this stage. Ms. Thomas said the parking lot will be required to go through site plan review. Mr. Hirschman, the Water Resources Manager (working half for RWSA and half for the County and the City) will closely monitor the plans. Mr. Nitchmann asked why a representative of the City was not present to comment on this proposal. He was concerned that the County's approval was overriding the City's rights. Having heard the comment that 30,000 people use the Ivy Creek area yearly, err he said this proposal could result in a significant increase in use of this property. He &7 8-5-97 10 was concerned about the impact on nearby residences. He felt strongly comment should be received from the City prior to Commission action, particularly to answer questions about how to deal with unauthorized use of the land. It was noted that City Council already approved this proposal. Mr. Nitchmann asked if any property owners had been present at that meeting to express their concerns. Ms. Thomas pointed out that the City does not have a management role in the operation of the Ragged Mt. Reservoir. It has delegated that role to the RWSA. RWSA does not take an active management role in the reservoir properties. She doubts that the City intends to take on a management role. The RWSA manages the reservoirs from the standpoint of water quality and supply and not from the recreational aspect. She said she feels this is the proper forum for these issues and, in her opinion, this proposal will result in a better management situation because the ICF will assume that management role. In response to Mr. Loewenstein's questions, Mr. Beeker said the parking lot at Ivy Creek is at least twice as large as is proposed here. He pointed out that Ivy Creek is a very different area than Ragged Mt. It is much less rugged, and it is much more conveniently located. It is believed Ragged Mt.'s usage will be far less than Ivy Creek. Mr. Beeker said ICF has been through a similar public meeting with City Council. Though they do not take an active management role, they are extremely concerned about what takes place on the property. They have given approval for the initial trail around the reservoir and a secondary trail around the upper reservoir only. Further trails will have to be reviewed by the City Attorney and the City Parks Review Board. He stressed that the meeting was open to the public and only one person had spoken. That person's comments had been similar to Ms. Bartoletti's. Mr. Beeker said ICF is sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors and realizes that "introducing people into a pristine area will not necessarily benefit the area, but there is a tremendous value to having these areas open to the public, in adding to the quality of life in this area, and, from Ivy Creek's perspective, in protecting this area." He pointed out that there are no guarantees that this area cannot be sold, timbered or developed in the future. That is totally the decision of City Council. He said the best protection of the area is public outcry and ICF hopes to develop a public love for this area, while at the same time being very sensitive to any potential damage. Ms. Huckle commented that though she could support the concept of a natural area for use of urban residents, she is very concerned about the fact that this a drinking water impoundment and the City and the urbanized County cannot afford to lose any of the capacity, as has happened with the Rivanna Reservoir. She said she cannot support an activity which will add silt and other problems to this drinking water impoundment. She said that while it is wonderful that there is so much concern about 8-5-97 11 nature and the feeling there should be a public outcry to protect nature, there has not been a public outcry that our water resources are dwindling rapidly. Mr. Nitchmann said he is very concerned that no one wants to accept the responsibility for this 900+ acres of property. No one is ready to ensure that the land is well kept and the neighbors' rights are respected. He said if this were a commercial operation there would be a long list of conditions attached. He said he wants more information on who is going to control this use. He concluded he could not support this proposal at this time. He said he wanted more information --from the City and the RWSA--as to why they don't want to take responsibility for this property. Mr. Tice said he agrees with many of Mr. Nitchmann's concerns, particularly that this proposal has been reviewed differently than it would have been if it were a private proposal. However, he said he believes this proposal is from someone who is proposing to take over the management of the property, and it is someone who has a proven track record for this type of management. Being public property, he said he feels there are ways to address potential problems, such as making those problems known to City Council. There was a discussion as to whether or not there is sufficient time to allow a deferral of the item so that the questions raised by Mr. Nitchmann could be answered. Ms. Thomas said the applicant has already voluntarily extended the 60-day time period to allow the item to be scheduled tonight. Mr. Kamptner said any further extension would have to be voluntarily agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Loewenstein said he is satisfied that the ICF will do a much better job of management than currently is taking place and, with the conditions suggested by Mr. Tice, the proposal can be found to comply with the Comp Plan. However, he said he too would like to have some documentation from the City, the RWSA and the Water Resources Manager, "to say more than the staff report is able to state with authority." He said he would like to see a written statement from Mr. Hirschman as to why he feels the management of water problems will decrease as a result of this use. Mr. Beeker said though the applicant is eager to move forward, the concerns of the Commission are understood. He agreed to a 2-week extension. Mr. Nitchmann again repeated his concern: "That someone needs to answer the basic question of who is responsible for this land." He pointed out that there are other similar properties in the county where this is also an issue. He said citizens deserve the right to know who they can call if problems occur. Mr. Beeker said the RWSA has not denied responsibility for the property, but there are limits to what they can do. "They are not saying we are not responsible for it. They are saying 'we do not own it; the City owns it."' Their job is to protect the public water /5 8-5-97 12 supply and they are not shrinking from that responsibility. It is not their business to open this up to the public as a recreation area. "They are saying this is beyond their bounds and the are right in saying that." Mr. Nitchmann agreed with Mr. Beeker's comments but again said "somebody has to take some responsibility." He stressed that he is speaking of all three entities --the City, the County and the RWSA. Mr. Loewenstein said he would also like to hear the RWSA say: "This is our responsibility and we feel this plan would not negatively impact the water resources." He said he would also like this assurance from Mr. Hirschman. Ms. Thomas called attention to a memo from Mr. Hirschman to Mr. Petrini, which predated the RWSA's consideration of this proposal. It was not included in the staff report because it is more than a year old and was confirmed when the RWSA voted. Mr. Beeker said he feels most of the documentation requested by the Commission already exists. Mr. Keeler said two weeks should be a sufficient amount of time for staff to respond to the Commission's requests. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the 456 Review for the Ragged Mountain Natural Area be deferred to August 19, 1997. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Loewenstein said the public hearing will not be reopened on the 19th. SDP 97-054 Keswick Request for No Delineation of Parking - The Keswick Estate requests to modify the site plans for the Inn, Clubhouse, and Hideaway to allow for no delineation of parking. The site, described as Tax Map 80, Parcels 8Z, 9 and 9A, is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Route 744 [Hacktown Road] and 731 [Keswick Road]. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is not located in a designated development area [Rural Area 2]. Because Mr. Tice needed to leave the meeting early, it was decided a staff presentation would not be necessary for this item. (The Commission had already read the staff report prior to the meeting.) Staff was recommending denial of the request. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steven Beaumont. He described the history of the Keswick development. He explained that the vast majority of guests are "valet parked." Parking for large events is handled either by valet parking or is staff directed. He said there have never been any parking problems, nor have there been any safety or circulation problems. For those events where it is known there will be insufficient parking available, specific arrangements are made to accommodate parking in other areas. Staff keeps track of the number of vehicles. Guests are then transported to 8-5-97 13 the Hotel or the Club. The request for no delineation of parking spaces is to "maintain the rural country setting throughout the Estate." Public comment was invited. None was offered and the item was placed before the Commission. No concerns about the request were expressed by the Commission. Ms. Huckle said it appears the applicant's method has been working and she sympathized with the applicant's desire not to have the white lines. Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Tice agreed. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that a waiver be granted for SDP 97-054 (Keswick) to allow undelineated parking. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30. DA, i -- - f" V. Wayne Cilimberg ecr tary W