HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 08 1995 PC Minutes��l
AUGUST 8, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
August 8, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann;
Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present
were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.
David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Imhoff.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of July 25, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the August 2, 1995 Board of
Supervisors meeting.
SP-96-23 Mark and Vicki Gresge - Petition to establish a 25-seat restaurant on
approximately 6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. [10.2.2(27)] Property, described as
Tax Map 73, Parcel 33A, and known as Woodstock Hall is located on the south side
of Route 637 approximately 400 feet east of Route 708 in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area
3).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Referring to condition No. 6 related to signage, Ms. Huckle asked who would make
the determination that the signage is appropriate. Mr. Fritz explained that the Zoning
Administrator will interpret and enforce that provision.
The applicants, Mark and Vicki Gresge, offered to answer Commission questions.
Answers to specific questions included the following:
--Existing lighting in the parking area consists of two, lantern -like lamps. There
is no plan, at this time, for additional lighting. If any should be necessary in the future,
it will be of a type which is in character with the historic nature of the property. (Staff
confirmed that extra lighting would require an amendment to the site plan.)
--A site plan will not be required because no changes to the site will be
necessary, with the exception of upgrading the surface of the parking area. The
surface may be improved in a variety of ways subject to the Engineering Department's
approval of a method which is equivalent to the standard in the Zoning Ordinance.
Possibilities include conventional asphalt or brownstone.
I:r
8-8-95 2
--The size of the septic fields will have to be increased. The exact size of the
fields is yet to be determined.
--Trash recepticals are currently contained in a small shed. Some additional
containers may be necessary. The trash is collected bi-weekly by a local collector.
--A zoning clearance will be required, on a case -by -case basis, for outdoor
functions, to insure there is adequate parking and restroom facilities. The new Sound
Ordinance, which is being studied, has very specific sound standards for outdoor
activities. (Mr. Fritz advised the Commission that they could add a condition
restricting outdoor activities if so desired, or, the Commission could require a zoning
clearance for outdoor activities.) Mr. Dotson felt it was not unusual for a Country Inn
to host weddings and receptions. He suggested that there could be limitations, such
as between the hours of 12 to 5, a maximum of 25 people and no amplified sound.
He thought making this a part of the Special Permit might save a lot of "red tape" for
everyone.
--The applicants "envision what is in keeping with the neighborhood and the
history of the building --probably no amplified music, possibly a stringed quartet, and
probably candles as outdoor lighting." Numbers will be limited by the amount of
parking which is available.
--The nearest neighbor is 250 feet.
--Functions envisioned in addition to wedding receptions include retreats for
local businesses.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Bruce Davenport, the nearest neighboring property owner, addressed the
Commission. He expressed concerns about the possibility of amplified music and
lighting which may accompany outside events, including regular outside dining. He
said "occasional light music" would be acceptable. He asked if the conditions placed
on this permit would also apply to subsequent owners of the property. (Mr. Blue
explained that the permit will run with the land.)
The applicants were allowed to address some of Mr. Davenport's questions. They
said their plan is to serve dinner, Thursday through Saturday, from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.,
and to "turn the tables twice." (Breakfast is served to overnight Inn guests only.)
Outside music is not anticipated at this time, but there will be "light" music inside. Mr.
Gresge understood that an outside event will require a zoning clearance.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the applicant had any objection to a condition restricting
amplified sound. Mr. Gresge responded: "No objection."
Mr. Dotson suggested the following condition: "Wedding receptions or similar
functions may be allowed subject to approval and conditions established by the Zoning
%9
8-8-95 3
Administrator. No amplified sound will be allowed." The applicants had no objection
to such a condition.
Mr. Fritz asked if Mr. Dotson wanted to include a reference to exterior lighting in the
added condition. Mr. Dotson replied that though he feels outside lighting is a concern,
he is satisfied because any additional lighting will require staffs review of a site plan.
Mr. Dotson noted that one of the advantages of this type of use is that it makes a
historic structure available to the public. As a private residence it would be off limits to
the public.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that SP-95-23 for Mark and Vicki Gresge be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Use shall not commence until such time as approval has been obtained from the
Health Department and the Building Official.
2. Use shall not commence until such time as the parking area has been improved in
accord with the provisions of Section 4.12.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Use shall not commence until such time as the Zoning Administrator has
determined that adequate parking exists.
4. Use is limited to a 25 seat restaurant and four (4) rooms for overnight travellers.
5. Structure is to be restored and maintained in the architectural character of the
period in accordance with the guidelines established by the National Register of
Historic Places.
6. All signage is to be of a design appropriate to the architecture of the building.
7. Wedding receptions or similar functions may be allowed subject to approval and
conditions established by the Zoning Administrator. No amplified sound will be
allowed.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
Comprehensive Plan - Review of Utilities and Community Facilities
,O
En
8-8-95 4
Mr. Benish began the discussion with a review of the Public Facilities section (page 7
of the staff report).
Mr. Blue asked if staff was recommending any changes to the introduction of the
Community Facility section (Attachment A of the staff report). Mr. Benish said no
changes were proposed. Referring to paragraph one of the Community Facility
section, Mr. Blue asked why solid waste facilities were included, but highway and
sewer and water utilities are not. He asked staff to explain.the "separation," which he
thought did not seem reasonable as it currently reads. Mr. Blue wondered if the solid
waste element ought to be separated out also. Mr. Benish explained that staff
envisioned two documents which would cover all these facilities, with the solid waste
component included in the Community Facilities section, and the Master Utilities Study
covering the utilities. Transportation is handled thought the Six -Year, Secondary and
Primary Road Planning Process, and by CATS. Mr. Blue found it difficult to
understand why solid waste would not also be separated out because there is now a
separate Authority for solid waste. He asked, also, why there is no reference to the
Airport Authority. (Staff said the airport will be covered under Transportation.)
Mr. Blue, referring to No. 2 on page .1 of the Community Facility Plan (Attachment A of
the Staff report), said he felt that the last sentence [Of these, the preservation of
agricultural and forestal activities is the highest priority.] should not be included. He
felt the other items listed are, at least, of equal importance. Ms. Huckle said she
disagreed with Mr. Blue. She felt that "agricultural preservation protects all the
others." Mr. Blue asked if other Commissioners agreed with Ms. Huckte. Mr. Jenkins
responded: "How does making that statement influence the rest of the document?"
Mr. Blue felt the statement could be used as a basis for denying proposals which are
not preserving agricultural and forestal activities. Mr. Blue stressed that he agreed
that the preservation of agricultural and forestal activities is important, but he did not
feel it is more important than anything else. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this
statement is exactly as it appears in the current Comp Plan. He said a discussion of
the Rural Areas purpose will take place this fall and this statement could possibly be
changed at that time. Mr. Dotson commented: "I have no problem with grappling with
the question when we take it up under the Rural Areas discussion."
Mr. Dotson asked about the status of the Fiscal Impact Model. Mr. Cilimberg said the
model is complete, but it is now being reviewed to make certain that it covers all that
was called for in the contract. Mr. Dotson felt the Model was very "central to the
discussion of public utilities."
Mr. Dotson said he felt the Community Facilities section was much too wordy, i.e. "it
seemed to go on, and on, and on." He suggested it should be a goal of the entire
Plan to delete (or combine) some sections as has been proposed here.
,j /
8-8-95 5
Mr. Benish reported that one public request was received from Ms. Murray. Ms.
Murray asked that the County consider the use of the Preddy Creek property (Rt. 641)
for a possible natural area. Staffs recommendation is that the county would need to
undertake a general evaluation of the site to determine the most appropriate use. The
Board would have to direct staff to do such a study. Mr. Dotson said he thought a
study would make sense. There was a discussion as to when such a study should
be undertaken. Mr. Cilimberg said that if the Commission recommended, in the
adoption of this Comp Plan, that this question be studied, then it will probably become
a work item next year. He added that he hoped there could be some finalization of
the Greenway conceptions before a new study is started on another facility. Mr.
Cilimberg suggested this could be an Action Item in the new Comp Plan. Mr.
Nitchmann asked how it is determined whether this type of study is worthwhile in
terms of expense and staff time. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board and Commission set
the priorities for these studies, and it is not so much an evaluation of staff time as it is
"a passing along of items they feel need to be addressed," and how pressing those
items are. Mr. Blue and Mr. Dotson expressed support for Mr. Cilimberg's suggestion
that the Preddy Creek issue be included as an Action Item with the new Comp Plan.
There were no objections to this suggestion.
The discussion then returned to the beginning of the staff report.
liftw Ms. Huckle said she found the report confusing in that she could not tell what was
background, what was to be deleted, what the new Plan will contain, etc. Mr. Benish
explained that the first page was primarily an explanation of what the report intended
to cover.
Commission comments on individual statements in the report were as follows:
Page 2
Revised Objective: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban Areas,
Communities and Villages.
Ms. Huckle recalled previous discussions about changing the word provide to
something else. She felt the word provide gives the impression that county citizens
will be "anteing up." She also strongly objected to Villages being included in this
statement. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out: "That was your (i.e. the Commission's)
decision. You've already said, in your guiding principles, that you wanted villages only
if they were going to be served by public water and sewer." Ms. Huckle said she felt
this statement could give somebody the idea that "you're going to run a water line out
to Earlysville." Ms. Huckle suggested the word require be substituted for provide. Mr.
Nitchmann said: "I feel it is necessary, at some point in time, that the county does
provide public water and sewer services to the growth area. If we really want to have
the growth within the growth area, at some point in time we have to stop depending
,2 A
8-8-95 6
on the developers to carry the bill for that. It really concerns me to say 'provide it to
the villages,' though, because the villages may not be contiguous to the growth area."
Mr. Cilimberg explained that this objective is simply saying that you want certain areas
to have water and sewer service. It is not intended to state that the service will be
provided at a public or a private cost. What it says is that these areas should have
public water and sewer. It was finally decided the objective would read: Urban Areas,
Communities and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer.
Mr. Dotson wanted the definition of "public" water to be clear. He wondered if the
statement should be "publicly owned" water or should it say "Albemarle County
Service Authority" water. It was decided the objective would say: "..served by ACSA
public water and sewer."
Referring to the substantial number of privately owned community water systems
which exist in the county, Mr. Dotson suggested that there be some reference to and
recognition of managing and protecting these systems. He said: "We don't want to
ignore these systems; we don't want to add to them, but we have a substantial
number in the county and they should be acknowledged and we should be alerted to
the (fact that) issues can arise (in relation) to the kinds of land uses around them."
Mr. Blue said he was not opposed to a general statement, but he questioned whether
there is adequate technology available to protect them.
Mr. Benish agreed that adding a section on "non-public, public utilities" was
appropriate. Staff envisions an inventory of these community systems. Mr. Benish
asked if there was a consensus on this suggestion. Mr. Jenkins said: "1 think it
sounds good, but I certainly, as a Commissioner, would not like to be sitting here
listening to somebody tell us all the reasons why we can't do something because we
now haven't done the study of the groundwater, such as we did in North Garden. So,
to the extent that this opens that door, that we now have to have that study or we
can't approve X, Y, Z,--I'm certainly for having the water and keeping the water --but
these activists groups and the approach they take to getting their point across is
sometimes a little disturbing. And to the degree that this opens that door, or doesn't
open it, I have a little concern."
Mr. Dotson said he saw this as being more information which would be available and it
would be up to the Commission to do what it saw fit with the information.
Mr. Nitchmann said he was not opposed to a groundwater study, but he shared some
of Mr. Jenkins' concerns that such a study not be used as a reason to "stonewall
something."
.23
8-8-95 7
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kamptner: "Some of these studies have been proven to be not
too accurate. Where does that leave us; if we turn something down because of some
study that may not be too accurate, where does that leave us legally?" Mr. Kamptner
replied: "It is probably no different from a public hearing where facts may be
misrepresented. The proponents of the particular position need to provide the
evidence and you simply weigh the evidence that's there. I really don't know how to
answer that any other way."
Page 2
Strategy: Allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside the designated Growth Area
boundaries in cases where: (1) the property is adjacent to existing lines, and (2)
public health and safety is endangered.
Referring to a statement in staffs comment --"The strategy above does not have
criteria to help determine what constitutes a health and safety issue. As such, many
requests fall into a 'grey' area...." --Mr. Nitchmann did not understand what staff meant
by "grey" area. He did not feel health and safety issues were difficult to define. Mr.
Benish said there have been some inconsistencies in the past and there have been
cases which have not been "clear cut." Mr. Nitchmann thought it would be difficult to
come up with criteria to cover every possible situation. Mr. Cilimberg said some
situations may still be judgment calls and he acknowledged that staff does not know
yet if criteria can be established which will "provide for better judgment." Staff was
asking the Commission whether or not staff should try to develop criteria which will
help determine what constitutes a public health and safety issue. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that changes in jurisdictional areas now are determined by Board decision.
Mr. Nitchmann felt the strategy was acceptable as presented and determinations
about public health and safety should be addressed individually, as they occur. No
Commissioners expressed disagreement with Mr. Nitchmann.
Page 3
There was no objection to staffs suggestion to add "Villages" to the strategy to
Prohibit private central water and sewer systems in Urban Neighborhoods and
Communities.
Pages 3 and 4
Staff explained there was no reason to include the section on "Water and Sewer
Service to the Villages," given the revised objective on page 2, i.e. Urban Areas,
Communities and Villages are to be served by ACSA public water and sewer. The
Commission agreed.
Pages 4 and 5
`2 `f
8-8-95
Water and Sewer Service to the Rural Area
Mr. Dotson questioned why the staff report says "The ACSA discourages County
approval of independent central water and sewer systems in the Rural Area, whereas
a previous strategy says to "Prohibit private central water and sewer systems in Urban
Neighborhoods and Communities." Mr. Cilimberg explained the Board had decided,
during the last Comp Plan Review, that there may be times when a central system is
necessary, e.g. in rural subdivisions with individual systems which might fail. Mr. Blue
thought a way to prevent these situations from happening would be to prevent 2-acre
subdivisions in the Rural Areas, other than the 5 lots by -right, though even those small
5-lot developments could also encounter problems. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "That's
the land use policy that you have." Mr. Dotson noted that the instances cited by staff
seem to be saying that these be allowed "as a remediation--a solution to a failure."
He wondered if the strategy should state that specifically. As an example of the effect
of the word "prohibit," Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that if wording in the current Plan had
been to "prohibit" independent systems in the Rural Areas, then the upgrade of the
Keswick system (in 1991) would not have been allowed, because staffs position would
have been negative, based on the Comp Plan's recommendation. Mr. Blue said if the
situation described by Mr. Cilimberg had occurred, there might have been pressure to
change Keswick from a Rural Area to a Village as he felt it should have been. Mr.
Cilimberg said staff had made that suggestion to the applicant, but it had not been
pursued. Mr. Dotson suggested that the Strategy could say: "At the time of initial
development, prohibit ....," with additional wording describing that they may be
approved "in order to solve" problems when necessary, justified by health and safety
concerns. Ms. Huckle agreed with Mr. Dotson's suggestion. Mr. Nitchmann was
concerned about the use of the term "prohibit." He asked what would happen if a
developer was prepared to build a system, to ACSA requirements, to serve a large
development. Would the use of the word "prohibit" mean that the developer's
proposal could not even be discussed. Mr. Benish said his response to such a
proposal would be to recommend that the developer seek a Village designation for the
property, which would make the area a part of the growth area (i.e. a rezoning). Mr.
Nitchmann said he just wanted to make sure that such a proposal could be
considered. Mr. Cilimberg reminded Mr. Nitchmann that earlier in the meeting the
Commission had said the policy for growth areas is to be that they are to be served by
ACSA utilities. Mr. Cilimberg concluded: "By what you've said tonight, we don't see
any more private, central systems for Albemarle County, either in growth areas or the
rural areas." Mr. Blue said: "But that doesn't prohibit what Glenmore did, and I think
that is what Mr. Nitchmann is talking about." Mr. Cilimberg explained: "If, in fact, (Mr.
Nitchmann) is talking about a situation where someone is developing out and they are
able to build and are going to dedicate the utilities to the public provider, which is the
Service Authority, then that meets the intent of the Plan. But if, in fact, you are going
to have a Keswick type of system (privately owned), then, no, that won't meet the
intent of the Plan." Mr. Blue concluded: "Practically speaking, it would prohibit what
(Mr. Nitchmann) is talking about." Mr. Nitchmann summarized: "I guess what you're
'4�
8-8-95 9
saying here tonight is we have completely prohibited private water and sewer systems
in the County." Mr. Cilimberg qualified: "New ones." Mr. Blue said: "They are
effectively prohibited in the Rural Areas anyway because of the land use policy."
Page 5
The Commission offered no comment on the Private Utilities section.
The Commission concluded it's discussion and invited public comment.
Ms. Kathryn Hobbs, representing the League of Women Voters, addressed the
Commission. She read a statement which listed recommendations for changes to the
Utilities and Water Resources Sections of the Comp Plan. Her statement is made a
part of these minutes as Attachment A.
It was noted that as a result of the Commission's discussion, items 2 (a), 2(b), 5 and
the second question on page 2 of the League's statement, are now "non -issues."
Mr. Nitchmann asked Ms. Hobbs exactly who the "we" is in her statement. He asked
if these items were adopted by the League by a majority vote of all the local members
of the organization or was it the recommendation of a Committee. Ms. Hobbs
explained that the recommendations are taken from guidelines of the State and
National organizations of the league of Women Voters. She said the entire local
League membership did not vote on these items individually.
Miscellaneous
Mr. Benish said he had received a letter from the Perrys, owners of property on Proffit
Road. The letter expresses their desire that their land not be included in the growth
area.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
M
-11