HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 11 1994 PC MinutesI U-1 I-94
OCTOBER 11, 1994
The Albemarle County Plying Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 11,
1994, Roost 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair, Mr_ Tony Blue, Vice Chair Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Mr. Bryce
Dotson; Mr. Torn Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr.
Wayne Cilitrmberg, Director of Pi nning & Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior
Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr. Ron Lilly, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief
of Planning; and Mr. Lary Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Imhoff,
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established.
CONSENT AGENDA
bcm- fffte.Samag Minmor Site. . Plan Amendment - Request to allow speed bumps at Albemarle
Square. Shopping Center.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, seconded by M..r. Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be
approver. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 94-28 Mount Amos Baptist Church - Proposal to add a fellowship hall to an existing
church building. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and contains 1.12 ages. The
property, described as Tax Map 29, parcel 46, is located on the east side of Route 601., about
1/2 mile south of Free Union, in the White Ball Magisterial District and is included in Rural
Area T_
Mr. Tilly presented the staff report_ Staff was recommending approval of the request, subject
to conditions.
The staff report explained that the main issue to be addressed by the Commission was related
to the entrances. VDOT was recommending that the eastern entrance be closed due to
inadequate sight distance and that the western entrance be upgraded to commercial standards.
Staff agreed that the eastern entrance should either be closed or at least changed to provide
adequate sight distance. But based on considerations related to size of the church building
and congregation, remoteness from growth areas. and low population density. staff did not
support VDOT's recommendation regarding the upgrading of the western entrance. Because
the applicant was opposed to closing the eastern entrance entirely, staff felt an option for the
eastern entrance would be to limit its usage to emergency or special use only, in conjunction
with traffic control on Rt. 601.
Mr. Blue asked if col haderation had been given to making the eastern access an "entrance
only." Mr. Lilly responded that possibility had been considered but the concern is not only
%115-
10-II-94
with sight distance, but also with inadequate stopping distance. Mr. Lilly agreed, however,
that Mr. Blue's suggestion was "preferrable to having it both ways." W. Blue had visited the
site and felt the turning -in situation was not quite as bad as the exciting situation.
It was determined no plumbing was planned for the structure.
Referring to condition No. 2, Mr. Nitchmann asked for a definition of the term "youth
groups." Mr. Nitchmann was concerned about the restriction against youth groups. Mr. Lilly
explained that the condition was meant to refer to "non -congregational activities," i.e_ a youth
group not related to the congregation would be prohibited without amendment to the special
permit, but a youth group that is directly related to the congregation would not be prohibited.
Mr. Nitchmann suggested that at some future time there may be a need for a meeting place
for a community youth activity and he felt a church is a good site for youth activity. He was
opposed to the limitation on youth groups, whether congregational or not. Mr. Nitchmann
pointed out that having to go through the process, including the expense, of amending the
special permit might be enough of a deterrent to make the applicant unwilling to request such
a change.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Kevin Cox. He explained that the church is quite
small, with a small congregation. He agreed that the eastern entrance is dangerous as an exit,
but he did not feel it was dangerous when used as an entrance only. He explained the church
wishes to retain the use of the entrance as an entrance -only. He stated that no one currently
uses the eastern access as an exit. He stated the church is agreeable to placing signage on the
eastern entrance restricting its usage to entrance -only. He stated the church had no opposition
to the other suggested conditions, though he hoped the church would be able to expand its
community role at some future time without having to amend the special permit.
There being no public comment, the .matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann expressed support for the request and was in favor of allowing the eastern
entrance to remain open, provided it is used as an entrance only, and is designated as such.
He also was in favor of deleting the restriction against youth groups.
Ms. Huckle agreed that support for youth activities was important, but she felt the restriction
should remain because an intensity of use might create the need for the facilities to be
changed which should require an amendment to the permit.
Mr. Blue felt the primary concern was with a change which might result in a daily activity.
He suggested that condition 2 be amended to eliminate the restriction against youth groups
and food service, but retaining the restriction against day care.
Mr. Dotson felt the key word was "non -congregational" because even if youth group is
eliminated from the condition, it would still be prohibited if the group was non -
congregational.
/Alqo
10-11-94
Mr. Blue expressed concern about not following VDOT's recommendation on the eastern
entrance. He felt the Commission would feel responsible if an accident were to happen.
However, he felt it would be acceptable if the eastern entrance were restricted to use as an
entrance only, with a NO EXIT sign placed on it.
Mr. Dotson asked if Mr. Blue intended that the eastern entrance not be used as an exit for
any reason, e.g_ could it be used for events such as funerals? Mr. Blue felt there was plenty
of room to turn around on the site and thus it would not be necessary to exit at the eastern
entrance. (Mr. Cox interjected that during funerals there are County police and morticians
directing traffic out the western entrance.)
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that SP-94-28 for Mount Amos Baptis Church be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Church expansion limited to not more than 1,200 square feet.
2. Usage of the church to be limited to worship and related services only. Use of the church
for non -congregational activities shall warrant amendment of this special use permit.
3. Use of the eastern access shall be restricted to entrance only. NO EXIT signage shall be
placed on the eastern access.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA 94-09 Ja !el Industries, Inc. and John. E. Campbell - Proposal to amend the proffers of
ZMA 88-11 to delete the requirement of two points of access and to have no connection
between the Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia: developments. Property, described as Tax Map
90D, Parcel A is the location of the Lake Reynovia development. This site is zoned R-4,
Residential (proffered) and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is
recommended for medium density residential (4.01 to 10 dwelling units per acre) in
Neighborhood 5.
Ms. Vaughan excused herself from participation in this item due to a possible conflict of
interest.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff is unable to identify any
engineering reasons for removal of the proffer requiring connection to Mill Creek. The
elimination of the access would be contrary to provisions of the Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances and good planning practices. For these reasons staff recommends denial of ZMA-
94-09."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Driver. He explained the history of the project.
His comments included the following:
/417
10-11-94 4
-- Gristmill Drive (Mill Creek) was constructed first. Reynovia Drive was later
required to connect to Gristmill, without any consideration given to the substantial amount of
cut and fill that would be required. (Approximately 10 feet of cut from the center line will
be required.) The road was designed prior to the final plat for Mill Creek. Typically with
subdivision plans, temporary construction easements are not provided or called for because
the lots are usually sold after the road is built.
--Mill Creek was developed by a different developer (i.e. different from the Lake
Reynovia developer), with small lots. This applicant is now concerned about the impact of
this road construction on two lots. To build the road as designed would result in
encroachment considerably beyond the right-of-way line on each side of the road.
--There may be rock present in this area which will require blasting_ Blasting in this
vicinity would not be recommended.
--Construction of the road would cause the removal of five trees, 8" to 18" in
diameter.
--The homeowners of both subdivisions are opposed to the road connection.
--There will be an increased cost to the Lake Reynovia developer if this connection is
closed, "in terms of upgrading the existing paved road."
--Closing of this connection will have no negative impact on the intersection; with -
Avon Street. No additional turn lanes will be required, though it is expected that the vehicle
trips/day would increase by approximately 200.
--VDOT is neutral on the issue of eliminating the p . necti€an.
--Though the applicant recognizes this type of connection is good planning procedure
under ordinary circumstances, the applicant feels this situation is an exception because of the
difficulty in making this connection on property that is owned by others and the severity of
the degree of cut that would be required to make the connection.
--if the Commission feels there should be some type of connection for emergency
purposes, the applicant is willing to consider putting in a "lesser connection... with a narrower
road."
--Eliminating this connection will not negatively impact Mill Creek North in terms of
connection to public roads. There still exists a connection to Rt. 742 and there will still be a
connection to the Southern Parkway.
Ms. Huckle referred to a statement made in a letter from Jack Kelsey (County Engineering
Department) which said that "these easements were not retained by the applicant during the
development of Mill Creek." She asked for an explanation of that statement. Mt'. Driver
responded: "There was some relatively ambiguous language that was part of a legal
document that was recorded when Mill Creek and Reynovia were sold as separate
subdivisions. As a result of the ambiguity in the language regarding cross -easements between
the two subdivisions, it wasn`t clear whether or not an easement would need to be recorded
on an easement plat for that purpose. In addition to that, generally, construction easements
are not shown on subdivision road plans because the road is generally built prior to the lots
being sold...."
i�8
10-11-94 S
Respondmg to Mr. Driver`s statement, W Blue commented: " I think that`s actually the
problem. f think- this happens all- the time and it shouldn't: The legal ambiguity when the
two subdivisions were split up is a separate matter. But when this first subdivision was put
to record —Mill Creek --;they should have retained those easements even though they weren`t on
constructions plans_ If the applicant knew he wasn't going to construct it, all the more
reasons to have shown those easements for future construction. I realize that happens a lot,
but it's always wrong. In my opinion, that's not a good enough reason."
Having visited the site, Mr. Blue did not think there would: he much impact to the lot on the
left. He, felt the lot on the right would be more effocted. Mr. Blue agmcd that trees would
be lost and he understood that the residents "would just as soon not have -it," but he felt it
was a question of good planning. He disagreed with Mr. Driver's basis for feeling this was a
unique situation. Mr. Blue concluded: "Somebody made a mistake in the past by not having
these easements on there, and it may be that you can't get thetas and if we require it and you
make a bona fide effort to get those easements and you can't do it, then it's a different
ballgame." Mr. Driver stated that the ability to acquire the easements is unknown at this
point, but the applicant is sure that the connection will have a significant impact to the
properties. Mr. Blue pointed out that the owner (of the lots in question) should have known
that there would eventually be a road there. Mr. Driver responded: "That's true, they should
have known, but whether they were notified, we don't know." Mr. Driver pointed out that
generally, because of the impact, there would not be lots this small adjacent to this size
roadway.
Mr. Driver explained further: "These road plans were prepared and submitted to the County
Engineering Department and to VDOT for approval and subsequently the County Planning
Department reviewed the final plat for Mill Creek after the plans for the road. There was no
mention at that point...(sentence not completed)." Mr. Blue responded: "There's enough
blame to go around. 1 think the County was remiss at that point in not catching that, but I
think the engineer, or whoever drew the plat, was remiss in not putting it on in the first
place." Mr. Blue said he could think of "almost no instance" where you could have
developed Reynovia so that you could have gone through there high enough so that you
wouldn't have had to have those slope easements." Mr. Driver responded: "Right. And that's
one condition that we didn't have control over and the fact that Gristmill Drive was designed
previously. We were tying into a previous design, thus requiring the 10 feet of cut."
Mr. Driver stated that the applicant is looking at the question of "what is the benefit of
having the connection?" It does not effect the traffic or road or pavement design in Mill
Creek. Mr. Blue pointed out that people are blaming the overcrowding of Rt. 29, in part,
because subdivisions were not connected which would have allowed other ways to get into
the urban area. Mr. Blue felt that some residents of these two subdivisions will find it
inconvenient to have to go out to Avon Street in order to visit each other. Mr. Blue agreed
that it did not make touch difference in the way the traffic "gets out onto the streets, but it
makes a difference in. the interconnection of the neighborhoods," which he felt was good
planning.
14q
10-11-94 6
Ms. Huckle pointed out that Avon Street will become more heavily travelled as time goes on
and though there is no problem now, there may be one later an.
Mr. Driver pointed out that NO Creek South is substantially a higher -approved unit count,
yet it only has one road connection to Avon Street. He did not feel that having only one road
connection was detrimental to a subdivision. Regarding the "interplay" between the two
subdivisions, he deferred to the homeowners present for comment.
Mr. Dotson asked about the temporary construction easement. He asked: "What's the
temporary aspect of it and what is the permanent consequence?" Mr. Driver replied:
"Generally, a temporary construction easement is one that is not recorded on a document.
Many times it is done just through the construction documents, not the plan per se. It is an
easement that is, acquired, generally, on paper through some verbal language for the purposes
of allowing the grading limits to extend beyond the right of way. Many times major public
roads are built in this fashion. It is not a permanent easement that is recorded in the
courthouse. It is a temporary easement that allows access during construction, after which it
is still retained by the property owner."
Mr. Dotson asked: "Does it mean that somebody's yard, during construction, might have dirt
piled in it which would then be regraded and the yard would be restored to what it was
previously, or does it mean that a part of the yard is now going to be on a hillside that was
not before?" Mr. BIue answered: "The Iatter." Mr. Dotson asked: "So some portion; we
don't know how much." Mr. Driver answered: "It's going to depend on how the yards are
graded." (Mr. Blue again stated he felt there would be more damage to the lot on the left, as
you are coming from Gristmill, than to the lot on the right. He also noted that there is no
extensive landscaping on the lots presently, though there are some large trees in the middle of
the right-of-way which will have to be removed.)
Mr. Driver was unable to say precisely by how many feet the lots would be impacted. Mr.
Blue asked if the applicant would be able to do a more detailed study so that this question
could be answered more definitifely. He felt the applicant had not yet done all his
homework. He stated he would be more comfortable if the applicant could answer Mr.
Dotson's question--i.e. "how many feet it will go into the yard and what damage will be
done." Mr. Blue did not feel the damage would be as significant as the applicant has implied.
Mr. Driver agreed with Mr. Blue's assessment that the higher lot was of more concern. He
estimated that the lot would probably be impacted between 10-16 feet overall, on the
horizontal. Mr. Driver pointed out that a 2:1 cut slope is impossible to maintain on a riding
mower, and difficult with a push mower. He stated: "You don't want to create 2:1 side slopes
and create a potential safety concern for the owner." Ms. Huckle suggested that the slopes
could be landscaped with something that didn't require mowing, such as ivy. Mr. Driver
noted that Mr. Kelsey had mentioned the possibility of a retaining wall. However, the
applicant does not feel that an 8-10 foot retaining wall is a viable option on a residential lot.
10-11-94 7
Mr. Blue again expressed the desire for more information from the applicant in terms of
determining the lot owner's desires. He stated he would be more inclined to support the
applicant's request if it is determined that the lot owners are not in favor of the road and are
unwilling to make the easements available. At this point, he stated he was not willing to
support the request.
Mr. Jeff Lockwood, owner of the Lake Reynovia property, addressed the Commission. He
stated he had contacted one of the lot owners "yesterday," and said owner had not been aware
of the road nor the potential impact to her property. She was not in favor of granting the
easement. Mr. Nitchmann wondered why the applicant had just yesterday attempted to
contact the lot owners, when the original request had been made back in August. Mr.
Lockwood explained that he had tried to contact this one owner several times previously but
had been unsuccessful. The other property was sold recently and he has not attempted to
contact the new owner.
Mr. Lockwood indicated he would be willing to do some cut profiles to determine more
precisely what the impact to the properties will be.
Mr. Nitchmann explained he was more concerned with the safety issue of having only one
access point in the event of an emergency. He stated he would like to hear more about
having an "emergency -type" connection road. He felt that presently the Commission did not
have enough information to decide "which way is the best."
Ms. Huckle repeated her question to Mr. Lockwood as to why provisions had not been made
for this connection early on. Mr. Lockwood replied: "It was a later section and apparently it
slipped through the system. Normally it would be picked up and required by planning, but it
wasn't. ... We felt an emergency access would be a way to giev you what you are looking
for, but would lessen the impact of what we are going to have to do." Mr. Driver added; -
"There wasn't any real handle on the matter of timing --what subdivision and what
construction would take place first. This being a temporary construction easement, it didn't
warrant showing permanent easements on the plat. This being someone else's property, I can't
just call for easements on somebody else's property." Mr. Blue asked: "You mean you don't
traditionally call for slope easements, that are permanent, on undeveloped roads." Mr. Driver
responded: "We generally do not." Mr. Blue: "I think it would good practice to do it. I
realize that it makes it permanent, but it's just as simple a matter to put it on the plat as a
slope easement that can be recorded."
Mr. Driver asked that the item be indefinitely deferred to allow the applicant time to
determine more specifically the grading on the two properties and to see what impact a
couple of options, such as a narrower road, would have.
Public comment was invited.
/T/
10-11-94 S
Mr. Phil Rice, a homeowner in Lake Reynovia, addressed the Commission. He pointed out
that many children will be crossing this road to reach the recreational center and he felt this
was a safety issue which should be considered.
Mr. Jim Akin, President of the Mill Creek North Homeowner's Association, addressed the
Commission, Though a formal poll of the homeowners had not been conducted, he was of
the opinion, based on personal contact with some of the homeowners, that the majority of the
Mill Creek North homeowners were opposed to the connection road.
There being no farther comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Blue asked if staffs recommendation would have been any different ff the applicant had
proposed an emergency connection, not built to state standards. Mr. Fritz explained that the
applicant had raised this possibility early on, but staff had advised that even that change
would require an amendment and the applicant had subsequently decided to pursue this route.
Mr. Fritz explained that an emergency connection would not satisfy daily usage such as
schoolbuses, mail delivery, trash collection, etc.
MOTION: Based on the applicant's request for deferral, Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-
94-09 for Jayel Industries be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins was very concerned as to why this situation had occurred, why it had "fallen
through the cracks." He asked if the current system would prevent this situation from
happening again. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that all the departments which deal with these
matters were represented at the meeting and thus should be aware that "we need to, as we are
dealing with subdivision road approval and platting, acknowledge what has been approved
and snake sure we're planning for it." He felt that staff does try to do that.
Mr. Blue was in favor of the deferral, but he advised the applicant that this deferral did not
guarantee a favorable staff recommendation, nor a favorable Commission action when the
item is re -heard by the Commission.
The motion for indefinite deferral passed (5:0:1) with Ms. Vaughan abstaining.
5P-94-27 Joseph R. Adlesic - Petition to locate a stream crossing (30.5.5.2(d)(6) and 30.3.5.2)
on a 6.43 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas and within tine SS, Scenic Streams Overlay
District. Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcel 12A, is located on the southwest side of
the intersection of Routes 614/674 in the Rivanna Magisterial, District. This site is- not
located in a designated growth area (Rural Area I).
1512
10-11-94
Mr. Fritz presented the star report. The staff report found that "the request is consistent with
the previsions of Section 3I.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance" and recommended approval
subject to conditions.
Mr. Blue pointed out what he felt was an error in the report from the Moorman's Scenic
River Advisory Committee. He felt the statement that "the parcel is a parent and not a
de_rivitivc parcel, undivided since befbrc the turn of the ccntmy" was inaccurate. He felt
certain that parcel 12A "has come off of parcel 12" since the turn of the century and that this
made a difference because if the property was divided at a time when County approval was
required, and was not exempt because of its size, or some other reason, "then, in my mind,
that puts a different ligbt on it because that gave it some official approval as a buildable
parcel, and I don't know that that is the case." This issue was addressed briefly by staff and
after staffs explanation, Mr. BIue concluded: "So even though this report saying that it
existed since the turn of the century is not correct, it really has no material effect on what
we are considering." (NOTE: The applicant later corrected this and explained that a 2-acre
parcel had been separated from parcel 12A since the turn of the century.)
MT. Dotson asked if other permits for stream crossings in the vicinity had pre -dated the
Scenic Stream Overlay. Mr. Fritz explained that the two noted in the staff report had been
reviewed under the scenic streams provisions (one for the improvement of the existing
crossing and one for a foot bridge).
Mr. Blue felt that by recommending approval, with conditions, staff was making the
assumption that this is a buildable parcel and the applicant had to assume that it was
buildable. Mr. Fritz reported that the applicant had done extensive research to determine that
the parcel was buildable before making application for the special permit.
Mr. Blue responded: "That's physically_ I was thinking in terms of the fact that the parcel
was there and the scenic stream is there. There is no guarantee that the planning body, the
Supervisors, will approve the crossing. But could anybody buy that parcel and assume that
you could get a crossing? I guess I am thinking in terms private property rights --if somebody
advertised that for sale assuming he could put a house one it." Mr. Fritz replied: "That is
part of what the staff report is saying. There is no vehicular access to the property now and
in order to make reasonable use of the property, even if it is going to be timbered, you would
need to be able to reach the property with a vehicle."
Mr. Blue surmised: "And that is why you are recommending approval." Mr. Fritz: "In large
part, that is correct."
Mr. Jenkins asked if the Ordinance addresses other parcels which may exist and can only be
accessed in a similar fashion. Mr. Fritz explained the steps staff follows and the questions
staff asks when reviewing a floodplain stream crossing request:
(1) Determine if there is an alternative which will eliminate the need for the crossing,
e.g. is there an existing crossing, is there an access that doesn't involve a crossing?
10-11-94 10
(2) if an existing crossing exists, can it be usedl
(3) if the crossing is to be approved, can it be designed in such a way that it aligns
with adajacent properties so that there will not be additional requests for crossings.
Mr. Fritz explained that in this case there is no existing crossing, there is no crossing which
the applicant can snake use of, and this crossing can't reasonably provide access to any of the
other properties,
Mr. Blue: "So if we turn this down, we are denying him the use of his property?" Mr. Fritz
responded affirmatively.
Ms. Huckle asked if staff knew how many other similar properties might exist which, if
granted approval for this type of crossing, could then develop those properties.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that there are many lots which "are on the opposite side of the
Moorman's haver, from the public road." He described one parcel (14G) which also has
access off Rt. 674 and if a request was made to cross the river, staff would find that that
parcel had an alternative access. 1W. Fritz could not definitively answer the question about
the number of parcels on this or any other stream which could only be accessed by crossing a
floodplain. He felt it would take considcrablc research to answer this question.
Ms. Huckle asked if the lot in question has any remaining subdivision rights. Mr. Fritz
responded affirmatively, but because of the character of the land, he felt subdivision would
not be feasible. He was of the opinion that there is only one building site on the property.
The applicant, Mr. Joe Adlesic, addressed the Commission. He offered to answer
Commission questions. His comments included the following:
--In answer to Ms. Huckle's question as to how a driveway could be constructed, given
what she perceived to be the steepness of the land, Mr. Fritz felt the site Ms. Huckle was
referring to was downstream from the planned crossing. Mr. Fritz described the driveway,
after it crosses the stream., will be "at grade and climbing slightly." Mr. Fritz felt there would
be minimal cut and fill involved, if any. (Mr. Franco of the County Engineering Department
later agreed with Mr. Fritz's statement.)
--His purchase of the property is contingent upon the approval of this special permit.
--The Health Department has approved a septic site. There is enough area for a house
site and a septic field.
--A 2-acre parcel was separated from parcel 12A and connected to the parcel
upstream. (Parcel 12A was not cut off from the larger parcel as Mr. Blue had stated earlier.)
--Regarding the bridge facade, Mr. Adlesic indicated a willin. p.ess to accommodate
any request by the Scenic River Committee.
--Adjoining property owners have signed the necessary State forms indicating they do
not object to the proposal. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of
Envirotimental Quality have both deteriniiied that no pertnit will be required.
% 57`�
10-11-94 11
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, the applicant described why he feels this this proposal
is unique:
--There is no other access.
--The crossing can serve no other parcels.
--There is only one small site for a house..
--The property's position on the scenic river.
Ms. Huckle asked about the height of the proposed bridge, particularly if it would be as. high
as the Alford bridge. Mr. Adlesic explained that though the abuttments will be shorter,
because of the higher terrain, it will appear to be about the same height. The top of the
bridge will be roughly the elevation of Rt. 614. The abuttments will be on the bank and will
not disturb the stream bed.
Public comment was invited.
Mr_ Tuck Landrey expressed concern about the frequency of floods in the Sugar Hollow area.
He described the danger which is created by debris which is carried along in the flood. waters.
He asked the Commission to consider hydraulics when making its decision. He also felt the
request was contrary to the Ordinance which says that "the bridge must be located at the site
of an existing crossing."
D "r. Jim Bennett, speaking can behalf of 15 residents of the Sugar Hollow area, expressed
opposition to the special permit. He, too, spoke of the frequent flood events and he felt the
bridge would "force additional water onto St. Rt.614 and will contribute to its erosion." He
also felt the bridge would be an "encroachment on the scenic river character of the
Moorman's, and would degrade the purpose of the Scenic River Act." He expressed concern
about precedent which approval might establish for other land -locked pieces of land.
D r. Buxton expressed concern about what he felt was a disregard for the criteria of the
Ordinance. He felt the Ordinance says that there must be an existing, distinct crossing, which
is being used. He also felt the Ordinance requires that a crossing provide access to an
existing dwelling, which is not the case here. He expressed concern about the proposed
construction of the bridge. (Mr. Blue explained that the final design would have to be
approved by various regulatory agencies and the County Engineer. The design referred to by
Mr. Buxton was just a sketch. Mr. Fritz confirmed that final design calculations have not yet
been done.)
On the question of precedent, Mr. Adlesic expressed the opinion that approval of the request
would set a precedent only if there was another request with these same unique
circumstances.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Don Franco, County Engineer's office, to comment. He explained that
the sketch had just been reviewed as a "sketch of intent," and final calculations will be
subject to County Engineer review. Ms. Huckle asked if the final plans must be drawn by a
/.5-57
18-11-94 12
licensed engineer. Mr.Jack Kelsey responded: "Something would have to be submitted on
the structure. If it is pre-fab, the manufacturer has staff available to provide that information.
If it was individually designed by someone else, that information would be provided." Ms.
Huckle asked Mr. Franco questions about the proposed location of the bridge and driveway.
Mr. Franco described the area where the bridge would be located. Ms. Huckle asked: "So
are they planning to put their driveway in the floodplain?" Mr. Franco responded: "In that
area 614 is in the fl4odpain, s4 their driveway, their stream crossing would all be within the
100-year floodplain."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Davis: "Can we turn this down based on the present ordinance,...can we
do that? Are we denying all the use of that property by saying essentially you can't have a
stream crossing? And if we do that, are we going to be liable, in your opinion, for legal
action?" Mr. Davis responded: "I have not investigated to determine whether or not that
would be a denial of all reasonable use. I really don't know the answer to that question.
What you need to do is look at the ordinance and make a determination as to whether or not
this request complies with, the Ordinance requirements. I don't think you can disregard the
Ordinance requirements. If you can construe 6(a) and 6(b) to meet what the applicant is
proposing and provide a reasonable use of the property, that is -what the intent of the
Ordinance is. The intent of the Ordinance was not to deny reasonable use of the property.
You need to deal specifically with what the criteria are,"
Mr. Blue felt members of the public had made some good points, which "staff may have
overlooked in its desire to be reasonable with the applicant." Mr. Blue continued: "Because
it does seem to me if we don't grant him this bridge --the applicant or the owner --he's got no
reasonable use of the property_ I don't know if that means that our Ordinance is wrong. It
seems to me specifically, if this Ordinance is legal, the way the wording is, we ought to deny
(the request)."
Mr. Davis: "I don't want to be in a position where I say that we are or not at this point.
Whether or not someone has a reasonable use of the property is a legal determination and it
doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be able to build a house there or to necessarily
cross the river. You need to look at the uniqueness of that property and see whether or not
there is some reasonable economic value to the property and take into consideration what the
intent of that property was when the present owner bought it, what his expectations
reasonably were at the time he acquired it, and I just have not investigated it enough to make
a determination that it would effectively be a taking if you denied this. It would be
something that we would have to study very carefully if that is the action taken by the
Planning Commission and the Board, but I am not ready to (make that determination now)."
Mr. Dotson commented: "I wouldn't want the Commission to get in a position where we said
unless someone could put a house on property that there is no use of the property."
/ 5741
10-11-94
Mr. Blue said that had not been his intent.
13
Ms. Huckle pointed out that the Moorman's River provides water to the South Rivanna
Reservoir, which she felt should be a consideration. (Mr. Blue felt this proposal would have
no effect on the reservoir.)
Mr. Dotson stated: "I find it very difficult to make a number of the findings with the sections
of the Ordinance. It seems to me that the intent of the Ordinance is not to encourage
proliferation of the development of bridges and activities that might impact the scenic river.
And the specific requirements, in 6(a) about an existing bridge, and in 6(b) about one or more
existing lawfully occupied dwellings, etc., I have difficulty malting." He also felt the
residents' first-hand knowledge of the frequency and seriousness of flood events was
important. He did not feel that a denial would be denying a reasonable use of the property.
He felt that was "a broader category than just this particular request."
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that SP-94-17 for Joseph R. Adlesic be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion which passed (5:1) with Ms. Vaughan casting the dissenting
vote.
SDP-93-063 17 1 Productions Outdoor Theater Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct
a 1,850 seat outdoor theater served by approximately 400 parking spaces on approximately
100 acre portion of Tax Map 94, parcels 21 and 25. Property is located on the south side of
Route 250 approximately 0.4 miles west of Route 616 in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area IV).
Mr. Fritz distributed copies of a letter from Mr. George Gilliam, attorney for Ivan and Teresa
Jacobs. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the items in the letter were pertinent to the matter before the
Commission. Mr. Fritz explained that the entire preliminary site plan was before the
Commission because adjacent property owners (the Jacobs) had requested that the
Commission review the plan_ It was staffs opinion that all issues which should be addressed
in the preliminary site plan process have been addressed by the site review committee and
that the recommended conditions of approval addressed the issues raised in Mr. Gilliam's
letter. Mr. Cilimberg later stated the following items mentioned in Mr. Gilliam's letter are not
site plan issues and discussion of those items is not pertinent to site plan consideration: (1)
The question of the location of parking has been resolved by BZA action, on appeal of the
original site plan, and is an issue which has been decided; and (2) The type of historical re-
enactment is not a site plan issue. It was also noted that lighting is addressed in condition
i(k) and the water storage facility is addressed in condition 1(h).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval of waivers for
Sections 4.2.3.2 (to allow activity on critical slopes) and 4.12.3.4(b) (to allow parking over
/6-7
10-11-94 14
500 feet from the entrance to the theater). Staff was also recommending approval of the
preliminary site plan, subject to conditions, and was requesting that the Commission grant
administrative approval of the final site plan. (Later in the meeting Mr. Fritz added condition
l (n-)-Staff approval of final site plan.)
Ms. Huckle "took exception" to the statement that "all" Commissioners had seen the site.
She stated she had visited the property but had not been able to get near the site. (Mr.
Cilimberg pointed out that the report did not say "all," rather it said "Commissioners and
Board members." Mr. Keeler recalled that the applicants had invited alit Commissioners and
Board members to visit the site.)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Payne, Mr. Payne expressed the opinion that "this
whole hearing is unlawful; the staff should have approved this plan some time ago." Mr.
Payne's comments included the following:
--This plan has been pending sifice September of 1993, though the Statute says it must
be approved within 60 days.
--The applicant has no objections to the staff report or any of the proposed conditions.
--Regarding Mr. Gilliam's letter, the applicant does not feel it is necessary for the
Commission to address the waivers and feeIs that the Commission "cannot" address the other
issues (raised in Mr. Gilliam's letter), because the person "who supposedly appealed this" has
not been an adjacent property owner since December of 1993. (Mr. Blue pointed out that the
item would most likely have been called before the Commission in any event. Mr. Payne
agreed but stressed that that had not been the case.) Mr. Payne stated: "I bring this up
because we feel it is an arguable position that the Commission's input is arguably necessary
for the item regarding the slope and the item regarding the parking. We think it is not
arguable that the Commission has any authority to do anything else. The Board of
Supervisors expressly instructed the staff to approve this site plan when it approved the
special use permit. I want to make that absolutely clear for the record because I don't want
anybody to say that we have waived our position on that."
--On the critical slope issue, "this site was chosen specifically because of the slope,"
and the "site is the same place it has always been." This is an instance where it is
appropriate to develop on 25% slopes. Staffs position on this issue is justifiable.
--On the parking issue, "this Ordinance contemplates that there will be situations
where there is more than 500 feet between a use and parking lot." He called attention to
Section 4.12.3.4(c) which "does not require a modification, it simply requires a finding that it
is appropriate under the circumstances." The parking is consistent with where it was shown
on the original sketch and that matter has been settled by the BZA. There is no chance that
anyone will park in other than the designated parking area, because any place else would be
much fartber away than the designated parking area. The parking area is in the least visible
area of the site and is naturally screened.
Public comment was invited.
( 6-8
10-11-94 15
Mr. Ivan Jacobs addressed the Commission. He asked about condition 7 of the special
permit, which required a Certified Engineer's Report for the acoustics of the sound system "at
the time of site plan submittal." Mr. Davis explained that the Zoning Administrator has
determined that condition 7 would be required at the time of "fugal" site plan submittal and
not "preliminary" site plan submittal. He stated the acoustical report will be required with the
final site plan. Ms. McCulley (the Zoning Administrator) confirmed that additional tests will
be required and a report will have to be done by a Certified Engineer. After the report is
submitted it will be reviewed by the County Engineering Department and a determination will
then be made as to compliance or non-compliance. Though Mr. Jacobs began to comment on
the parking issue, he was advised that that matter has already been settled by the BZA, i.e.
"the 13ZA determined that the sketch plan was in general accord with the site plan which
included this component of the location of the parking lot." Mr. Jacobs asked why the
power lines could not be located in the existing power clearing, which would preserve more
trees.
Mr. Charles Kincannon, the adjacent property owner on three sides of the property, expressed
no concerns about the project.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kurt Gloeckner (the applicant's engineer) to comment on the following_
statement in the County Engineer's report: "The submitted plan does not provide specific
details as to what they intend to do with the theater site; it lacks the speck details regarding
the design, construction limits, construction materials, which we need to make a confident
determination of the impact toward rapid or large scale movement of soil and rock.... This
department foresees the potential for erosion within the natural theater area." She asked if
Mr. Gloeckner had been retained to have oversight over the construction. Though W.
Gloeckner responded negatively to Ms. Huckle's question, he stated if he was part of the team
which is involved with the final design, then he and the architect will work together to
minimize soil and drainage problems. He stated that, generally, he does require site
observation in his contracts. (At this point Mr. Payne advised the Commission that it is the
applicant's intent to retain Mr. Gloeckner to supervise the final design and construction.)
Mr. Dotson asked if requiring the acoustical report at the time of the final site plan could
possibly cause the applicant additional expense by "doing it late in the game" in the event
some adjustments might need to be made. He asked if the applicant was prepared to make
adjustments if needed. Mr. Payne responded to Mr. Dotson's question: "We don't anticipate
this is going to be a problem.... The applicauts have a very good handle on what sound
levels are permitted and are perfectly confident those can be accommodated with no trouble at
all."
There being no fin ther comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Davis advised the Commission: "I think the appropriate action for the Commission
tonight is to approve or not approve the modifications which are recommended for approval
/:5-9
10-11-94
16
by staff and then to give approval to the preliminary site plan, if you find it meets all the
Ordinance requirements. Contrary to Mr. Payne`s opinion, I think it is properly before you
and you should take appropriate action as directed by staff"
For the benefit for new Commissioners, Mr. Nitchmann stated that this item has been
reviewed a number of times in great detail. He added that he has visited the site three times
and he and a member of the Board of supcvisors had also Performed thcir own sound test.
He had been impressed by the fact that this is a natural site for an ampitheater. He also had
been impressed by the fact that the parking area is already flat and no trees will have to be
removed. He felt that the parking should rightly be a distance away from the theater because
of the nature of the performance. He expressed support for the proposal and for staffs
recommended conditions of approval.
Mr. Dotson expressed agreement with Mr. Nitchmann's comments.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that a waiver of Sections 4.2.3.2 and 4.12.3.4(b) be
granted for 1781 Productions Outdoor Theater Preliminary Site Plan and that the Preliminary
Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions, including staff approval of the file
site plan:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature
until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan
shall not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance location and right-of-
way improvements;
b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of the erosion control plan;
d. Department of Engineering approval of surface treatment for walkways;
e. Department of Engineering review and approval of road plans and profiles in
accordance with private road standards, for principle access road. This includes the location
and design of the gatehouse.
f. Department of Engineering approval of the final design plans and computations for
the conceptual drainage measures for parking lots 1-4;
g. Planning Department approval of landscape plan to include screening in accord
with Section 32.7.9.8 adjacent to the bus parking area;
h_ Water storage facility shall be located underground;
i. All items marked "future" are not approved at this time:
j. Approval of the preliminary plat does not constitute approval or a sign permit:
k. Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light
away from adjoining Rural Areas and away from adjacent streets. Lighting spillover onto
public roads and properties zoned rural areas shall not exceed one-half (1/2) foot candle.
/6 0
10-11-94 17
Prior to final plan approval a lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) which shall include methods for directing light downward;
1. Provisions of Section 4.14.1 are applicable. Verification to include submission of a
certified engineer's report for the acoustics of the sound system and amplification in accord.
with Section 4.14.8 which shall be required at the time of site plan approval;
rn. The applicant shall post with the Zoning Administrator a bond for its pro-rata
share of the cost of construction of a left turn lane and taper lane (200 feet + 200 feet) within
the existing right-of-way of the U.S. Route 250 onto Sate Route 616 (northbound) prior to
final plan approval. Such pro-rata shall be the fraction of the estimated cost of construction
of such lane of which the numerator is equal to one-half the projected traffic to be generated
by the proposed use (expressed in vehicle trips per day) and the denominator is the total
traffic using the relevant section of U.S. Route 250 (expressed in vehicle trips per day)
according to the most recent VDOT traffic count. The bond shall be conditioned that the
principal thereof shall be available to be used to pay the applicant's pro -rats share of the cost
of construction of the said turn lane if, at any time within three (3) years from the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy for the proposed use, the County and/or VDOT shall have
appropriated money sufficient to pay the balance of the construction cost therefore. (In the
event that the County and/or VDOT shall not have appropriated the balance of such
construction cost within three(3) years from the date of issuance of the certificate of
occupancy, the bond shall be released to the applicant.) The amount, terms, security and
form of the bond shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the Zoning Administrator.
(This reflects the conditions of SP-93-07.)
n. Staff approval of :final site plan.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed (5:1) with Ms. Huckle casting the dissenting
vote.
Ms. Huckle explained that she could not support administrative approval of the final site plan.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
,r �%i .
V. Wayn Cilimbe , Seer ary
1-01:3