HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 19 1992 PC Minutes5-19-92
1
MAY 19,' 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, May 19, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson,
Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms.
Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials
present were: Other officials present were: Mr. Rich
Tarbell, Senior Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim
Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Blue.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April
28 and May 5 were approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized the May 13th Board meeting.
ZTA-92-02 Donnie Dunn - Petition to amend Section 30.4.2.2
to permit the storing and bottling of spring water by
special use permit in the Natural Resource Overlay District.
Staff was requesting deferral to May 26, 1992.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that ZTA-92-02
be deferred to May 26. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-92-21 Keswick Acquisition Corporation - Petition to amend
previous special use permits in order to allow the connector
between road (Country Club Drive) between Rt. 731 and Rt.
616 to be a private road rather than a public road. This
road has been proposed to serve the Keswick Country Club and
Inn, existing parcels and proposed lots reviewed in
SP-85-53. Property, described as Tax Map 80, Parcels 8, 8Z,
9, 60A, 61, 62 and 70 and Tax Map 94, Parcel 42A, is located
on the east side of Rt. 731 at its intersection with Rt. 744
in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not
located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 2).
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
(Mr. Tarbell read one letter of objection to the request,
from Mr. Stuart Johnson.)
5-19-92
V,
In response to Mr. Johnson's
there were a total of 93 lots
by Keswick Aquisitions and 27
question, Mr. Tarbell stated
in the development (66 owned
owned by others).
Ms. Huckle asked if Mr. Kelsey's letter (describing the
private road standards) should be referenced in condition
No. 1. Mr. Tarbell did not think this was necessary. He
explained that No. 1 is a standard condition which requires
Department of Engineering approval of the private road
plans. Mr. Cilimberg explained further that the Department
of Engineering would refer to Table A, in the Subdivision
Ordinance, which describes the basic standards and they will
also make reference to VDOT's mountainous terrain standards.
The applicant was represented by Mr. John Clarkson,
President of Ashley House, Mr. Steve Mitchell, Vice
President, and Mr. Pete Bradshaw, Development Manager. Mr.
Clarkson gave a slide presentation showing similar projects
owned by the applicant, in other areas, and also the
existing site. Mr. Clarkson thanked the homeowners for
their cooperation and support, in spite of the fact that a
detailed final agreement has not yet been worked out. He
stated: "We will make a committment to existing residents
that in moving to a private road situation we would limit
the cost, per annum, to those residents, to $300 in today's
terms. We will put a fixed cap so that everyone knows they
will not be faced with escalating costs." He also stated
that security was very important to the applicant and
therefore 24-hour coverage will be provided at the security
gates.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Gordon Wheeler, a resident of Keswick for 37 years and
president of the existing homeowners' group, addressed the
Commission and expressed his support for the request. He
briefly referred to the turbulent history of the property
and noted that this is the first time he has offered his
support to a developer. He stated: "Finally, after all
these years, someone has come along that we feel will do the
job --and is doing the job --and that has been working with
the homeowners." He explained that one reason the area has
always been a private, quiet place to live is because of the
private roads. (He had opposed the requirement for a public
road on a previous application for the property.) He felt
the $300 proposed by Mr. Clarkson was "in line." He urged
the Commission to approve the request for private roads. He
called attention to a petition of support which had been
signed by all but one of the existing homeowners.
(Approximately 13-15 Keswick homeowners were present and
expressed their support for Mr. Wheeler's comments by
standing.)
5-19-92 3
Ms. Sherry Wilson Haler, a resident of the Keswick area, but
not the Keswick development, addressed the Commission and
expressed support for a public road. She expressed concerns
about limitations on school bus access and escalating road
maintenance costs.
Ms. Beverly Turner expressed support for the private road
request in the interests of preserving security, existing
tranquility and trees.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated he supported the request for private
roads. He noted the uniqueness of this situation in two
respects: (1) The road will have two access points and
therefore must be controlled constantly; and (2) There are
already a substantial number of residents established along
the road. He suggested the addition of the following to
Condition No. 2: "...the resident's portion of the road
maintenance costs shall be allocated by lot, each being
responsible for his fair share." Mr. Johnson expressed
concern about the fact that there is "no legal way for a
developer to enforce... participation on those lots already
in existence." He questioned whether the $300 limit
referred to by the applicant could be "ad infinitum" given
considerations for inflation.
There was a considerable amount of discussion about Mr.
Johnson's suggestion. Mr. Grimm asked Mr. Bowling if the
Commission had the authority suggested by Mr. Johnson. Mr.
Bowling commented: "What you've done in the past is leave
that to the individuals that were involved in the road. You
haven't addressed such things as costs, or allocation of
costs. The only thing the County has looked for in the past
is language to the effect which says that these are private
roads and the County has no responsibility for maintaining
them, rather the responsibility for maintenance rests upon
the lot owners in the community." He questioned how each
person's "fair share" could be defined. He stated that the
allocation of costs has been left to the individuals to
"negotiate as they see fit." He stated that he assumed that
the current residents have access rights across the private
roads to the public roads. He also stated that the current
residents could choose to keep their existing maintenance
agreement, i.e. they could not be forced to participate in
the new agreement.
Mr. Bradshaw, Development Manager for Keswick Acquisitions,
confirmed that Mr. Bowling's assumptions about access
easements was correct. He also confirmed that participation
in the new homeowner's road maintenance agreement was
completely voluntary though there seems to be developing a
0TY
5-19-92 4
sense of "cooperation and community" between the homeowners
and the developer.
Though he acknowledged that Mr. Bowling's comments were an
accurate description of past policy, Mr. Johnson felt, in
this case, that the County had a "moral and legal
obligation" to assure that the pro rated costs of
maintaining the road are "shared equally by those who are
there." He -was concerned about the possibility of a
homeowner refusing to pay his share. Mr. Bowling stated that
he could not address the moral issue, but he did not think
there was a legal issue in that regard. He added that the
County did not have the authority to require the existing
homeowners to participate in the new agreement, nor to
define the amount which they should pay if they do
participate.
There was a brief discussion about a similar situation in a
previously approved subdivision on Broomley Road. Mr.
Cilimberg recalled that staff had made an effort to make all
the existing property owners aware of the situation, but
staff "could not intervene to say 'you are going to pay X
amount' to the property owners."
Mr. Grimm concluded: "In light of the comments we have
heard from staff and from counsel, it would be wise to leave
condition No. 2 as presented by staff."
Mr. Johnson also expressed the feeling that the operation of
the security gates should be more clearly defined. It was
decided that the following would be added to No. 3: "... The
security gates shall be continuously controlled at all
times."
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about bonding. He recommended
"that the construction of the road be bonded in its entirety
and that the bond have a time limitation." He was agreeable
to a "phased" bond. Both Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Tarbell
stated that bonding of the entire road is already required
(by SP-86-02) though that condition does not speak to a time
limitation. Mr. Tarbell explained further: "They are going
to have to place a bond for construction of the first part
and also extension of the second part and that bond will
have to be held in place for X amount of time." Mr.
Bradshaw (representing the applicant) stated: "I think
that's appropriate. But as you know, the final disposition
of some of the property with respect to approvals, has not
been determined at this point, so we would like to have an
option to renew --two years with an option to renew it." He
confirmed that his comments were in relation to the entire
road. It was noted that an "option to renew" is standard
procedure. Mr. Bradshaw stated that a one-year limit on the
renewal was acceptable.
5-19-92 5
Mr. Johnson noted that this would mean that condition No. 2
for SP-86-02 was being modified.
It was finally decided that a new condition No. 4 would be
added as follows: "In accordance with Condition #2 of
SP-88-02, the bonding and/or construction of the connector
road is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the inn. As per the approval of this
petition, the bonding of the entire length of Club Drive,
between Rt. 731 and Rt. 616, shall be for a period of two
years from the Board of Supervisors approval date with the
option to renew the bond administratively for a period not
to exceed one year."
For the information of the applicant, Mr. Johnson pointed
out that the standards for the road had been established on
the basis of a public road with a traffic count of 1,o00 to
2,000. He suggested that the applicant might wish to review
this, based on the actual use of the property, which has now
been defined. He felt this could have some effect on the
specifications for the design, i.e. it might be possible to
reduce the pavement width and also to relax the requirements
on the shoulders And ditches which would both reduce costs
and save more trees.
Regarding the questions raised by a citizen about school bus
access, Mr. Wheeler stated that currently the children catch
the bus at Rt. 731 and there have never been any complaints.
Mr. Johnson moved that SP-92-21 for Keswick Acquisition
Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Department of Engineering
design for Club Drive from Rt.
to Condition 45 of SP-85-53)
approval of a private road
731 to Route 616. (Amendment
2. Staff and County Attorney approval of private road
maintenance agreement for Club Drive.
3. Security gates shall be located in the locations shown
on Attachment C. The gates shall be installed prior to
County acceptance of the private road (Club Drive). The
security gates shall be continuously controlled at all
times.
4. In accordance with Condition #2 of SP-88-02, the bonding
and/or construction of the connector road is required prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the inn. As
per the approval of this petition, the bonding of the entire
length of Club Drive, between Rt. 731 and Rt. 616, shall be
for a period of two _years from the Board of Supervisors
approval date with the option to renew the bond
administratively for a period not to exceed one year.
�--2L16
5-19-92 6
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA-92-03 HenryJ. Eiden - Petition to amend Section 10.2.2
to permit rural retreat facilities including lodging and
recreational activities by special use permit in the Rural
Areas.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. It was staff's
position that the proposal was in opposition to: (1) The
intent of the RA zone; (2) Recommendations in the
Comprehensive Plan; and (3) Deliberate actions of the Board
of Supervisors relative to uses in the Rural Areas zone.
Staff recommended denial of the request.
The applicant, Mr. Henry Eiden, addressed the Commission.
He explained that it had been his intent to make the request
specific to a piece of property which he had in mind. His
intent was for a "small, cloistered type of situation." He
wondered if the proposed definition would have been more
acceptable to staff if it had been more specific.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for Albemarle,
expressed support for the staff's recommendation for denial
of the request. Her statement is attached to these minutes
as Attachment A.
Mr. Jim McVey addressed the Commission. He asked that the
Commission consider carefully the question of whether or not
facilities already exist in a rural area which are already
being used in a non-agricultural and forestal way. He
wondered if that was worthy of special consideration.
Ms. Eleanor May, President of Adventure Bound, Inc.,
addressed the Commission. Her comments were related more to
the next agenda item (SP-92-23 for a rural retreat at the
existing Adventure Bound School). She noted that the
facility is now being used in a non-agricultural way and
there is no imfringment on the neighbors because of the
buffer. She also noted a rural retreat would result in less
noise and less traffic. She concluded that the rural
retreat request did not fit the broad definition proposed,
but she felt the definition could be made acceptable with a
lot of limitations.
Ms. Donna Frantzen (applicant for the rural retreat special
permit) addressed the Commission. She expressed concern
about the broadness of the definition. Quoting -from a
magazine article, she described her concept of a rural
retreat. She described retreat centers as quiet and
environmentally sensitive. She stressed that retreats
a11-7
5-19-92
7
emphasize personal awareness and she felt they provide a
very important public service.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle asked if the existing Adventure Bound School had
a grandfathered use. Mr. Keeler felt it was probably
grandfathered as a school because it had been treated as a
private school for many years.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about "signing a blank check"
for some of the uses which the proposed definition could
possibly allow, e.g. rock concerts. She did not oppose the
rural retreat as defined by Ms. Frantzen, but wondered if
there was any way the previous use could be adapted so as to
meet Ms. Frantzen's proposal. Mr. Cilimberg explained that
the Zoning Administrator had already determined that there
were no currently allowed uses which clearly met the
applicant's intent, including the grandfathered use. Mr.
Cilimberg suggested that a deferral may be needed to allow
staff to spend some time with both Mr. Eiden and Ms.
Frantzen in a effort to more clearly define their intent.
Mr. Keeler stressed that what was proposed was an amendment
to the ordinance which was a change that could apply to more
than just these two applicants. He felt some supplementary
regulations might also be called for.
Ms. Huckle stated she could not support the application as
proposed. Mr. Grimm agreed.
Mr. Nitchmann felt the issue was too broad for action to be
taken without further study. He suggested that this topic
be included with an already planned work session on other
pending changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Johnson wondered if the intent of either applicant (Mr.
Eiden or Ms. Frantzen) might be made to fit one of the
already existing uses in the Ordinance (e.g. day camp,
monastary). He, too, stated he could not support the
request as presented, particularly in light of Mr. Keeler's
comments. Mr. Grimm agreed.
Mr. Jenkins moved that ZTA-92-03 for Henry J. Eiden be
indefinitely deferred to allow for further staff study. Ms.
Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-92-23 Adventure Bound, Inc. (owner), Donna Frantzen,
(applicant) - Petition to permit a rural retreat
r10.2.2(44)1 (See ZTA 92-03) on 33 acres zoned Rural Areas.
Property, described as Tax Map 6, parcels 24 and 25B, is
located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Rt.
2,vf
5-19-92
8
810 and 687 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This
site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural
Area 1) .
(The Commission decided to hear the staff report and receive
public comment though it was decided action would be
deferred until after action has been taken on ZTA-92-03.)
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report.
Mr. Johnson noted that the existing authorization for the
facility allows 16 students and the current request is for
"up to 24" for the same facility.
The applicant, Ms. Donna Frantzen, addressed the Commission.
In response to Mr. Johnson's comments, she explained that
two persons would be living in the facility full time plus
occasional weekend activity. She stressed that those
participating in retreat weekends would not be full-time
residents (as had been the case with the school). In
relation to traffic, she explained that participants would
be picked up at a central location and brought to the
facility so there should be no increase in traffic.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Eleanor May, President of Adventure Bound, explained
that the school is still licensed for 16 in -residence
students (plus 6 students at another property). In
addition, 3 staff members were always present overnight and
an additional 10-12 staff members during the day. She
explained that a minimum of 15 persons were driving to and
from the school each day.
Mr. Jim McVey, a realtor hired by Adventure Bound to market
the property, pointed out that there are very few potential
uses which fit this property.
Ms. Eleanor Santic asked if this request could be approved
since the ZTA amendment to allow this use was deferred. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that the Commission's action is a
"recommendation," to the Board; however, he suggested that
the Commission defer action until resolution of the proposed
Zoning Text Amendment so that the special permit request
would not get to the Board and just "sit" awaiting action on
the ZTA.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that SP-92-23
for Adventure Bound/Donna Frantzen be deferred indefinitely.
Discussion:
e2#q
5-19-92 9
Mr. Nitchmann wondered why the applicant had not defined the
proposed use in such a way that it would have fit into an
existing category. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the
applicant had considered other possibilities and "it was the
final determination by the Zoning Administrator that at
least three other possible uses (camps, club, school) were
not appropriate based on the description that Adventure
Bound was giving." Mr. Nitchmann asked if the applicant
could have chosen to submit the application to the
Commission (as another use) without the prior approval of
the zoning Administrator, i.e. let the decision be made by
the Commission and the Board. Mr. Cilimberg commented:
"They can apply for any use, but, keep in mind --both you and
the Board of Supervisors and the applicant --that ultimate
use they desire is one that the Zoning Administrator is
going to (have) to rule is a legal use. So if the Board
approves a special use permit and then -the Zoning
Administrator determines that the special use permit was
fine but the use that they are actually putting the property
to is not allowed under the Ordinance, then it has defeated
their purpose for making the application. The Zoning
Administrator, in that regard, is acting independently and
is given that position by State Code provisions." (Mr.
Bowling noted that the applicant could appeal the Zoning
Administrator's decision to the BZA.) Mr. Keeler added
that there had been lengthy discussions about whether the
proposal could fall under another definition, but there was
always some aspect of it which did not fit. He gave as an
example the fact that the proposal could not be defined as a
school because the applicant intends to lease the facility
to other, completely unrelated, groups.
Ms. Huckle expressed surprise that the proposal included the
option to rent the facility to other groups.
The Chairman called for a vote on the motion for deferral.
The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Andersen expressed concern about a possible lack of
control if the facility is rented to different groups. Ms.
Huckle agreed. Ms. Andersen confirmed that if the facility
is used by others, that they be "kindred" groups. The
applicant addressed this concern and explained that she
would be living at the facility and she would screen any
potential users very carefully. She stated: "It will be
used by others as a retreat center, period."
Mr. Grimm noted that the definition must be one which can be
enforced by the Zoning staff.
Regarding the possibility of issuing the permit to the
applicant only, Mr. Keeler explained that the permit would
be attached to the property, "but whoever acquired the
special use permit would have to comply with whatever
.:2b
5-19-92 10
conditions were placed on it." Mr. Keeler added: "I don't
think this is one of those cases where you can attach it to
the applicant because the very basis of Mr. Fritz's
recommendation is the existing development of the property
and she would put some money into upgrading it."
ZTA-92-01 Charles McRaven - Petition to amend Section 10.2.2
to permit outdoor theater by special use permit in the rural
areas.
Mr. Keeler presented a condensed version of the staff
report. It was staff's position that the inclusion of this
use in the RA zone would be in opposition to: (1) The
intent of the RA zone; (2) Recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan; and (3) Deliberate actions of the Board
of Supervisors relative to uses in the rural areas zone.
Staff recommended denial of the request.
The applicant, Mr. Charles McRaven, addressed the
Commission. He gave a very lengthy presentation during
which he described his proposal, i.e. "...to allow for a
specific use for property in Albemarle County, not currently
listed. If successful, this amendment would allow, after
proper procedure, the establishment of an outdoor theater
for ongoing seasonal, regional representations." His.
comments included the following:
--He is working closely with the Institute of Outdoor
Drama.
--Events portrayed are based on actual historical
events of the area.
--The applicant proposes to capture the "tourist
dollar" which is already in Albemarle County for other
tourist attractions. This will bring additional revenue to
the area without burdening the county's infrastructure.
--None of the commercial property considered thus far
has been acceptable.
--There are currently no outdoor historical dramas in
Virginia.
--Three million dollars ($3,000,000) is projected as
revenue from the project for the first year. (A
conservative estimate.) The project will be investor -owned,
by local persons. Local people will be used for both the
cast of the productions and as support personnel.
Approximately 10-12 year-round jobs and 75 summer jobs are
anticipated.
--The theater will be limited to 2,000 seats and will
have no sound amplification system.
--A site located in the rural areas which is difficult
to access will not work; the site will have to be close to
major highways, developed areas, and utilities. Mr. McRaven
explained: "We need to be in growth areas, whether they are
now designated as growth areas --commercial areas --or whether
they are in the path of progress; we have to be as close as
.g '/
5-19-92 11
we can be -and yet preserve as much of the scenic beauty as
we can to showcase what we have here."
--A 60 - 100 acre site is being sought which offers a
natural buffer from neighbors. 80% to 90% of the property
will be left in agricultural use.
--Parking areas will not be paved; crushed rock
(possibly river gravel) will be used. No steel and glass
structures are proposed. The theater will be "hidden" on
the property.
--The performances will "preserve and present" the
history of the area. No performances will be allowed which
are not in the public interest.
--The project will be a $1,000,000+ investment.
Preliminary inquiries indicate that financing is available.
Ms. Huckle asked what would happen if the venture were to
fail, i.e. does the applicant's sizable investment give him
vested rights? Mr. Bowling explained that any subsequent
use would have to meet the definition of the zoning text
which is adopted. Ms. Huckle interpreted that this could
result in rock concerts. Mr. Bowling clarified that rock
concerts would be allowed only if the definition of outdoor
theater allowed such concerts.
Mr. Jenkins called attention to the definition of "theater,
outdoor drama" proposed (top of page 4 of the staff report):
"An establishment whether operated for profit or not,
providing live performance re -creations of events of
historic significance to and having actually occurred within
the locality or immediately adjacent localities."
Ms. Huckle asked: "A future owner can't change that?" Mr.
Bowling responded: "He must engage in an activity which
meets the definition as determined by the Zoning
Administrator." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the
applicant will have to submit a request for a special permit
later (if the ZTA is approved) and there will be conditions
attached to that permit.
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons expressed enthusiastic support for the
proposal: Mr. Wilson MacIver; Mr. Nick Evans; Ed Garris;
Kathryn Coleman; Beth Evans; and Linda McRaven. Significant
comments included the following:
--The applicant is very environmentally conscious in
his planning.
--This is a "clean" business which will bring revenue
to the area.
--"People will come, bring money to the area, then
leave." This will offer more protection to the, rural areas
than an industry which will bring new residents and thus the
need for more residential development.
_Isdz
5-19-92 12
--Adopting a proper definition will protect the County
in the event this project should not be successful.
Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for Albemarle,
expressed support for the idea. However, she expressed
concern about giving a "blanket text ZTA" which will allow
this activity at any place in the rural area.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Huckle stated she could not support the proposal in the
rural areas because she felt there must be existing land
available in other zones. She also noted other
performance -type activites which are available in the area
which are seldom sold out.
Mr. Nitchmann stated he could support the request with a
proper definition for outdoor drama theater. (He felt the
definition stated in the staff report was acceptable in
terms of specificity and restrictions.) He felt this was an
opportunity to share some of the important history of the
county and at the same time to promote jobs and increase the
tax base. He felt success of the project would depend
largely on proper marketing and promotion.
Mr. Grimm stated that he, too, could support the idea.
However, he expressed concerns about possible traffic
problems which could be caused by 2,000 attendees at this
type of event on a regular basis. He felt this would have
to be considered in the selection of the site.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about "changing the Ordinance
to such a specific application because of the way it could
effect the financial success of the endeavor." He noted
that if the proposed definition is adopted, "the applicant
could do nothing but that... whenever he has his
productions," i.e, he would not be allowed to have any other
type of event besides an historical performance. He
questioned whether this was the best approach. He felt that
specific concerns about a proposal could be addressed with
each specific application, rather than a specific change to
the ordinance. He concluded: "I can support a change to
the Ordinance for an outdoor drama theater, but then let the
application come in for a specific use and consider these
other aspects that are involved."
Ms. Huckle felt that a less restrictive definition could
possibly result in "something that was not compatible." She
made reference to the Wolftrap theater in Northern Virginia
which she felt has evolved into something different than was
originally intended.
5-19-92 13
Mr. Grimm indicated that his concerns could be addressed at
the time of specific applications. He concluded that he
could support the use, but he was "struggling" with whether
or not it should be allowed in the rural areas.
Ms. Andersen stated that she was in favor of the idea, but
she shared Mr. Grimm's concerns about the rural areas.
Ms. Huckle stated she could support the use, "as long as it
wasn't in the rural areas."
Mr. Jenkins noted that property which will meet all the
criteria described by the applicant "by nature, might be
sufficiently close to higher density land that we could make
some kind of show here tonight that we would entertain, with
a special permit, a subsequent amendment that would add that
piece of land into a higher density configuration rather
than in the rural areas at the time it came forward." Mr.
Keeler interpreted: "I think what you are talking about is
if it's close enough to the growth area, just expand the
growth area to include it (in the form of an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan)."
Mr. Grimm noted that public water and sewer will be required
which could involve expansion of the jurisdictional area.
The property will have to be close to a growth area, but at
the same time removed from a "busy" area. Those issues
cannot be addressed at this time because no specific site
has been proposed.
Ms. Huckle suggested that a site close to Monticello would
be desirable because it would cut down on the traffic issue.
Mr. Nitchmann asked "how close is close in regards to
expanding the growth area?" Mr. Nitchmann commented: "I
really agree with the preservation of our rural area as
established in the Comprehensive Plan. But here is an
application for utilizing agricultural land, except for the
cars, and putting it back to what it was in the 1800's....."
He noted that restrictions could be placed on the actual
proposal when it is reviewed. He stated: "I don't
understand why we hold the rural areas as a sacred set of
circumstances. I wasn't on the Commission when the
Comprehensive Plan was reviewed, but I think there are
always exceptions to things which have been written. In my
opinion this is a valid exception --a group of people that
are trying to do something for the good of the community and
trying to preserve the agricultural surroundings in which
they are going to do this. We know it has to be close to a
growth area. To say 'Lot's find out where it's going to be
and let's see then if we can expand the growth area to it,'
I don't see how the gentleman is going to find a suitable
site based on that.
.25-f
5-19-92 14
Ms. Huckle noted that introducing a lot of traffic into the
rural areas presents problems.
Mr. Nitchmann understood Ms. Huckle's concern. However, he
stated: "But I think that once sites are selected, the
process has to be one of 'can the people who are going to
visit this get to it safely, on a timely basis, and so as
not to intrude upon the private rights of the citizens who
are close by."
Mr. Keeler pointed out that a special permit review includes
consideration of any detrimental effects on the area in
which it is located. He added: "The problem is that I
think everybody recognizes that this requires public
utilities and the Commission doesn't have any authority to
extend public utilities. The Board of Supervisors
determines the jurisdictional areas for the Service
Authority and there are some policies related to that
decision and I don't think that this fits any of those
policies. If you do recommend favorably on this, you would
also be recommending a change to their policies for
extending public utilities into the rural areas." (Mr.
Cilimberg later explained that there are two circumstances
on which the Board bases recommendations for jurisdictional
area expansion: (1) Site is in an existing growth area; or
(2) A legitimate health emergency exists. If a request for
public utilities were made, the Board would have to deal
with a request which is contrary to its policy.)
Mr. McRaven explained that he had been in contact with the
Health Department in terms of what will be required if
public sewer and water are not available for a particular
site. They have explained the requirements for septic
fields, based on Mr. McRaven's description of the usage, and
those requirements will "dictate a certain size piece of
land, nearness to streams, etc." He concluded: "The Health
Department has given us enough information to let us believe
that we can dispose of sewage properly on a big enough piece
of land...." He noted that the use would only be
operational three months of the year.
Without further discussion, Mr. Jenkins moved that ZTA-92-01
for Charles McRaven, to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
include in Section 3.0 Definitions the inclusion of theater,
outdoor drama as follows:
An establishment whether operated for profit or
not, providing live performance re -creations of events
of historic significance to and having actually
occurred within the locality or immediately adjacent
localities.
5-19-92
15
and in Section 10.2.2.44 Rural Areas to allow outdoor Drama
Theater by special permit be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he could not support the motion, for
reasons stated in the staff report, and also because "of the
restrictive definition" which he felt "could adversely
effect the financial feasibility of any operation."
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that, based on the applicant's
description, he felt the proposal would be of "long lasting
benefit to the community." He asked Mr. Johnson to
reconsider his position because "(his) not supporting it
because (of the feeling that it is) too restrictive will
cause it to fail."
Mr. Jenkins pointed out that the applicant has agreed to the
proposed definition. Mr. Johnson welcomed comment from the
applicant.
Mr. Grimm noted that his support of the proposal was based
on the restrictive definition, i.e. "that it is going to
focus on the historic significance of the area."
Mr. McRaven indicated he had a "positive" reaction to the
definition. He stressed that that was no intent for any
other type of use in the future. He felt there was room,
within the confines of the definition, for some variation in
scripts. He concluded: "I welcome the definition...."
Ms. Andersen noted that though she supported the idea, she
felt strongly about the rural areas and therefore would not
support the motion.
The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners
Andersen and Huckle casting the dissenting votes.
ZTA-92-04 FEES - Petition to amend the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance in Section 35.0 to change the fee for a
special use permit for day care centers to $390 when the
request is for six to nine children and $780 when the
request is for ten or more children.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a brief staff report.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Cilimberg
explained that less than 6 children are excluded from day
care requirements according to the definition found on page
11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
-75-4
5-19-92
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that ZTA-92-04 to
amend the Zoning Ordinance, Section 35, to change the fee
for a special use permit for day care centers to $390 when
the request is for six to nine children and $780 when the
request is for ten or more children, be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Johnson noted: "I think one thing that ought to be
observed --on both Home Occupation Class B and at these
minimum levels of child care --we are dealing with a
different situation than the normal commercial business
aspect. ... Anything that we can do to help them out to
proceed and be financially successful, at this low level, we
ought to do. I'd be in favor of reducing it more."
Walnut Creek Park - Mr. Johnson suggested that a letter of
congratulations and appreciation be sent to Mr. Pat Mullaney
thanking him for his work on the park.
Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that a letter of
appreciation be sent to Mr. Mullaney, to be signed by the
Chairman. The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Annual Report - Ms. Andersen called attention to the Annual
Report, to be discussed at the May 26th meeting.
CIP Review Schedule - Mr. Cilimberg called attention to the
review schedule for the upcoming CIP process.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:55 p.m.
m
12577