HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 15 1992 PC Minutes12-15-92
1
DECEMBER 15, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, December 15 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; Mr.
Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other
officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Senior
Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling,
Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of December 1, 1992
were approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the December
9, 1992 Board of Supervisors meeting.
SP-92-58 Keswick Acquisition Corporation - The applicant
petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend SP-85-53 to
allow the subdivision of 280.2 acres, which is comprised of
30 parcels of record, into 75 residential lots with average
size of 3.3 acres to be served by private roads. The
property is described as Tax Map 80, Parcels 8, 8F, 8D4,
8D2, 8J, 8C, 8D3, 8T, 8Z (part), 21A, 27, 29, 31, 41, 41A,
43, 60, 60A, 62, 70, 69, 70A, 61, 96, 97, 100, 109A, 106 and
Tax Map 94, Parcel 42A. The property is bounded by the CSX
Railroad to the north, Black Cat Road (Route 616) to the
east, Interstate 64 to the south, and Hacktown Road (Route
744) and Keswick Road (Route 731) to the west. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located
in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Deferred from
the November 2, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting.
456 Review - In addition to the request, the staff report
noted that the Commission was also required by the Code of
Virginia (Section 15.1-456) to make a determination as to
the existing sewage treatment plant's and central well
system's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff was
recommending denial of the petition.
Referring to the two stream crossings, Mr. Johnson asked if
there was alternate, emergency access in the event these
crossings should be washed out or be impassable during high
water. Mr. Tarbell responded affirmatively and pointed out
the locations of the alternate accesses.
161
12-15-92 2
The applicant was represented by Mr. John Clarkson
(President of Ashley House and Keswick Corporation), Mr.
Pete Bradshaw, (Development Planner), Mr. John Greene
(Engineer) and Mr. Bill Roudabush (Engineer). Mr. Clarkson
spoke first. His comments included the following:
--Because of poor soils, the property is not suitable
for agricultural or forestal uses and, therefore, the
applicant has attempted to make the best use of the land.
--The applicant's proposal is basically no different
than the first subdivision of the property in 1948, but
rather is a "consolidation of that picture." The proposal
has attempted to "match" those permits which have already
been granted on the property, and "to build on what is there
without setting any precedents or trying to change the
environment." The proposal has sought to preserve the rural
character of the area.
--The proposal is compatible with both aspects of the
existing area, i.e. large estates and much smaller
residences.
--The applicant has made a firm commitment to provide
low -density, high -quality houses.
--The applicant has attempted to develop a plan which
is an "overall better planning solution without seeking to
challenge the Comprehensive Plan but to work within the
special use framework and the discretionary power within
that framework."
--"This is a massive commitment for Sir Bernard Ashley
and it's a long-term investment. We've worked hard to
ensure the best all-around results."
--It makes good business sense for the applicant to
want to enhance the area.
--From a practical standpoint, the sewage treatment
plant exists and is currently working. The applicant views
this issue with the same logic that was used in the granting
of permission for private roads.
--"The Master Plan...secures the attractive environment
for perpetuity...."
Mr. Bradshaw's comments included the following:
--"The Comprehensive Plan is a general blueprint for
the future development of the community and, as such, there
are provisions written into one of the implementation tools
of the Comprehensive Plan, i.e. the Zoning ordinance, for
areas of discretion, or a matter of judgment on the part of
the Commission and the Board where, under certain
conditions, there can be amendments, changes, discretion, in
what will actually be approved through the proposal at
hand."
--The area surrounding the proposed development is, for
the most part, already developed, with relatively small lot
sizes (450 parcels with an average lot size of 5 acres).
--Given the existence of the existing development in
the area and given the fact that the sewage treatment plant
already exists with approvals having been granted by the
l6-�
3
12-15-92
Health Department and the State esterre Control sBoale rd
and the
fact that the soils on the
agricultural/forestal preseo aryjudgmenteandtto grantnus
thing to do to use discrete rY 7 a ro riate
our approval for what we consider to be a very PP P
plan for the area."
ent's letter of October 23 (ACSA), Mr.
to Mr. Br
Referring applicant to comment on the ACSA Board's
Grimm asked the of the sewage
concern about the future financial
elwith other private
treatment plant, based on p
Mr. Brad
plant
treatment plants. Bradshaw sot speculateed thatthe on whethers
n
already in place, though he could not sro osed today.
the plant would be approved if it were to be P pthe owner
He also stressed that this particular applicant,
is in a good financial position to
of the treatment plant, . He noted: "If there is
see this project through the years
concern, it seems to me the ofclimit ngltheenumberon eofart of
the Commission and the Board
hookups." He explained dthata,number numbeore inofiallowable
its
hookups can be increase ro riate
capacity...to make the economies of scale morroaeP decision
for that plant, it would seem to me to s, but it is going to
on your part. It can work at 43 hookups,
be much more financially feasible proposedthe dhere�peIntfact,
it work at a density that w by approving this you are guaranteeing a better chance of
success for the utility company." Mr. Bradshaw confirmed
requested will ensure that the 121 hookups re not only service
acit for
for this developmotstwhich will have theut will also erightato tie into
those existing approval. He explained that the 121
the plant under an old would cover lots which could be built on,
though some may
never be developed.
There was a discussion about the capacity of the plant. Mr.
Bradshaw explained that it is designed axotreat aulogic6ca000
acity of
des with a maximum by p
gallons of sewage/ Y This would serve 100 dwelling units,
150,Ooo gallons/day. Mr. Bradshaw deferred further
plus the in and clubhouse. ( the engineer who had
technical questions to Mr. John MreeGreene confirmed that
designed the treatment plant.}
plant was designed for the "equivalent" of 1n which
the p residential unit),
residential units (400 gallons/day/ In response
is the Health Department
estionstandard
to whatdesign.
factors could cause
to Mr. Nitchmann's ty explained that
this type of facility to fail, Mr' Gartsecod possibly
non -replacement of worn mechanical p ++So if it's
result in failure. Mr. throughout
the
deduced:
it should continue
properly maintained throughout the y
to operate far into the future." Mr. Greene responded
affirmatively. Ms. Huckle noted that 121 residential
connections, plus 5o for the Inn and clubhouse 171
connections, rather than the 150 which the p
A�Ls
4
12-15-92
designed for. Mr. Greene explained that the design is
"conservative" because the actual average consumption for
usehold. Thus, on
County customers is 270 gallons/day/hothat the plant
that basis, it would be more accurate to say
is capable of treating 150 to 200 residential services."
(Mr. Greene confirmed that his firm had designed the sewage
treatment plant.) In response to Ms. Huckle's questions,
Mr. Greene confirmed that the plant has been tested and
approved by the Health Department and an operating permit
has been issued by the State Water Control Board. Mr. Blue
asked if the State Water Control Board and Health Department
are more concerned with the quality of the effluent than
with the actual quantity of sewage treated. Mr. Greene
indicated that was accurate and also confirmed that if the
quality of the effluent falls below acceptable standards,
the State could close the plant and require that
modifications be made to the plant. Mr. Blue asked Mr.
Greene to comment on a statement that the plant had not been
designed to ACSA/RWSA standards. Mr. Greene explained that
the only ACSA requirements of which he is aware deal with
pumping stations and those requirements are slightly
different than the pumping station which is in this
treatment plant. He noted that the ACSA requirements were
put in place after this plant had been designed. He
explained that the ACSA does not allow submersible pumps and
require that motors be above -ground, in a building. He
explained that the primary lift station for this sewage
treatment plant is "submersible pumps that are controlled by
variable frequency drives to match the inflow." He
explained that it is a very sophisticated system, but does
not meet the ACSA requirement in that regard. Mr. Greene
confirmed that the processes with this treatment plant and
the one at Glenmore are identical. He noted that the
Keswick plant will be required to produce a better quality
effluent than the Glenmore plant because the Keswick plant
will discharge into Carroll Creek which has very high
quality effluent requirements.
Mr. Blue noted that he felt the references to failure in
Brent's letter were related to financial failure rather than
Mr. Blue asked: "If the connections to
equipment failure.
at is proposed here, is it your
this plant are limited to wh
feeling asthe takeecareeof it?" this
plant Greenelrepliedctly
adequate to
affirmatively.
Mr. Clarkson interjected that plants sometimel sometimes fail because
e
the traditional developer's policy is quick,
ou
build as cheap as you can, leave as quick as you ��
make your money and you exit." He stated: We come from a
fundamentally different perspective because
our ose need
investment is (1) the inn and (2) uand that ththo we are going
long-term paybacks. In terms of the long -
looking for, we have built for the long term, we are
/(W
5
12-15-92
to be there for the long term and the sewage treatment plant
is essential to that. So we come from a completely
different philosophy. Our investment philosophy is entirely
different."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Archibald Craig, a Keswick resident ("across Highway 22
from this project"), addressed the Commission. He expressed
support for the application. It was his feeling that the
proposed development is "needed by the Club." Being
familiar with the history of the property, he stated that it
was "gratifying to see what is happening." He described the
project as "first class all the way through." Regarding the
issue of possible future expansion, he stated: "I think the
people that live in Keswick have ample built-in protection
by statutory law." He pointed out that any change in the
sewage system, including an expansion, would require
approval of the Board of Supervisors and the State
Corporation Commission. He noted: "This is not a public
service corporation in the true sense; they do not have the
power of imminent domain; they cannot run across the
countryside with this sewage system nor can others come into
it without your permission." He urged the Commission to
recommend favorably on the request.
Mr. Jim Ballheim, a Keswick resident, addressed the
Commission. Though he expressed no opposition to the
applicant's proposal, he was concerned that the sewage
treatment plant would invite further residential expansion.
He described the status of surrounding acreage and roadways,
i.e. 30,000 acres are a part of the Southwest Mountains
Rural Historic District, 4,000 acres are subject to
voluntarily donated easements held by the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation, 10,000 acres immediately adjoining comprise the
Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District, and Routes 22 and
231 are designated as Virginia Scenic Byways. He
concluded: "We have been working with the developer to come
up with a way to limit the pressure for further development
which we fear will result in transforming this treatment
plant into a public service corporation. If such a method
can be agreed upon then many of our concerns about this
proposal will have been satisfactorily addressed. At this
point we do not have an agreement so we cannot support this
request. We're here tonight to let you know of our
concerns, not to recommend against or for."
Mr. Blue expressed a lack of understanding as to what type
of "agreement" Mr. Ballheim was referring. Mr. Ballheim
explained: "I'm not suggesting that what we're trying to do
should influence your decision tonight. This is something
that we are doing as a concerned group of citizens in
Keswick." Mr. Ballheim stated that he simply wanted the
citizen concern to be a part of the record. He clarified
r��
6
12-15-92
the concerns as: (1) Approval of this request will make it
difficult to deny subsequent future requests; and (2)
Denial of this request may result in it being "an ongoing
hell that we will have to fight again and again and again."
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Ballheim where he perceived potential
future development might occur. He noted that the property
is bounded by two State roads, Interstate 64 and the
railroad. Mr. Ballheim explained that the concern was
that the sewage treatement plant would have the capacity to
potentially serve 700 or Boo residences. He felt this would
be an "engine to drive development."
Mr. Blue stated that he was
owned by the applicant that
development.
not aware of any properties
are outside this particular
Ms. Andersen expressed confusion about the reason for Mr.
Ballheim's concern about the public service corporation.
She wondered if it was somehow connected to the anticipated
profits from the utility. Mr. Ballheim responded that he
was under the impression that a sewage treatment plant makes
money, not by treating sewage, but rather as a result of
development. He felt "the ability to hook up drives
development."
Mr. Ballheim stated he did not want to be placed in the
position of having to oppose the development, rather, "We
would like to do something that would make us feel easy
about this huge sewage treatment plant being here."
Mr. Blue interpreted Mr. Ballheim's position as follows:
"Your group has no opposition whatsoever to what we see
right here now. You're concerned because the sewage
treatment plant could be modified to handle more than what
we see here." Mr. Ballheim responded: "I think that's a
fair statement. our concern is not the additional 35 or 37
houses that they are requesting permission to build and hook
into this plant at this time."
Mr. Blue stated: "Any future development is going to have
to come before this body and the Board of Supervisors before
anything else can be done and if your desire is to make us
aware of how you feel, that's fine. I still am a little
concerned, though I suppose it's none of my business or the
Commission's business, to know what this agreement is, but I
can't see that it has any bearing on what we're doing here."
Mr. Ballheim responded: "The agreement is something that we
are doing. We are not suggesting that it influence your
decision."
Assuming that any expansion "outside these parameters'
would require Board, Commission and State Corporation
/(o(p
12-15-92
Commission approval, Mr. Johnson asked: "Then what you be
additional pledge on the part of the applicant would y
looking for?" Mr. BallheimstaateecthatHhetdid
not
ht tknow
if
Mr. Johnson's assumption wasopposed to expansion
may address "expansion of the plaotback to you." He was not
of the service area that has to g
certain if this was correct either.
Mr. Bowling explained that there are laws which cover both
areas. He stated: "The State Water Control Board and the
tment are concerned with the expansion of the
ssion is plant and the State Corporation COlmarea that wouldbe
with
the expansion of the jurisdictional
the public utility company that would operate this
served by an comes into existence, if
company plant. This public utility P y permission of the State
it does, it has to do so through the p ermission of
Corporation Commission who has received the The State
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Corporation Commission issues what iswcallehichdecidesranf�cate
of Convenience and Public Necessity' company which is
operating area for the public utility wants to expand beyond
physical location. ... If the company
that operating territory, that requires another amendment of
ch
the Certificate of Corovaleofethe dB ard�ofNsupervisorsecessity land
would require the aPP oration Commission."
the approval of the State Corp
Mr. Johnson asked if it wtmentrrlantthat
couldthe coveroisalimited
hical
extent to which this tree P application and any
by the boundaries shown here on the
addition would require Commission, Board andwliState ded:
Corporation Commission app " g ,But that
"That's my understanding." He noted, however:
approval process can change over time."
Public comment continued.
Mr. Pedar Little, a Keswick resident, addressed the
Commission and expressed his support for the proposal. He
commended the applicant for "his level of consulting with
the residents." He felt the proposal was the result of
"careful planning and overall it benefits and balan�o�ea e
project and will put the entireconcernsoaboutn on afuture
financial footing. Regarding
expansion of the sewage treatment plant, he felt there was
adequate protection in the review process toensure that the
public would have ample opportunity to express
concerns should an expansion ever be requested.
Mr. Blue asked Mr. Bill Brent, representing the Albemarle
County Service Authority, to comment on the sewage treatment
Plant. Mr. Blue asked Mr•Brent that thefACSA'shis nconcernawasn °f
Mr. Brent's comments,i.e.
// 7
8
12-15-92
related more to the possibility of financial failure of the
facility than to operational failure, was correct.
Mr. Brent replied: "Mr. Blue, you are correct. The Service
Authority Board of Directors is more concerned with the
an they
fiscal being of the sewage treatment operation tagencies are
with the physical aspect. The State
itehavetapproved the
that control that and have say
over facility and will monitor and regulate and approve or
disapprove its continued operation. That's not our primary
concern. our primary concern is the fiscal aspect--the
thatar
that, with all due respects to the present developer,
at some point in the future when the lots are all solid and
the sewage treatment plant, which will never be a profit
generator, will become a burden to whoever is operating it
and (with) no future parcels to generate
hapitional
pen
this sewage
to
development revenue, what's going PP
treatment facility baesta burden n weoever happens to be
the owner and operator
Mr. Blue asked if the Service Authority felt some
reassurance about this applicant's longevity given the
presence of the Inn. He asked if the concern expressed
by
Mr. Brent was a "generic caution about any plant
type. Mr. Brent replied: "I think that is a generic
caution. We are certain that Lord Ashley has good
intentions there and I feel certain that he will stick it
out to the end." Mr. Brent wondered, however, what would
happen if the Inn were to be sold to some other corporation
with a different philosophy.
Mr. Brent stated the Service Authority Board had hoped that
a bond could be required as a "safety net to protect the
users of that sewage treatment plant," in
theAevent future
problems should occur. However,
the y has
determined that such an approach is not possible.
Mr. Jenkins questioned why a different ownership would cause
problems given the fact the users would still be paying
fees. Mr. Brent noted such possibilities as abandonment and
bankruptcy, in which case the only funding for the plant
would come from the users. Mr. Jenkins asked: "And you're
saying there aren't enough users? If it's on capacity, that
must be all the users that we can have." Mr.
Brent noted
that though he diVenot
the
to operateoperating
plantCoeven if
sts, he
felt it would be ry costly
spread over the maximum potential customer base, because of
the high quality of the effluent that is required.
Mr. Blue compared this development to Farmington and noted
that the owners of these residences will be well able to
afford the high costs of sewage treatment.
I see about this
•"
responded: "That is the one saving g
161f
01
12-15-92
Noting that the sewage treatment plant is already in
existence, Mr. Johnson pointed out that the Service
Authority would be required to take over the plant, in the
event of a failure, regardless of whether the additional
lots are approved or not. He asked if the addition of the
75 lots would be "a significant addition to the cost of
taking it over." Mr. Brent replied: "You have a very good
argument. I think our Board looked at it as a 'bad
situation or a worse situation."' Mr. Brent concluded:
off
"From an economic standpoint, I would say youare
to have 150 units than you are to have 48."
Mr. Blue noted: "And the economic part is what you're
worried about." Mr. Brent confirmed: "That's right."
Mr. Andersen asked Mr. Brent to explain further comments
about water and sewage systems under different ownership.
Mr. Brent explained that normally the authority sells water
to a customer which is returned to the sewer system.
In
this case, "there has been no discussion ofboth
the
"z€tat
and sewage system becoming public. He explained:
some point in the future, the water company was separate
from the sewer company, we would be receiving the sewage
with no control over the water, e.g. if a user does not pay
his sewer bill we couldn't turn off his water because
another corporation would be providing that. Customarily
one utility provides both services. That's not to say it's
not workable, it just presents additional problems-"
Mr. Blue interpreted: "you and your Board are really not
terribly opposed to this project, you are just expressing a
concern about what might happen if there was a financial
failure?" Mr. Brent responded: "The Service Authority
Board did not make a decision as to whether it was best to
endorse the expansion of it or to oppose it, but they chose
to point out to the Commission and the Board the various
problems they saw, the biggest concern being the future
liability (in the even of future fiscal problems)."
Mr. Blue called attention to another comment in Mr. Brent's
letter, i.e. "that you are sorry that the basin development
had to take place like this." Mr. Blue noted: "It's no
fault of the applicants, but it might be wise of the
Commission and the Board of Supervisors to keep these things
in mind when they are making decisions about expanding
growth areas and not expanding-----
I think it ought to be
a lesson."
Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. cilimberg to comment on the
possibility of a request for "adding more development to
this plan."
Mr. Cilimberg reaffirmed Mr. Bowling's earlier comments and
added: "It's subject to a process of review that, if the
/6 q
12-15-92 10
conditions and rules and regulations stay the same, would be
pretty much like you're having tonight, i.e. potentially a
special use permit review, certainly a finding of compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan for any expansion of the utility
area, and it sounds like, from what Mr. Bowling is saying, a
new certificate from the State Corporation Commission, or an
amendment to the certificate from the State Corporation
Commission, that would have to be approved by the Board of
Supervisors."
Mr. Jenkins asked the applicant to comment on possible plans
for future requests for expansion.
Mr. Clarkson responded: "What we have put forward is the
plan we want for Keswick. As mentioned earlier we have
bought some additional lots, but the lots we've bought have
essentially been filling in and particularly to allow the
golf course to be continued. So what you see before you is
what we want for now, for the long term. So once we've done
it, essentially we have fixed everything. The direct answer
to that is the plan is not to expand. We want neither a
more extensive development, nor a more intense development.
We do not wish to change that; indeed it would detract from
our overall business objectives of the hotel/club being the
driving force which ties back into the sewage question."
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Clarkson if the applicant would be
willing to stipulate that "you would not extend your water
lines out of this perimeter?" Mr. Clarkson replied: "Very
happy to. If the Commission wishes us to do that."
Mr. Grimm noted that existing rural easements (as mentioned
earlier) would served as an additional barrier to expansion.
Mr. Bradshaw pointed out that the Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity will include BOTH the water system
and the sewage system. In answer to Mr. Blue's question
about the usage of the wells on the northeast corner of the
property, Mr. Bradshaw explained the well referred to by Mr.
Blue serves 2 or 3 dwelling units and its usage is limited
under a previous approval and its usage cannot be expanded.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
The Chairman directed the Commission to first discuss the
456 Review.
Mr. Grimm quoted from the Comprehensive Plan in respect to
the inconsistency of central utilities outside of growth
areas. He felt that a positive recommendation would require
some justification in order to "overcome" the inconsistency
with the Comp Plan.
`'%0
12-15-92 11
Mr. Blue felt it had been well explained in the staff report
and subsequent comments, i.e. the plant already exists and
the present proposal will most likely improve the financial
security of the plant. He noted that if the project had
"started from scratch with nothing but open fields,"
approval would be unlikely. However, the treatment plant
already exists and the Keswick Club has existed for many
years. He concluded: "I see no reason why we shouldn't
expect these lots to develop like this and I see no reason
why we shouldn't be able to do that. They have stated, by
right, the acreage is there for a theoretical development of
lots no greater than what we have here and they have not
pretended to demonstrate that they can get septic approval
on all those lots. They know they can't; the soils aren't
suitable. They are also not suitable for agriculture. So
it seems to me that this is by far the best way to use (the
property). I don't take staff's recommendations lightly...,
but I think in this case, following the letter of the
Comprehensive Plan is just not practical. It's just not
right. The theoretical lot density is there and the
applicant is not proposing to exceed that. The sewage
treatment plant is there; it's working; and the applicant is
not proposing to overload it. Therefore, I see no reason
why we should not be able to override the letter of the
Comprehensive Plan in this particular instance."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding engineering
approval of the treatment plant (Chapter 10, Article III of
the County Code), staff confirmed that the applicant had
received a Chapter 10 approval through the County's
Engineering Department.
Regarding compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, Mr.
Johnson felt it could be interpreted that the end result
will be compatible with the Plan. He noted that if those
lots which do not perk are not approved here, they could
potentially exist elsewhere in the community, so rather than
having a cluster of lots here, "would have expanded and gone
outside, and done more damage to the agricultural and
forestal environment." He felt the only possible
incompatibility was in terminology --he wondered if this
should be referred to as a "village." He felt the
Commission should be "objective enough to overlook that
technical incompatibility." Regarding utilities, he stated:
"We have a unique situation where the applicant has a
continuing interest and will be continuing on site because
of his personal interest in the Clubhouse, etc." He felt
there was "significant leverage, practical, financial and
social, on the applicant to continue with the fine product
(that) he has demonstrated so far." Mr. Johnson stated he
would support the proposal as requested.
Mr. Nitchmann indicated he agreed with Mr. Blue and Mr.
Johnson.
12-15-92 12
Ms. Huckle asked the applicant to comment on the water
supply. She questioned the reliability of the draw -down
test which had been taken after a period of heavy rainfall.
She also expressed concerns about effects on existing
neighboring wells. Mr. Bill Roudabush, engineer for the
applicant, responded to Ms. Huckle's questions. He
explained that the application to the Health Department had
been based on the number of units which had already been
approved by the County. When actual tests were run, there
was found to be more water than that reflected in the
application. He explained that though the number of
connections allowed by the County is based on the quantity
of water in the well without any storage, the State Health
Department design requires a certain number of
gallons/residential unit to be in storage. The system will
have storage tanks.
Mr. Blue interpreted: "What you're saying is that the
groundwater supply that is there and that you know about, is
adequate to meet the buildout requirements including these
75 new lots --by Health Department standards. is that
correct?" Mr. Roudabush responded: "That's right." He
added that he felt there was a built-in safety factor which
compensates for dry seasons, etc.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the the expanded service area of the
existing Keswick Acquisition Corporation Sewage Treatment
Plant and the central well system be found to be in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by
Virginia Code Section 15.1-456.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Mr. Grimm stated that, based on the discussion which had
taken place, he would support the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
So that the record would be clear in regard to that property
owned by Keswick Acquisition Corporation, Mr. Bradshaw
pointed out that the applicant has been negotiating for some
time to acquire Tax Map 80, Parcels 93, 94 and 95. (He
pointed the location of these lots out on the plan.)
The Chairman then directed the discussion to SP-92-58.
Mr. Blue stated that his concerns regarding the utility had
been well addressed. He felt that the addition of the 75
lots requested would not change the character of the area.
He felt that the applicant's proposal, "in that context in
that geographic location with what they're proposing here"
is entirely in keeping with the area. He noted that he was
`71�
12-15-92
13
still "mistified" about the agreement referred to by Mr.
Ballheim.
Mr. Blue moved that SP-92-58 for Keswick Acquisition
corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the subdivision shall be in general
accordance with the Keswick Estate Application Plan dated
August 25, 1992 and revised October 26, 1992.
2. Approval of SP-92-59 for floodplain crossings to allow
private road construction.
3. Water Resource Manager approval of a water quality
impact assessment.
4. Compliance with State Corporation Commission
requirements for water and sewer utility services.
5. In the review of future plats and plans, provision shall
be made for protection of stream valley areas located on
proposed lots by the conveyance of additional open space
and/or resource protection easements to the homeowner's
association or other entity agreeable to the developer and
the County for the purpose of permanent protection of these
areas.
NOTE: A sixth condition was added after further discussion.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
In response to Ms. Huckle's request that a condition be
added reflecting the applicant's agreement not to expand
utility service outside the perimeters shown, it was decided
that the following condition would be added (with the
applicant's agreement):
6. The utility service shall be limited to the boundaries
as shown on Attachment L in the SP-92-58 staff report except
for: (1) future extension to Tax Map 80, Parcels 93-94,
and 95; and (2) allowance for extension in cases of septic
drainfield failure of presently developed parcels located
adjacent to the Keswick Estate property as deliniated on the
application plan.
Mr. Bowling noted that this was acceptable since the
applicant was agreeable. However, he noted that it is a
condition that can be changed by either the Commission or
the Board.
/%-S
14
12-15-92
Mr. Blue felt that condition No. 1 said the same thing.
However, he was agreeable to amending his motion to include
the addition of this condition.
Mr. Bradshaw stressed that the applicant has no intention of
vast expansion of the development. He confirmed that any
additional lots which the applicant may acquire are within
the boundaries described by Mr. Blue, i.e. I-64, Rts. 616,
744, 731, and the railroad. [It was later determined that
Attachment L (to the staff report) delineates the proposed
service area.]
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Resolution for
Application to the SCC will establish a utility service area
and that area cannot be expanded without an action by the
County to authorize such an expansion. Mr. Bowling added:
"And there can't be an expansion of the number of lots
without another special use permit."
Mr. Tarbell pointed out that the boundaries shown on
Attachment L also include existing properties which may wish
to tie into the system at some future time. It was
clarified that Attachment L did not include the three lots
which Mr. Bradshaw had pointed out as a possible future
addition to the Keswick Corporation property (TM 80, Parcel
92, 94, and 95). Thus, the addition of condition No. 6
clarified the applicant's intent in regard to the possible
acquisition of these properties and also the possible tie-in
of existing properties which are not owned by the Keswick
Corporation whose septic systems may fail at some future
time. (In response to Ms. Andersen's question regarding how
the tie-in of existing properties would effect capacity, Mr.
Tarbell confirmed that the plant had the capacity to serve
these properties.)
It was also noted that though "minor alterations" to lot
lines would be acceptable, any major change in lot lines
would be brought back to the Commission.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SP-92-57 'Keswick Ac uisition Co oration - The applicant
petitions the Board of Supervisors to allow two floodplain
crossings [Section 30.3] of Carroll Creek for private road
construction. Property, described as Tax Map 80, Parcel 8
(east), 8F, and 109A, is located in the Keswick Country Club
development and east of Fairway Drive. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not
located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Deferred
from the November 24, 1992 Commission Meeting.
1711
15
12-15-92
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that SP-92-57 for
Keswick Acquisition Corporation betrecommendedfolto the Board
of Supervisors for app J
ng
conditions:
1. Compliance with all local, state and federal permit
requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial
stream.
2. Department of Engineering approval of crossing designs
to ensure compliance with Section 30.3.
3. Water Resources Manager approval of a major water
quality impact assessment.
4. Add to the design limitations that there shall be no
rise in the 100-year flood elevation at the north property
line adjacent to the railroad tracks and the southern
property line adjacent to Interstate 64.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-92-59 Keswick Ac uisition Cor oration - The applicant
petitions the Board of Supervisors to allow expansion of the
golf course from 18 to 27 holes (Section 10.2.2(4)] within
the Keswick Country Club development. The property,
described as Tax Map 80, Parcels 8, 8C, 8D2, 8D3, 8D4, 8J,
8Z (part), 9, 9A, 29, 31, 41, 41A, 43, 60, 60A, 61, 62, 69,
70 and 70A. The property is bounded by the existing golf
course and Club Drive to the north, Black Cat Road (Rt. 616)
to the east, Interstate 64 to the south, and Hacktown Road
(Rt. 744) and Keswick Road (Rt. 731) to the west. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located
in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Deferred from
the November 24, 1992 Commission Meeting.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Johnson asked about the necessity of condition No. 4
which required maintenance of a 25-foot wide wooded buffer
adjacent to residential lots not a part of the Keswick
Estate.
/7-15�
12-15-92
16
Mr. Tarbell
adjacent to
Corporation.
condition.
pointed out the location of 8 properties
the golf course which are not owned by Keswick
He added that the applicant had proposed this
Mr. Bradshaw explained that condition No. 4 had been an
attempt to provide a buffer between the development and
Foxcroft Farm. He explained that the area in question is
already wooded and all the applicant was proposing was that
the trees not be removed in the creation of the fairway.
The applicant expressed no objection to either the inclusion
of the condition, nor to its deletion.
The applicant offered no further comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Johnson stated he could support the request with the
exception of condition No. 4 which he felt was "usurping the
perrogative of the applicant." He was of the impression
that lots adjacent to golf courses appreciated in value.
Mr. Tarbell pointed out that
very few lots. Staff had no
being deleted.
the condition would apply to
objection to the condition
Ms. Huckle could see no reason to delete the condition,
given the fact that the applicant had no objection to it.
Mr. Johnson moved that SP-92-59 for Keswick Acquisition
Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. County Engineer approval of construction activity in the
floodplain of Carroll Creek in accordance with Section 30.3
Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance
(compliance with SP-86-03).
2. Water Resource Manager approval of a water quality
impact assessment.
3. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control
plan to include a phased grading plan. The amount of
grading to occur on -site shall be limited to three (3) holes
at any one time. All grading shall be stabilized during the
winter months. Further grading will not be permitted until
constructed holes are stabilized to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer.
4. Development of golf course shall be in general
accordance with the Keswick Estate Application Plan dated
August 25, 1992 and revised October 26, 1992.
7&
12-15-92
17
(NOTE: Mr. Johnson's motion included the deletion of the
condition requiring the buffer --originally No. 4.)
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with
Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
The meeting recessed from 9:10 to 9:15.
SDP-92-077 - Berkshire Woods Preliminary Site Plan -
Proposal to construct 22 dwelling units (7 duplexes and 2
quadraplexes) on a 2.50 acre site. The units are proposed
to be served by a private road with 44 parking spaces.
Property, described as Tax Map 60A1, Parcels 34 and 28
(part), is located on the north side of Solomon Road at its
intersection with North Berkshire Road. Zoned R-15,
Residential in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This
site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 1)
and is recommended for High density Residential.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Blue asked if it was necessary that the public
right-of-way be vacated in order for the private road to
exist in said right-of-way. Mr. Cilimberg explained that
there currently exist a number of perscriptive rights -of -way
as a result of approvals which took place in the 701s.
However, "in recent years public roads have not been in
public rights -of -way." Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that it is
staff's understanding that the public right-of-way must be
vacated.
Mr. Blue asked if any concerns had been expressed by the
descendants in relation to the cemetary.
Referring to Wayne Smith's memo dated December 1, 1992, Ms.
Huckle asked if the conditions of approval addressed the
issue of the dedication of property to accommodate the
drainage inlet structure. Mr. Tarbell explained that this
would be addressed through the stormater detention plans
(condition lb) and would be a part of the Engineering
177
12-15-92 1s
Department's approval. He explained that the applicant is
negotiating with the owner of the property in question but
no formal agreement has been arrived at.
Ms. Huckle asked about the method of inspection for the
compaction of the fill.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Wagner. In answer
to Ms. Huckle's question about the fill, he explained the
Building Inspections Department would inspect the site.
Mr. Wagner briefly reviewed the history of the site. He
also explained the drainage from the site and the plans for
handling the drainage. In response to Mr. Blue's question
about the cemetery, Mr. Wagner stated he did not know who is
buried in the cemetery and no concerns have been raised by
descendants. He confirmed that the plan is "workable" with
the cemetery.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Berkshire Woods Preliminary
Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
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. Department of Engineering approval of private road
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations to include upgrading of the
30" drain pipe under Solomon Road to accommodate stormwater;
c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan to include delineation of the undisturbed area
for the cemetery;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
drainage plans and calculations;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water and sewer plans;
f. Staff approval of a landscape plan;
g. Vacation of the public right-of-way between Solomon
Road and Parcel 34 on Tax Map 60A1.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. Administrative approval of future subdivision plats to
include:
a. Provision of public access to the cemetery;
b. Staff approval of road maintenance agreement.
179
12-15-92 19
4. A building permit shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Inspections Department approval of building plans
to include utilization of two-hour firewalls at the common
walls, unless fireflow available to the site exceeds 2,600
gpm at 20 psi.
5. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SDP-92-079 - Auto America Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal
to construct a 9,000 square foot auto parts sales and
service building with 50 parking spaces on a 0.923 acre site
to be accessed from Dominion Drive. Property, described as
Tax Map 61M, Section 12, Parcel 1D, is located in the
northwest quadrant of the Seminole Trail (Route 29N) and
Dominion Drive intersection. Zoned PDSC, Planned
Development Shopping Center and EC, Entrance Corridor
overlay District in the Charlottesville Magisterial
District. This site is located in a designated growth area
(Neighborhood 1) and is recommended for Community Service.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question as to the proposed
use, Ms. Hipski explained that the proposed use is "minor
auto repair similar to Jiffy Lube." Mr. Cilimberg and Mr.
Bowling explained that the Commission was not being asked to
approve the use because it is "by -right." Mr. Johnson noted
that if this were to be a retail use 70 parking spaces would
be required whereas only 50 are proposed with this use. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that if another use, requiring more
parking, were to locate at the site, the Zoning Department
would require that additional parking be provided before the
use could be approved. He explained that the 50 parking
spaces provided with this proposal meet the requirements for
this particular use. He stated that the site does not have
to be designed for the "ultimate user."
There was a discussion about the location of the entrance in
relation to the crossover on Rt. 29. It was explained that
a direct entrance onto Rt. 29 would not be allowed because
it would be less than 500 feet from the crossover; however,
the 500 foot limitation applies only to entrances directly
onto roads that have crossovers and therefore does not apply
to the entrance from the side road (Dominion Drive). It was
/79
12-15-92 20
noted that the crossover in question is to be eliminated at
some future time (work on 29 to begin in 1993).
Ms. Hipski confirmed that the site plan accommodates future
widening of Rt. 29.
Mr. Grimm asked why the entrance to the site could not be
through the shopping center rather than from Dominion Drive.
Ms. Hipski explained that this parcel is separate from the
shopping center and the existing shopping center layout
could not easily accommodate an additional entrance. She
stated that the two properties had never been considered
under one design plan. She explained further that though
there are easements connecting the two properties, there is
no evidence that it was intended that this parcel be
accessed through the shopping center. Mr. Cilimberg noted
that if the Commission "had any interest in the possibility
of a future connection" through the shopping center, then
suggested condition 1(g) (Abandonment of all access
easements connecting the Shopper's World property and this
property.] should be omitted. He explained that any change
which would provide that kind of connection would be a major
site plan amendment and would have to be reviewed.
The applicant was represented by Randy Sitack. He explained
the use as an auto parts store that does minor repairs,
tire replacement and balancing." Regarding condition 1(g),
he stated: "We refuse to abandon the existing easement." He
expressed concerns that the closing of the crossover may
cause a loss of business, at which time an access through
the shopping center will probably be pursued. Regarding the
"Berkeley" sign which currently exists on the property, he
stated that because of liability and maintenance issues, the
sign will have to be removed. (He noted that no easement
exists for the placement of the sign on the property.)
Mr. Blue asked why the access through the shopping center
was not proposed at this time since it is anticipated in the
future. Mr. Sitack commented on topographic problems with
the site, but stated that provisions are being made to allow
for the second access at some future time. He stated that
county staff had advised that it would be best not to pursue
two entrances at this time.
In response to Mr. Jenkins' question, Mr. Sitack stated that
Auto America is not concerned about the possibility that the
creation of the access through the shopping center would
result in the site being used as a "short cut."
Mr. cilimberg again noted that even though the applicant has
made it clear that the second access will be proposed in the
future, it will still require Commission review and shopping
center circulation will be an issue.
.j
12-15-92 21
In answer to Mr. Nitchmann's question regarding overnight
storage of vehicles, Mr. Sitack explained that overnight
parking is not allowed though there may be an occasion where
a car will be left on the site late in the evening to be
worked on the following morning.
Mr. Sitack estimated approximately 20 to 30 cars on the site
at a "busy time." He confirmed that all services would be
performed within the building. He stated that service bays
will face Dominion Drive and the applicant is currently
working with the Architectural Review Board on screening
hedges and the types of doors which will be on the service
bays.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. George Stovall, a Berkeley resident, addressed the
Commission. He was opposed to two entrances and recommended
that the entrance be through the shopping center. He
expressed concern about additional traffic on Dominion
Drive.
Ms. Joan Graves, a Berkeley resident, addressed the
Commission. She felt the entrance on Dominion Drive was
"inappropriate for the public and for the business itself."
She expressed concern about additional traffic on Dominion
Drive. She noted that though the lot is zoned PD-SC, it is
not large enough to stand alone as a shopping center. She
felt that "because of it's situation and because of its
zoning, this property should be considered as part of the
shopping center." She expressed concern about the removal
of the Berkeley/Four Seasons sign. She recalled that the
sign had been placed there legally, but she agreed that
there were no easements related to the sign's location on
the property. For future proposals for the property, she
asked that site plan hearing signs be posted on the property
where they can be safely read. She also asked that "the
nearest residents in Berkeley" receive notification for
future proposals for the property. Regarding the notion
that the site will be used as a shortcut after a second
entrance is constructed, she asked if the entrance on
Dominion Drive was being designed to accommodate the
increased traffic that would use the shortcut. [Mr.
Cilimberg addressed this concern stating: They will not
issue a commercial entrance permit without an adequate
commercial entrance." He explained further that any
additional requirements for the Dominion Drive entrance
would not be known until a proposal for the second entrance
was actually reviewed.]
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
/g/
12-15-92
22
Mr. Grimm summarized that the main issue was that of the
entrances to the site.
Ms. Andersen asked if the entrance on Dominion Drive could
be closed if an entrance through the shopping center is
approved. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I think you'd have to
judge that based on the facts before you (at that time)."
Mr. Jenkins asked if the applicant could request access from
Rt. 29 once the crossover has been closed. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that the applicant could make that request. He
noted that a certain distance between the intersection at
the shopping center and entrances onto Rt. 29 would have to
be maintained.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question as to whether the
Commission could require that the applicant pursue an access
across the shopping center and abandon the access on to a
public road (Dominion Drive), Mr. Bowling stated that he did
not think the Commission had that right "unless you can show
that there is some sort of overwhelming public health and
safety problem in using that public road."
Mr. Blue felt that staff would have called attention to any
issue of public health and safety. (Mr. Cilimberg noted
that staff had double checked with VDOT regarding the site
distance.)
Mr. Johnson noted that all departments were recommending
approval of the plan and no public health, safety and
welfare issues have been identified. Though he expressed
personal reservations about the economic feasibility of the
business given the location of the site, he moved that the
Auto America Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to
the following conditions:
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. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvements to include a commercial entrance;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of ten
(10) foot wide easement along the southwest border of the
property and water meter locations;
0
12-15-92 23
f. Architectural Review Board issuance of a final
Certificate of Appropriateness.
2. Administrative approval of final site plan.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Mr. Grimm stated he could support the motion because staff
and VDOT had determined there to be no public health and
safety issues.
Ms. Huckle indicated she agreed with Mr. Johnson's
reservations, and stated that she felt the site would be
better served with an access through the shopping center.
However, she stated she would support the motion.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
SDP-92-078 - Antec Warehousing Preliminary Site Plan
Proposal to construct two warehousing buildings of 13,440
and 12,780 square feet on a 2.32 acre site. An 11,465
square foot building exists on site. Property, described as
Tax Map 77, Parcel 40E, is located on the north side of
Broadway Street approximately 1/4 mile east of Carlton
Avenue. Zoned LI, Light Industry in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. This site is located in a designated growth area
(Neighborhood 3) and is recommended for Industrial Service.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He
offered no additional comment except to say that the
applicant concurred with the conditions of approval.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the Antec
Warehousing Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the
following conditions:
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. Department of Engineering
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering
detention plans and calculations;
approval of grading and
approval of stormwater
��
12-15-92
24
c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
approval of right-of-way improvements to include a
commercial entrance;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
final water plans.
2. Administrative approval of final site plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:25 p.m.
/P7