Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 30 79 PC MinutesApril 30, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Monday, April 30, 1979, 4:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William R. Washington, Chairman; Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Charles Vest; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. Absent were Mr. Layton McCann and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Douglas Eckel, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Mr. Tucker said that the Commission would be discussing the overlay districts that day, and suggested that the first item of discussion would be the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay. He noted that representatives from Luck Quarries and Martin -Marietta were present for input regarding the text along with their attorney, Mr. Clyde Gouldman. Mr. Gouldman addressed the Commission with regard to the text noting that at a later date he wishes to discuss the map. He pointed out that quarries are vital to the construction industry, and the closer they are to building operations, the more economical stone is. He said that stone is quite important to construction of even single-family residences and the quarries in this county are an asset to said t the map oes ot seem to local tforn nuser which•mightHe abeosomewhatashort sighted. nHe gave thedate staff any neww sisiteses recommended changes in the text from the KDA text. Mr. Tucker replied that the staff would take these into consideration when it prepared wording for the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay. Mr. Gouldman questioned the intent of 6.8.3.1, and asked if this use would be by right or by special use permit. Mr. Tucker said that once the overlay is placed over the district, the use is intended as a use by right. Mr. Gouldman suggested that the area be reviewed every fiveyears as revised opposed to every year due to the slowness of operation of quarries. ( He suggested wording incorporating the five year time period in Section 6.8.4. ) Mr. Payne said that the state reviews the permit status yearly. Mr. Gouldman suggested that the state permit could be forwarded to the county, and if that is not dcne, the quarrying permit could be revoked by the county. He discussed Section 6.8.3, noting that fences, where deemed necessary, should be five feet in height, since this height is compatible with fences normally found in rural areas. He felt that aesthetically, this is the more desirable height. Mr. Gouldman also addressed fence height for open excavations and water collection points, noting that if required at all they should be five feet. He said that normalb� a quarry is fenced and the interior fencing for a pond is not convenient since the/is used daily in rock washing operations. Furthermore, he not that if a quarry is ever abandoned , that Gouldmanese fresh would be the appropriate time to fence the onds flexibilitlikened inhthe hours water ponds to any farm pond. Next he suggested providing Y of operation setforth in Section 6.8.11. He said that in peak sEasons, a second shift is necessary at times: He asked that the hours be changed to 7:00 a.m. to midnight. /; 7"� However, he pointed out that he is not discussing permitting blasting in the evenings. Mr. Gouldman closed his comments by stating that some of the regulations setforth in the consultant's proposal is exactly that of the Fairfax County ordinance, which does not meet some of the national standards. He suggested that this is the case since the same consultants prepared both the Fairfax ordinance and the Albemarle County Ordinance. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff basically agrees with the comments submitted from the two local operations, since they seem to outline the state requirements for minimum standards. Mrs. Diehl questioned the method for measuring the particle velocity. Mr. Foster replied that it is similar equipment used for measuring earthquakes, only scaled down. Mrs. Diehl then questioned its dependency on soil type. Mr. Foster agreed that it is dependent upon soil type, though the particle velocity is measured at the critical distance. Mr. Wiseman told the Commission that Luck Quarries monitors a large percentage of iLs shots and keeps accurate records. The policy of that corporation is to monitor at least 90% of the shots with the seismograph on the neighbor's property. He stated that it is most important to maintain good relationships with the local neighbors. ( Mr. Gloeckner arrived at the meeting. ) Mr. Wiseman then urged protection of reserves for the future. questioned Col. Washington^ the undeveloped reserves owned by these companies. Mr. Wiseman said that there are no undeveloped reserves owned by the companies other than what they are currently operating. Col. Washington expressed concern with the concept that any area could have quarries as a use by right. Mr. Tucker clarified that what he meant earlier is that the property would first have to be rezoned, and then the natural resource overlay would apply. Critical Slopes: Mr. Tucker said that the staff recommends this as a substitute for the Hillside Overlay proposed by KDA. He said that this will identify where building may occur. He said that building sites will be on slopes of 25% or less and noted the 30,000 square foot requirement of Section 4.21.2.2. He said that this does not speak to forested areas - that will be addressed in the supplementary regulations. The provisions of this section will apply countywide, and will be reviewed at the time of submittal of plans for development. Mrs. Diehl questioned if the staff intends to use the table on page 180 of. the KDA proposal, which is also in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said that if that were done it would be necessary Y to identify the areas on the zoning p, and as this has been discussed, it is impossible. l73 Mr. Keeler said that the table mentioned by Mrs. Diehl could be included as part of the Soil Erosion Ordinance. The amendment could be written so that it would apply countywide. He said that those provisions are currently in the Watershed Protection Ordinance. Mrs. Diehl expressed concern that the Comprehensive Plan addresses protection for slopes of 15-25% and this language adresses protection of slopes 25% and over. She said that it appears that these figures should be the same. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the protection of slopes of 15-25% would reduce the density and this is consistent with the RR. Mr. Payne said that the staff's concept is entirely different from KDAI,and probably enforceable. KDA's proposal says that if there is "x" slope, must have "y" lot size. The lot size in the staff proposal does not matter and neithez does the slope, but there has to be a building site of at least 30,000 square feet. Mrs. Graves said that the 30,000 square feet should be worded as "land in itG natural state" since with grading it is possible to change the contour lines relatively easily. Mr. Payne said that could be a problem, and questioned what she means by the definition of "land in its natural state." area Mrs. Diehl said that it could be land/prior to any grading. She felt that the language is intended for more than adequate maintenance of septic fields. Mr. Payne pointed out that this ordinance ( the zoning ordinance ) could not be read in isolation from other ordinances. Mr. Keeler said that the provisions in this language are supported by the Health Department and by the County Engineer's Office. Col. Washington said that he favors the 30,000 square foot provision, however does not feel that any land should be graded to achieve that square footage. Mr. Tucker said that at the time of review the topo should be of land existing in its natural slope. Mrs. Graves said that she does not think the Comprehensive Plan envisions mountaintops with 2-acre lots. Mr. Payne said that the language seems to be dealing with post development. concerns - like the septic system success. Mrs. Diehl felt that it should address the concerns of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker noted that the intent is to protect steep slopes where development does occur. Mrs. Graves favored cutting the slopes from 25% to 15% until the supplementary regulations are reviewed by the Commission. /Y/ After a discussion of this concept, the Commission reached a concensus to recommend to the Board of Supervisors amendment of the Soil Erosion Ordinance to include those development standards which are not included in the Critical Slopes provisions. The development standards were to be discussed with the County Engineer and brought back to the Commission at a later date. The following changes were made by the Commission in the Critical Slopes Provisions: 1. Delete Sections 4.21.4, 4.21.4.1, and 4.21.4.2; 2. The word "retard" in Sections 4.21 and 4.21.5 should be changed to "discourage." 3. The wording of Section 4.21.2.1 should be changed to read as follows: "For a use served by other than a central sewerage system, the building site shall have an area of 30,000 square feet or greater and shall be of such dimension that no one dimension shall exceed any other by a ratio of more than 5 to I." Airport Impact Area Overlay District: Mr. Tucker explained the various impact areas and noted that they are identified on the airport master plan. He said that Section 6.2.3.2 is not necessary and should be struck from the district. Col. Washington suggested calling this the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Impact Area Overlay District. Mr. Payne did not feel that would be a good idea since it is conceivable that there might be another airport in the County at a later date that these regulations would apply to. He noted that this district is only where the county shows it on the official zoning map. Mr. Skove felt that at a later date it would be advisable to adopt the airport master plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 6.2.3.2. The Commission made no other textual changes other that striking Section Flood Hazard Overlay: Mr. Tucker said that this is similar to the existing flood plain regulations in the zoning ordinance. He explained the various divisions of this district and the uses setforth by special use permit and by right. Col. Washington suggested irrigation pumping as a use by right. No other changes were made in the text. Mr. Tucker reported that the Scenic Rivers Committee will report to the Board of Supervisors and the Board will probably then pass its recommendations to the Commission for review as possible inclusions in the zoning ordinance. /75 Col. Washington advised the Commission that he does not feel it would be good for the County to arbitrarily designate sites over the county as nat,.:ral resource overlays. Mr. Tucker noted that the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay text will be brought back to the Commission at a later date. He said that he feels the rezoning should be applied for prior to establishment of any quarry. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 6:50. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. - Secretary N 19