Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 14 81 PC MinutesApril 14, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, April 14, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman„ Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Allan Kindrick; and Mr. Richard Cogan. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning. Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Mrs. Diehl explained that due to the Finance Department being unable to provide the figures requested, the Capital Improvements Program item on the agenda would be postponed. Mr. Bowerman made a motion to defer setting the priorities of projects under the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no discussion. Mrs. Diehl stated that the next item on the agenda was ZMA-81-13 General Electric, but that since no representative was present, SP-81-12 Joseph J. Kelly would be reviewed next. SP-81-12 Joseph J. Kelly - Located off State Route 682, approximately 530 feet from the intersection of Route 682 and Route 787. County Tax Map 57, part of Parcel 105, part of Parcel 810, and part of Parcel 104, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Petition to locate a community swimming facility on 1.469 acres zoned RA Rural Areas (Ivy Woods). Mr. Keeler gave the staff report, explaining that the application represented the Ivy Woods Homeowners' Association's desire to locate a swim club in the subdivision. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant had any comments. Mr. Kelly explained that Mr. Stevenson had donated the land and that the community backed this petition and had worked on financing since August. Mr. Kelly said in addition that the concern of the Highway Department for increased traffic on Routes 682 and 757 was shared by the homeowners. Nonetheless, he added, residents of Ivy Woods would like residents along Route 757 included in the membership. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment on this petition. Since there was not, Mrs. Diehl declared the matter before the Commission. Mr. Davis questioned condition one, which would limit the use of the pool exclusively to Ivy woods homeowners and their guests. He stated that this condition did not leave any flexibility and suggested that a limit be placed instead on membership. Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Mr. Davis and pointed out that policing who is going to use the pool is hard, based on where people live. Mr. Kell,, said that the Association's preference was a geographic limitation, because that provided an npt.ion to refuse additional memberships. 2q?) Mrs. Diehl inquired of Mr. Kelly whether there were thirty potential memberships in that area. Mr. Kelly replied that there were, with close to twenty-two already and eight or nine additional lots eventually expected to be sold. He added that thirty was the total calculated to be sufficient to include the local residents. Mr. Davis observed that he was uncertain as to whether it was appropriate or proper for the Planning Commission to initiate a restriction on a private club in order to aid such a club in policing itself. Mr. Kelly elaborated on the purpose of a geographic restriction, explaining that the intent was to maintain the recreational club a community/family facility. He stated that an open club was not desired and that control by the community would be lost if membership were open. Mr. Davis stated that he understood Mr. Kelly's concern, but that he remained uncertain as to the proper role of the Planning Commission in addressing this issue. Mr. Payne stated that it was secondary as to whether or not a geographic restriction aided the swim club in policing its membership, but that such a restriction did in his opinion address the legitimate County concerns of traffic by limiting membership to area residents, many of whom might in all probability walk rather than drive. Mrs. Diehl concurred with Mr. Payne and added that such a restriction would also reflect the Highway Department's concerns. Mr. Keeler added that the reasoning behind this condition number one had been the Highway Department's concern about increased traffic. He stated that there are several good-sized subdivisions in the area and that the Highway Department had been under a lot of pressure about road conditions. Mr. Bowerman said that he preferred limiting the membership to a total of thirty and let the club decide how the membership is filled. Mr. Bowerman said that he believed such a limit addressed traffic concerns, pointing out that Route 787 would eventually develop on both sides and might present a future problem if the restriction were geographic. Mrs. Diehl asked whether members were allowed guests. Mr. Keeler replied that they were. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he agreed with Mr. Bowerman, that limiting the number of memberships also limits the amount of traffic and gives the club flexibility in accepting or denying a membership. He reiterated that the real concern of the County was the safety factor and limiting increased vehicle trips. Mr. Kelly responded that this concept of limiting memberships to thirty was new to him and came as a surprise. He added that he had a little concern about how difficult it might be to increase membership at some point in the future. It was ascertained that thirty lots presently exist in Ivy Woods with eighteen lots additionally on Route 787. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Highway Department rate how many vehicle trips additionally could be tolerated on this road. Mrs. Diehl stated that the road was already rated intolerable. Mr. Gloeckner asked how many members were needed to maintain the pool. Mr. Kelly replied that all projections were based on thirty, but that figure might change in four or five years. Mr. Gloeckner suggested that charter membership could be limited to thirty with additional guests by invitation. Mr. Payne observed that enforcement of such a restriction would be dubious. He said that there were two issues in question, (1) whether you were going to have someone posted to see whether members with identification used the pool, which was a policing issue, and (2) if the intent was to allow non-resident guests to use•the pool, there was no basis in a limit, because there could easily be seventy instead of thirty using the pool, regardless of whether they were members or guests. Mr. Davis asked whether on -site parking would be provided. Mr. Keeler replied yes. Mrs. Diehl stated that she had no difficulty with a geographic limitation and believed that with a thirty -families restriction, it might be circumvented at some point. Mr. Gloeckner agreed that if the purpose was to limit the expansion and use of the facility, perhaps a geographic restriction was desirable and preferable to a number limitation. Mr. Gloeckner and Mr. Skove said that either limitation, whichever was agreeable to the applicant,was acceptable. Mr. Cogan asked how adjacent property owners felt about having a pool located adjacent to their parcels. Mr. Kelly responded that Mr. Stevenson was the adjacent owner on two sides and Mr. Mike Zaken on the others. He said that Mr. Zaken had walked over the area with him and had determined that the pool would not be visible to an existing home on the property. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to go into more detail about the area requirements for locating the pool on this site. Mr. Keeler explained that this matter was next on the agenda, that is, redivision of Lots 1 and 2, Ivy Woods Subdivision. Mr. Keeler explained that this application had been caught by the new Zoning Ordinance, but that back in August under the old A-1 district a 60,000 square foot lot was permitted. Mr. Keeler explained that under the requirements of the new Zoning Ordinance, the applicant would need to seek a variance from Board of Zoning Appeals . This could be sought, Mr. Keeler explained, if the Commission permitted administrative approval of the subdivision plat. 2 vs_� Mrs. Diehl asked whether there would be a problem should Parcel x have to lease land from Lot 1, leaving a lot with less than the required 4 acres. Mr. Payne responded that there would be two uses on a lot of three and a half acres. Mr. Keeler said that it would involve waiving 1836D. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further questions concerning the special use permit application. Mr. Skove asked about a maintenance agreement for the pool itself. Mr. Keeler responded that such a condition could be made, but that it was being treated as open space. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Health Department had other requirements for the amount of area around a pool. She also inquired about a good water source. Mr. Kelly indicated that these matters would have to be looked into. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of the special use permit, subject to the two conditions recommended by staff, and as revised by the Commission: 1) The use of the pool shall be limited exclusively to Ivy Woods homeowners and their guests and to those owners of property and their guests along Route 682 from Route 250 to Route 787 and along Route 787; 2) Staff approval of site plan to include fencing and parking. 1004 Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mrs. Diehl stated that redivision of Lots 1 and 2, Ivy Woods subdivision, would be considered next. She asked the applicant, Mr. Kelly, whether he wished to make any comments. When he did not, Mrs. Diehl asked for public comment. Mr. Stevenson indicated that this redivision was an improvement, allowing the two usable portions of the two lots to be joined. When there was no further public comment, Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was before the Commission. She explained that staff was requesting to be allowed to administratively approve the redivision shown on the submitted plat, subject to a variance being granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, to allow less than the required area. Mr. Stevenson indicated that he would prefer the new configuration of Lots 1 and 2, regardless of whether it was possible to form Parcel x separately. Mr. Cogan said that such a division would leave a residue that would be below the minimum area requirement. He added that perhaps some of the excess area over 2 acres in Lot 2 could be added to Parcel x, making that Parcel closer to the minimum requirement and therefore in a more favorable light for the Board of Zoning Appeals. 19 7z� Mr. Davis moved to allow staff to administratively approve the proposed redivision, subject to Board of Zoning Appeals action on a variance request. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. ZMA-81-12 S. L. Williamson Co., Inc. Located west side of Rivanna River, just south of the confluence of the North and South Forks. County Tax Map 62, Parcel 16 (part), Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone 20 acres from R-4 Residential to R-4 with Natural Resources Overlay district. SP-81-10 S. L. Williamson Co., Inc. - Petition to remove sand and gravel on approximately 4 acres in floodway of South Fork Rivanna River, in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report, explaining that these petitions were in conjunction with one another. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant wished to make any comments at this time. Mr. Clyde Gouldman introduced himself as representing S. L. Williamson Co., Inc., and said that the company had no formal presentation to make but that he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Gouldman stated that Sterling Williamson would outline his plans if granted a special use permit. Mr. Williamson indicated that his company acquires sand in order to use it in making asphalt. He said that at the present the sand was brought from Richmond and Fredericksburg, causing a cost that was passed along to consumers. He said that it would be an advantage to both S. L. Williamson and to local purchasers to get the sand locally. Mr. Williamson said that he had been getting sand from the Rivanna River at various locations for thirty years. He explained that access points for getting the sand, which is of especially high quality, are sometimes a problem, but that in this instance there was a natural point in an undeveloped area that would not affect a subdivision and would replenish itself as a renewable resource. Mr. Williamson explained that after removal, a high water level will cause the sand to redenosit itself in the same spot. He additionally explained the exit route that loaded trucks would take to carry the sand to the asphalt plants off the site, via Rio Road to Route 29. Mrs. Diehl asked where the asphalt plants are located. Mr. Williamson answered that they are at Shadwell and Red Hill. Mr. Bowerman asked where the entrance on Rio Road is located. Mr. Williamson answered that it is located at a curve just east of the Technical Center. He indicated that the company was willing and able to meet the Highway Department requirements for a commercial entrance at that road. Mr. Bowerman asked how many truck trips were estimated. Mr. Williamson answered that there would probably be about 5,000 tons a year with 15 tons per truck load, making it about 333 trips or about one a day. 2V7 Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Williamson whether this sand would be limited to use by his company or whether there were any plans to sell it additionally either by having outside trucks come in or removing more sand to sell from another site. Mr. Williamson replied that there were no such plans and that the sand was too soft for use in concrete. He reiterated that it was a source for Williamson's asphalt production only. Mrs. Diehl asked him to explain exactly where the sand would be removed. Mr. Williamson responded that it would be taken out of a sand bar actually in the river at two points. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the size of the two new locations was greater than the one in use presently and whether the flood plain would be affected. Mr. Williamson replied that the size would be equivalent to the one currently in use, but new sites were necessary because of the lack of rain, the renewable source not having renewed itself due to the drought. He added that the flood plain would practically be untouched, since a road already existed. He said that perhaps a tree or two would have to be removed. The Commission asked Mr. Payne to describe the character of the area as a canoe enthusiast. Mr. Payne described the area as largely flat, partially pasture and partially corn crop. He said that the river is pretty and amazingly pristine with two crossings, the railroad and Dr. Hurt's bridge. He said that the river is used for canoeing with people usually putting in at Route 29 and exiting at Free Bridge. Mr. Payne added that this area is a private farm and that he has a permit to hunt on the property. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the land connecting the two sand removal sites would continue to be used for farming. Mr. Williamson replied that the farming would not be affected by his operation in the river. He further explained that the twenty acres in the rezoning petition were due to the minimum requirement, although the actual area needed for parking of equipment and related sand removal activities would be no more than two acres. Mrs. Diehl asked whether by rezoning this property, the rest of the flood overlay district would be open to permitted uses. Mr. Payne replied that permitted uses would still require permits from certain State or Federal agencies. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of ZMA-81-12. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of SP-81-10, subject to the following conditions as recommended by staff: 2YS These conditions shall apply in addition to the requirements, limitations, and prohibitions of 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District and 30.4 Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District: 1) The sand removal activity shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to impede canoe and boat passage; 2) No tree removal shall be permitted, except as is necessary to provide access to sand deposits. The sand removal activity shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to expose the root system of shoreline trees by river bank excavation nor shall equipment travel over, be parked on, or otherwise encroach on tree -root systems; 3) On -site processing shall be limited to screening of excavated material. No washing of excavated material shall be permitted; 4) Use and maintenance of sediment curtains shall be required during dredging operations; if recommended as being effective and purposeful by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission; 5) County Engineer approval of entrance road specifications in accordance with 30.4.11.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 6) Compliance with the soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance. In review of plans, the Soil Erosion Committee should be mindful of the conditions of approval of this special use permit; 7) The County Engineer shall make periodic inspection of the sites to insure compliance with conditions 1 through 6 of this special use permit. The County Engineer may require such corrective measures as deemed necessary to insure compliance with these conditions. 8) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, after brief discussion of the wording on Condition 4, making this condition conditional upon recommendation by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. There was no further discussion and the motion passed unanimously. Mrs. Diehl asked how the Soil Erosion Committee would be advised, in Condition 6. Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Ashley Williams of the Engineering Department, who is head of this Committee, would be sent a copy of the conditions of approval on this special use permit. Mrs. Diehl stated that since no representative from General Electric was present, a motion for deferral was in order. Mr. Skove moved for deferral of ZMA-81-13 General Electric to May 5, 1981. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler if he had an additional item under NEW BUSINESS, since it was agreed to postpone Capital Improvements Program, and since there was no OLD BUSINESS. Mr. Keeler stated that there were two addtional items, one being a request for withdrawal without prejudice of ZMA-81-6 Charles D. Kincannon and Dennis Ownby. Mr. Skove moved for approval of the requested withdrawal without prejudice, which was seconded by Mr. Gloeckner and passed unanimously with no further discussion. zz9 Mr. Keeler said that the second item under NEW BUSINESS was scheduling a date for a work session on the Sign Commission's proposed ordinance. He gave the background on the establishment of this Commission and stated that the work session would include members of the Sign Commission and would take about an hour and a half. The dates of April 27 and May 4 were discussed, and it was determined that Monday, April 27, 1981, was the preferred date, to be held from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Since there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:55 p.m. 9 250