HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 08 83 PC MinutesMarch 8, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, March 8, 1983, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room 7, Second Floor,
Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David P. Bowerman, Chair-
man; Mr. Richard P. Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Norma A. Diehl;
Mr. James R. Skove; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.; Mr. Allan B. Kindrick;
Mr. Timothy Michel; and Ms. Ellen V. Nash, Ex-Officio. Other
officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney;
Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler,
Assistant Director of Planning; Ms. Kat Imhoff, Planner.
Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order. He asked whether there
were any corrections or additions to the minutes of February 22;
when there were not, he declared the minutes approved as submitted.
Mr. Bowerman informed the public that although official action on
the requests would take place at the appointed time on the agenda,
both Innovation Chemical and Mr. David Lee Spradlin had requested
withdrawal and deferral, respectively.
SP-83-6 Mitchell O. Carr - Request to locate mobile home on
,%✓ 1358.154 acres zoned RA Rural Areas, County Tax reap 111, Parcel 8V,
Scottsville Magisterial District. Located at the intersection of
Routes 712 and 719, near Alberene.
Mr. Ronald S. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant's representative wished
to speak. A Mr. James Thomas identified himself as a new employee
at Augusta Lumber, who had been requested to attend the meeting
but would have no comment to offer.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was public comment on this application.
Mr. Rey Barry identified himself as a resident with his wife of the
Alberene area, which he described as consisting of small homes.
He told the Commission that he had filed a letter of opposition to
this petition which gave in some detail the history of the area and
his reasons for opposing the placement of a mobile home on this
property. The owner of Beaumont Farm, across from Edgemont Farm,
stated that she was adamantly opposed to the placement of a mobile
home in this area. The manager of Edgemont Farm spoke for the owner
whom he sated was out of the country and who did not believe it
appropriate to locate a mobile home on this property. Mr. Bobbie
Pancake added his opposition, explaining that it was not related
to Mr. Carr's having requested the special use permit, but just to
having a mobile home in that area.
When there was no further public comment, Mr. Bowerman declared the
matter to be before the Commission.
a7
Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. stated that he could not remember the Commission
ever approving a permanent mobile home special use permit that was
not for the primary occupation by the owner, with the exception of
close family members. Mr. Davis said that he had visited the site
and did not conceive of it as appropriate for a mobile home,
expecially in light of there being so much acreage.
Mr. Skove asked whether the problem was with the area and not the
amount of acreage.
Mrs. Diehl asked for a clarification on who had made the application.
She asked whether the gentleman represented Augusta Lumber or
whether this was a private application.
Mr. Keeler explained that Mr. Carr had signed the application and
that he had been unable to reach the applicant previously. He added
that tonight was the first time he had heard that Augusta Lumber was
involved.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Thomas directly whether he knew if Mr. Carr
planned to live in this mobile home. He responded that he did not
know.
Ms. Nash told the Commission that in the past the Board has been
very reluctant to approve mobile homes for anything other than for
actual owners. She added that there had been problems in the past
with recreational uses of non -owner occupied mobile homes.
Mrs. Diehl stated that with the little information before her she
could not approve this application.
Mr. Skove remarked that with so much acreage available, he believed
there could be a more appropriate site for placement of a mobile
home and in such a case he could approve it.
Mr. Kindrick stated that it was not clear what the purpose of the
mobile home was, whether for a tenant, night watchman or for whom.
Mr. Davis moved for denial of SP-83-6 on the basis that it did not
appear to be for owner occupation. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
SP-83-3 Harry D. Campbell - Request to locate a mobile home on
acres zoned Rural Areas, County Tax Map 99, Parcel 50, Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. Located west side of Route 712, one
and one-half miles south of the intersection of Routes 712 and 29
South.
Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant wished to speak at this time.
MIZ
Mr. Campbell told the Commission that the mobile home would be
located off the road and would have no visibility problems. He
added that he had a deeded right-of-way through Augusta Lumber
property and that another mobile home existed a quarter of a mile away.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was public comment.
Mr. Samuel Henderson stated that he lives on the northern side of
Augusta Lumber. He said that an existing stack of lumber currently
acts as a buffer for him from the sawmill. Mr. Henderson suggested
that if the mobile home was proposed housing for a worker at the
sawmill, there were sites closer to the sawmill.
Earl Leake and Pauline Leake spoke in favor of the proposed mobile
home, explaining that Mrs. Leake was born adjacent to the sawmill
and that they had spoken to the other owners of Parcel 41, who were
also in favor of the application.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether there was additional public comment.
When there was not, Mr. Campbell added that he would be living
close to the mobile home himself..
Mr. Bowerman declared the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Davis said that once again it appeared to be a case where the
primary occupant would not be the owner and the site was located in
the Rural Areas.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Campbell about who might occupy the mobile
home. Mr. Campbell replied that his brother-in-law and employee.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne whether the applicant's right-of-way
had any bearing on this application. Mr. Payne replied that the
availability of access to a site always constituted a consideration
in the use of that site. He said that if in the judgment of the
Commission the establishment of this use would occasion some
problem with respect Lo the entrance, then it should be considered.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the right-of-way limited the location
of the mobile home. Mr. Payne replied that he would not think so,
since normally an easement serves an entire parcel.
Mr. Skove asked how many dwellings would be served by this righ'C-of-
way.
Mr. Campbell replied that the right-of-way would be used by the
occupant of the mobile home and by him for access to farm land
where he checks on cattle. Mrs. Diehl established that there was
an alternative access to other parcels owned by Mr. Campbell or
he could in fact extend this right-of-way.
Mr. Cogan asked more specifically where the mobile home might be
located, since an adjacent property owner had pointed out that a
stack of lumber acting as a buffer at the present time would have
to be removed in order to place the mobile home on this site.
Mr. Keeler responded that the mobile home was supposed to be
located 150 feet from the Augusta Lumber line and 150 feet from
the boundary to the north; he added that the 22-foot easement runs
along the northern boundary line. Mr. Keeler pointed out that
Augusta Lumber had an active loading site adjacent to this property
along with stacks of lumber.
Mr. Cogan stated that it was still not clear to him how the stack
or stacks of lumber would be affected by placement of the mobile
home. Mr. Keeler responded that the stored lumber was actually
in the easement and therefore would have to be removed for use by
the mobile home occupant.
Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was a condition of the previous
special use permit of Augusta Lumber to provide a buffer for a
residence. Mrs. Diehl said that possibly the stacked lumber was
serving some purpose to meet the buffer requirement.
Mr. Keeler said that he did not recollect that condition but there
was a condition that addressed noise, that it not exceed the noise
level in existence prior to expansion.
Ms. Nash recollected previous discussion of stacked lumber along
the road, which staff had cautioned constituted somewhat of a
safety hazard.
Mr. Bowerman stated that his concern was not the 22-foot right-of-
way, but the location of the mobile home in relation to Augusta's
sawmill. He said that he would think a residential use that close
to an industrial use was not appropriate and that considering the
amount of acreage available, a better location could be found
further from the heavy industrial activity of the Augusta Lumber
sawmill.
Mrs. Diehl agreed that the safety of a residence and use of right-
of-way so close to the sawmill concerned her.
Mr. Skove observed that the choice was up to any home buyer or
builder to locate that close to heavy industrial activity and the
primary issue would be a buffer.
Mr. Davis observed once again that it would not be the primary
residence of the owner. He asked Mr. Keeler if this special use
permit was for the permanent location of a mobile home; Mr. Keeler
replied that it was.
Mr. Cogan observed that the idea of having an employee living nearby
was not a bad idea, acting somewhat as a watchman or security
protection in case of fire, for example. He stated that in his
opinion it would serve a useful purpose and would not bother anyone.
Mr. Keeler stated to the Chairman that he might want to discuss
this use with Mr. Vaughn, the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Keeler
explained that in the Rural Areas a mobile home was permitted as
a use by right for the use of an agricultural employee. Mr. Keeler
suggested that agricultural/forestal activities were related and
might somehow apply in this instance.
E�O
Mr. Vaughn, asked by Mr. Bowerman to speak to this issue, stated
that it was his understanding that Mr. Campbell purchases wood grown
and cut on property other than his own, thereby making his sawmill
a commercial operation. He indicated that were Mr. Campbell
cutting his own wood, cultivated on his own property, and using his
own sawmill, such an operation could be determined an agricultural
endeavor. Mr. Bowerman ascertained from Mr. Vaughn that Mr. Campbell's
use of the mobile home was therefore definitely not a -ase by right.
Mr. Bowerman inquired of Mr. Campbell whether he wished to speak to
the location of the mobile home, in response to an earlier question
from the Chairman on why this particular site had been chosen.
Mr. Campbell answered that he would be quite willing to move the
mobile home further back into the woods, even five hundred feet.
Mrs. Diehl observed that this would settle two concerns. Mr. Bowerman
agreed that such an arrangement would satisfy him - a site a reasonable
distance back. He asked whether there was further discussion.
Mr. Vaugn asked about making a condition of approval prohibiting
undue cutting of timber on the site when the applicant seeks Health
Department approval of a septic field. Mr. Cogan observed that
Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance serves such a purpose.
Mr. Davis asked whether, if this special use permit were approved
and the mobile home placed on the property for this employee, who
miciht at a later date resign and leave, in fact the mobile home
might then be renter'.. Mr. Payne replied that it could.
Mr. Cogan r�-mtarked ghat any mobile home the Commission might
approve could in fact be rented. Mr. Davis responded that in the
past approvals have been specifically conditioned to be owner -
occupied. Mr. Cogan observed that even if an approval is so
conditioned, five years later the owner might move to Florida and
rent his mobile home; he asked how such a condition requiring owner
occupancy could be enforced.
Mr. Davis stated that many mobile home special use permits were
approved administratively and never came before the Commission,
but that in those cases coming before the Commission, most were
conditioned to be the primary residence of the owner, or conditioned
as temporary or through expiration dates. Both Commissioners
stated that they were not in favor of mobile homes being located
all over the County, but Mr. Cogan again questioned how it would
ever be possible to control whether mobile homes were rented.
When there was no further discussion, Mr. Cogan moved for approval
of the special use permit with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2
2. The mobile home to be located at least 500 feet away from the
Augusta Lumber Company.
Mr. Skove asked the applicant, Mr. Campbell, if this was agreeable
to him. When he indicated that it was, Mr. Skove seconded the motion
which passed 4 - 3 with Mrs. Diehl and Messrs. Davis and Bowerman
dissenting.
q/
ZMA-83-1 Innovation Chemical, Incorporated - Request to rezone
2.320 acres currently zoned Light Industrial to Heavy Industrial
with proffer. County Tax Map 77, Parcel 40E, Scottsville Magisterial
District. Located off Franklin Street, in portion of existing
Cardinal Recycling Center.
SP-83-2 Innovation Chemical, Incorporated - Request to locate
chemical mixing and distribution operations on 2.320 acres currently
zoned LI, requested to be rezoned HI with proffer (ZMA-83-1), County
Tax Map 77, Parcel 40E, Scottsville Magisterial District. Located
off Franklin Street, in portion of existing Cardinal Recycling Center.
Mr. Bowerman informed the Commission that the applicant requested
withdrawal of both the rezoning and special use permit applications
referenced above. Mrs. Diehl moved for acceptance of the withdrawal
request, and Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mr. Payne requested that the record show that his firm represented
the owner of this property and one of the applicants; even though
this was a perfunctory action by the Commission, he asked that the
record indicate that he did not participate in any deliberations.
Mr. Skove remarked that he would like to discuss at some point the
minimum acreage requirement for heavy industrial use; he noted that
Innovation Chemical had obtained a variance from Section 28.3 of the
Zoning Ordinance, which requires a minimum of five acres to
establish an HI district.
Mr. Bowerman announced that the next item on the agenda was:
SP-83-5 David Lee or Mary Jean Spradlin - Request to amend Condition
Nine of SP-77-83 to allow office trailer on 5.514 acres zoned Rural
Areas, County Tax Map 104, Parcel 14F1, Scottsville Magisterial
District. Located on northwest side of Route 620, three-quarters of
a mile north of the intersection of Routes 620 and 728.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the applicant had requested deferral to
April 5, but that public comment would be received at this time.
When there was no public comment, Mr. Davis moved for deferral to
April 5, Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Agricultural/Forestal District Report from A/F Advisory Committee
(meeting of March 1, 1983).
Mr. Keeler read the report compiled after the March 1, 1983, meeting
of the A/F Advisory Committee and then presented the Staff Report on
the effects of establishing agricultural/forestal districts in the
County. Mr. Keeler added that subsequent to the Advisory Committee
meeting, Mr. Gary J. Riviere, Extension Agent with the Virginia
Cooperative Extension Service, had written him a letter to express
concern about the consequences of broadleaf herbicide spraying to
grape foliage. Mr. Riviere suggested in his letter that
;Z1
farmers intending to use any type of broadleaf herbicides in the
vicinity of grapes, be required to notify grape producers.
**AW Mr. Cogan observed that he knew of several suits and cases of
litigation pending against commercial growers. He pointed out that
there were instances of individual growers spraying respective crops
without knowledge of damaging neighboring crops.
on
Mr. Payne told the Commission that a statute existed addressing
this problem and that it was not uncommon when a grower sprayed
aerially and the wind shifted, to cause damage at some distance.
He remarked that such instances could typically be called negligence.
Mr. Cogan agreed that cooperation was necessary among various growers
to prevent such situations.
Mr. Davis questioned the worth of agricultural districts if a farmer
were prevented from spraying.
Ms. Nash asked whether in order to escape damage the grape vines had
to have reached a certain stage. Mr. Cogan responded that different
crops had various levels of sensitivity - some could be damaged by
vapor the next day after spraying. He stated that grapes in
particular were especially prone to damage from sprays.
Mr. Keeler said that he thought Mr. Riviere might be present at the
April fifth meeting, when a public hearing was tentatively scheduled,
and would be able to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Mr. Cogan asked whether, under point five of the report from the
Advisory Committee, participants could be made aware of the possible
restrictions governing these districts before making a final
commitment to participate. Mr. Keeler responded that there was a
thirty -day grace period following final Board action, during which
any participant/property owner could withdraw.
Ms. Nash asked whether there would be a separate ordinance drawn up
in each district. Mr. Keeler said that there would but he would
anticipate it would in effect be the same ordinance.
Ms. Nash established that although the Advisory Committee recommended
review of the districts every ten years, as currently before the
Commission, review would be every eight years.
Ms. Nash asked whether establishment of the districts would increase
or decrease land use. Mr. Keeler responded that currently the land
use question was moot. Mr. Payne added that it would be unlikely
that any land under an A/F district would be other than land use.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the same agricultural criteria would have
to be met in either case.
Mr. Cogan mentioned that the only other concern he had was that if
enough land were covered under the A/F districts, land use might be
taken off the books.
33
�4s. Nash asked about how the districts affect adjacent property
owners. Mr. Keeler explained that it was a common practice to have
people move into a rural area and then complain about noise or
odor nuisance coming from adjacent farms.
Next, Mr. Keeler presented the March 8, 1983, Staff Report:
Discussion of A/F Districts Act - Effect of Districts.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether Staff was looking for some direction
from the Commission at this point. Mr. Keeler responded that input
from the Commission on such matters as particular zoning regulations
would be helpful if the Commission did not agree so far with the
approach of Staff on the three issues addressed in the Staff Report.
Mr. Skove observed that until the districts were actually in effect
it was difficult to predict what situations or problems might arise
due to their establishment.
Mr. Payne told the Commission that in brainstorming sessions he had
participated in with Mr. Tucker and Mr. Keeler, it had become evident
that the current RA districts were almost ideally suited to these
A/F districts, being conceptually so similar. Mr. Payne continued,
saying that one issue raised by Mr. Keeler was how to define a more
intensive use, what constitutes a more intensive use.
Mr. Payne said in summary that in the RA, five or fewer lots of less
than twenty-one acres were of minimal concern and not a subdivision
problem. He said that a property owner with more area than this
would be a concern, but the two districts (RA and A/F) dovetail well
in concept. Mr. Payne said that very few cases came to mind whore
this wo:.ild be a problem, unless a two -lot subdivision were determined
to be incompatible with agriculture. Mr. Payne also pointed out that
it would be possible for a property owner to cut 200 acres up into
five -to ten -acre parcels for vineyards. He concluded that it would
not be wise to tinker with the subdivision ordinance, unless or until
a problem should arise in the future.
Mr. Skove raised the question of roads. Mr. Payne said that roads
had been discussed and it would be fair to say they could be of
benefit to agriculture. He remarked that roads were probably the
most ambiguous of public improvements in this context.
Mr. Davis asked whether a participant landowner in an A/F district
could be prohibited from dividing his land as he could by right in
the RA district., for example, five two -acre divisions.
Mr. Payne said that as Mr. Keeler had indicated, this could be
prohibited only if the Board of Supervisors put a restriction on
the A/F districts that would prevent any more intensive use from
that use in effect at present. He explained as proposed the A/F
districts would not affect RA uses. Mr. Payne said that the
in
3Z/
Board might define a more intensive use as anything other than
the uses permitted by right in the RA district.
There was a general discussion on whether dividing off a certain
acreage would remove land use. Mr. Payne clarified the matter by
explaining that depending on the specific acreage and intended use
of the subdivided acreage, the land use value regulations would
not be affected by property within A/F districts. Mr. Keeler added
that the same land use taxation regulations apply whether or not
someone is in the A/F district, in this County.
Mr. Payne further clarified that should a portion of acreage within
an A/F district be divided and no longer qualify by size or use for
land use taxation, it would still remain part of the A/F district.
Mr. Payne said that one issue not discussed previously was that
should the Board make a restriction on A/F districts, permitted
uses should be specified along with their relation to agriculture.
He gave as an example, a fifth dwelling built for a farm tenant
might be permissible, while a fifth dwelling built for sale or rental
to the public might not.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there was a consensus among those
Commissioners present to endorse those recommendations made by
Staff, contained in the Staff Report dated March 8, 1983, and to
proceed to public hearing on April 5, 1983.
Mr. Skove suggested that he still thought some special zoning might
�,,. be necessary in the future, but concurred with Mr. Bowerman that it
was preferable to initially utilize existing means (such as the
Board of Zoning Appeals and the Commission) and should problems
arise, resort to new controls.
The Commission took a five-minute break.
River Heights Hotel and Office Center Site Plan - Request by
applicant to change two conditions of approval to be met prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy rather than to be met prior
to issuance of a building permit. The applicant is also requesting
a 30-day extension of the previously approved site plan.
Charlottesville Magisterial District. (County Tax Map 45, portion
of Parcels 68d (1) , d (2) , d (3) . )
Mr. Allan Kindrick requested the record to show that due to
conflict of interest he would remove himself from this review or
any future review of the River Heights project. Mr. Bowerman
additionally instructed that the record show that he had received
a letter from Mr. Kindrick stating that he would not participate
in any proceeding involving this project, due to the fact that his
company had been contracted to work on River Heights. At this
time Mr. Kindrick left the meeting.
Miss Imhoff gave the Staff Report.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant, Mr. Wendell Wood, wished
to speak at this time.
'34�
Mr. Wood explained that the request to change the two conditions
to be met under the certificate of occupancy was due to a deadline
to occupy the building. He added that the offsite sewer line was
in the process of being run up to the water treatment plant.
Mr. Wood said that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority had
requested a joint venture; he said that the line had been engineered
already and Rivanna was working on it at present. Mr. Wood indicated
that up to Route 29 there was agreement on the route and from that
point on the size of the line had to be determined and plans had to
be approved by the Health Department. He added that he did not
believe approvals could be obtained within ninety days. Mr. Wood
said that he hoped to have the hotel under construction by late
March or early April, in order to meet the target opening date of
June, 1984. Mr. Wood added that in the hotel business it was
crucial to open during "the season." He further explained that it
was critical to start construction before summer in order to have
the hotel "under roof" and winterized by late fall.
Mr. Wood told the Commission that he believed members had seen the
letter he had received from Mr. Brent indicating that the Service
Authority had no problem with the sewer line, the only question
remaining being whether Mr. Wood would pay for all of the cost or
whether it would be split. (Ms. Imhoff indicated that Staff had
not received a copy of this letter.)
Mr. Wood said that an elaborate landscaping plan was part of this
project, with $85,000 budgeted. He told the Commission that the
landscaping was an intricate part of the project and would be
extensive, satisfying everyone. In closing, Mr. Wood explained
that waiting ninety days could delay the project critically and he
would hope some conditions could be modified and required at the time
of issuance of certificate of occupancy instead of at the time of
building permit issuance.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Wood and asked whether there was any public
comment. When there was not, Mr. Bowerman stated that the matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Davis said that he did not have a problem with changing these
conditions, but that he did have a problem with extending the site
plan date of approval. He protested that at the last meeting the
issue of further extensions had been thoroughly discussed; he said
that the plan was two years old and if another ninety -day extension
were granted, what action would follow at the next meeting. Mr. Davis
asked where the Commission was going to draw the line.
Mr. Skove observed that if the site plan were not extended, there
would be a new site plan with a new set of conditions. He suggested
that perhaps the first question to be resolved was whether to
extend the site plan.
Mr. Bowerman concurred that in such an instance there would be a
new complete review of the entire plan.
Ms. Imhoff indicated that should the Commission grant Mr. Wood the
changes in conditions requested, he could conceivably obtain a
134
building permit in thirty days, although this would put a lot of
pressure on Staff to review and push through plans. Ms. Imhoff
indicated that she did not believe, therefore, that it was necessarily
critical to extend the plan. She added that a thirty -day extension
would mean the applicant would have to submit revised plans by the
next day in order to give Staff thirty days to review them.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained from Ms. Imhoff that a thirty -day extension
would really then be of benefit to Staff. Ms. Imhoff further
remarked that it was a question of whose responsibility it was to
take care of the unresolved issues, whether the applicant should
have done so earlier or whether the extension should be granted in
order to allow more time for closer review and consultation with
other agencies.
Mr. Skove asked, should the extension not be granted, why there
would be additional pressure on Staff.
Ms. Imhoff responded that practically speaking there would be
pressure, due to Mr. Wood's not wanting his site plan to expire.
She pointed out that he would be trying to meet a deadline and
would bring in plans as soon as his surveyor could prepare them.
Mr. Davis remarked, with all due respect to Staff, that he did not
believe the real point was pressure on Staff. Mr. Davis obsE-Irved
that in September the Commission had been over these issues and he
did not believe that any of the conditions had not been known for
two years. He suggested that no one could accuse the Commission
of being hard; he said that the Commission had bent over backwards
to accommodate.
Mr. Bowerman said that he agreed philosophically, that the
conditions had been known for twenty-three months and he would
like to ask Mr. Wood for some explanation on why some conditions
were still not satisfied.
Mr. Wood replied that the Commission was correct, but that although
the time frame and conditions were in place, the market did not
cooperate. He explained that only thirty days ago circumstances
changed in his favor and last week he was able to sign a loan
agreement. Mr. Wood emphasized that had the market conditions not
improved and financing become available, he would not be before
the Commission now.
Mr. Davis wondered whether certain conditions might not need to
be changed after such a length of time had passed. He added that
this was a tempting project, but it presented a dilemma as far as
setting a precedent. He pointed out if it appeared a big developer
could request and receive extension after extension, a future
applicant might use this case as an argument for similar extensions.
Mr. Davis also stated that site plans had expiration dates for the
purpose of ensuring the conditions were still applicable and current.
Mr. Skove said that he would agree with Mr. Davis' point about
taking a look again at a site plan that is two years old., especially
on a project of this magnitude.
37
Mrs. Diehl asked Ms. Imhoff to explain the scenario if the two
conditions were moved back to certificate of occupancy, but the
site plan not extended.
Ms. Imhoff replied that it really depended on how much work remained
for the applicant to complete. She said that she knew he had to
submit road plans to the County Engineer, receive approval for a
commercial entrance, make modifications on the site plan, building
locations, tennis courts, etc. Ms. Imhoff said that there were
many changes from two years ago and she had hoped to have time to
let every agency re-examine revised plans in order to compare them
to those submitted two years ago, to see that they correspond to
those approved two years ago. She added that two weeks ago she had
talked to Mr. Wood about the urgency of taking care of outstanding
conditions so that there was not a last-minute panic as the expiration
date arrived.
Mr. Skove remarked that he did not understand why if something
was submitted late, it was simply treated accordingly. Ms. Imhoff
responded that there was a certain amount of pressure and running
around associated with all projects, when the applicants were in a
hurry for a building permit. She stressed that such a situation
was not really unique to River Heights, and that it was Staff policy
to try to work with the applicant. She added that this at times
meant pushing some projects to the back burner.
Mr. Cogan asked why the condition relating to road maintenance
agreements needed to be moved. Mr. Wood indicated that it was due
to not knowing Mr. Payne's schedule or how long such an approval
might take. Mr. Payne responded that a typical review of road
maintenance agreements took two days, although it had been done
while someone waited in his office. The longest review he could
recall took two weeks, other than longer periods for extremely
unusual, complicated strange cases.
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Payne whether he considered this setting a
precedent. Mr. Payne replied that subdivision approval was the
issue and as such he did not believe a subdivision should ever
be subject to approval without the agreement already being of record.
Mr. Wood clarified that the subdivision plat was in the process of
being recorded at this time.
Ms. Imhoff asked that the record show, as well as for Mr. Wood's
information, that Staff had not been notified that any of the
conditions of approval on the River Heights final plat had been
satisfied.
Mr. Michel asked what Mr. Brent's letter had said. Mr. Bowerman
replied that he had indicated that he would have no problem
approving the water plans and connection plans. Mr. Bowerman said
he had asked how,without the final building plans or site plan
being in, the necessary fire flow could be determined. He said
that Staff or Mr. Vaughn and a representative from R.E.Lee had
assured him that knowing the total number of rooms in the hotel and
the size of the convention room it was possible to calculate the
amount of fire flow needed for the sprinkler system, even before
.3d
final building plans were submitted, with interior detail.
Mr. Bowerman said that the applicant should be aware, should the
`err Commission act favorably on the current request, and should discussions
with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority not result in a mutually
satisfactory agreement, the applicant would be responsible for having
the sewer provided before a certificate of occupancy could be issued.
Mr. Bowerman brought up another point he said was important for the
Commission to know, that Mr. Vaughn had indicated that he could
approve the foundation work, should the applicant get under way with
construction this month, but with the clear understanding that it was
also at the applicant's risk, should as the project proceeded, there be
some changes in the building plans. Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Imhoff asked
whether fire plans would be approved by a fire engineer or by inhouse
review. Mr. Vaughn indicated that approval would be inhouse, as there
is no such title as Fire Protection Engineer in the State of Virginia.
Mr. Vaughn went on to explain that it was a common practice in fast -
tract construction to grant applicants foundation approvals while
final structure plans were still outstanding, always at the owner's
risk with the County assuming no liability. Mr. Bowerman inquired
as to whether the County had never approved a project of this size
before. Mr. Vaughn responded that the Farber Mall was handled in a
similar fashion.
Ms. Imhoff asked for a clarification on whether prior to issuance of
a building permit, the condition requiring a special use permit would
,, have to be met. Mr. Vaughn replied absolutely, that he could not
issue a half a footing permit until all conditions imposed by the
Commission and the Board had been met by the applicant.
Mr. Bowerman summarized the conflict, saying that the applicant wished
to begin construction by the end of April and Staff wished sufficient
time to review the site plan. Mr. Bowerman said that after the meeting
of last Monday, it appeared that at least three to four weeks were
needed to get the revised site plan, meaning that the April 8 deadline
would be pressed Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Imhoff once again how much
time Staff needed. Ms. Imhoff responded that she had said four weeks
in the Staff Report but it actually depended on how much had changed,
whether there were problems, possibly it could be reviewed in a
shorter length of time.
Mr. Michel asked Ms. Imhoff whether the change in building .location
was a major or minor change. Ms. Imhoff indicated that it would
depend on how it affected access, grade changes, etc. She also added
that the tennis courts were repositioned.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that for the site plan to remain viable, an
extension of the expiration date seemed necessary. Ms. Imhoff
reiterated that it really depended on how much work remained in order
for the applicant to meet all of the conditions. Mrs. Diehl remarked
that she had not realized that all conditions had to be met prior to
putting in footings. Mr. Payne pointed out that it was the commencement
of construction, beginning with footings, that kept a site plan alive.
He added that the construction activity once started had to continue
in good faith and not be abandoned for six months.
13
Mr. Cogan observed that the question came back to the original one -
whether or not to approve an extension in the expiration date of
the site plan. He said that although in a project of this magnitude
he could well appreciate that the economics were critical, he still
had trouble understanding how the applicant could not have met more
of the conditions over the past months, since interest rates were
falling and the economic outlook improving. Mr. Cogan indicated that
he believed most of the conditions involving large outlays of expense
had already been expended. He added that although he was reluctant
to grant an extension, he also believed the site for County residents
was an eyesore as currently graded. Mr. Cogan said he resented being
put in this position and was left feeling there was something wrong.
Mrs. Diehl agreed with Mr. Cogan, adding that she believed the
Commission had bent over backwards for the applicant and that Mr. Wood
had been negligent. Mrs. Diehl said that at the same time she was
hesitant to disapprove an extension for the sake of saving face, saying
such a reason was not sufficient grounds for such an action. She
concluded that she would probably vote for a thirty -day extension,
but very reluctantly.
Mr. Bowerman said that for the past twenty-three months he had not
known whether the project was viable or not, since it all depended
on the financing. Now, within the last month, Mr. Bowerman continued,
since financing was secured, his concerns had been directed toward
ensuring that the appropriate approvals were sought to provide for
safety, that sufficient water and sewer existed and that problems
did not crop up four or five years from now. Mr. Bowerman said
now that it appeared that the project was in fact viable, he would
not have a problem granting a thirty or sixty day extension, provided
Staff had ample opportunity to review submittals, which should be
turned in in a timely manner, and provided that Staff was not pressured.
Mr_. Cogan agreed with Mr. Bowerman, specifying that any such
extension should clearly allow Staff sufficient time to do a good
job on review and not have to rush through. Also, Mr. Cogan said
that he did not believe requiring another site plan would accomplish
anything to the County's benefit, since he believed the current
conditions still were applicable. Mrs. Diehl added that she believed
it would be a good idea to have one final look by Staff on a project
that had come this far.
Mr. Skove objected that two years had been long enough and he did not
believe that the County Staff should be pressured. He said that he
would have trouble granting an extension and believed this project
should be treated as any other.
Mr. Michel asked whether Staff recommended a sixty-day extension.
Ms. Imhoff replied that Staff did not suggest sixty days.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the sixty days was what he ascertained from
Mr. Wood at the Monday meeting would be necessary, based primarily
on the time Bill Roudabush's office would need to compose another
site plan, estimated at three to four weeks, plus three to four
weeks for Staff review and receipt of all agency comment.
Iwo
Mr. Cogan asked about making the extension sixty days from this date,
explaining that granting a thirty day extension, from April 3, to
May 8 would in effect grant the applicant sixty days from this date.
►1.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there was a consensus to act first on
the extension request and then to act on changing the conditions.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Commission grant an extension of the site
plan for thirty days, to May 8. When there was no further discussion,
a vote was taken: 4 - 2, with Messrs. Skove and Davis voting against
the motion, which passed.
Mrs. Diehl moved that condition l(d) and part of condition 1(m)* be
moved to the certificate of occupancy stage from the current building
permit stage, with the understanding that condition 1(d) will come
before the Planning Commission for review and comment prior to
issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Mr. Cogan seconded the
motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion.
* 1. Condition l(d) Planning Staff approval of a detailed landscape
plan, to include screening from Route 29 North, and to show all
proposed jogging paths.
2. Part of condition 1(m) Albemarle County Service Authority
approval of off site sewer plans.
Mr. Wood told the Commission that he appreciated everyone's
continuing cooperation and that the delays had not been intentional
but due to problems in the marketplace. He reiterated that without
a financial contract, he had been unable to proceed on the project.
Mr. Wood estimated that he had already spent close to three million
dollars on River Heights.
The date of March 29, 1983, at 7:30 p.m., was set for a work session
on the Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Skove said that under NEW BUSINESS he would like to make a
couple of comments. One, he had noted that the Board of Zoning
Appeals had granted a waiver to a chemical company, reducing the
five -acre site requirement to two and one half acres, for HI.
Mr. Skove said that in the case of such a reduction or change he
would like to see the BZA's reasoning for such action. Mr. Cogan
concurred that this was a substantial change. Mr. Bowerman asked
whether Mr. Skove was requesting to see something in writing, an
explanation of the Board action.
Mr. Payne observed that the Commission was entitled, by authority of
the Statute, to be notified of Board of Zoning Appeals sessions and
Commissioners could attend and make comment. As a practical matter,
Mr. Payne said that the action in this case was of little significance.
He explained that this variance only changed the requirement of the
minimum allowed in order to apply for HI zoning, so that the reduction
did not in effect mean that HI zoning would be obtained, only that
the chemical company could apply for rezoning to HI. When Mr. Skove
further objected that he could not see a hardship in this case,
Mr. Payne said that the Board was not always rigourously attentive
to the law in terms of its standards on what constitutes a hardship.
Y/
In answer to whether this variance might not set a precedent,
Mr. Payne responded that technically no variance was supposed to
set a precedent. He also remarked that he could not think of when
the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Commission had met together -
perhaps once.
Mr. Skove said that his other point under NEW BUSINESS concerned
something in the Commissioners' packets, two EIS forms regarding
University of Virginia projects. Mr. Skove said that a structure
was planned between U Hall and Route 29 that would seat 20,000. He
observed that this project would have a significant impact on the
neighborhood, traffic flow and parking. Mr. Skove further noted that
this structure, since it would be designed for use as a convention
center as well as athletic stadium, could spawn demand for hotels
in the immediate area. Mr. Skove encouraged Commission comment on
this project, saying that he would like to see it on an agenda some
time for its long-term effects. The other EIS form related to the
heating plant that was previously designed to burn waste. Mr. Skove
suggested that current EIS review was short-term and did not address
far-reaching impact.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
L1a